Will the Kim Davis issue be a factor in 2016?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

?

[/]

Probably not; it will be forgotten by election day.

[MisSkeptic]

Probably not; it will be forgotten by election day.

I second this. While Kim Davis would be forgotten, since gay marriage is not as controversial as it once was in the past. conservative politicians would find it difficult trying to "stir up the pot" only critics posting their comments on blogs, poking at their opposition to gay marriage. 

[exopolitician]

No, but I don't think she'll be going away anytime soon. Republicans will use her as a martyr in the War against Christianity argument, but nothing will come of it.

[Likely Voter]

It could possibly become an issue in the primary with the socon wing really laying it on thick. Here is a tweet from Jindal to Trump today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although Trump said he didn't like her being put in jail he dared to suggest she should comply with the law and let her deputies issue licenses if she didn't want to.

[SteveRogers]

Yeah, there's probably still time for her to jump into the race.

[eric82oslo]

Carly Fiorina: 1
Bobby Jindal: 0

[Fuzzy Bear]

It could possibly become an issue in the primary with the socon wing really laying it on thick. Here is a tweet from Jindal to Trump today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although Trump said he didn't like her being put in jail he dared to suggest she should comply with the law and let her deputies issue licenses if she didn't want to.

I abhor SSM, and I abhor the reasoning behind the decision.  That being said, Courts have an interest in their orders being obeyed.  The Rule of Law depends on it. 

This is not to say that Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg didn't take a Mt. Everest size dump on the Rule of Law in their recent SSM decision, because they certainly did.  They legislated from the bench, and that should not be forgotten by Americans.  (Personally, I think that all of these Justices should be impeached, and forced to defend their reasoning at an impeachment trial, but I suppose we're not going to see that any time soon.)

[eric82oslo]

It could possibly become an issue in the primary with the socon wing really laying it on thick. Here is a tweet from Jindal to Trump today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although Trump said he didn't like her being put in jail he dared to suggest she should comply with the law and let her deputies issue licenses if she didn't want to.

I abhor SSM, and I abhor the reasoning behind the decision.  That being said, Courts have an interest in their orders being obeyed.  The Rule of Law depends on it. 

This is not to say that Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg didn't take a Mt. Everest size dump on the Rule of Law in their recent SSM decision, because they certainly did.  They legislated from the bench, and that should not be forgotten by Americans.  (Personally, I think that all of these Justices should be impeached, and forced to defend their reasoning at an impeachment trial, but I suppose we're not going to see that any time soon.)

Maybe the reason behind that is that you are 583 million years old?

[PJ]

No, just like gay marriage has virtually been a non-issue in the campaign, despite what the more SoCon candidates have claimed.

[Mister Mets]

One remarkable thing is how few people are engaging in this kind of civil disobedience

The only way it becomes an issue if there's some kind of overreaction.

[pho]

People who disobey court orders go to jail—what is the "issue" exactly?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It could possibly become an issue in the primary with the socon wing really laying it on thick. Here is a tweet from Jindal to Trump today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although Trump said he didn't like her being put in jail he dared to suggest she should comply with the law and let her deputies issue licenses if she didn't want to.

I abhor SSM, and I abhor the reasoning behind the decision.  That being said, Courts have an interest in their orders being obeyed.  The Rule of Law depends on it. 

This is not to say that Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg didn't take a Mt. Everest size dump on the Rule of Law in their recent SSM decision, because they certainly did.  They legislated from the bench, and that should not be forgotten by Americans.  (Personally, I think that all of these Justices should be impeached, and forced to defend their reasoning at an impeachment trial, but I suppose we're not going to see that any time soon.)

Maybe the reason behind that is that you are 583 million years old?

I abhor SSM because I view it as an affront to God.  I'm not looking to have govt. jackboots kick bedroom doors in, and, by and large, I view the moral consequences falling on the folks engaging in the practice.  But I do consider SSM a redefinition of marriage and, as such, legislating from the bench.  It's not the only affront to God in law, and there have been other affronts to God in law that we have gotten rid of, but it is an affront to God.

What I do wonder is how a Federal Court can order a state to issue marriage licenses?  If a Clerk of Court decides simply not to issue licenses (regardless of the "type" of marriage it's for), why is that a Federal issue?  Isn't that an issue for the Courts of that state and an issue of non-feasance of a duty?  Or is this, in reality, more legislating from the bench?

[SteveRogers]

What I do wonder is how a Federal Court can order a state to issue marriage licenses?  If a Clerk of Court decides simply not to issue licenses (regardless of the "type" of marriage it's for), why is that a Federal issue?  Isn't that an issue for the Courts of that state and an issue of non-feasance of a duty?  Or is this, in reality, more legislating from the bench?

It's a federal issue because the state is violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection clause by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in the issuance of marriage licenses.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What I do wonder is how a Federal Court can order a state to issue marriage licenses?  If a Clerk of Court decides simply not to issue licenses (regardless of the "type" of marriage it's for), why is that a Federal issue?  Isn't that an issue for the Courts of that state and an issue of non-feasance of a duty?  Or is this, in reality, more legislating from the bench?

It's a federal issue because the state is violating the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection clause by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in the issuance of marriage licenses.

If she just stops giving marriage licenses altogether, why is it a Federal issue?  I get the first part.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

People who disobey court orders go to jail—what is the "issue" exactly?

Constitution of a statement>court order from federal government.

Quit using the 14th amendment to protect SSM. It doesn't apply.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

IMO government shouldn't be in the marriage business altogether, even though I do support SSM, I don't believe it should be shoved down people's throats likewise I don't want Theocratic principles shoved down people's throats either. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate who is a couple or not.

[DS0816]

Re: Will the Kim Davis issue be a factor in 2016?

I'm assuming she'll be a "Fox News" regular in plenty time for Election 2016.

The behind-the-scenes miracle makers will successfully make her over to look slightly less uglier than both Britt Hume and Karl Rove.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It depends on how long she stays in jail, and how many others are sent to jail for similar things.

[Figueira]

IMO government shouldn't be in the marriage business altogether, even though I do support SSM, I don't believe it should be shoved down people's throats likewise I don't want Theocratic principles shoved down people's throats either. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate who is a couple or not.

Whose throat is gay marriage being shoved down?

[7,052,770]

When does her term end? She'll probably still be in jail in November 2016, assuming she doesn't cave or get impeached by the Kentucky legislature.

[Fuzzy Bear]

IMO government shouldn't be in the marriage business altogether, even though I do support SSM, I don't believe it should be shoved down people's throats likewise I don't want Theocratic principles shoved down people's throats either. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate who is a couple or not.

Whose throat is gay marriage being shoved down?

It will be shoved down the throats of foster children waiting for adoption.  Under these laws, same-sex couples will be treated on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples.  So much for kids hoping for a Mom and a Dad.

Ahhhh, they don't count.  They'll just have to get used to it.

[HAnnA MArin County]

IMO government shouldn't be in the marriage business altogether, even though I do support SSM, I don't believe it should be shoved down people's throats likewise I don't want Theocratic principles shoved down people's throats either. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate who is a couple or not.

Whose throat is gay marriage being shoved down?

It will be shoved down the throats of foster children waiting for adoption.  Under these laws, same-sex couples will be treated on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples.  So much for kids hoping for a Mom and a Dad.

Ahhhh, they don't count.  They'll just have to get used to it.

Jesus had two dads and he turned out okay.

[Bojack Horseman]

People who disobey court orders go to jail—what is the "issue" exactly?

Constitution of a statement>court order from federal government.

Quit using the 14th amendment to protect SSM. It doesn't apply.

Yeah it kind of does. Article 6, clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

From Maryland vs. Louisiana in 1981,

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are "without effect."

And of course, the 14th Amendment itself:

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 person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As for the question at hand, I think it will just be used as fodder during a debate or two and that's about it. The real question is whether or not Kim Davis will be out of jail by then.

[7,052,770]

IMO government shouldn't be in the marriage business altogether, even though I do support SSM, I don't believe it should be shoved down people's throats likewise I don't want Theocratic principles shoved down people's throats either. Government shouldn't have the power to dictate who is a couple or not.

Whose throat is gay marriage being shoved down?

It will be shoved down the throats of foster children waiting for adoption.  Under these laws, same-sex couples will be treated on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples.  So much for kids hoping for a Mom and a Dad.

Ahhhh, they don't count.  They'll just have to get used to it.

LOL wut? You think there are bigoted kids who would rather waste away in limbo rather than have a family? OK...

If they don't have bigoted parents who taught them to think gay couples are in any way inferior to straight ones, they aren't just going to develop it spontaneously. I mean maybe there's some 12 year olds whose fundie parents died at 11 or something, but even they are young enough not to have the bigotry ingrained.