Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case

Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
If a cop violates your civil rights you can sue the city AND the cop.
We already covered this pumpkin. A police officer is not an elected official. That is a terrible analogy.



Nothing requires a police officer to make an arrest. In fact they make judgment calls all of the time. Plus police officers are hired employees not elected officials. That is a terrible analogy
 
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
Why is it a moronic idea?
More that has been covered. Try reading the thread.

Because if we start suing elected officials because we dissagree w/ how their job performance effects our lives it will be an unending process.

Agree w/ what davis did or not is irrelevant. Issuing marriage licenses was not part of the job description when she was elected. She believed she was doing the job she was elected to do.

Try looking at it objectively.

Pelosi has stopped numerous people from acquiring marriage licenses. Should she be sued?
 
Jul 2008
18,155
11,887
Virginia Beach, VA
More that has been covered. Try reading the thread.
Because if we start suing elected officials because we dissagree w/ how their job performance effects our lives it will be an unending process.

Agree w/ what davis did or not is irrelevant. Issuing marriage licenses was not part of the job description when she was elected. She believed she was doing the job she was elected to do.

Try looking at it objectively.

Pelosi has stopped numerous people from acquiring marriage licenses. Should she be sued?
This was not a question about HOW she did her job. It’s a question about how she was discriminating while doing her job.
The SUPREME COURT found that same sex couples had a right to get married per the Constitution. Whether or not she thought that decision was legitimate is irrelevant. She knew what the decision was and she was obligated to abide by that decision.
 
Jul 2008
18,155
11,887
Virginia Beach, VA
First i supported the "marriage equality" movment.

This was the correct way to handle Davis's role in this situation. That is what we are talking about.

I love when people try and equate people getting married w/ slavery or jim crow laws. They are not the same. The real solution marriage debacle was to completely remove the state from the whole situation. The state should have no say whatever.

A major problem w/ society today, especially w/ leftists is you people want to believe you are part of some grand movment. You are not. And because of this you seem to not only greatly over inflate situations but your own self importance simultaneously.



View attachment 2951
Even if you (or Kim Davis) feel that the solution was to get government out of marriage that is not the solution that was reached. The solution was that gay couples had a constitutional right to get married. Kim Davis, as part of the government, was obliged to abide by that decision, regardless of her personal feelings on the subject.
 
Nov 2005
7,847
2,409
California
Sigh... i am fully aware that the state was charged the fees. But is that what the theme of the thread is?
No.
You obviously were not, otherwise you would not have been talking about "damages" when there were none.
You would recognize the difference between "the state" making a policy discriminating against a person vs "Kim Davis" (an individual) making a choice to refuse to do her job.


First i supported the "marriage equality" movment.
I am often amused at how some people claim "support" and then they hinder actual efforts to achieve that.


This was the correct way to handle Davis's role in this situation. That is what we are talking about.
I'm assuming you just stated that you think people should have to get politicians voted out of office if their civil rights are discriminated against.
The vague use of the word "this" leaves slight room for speculation on you being sloppy in responding. One of the reasons I break posts up is to enhance clarity of what I am responding to.

Either way, that is a moronic response.
By this mind-set, when the South insisted on keeping Jim Crow laws, then lawsuits were the wrong way to get the South to respect Civil Rights. Blacks should have just tried to vote those who were violating the law out of office...

Do you actually pretend to attach "libertarian" to yourself as a label?


I love when people try and equate people getting married w/ slavery or jim crow laws. They are not the same. The real solution marriage debacle was to completely remove the state from the whole situation. The state should have no say whatever.
No, no, no, no, no...
You seriously fail to comprehend what's going on here.

First off, MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT. The fact that you disagree with that is irrelevant.
Moreover, when I asked my question, I PURPOSEFULLY PHRASED IT to specify "civil rights" because what you are espousing encompasses more than just "marriage".
foundit66:​
To ask the question bluntly...​
If a person or group of people are being denied their civil rights, do you think their only recourse should be to just let the government continue to deny the civil rights and try to get somebody else voted into office who will grant the civil rights?
Whether you like it or not, this is the fundamental issue at hand here...

Secondly, I did not "equate" anything.
All I am doing is recognizing there are multiple rights included in what the government recognizes as "civil rights".
That's it. I am not saying that marriage "equates to" slavery. (I leave that to the comedians...)

Third, this whole "the real solution" crap is a dumb cop-out.
Deal with the existing situation and question instead of trying to reinvent reality to your desire.

Finally, real libertarians recognize marriage as a civil right.
Anybody I have met who tries to argue that the state should be "removed" from marriage typically has no freakin' clue what state involvement in marriage actually means.


A major problem w/ ...
I'm not responding to this irrelevant crap that is nothing more than a thinly veiled insult.
You throw out too many cowardly diversions in an attempt to avoid honestly and openly discussing the actual issues raised...
 
Last edited:
Jul 2008
18,155
11,887
Virginia Beach, VA
Because if we start suing elected officials because we dissagree w/ how their job performance effects our lives it will be an unending process.

Agree w/ what davis did or not is irrelevant. Issuing marriage licenses was not part of the job description when she was elected. She believed she was doing the job she was elected to do.

Try looking at it objectively.

Pelosi has stopped numerous people from acquiring marriage licenses. Should she be sued?
I’m not sure what you mean by “Pelosi has stopped numerous people from acquiring marriage licenses” but I am sure that it’s an apples to elephants comparison.
 
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
No.
You obviously were not, otherwise you would not have been talking about "damages" when there were none.
You would recognize the difference between "the state" making a policy discriminating against a person vs "Kim Davis" (an individual) making a choice to refuse to do her job.



I am often amused at how some people claim "support" and then they hinder actual efforts to achieve that.



I'm assuming you just stated that you think people should have to get politicians voted out of office if their civil rights are discriminated against.
The vague use of the word "this" leaves slight room for speculation on you being sloppy in responding. One of the reasons I break posts up is to enhance clarity of what I am responding to.

Either way, that is a moronic response.
By this mind-set, when the South insisted on keeping Jim Crow laws, then lawsuits were the wrong way to get the South to respect Civil Rights. Blacks should have just tried to vote those who were violating the law out of office...

Do you actually pretend to attach "libertarian" to yourself as a label?



No, no, no, no, no...
You seriously fail to comprehend what's going on here.

First off, MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT. The fact that you disagree with that is irrelevant.
Moreover, when I asked my question, I PURPOSEFULLY PHRASED IT to specify "civil rights" because what you are espousing encompasses more than just "marriage".
foundit66:​
To ask the question bluntly...​
If a person or group of people are being denied their civil rights, do you think their only recourse should be to just let the government continue to deny the civil rights and try to get somebody else voted into office who will grant the civil rights?
Whether you like it or not, this is the fundamental issue at hand here...

Secondly, I did not "equate" anything.
All I am doing is recognizing there are multiple rights included in what the government recognizes as "civil rights".
That's it. I am not saying that marriage "equates to" slavery. (I leave that to the comedians...)

Third, this whole "the real solution" crap is a dumb cop-out.
Deal with the existing situation and question instead of trying to reinvent reality to your desire.

Finally, real libertarians recognize marriage as a civil right.
Anybody I have met who tries to argue that the state should be "removed" from marriage typically has no freakin' clue what state involvement in marriage actually means.



I'm not responding to this irrelevant crap that is nothing more than a thinly veiled insult.
You throw out too many cowardly diversions in an attempt to avoid honestly and openly discussing the actual issues raised...

I think that you should reread the thread. Again. You use a lot of words to not say very much and make a lot of assumptions as you do it.

I have never claimed to be a libertarian and have different beliefs of what rights are.

I do not think the state should be able to stop you from getting married and i dont think that the state should be able to force me to participate in it
 
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
Even if you (or Kim Davis) feel that the solution was to get government out of marriage that is not the solution that was reached. The solution was that gay couples had a constitutional right to get married. Kim Davis, as part of the government, was obliged to abide by that decision, regardless of her personal feelings on the subject.
I think obliged is the wrong word, required is better imo.


But none of that matters. What matters is the sueing of public officials for job performance. This is not how our system works. If this is something that you support get ready for a bumpy ride.

Unfortunately you people seem unable to separate the situation from your leftist identity politics. You see the gay marriage issue and suddenly feel some deep need to take the virtue singling side.

One does not have anything to do w the other. But because it is this hot button issue for you guys it forces you to toss all logic out the window. Sad really.
 
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
I’m not sure what you mean by “Pelosi has stopped numerous people from acquiring marriage licenses” but I am sure that it’s an apples to elephants comparison.
I posted an article supporting it but it got put into suspended state.