tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post4443310922067764358..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Schlafly: jailing of Kim Davis is unconstitutional and illegalmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38603267955882755502015-09-08T12:45:54.553-04:002015-09-08T12:45:54.553-04:00"based on an amendment passed in 1865 that wa..."based on an amendment passed in 1865 that was never intended to change the definition of marriage to suit perverts"<br /><br />Succinct and true. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17355637851241150832015-09-08T12:39:02.654-04:002015-09-08T12:39:02.654-04:00I like this person's take on the Kim Davis thi...I like this person's take on the Kim Davis thing. <br /><br />http://patriotupdate.com/if-you-dont-think-mlk-is-like-kim-davis-you-probably-dont-know-mlk/<br /><br />"If You Don't Think MLK is Like Kim Davis, Your Probably Don't Know MLK"<br /><br />I'm not a lawyer so I can't really evaluate Schlafly's assertion that a federal judge like Bunning can't enforce state law. Schlafly is a lawyer, of course, but so are a lot of people. <br /><br />This whole mess could have been avoided if the will of the people of Kentucky (and most other states) had been honored. But of course the judges had to make up another right, based on an amendment passed in 1865 that was never intended to change the definition of marriage to suit perverts. <br /><br />Sad. <br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48863311435154713422015-09-08T12:24:40.449-04:002015-09-08T12:24:40.449-04:00"The government has a legal and constitutiona..."<i>The government has a legal and constitutional obligation to accommodate Davis' religious beliefs."</i><br /><br />Which the judge made every effort to do. He proposed a solution that would not require her to issue any licenses to same sex couples. Her deputy clerks could do it. That sounds like a very reasonable accommodation to me. But she refused to agree not to interfere with her deputies issuing these licenses. Her signature did not even have to appear on the license; her deputies already have that authority. <br /><br />All she wanted to do was to interfere with a homosexual couples legal rights. You can cry, scream and call people who disagree with you all the names in the book, but the facts are not on your side. But you have already shown that you will not allow facts to get in the way of your bigoted opinions.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.com