obese religious extremist at it again

It is quite apparent that people supporting this woman have not done their homework. She is the boss and won't allow others in her office to permit the marriage licenses. It is the county office. If you live in the county you have to apply for your marriage license within that county. If you go to another county, they will tell you that you have to apply in the county where you reside.
Just go somewhere else to get the marriage license that you are legally entitled to????? You'd have to move. It doesn't work and shouldn't be necessary.
If you aren't paying attention, don't comment about it.

Actually I think it's only divorce that you have to reside in the county.

You can't even renew your license plates outside your home county. They'll let you wait in line for an hour to tell you that.

FWIW - I applied, and was granted, a marriage license is a county other than the one I reside

You can get a marriage license in any county. It has to be acquired in the county/country you plan to get married. I was recently married in Antigua. I didn't do a thing in my county/state/country.

Renewing your license plates is completely different as it has to do with taxes in the county your vehicle is registered. They will tell you that right before you leave and they all laugh at you.

Originally Posted by ord27

why not just have someone else in the office process things. Let her step aside when something violates her beliefs. I've read that that's what other counties are doing.



when election time rolls around, don't re-elect her.



seems pretty simple

She's the county clerk. She's the one that puts a stamp of approval on it. Nobody else can sign it. That would be illegal. It's an elected position and nobody else has the right to be in that position unless she steps down voluntarily or is impeached.

Government and Private Industry are two different animals. Government agencies are run based on the laws that enable them.

Seriously, you guys are just ridiculous with the "just go to another COUNTY."

If some muslim who was as big a nutjob as this woman was working at the DMV and denied your daughter a drivers license due to his "closely held religious beliefs" about what women should and shouldn't be allowed to do, I'm sure you would give him a smile, thank him for strongly sticking to his convictions and drive way out of your way to find someone who isn't a bigoted tool.

This idiot b**ch is like so many slack jawed fools that are co-opted by a political machine only to be chewed up and spit out along the side of the road. I'm trying to to remember the last one.. Ummm... Oh yeah...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

I love how Eric is the guy that really has no clue about what is law and isn't .. But is telling other people that they are wrong. That's why no one can have a intelligent discussion .. Just like BIG D down there... cant have a debate without some obnoxious kid calling names cause they want to be a keyboard warrior.

You know Kathy Bates is a lock for the movie.

Seriously though Brian, I'm curious about your answer - If some muslim who was as big a nutjob as this woman was working at the DMV and denied your daughter a drivers license due to his "closely held religious beliefs" about what women should and shouldn't be allowed to do, you'd just smile and go elsewhere?

I am a bit amused by supporters of this woman. Her hypocrisy is of epic proportions.

That said, those that use the KJB as an argument, always appear to pick and choose how they interrupt it.

Carry on...

you know kathy bates is a lock for the movie.

hahaha!

*interpret

LOL - her lawyer said she's ready to stay in jail for the long haul because she's "like Martin Luther King" - someone replied - "no, you're like George Wallace"... Classic.

I love how these small minded fools try to push their "challenged" views on others.

The dumber they are the more strident and unwavering they are in their beliefs and opinions.

"Go to another county"? If a person pays taxes in that county, shouldn't they be able to get a marriage license in that county? If her religious convictions were that strong, she would step down in protest. I think she has 80,000 reasons not to step down and chances are, she'd be working a register at Walmart if she lost that job.

You know you're in trouble when even a Fox News panel declares you "ridiculously stupid"

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/fox-...lously-stupid/

Even Fox News knows what morons these people are:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/0...re-gonn/205423

SHEPARD SMITH: "Well they set this up as a religious play again. This is the same crowd that says 'we don't want Sharia law. Don't let them come in here and start telling us what to do. Keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.' Well here we go again."

At some point the religious conservatives and the fiscal conservatives will have to part ways. They obviously don't have the same goals anymore.

Originally Posted by DenverRider

At some point the religious conservatives and the fiscal conservatives will have to part ways. They obviously don't have the same goals anymore.

I thought they already did and called themselves Libertarians. However the religious conservatives can infilterate either group.

Barry Goldwater

What a twisted world. Nobody is being stopped from being married, but it is ok to decapitate a baby and this story headlines what is going on at abortion clinics.

Originally Posted by deneng

....ok to decapitate a baby.... what is going on at abortion clinics.

That's not what happening at abortion clinics. Defining a fetus as a baby does nothing for your argument.

Originally Posted by ralph

That's not what happening at abortion clinics. Defining a fetus as a baby does nothing for your argument.

If it looks and acts like a baby it is a baby.

Uh huh. Do you wonder why nobody takes lifers seriously? Its because they can't form compelling arguments, they just thump the bible and talk rhetoric. Commonly linking unrelated subjects together as evidence of there case. Lazy thinking.

There are many many ways to frame the argument in a compelling way but the opportunity is always lost.

Fetus in the most common stages of abortion look nothing like a baby. Ever gone to the "Body World" exhibit with all the plasticized dead bodies? They have a section with actual fetus in various stages of development. They are in clear glass tubes that allow you to inspect carefully. You have to carry to quite a late term before it looks anything like a baby.
Now if you want to get into religious beliefs, I don't believe that babies have souls until they experience love from others who are also capable of love. This is why my dog has a soul but the feral dog in the African prairie does not. If there is no soul then it's just meat/mineral/vegetable. That, however, would be a philosophical argument. Unlike religious people, I can make this distinction. There is no book that says if you agree with me you go to heaven, but if you don't, I stone you to death and you go to hell.

Always a good read...

That's not what happening at abortion clinics.

Certainly not all, but to deny this practice is happening and is legal in the United States would be dishonest.

Defining a fetus as a baby does nothing for your argument.

Interestingly enough, reducing life using sterile terms like "fetus' does everything for yours.

I find it perplexing that in the scientific world, a cell, evolving out of non-living/simple compounds is called 'life'.. But, self replicating cells growing in the biological wonder of the human body is not life until it's viable.

For the record i don't support abortion, i would never consider it an option for me under any circumstances. But there is just took much grey area for me too judge other people for making that choice. If a child is raped and gets pregnant, or a fetus has a deformation and it is discovered early, these are hard choices, until you are faced with it it is extreme arrogance to think you have the answers for someone else.

The definition about when life starts is critical for the debate, that's why being clear about zygote, fetus, baby and when individual rights start really is the crux of the issue. Why is wearing a condom different from the morning after pill is different from an abortion is different from drowning a new born. ....

Clearly this is getting off track from the original point....... but,

Nobody is being stopped from being married, but it is ok to decapitate a baby and this story headlines what is going on at abortion clinics.

Not cool when the fetus is a tiny blob of cells, but the bible is cool with killing him/her it as long as that fetus grows up to be a ****ty kid -

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; pso you shall put away the evil from among you, qand all Israel shall hear and fear.

...also just to be clear, my comment above is meant to try and show the Bible thumpers how stupid most of their arguments are.

Isn't there something about that time when God was like super mean and then Jesus was all come on man you're being an ass you created them so come on not fair and then God promised to not be as mean forever in the future like when he killed almost everything on earth with rain and stuff.

So the mean stuff people did/were told to do like stoning people doesn't really count anymore now..?

Back to the primary issue...

I am a staunch believer in "freedom of religion" which affords you/me the right to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or none of the above. Yet, it seems that so many don't understand that their freedom requires a freedom from my freedom. Religious freedom is a personal freedom that does not and must not allow a person to force their freedom on others. Thus, if you are clerk for the state and a Christian, you can be against gay marriage at home but not at the office. Similarly, the Muslim clerk can not deny permits to people who drink alcohol, have dogs for pets or enjoy music. If you support the USA Constitution, then this must be true.

Originally Posted by deneng

What a twisted world. Nobody is being stopped from being married, but it is ok to decapitate a baby and this story headlines what is going on at abortion clinics.

What a twisted world. Religious conservatives are crying alligator tears over unwanted fetuses while bombing innocent people because they were shaking in their boots about Saddam coming to their hometown to get them.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

Back to the primary issue...

I am a staunch believer in "freedom of religion" which affords you/me the right to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or none of the above. Yet, it seems that so many don't understand that their freedom requires a freedom from my freedom. Religious freedom is a personal freedom that does not and must not allow a person to force their freedom on others. Thus, if you are clerk for the state and a Christian, you can be against gay marriage at home but not at the office. Similarly, the Muslim clerk can not deny permits to people who drink alcohol, have dogs for pets or enjoy music. If you support the USA Constitution, then this must be true.

Preach!

agreed 100% GD.

By the way, as I understand it, this lady is a Democrat, right? And she was thrown in jail by a Republican judge. I just want to clarify that because it seems like a lot of people on this thread are making an incorrect leap that her religious fanaticism means by default that she's a "christian-right-wing-nut-job" (i think that's the popular term).

But yes, she should step down and separate her personal religious beliefs from her sworn public duties. If you don't like the law, fight to change the law. Don't just ignore the law (although there's precedent everywhere from POTUS, DOJ to pick and choose which laws to enforce/follow).

She is indeed a "Christian right-wing nutjob." There can be little doubt that she falls into all 3 of these categories. They are not mutually exclusive, nor does one necessarily require any of the others - and political party affiliation also doesn't seem to much matter in Rowan County :-) Interesting to note that her mom was the former clerk, and her son clerks in the office as a deputy (he's the only deputy that has refused to issue licenses in her absence).

Her attorneys are now saying that she is happy to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, she just doesn't want her name to be on them.

well, go get in line then Wes! yay for you!

Already married, thanks :-)

I'll leave the adultery to Kim herself, she's a pro!

I'm the slack jawed fool that big d warned you about.
So this fat sinner finds God and gets elected to county clerk when the law is traditional marriage. The law changes and she doesn't want her name on the marriage certificate because of her new faith. Then the LGBTTQQ2GQIAASCP crowd runs to her office and insists she issues that certificate. She gets into court and asks the judge to accommodate her because of her 1st amendment belief. He says no and throws her in jail.
First of all it is an overreach by the Supreme Court to say that gay marriage was considered in the constitution. Never did any of the authors of the amendments ever argue or consider the LGBTTQQ2GQIAASCP community IRT the amendments. This is a case of the judicial branch making law. And civil disobedience is an established method of seeking change as in maybe...rosa parks, et al. If the sinners argument was with the Supreme Court I would be with her.
But it isn't, it's religious. Let me remind everyone that there are many judges who have opted out of preforming gay weddings and accommodations have been made.
Let me also remind you that there are many liberals in office who have refused to act in a manner prescribed by law. Fed law has authority over state or county law. Marijuana is illegal federally but marijuana sales are tolerated. Because the voters want it and they're liberal.
When prop 8 was passed in Calif and there was a constitutional challenge, Kamila Harris was obligated by law to defend it. But she didn't. She didn't go to jail.
Cathy Lanier, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, is refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” which isn't. required by law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits, although he did not send Lanier to jail for contempt.
Similarly, county sheriffs in California had been denying concealed weapons permits to applicants who failed to show a need beyond self-defense. Last November, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the sheriffs were violating the law. None of those sheriffs were sent to jail.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordering clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, contrary to state law. The California Attorney General sued him and the California Supreme Court ultimately put an end to the practice, but Newsom was never sent to jail.
Newsom also violated federal law by making San Francisco a sanctuary city in 2007, contrary to existing federal law, but nothing happened to him. The city’s sanctuary status resulted in the death of Kate Steinle in July, who was shot by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions. This is a far more drastic result than a clerk who merely does not want her name on marriage licenses, yet nothing is being done to the current mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee.
In 2012, a lesbian judge in Texas said she would not issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples until same-sex marriage was legalized. She wasn’t put in jail for violating the law, nor does it appear she was even disciplined

She's an elected official let the people impeach her and rewrite the certificates without her name. It seems like a small concession for her 1st amendment right.

Originally Posted by TerryR

I'm the slack jawed fool that big d warned you about.
First of all it is an overreach by the Supreme Court to say that gay marriage was considered in the constitution. Never did any of the authors of the amendments ever argue or consider the LGBTTQQ2GQIAASCP community IRT the amendments. This is a case of the judicial branch making law. And civil disobedience is an established method of seeking change as in maybe...rosa parks, et al. If the sinners argument was with the Supreme Court I would be with her.

The supreme court has been making decisions about issues not contemplated by the founders for a couple centuries.

But it isn't, it's religious. Let me remind everyone that there are many judges who have opted out of preforming gay weddings and accommodations have been made.

AFAIK, judges have the power, but not the duty, to marry. County clerk has duty to issue marriage licenses.

Let me also remind you that there are many liberals in office who have refused to act in a manner prescribed by law. Fed law has authority over state or county law. Marijuana is illegal federally but marijuana sales are tolerated. Because the voters want it and they're liberal.

Fed enforcement of MJ laws could resume at any time.

When prop 8 was passed in Calif and there was a constitutional challenge, Kamila Harris was obligated by law to defend it. But she didn't. She didn't go to jail.

This is an exercise of discretion, and I believe that it was justified at the time based on the fact that the law itself was violative of the U.S. constitution. And it looks like she was right about that.

Cathy Lanier, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, is refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” which isn't. required by law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits, although he did not send Lanier to jail for contempt.

Did she act with contempt and continue to refuse to issue permits despite the injunction? Because that's what Kim did.

Similarly, county sheriffs in California had been denying concealed weapons permits to applicants who failed to show a need beyond self-defense. Last November, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the sheriffs were violating the law. None of those sheriffs were sent to jail.

Did the sheriffs continue to deny permits after the court order? Because that's what Kim did.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordering clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, contrary to state law. The California Attorney General sued him and the California Supreme Court ultimately put an end to the practice, but Newsom was never sent to jail.

Did Newsom continue to issue marriage licenses after the CA Supreme Court ruling? Because that's what Kim did.

Newsom also violated federal law by making San Francisco a sanctuary city in 2007, contrary to existing federal law, but nothing happened to him. The city’s sanctuary status resulted in the death of Kate Steinle in July, who was shot by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions. This is a far more drastic result than a clerk who merely does not want her name on marriage licenses, yet nothing is being done to the current mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee.

deportation and enforcement of immigration laws is a question of federal law not state law. San Francisco can't deport people even if the city passed an ordinance saying so.

In 2012, a lesbian judge in Texas said she would not issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples until same-sex marriage was legalized. She wasn’t put in jail for violating the law, nor does it appear she was even disciplined

Texans are, as a general rule, morons.

She's an elected official let the people impeach her and rewrite the certificates without her name. It seems like a small concession for her 1st amendment right.

The issue isn't performance of her job duties, it's her defiance of a court order that landed her in jail. In all of the examples you provide above, the governmental official was brought to court, lost, and then followed the ruling. That's not what Kim did and that's why she went to jail.

*clapping* well done, Sir

Shawndoggy for president!

Disappointed in no new drama with ORE.