There Is NO Fed Marriage Law For Ms. Davis To Violate

[WWV10MHZ]

There is NO Fed Law concerning Marriage, period.  Marriage only resides in State Laws.

Ms. Davis did not violate ANY Fed Law and a Fed Judge has no standing for holding her in contempt.

She swore an oath to uphold Ky Laws.  Regarding Marriage, this is the KY Law:

According to Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.005, marriage is defined as:

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status,
condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge
to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association
is founded on the distinction of sex.

The chapter also goes on to point out that Davis was right in following the law as to who is not permitted
to receive a marriage license. 402.010 reads:

Degree of relationship that will bar marriage. (1) No marriage shall be contracted between persons
who are nearer of kin to each other by consanguinity, whether of the whole or half-blood, than
second cousins. (2) Marriages prohibited by subsection (1) of this section are incestuous and void.

The chapter continues in 402.020 to prohibit other marriages, including those between members of
the same sex, spouses who are married and seeking another marriage without divorce and polygamy.

Finally, it is noteworthy that 402.080 states, "No marriage shall be solemnized without a license
therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at
the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license
is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be
issued by any county clerk."

So, Kim Davis has followed the laws of Kentucky and, I might add, the laws of God concerning
marriage. Who then is the violator of law in this matter? First, the sodomites are the violators
of these laws in their attempt to get a marriage license. Second, the judge in the matter is
in violation of the law by ordering Davis to do what is unlawful.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/09/judge-orders-kim-davis-jailed-but-his-order-was-against-the-law/

[WWV10MHZ]

She is expected to be freed on appeal.

[Truman62]

You can expect all you want, but appeal will NOT work.

[hoosier_daddy]

i bet even you right wing stooges really don't want every cop, every judge, every baker, every county clerk, every grocer, every 7/11 clerk, every motel or hotel, to have complete discretion to wait on or serve any customer based on whether or not they seem religious enough to deserve any service.   do you know what you are asking for?  THE WAY IT IS IN GODDAMN SAUDI ARABIA, YOU FUCKING MORONS....where the law is inferior to religion.  where judges do not look for the constitution for guidance but to the Koran or to the Supreme Ayatollah.  IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?  NO REAL LAW, JUST PEOPLE DECIDING ON WHO THEY WILL WAIT ON OR SERVE OR PROTECT OR GIVE SERVICE TO BASED ENTIRELY ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY THINK THEY ARE RELIGIOUS ENOUGH TO DESERVE THEIR ATTENTION?

[sweetwater5s9]

When the 14th Amendment passed in 1868, it was intended to give former slaves equal protection and voting rights under the law; it was not meant to protect women. In fact, it specified equality for male slaves, female slaves were excluded as were all women, regardless of race.

A year after the 14th amendment’s passage, Myra Bradwell tried to apply it to women’s rights. Bradwell, who graduated law school with honors and had passed the bar, challenged the Supreme Court of Illinois’ decision prohibiting her from practicing law in the state.

The case went to the United States Supreme Court with Myra Bradwell arguing that Illinois violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provision. The Supreme Court saw otherwise, ruling that the amendment did not require states to open the legal profession to women. One justice wrote: “The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”

There was wide political support for protecting the freed slaves, but not for giving women the right to vote.

Most of those who had argued for women's rights before and during the war had also allied themselves strongly with the movement to abolish slavery, linking the two causes on the basis of natural rights. But now, by the insertion of the word "male" into the amendment, the Constitution would no longer be technically gender-blind, but would actively "disfranchise" women.

The amendment that would guarantee them the right to vote—the 19th—would not become law until 1920.


The myth that the 14th Amendment was meant for "all"...

The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments and were passed for former slaves and blacks only.


http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23652

[hoosier_daddy]

bullshit.  learn to read, stupid boy. 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any personwithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[sweetwater5s9]

The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments and were passed for former slaves and blacks.

A year after the 14th amendment’s passage, Myra Bradwell tried to apply it to women’s rights. Bradwell, who graduated law school with honors and had passed the bar, challenged the Supreme Court of Illinois’ decision prohibiting her from practicing law in the state.

The case went to the United States Supreme Court with Myra Bradwell arguing that Illinois violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection provision. The Supreme Court saw otherwise, ruling that the amendment did not apply to women.



Originalism and the Constitution.

[WWV10MHZ]

There is NO Fed Law on Marriage.  Marriage is only covered by under State Laws.

A Fed Judge has no right to jail Ms. Davis.

[sweetwater5s9]

Too many justices have abused the 14th amendment since 1868 and why it was enacted.

Why did the 14th amendment only give former slaves equal protection under the law when passed in 1868?    When and who changed it to mean something outside of its original intent?

Anyone?

[wvit1001]

You guys at idiots. Truth does not abide in your minds.

[hoosier_daddy]

you can print the truth that proves what lying bitches they are, and they still prefer to spew their fox or rush lies.  you can print the truth WITH RELEVANT WORDS AND PHRASES HIGHLIGHTED and they still prefer to spew their right wing newsmax lies.  they are hopeless liars, loons, and gullible fools.  that is why they are racist teabaggers.  they are too stupid NOT to be. 

[sweetwater5s9]

Another USSC case(Bradwell) that says equal protection under the law with the 14th Amendment was created and passed for former slaves only, as part of the three Reconstruction Amendments.   

When and who changed it to mean something outside of its original intent?


This is why the concept of a 'living document" is bullshit as opposed to original intent of the founders.