Why Can't the Kentucky Clerk Get Bail?

[thereselittleflower]

what I dont get is why this is a legal matter. If she refuses to do it, why dont they just fire her? why the jail time at all?

She is an elected official that cannot be fired.  She can be impeached, but only when the state legislature is in session,  which is not till next year.

They can call an emergency session.

 

[thereselittleflower]

how then are Kentucky laws in violation of the constitution of the united states?

According to the Supreme Court,  marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. 

No such legal justification exist.  

I do not agree with same sex marriage,  but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound.

Actually, it was not.  They made their decision based on equal protection under the law.  Since there is no guarantee of the right to marry in the Constitution, for ANYONE, there is no denial of equal protection; their ruling is flawed and needs to be challenged.  Marriage is a state institution, has never been federal; the SCOTUS overstepped their authority.

I'm in complete agreement.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually, as long as the states are part of the union called the United States,  the opinions of the Supreme Court are binding.  

You don't have to like it, but that does not change the reality of the situation.  

No, that is not true.   Laws are binding.   Supreme Court opinions about nonexistent law is not binding.   The Supreme Court's purpose was check the Congress and the President.  The Supreme Court is not infallible and it is operating outside of its constitution boundaries when it tries to make or pass law.  

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Flames of Liberty]

how then are Kentucky laws in violation of the constitution of the united states?

According to the Supreme Court,  marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. 

No such legal justification exist.  

I do not agree with same sex marriage,  but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound.

Actually, it was not.  They made their decision based on equal protection under the law.  Since there is no guarantee of the right to marry in the Constitution, for ANYONE, there is no denial of equal protection; their ruling is flawed and needs to be challenged.  Marriage is a state institution, has never been federal; the SCOTUS overstepped their authority.

Equal protection is not limited to only things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, it goes much deeper than that.  You are right there is no constitutional right to marry,  thus the states could choose to no longer be involved in marriage.  But as long as they are they have to follow the equal protection clause. 

[Flames of Liberty]

how then are Kentucky laws in violation of the constitution of the united states?

According to the Supreme Court,  marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. 

No such legal justification exist.  

I do not agree with same sex marriage,  but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound.

But you see here is the problem with that...  that amendment has to do with the civil rights.  And there are things that validate if something be a civil right or not.  one of which is they must be born that way.  nowadays one may even say genetics.  there has been numerous studies done to prove that being gay is hereditary, genetic, or some other way of proving.  every single one of these studies has been disproven due to no use of controls, falsified or manipulated data.  the first of these studies that was made public was done by an openly admitted homosexual named dean hammer.  there are many others.  every one of them turned up no proof that people are born gay.  furthermore, we have finished mapping the human genome, and guess what, no gay gene.  therefore it is NOT a civil right.  therefore, all of the supreme courts judgments are nothing more than horsefeathers. 

there are boat loads of info on the internet and a really good youtube video that documents these studies i speak on.  Being gay is not a civil right. 

Edit:  also not one of the studies can be replicated, which means the studies are not scientifically sound.  The results could and would happen again and again if it was true. 

The 14th amendment is not limited only to "civil" rights.  

[Flames of Liberty]

how then are Kentucky laws in violation of the constitution of the united states?

According to the Supreme Court,  marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. 

No such legal justification exist.  

I do not agree with same sex marriage,  but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound.

i disagree.

There is no constitutional right to marriage.  Unlike race, sex, disability, marriage is a choice, not something forced upon one over which one has no control.

The supreme court acting in a  manner which pushes an agenda does not reveal sound reasoning.  The opinions of the dissenting justice are quite sound as they actually uphold the constitution.

A supreme court gone amuck and overstepping their bounds does not well reasoned decisions make.

 

You are correct,  there is no constitutional right to marry, but there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people they must do so in accordance with the 14th.  

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

how then are Kentucky laws in violation of the constitution of the united states?

According to the Supreme Court,  marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. 

No such legal justification exist.  

I do not agree with same sex marriage,  but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound.

i disagree.

There is no constitutional right to marriage.  Unlike race, sex, disability, marriage is a choice, not something forced upon one over which one has no control.

The supreme court acting in a  manner which pushes an agenda does not reveal sound reasoning.  The opinions of the dissenting justice are quite sound as they actually uphold the constitution.

A supreme court gone amuck and overstepping their bounds does not well reasoned decisions make.

 

You are correct,  there is no constitutional right to marry, but there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people they must do so in accordance with the 14th.  

 

 

 

That only applies to the Bill of Rights.   Since there is no constitutional right to marriage in the Bill of Rights or the 14th, marriage is not something that has to be guaranteed to anyone, gay or straight.

And since you want to blather ignorantly about equal protection, there have been a number of cases where government officials like Eric Holder and Lois Lerner failed to do their jobs and even violated others civil rights (Lerner) and they are still walking free.     Why is it that Kim Davis, who violated no one's civil liberties, committed no crime, upheld the KY Constitution, thrown in jail, but other government officials, who have failed to their job to which they were sworn to uphold, NOT put in prison???

[Guest shiloh357]

how then are Kentucky laws in violation of the constitution of the united states?

According to the Supreme Court,  marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  As such a state would need a compelling legal justification to deny marriage to a group. 

No such legal justification exist.  

I do not agree with same sex marriage,  but the legal reasoning of the 5 justices was sound.

Actually, it was not.  They made their decision based on equal protection under the law.  Since there is no guarantee of the right to marry in the Constitution, for ANYONE, there is no denial of equal protection; their ruling is flawed and needs to be challenged.  Marriage is a state institution, has never been federal; the SCOTUS overstepped their authority.

 

Equal protection is not limited to only things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, it goes much deeper than that.  You are right there is no constitutional right to marry,  thus the states could choose to no longer be involved in marriage.  But as long as they are they have to follow the equal protection clause. 

No, it is limited to what is a constitutionally protected right.   When we start saying it covers what is not included in the Bill of Rights, then suddenly a guy could decide to marry tree and that would be protected under the 14th Amendment.  There would be no end to what the lunatic fringe of our society would demand if we operate from that logic. 

[Flames of Liberty]

Please show me the words of the 14th Amendment which indicates it applies only to the first 10 amendments. 

Or feel free to provide court cases where such a decision was rendered. 

Or feel free to point out which of the first 10 amendments deals with racial discrimination,  or will you also argue that the 14th does not cover that either?

Have you ever even taken a class on constitutional law or anything remotely close to that?  Do you have any training or education in this area at all or are you just making it up as you go?

[Flames of Liberty]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection