Republican Presidential Candidates Support Jailed Kentucky Clerk

[c.d.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawbreaker-kim-davis-and-the-lawless-ted-cruz/2015/09/04/fd63c660-5333-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

Well so much for the rule of law and the Constitution.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Pretty good opinion piece. I didn't know about a lot of the examples of politicans urging "resistance" to "unjust" laws, but I'm not all that surprised. The atmosphere this pre-election season has been particularly strange. It must be a wild one, when a celebrity billionaire can garner better poll ratings than the son and brother of two former Presidents.

This tendency to try to turn the USA into a theocracy is ridiculous. We never were founded as a Christian nation, despite the name "God" in our Pledge of Alleigance (written long after the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, by the way).

The Supreme Court is merely protecting the rights of all citizens to "the pursuit of happiness", as promised by the Constitution, not defining the correct way to form a marriage, nor worship a particular God.

[Shaggyrand]

Pretty good opinion piece. I didn't know about a lot of the examples of politicans urging "resistance" to "unjust" laws, but I'm not all that surprised. The atmosphere this pre-election season has been particularly strange. It must be a wild one, when a celebrity billionaire can garner better poll ratings than the son and brother of two former Presidents.

This tendency to try to turn the USA into a theocracy is ridiculous. We never were founded as a Christian nation, despite the name "God" in our Pledge of Alleigance (written long after the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, by the way).

The Supreme Court is merely protecting the rights of all citizens to "the pursuit of happiness", as promised by the Constitution, not defining the correct way to form a marriage, nor worship a particular God.

Nah. Both Trump and Sanders have the same image gimmick. They claim, and to me are desperately trying to prove, they aren't "Washington insiders". Which is bullshit. One is rich enough to own Senators and the other has been in politics since the 70s. It's all perception. Same as it ever was.

[RivkahChaya]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0f8_story.html

Well so much for the rule of law and the Constitution.

c.d.

And the gay vote.

Pretty good opinion piece. I didn't know about a lot of the examples of politicans urging "resistance" to "unjust" laws, but I'm not all that surprised. The atmosphere this pre-election season has been particularly strange. It must be a wild one, when a celebrity billionaire can garner better poll ratings than the son and brother of two former Presidents.

This tendency to try to turn the USA into a theocracy is ridiculous. We never were founded as a Christian nation, despite the name "God" in our Pledge of Alleigance (written long after the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, by the way).

The Supreme Court is merely protecting the rights of all citizens to "the pursuit of happiness", as promised by the Constitution, not defining the correct way to form a marriage, nor worship a particular God.

"Pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Equality, however, is promised by the constitution, after several amendments, and gay marriage is part of equality.

I asked my mother. She said this is a lot like the way people reacted to the striking down of the last miscegenation laws; eventually, everyone settled down. People will settle down after a while. It may take a generation, and there will always be people who harbor personal objections to SSM, just like there are people who harbor objections to mixed marriages, but they have learned not to spout on about it, because it's an unpopular opinion.

[jason_c]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0f8_story.html

Well so much for the rule of law and the Constitution.

c.d.

Well, sometimes the rule of law can be an ass. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Presidential candidate can realise this; and that he thinks it unreasonable to imprison this lady.

[Pcdunn]

Well, sometimes the rule of law can be an ass. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Presidential candidate can realise this; and that he thinks it unreasonable to imprison this lady.

Oh, come on, she is an elected official who is refusing to do her duties in issuing marriage licenses in her county in the state of Tennessee. Not only that, but she ordered her subordinates also to refrain from issuing marriage licenses, to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.She needs to find a different job, if she can't perform this one due to interference from her conscience.

At least, with the clerk in jail, the backlog of licenses is now being issued -- though she is objecting to her name being on them.