(09-08-2015 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 07:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 06:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 05:37 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  He ordered her to follow the court order. She refused. Nothing has changed. He backed off.

He never should have jailed her in the first place. They should have found other ways to get the law to be enforced.

That's not true at all...

She was released with the caveat that she not interfere with her deputies issuing licenses to ALL eligible couples.

If she does...she's in contempt and it's back to the pokey with her.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/k...-kentucky/

Quote:The judge who issued an order releasing her Tuesday attached a caveat Davis may not be willing to accept.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered that Davis be released from jail -- five days after he sent her there -- saying he was satisfied that her deputies fulfilled their obligations to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her absence.

Ted Cruz: 'Praise God that Kim Davis is being released'

But Bunning's new order says Davis cannot interfere with her deputies issuing marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.

That means Davis could find herself behind bars again if she does anything to prevent the marriages from taking place

Right. Nothing has changed. That's what he said before when he put her in jail.

And now same sex couples are being allowed to marry in Rowan county KY...so she can go free...if that changes, she goes back...what aren't you understanding?

She's in charge and didn't allow it to happen. In violation of a court order She hasn't changed her position. What part of that don't you understand? The part where same sex couples are now marrying in Rowan county KY

Contempt isn't against the county. Its against the person. WTF are you talking about?

(09-08-2015 09:08 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 09:06 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 07:39 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 05:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Since she's never prevented any marriages from taking place...

Gays have always had the ability to marry.

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) actually argued Kentucky's ban on gay marriage was legal because both gays and straights had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (and conversely, neither could marry someone of the same sex).

Well he is right

Sure, I guess banning interracial marriage isn't racist either, and banning marriage between those of different religions isn't religious discrimination. The fact that a governor would actually use such a blatantly illogical argument just shows how little he thinks of his electorate. But hey, he's got one person buying it at least.

(09-10-2015 03:29 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 09:08 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 09:06 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 07:39 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(09-08-2015 05:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Since she's never prevented any marriages from taking place...

Gays have always had the ability to marry.

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) actually argued Kentucky's ban on gay marriage was legal because both gays and straights had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (and conversely, neither could marry someone of the same sex).

Well he is right

Sure, I guess banning interracial marriage isn't racist either, and banning marriage between those of different religions isn't religious discrimination. The fact that a governor would actually use such a blatantly illogical argument just shows how little he thinks of his electorate. But hey, he's got one person buying it at least.

I especially like this analogy:

Quote:"It's akin to passing a law banning all Catholic churches within city limits, and then saying it's not discriminatory because you can still go to a Baptist church."

Kentucky: Our Same-Sex Marriage Ban Isn't Anti-Gay Because It Applies To Straight People, Too