Will the Kim Davis issue be a factor in 2016?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

Will SSM be an issue in 2016?  Not outside the context of GOP candidates coming out in favor of it; that ship has, by and large, sailed.  A Constitutional Amendment reversing it is just not possible at this time, and probably never, at this point.

Will Kim Davis be a speaker at the GOP convention?  Absolutely; she's an elected Democrat who, by that time, will have either switched parties or be a prominent Democrat for Trump/Bush/Paul/whomever is the nominee.

Did the SCOTUS adhere to the Constitution?  No, they did not.  They legally redefined marriage from what it has understood to mean since the beginning of the Republic and across societies, and redefined it in a way in which it is, in actuality, at least partially separated from the concept of "family" and turned it into meaning something that it did not mean before.  It takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to assert otherwise, but the majority Justices were up to the task.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

Thank the progressives of the 19th century for this mess.

[Torie]

It's good the Pub candidates who support breaking the law have come out of closet over this.

[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?

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.

There's no evidence of same-sex parents being any different from opposite-sex parents, and treating them differently just lowers the chance of a child ending up in a good family.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utter nonsense.  This is just a way for Republicans to lie how they can oppose this ruling and still say they are 'for the Constitution.' (and you're not!)

The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  They occasionally make bad decisions that get overturned, but this ruling was entirely consistent with previous rulings that expanded fundamental rights to more people.

While same sex marriages are not common throughout history, there is also a great deal of precedent for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Including in North America:
In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley.[43]

So, your understanding of history is wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong.

[°Leprechaun]

Maybe. I voted yes, because it could be an issue in early voting and could hurt the chances of those who support her and or favor ignoring the Supreme Court's decision. When, in history, has a presidential candidate ever opposed the rule of law?

[tallguy23]

It'll be forgotten. The GOP is using it now to rally Christian conservatives, but the general public isn't on Kim Davis' side.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utter nonsense.  This is just a way for Republicans to lie how they can oppose this ruling and still say they are 'for the Constitution.' (and you're not!)

The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  They occasionally make bad decisions that get overturned, but this ruling was entirely consistent with previous rulings that expanded fundamental rights to more people.

While same sex marriages are not common throughout history, there is also a great deal of precedent for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Including in North America:
In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley.[43]

So, your understanding of history is wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong.

I'd by ROFL if it wasn't for your rather frightening thought about the Constitution being whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  The Court's decision in any case may rise to the level of a binding precedent, but that doesn't mean they got it right.  Five (5) Justices wanted to expand a right and they did it, but just because "rights" have been "expanded" in the past does not mean (A) that this is valid in the present case or (B) that their conclusion was not a willful act of Judicial Legislating.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

ah, you're making the wrong comparison. the result isn't, for the most part, gonna be "gay parents instead of straight parents", it's "gay parents instead of no parents".

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utter nonsense.  This is just a way for Republicans to lie how they can oppose this ruling and still say they are 'for the Constitution.' (and you're not!)

The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  They occasionally make bad decisions that get overturned, but this ruling was entirely consistent with previous rulings that expanded fundamental rights to more people.

While same sex marriages are not common throughout history, there is also a great deal of precedent for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Including in North America:
In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley.[43]

So, your understanding of history is wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong.

I'd by ROFL if it wasn't for your rather frightening thought about the Constitution being whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  The Court's decision in any case may rise to the level of a binding precedent, but that doesn't mean they got it right.  Five (5) Justices wanted to expand a right and they did it, but just because "rights" have been "expanded" in the past does not mean (A) that this is valid in the present case or (B) that their conclusion was not a willful act of Judicial Legislating.

As a practical matter, the Constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it means, be it right or wrong, and what would be even more frightening, is if the final arbiter were say Congress, since that essentially would make the Constitution a dead letter really. You need a neutral third party to adjudicate when Congress goes too far, rather than the entity itself that arguably is going too far. That really makes a mockery of justice.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utter nonsense.  This is just a way for Republicans to lie how they can oppose this ruling and still say they are 'for the Constitution.' (and you're not!)

The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  They occasionally make bad decisions that get overturned, but this ruling was entirely consistent with previous rulings that expanded fundamental rights to more people.

While same sex marriages are not common throughout history, there is also a great deal of precedent for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Including in North America:
In North America, among the Native Americans societies, same-sex unions have taken place with persons known as Two-Spirit types. These are individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes. "In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with utmost respect and acceptance," according to anthropologist Brian Gilley.[43]

So, your understanding of history is wrong and your understanding of the law is wrong.

I'd by ROFL if it wasn't for your rather frightening thought about the Constitution being whatever the Supreme Court says it is.  The Court's decision in any case may rise to the level of a binding precedent, but that doesn't mean they got it right.  Five (5) Justices wanted to expand a right and they did it, but just because "rights" have been "expanded" in the past does not mean (A) that this is valid in the present case or (B) that their conclusion was not a willful act of Judicial Legislating.

The first part has already been addressed. "Jucicial legislating' 'judicial resraint' and 'activist courts' are all meaningless phrases.   Practically everybody, probably even me, is for judicial activism when the court issues a ruling they agree with and practically everybody is for 'judicial restraint' when the court issues a ruling they disagree with.

There are very rare cases, such as Bush V. Gore where the court made a ruling that they themselves conceded had no basis in law, that are genuine judicial activism, but by and large the Constitution is vague enough that those who agree and those who disagree with practically any ruling can both make  at least a semi legitimate case that the ruling is both 'judicial activism' and 'judicial restraint'

So, were left with point one, that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court of the day says it means.

So, phrases like 'judicial activism' and 'judicial restraint' just make me roll my eyes, and, while I can only speak for myself, I suspect a lot of people here react in the same way.

I can't find the exact quote, but during the early part of our Constitutional repatriation fight in the early 1980s The Premier of Manitoba Sterling Lyon famously (famous at the time anyway) said to Prime Minister Trudeau in private after Trudeau told him a platitude in support of his Constitutional package, "Cut that crap out, that sort of thing sways some in the public, by I'm a lawyer and platitudes like that mean nothing to me."

I'm not a lawyer but I share his sentiments.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

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.

ah, you're making the wrong comparison. the result isn't, for the most part, gonna be "gay parents instead of straight parents", it's "gay parents instead of no parents".

The underlined portion is nonsense.  There are no lack of heterosexual married couples wanting to adopt a child.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

ah, you're making the wrong comparison. the result isn't, for the most part, gonna be "gay parents instead of straight parents", it's "gay parents instead of no parents".

The underlined portion is nonsense.  There are no lack of heterosexual married couples wanting to adopt a child.

there absolutely is a lack of couples wanting to adopt children.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and that's just american children - worldwide there are over 150 million orphans. don't try to claim there's no problem here, please.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There may be no shortage wanting to adopt, but the numbers of those who are deemed to be qualified to adopt a child, especially a foster child, are much lower.