I got nothin'.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Well, as you can tell, neither did I. You were just more efficient about it.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Well, I hit the reply button prepared to argue with you just for the sake of arguing, to see how deep into Barryworld I could get you to go, and after 3.5 minutes of staring at grey space I came up with...nothing.

So not as efficient as it appears.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm pretty sure I heard Huckabee say something to the effect of "Since when did we decide that only liberals get to enforce the laws they want to enforce." or something to that effect. The first thing that went thru my mind was "You just admitted what she was doing is illegal and that the "Liberals" are simply enforcing the law." IOW he wants people to not enforce the law. At least with this statement he's playing on the ignorance of people and not outright saying "Conservatives get to decide when to not enforce the law". It's kind of back pedaling from "Hey screw it we don't think laws should be enforced when we don't like them"

While I'm not really surprised by all this as any irrational argument tends to fall apart at some point into complete and utter lunacy, but to see that happen with a presidential candidate on national television is quite spectacular.

~Matt

Is it the line of thinking that SCOTUS can't make laws for states only say if the existing law is ok?? I ask since I honestly don't know. A couple of people were talking something like that while I was in the checkout line. I wasn't sure if they were writers for the onion talking about a new story or something that is really going on? The one kept asking which law was broken to be sent to prison. IT could be something else like tackling a football ref or taxes.

I think one angle he's trying is the idea that the SCOTUS can't force a state to issue marriage licenses to anyone (i.e. they can't write the law for the state that governs how licenses are given out). What the SCOTUS is doing is saying that issuing them to straight couples and not to gay couples is unconstitutional. Huckabee is trying to play the obtuse game of, "well, gee, you can't tell us to specifically give licenses to gay couples, so we don't have to do that, and you can't tell us not to give licenses to straight couples so we are going to keep doing that. Gotcha!"

I then when you say, "Mike, that's unconstitutional," he replies, "I don't know what you mean," and then repeats that the SCOTUS can't write state laws.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

That's been one of the arguments, and though this doesn't help his argument, I do think he makes a fair point.

There is a clear difference between making something illegal that you are not allowed to make illegal, and deciding where you are going to spend your law enforcement resources prosecuting illegal activity. I would expect, as a judge, that you can say, "rape is illegal at the federal level" (I'm guessing here) "but our prison's are too crowded so we are not going to give them prison sentences," or, "our patrol officers will focus on keeping people from stealing cars, but not focus on jaywalkers," or what have you.

That's a bit different from, "we aren't going to let asian americans ride our city buses."

Having said that, I don't think governments should be allowed to blatantly not enforce laws on the basis that they disagree with the law makers (which Obama has done, and most presidents have done).

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Before the Supreme Court ruling, when County Clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples where the state law didn't recognize same sex marriage where any of them jailed?

Serious question, I don't know the answer.

---

Suffer Well.

But, she's got the eye of the tiger, baby.

Well, she did, anyway.

This whole thing is about as ridiculous as can be.

Not aware of any, but then, when ordered to do (or not do) something, my guess is that most of the clerks complied. Boulder County's clerk did last year when ordered by the state supreme court to stop issuing gay marriage licenses.

Linky link.

"Boulder's county clerk, who has defiantly issued more than 200 marriage licenses to same-sex couples, reluctantly stopped after the Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling on Tuesday."

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

Show me a county where this happened and I'll answer your question.

Ok. I thought they were talking about that, and my impression they were looking for someone to interject and agree/disagree with them. But I just read about magazine covers instead. I like to think I'm up to date on the current scandal/outrage, but I'm usually a few weeks behind

So Huckabee raised this in regards to Gavin Newsome who was mayor of San Francisco. They issued licenses briefly after Prop 8 had passed but before the courts had ruled on it. Newsome has said that they felt the law was unconstitutional so they proceeded until the California Supreme Court ruled on it. As soon as the courts ruled on it they stopped. Newsome has made the distinction that he was never in contempt of the court.

So he violated the law but was not in contempt of court. His punishment was getting elected Lieutenant Governor of California.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

I haven't seen much about Huckabee's arguments, so not sure on those. I think if they want to be successful they need to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that is in Kentucky. From the way I understand it, if the government as the employer can make reasonable accommodations for an employee's beliefs they must do so. If Kentucky took this woman's name off the documents it seems like this could just go away. Without any knowledge about how marriage licensing works, I'm thinking that would be a pretty simple change to make.

I think this whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion. For me it has been interesting to see all of the hate that has been directed at this woman personally. The groups that had been pushing for everyone to respect their beliefs sure is vicious to someone that goes against their beliefs. I hope everyone takes this as an opportunity to learn about how open they really are to people that they view as different.

There is a clear difference between making something illegal that you are not allowed to make illegal, and deciding where you are going to spend your law enforcement resources prosecuting illegal activity. I would expect, as a judge, that you can say, "rape is illegal at the federal level" (I'm guessing here) "but our prison's are too crowded so we are not going to give them prison sentences," or, "our patrol officers will focus on keeping people from stealing cars, but not focus on jaywalkers," or what have you.

Even if we decided not to as actively prosecute one law or another it seems odd to me to argue "Hey you shouldn't prosecute those people for breaking the law because you decided not to prosecute those people for breaking that law". Actually taking action is clearly different then making something illegal but it's an entirely different argument then say "We shouldn't prosecute those people for breaking that law". If the later is the case then the law should not be in place at all because if we shouldn't prosecute someone for breaking a law then that pretty much means it should be legal.

Not sending someone to jail for j-walking is not saying people should not go to jail for jay-walking. Lots of people speed and don't get tickets, but no one says that a person who gets a ticket shouldn't get one because so many other people don't.

~Matt

Oh good grief. This has nothing to do with her belief and everything to do with her actions toward a group of people. She can believe whatever the hell she wants provided that she doesn't use her governmental powers to directly prevent the legal rights of a group of people.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Come on, she's KY"s Muhammad Ali! Oh wait, Muhammad Ali is KY's Muhammad Ali..... :)

The RFRA has been a law for decades. Why would her rights under the RFRA be trumped by the rights of others granted by a different law. They just need to get out of the fanaticism of the whole ordeal, look at the laws, and put a plan in place. This could likely include telling her they cannot make the change, but then at least the options would have been reviewed. There are other county clerks in Kentucky asking for the same thing. Just because the majority doesn't agree with her doesn't mean she doesn't have rights.

Nope. She refused to issue the licenses and ordered her subordinates not to issue the licenses as well.


This has nothing to do with respecting a person's beliefs. She is a public official, paid by tax dollars, who refused to follow the law. Period.

Moreover, if you truly believe this was a sincerely held religious belief, you are a fool. This woman, so committed to faith, has been married 4 times. Come on, man!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The courts had decided that her rights were not being trumped. She was not asked to officiate/sanctify/approve a gay wedding. She was being asked to certify that they met the requirements for a marriage and offer a certificate.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that RFRA protects your right to not do whatever job you don't feel like doing.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Ugh. Really, dude?

Just because she has rights doesn't mean she can refuse to carry out the duties of her job, and prevent others in her office from carrying out the function of that office.

The RFRA has absolutely nothing to do with this. Neither do her rights.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think she has a sincerely held belief that gazerbad and so were her husbands.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

If Kentucky took this woman's name off the documents it seems like this could just go away. Without any knowledge about how marriage licensing works, I'm thinking that would be a pretty simple change to make.

Not knowing this either I asked this a while ago. My thoughts on the subject that was someone's name HAS to be on the license. That persons name is typically the county clerk. I don't know if there is a mechanism for allowing someone elses name on there or not. My guess would be that it is far easier to change out the county clerk then it is to completely rearrange the counties constitution/administration etc to allow someone else to replace her in this one area.

From the way I understand it, if the government as the employer can make reasonable accommodations for an employee's beliefs they must do so.

My point is that I don't think re-arranging the county hierarchy would be "Reasonable". She can't fulfill the duties of the position she's been elected for. Accommodations generally doesn't mean altering those duties it means making it possible to fulfill those duties. The fire department does not have to accommodate their policies to allow people that can't put fires out to be hired.

~Matt