| Author | Message | ||
     Slaughter |
In light of the tempest in a teapot in KY:  | ||
| Hootowl |
Interesting perspective. I think if she can't do her job, she should resign. However, when she was elected to that position, issuing marriage licenses to gays was not part of the job description, so I can sympathize with her situation. My understanding is that her objection is that her name is on the license. She's asked that her name be removed from the licenses, and that has not happened for some reason. It all seems rather silly. "Tempest in a teapot". Indeed. | ||
| Aesquire |
You make a religious stand as a public servant in the United States, you are standing on your morals. Not the law. You can quit, fight, or fold. She chose to fight. She may get fired. Going to be interesting to see how it works out. If I wanted to get married to Betty and Veronica in that county I would either go for a road trip or fight, depending on how my desire was thwarted. ( I don't want to marry Archie, but I support someone who does ) Now if they were serious about the sign posted above, I would find out who made that decision and ask them if they desire martyrdom. Just happy to help. | ||
| Ratbuell |
She can't be fired. She's elected. However, she's elected to do a job. "Uphold the laws of the state", I'm sure is in there somewhere. Can't do that? Resign. WONT do that? Fines, prison, and/or impeachment. Funny how a woman on her fourth husband is now so pure and religious that God will strike her down for licensing same-sex couples. " she's a changed woman", says her lawyer. BAH. | ||
| Airbozo |
Here is the oath she signed: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oath-court-cler k-now-jailed-gay-marriage-33516278 If it spelled out specifically licenses to who she could an could not issue, she would have a case. She could fall back on the this statement: " according to the best of my skill and judgment" ...saying that her best judgement would not allow her to issue same sex licenses applicable to the laws at the time. But I am no lawyer. I do however feel that laws and regulations change all the time and that if you cannot adhere to the current laws in the daily course of your job, then find another one. | ||
| Sifo |
Seems to me that when the law is forcing your to violate your religious beliefs, there is a problem with the law. At least that is the intent of the first amendment. Perhaps the solution should be to get government out of the marriage business like it used to be. | ||
| Aesquire |
I disagree. I disagree with the County Clerk, and that you should every time just quit if some new law ( or court decision ) is, in your opinion, wrong. Example, in New York State the Governor got an unconstitutional bill passed, in the middle of the night, with no public comment, or public disclosure. Let me be clear, the Governor ruled that this law would be secret until he had his loyal minions pass it in the dark of night. His public reasoning was he did not want people legally going to purchase items he was going to make illegal. ( which is sound reasoning, but not lawful ) This law known as the SAFE act, ordered millions of New Yorkers to register their legal property, ( until the law was illegally passed ) to sell it out of state, since selling it in state was "illegal", and to give up their property, with no payment, on demand of the Governor. aka The Emperor of The Imperial State of New York. So what's the point? All over New York, Sheriffs, Deputies, Police Chiefs and Officers have refused to enforce this law, because it is against their oaths, and consciences, and they stand, quietly in most cases in a state of civil disobedience. I respect them. You see, millions, 10-15 million? Citizens have refused to comply with an Unconstitutional law. Millions of people are now declared Criminals. ( although they have right, the Constitution, and the rule of law on their side ) While I don't agree with that County Clerk, I respect her courage to stand against what she considers a bad ruling. If no one stands against bad law, bad rulings of the Ruling Class, then you get Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and every other hell hole in history where the people did not stand against what they perceive to be evil. Yes, sometimes they are slaughtered, en mass. Often, actually. Btw, she's been arrested by the Federal Government for contempt of court. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/0 9/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses -gays/71635794/ There are many other news stories. http://digg.com/2015/kim-davis-verdict-gay-marriag e-kentucky http://therightscoop.com/breaking-kentucky-county- clerk-kim-davis-arrested/ | ||
| Aesquire |
Seems to me that when the law is forcing your to violate your religious beliefs, there is a problem with the law. At least that is the intent of the first amendment. Sometimes, but not always. Take, for example, the fake poster above. Some religions make women property with no right to drive. You want to stop women from driving, as a matter of religious belief? Here we get to the age old saying, Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You want to not get a drivers license, because you are a female Obedient Muslim? Fine. You want to stop some one else from driving, Not fine. Period, end of sentence. Or, simple, I don't want to sell you a wedding cake, because you are a Nazi, and want nazi symbols on your cake, and I'll fight the lawsuits, even go to jail for my beliefs. That's MY freaking right, and if I want to take it to a ruined business and personal destitution, so be it. Screw the nazi's the court and the lawyers. If I go and destroy a wedding cake the baker down the street made for the nazis, I'm wrong, and should be prosecuted. There is a difference between assault, and passive resistance. Perhaps the solution should be to get government out of the marriage business like it used to be. Perhaps. Since Marriage licenses in this country are an artifact of the Democrat Party and it's racism, mean to stop the Negro ( and Chinaman, and Italian, and.....) from marrying their White Women, It makes sense to dump that racist bad law as we dumped the Dred Scott decision. | ||
| Sifo |
Sometimes, but not always. Take, for example, the fake poster above. Some religions make women property with no right to drive. You want to stop women from driving, as a matter of religious belief? Subtle difference in what you compared it to. When you name goes on the wedding license, you are effectively participating in that union. The DMV worker takes no part in a person driving the car, other than to acknowledge that the person has met the qualifications under the law. Sadly, the Supreme Court made this law. They will now have to figure out how to deal with these issues as they come up. It's a shame that the courts don't take this action when BO ignores court rulings. I guess some animals are more equal than others though. | ||
| Froggy |
This is the correct decision, while the First Amendment prohibits government interference with individual religious beliefs, it also prohibits the establishment of religion. By using her government position to enforce her understanding of the word of God on the people she was elected to serve, she is in fact, acting as an oppressor, and granting herself the personal authority to enforce her beliefs as the law, rather than adhering to the law. "God's moral law conflicts with my job duties," Then it is time to quit your job. If you're a teenager flipping burgers and suddenly decide to become vegan, you can't stop flipping burgers and still expect to get paid. I do agree with Sifo/Aesquire, perhaps it is time to get the gov out of marriage. | ||
| Ourdee |
Them pigs and farmers are looking more and more alike. Some states have laws about reasonable accomadation. Simply have another person step in to fill out the clerks papers while the clerk handles their job. In Indiana I worked at a foundry. It was decided to work seven days a week and my absence on Sundays was to go against my record until it reached a point that I would be fired. I told them I had to be in church. After loooking at my past overtime records and determining I did not work Sundays, and that it was not an unreasonable hardship on the company to have other willing employees take home more doubletime, I was never charged for not working Sundays. | ||
| Sifo |
Froggy, I can't disagree more with you about her refusal to participate in gay marriage, being the government imposing her religion on others. Quite the opposite, the government has just jailed her for for adhering to her religious convictions. That is as clear of a violation of the first amendment as I can imagine. This was entirely created by the government, in at least two steps. First when they got into the marriage business in the first place. That was their first step into establishing government morals in a religious ceremony. Then when they decided that they would change the definition of marriage, they took the second step in establishing government morals in a religious ceremony. It's a constitutional crisis entirely created by government encroaching where it doesn't belong and isn't needed. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, the idea that someone should be excluded from government service for their religious beliefs should also be equally appalling. It's a bit shocking to see that proposed as a solution. Sounds too much like the Baath party under Saddam for my liking. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Slaughter, this is why it would be prudent to not allow Muslim immigration. | ||
| Airbozo |
"the government has just jailed her for for adhering to her religious convictions." Tomato tomatoe. I see it as the government jailed her for refusing to do her job. I do agree there should be some other accommodation made. Have one of her deputy's names go on the license. Jesus gave everyone a way out in Mark 12:17 “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” | ||
| Aesquire |
By using her government position to enforce her understanding of the word of God on the people she was elected to serve, she is in fact, acting as an oppressor, and granting herself the personal authority to enforce her beliefs as the law, rather than adhering to the law. I understand your point. Let's take it out of current context. If she had proactively done something against a "group" because of her religious beliefs, for example, forbid others from selling a service to that group, she'd be wrong, all the way. By herself not providing that service, which also forbids her employees from doing so, ( some of whom may have been perfectly happy to sell that service ) by refusing to sign off on the decisions and actions of her employees, she's in a much more grey area. Again, I do not agree with her. I have no power over some distant bureaucrat, and may think she's a major jerk. That doesn't change my opinion of the actions of a government official that fights back against what they consider to be a kind of tyranny. You have to take it on a case by case basis. When the President decides he's just not going to enforce the law because he disagrees with it, he is not fighting the system the same way. He's usurping it, since he considers that there is no one above him to enforce the law. In the case of the current administration, there are multiple instances of Barry changing the law at whim... or just plain ignoring it. He's not the first to do so. In any event, the "leader" of the country, with full access to Congress and control of the Justice dept. is not the same as the lowly County Clerk, even if she is a ( fill in the blank ). She has the simple choice, quit, fight or fold. She can't order the Marine Corp to forbid gay marriage, or decree a law that affects others outside her tiny little sphere. She can, and has, refused to allow her office to be used for a purpose she does not agree with. If that refusal had been to not allow zoning for an Aryan Brotherhood training camp in her county, despite a Court ruling that they were allowed to preach racist hatred and train to kill all the black people, ( and similar court decisions have been made in the past, in America ) She would probably be praised by the Media, and may still have been arrested by a Federal Government, if the current one was sympathetic the The Brotherhood's view. If you think that impossible, consider the U.S. Army used to drop bombs on strikers. That's happened too. The legacy of the war crimes trials after WW2 and during Vietnam make clear that sometimes it is the Right thing to do to buck the system, not to quit and let bad things happen, not to meekly obey. Again, I disagree with the Clerk. I think this is not one of those times, but she does, and her conscience will take her, where it does. I'm certainly not ready to praise her, but I will say there are many times, and many cases, where such actions deserve praise. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I do agree with Sifo/Aesquire, perhaps it is time to get the gov out of marriage." Somewhere on this board is a fairly articulate rant I gave advocating that very position. It's probably in the gay marriage thread. | ||
| Aesquire |
She was NOT jailed for not doing her job. She was jailed for Contempt of Court. In free speech issues, the speech that needs protection is never the popular thing. It's the annoying, the offensive, sometimes the hateful. You can tell me my religion is a bogus heap of crud. I can do the same back. That's freedom, annoying as it is. No one has a right not to be offended. Jesus gave everyone a way out in Mark 12:17 Actually that's for taxes. As a revolutionary of the Religious sphere, Jesus did not want or intend to offend Rome, the secular rulers of the land. Is it too subtle? Active aggression vs. Passive resistance? Seems simple to me. Not Easy. Simple is often Hard. | ||
| Aesquire |
Somewhere on this board is a fairly articulate rant I gave advocating that very position. I remember. I may have agreed before, I don't recall, But I sure do now. And I'm still in agreement with many that there has to be a legal means of association, Marriage, partnership, whatever you want to call it, that fills in the gaps, legally, for things like children's support, property rights and hospital visitation. ( off topic, I'm annoyed that Barry has done nothing to secure such civil rights legislation. ) I'm not saying such laws would stop the "gay marriage movement" from pushing it's agenda, but it would satisfy basic moral & legal issues. | ||
| Hootowl |
This post, http://www.badweatherbikers.com/cgibin/discus/show .cgi?tpc=4062&post=2314697#POST2314697 and the next. That's all I have to say on this. | ||
| Slaughter |
What if the judge in divorce one, divorce two or divorce #3 had refused to grant her a divorce because it went against his deeply held beliefs and his decision was supported by the bible.... (his interpretation). | ||
| Thumper74 |
It may not be accepted, but I believe in the individual's right marry who they want to marry, gay, straight, bi, or transgender, as long as both parties are consenting adults. The federal government, in regards to moral authority or a religious standpoint, should have no say. "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..." You can lambaste me all you want. I'm Christian, fiscally conservative. I have 20+ guns in my safe, concealed carry permit holder, striving to own my own business, small business supporter, animal rights supporter, avid hunter, etc | ||
| Big_island_rider |
Just read this entire thread. I have to say I am glad to be part of this online community. Lively, articulate, passionate and respectful discussion. Not one person "flaming" another nor over use of CAPSLOCK. Bravo.  | ||
| Alfau |
What about the consecration of these marriages? The traditional wedding night nuptials! Where You offer your honour, They then honour your offer, needless to say, on her and off her from that moment on. Or Him whatever the case may be. On him and off him. Marrying a billygoat will be legal next, just wait. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
The trash truck only goes thru my neighborhood once a week. Why can't they just make the gay certificate's available on Wednesday's and/or Thursday's (when she is not there or when another clerk IS that will sign it) Or hire someone that will sign it? How many gay people want to get married in Kentucky every week? Is it that much of an epidemic? Tired of seeing this crap on the news. Rainbows are for sesame street. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The whole thing just depresses me. Should she have the right to follow her philosophical convictions without going to jail or loosing her job? Yes, we should try and accommodate those for people wherever practical. Should she be able to force her philosophical convictions on others? No. As others respect her positions, she should respect other's positions. Should we be attacking her personally, particularly her past, for trying to follow her current convictions, because they are inconsistent with past behavior? No. People have a right to privacy, and a right to change. Should people uphold the rule of law and do their jobs they are paid to do for the people around them? Yes. If I am a recovering alcoholic who now hates what alcohol does, I probably should quit my job as a bartender, not argue with everyone trying to order a drink. Should an immoral and unjust law be enforced? No. But without the rule of law, how do you resolve conflicting opinions on these immoral and unjust laws? Is everyone a free agent to do whatever they think? No, of course not. But when people in power do it ("I have a pen and a phone" and "I have directed that agency to not pursue violations of that law"), then why shouldn't the rest of us do it as well? Lois Lerner does this (likely as a willing accomplice of those above her, probably all the way to the White House), which may very well have changed the outcome of a presidential election, even after it's admitted and proven, walks the street. Eric Holder runs some kind of idiot and reckless program designed to create horrific situations to feed media stories to promote a gun control agenda, and people die, and he walks. Hillary Clinton runs a private server to make sure she is not subject to federal laws, and misleading the country about an ambassador who died and the brave Americans that died defending him because she didn't want to draw attention to a story that runs counter to the narrative she is trying to create, and she not only walks, she is running for president. Yet this poor clerk in Kentucky that didn't ultimately do anything but require a small number of local gay couples to possibly drive an extra 45 minutes sits in jail. Lots of hard questions with conflicting answers. And we aren't handling them well (on either the liberal or the conservative side). So the whole thing just depresses me. We need the rule of law, and we need to be incredibly judicious about what we apply it too, and we need to be incredibly aggressive about fixing it where it is broken. The result will be chaos and a lot of dead innocent (and semi-innocent) people. And I fear that is the road we are on. | ||
| Gian4 |
We are a nation of laws. If you want to see how lawless nations function look at Syria, Iraq, Russia ect. I don't agree with every law that exists in this country but for the most part I follow them. If you choose not to follow the law be ready to suffer the consequences. If you truly object to a law work to change it. Not easy but doable. This is the compromise that we make to live in a relatively safe society. In my opinion she is wrong and either should issue the licenses or resign. Gian4 | ||
| Davegess |
AS my dad and many others have said, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". She is breaking the law. Simple. Don't like the law change it. Sometimes that may involve civil disobedience but that means you go to jail. Sure the rich and powerful get away with murder. That's life. Not a perfect system but the best one we have. Me, I support the law. I'm all for gay marriage. | ||
| Robertl |
I hesitated to respond on this one but here goes. If someone does not like it, I will be happy to delete it later. Life is rather simple, we complicate it beyond water, food, and shelter. There are 2 separate topics and as usual the media blows everything out of proportion: 1. An elected official refuses to do her job and breaks a law by discriminating against others. It really doesn't matter why she didn't do her job, but she also broke a law. She could quit but why would she want to give up a $80k/yr job in a small town: Morehead, KY,sales tax rate is 6.00%. Income tax is 8.30%. The income per capita is $14,083, which includes all adults and children. The median household income is $27,277. Her choice but at the end of the day, her life changed, not for the better in my opinion and they issued licenses anyway, likely with her name on them. She could have avoided the entire thing by finding a new job and resigning. Who knows, maybe she'll end up with a job she likes better down the road. 2. (editing) How does 2 people getting married impact you directly? Not how does it impact them, but you directly. I understand people disagree about the definition of marriage. Maybe they should change the wording on the license to something different for everyone, but people would argue over that too. Someone mentioned benefits and supporting those. You could dislike parks too but your tax money goes towards that? There really is no perfect answer. I've met some very nice people that were not allowed to get married or even fired for being gay (yes that used to happen). Personally I do not see people as straight or gay, I just see people. I respect your right to disagree but there is no reason or benefit in being ugly about it. At the end of the day, none of that really matters as long as we have water, food, and shelter. I live by 1 rule, the Golden Rule, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself". I do my best to be nice to everyone, even if they are not nice to me. Drives my wife crazy but think she was well on her way down that road already before she met me.  On a side note, I grew up in Louisiana where the saying was, "get a state/govt job because if you can't do your job they will hire someone to help you". That always seems to come to mind when I see stuff like this in the news. (Message edited by robertl on September 04, 2015) (Message edited by robertl on September 04, 2015) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
She can use her vacation/sick days while jail?? #2. is a statement MANY make but it is a false statement. There is no hate here. It has "nothing" to do with not wanting them at the dinner table or liking them or sharing a public bathroom with them or sitting next to them on the train... it only has to do with redefining the definition of a word. Not just any word. WTF is so hard to understand about that? Straight folks may not approve of that lifestyle and they are not required to. Weren't there other clerks working there that could sign the gay marrage certificates?? If so, why isn't that acceptable? What difference does it make who signs it? Why HER?? Whats the problem with someone else signing it??? She needs a lawyer, she should sue. Rainbows are for children. |
