| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
How would you solve this issue (not issuing licenses is not an option)? Actually, not issuing licenses IS the answer. The government getting out of the marriage business entirely solves all of these problems. This was pointed about 2 1/2 years ago in another discussion. | ||
| 86129squids |
Very good discussion, all... "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." Tell me if I'm wrong (  ), but we seem to be having a good discussion, hopefully amicable. Tom, I only wish you and yours well, and happy trails and all that... geez! To be clear, I don't "condone" anything- I'm only observing things as they develop. Per her job description, Davis was out of line after the SCOTUS decision- if I understand it correctly, we're now down to whether the licenses are legal without her signature. Yes, there are all the other counties in KY that seem to be in compliance- that matters not. In Texas, things have developed so that women choosing (OR needing) an abortion must effectively spend 3 days driving out and back to seek one- would that be fair? Seems to be the same argument. It's beginning to look like semantics is at the root of the problem. "Marriage" versus "Civil Union"... at the end of the road, I argue that folks, regardless of gender preference, that invest their time, energy, love, and resources with each other, often involving children in the equation, should have protection under the law as regards to property, inheritance, custody, end-of-life decisions, and so on. "Marriage", Civil Union"... heck, I'm up for the common law thing with my love as I type this. If we could figure out how to work with both terms, and make it work for those involved, we'd be getting ahead. It's just that the word "Marriage" is SO loaded, and "civil union" is not. Both should just be functional, leave the pomp and circumstance for the party. | ||
| 86129squids |
"She treated the gay couples no differently than the straight couples." She denied them marriage licenses. "She is not taking any action against anyone." Wrong. She had to take action, she took negative action, against the ruling of the SCOTUS. Here's hoping we can hash all this out. Funny, but on 9/8/2015, we're still arguing, and causing harm, about things decreed by someone aeons ago. I think John Lennon got it right a little while back with his songwriting. Next. | ||
| Aesquire |
she took negative action, against the ruling of the SCOTUS. Well, the ruling of the SCOTUS has often DESERVED resistance. Dred-Scott, the Declaration by Justice Roberts that the tax the President and just about his entire Party insisted was Not A Tax, was indeed a tax, putting it in very polite terms that they were lying....and screwing us with Obamacare. Actually about half the SCOTUS rulings are wrong, IMHO. We may disagree with which ones, but I bet our percentage of dissatisfaction is close. Negative action? Didn't issue marriage licenses to anyone until the issue from her point of view, was resolved? As stated ad nauseam, I don't agree with her. But she didn't turn dogs loose on the gays who came before her. She didn't hunt them down and burn crosses on their lawns. She did refuse to do them a service she was supposed to. For some religious reason. Not the Current Favorite Religious Reason to deny service. So the feces hit the rotary impeller unit. So, can Gays get married in her county now? Btw, I hear she's out of jail. Her fans cheered, her enemies Booed. So how about wedding cake bakers?  | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Doesn't she remind you of that female heli pilot in avatar who refused to fire upon the Tree of Souls? | ||
| Blake |
Robertl, >>> About 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher. Seems all kind of pointless actually. That's a common myth/misunderstanding. The total marriage-divorce rate is around 50%. The divorce rate for first time marriages is about 30%. That means that 70% of first marriages stay intact. So it's not so bad as people think. | ||
| Blake |
Bill, >>> She should either do it (violate her religion and become party to unrepentant sin) or quit. Would you have advised the same of Rosa Parks, that she either sit in the back or not ride the bus? What is being lost in this discussion is that a single lawyer party to five pushed this fiasco upon our nation. The unprecedented excoriation a from all four dissenting justices ought not be so quickly dismissed in favor of majority. Read them. There is nothing on the constitution that gives the federal govt purview over marriage. Nothing. The law of the state in which Ms. Davis works was that marriage was the union of man and woman. Judicial tyranny is no different than any other. It's bewildering how some are so willing to acquiesce to it. It's not how our Constitution is supposed to work. Legislation comes from congress, not the courts. | ||
| Blake |
Steve, Was that requirement mandated only after having been elected and worked the job for years, or did she know about it in advance? It's not fair to overlook that part of the issue, is it? Also, does state law conflict with that mandate? | ||
| Blake |
There is precedent to guide in cases where exercise of religious faith conflicts with civil law. No unalienable rights may be violated. What happens when the court is the one violating unalienable rights and the clear intent of the Constitution? | ||
| Blake |
Sifo, Remember the wedding photographers too. | ||
| Blake |
Critical to the issue... Have you read the dissenting opinions by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito? If not, and you're just dutifully obeying every SCOTUS decision and edict, are you really true to the Constitution and your duty as a patriotic American? Should Lincoln have been thrown in prison for his Emancipation Proclamation? It was a direct violation of the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision. Do you think that the SCOTUS has the right to act as legislator and dictator to America, that whatever they say must be obeyed? They do not. Read the dissenting opinions by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. They are unprecedented in their absolute excoriation of the majority opinion as blatant unconstitutional judicial activism. This article encapsulates the issue: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/j-matt-barber/judges -gone-wild-america-now-living-under-counter-consti tutional | ||
| Sifo |
"She treated the gay couples no differently than the straight couples." She denied them marriage licenses. "She is not taking any action against anyone." Wrong. She had to take action, she took negative action, against the ruling of the SCOTUS. Here's hoping we can hash all this out. Funny, but on 9/8/2015, we're still arguing, and causing harm, about things decreed by someone aeons ago. I think John Lennon got it right a little while back with his songwriting. Next. Brad, It looks like I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what is going on in this case, despite repeating it numerous times here, and being in many articles in the news. I guess this happens when people place an agenda in front of the facts. She did indeed treat gay couples exactly as she treated straight couples. She stopped providing marriage licenses to anyone back in June because of the court ruling. She has asked both the Governor and the legislature to address this issue, and they have failed to provide a lawful solution. She has done everything in her power to find a lawful resolution to this purely political crisis. As for the court forcing her to issue licenses against her will, I have a question for you. How legal is any document that has been signed under clear duress? You simply can't do that and have an enforceable contract under the law. The court's ruling goes against an incomprehensible mountain of prior precedence on this matter. The clerks office continuing to provided licenses with her signature stamped on them while she is under duress of this court order can not be considered valid. I get the feeling that you are not much of a religious person. That's fine with me. When you blame this situation on religious bigotry though, you are way off base. The bigotry displayed here is bigotry against someones faith. Feel free to point out some actual fact that points to actual bigotry on the part of the county clerk. She has done everything in her power to avoid that, and I am unaware of any statements on her part that could be taken as bigotry. Feel free to prove me wrong. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
This is being made so much more complex than it should be. If your job is to issue government documents to all legally eligible citizens who apply for said documents, then your opinion about said citizens has no bearing on your ability to do your job. If you decide that you will not do your job based on your opinions, then you must vacate your position because you are refusing to do it. If you refuse to do either, then the court gets involved. It's really that simple. What surprises me is how easily people support this individual's choice to deny others their civil rights simply because they disagree with it. Anyone can disagree with it, but if your job is to uphold the laws and you decide you will not, then you should remove yourself from your position of power because you have proven your inability to be fair and just to all. The irony is that this individual proclaims to be Christian while displaying very un-Christian-like behavior, with her supporters focusing on her being an "oppressed Christian" while ignoring her role as a Christian oppressor. It's almost frightening how people jump to her defense based on her being "Christian", especially considering someone in her position acting the same way she is, but of any other religion, would not get the support of a single one of her current "Christian" supporters. I guess a "Christian double-standard" is acceptable to most Christians. | ||
| Sifo |
RBJ, I'm willing to bet that you are unaware of the fact that she had done everything in her power to get either the KY Governor, or the KY legislature change the KY law so that she wouldn't be in this position. That is anything but someone who is trying to force her beliefs on anyone else. You call her an oppressor. I call BS. The facts simply don't support your claims. Why should she vacate her lawfully elected position simply because a court says she must now violate her convictions as part of her job? So now we have a religious litmus test for the position of county clerk? Please explain how that is somehow Constitutional. Sadly, your entire post falls flat given the actual facts of her actions. I don't know if that stems from ignorance or bigotry on your part, but is surely isn't based upon known facts. | ||
| 86129squids |
"I'm willing to bet that you are unaware of the fact that she had done everything in her power to get either the KY Governor, or the KY legislature change the KY law so that she wouldn't be in this position. That is anything but someone who is trying to force her beliefs on anyone else. You call her an oppressor. I call BS. The facts simply don't support your claims." Tom, I've not been following it that close- wasn't aware of that. Also a good point about legal contracts signed under duress. She did just cease issuing all licenses to anyone. I concede all these. FWIW, no, I'm not religious, but very spiritual... raised Baptist, with an older sis who's spent her life in service of the church, a hospital chaplain for 21 years... with much thought and time, I've become agnostic. I do pray often, and in this case I pray for a proper resolution for all parties. Of course that just demonstrates my naivete... oh well. | ||
| Aesquire |
I ask again. If you have an opinion on this case based on your attitude towards her cause? If your attitude was the opposite would your opinion change? No need to respond. Just something to think about. If her "crime" had been refusing to issue event permits to anyone, because the Supremes had ordered event permits for a group, because in her opinion that group was a hate group?????? ( a thing that would be a monopoly, unlike this case where you can drive 30 minutes to get a license in another county ) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I was right there with you RBR until I got more facts about the case. She is a clerk serving the state, and is an elected official who's official rule is to enforce state laws. Kentucky still has a (ill conceived and unjust if you ask me, but my opinion is neither here nor there) state law declaring that same sex marriage certificates should not be issued. So the supreme court has declared a Kentucky law illegal, but this Kentucky clerk's oath of office is to uphold Kentucky state law. That's already a big enough mess. But now throw in that all powers not specifically declared in the constitution are reserved for the states. So part of the role of a state official is to actively fight federal overreach. Which, by nature of it being federal, can originate from an out of control and activist federal judicial system just as much as it could originate from an out of control federal police force or lawmaking body. So that makes it even messier. There was no perfect answer to the situation. She could have violated her state oath and upheld the federal supreme court decision, but to do that, she has to interpret both state law and the supreme court ruling and violate her state oath of office. She could have said she is following the letter of state law and ignored the federal court ruling and only issued licenses to heterosexual couples. She (as far as I can tell) went somewhere in between, and decided not to issue licenses to anyone until the conflict between state law and federal supreme court rulings was resolved at the state legislative level. There were some "clean" fixes here... 1) Country clerk is an elected position. She could have been able to do what she thinks is right, whatever she as the elected official thinks that is, and she could be recalled the voters, not voted back into office if she runs again, or re-elected because she did what the people elected her to do in a tough situation. In other words, the voters decide. In the meantime, gay couples were inconvenienced by needing to drive a little further to get a certificate in an adjoining county, but they weren't completely deprived of their rights the federal supreme court declared they had. 2) The Kentucky Governor and / or Kentucky state legislature could have quickly repealed or amended Kentucky state law prohibiting gay marriage certificates, thus removing the conflict between federal supreme court decisions and Kentucky state law, and let her get on with her business of enforcing the laws of the state. Once that conflict has been removed ,we are closer to the 'do your job or quit' scenario that I also originally thought was the case here. 3) An individual with standing could have challenged her actions in state court, and the state court could have spoken on what she should or shouldn't do and what they can do about what she did or didn't do. That's still a bit of a mess, but at least it's all within the state that this clerk has an oath of office to serve. The media hasn't been helping here, in their zeal to not let facts get in the way of a good story, and by good story I mean a story that advances an agenda important to them. As a person who personally supports the rights of same sex couples to establish a union in the eyes of the government, I wish the media would do a better job. Lying to do the right thing is a bad way to do the right thing. Put the hard questions and hard issue out on the table and grind through them. Don't shortcut things. | ||
| 86129squids |
Well put, Reep. My sis, the chaplain, has her stance on gay marriage/civil unions/homosexuality, but she's very tolerant and sensible... she's doing a perpetual facepalm about the whole circus. As am I. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Sifo, you are suffering from the same jaundiced-eye world view shared by many Christians- the inability to see that your chosen belief set is not the only one, is not the only "truth", and does not apply to everyone. It is harder to do for some than others, but you must be able to accept that the outside world does not become subordinate to the chosen belief of any individual- especially those in a position of power. Those in positions of power (like elected officials) are free to have their own beliefs, but cannot let them interfere with the correct implementation of their jobs. Not all constituents are Christians, so it is improper for an official to only sanction conduct acceptable to their own opinions when they are legally bound to acknowledge the legal actions of those with beliefs different from their own. Acting (or failing to act) to the detriment of others for no other reason than your own mythology when your job requires you otherwise is wrong. Again, I see the defense of this particular woman being based more on the fact that she's "Christian" instead of grasping the crux of what's really happening- withholding civil rights from people with whom you disagree. The litmus test is this: if this public servant refused to issue licenses to legally eligible citizens because she was Hindu, Taoist, Pagan, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish, Bahá'í, Islamic or any other one of those religions, you (Sifo), would not offer her an ounce of support. Furthermore, I would daresay that the same folks with the superfluous support of this "Christian" woman would be the first to denounce the exact same actions if taken by anyone outside the Christian faith. That's the double standard. Sifo, sometimes the hardest thing to do is recognize your own ignorance and bigotry, especially when it is interwoven into and unashamedly endorsed by the mythology you've chosen to believe. This woman can believe anything she wants, but it is wrong to think that her convictions trump other's lives when the job she holds requires a non-judgmental, even-handed, fair application of the law to everyone. If she is unwilling to do so, the "Christian" thing to do is resign and find a job she's more suited for. I believe you have the ability to grasp this, Sifo- you just have to be willing to look beyond your own preconceived boundaries. | ||
| Reepicheep |
RBJ, what if Kentucky state law said Hindu's can't be married in Kentucky? Which law should the state employee follow? The one that says Hindu's can't be married, or should she be interpreting that state law, holding it up to a parallel but not directly related federal supreme court ruling, and ignoring an explict state law to do what she thinks is right? I'm not saying she made the right decision. I'm saying what she did and what the media (and federal judge) says she should do is another imperfect solution to a direct and unresolved conflict between federal and state law. I think she should have done what the other clerks did, which is read the writing on the wall, do the popular and easy thing, and done the thing that is probably the most "right" in my own mind, and just granted the certificates. But interestingly, to come to that conclusion, I have to do exactly the thing you are accusing Sifo is, which is ignore laws to do the thing I think is morally right (which is to allow government recognition of same sex unions). It goes down sideways with me though, as everyone doing their own thing for their own moral reasons without regard for the rule of law is anarchy, and this wasn't a case where anyone was in danger of life, limb, or the loss of more than 80 minutes of liberty (the time to drive to a clerk that will give them the certificate). I blame the Kentucky voters first, a majority of whom passed a law forbidding same sex marriage. I blame the Kentucky Governor second, who should as the state executive done something executivey and leadershipy and given this clerk cover to legally resolve the conflict between state and federal law, or taken the heat of deciding he was going to fight back against federal overreach on behalf of a state that had a majority pass a law that contradicted the federal judicial mandate. After that, I blame the Kentucky legislators that should have done the same thing. After that, I would blame the state courts, who should have addressed the issue (which while not completely resolving the will of the people versus the will of the judiciary question, it at least resolves the state versus federal headaches). After that I'd blame the clerk. Funny how she is the only one that did jail time. (Message edited by reepicheep on September 09, 2015) (Message edited by reepicheep on September 09, 2015) | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Reep, by her simply announcing that she does not know how to properly enforce both state and federal laws at the same time by doing her job, then asking for guidance would have resulted in a totally different situation. What she chose to do is vociferously embroil herself in a "religious freedom" campaign, so you get what we have here now. The showdown was easily avoidable... unless your real goal was a religion-based media standoff to prove "who's right and who's wrong" when it comes to personal mythology. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Didn't she do that by refusing to issue *any* marriage certificates? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Imagine the news coverage of a clerk in KY being interviewed about her inability to properly do her job because the state law says one thing and the federal law says something else. I'd personally be interested to see the ins-and-outs of solving the interesting issue, but it wouldn't be headline material I don't think. But what did we get? A clerk in KY who never mentions the conflicting laws, rather, that as a "Christian" she is unwilling to issue license certificates to same-sex couples because it's against her religion. See the difference? The state/federal law conflict escalated into a religious freedom controversy simply because that's the path this woman wanted it to go. It was un-warranted, unneeded, and most likely a calculated means to an end. This is why I am surprised that intelligent people support this woman. | ||
| Reepicheep |
If that was her motivation, she is wrong (according to my current moral world view, that differs from the moral world view of everyone else) But do you really trust the media to correctly represent her views and reasons? You say yourself, that without that narrative, there is no story here. So even absent a burning desire to effect social change (which seems to be the motivation of this generation of journalists), there was a financial and career motivation for the media to paint an inflammatory narrative. I'm not trying to be arbitrarily argumentative, though I realize it sure sounds like I am, I'm just trying to plumb all the different factors here So lets say that was her motivation... Now we are into the category of "personal beliefs interfere with a specific job duty". The general approach to that problem is for the employer to accommodate if possible, the employee to accommodate if possible, the employee to leave if that all fails, and the employer to fire with cause if that fails. What we got instead here was a personal attack by a federal judge to insert themselves into the proceeding and jail this woman indefinitely (though he gave up after 10 days). Not to make this political, but Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton have all but confessed to doing much worse things, and they are walking the street. This was a witch hunt, not an attempt to solve a problem. Weren't the couple that were refused a license not even from Kentucky? Weren't they from Ohio, and they chose to drive to Kentucky and seek a Kentucky license even though neither were residents of her county, just to provoke a conflict? Your only mistake is that you are assuming Christianity is a "religion" (which it is) but that homosexuality or liberalism or love of nascar or love of Buells or anything else isn't also some kind of moral and belief system that is a religion too. It's simply a combination of moral beliefs, aesthetics, and life experiences that make people decide what is right and what is wrong (which everyone should do). (my information about the Cincinnati couple is anecdotal and not verified and from memory, I have no idea if it is true or not. It changes the facts of my proposition above, but not necessarily it's conclusion...) | ||
| Reepicheep |
(Oh, and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion RBJ, I'm trying to wrestle with what i think of this whole thing myself, and having a mature reasoned discussion about it is helpful to me) | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Mature, thoughtful, reasoned discussions are the best kind, Reep. I appreciate them as much as you. One must always be willing to view alternative perspectives- especially those at odds with your own, in order to see the issues more clearly. You have illuminated a point being missed by many- the media coverage angle. We are getting to witness the tactics and motivations being utilized by both "sides" in this standoff. The important lesson to learn, in my opinion, is how both camps operate in the same manner- only the message is changed. Interesting how identical behavior, perpetrated by individuals delivering a message different from your own, is worthy of scorn, yet with your message it's glorified. I believe, with honest introspection, people can grasp the real issue at hand. If you find yourself making excuses for your own or other's opinions and behavior to defend stances against "those people", "lifestyle choices", and "equality", then you might need to try an alternative perspective if you truly want to find objectivity. If you're not interested in real objectivity, fairness, and honest discourse- there's a group in KY waiting with open arms. | ||
| 86129squids |
  I agree completely with Reep. I am generally VERY reluctant to enter into any of these debates on BW. To a person, everyone I've met through BW, or our mutual appreciation of Erik Buell's work, all have been added to my friend column in the journal of my life. I've seen plenty of these discussions go WAY south over the years... My mom taught me to love and respect everyone I meet. | ||
| 86129squids |
I must offer everyone a saying that has stuck with me over the years, and will to the day I die... "In order to teach, one must offend. In order to learn, one must be offended." That statement has served me very well over the years. I'm not offended by much of anything, but I try to learn at every opportunity given. | ||
| Sifo |
RBJ, for the record, I would not have done what the clerk in question has done. It's not my beliefs that are at issue. Your argument falls completely flat by trying to argue my beliefs which have not been stated. The litmus test is this: if this public servant refused to issue licenses to legally eligible citizens because she was Hindu, Taoist, Pagan, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jewish, Bahá'í, Islamic or any other one of those religions, you (Sifo), would not offer her an ounce of support. You can't say what I would say about those hypothetical situations. Without knowing the details, I don't know what I would say. If she is unwilling to do so, the "Christian" thing to do is resign and find a job she's more suited for. The tyranny of tolerance is an amazing thing to witness. Reep, by her simply announcing that she does not know how to properly enforce both state and federal laws at the same time by doing her job, then asking for guidance would have resulted in a totally different situation. What she chose to do is vociferously embroil herself in a "religious freedom" campaign, so you get what we have here now. The showdown was easily avoidable... unless your real goal was a religion-based media standoff to prove "who's right and who's wrong" when it comes to personal mythology. And this is where you go completely wrong on the facts of the case. She did as the Governor and the state senate to step in and find a solution. What you see happening is exactly what she got. Do you still blame the clerk? According to your statement above, she did the exact thing that you say should have resulted in a workable solution. Imagine the news coverage of a clerk in KY being interviewed about her inability to properly do her job because the state law says one thing and the federal law says something else. I'd personally be interested to see the ins-and-outs of solving the interesting issue, but it wouldn't be headline material I don't think. But what did we get? A clerk in KY who never mentions the conflicting laws, rather, that as a "Christian" she is unwilling to issue license certificates to same-sex couples because it's against her religion. See the difference? The state/federal law conflict escalated into a religious freedom controversy simply because that's the path this woman wanted it to go. It was un-warranted, unneeded, and most likely a calculated means to an end. This is why I am surprised that intelligent people support this woman. Again, given the info I just mentioned, do you still blame the clerk? Is it not enough to point out the conflict between the court order and her first amendment rights? That is the exact point where she got into a bind, after the executive and legislative branch of the KY govt. failed to resolve anything. Why do you seem so hostile to the first amendment rights of people of faith? That seems to be a running theme of your posts. You have illuminated a point being missed by many- the media coverage angle. We are getting to witness the tactics and motivations being utilized by both "sides" in this standoff. The important lesson to learn, in my opinion, is how both camps operate in the same manner- only the message is changed. The media isn't an angle lost on me. I find it kind of disturbing that a number of folks who have strong opinions on this matter seem to be lacking in the basic facts of what transpired. Is this a fault in media, or the fault of the consumer. I don't know. I do know that I repeatedly have to state basic facts, such as the fact that she looked for resolution from her own state government. Then the next person steps up to the plate claiming that she should have looked for an alternate resolution first, or claiming that she was only refusing gays. Who's at fault for this? | ||
| Robertl |
I would agree, this did not have to be about religion. She chose to take that path and it really blew up. Media didn't help. It is unfortunate that many likely saw this coming but no one does anything about it until after the circus. Speed of the govt. Blake's numbers on divorce were likely more accurate than mine. I merely meant much of the reasoning for the marriage license is to provide some protection during divorce. We've seen in the media what a mess some divorces can be. Plus if people are allowed to marry and adopt children then there should be some protection for the children if there is a divorce/split. I believe someone told me the 2 guys specifically went to this office because the clerk stopped issuing licenses. It definitely appears to be a witch hunt so for that part I do not agree. Wow do people and the media love to create drama and watch it. I do not believe the judge specifically wanted to put her in jail, as he did give her a few options. He only jailed her long enough for the licenses to be processed again and then she was released. There is often a few day waiting period for marriage licenses which increased the time before release (just guessing on this one). Interesting theory on whether the licenses are valid but the only time that really comes up is in divorce and unlikely a judge would rule against one. People are natural followers. First, I am not saying anyone was a criminal but rather this shows how people will join in the fight even if it isn't their fight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theor y There were some really harsh words during the protests. When I have attended church services, I don't recall them encouraging this type of behavior, even when one or the church disagrees with something. Squids, the only thing I every really remember my mom teaching me as a kid was the Golden Rule and I would say Scouting seemed to follow similar guidelines. I'd still buy each of you a beer but we'll talk about the weather or buells. |
