Why Can't the Kentucky Clerk Get Bail?

[Flames of Liberty]

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage fell under the protection of the 14th amendment.  Agree or disagree with the ruling, the Supreme Court did what it was created to do, determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the people.  Just as this amendment was used to justify stinking down Jim Crow laws.  

No, that is not what it is set up to do.   The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.  They are a check and balance on Congress. 

There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws.   She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws.   States are sovereign.    KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only.   They have no laws providing anything for gay couples.  

It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law.

 

The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress,  never was and never will be.  The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.  

 

[Guest shiloh357]

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage fell under the protection of the 14th amendment.  Agree or disagree with the ruling, the Supreme Court did what it was created to do, determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the people.  Just as this amendment was used to justify stinking down Jim Crow laws.  

No, that is not what it is set up to do.   The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.  They are a check and balance on Congress. 

There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws.   She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws.   States are sovereign.    KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only.   They have no laws providing anything for gay couples.  

It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law.

 

The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress,  never was and never will be.  The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.  

 

But there are no laws in the US federal government that legalize gay marriage.   KY's Constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman.   That's how their constitution defines it.   And since there are no Federal laws that define marriage any other way, KY's Constitutional definition of marriage isn't violating federal law.    Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of KY, so she is not in violation of either federal or state law.

She is in violation of the opinions of corrupt gov't  officials and the desires of a depraved, sick culture.   Her imprisonment is illegal because she has committed no crimes.

[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.

[Flames of Liberty]

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage fell under the protection of the 14th amendment.  Agree or disagree with the ruling, the Supreme Court did what it was created to do, determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the people.  Just as this amendment was used to justify stinking down Jim Crow laws.  

No, that is not what it is set up to do.   The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.  They are a check and balance on Congress. 

There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws.   She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws.   States are sovereign.    KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only.   They have no laws providing anything for gay couples.  

It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law.

 

The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress,  never was and never will be.  The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.  

 

But there are no laws in the US federal government that legalize gay marriage.   KY's Constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman.   That's how their constitution defines it.   And since there are no Federal laws that define marriage any other way, KY's Constitutional definition of marriage isn't violating federal law.    Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of KY, so she is not in violation of either federal or state law.

She is in violation of the opinions of corrupt gov't  officials and the desires of a depraved, sick culture.   Her imprisonment is illegal because she has committed no crimes.

 There does not need to be a federal law defining marriage any more than there did when the ban on interracial marriages were done away with.  The same legal justification was used for this.   

And from a legal standpoint,  it was the correct decision. 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage fell under the protection of the 14th amendment.  Agree or disagree with the ruling, the Supreme Court did what it was created to do, determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the people.  Just as this amendment was used to justify stinking down Jim Crow laws.  

No, that is not what it is set up to do.   The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.  They are a check and balance on Congress. 

There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws.   She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws.   States are sovereign.    KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only.   They have no laws providing anything for gay couples.  

It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law.

 

The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress,  never was and never will be.  The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.  

 

But there are no laws in the US federal government that legalize gay marriage.   KY's Constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman.   That's how their constitution defines it.   And since there are no Federal laws that define marriage any other way, KY's Constitutional definition of marriage isn't violating federal law.    Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of KY, so she is not in violation of either federal or state law.

She is in violation of the opinions of corrupt gov't  officials and the desires of a depraved, sick culture.   Her imprisonment is illegal because she has committed no crimes.

 

 There does not need to be a federal law defining marriage any more than there did when the ban on interracial marriages were done away with.  The same legal justification was used for this.   

And from a legal standpoint,  it was the correct decision. 

 

That is a ridiculous comparison  (but then consider the source).   Gays are not a minority.  To compare gays to African Americans in that way is a slap in the face to African Americans.  

There IS a definition of marriage, DOMA, that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The president chose not to defend it.   

There is no legal basis for her imprisonment as she violated no law, committed no crime other than offending the liberal sensitivities of some people.

[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.

The Supreme Court is wrong.  This is not about equal protection.  Marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone gay or straight.  No one as a "right" to be married.  Freedoms and rights are not the same thing.   We have the freedom to marry, but not a right to be married.

 

[The_Patriot21]

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?

[Flames of Liberty]

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.

[Flames of Liberty]

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage fell under the protection of the 14th amendment.  Agree or disagree with the ruling, the Supreme Court did what it was created to do, determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the people.  Just as this amendment was used to justify stinking down Jim Crow laws.  

No, that is not what it is set up to do.   The SCOTUS is set up to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.  They are a check and balance on Congress. 

There are no laws legalizing gay marriage, so she was not violating any laws.   She was upholding KY law and the Supreme Court does not have the power to override state laws.   States are sovereign.    KY's Constitution upholds marriage as being between a man and woman, only.   They have no laws providing anything for gay couples.  

It is the gov't, not Kim Davis, that has broken the law.

 

The role of the Supreme Court is not limited to just laws passed by Congress,  never was and never will be.  The laws of one of the UNITED states cannot be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.  

 

But there are no laws in the US federal government that legalize gay marriage.   KY's Constitution limits marriage to one man and one woman.   That's how their constitution defines it.   And since there are no Federal laws that define marriage any other way, KY's Constitutional definition of marriage isn't violating federal law.    Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the state of KY, so she is not in violation of either federal or state law.

She is in violation of the opinions of corrupt gov't  officials and the desires of a depraved, sick culture.   Her imprisonment is illegal because she has committed no crimes.

 

 There does not need to be a federal law defining marriage any more than there did when the ban on interracial marriages were done away with.  The same legal justification was used for this.   

And from a legal standpoint,  it was the correct decision. 

 

That is a ridiculous comparison  (but then consider the source).   Gays are not a minority.  To compare gays to African Americans in that way is a slap in the face to African Americans.  

There IS a definition of marriage, DOMA, that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The president chose not to defend it.   

There is no legal basis for her imprisonment as she violated no law, committed no crime other than offending the liberal sensitivities of some people.

When you say consider the source, are you speaking of me?  If so the source is a born again evangelical Christian who is heading to law school in January. 

I am capable of disagreeing with the ruling and still understanding the legal reasoning behind it.  

[Guest shiloh357]

You don't have to have a law degree to know that no laws were broken and no crime was committed, making her incarceration illegal.   The legal reason behind doesn't carry any weight because this is not an equal protection issue.   If we were talking about civil rights, then it would be.  But marriage is not a civil right and your comparison between gays and minorities is specious.