Why Can't the Kentucky Clerk Get Bail?

[Guest shiloh357]

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

By virtue of what that article says, Kim Davis' "equal protection under the law"  entitlements were violated.   She was unlawfully incarcerated.

She didn't violate the 14th amendment,  because equal protection applies to civil rights, not personal lifestyles.   Equal protection was meant to protect minorities from being denied their rights as citizens.  Hence the operative word, "protection."    Marriage is not a right.  No one has a right to be married, so no one gets any "protection" in that regard.  Marriage is not a constitutional guarantee.  If it were, then every time a girl says, "no" to the guy who proposed to her, she could be sued.

Gays are not a minority.  They are not like blacks or Hispanics. 

 

[Flames of Liberty]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, seemingly hoping it will switch from patently false to correct.  That or you are trying the age old strategy of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it.

You are correct,  there is not a constitutional guarantee of marriage.  But there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people and to provide those people with certain rights and privileges it must do so equally. This is where the 14th comes in to play.  To deny one group the rights and privileges you give another group you need a compelling legal justification.   The states that tried to deny gay couples marriage benefits and privileges failed to provide that justification to the Supreme Court.   

While I do not agree with gay marriage,  I do understand the process.  This is where you and I go down different paths, you fail in understanding the process.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Flames of Liberty

[Flames of Liberty]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, seemingly hoping it will switch from patently false to correct.  That or you are trying the age old strategy of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it.

You are correct,  there is not a constitutional guarantee of marriage.  But there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people and to provide those people with certain rights and privileges it must do so equally. This is where the 14th comes in to play.  To deny one group the rights and privileges you give another group you need a compelling legal justification.   The states that tried to deny gay couples marriage benefits and privileges failed to provide that justification to the Supreme Court.   

While I do not agree with gay marriage,  I do understand the process.  This is where you and I go down different paths, you fail in understanding the process.

No.  what you understand is how the gay agenda twists and manipulates the very words of the constitution from its original content and meaning and calls it right. 

No I understand the legal process and I am not blinded by my emotions. 
If I were King the law of the land would be Mark 10, and this lady would not be legally married either.  

 

But our country is neither a monarchy nor a theocracy. 

[Guest shiloh357]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, seemingly hoping it will switch from patently false to correct.  That or you are trying the age old strategy of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it.

You are correct,  there is not a constitutional guarantee of marriage.  But there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people and to provide those people with certain rights and privileges it must do so equally. This is where the 14th comes in to play.  To deny one group the rights and privileges you give another group you need a compelling legal justification.   The states that tried to deny gay couples marriage benefits and privileges failed to provide that justification to the Supreme Court.   

While I do not agree with gay marriage,  I do understand the process.  This is where you and I go down different paths, you fail in understanding the process.

I repeat the same thing because you keep trying argue that marriage is a privilege.   It isn't.  It is a freedom.   Marriage isn't a privilege related to US citizenship.  

If there is no law guaranteeing marriage, then equal treatment  doesn't apply because it is "equal treatment under the law."   It is connected to law, not just to whatever it is you want to do.   If gays want to live as husband and wife, they are free  to do so.  No one is saying that being gay is illegal and no one is trying to make it illegal.   But as it stands there is no  "right" of marriage for anyone.  If gays want to buy a house together, they have the freedom to do so.

Equal protection under the law guarantees that our laws apply equally to all citizens.   Since there are no laws regulating gay marriage, then no laws have been broken and no one has been denied equal protection under the law.   You don't equal protection under a law that doesn't exist in the first place.

[Guest shiloh357]

[Flames of Liberty]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, seemingly hoping it will switch from patently false to correct.  That or you are trying the age old strategy of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it.

You are correct,  there is not a constitutional guarantee of marriage.  But there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people and to provide those people with certain rights and privileges it must do so equally. This is where the 14th comes in to play.  To deny one group the rights and privileges you give another group you need a compelling legal justification.   The states that tried to deny gay couples marriage benefits and privileges failed to provide that justification to the Supreme Court.   

While I do not agree with gay marriage,  I do understand the process.  This is where you and I go down different paths, you fail in understanding the process.

I repeat the same thing because you keep trying argue that marriage is a privilege.   It isn't.  It is a freedom.   Marriage isn't a privilege related to US citizenship.  

If there is no law guaranteeing marriage, then equal treatment  doesn't apply because it is "equal treatment under the law."   It is connected to law, not just to whatever it is you want to do.   If gays want to live as husband and wife, they are free  to do so.  No one is saying that being gay is illegal and no one is trying to make it illegal.   But as it stands there is no  "right" of marriage for anyone.  If gays want to buy a house together, they have the freedom to do so.

Equal protection under the law guarantees that our laws apply equally to all citizens.   Since there are no laws regulating gay marriage, then no laws have been broken and no one has been denied equal protection under the law.   You don't equal protection under a law that doesn't exist in the first place.

There are no laws that regulate marriage?   Really?  You really, honestly believe there is not a single law on the books regulating marriage?

By the way, legally there is no such thing as gay marriage,  there is only marriage. 

[Flames of Liberty]

I fail to find the point of your post?

[Guest shiloh357]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, seemingly hoping it will switch from patently false to correct.  That or you are trying the age old strategy of repeating a lie often enough that people will believe it.

You are correct,  there is not a constitutional guarantee of marriage.  But there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.   If a state chooses to marry people and to provide those people with certain rights and privileges it must do so equally. This is where the 14th comes in to play.  To deny one group the rights and privileges you give another group you need a compelling legal justification.   The states that tried to deny gay couples marriage benefits and privileges failed to provide that justification to the Supreme Court.   

While I do not agree with gay marriage,  I do understand the process.  This is where you and I go down different paths, you fail in understanding the process.

I repeat the same thing because you keep trying argue that marriage is a privilege.   It isn't.  It is a freedom.   Marriage isn't a privilege related to US citizenship.  

If there is no law guaranteeing marriage, then equal treatment  doesn't apply because it is "equal treatment under the law."   It is connected to law, not just to whatever it is you want to do.   If gays want to live as husband and wife, they are free  to do so.  No one is saying that being gay is illegal and no one is trying to make it illegal.   But as it stands there is no  "right" of marriage for anyone.  If gays want to buy a house together, they have the freedom to do so.

Equal protection under the law guarantees that our laws apply equally to all citizens.   Since there are no laws regulating gay marriage, then no laws have been broken and no one has been denied equal protection under the law.   You don't equal protection under a law that doesn't exist in the first place.

There are no laws that regulate marriage?   Really?  You really, honestly believe there is not a single law on the books regulating marriage?

By the way, legally there is no such thing as gay marriage,  there is only marriage. 

I said there are no laws regulating GAY marriage.    Gay marriage, isn't marriage.  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.   Same sex marriages are not marriages.  Marrying your dog is not a  marriage.  Marrying a tree is not marriage.    There is only marriage between a man and a woman.  And that is the way it should be.

[Flames of Liberty]

As a fellow Christian I agree, as a future lawyer,  you are wrong. 

As Dr. Carson put it, "I don't agree with the ruling, but it is now the law of the land".

[other one]

All the supreme court did was to make the state law invalid.....   by doing so, the state has no valid law concerning gay marriage....    since there is no law concerning gay marriage, how can the court clerk have violated a law.

i do agree she is in contempt of court, but the judge really has no legal right to make her do what he ordered her to do.    And will not until some law is passed concerning gay marriage.  He may well get away with doing it, but it is my hope that she takes him to task over it and if possible get him relieved of his position on the bench.   Congress needs to either fix this or tell the courts to leave it to the states, and once they do that the individual people can either do the job or give the job to someone who will.

I personalty think that the gay community is working themselves into a huge backlash that they will regret in a rather short time.   As for gay marriage i personally don't care at all if they get laws passed to make gay marriage legal as long as I have the right to tell them that they are going to hell if they do..