Kentucky AG staying out of same-sex privilege issue

Aug 17, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.courierpress.com

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stacy Grieve said at a hearing Friday that Attorney General Jack Conway 's office doesn't intend to offer arguments on whether Geneva Case can invoke the "husband-wife" privilege under state law for refusing to testify at the trial of her civil-union partner, Bobbie Joe Clary.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 6 of6

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Say what? I would have loved to have heard the conversation between whoever the AG's office designated to lob this grenade back where it came from and the local yokel prosecutor finding out that he was on his own in this. CYA! CYA!

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

She should be made to testify. This is not married couple. Saying that a "civil union" is "good enough" or "the same thing" as a marriage directly contradicts what we have been saying for years before various courts.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
She should be made to testify. This is not married couple. Saying that a "civil union" is "good enough" or "the same thing" as a marriage directly contradicts what we have been saying for years before various courts.
It depends on which state's civil union certificate they're carrying around. If they got themselves a Vermont, they have the state's technical equivalent to a marriage. Even if they got one of the lesser models, if their relationship got spousal immunity as part of the package, they got themselves an interesting argument. Kentucky's AG just seriously wimped out on this.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It depends on which state's civil union certificate they're carrying around. If they got themselves a Vermont, they have the state's technical equivalent to a marriage. Even if they got one of the lesser models, if their relationship got spousal immunity as part of the package, they got themselves an interesting argument. Kentucky's AG just seriously wimped out on this.
Marriage is marriage, and anything that is not marriage is not marriage. We have been fighting for EQUAL marriage rights for many years, and something like this just undermines the effort.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
Marriage is marriage, and anything that is not marriage is not marriage. We have been fighting for EQUAL marriage rights for many years, and something like this just undermines the effort.
It does not matter in this case that their official seal of approval says "Civil Union" and not marriage. They have an official seal of approval on their relationship, which at the time it was entered into, came with state recognized spousal immunity. They have not themselves dissolved this relationship by moving to the smoking bluegrass state. What makes the "People" so confused as to believe that comity shouldn't full faith apply to these non-marriage forms of legal recognition that existed for the sole reason that they were specifically not marriages.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is marriage, and anything that is not marriage is not marriage. We have been fighting for EQUAL marriage rights for many years, and something like this just undermines the effort.
You are never very good at distinguishing between ideals and realities. Of course, we all share the goal of recognizing marriages around the entire country. But consider the practical effects of recognizing the rights of civil union partners, even in states that recognize neither civil unions nor marriages of same-sex partners.

All at once, we acquire portability of both our marriages and of our civil unions/domestic partnerships/newfangled whatchamacallits from states that will not recognize same-sex marriage any time soon.

This will provide strong incentives to pass newfangled whatchamacallits in many states that are unwilling or unable to more forward with marriage at the moment. And we have seen how effectively this stepping stone lead to the destination.

The fact is, newfangled whatchamacallits are never the end of the battle. They are merely a stopping point that allows us to acquire our rights much earlier than we would if we insist on waiting for true marriage. And familiarity with civil unions softens opposition to marriage.

Acquiescing newfangled whatchamacallits is the dirge of an opposition movement realizing they've lost the marriage battle. When it is offered, we should never snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 6 of6
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••