Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Just the militant ones.

 

Then I'm screwed. Apparently it's frowned upon to lock people away in a basement. Convent really is my only hope.

 

Mike Huck-a-BALD!

 

Pretty much.

 

Um, because there are sickos out there, who, in the Nude World Order (tm) won't have to worry about having that pesky clothing get in their way.

 

"I have a 2-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps. End of fucking list." *

* -- Point being, bigotry is not innate. If bigotry wasn't taught, bigotry would end.

 

Why are we assuming that a nudist is more likely to be a sicko and/or to wave his dick in someone's face?

Sounds sort of prejudiced to me.

 

I saw this and he was terrible.

He was not consistent in describing Davis as unwilling to violate her Christian values vs. unwilling to break Kentucky law.

I will say this though, while maintaining that she should issue the licenses or resign, I do also believe that it is the responsibility of each state to rewrite their laws to reflect the SCOTUS decision.

I understand the political realities, but as it is, Kentucky law still defines marriage as between one man and one woman: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464 and specifically bans the marriage of two people of the same sex: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36466

County Clerks shouldn't be in the position of having to deal with a court order that is in conflict with state law. It would be really easy to pass a law, that included a sunset provision if anything changed via the judiciary, to comply with the SCOTUS ruling.

 

The answer is "both."

As usual, people are twisting this issue into an extra salted Auntie Anne's pretzel.

It's really fairly simple: As an American, Kim Davis is perfectly free to believe that gay marriage is a sin that should not be sanctioned by the state. As a constitutional officer elected by citizens of her county, Kim Davis is legally prohibited from imposing her religious beliefs and legally required to execute the duties of her office.

She should do her job or quit.

If she truly has the courage of her convictions, walking away from an $80,000/year job in a poor rural county would be a loud statement.

But I'm not holding my breath on that one. Integrity is in far shorter supply in America these days than clean air.

 

I didn't see her talk, but I still think you're vastly overestimating her ability to cash in on this.

The Indiana pizzeria caught lighting in a bottle. Instances like it are rare, and it was driven by a couple of things that are absent here. Firstly, they weren't looking to involve themselves in the story, and had not discriminated against anyone. Secondly, their livelihood was specifically targeted.

Giving to them was a kind of firewall against this happening to others.

Davis, by her own action/inaction has involved herself in this. She could either issue licenses or allow others to do so, but refuses. And, her livelihood is only threatened by her own actions.

Plus, if money was going to come her way, it would have already happened. People are only going to give at the height of the emotional drama. This story has already peaked. It's not going to happen.

Even is she writes a book, I don't see any evidence that people would want to read it, or purchase it simply to support her.

 

I don't think states re-write laws very often in these instances, though. They just stop enforcing them. That's why you see those articles from time to time about crazy laws that are still on the books, like sodomy laws or laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

 

I'm pretty sure that when the SCOTUS finds something unconstitutional, that decision automatically finds all supporting laws unconstitutional as well, therefore voiding them. So, there wouldn't be any conflict because the state law she'd be enforcing would no longer be valid.