Are you fucking kidding me… I really don’t know if she is gay or not and it really doesn’t matter. Actually I know that she in the past had a black boyfriend… should we hold that against her (she is white). And I married my wife on campus about a week after she graduated,… we’ve been married 28 years. What the hell does this have to do with anything?
You said nobody had a loved one in that county. I think of a “loved one” as someone related by blood or marriage. She is not, but I’ve known her since she was 8 and I would gladly give her one of my kidneys if she needed one, and I’m pretty sure she would do the same for me. Therefore you are wrong.
You said nobody knew where this county was… I do and I would guess many others do as well. Again you are wrong.
I do know that both she and I have gay friends and I don’t think someone should be able to break the law because they don’t agree with it.
You are just proving yourself to be a bigger and bigger asshole every time you post. Are you trying?
Well, whether she wants to get opposite- or same-sex married, she would be affected by the County Clerk, since Ms. Davis isn’t issuing any marriage licenses.
That kind of attitude has the potential to affect the rest of the county if others feel they can do as they please rather than the duties they swore to perform.
I live an hour and change away, have friends there, know dozens of people who went to school there, and have several close friends who have kids going to school there now. Is that enough of a connection that I’m allowed to care?
If it isn’t, how about this: this nutjob makes the whole state of Kentucky, and especially in eastern Kentucky, look bad. A lot of us are trying really hard to drag this region into the 21st century, and this doesn’t fucking help.
The clerk in my own county (who, in his sort-of defense, has been showing serious signs of dementia in recent months) gave a batshit interview in which his biggest complaint is that the new forms they have to use list “Spouse 1” and “Spouse 2” instead of “Bride” and “Groom”, and he would want his granddaughter to be listed as a bride, dammit. He made it clear that he personally objected to the SCOTUS ruling but stopped short of saying he’d deny marriage licenses to SS couples. (It doesn’t appear to have come up here yet; unlike Rowan Co., we don’t have a university.)
I wish there were a good way to force Davis to do her job (or to somehow get her job done) without making her a martyr. My favorite detail of all of this, which I haven’t actually seen confirmed but I have heard from local people, is that Davis is such a fan of “traditional marriage” that she’s had four of them.
Do you live in San Francisco or Chicago? If not, “why bother getting outraged about things that you have no control over, and have nothing to do with you?”
I’m not upset about the ruling per se. We already had SSM in my state.
What is annoying are leftists who are inconsistent in their criticism of the SCOTUS. According to politicians like the President and the Democrat Minority Leader, Citizens United is a dire and ongoing threat to the nation. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration of Harry Reid’s position, since he still inserts it into his floor speeches on a regular basis, more than five years after the ruling.
But suddenly the justices are geniuses when they uphold Obamacare and gay marriage.
By my reading of the cases in the upcoming Term, the left will be back to jeering the Court’s decisions.
Most of us believe this was the correct decision, but I defy you to find anyone who has called it “genius.”
You’re a strange and very dishonest form of toad. You can only argue by putting up fallacious opinions and attributing them to others. I’d like to dip the points of my arrows into your sweat.
What the decision upholding Obamacare comes down to is this: The will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, shouldn’t be denied because a key part of a law was badly drafted. That law has a real impact on the lives of a nontrivial number of real people, and it shouldn’t be destroyed by a capriciously literal reading which either second-guesses or ignores the intent of the people who created it and made it law.
In short, that decision preserved the will of the people in the face of a minor incompetence perpetrated by their representatives. Besides, if you can’t accept a decision which doesn’t rely on the strictest construction of all of the text available, Heller goes right out the window.
The majority holding in Obergefell is correct because being able to get married to another consenting adult of your choice is a basic human right. It should never have required a vote or a court case to begin with.
Do you think this is only true of leftists? Everyone is going to like some court decisions and dislike or disagree with others. Sometimes the disagreement is based on a interpretation of the facts and laws at issue and sometimes the disagreement is simply based on not liking the decision.
And this is true even of non-legal issues. Ever been to a sports game? People will agree or disagree with the umpire or the referee based on whether their team was ruled against.