| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Why should someone have to drive to another county to perform the same government business that you can perform in the county you live in? But all were being treated equally in this county. I'm sorry if you may have to drive farther than someone else, but that's where you CHOOSE to live, right? It's not like they come to you. Different people drive different distances for all sorts of services. There was no discrimination here. | ||
| Aesquire |
Yes, I'm going to reference a Sophocles play to address a modern problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigone_(Sophocles_play) Themes Civil disobedience A well established theme in Antigone is the right of the individual to reject society's infringement on her freedom to perform a personal obligation. Antigone's comments to Ismene regarding Creon's edict, "He has no right to keep me from my own." Related to this theme is the question whether Antigone's will to bury her brother is based on rational thought or instinct, a debate whose contributors include Goethe. The contrasting views of Creon and Antigone with regard to laws higher than those of state inform their different conclusions about civil disobedience. Creon demands obedience to the law above all else, right or wrong. He says that "there is nothing worse than disobedience to authority" (An. 671). Antigone responds with the idea that state law is not absolute, and that it can be broken in civil disobedience in extreme cases, such as honoring the gods, whose rule and authority outweigh Creon's. Or if that's too heavy for you..... While the stand this Ky County Clerk made is certainly not the stand I would make, she has followed the dictates of her conscience. Even if I think she's a loon. My immediate emotional reaction to the loon was not kind to her. Yet I still think that there are cases where non-violent civil disobedience is the right thing to do. Not quit, not fold, but fight. Alfau. Goats are years off. Yes, there have been lawsuits from people who desperately want to marry their goat, I don't think even America is quite ready for that. Group marriage, however, is only a few months away. So Finally I will legally be able to marry Donna & Jackie from "That 70's Show". If I were rich, lived in Hollywood, much younger, far more handsome, and the ladies weren't already married. And I had hypno powers.  | ||
| Ourdee |
A Right does not require a license. Did I say that out loud? | ||
| Aesquire |
Some things have to be put in context. Why do we have marriage licenses? So that racist Democrats could keep Negros from marrying their lily white daughters. Really that simple. In the century or so that followed, marriage, as a legal institution, has accrued many legal and monetary benefits. If Sifo's link is correct, http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civi lmarriage.htm That would explain why the President lied through his teeth about supporting Civil Unions, doing nothing to make them happen. No big surprise, then. As a protest against government over reach into our lives, the KY County Clerk has IMHO miss judged the Power she was facing. Again, not the Cause I would have picked. Any cause I pick would have deep meaning to me. And then I'd be crushed under the merciless heel of a brutal, unfeeling, dishonest bureaucracy, just like she has. Kind of like my day job, come to think of it.  | ||
| Ponti1 |
Sheesh...I thought marriage licenses were just in place for an excuse to have another revenue stream, like everything else. | ||
| Aesquire |
...were just in place for an excuse to have another revenue stream... Yeah, but it's not just Money. It's control. Frankly, if I was a gay couple in that county, I'd be Royally Pi$$ed. And I'm very concerned about the whole Baker/Cake thing. Again, like Airbozo says, it's not all one sided. You have a right to refuse service to anyone. He's a jerk, you don't like his tie, his skin color, whatever, you don't need a reason. But to refuse service to a group, now that's a different story. And in America, the Feds actually Had to haul out the military to stop the racism that was happening back when I was a little kid. Not just in the South. They had to make it the Law, and it ran through the Courts more than once, that you could not refuse service to a group. Specifically on the grounds of race/ethnicity. Forced desegregation was not universally popular. Now we have a ruling about gays, in a time where there is still hatred and beatings and murder, just because of sex. We are a very uptight culture, still, in the U.S. Then you have Government involved, and in many cases though our history they have been dead wrong and oppressive, and only occasionally enlightened and forward thinking. Maybe the bottom line is we will always have arguments about where the limits are in our rules for dealing with other people. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I still don't see why the couple just doesn't go to another county or state. Do they really want to get married or they only want to get married in that county...(with a certificate approved by that woman that no one seems to like) Seems strange to me. But I do not see this issue as deep as others. I want my mtv. | ||
| Sifo |
And now they go after a Judge because he won't perform marriage ceremonies for anyone. Again, there is no unequal treatment of people by this Judge. This is the kind of unrelenting witch hunt tactic that I really despise from liberals. It just simply NEVER ends. How long before they go after Priests, then whole churches? Anyone who doesn't conform to their sense of morality must be destroyed. We've now seen it with a county clerk, a Judge, bakeries, restaurants and florists that I know of just off the top of my head. All are being told that they must be forced to participate in a ceremony that they find objectionable for religious reasons. I sure hope none of you who this this crap is OK bothers to complain when you find your rights trampled. Perhaps a Trump Presidency is exactly what you need. I have no doubt he will trample on peoples rights. I just won't be quite as offended by those who's rights are being trampled then. Maybe. It's hard to tell with Trump. Embrace the tyranny! Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages | ||
| Alchemy |
"In the century or so that followed, marriage, as a legal institution, has accrued many legal and monetary benefits. " So should a small Gov't conservative be in support of marriage licenses in ANY form? Seems a simple conservative solution is to cease issuing "licenses" all together. It is not a big revenue source and any thoughtful person would have to wonder why a country founded on religious freedom would need to get involved with a religious sacrament. Just let the Churches manage their own sacraments. No need to inject big Government into Sacramental affairs - simple really. As for the Clerk, if she feels a moral issue is at play then it is an all or nothing issue really. Either she stands by her oath and performs all her duties or she has a moral issue and performs none of her duties. None. Then the path is clear. 1st amendment issues - Don't see any. Moral issues, yes she seems to have one but hasn't figured out what her morality asks of her. | ||
| Strokizator |
No need to inject big Government into Sacramental affairs - simple really. One word - Divorce That's when everything goes to heck. Splitting property gets messy if there is no govt record of the marriage. Used to be we married for life. | ||
| Sifo |
So should a small Gov't conservative be in support of marriage licenses in ANY form? Two of us argued that exact point over 2 years ago. Click the link and read the first three posts... http://www.badweatherbikers.com/cgibin/discus/show .cgi?tpc=4062&post=2314697#POST2314697 1st amendment issues - Don't see any. Moral issues, yes she seems to have one but hasn't figured out what her morality asks of her. Read the first amendment lately? You seem to have forgotten what it says. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Government has no place in marriage. This weekend we had the Black Gay Pride Festival in atlanta. Let that sink in for just a minute. My apprentice dispatcher, a butch lesbian, told me she has been to this event in the past and was shunned for being white. She also tells me that most lesbians can't stand gay men. Case in point, I have a team in one of my long haul trucks that happens to be a gay male couple, and she hates dealing with either of them because they have "too much drama going on." I thought gays wanted to be accepted, but apparently they can't even accept each other. I have to do a lot of extra praying now because of these people. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423548/liber als-hypocrisy-rule-of-law http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423579/kim-d avis-jail-supreme-court-lawless Biased editorials. Pwnzor, the Gal community and the Guy community mostly interact at the Club Scene. I used to live down the hall from a couple of girls, and they'd take me out dancing fairly often. ( Being not a big drinking man makes me popular for DD duty, to be fair ) To this day, most of my "gay" friends are girls, and almost all are in committed relationships. I could give you a sarcastic opinion as to why, male stereotypes being magnified in gay culture.. but it's not relevant to the thread. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423632/first- clerk-now-judge-oregon-jurist-under-investigation- refusing-perform-same-sex | ||
| 86129squids |
"I thought gays wanted to be accepted, but apparently they can't even accept each other. I have to do a lot of extra praying now because of these people." I would offer that the drama between any committed couple, straight/gay/trans, even a few polygamous sets (I've known some), would have little to no relevance to sexuality. EVERYONE has drama with the ones they love... heck, I'm in a redneck/Dominican relationship- she's gone over the hill to Cherokee for the afternoon, no drama, just me and the doggies. At any rate, good on ya for praying that everyone you care for gets along well, and loves one another well. My whole take on this is the fact that the SCOTUS has finally allowed gays to bond and have that bond legally recognized- which is HUGE in its implications for children, ESPECIALLY children, shared assets, and end-of-life issues. Religious bugoutry (bigotry, started to correct that but actually it works supremely well ) BE DAMNED. I, for one, thank God for that fact. | ||
| Pwnzor |
God created everything, and it's not for me to judge individuals. That being said, I was born into mortal sin, and without daily repentance, I am lost. Take from that what you will. | ||
| Robertl |
Someone had a good option the other day which was to change the stamp or license. If it was a state license, issued by the state, without anyone's name on it (as in the clerk/processor) then maybe that would reduce the issues. Of course someone always wants to push the limits and create drama. From what I read on the licenses, it just has to be from the state in which you want to marry. As I found, you travel to another state and might run into a waiting period or have to ask a judge to override. Oddly though, online it said out of state didn't have to wait 3 days. Sad when the clerks don't even know their own rules. As I expected, they are going to turn this into a political circus. | ||
| 86129squids |
"As I expected, they are going to turn this into a political circus."   | ||
| Torquehd |
I thought gays wanted to be accepted Not merely accepted, they want to be respected and excepted. They want everyone to think it's cool that they insert things where they don't belong, and they want to have more rights than those who disagree with them. Publicly saying you disagree with them is being criminalized. If that's the logic we're going to use, publicly saying you agree with them should also be criminalized. The violation of the first amendment should be blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't wearing proglib vision. (Message edited by torquehd on September 07, 2015) | ||
| Sifo |
It's sad to see this called "religious bigotry". She has a valid religious belief that she has been jailed for following. She treated the gay couples no differently than the straight couples. It's the government that is compelling her to perform an action that she finds objectionable to her religious beliefs. She is not taking any action against anyone. How is asking her to choose between her religious beliefs, or jail not the very definition of religious bigotry? So let's expand the discussion. Currently in the news we have a Muslim flight attendant who was suspended for not wanting to serve alcohol on flights, because her religious beliefs say she should not do so. Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol Want to take a guess where the courts will come down on this one? I'll give you 2 to 1 odds that they will tell the airline that the must make reasonable accommodations. I guarantee you that they wont throw the Muslim in jail. Of course this will be the government telling a business that they can't discriminate based on her religion. Somehow it's perfectly fine for the government to be the one to discriminate against a county clerk and toss her in jail instead of finding a way to make reasonable accommodations. I'd really like to hear, do you think the airline will get off the hook on this? If not, then in what way is this different from refusing to issue marriage licenses? Kim Davis is nothing but a political prisoner, being held without bail, for the crime of following her beliefs. The government has given her the most sever punishment it can in this case, to make an example of her in an effort to prevent others from also following their beliefs. The chilling part of this is that we have people who seem to applaud this government oppression. I hope that someday you too will experience being under the thumb of government oppression. | ||
| Ourdee |
Has she been in for 10 days yet? Sometimes doing the right thing costs you. | ||
| 86129squids |
Tom- I read that piece, this lady has some corollaries to Mrs. Davis- both are fairly recent converts to their faith, and continue to learn about them... the Muslim lady's story sounds pretty sad to me, as she had a good workaround to have her co-workers serve alcohol in her place, until one of her co-workers complained. That sucks, stupid on her co-workers and the company to F that up. How is this proscription, to her beliefs, different from the Jewish proscription not to handle pork? The Bible, Talmud, Koran, (name your religious text here) ALL have do's and don'ts, GOBS of them, that if we followed to the letter according to our faith, would've led us to extinction LONG ago. Sadly the Jihaddi nuts are demonstrating exactly this- I pray for all to demonstrate tolerance, and know the futility of doing so. I still pray. It brews down to this in my eyes: Both have a job description to execute. The Muslim woman had a workaround, and *only her own responsibilities* to perform. Mrs. Davis, as THE county clerk, *could* allow her deputies to issue the offending licenses, but won't. It's a sad shitstorm in both cases, but Clerk Davis put her foot down, and won't allow a proxy. {EDIT: Reading the latest news on her situation, it looks that ALL licenses require her signature upon issuance- given the law changed during her tenure in office, the legislators REALLY should've seen this coming, and written in a way out for folks like her.} For clarity, I Wiki'ed it, Tom, "by God"- the definition is pretty much spot-on, the citation has some interesting history to it that sounds a LOT like today's news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry "I hope that someday you too will experience being under the thumb of government oppression."  Ummm, I hope you and Mary have a nice day, my friend? (Message edited by 86129squids on September 08, 2015) | ||
| Sifo |
Brad, this is different from Jews handling pork in that, to the best of my knowledge, there is nobody being jailed at the moment for refusing to handle pork. Beyond that, what's the point? Yes, the Muslim flight attendant HAD a work around. Then someone complained and the company pulled a boner, and the court will most assuredly force the company to reinstate her with full back pay. At least she isn't being jailed! The County Clerk OTOH, also has a solution. There are 119 other counties that people can go to in KY for a wedding license, until there is a better solution. As for letting her deputies issue the license, it's still her name that authorizes the union. How would you feel about the government using your name in a way that you disagreed with on a matter of religious conviction? How would you feel being jailed for not caving on your convictions? The comparison to Muslim extremist Jihadists is kind of appropriate. They too are likely to jail you for not following their brand of religious tenants, just like our government is doing. It's the very definition of religious bigotry. There is a huge difference between refusal to perform an act vs. compelling a person to perform an act. I'm glad that you see the problem with wishing government oppression on you. That is exactly what your are condoning with the county clerk. If you condone this, then yes, I wish it upon you. | ||
| Robertl |
The cases may be similar but they are not the same. Apples to oranges: state job vs private job. Kim Davis holds a state, elected office. Not only did she refuse to do her job, she wouldn't let other people in her office do theirs either. Again, a state office. The flight attendant works for a private business. In this case, she changed her beliefs after taking the job and later realized she couldn't perform her duties for which she was hired. Maybe there were some better options than suspending her but if she would only accept being a flight attendant I completely understand her being let go. If there is only 1 flight attendant on a flight, who else is going to serve the drinks? Would it not endanger the woman by putting her on a plane with 40 people and telling them no drinks because of her religion? There are a lot of very mean people out there and a plane at 20k feet is no place to be telling joe blow he can't have a drink. Again, I am not siding with either side or case, but in both situations, the people changed their religious beliefs and then decided their duties for which they were hired were against them. If the manager of a strip club decides he wants to be saved and becomes a preacher. Does the owner of the strip club have to change his business model? Doubtful. The person would find a new job more in line with his new path in life. People resist change by nature but change happens and it will continue to happen. It is impossible to please everyone. | ||
| Sifo |
The cases may be similar but they are not the same. Apples to oranges: state job vs private job. Kim Davis holds a state, elected office. Not only did she refuse to do her job, she wouldn't let other people in her office do theirs either. Again, a state office. Very true that they are not the same. Sadly, the effect of your argument is that a private business (and this is being extended to religious businesses) have no right to say no to the minority religious view, but our government has the right to overrule a person's religious beliefs. That is effectively the state enforcing their own religious tenants. Can you not see just how backwards this is regarding the 1st amendment? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
if a muslim can make and sell me bacon and porkroll on a kosher bagel.... | ||
| Airbozo |
Sifo, Allowing Ms. Davis to not issue licenses would be seen as the government support her religious beliefs which is a violation of the 1st amendment. How would you solve this issue (not issuing licenses is not an option)? | ||
| Ourdee |
The bagel would cease to be kosher. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, Allowing Ms. Davis to not issue licenses would be seen as the government support her religious beliefs which is a violation of the 1st amendment. How would you solve this issue (not issuing licenses is not an option)? So the government must violate religious beliefs to not violate religious beliefs. Got it! Can you see how insane that sounds? BTW, I understand that the clerk is being released from jail. I guess it dawned on someone that holding political prisoners isn't really well received in the US. Well by some of us anyway. | ||
| Aesquire |
I point out that Muslim cab drivers are allowed by court decision to pass up a blind man with a seeing eye dog. Or anyone with an unclean animal. How will you feel if one group is allowed to refuse service to another? Say, a cab driver not serving women. Or whites. Or Hasidic Jews? These questions are more important than some thousands of year old rules on what you do with your genitalia? What if my faith calls for me to enslave or murder you if yours is different? ( it doesn't, I'm not an obedient Islamic ) to me that is the REAL question of human rights. |
