Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples

[bonnie]

 

Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

y 

 

9/5/2015 4:33pm PD"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who himself is openly gay.

Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, is speaking out in defense of the county clerk in Kentucky who was recently jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

Ciccone, who is openly gay, posted a message to Facebook on Friday in which he said that Kim Davis should be granted the right deny the licenses, with Ciccone citing her "religious freedom."
 

 

"The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man's approval," he wrote. 

Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

Ciccone began his entertainment career as one of Madonna's backup dancers before moving on to direct music videos for such stars as Dolly Parton.

 

 

The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval.....perspective is everything.....this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law.....but why should she....when DOJ and other civil authories don't follow federal law when they choose not to.....i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of "sanctuary cities".....i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches.......these things aside....this is why we have elections.....if the folks of this county in Kentucy don't want her as the county clerk....then don't have to vote for her.....that is how a democracy works....not to mention the courts.

In the mean time.....since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?.......can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i'm not mistaken, it's in the constitution.....something about religious freedom or something......selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy....freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?...or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.

Email: Ryan.Gajewski@THR.com

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following quote misunderstands the issues involved.

1)  The DOJ and other civil authorities are not required to prosecute every alleged violation of the law.   They never have unlimited resources.  They are allowed to determine what they prosecute based in part upon their resources.  In addition, they are allowed to factor in the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.  If they determine that it is not likely that a jury will convict, they are not required to prosecute.  So, if they believe that a Colorado jury would not convict a person of a violation of a Federal POT law, they are not required to    prosecute.

2)  Decisions as to the prosecution of Federal laws are made by Federal authorities.  Decisions as to prosecute under State law are made by State authorities.

3) Colorado has passed laws that legalize POT in regard to State laws.  Those laws do not legalize POT as related to Federal law.  There is no requirement that Colorado law prohibit POT in the same manner that Federal law prohibits it.  IOW, Colorado law may allow POT where Federal law does not.  In this case, one could be prosecuted under Federal law, but not Colorado law.    

NOTE:  Yes, I am aware that in  some situations Colorado law could not prohibit what Federal law allowed.

 

Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."

 

[bonnie]

The following quote misunderstands the issues involved.

1)  The DOJ and other civil authorities are not required to prosecute every alleged violation of the law.   They never have unlimited resources.  They are allowed to determine what they prosecute based in part upon their resources.  In addition, they are allowed to factor in the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.  If they determine that it is not likely that a jury will convict, they are not required to prosecute.  So, if they believe that a Colorado jury would not convict a person of a violation of a Federal POT law, they are not required to    prosecute.

I don't think it was only pot he was referring to. It is that accommodations are routinely made for other