MOREHEAD, Ky. — Nearly two months after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a county clerk’s office here — in defiance of a federal court order — turned away two gay couples seeking marriage licenses on Thursday, taking a stand that has infuriated gay rights advocates but buoyed Christian conservatives who insist their religious freedoms are being violated.
Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples. Her actions come in the wake of the historic ruling in June in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, despite a direct order from Gov. Steven L. Beshear, that she do so.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
From left, Janet Smith; her 8-year-old daughter, Hannah Marie Phillips; and her wife, Donna Phillips, in Brandon, Miss.Mississippi Ban on Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples Is ChallengedAUG. 12, 2015
Rabbi Margaret Moers Wenig, an instructor at Hebrew Union College, and Obery M. Hendricks Jr., former president of Payne Theological Seminary of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Each supports marriage equality.On Religion: Push Within Religions for Gay Marriage Gets Little AttentionJULY 24, 2015
Gov. Steven L. Beshear did not offer a defense of the marriage law, which was passed in 2004.Kentucky Law Official Will Not Defend Ban on Same-Sex MarriageMARCH 4, 2014
On Wednesday, Judge David L. Bunning of the United States District Court of Eastern Kentucky, ruling in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four couples — two same-sex and two heterosexual — ordered Ms. Davis to resume issuing licenses. But lawyers for Ms. Davis immediately appealed, and Thursday morning, Ms. Davis did not show up at work.
Continue reading the main story
Struggling for Gay Equality in the South
“People are cruel, and this is wrong,” said David Ermold, 41, who with his partner, David Moore, 39, went to the clerk’s office here, where they were told that no licenses would be issued today. Roberta Early, a deputy clerk, said the matter was “still under litigation, and nothing has changed, and we still can’t issue them.”
Mr. Ermold and Mr. Moore, who have lived in Morehead for 11 years, said they had felt humiliated by their experience and by the suggestion by Ms. Davis’ staff that they could go to another Kentucky county to get a marriage license. “Telling people to go to another county is like saying, ‘We don’t want your kind of people here,’ ” Mr. Moore said.
Advocates for gay rights say Ms. Davis, a member of an Apostolic Christian church who says she attends “whenever the doors are open,” is an outlier. The vast majority of public officials are carrying out the decision — even if they disagree with it — and gays and lesbians across America are marrying largely with ease. But Morehead, a tiny city of about 6,900 people in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, is one of several pockets of resistance.
In Texas, officials on Monday agreed to list same-sex spouses on birth and death certificates after a federal judge threatened to hold the state’s attorney general in contempt of court. In Mississippi, four couples filed suit Wednesday to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex adoptions, the last such law in the nation.
In Alabama, probate judges in 13 of 67 counties are, like Ms. Davis, declining to issue marriage licenses to anyone. One, Judge Nick Williams of Washington County, has urged the state justices to issue a “landmark ruling” to defy the Supreme Court. And State Senator Greg Albritton is calling for the state to get out of the marriage license business entirely.
“We’re going to have litigation in Alabama, I am certain of it,” Mr. Albritton said, “over whether probate judges have a choice to accept or decline to issue the license and conduct the ceremony.”
In Kentucky, the A.C.L.U. suit is the nation’s first legal test, post-Obergefell, of how far a public official can go in resisting the decision. Ms. Davis is one of two county clerks — the state has 120 — who have defied Governor Beshear’s directive. Ms. Davis is also suing the governor, claiming that he violated her religious freedom. Her lawyer, Roger Gannam, says he will seek a stay of Judge Bunning’s ruling.
Experts had predicted Judge Bunning’s decision.
“Her case will go nowhere,” said Katherine Franke, an expert on sexuality law, as well as religious exemptions, at Columbia Law School, earlier this week, adding that previous cases in which public officials have sought not to perform their duties on religious grounds have ended much the same way. “She doesn’t get to pick and choose which of her duties she will perform.”
But Christian conservatives are watching closely.
“This case could be a marker of how the religious freedom aspects of same-sex marriage are going to be worked out,” said Mr. Gannam, who represents Ms. Davis on behalf of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit organization in Florida that specializes in religious exceptions cases. “Many in Christian circles believe we are only now beginning the culture wars over marriage.”
Those culture wars are playing out with vigor in Morehead and its surrounding county, Rowan, where some churches sent congregants by the busload to rally for Ms. Davis when she appeared in court. “We feel very proud of her,” said the Rev. Harley Sexton Jr. of Sharkey Freewill Baptist Church, “that she has taken a religious stand against the state.”
But Morehead is also home to Morehead State University, which gives the city a liberal streak. At a downtown coffee shop and bookstore, where organic soaps and locally made jewelry share display space with books, even patrons uncomfortable with same-sex marriage say Ms. Davis must follow the new law of the land.
“Most people believe she has the right to feel the way she does,” said Robin Mirus, a mortgage loan officer, “but when anybody in public office takes a pledge, they are obligated to do the job that they said they were going to do.”
In his ruling, Judge Bunning agreed.
“Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs,” the judge wrote. “She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk.”
Ms. Davis spent 27 years as the Rowan County deputy clerk, serving under her mother, before winning election in her own right in 2014. She declined to be interviewed, but her court testimony makes it clear that she saw the conflict coming.
As the Supreme Court was considering the Obergefell case, she testified, she emailed state lawmakers, pleading with them “to get a bill on the floor to help protect clerks who had a moral issue.” Her decision to quit issuing licenses to all couples rather than single out same-sex couples was one, she said, “that I had prayed and fasted over weekly.”
Other clerks had similar qualms, said Chris Jobe, president of the Kentucky County Clerks Association. After the Obergefell ruling, 60 clerks in Kentucky agreed to sign a petition to the governor saying they objected on religious grounds. But most, fearing they would lose their jobs, decided in the end to issue licenses.
“I’m a Christian and I firmly believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Mr. Jobe said. “But I have a family and kids. It’s been a very stressful time.”
April Miller, 54, a professor of special education at the university, said she and her partner, Karen Roberts, “were ecstatic” when the Supreme Court verdict came. The two have been together, first as friends and then as partners, for nearly two decades, and have raised Ms. Roberts’ 21-year-old daughter, who has intellectual disabilities. Then they heard that Ms. Davis was not issuing marriage licenses.
“I looked at Karen and I was like, ‘What do you mean? She can’t do this,’ ” Ms. Miller said. “I really thought when somebody started pushing it, she would fold.”
A few days later, the two left their home at the edge of the Daniel Boone National Forest, hopped into their yellow Volkswagen Beetle and drove the long winding road down to the county courthouse, expecting to get a marriage license but were refused.
The next day, Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez were refused as well. After years of referring to Ms. Fernandez as “my wife,” Mr. Holloway, said he had hoped to “make it official.” But like Ms. Miller and Ms. Roberts, they left the courthouse here empty-handed.
“I don’t want to have a gay wedding — I want to have one with Jody — but I don’t care if other people do,” said Mr. Holloway, who, along with the others, is a plaintiff in the A.C.L.U. suit.
“Our Pledge of Allegiance says, ‘With liberty and justice for all.’ She doesn’t get to decide who ‘all’ is,” Mr. Holloway said, referring to the clerk.
Reaction in the community has been mixed. A Rowan County Rights Coalition has sprung up to support the plaintiffs; its members turn up at the courthouse waving rainbow flags. But Mr. Holloway, who owns a shop that reupholsters seating, said some people had told him to drop the suit “if you know what’s good for your business.” Ms. Roberts said she got a cool reception at her hair salon, while Ms. Miller said her secretary had told her she was “praying for my soul.”
Both couples remain optimistic, and both are planning weddings. Ms. Miller and Ms. Roberts have already bought matching diamond bands.
John Mura contributed reporting from Morehead, Ky.
Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples.
Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples.
Then quit. Do your job or quit.
No no no. This person is a saint. Just think of all the lives she's saving by not permitting marriages for anyone. I think a Nobel prize is in order.
Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples.
Then quit. Do your job or quit.
Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.
A person should have some right to uphold her beliefs, that's true. But if Jesus could admit that worldly power and the divine are different things then I'd hope anyone claiming to follow him could do so too. You know, the famous "give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God" part.
if she's the only one who can do something legally binding for people she despises then maybe she should step aside or just do her duty. She doesn't have to personally approve, just do her job. Pray for the people afterwards if it really feels bad. If the government you work for allows something you see as a sin then rest assured God will handle it later.
Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.
I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
However, I don't think religion can be used as a catch-all "do whatever the hell you want", especially when that means discriminating against others.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.
I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
However, I don't think religion can be used as a catch-all "do whatever the hell you want", especially when that means discriminating against others.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, which is better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
Sorry, no. Religious belief is a choice. Holding down a job is a choice. If one conflicts with the other it is on the adherent to figure out which wins, their faith or their occupation. The religious person should not be able to arbitrarily decide which functions of their job they will do so that their occupation aligns with their chosen religion.
What's her job description? Duty and Responsibilities? Statement of Work if she union? If it says issuing marriage license then she does not have a leg to stand on nor a kickstand for an assist.
Ahtman wrote: So what is it called when you refuse to do your job, that you voluntarily entered, based entirely on religious beliefs?
As I said, I don't think she has a very good case. I can't see the right to discriminate on religious grounds being protected by anti-discrimination laws. However, I think she is entitled to a legal process to clarify that (assuming there isn't a legal precedent already in place).
I'm going to back up a bit. Has KY wrote in same sex marriage into their Marriage License Issuance? If not then she is in the right till it is put into policy to go into effect. Though a Memorandum would suffice. So far its verbal point: counter point. If its not on the books yet then she does have a leg to stand on
She's the elected Clerk of the County, which means she's not only an employee, but an elected official. That drastically limits her ability to claim exemptions due to her religion.
And as a rule, religious exemptions are allowed when they do not interfere with another's rights. So Jews and 7th Day Adventists would not work on Saturdays (but on Sundays), Sikhs can wear beards even when rules generally don't allow facial hair, that sort of thing.
What you cannot do, really in any context, is try to forbid others from doing something legal that you find a sin. (history is replete with examples of dominant religious codifying their taboos into law, but that's still a law). So Muslim Clerks must issue Liquor Licenses, Catholic cafeteria workers must serve meat during lent, etc.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If one conflicts with the other it is on the adherent to figure out which wins, their faith or their occupation.
The employer also has a responsibility to respect and not discriminate against people based on their religion, where that is reasonable. I personally agree that her demands are unreasonable and that she should be out on her ass. But it's not my decision.
Remember, this isn't my argument, it is hers. I don't want to try and defend her stupid position. I was just trying to explain why it is a little more complicated than just "do it or get out", since you claimed you didn't understand.
Thinking the Legal cost. If KY does not have guide lines for Same Sex Marriage at the moment then she's using the current wording, also she did the same to couples seeking traditional marriage. I'm trying to get her fired but if its not in the books already to issue Same Sex Marriage to those couple then its another legal battle.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If one conflicts with the other it is on the adherent to figure out which wins, their faith or their occupation.
The employer also has a responsibility to respect and not discriminate against people based on their religion, where that is reasonable. I personally agree that her demands are unreasonable and that she should be out on her ass.
Remember, this isn't my argument it is hers. I don't want to try and defend her stupid position. I was just trying to explain why it is a little more complicated than just "do it or get out", since you claimed you didn't understand.
I suspect it is further complicated by the fact that when she took the job, this conflict with her religion did not exist. Often firing a public employee is a very troublesome process.
Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples.
Then quit. Do your job or quit.
No no no. This person is a saint. Just think of all the lives she's saving by not permitting marriages for anyone. I think a Nobel prize is in order.
Canonize her this instant, I say!
Let's see what happens to you if you tell, "She who must be obeyed" your thoughts.
I just nod my head obediently whenever my queen deigns to recognize my presence.
All this hand-wringing about the 'conflict with my morals so I can't possibly do my job' is a real stretch given what they're being asked to do. You're in a local government office with the expectation of issuing licenses to people you know nothing about, yet some bleat about it like they're being expected to work in a concentration camp and bury the bodies.
Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
Smacks wrote: Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
True, but in their case those head coverings and beards don't really infringe on the rights of other people. A turbaned or bearded policeman can help the public just as well as a clean-shaven American Hero, and while you can make cases for officer safety in having no beards or long hair/head coverings that's usually not what it comes down to. Those full-face veils some people require their women to wear is a bit of a problem though, making it hard to identify people. Except the EU countries that have forbidden such probably had all of 100 women total who would have used such.
Personally, as a pasty-white Finn, I'd be delighted to have a turbaned Sikh police officer flag me in for a quick breathalyzer test or to point out to me that the speed limit is 50, not 55. And if he's being a dick about it my first thought isn't that he's doing it because he wants to inconvenience me for being white. He's just a man doing a potentially very stressful job.
CptJake wrote: Often firing a public employee is a very troublesome process.
Violating a court order is usually pretty good grounds.
She's also an elected official, not a bargaining unit employee.
So if her constituents are pissed at her behavior they should run a recall election, or ensure she is put out of office at the next general election.
On the other hand, if her constituents are happy with her actions and she gets reelected...
Wonder if they can impeach in that county?
A state or federal judge could actually charge her with contempt of court and jail her, is the more likely outcome.
Now, she's clearly making a career change into professional martyrdom. We've seen how profitable being a pizza place that stands up to their beliefs is, so this might be a good career move in the long run.
Howard A Treesong wrote: All this hand-wringing about the 'conflict with my morals so I can't possibly do my job' is a real stretch given what they're being asked to do. You're in a local government office with the expectation of issuing licenses to people you know nothing about, yet some bleat about it like they're being expected to work in a concentration camp and bury the bodies.
One thing that US courts aggressively try to avoid is determining if a "religious belief" is legitimate or not. All of the First Amendment caselaw I've seen has hinged on the "sincerity" of the belief, and the effect that the belief has on others. And that's for the best.
So, nobody wants to untangle if doing this really is a problem for her religion. But.. there's plenty of precedent that your beliefs do not direct the actions of others.
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
CptJake wrote: I suspect even if jailed for contempt she would still hold the position though (meaning the county cannot fill it) until another election is held.
Under nearly all home-rule laws, the Governor would appoint a person to fill the position. States are political entities with rights that the Feds cannot take (in theory). Counties are run entirely as the State sees fit, and there are almost certainly provisions for an instance like this.
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
"Interracial Marriages are against my religion."
That's cute, nice strawman, but I'll play along. Since when did being a dick become illegal?
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
"Interracial Marriages are against my religion."
That's cute, nice strawman, but I'll play along. Since when did being a dick become illegal?
Pretty much, but it's the most obvious example. Being a dick is very legal (after all trump's not in jail), but discrimination is.
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
that ruling wasn't as much about how private entities have to serve homosexuals as it was an interesting ruling on the nature of bespoke bakeries.
I think most people would think that a shop or restaurant denying service due to sexual orientation is probably wrong, or they'd at least see the merit of such laws. Baking is, in my opinion at least, less a "public accommodation" open to all, and more a semi-professional and creative service, which should allow for broader discretion in choosing jobs.
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
"Interracial Marriages are against my religion."
That's cute, nice strawman, but I'll play along. Since when did being a dick become illegal?
Pretty much, but it's the most obvious example. Being a dick is very legal (after all trump's not in jail), but discrimination is.
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
"Interracial Marriages are against my religion."
That's cute, nice strawman, but I'll play along. Since when did being a dick become illegal?
Pretty much, but it's the most obvious example. Being a dick is very legal (after all trump's not in jail), but discrimination is.
But, AFAIK, the kentuky case has nothing to do with discrimination, and more to do with them ignoring court orders. It's the other case that has to do with discrimination.
Spetulhu wrote: True, but in their case those head coverings and beards don't really infringe on the rights of other people. .
Sure they do. I don't believe people should have beards, and therefore all those people with beards are violating my belief.
Also, beards are scratchy, and children's faces are delicate. If someone with a beard kisses their child, they may be discomforted. And people may make fun of the children for having a parent who is a hipster. Won't someone think of the children?
I think that covers the main objections to same-sex marriage...
Spetulhu wrote: True, but in their case those head coverings and beards don't really infringe on the rights of other people. .
Sure they do. I don't believe people should have beards, and therefore all those people with beards are violating my belief. I think that covers the main objections to same-sex marriage...
Oh, that's wicked of you. And it sadly also points out what people in other parts of the world believe. In some places a beard is the only thing you should have, or at least a moustache. If you lack one you're just not trustworthy. But few of those places demand it either - it's just a cultural thing with no backing in law. Like India where a high-caste Hindu just can't take suggestions from a lower-caste or gods forbid a christian or muslim! No law on it, it's just how things are.
Yes. Her workplace needs to accommodate reasonable religious requests. Her request is not reasonable and cannot be accomodated. Her refusal to let her subordinates issue them is not only absurd but the very definition of contempt in my opinion. I look forward to her gofundme and fox news appearances, as Polonius said.
The cake baking thing was about discrimination against customers being unacceptable when running a business as opposed to who you can prevent entering your home. Some will argue that a private business should be allowed to serve whoever who they want to or do not. The extension of that thinking is signs on the door saying 'no coloureds'. That clearly isn'r acceptable discrimination and the bakers fell the same side of that.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If one conflicts with the other it is on the adherent to figure out which wins, their faith or their occupation.
The employer also has a responsibility to respect and not discriminate against people based on their religion, where that is reasonable. I personally agree that her demands are unreasonable and that she should be out on her ass. But it's not my decision.
Remember, this isn't my argument, it is hers. I don't want to try and defend her stupid position. I was just trying to explain why it is a little more complicated than just "do it or get out", since you claimed you didn't understand.
I never said this was your argument, but I do not see the same complications you do, either. It is pretty black and white to me.
Respecting this woman's religion in terms of her position as County Clerk violates other citizens' rights. Therefore she should either ignore her religious beliefs or quit. No one is stopping her from following the tenets of her religion. She just can't impose those tenets on others if she wants to keep her job. How is that not fair for everyone?
Generally when you want elected officials 'fired' you just elect someone else next election, or someone with the granted legal authority holds them in contempt and removes them from their position.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: No one is stopping her from following the tenets of her religion. She just can't impose those tenets on others if she wants to keep her job.
This, exactly.
If her religion tells her that marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman, she can apply her religious freedom by choosing to not marry a woman.
But her freedom of religion doesn't grant her the right to dictate who anyone else should or shouldn't marry.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I never said this was your argument, but I do not see the same complications you do, either. It is pretty black and white to me.
Respecting this woman's religion in terms of her position as County Clerk violates other citizens' rights. Therefore she should either ignore her religious beliefs or quit. No one is stopping her from following the tenets of her religion. She just can't impose those tenets on others if she wants to keep her job. How is that not fair for everyone
I agree with you completely, and I hope that whoever is tasked with resolving this will come to the same conclusion. The only complication is that she is making a claim that her religious freedoms are being infringed. However much we might disagree with that, and find it ridiculous, she still has the right to due process of law. Even if it is pretty black and white (as you said).
But they have to make a reasonable accommodation, not ANY accomodation. Her rights being infringed is a bit of a red herring. She is saying she literally can't do her job nor let a proxy do it on her behalf. That canot be accomodated.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I never said this was your argument, but I do not see the same complications you do, either. It is pretty black and white to me.
Respecting this woman's religion in terms of her position as County Clerk violates other citizens' rights. Therefore she should either ignore her religious beliefs or quit. No one is stopping her from following the tenets of her religion. She just can't impose those tenets on others if she wants to keep her job. How is that not fair for everyone
I agree with you completely, and I hope that whoever is tasked with resolving this will come to the same conclusion. The only complication is that she is making a claim that her religious freedoms are being infringed. However much we might disagree with that, and find it ridiculous, she still has the right to due process of law. Even if it is pretty black and white (as you said).
The fact a court of law disagrees her 'religious freedoms' are being infringed on, she was allowed her due process is already and is now in contempt of multiple judgements.
WrentheFaceless wrote: The fact a court of law disagrees her 'religious freedoms' are being infringed on, she was allowed her due process is already and is now in contempt of multiple judgements.
Where are you getting this from? There is discussion that she aught to be held in contempt for not issuing the licence. I can't find anything that says there has been a ruling, and there might still be an appeal, so it doesn't seem like the due process has concluded yet. Do you have a more up to date source?
I found a video online of her refusing a marriage. It's a bit boring but she appears at the end. Apparently, Kim Davis values the sanctity of marriage so highly, she's now been married 4 times.
WrentheFaceless wrote: The fact a court of law disagrees her 'religious freedoms' are being infringed on, she was allowed her due process is already and is now in contempt of multiple judgements.
U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning said in his ruling Wednesday that Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's protection against the establishment of a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
Multiple couples sued, judgement came back Wednesday saying that her reasoning isnt good eough, and even the Governor of the state has ordered her to issue licenses
Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has told defiant clerks, who are elected, to issue licenses or resign.
This lady's gonna get canned and I wouldn't be surprised if she bankrupted her whole county in the inevitable civil suits to follow. And it serves them right for voting her in.
I'm not sure that the county would be on the hook for any judgements that are inevitably going to be levied, because at this point I think it's pretty clear that she's acting outside the scope of her employment.
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure that the county would be on the hook for any judgements that are inevitably going to be levied, because at this point I think it's pretty clear that she's acting outside the scope of her employment.
Maybe you're right.
I found this video from earlier last month of another Kentucky Clerk refusing to do his job on religious grounds. Not sure how this one resolved.
There's just so much wrong with this thinking that it makes me want to pull my hair out.
(P.S. sorry for exposing you all to Chris Hayes, but its a related subject)
WrentheFaceless wrote: judgement came back Wednesday saying that her reasoning isnt good eough, and even the Governor of the state has ordered her to issue licenses
Read your own source "Davis' attorneys have asked the judge for a stay, and Bunning has not yet ruled."
As I said, there hasn't been a ruling yet, and she hasn't been held in contempt (yet).
WrentheFaceless wrote: judgement came back Wednesday saying that her reasoning isnt good eough, and even the Governor of the state has ordered her to issue licenses
Read your own source "Davis' attorneys have asked the judge for a stay, and Bunning has not yet ruled."
As I said, there hasn't been a ruling yet, and she hasn't been held in contempt (yet).
Hopefully soon.
Yea it was a bit confusing, the opening said "In the judge's ruling" then said "No ruling had been made"
Yeah I noticed that too. I think by "ruling" he must just be referring to the stage in the process where everyone assembles for the judge's ruling, but apparently he granted a stay instead.
Though judging by his comments, I can't see them pulling anything out of the bag which will persuade him to rule in her favour. Maybe it's just more stalling to be difficult.
Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.
I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
However, I don't think religion can be used as a catch-all "do whatever the hell you want", especially when that means discriminating against others.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.
If your job is issuing marriage licences and you decide not to issue any licences to anyone to avoid "discrimination" you should expect to lose it for the simple reason that the county isn't going to pay a marriage licence clerk to sit there not issuing licences.
Just to mention it, I highly doubt here is any County Clerks office in the US that has no duties other than issuing marriage licenses. Delegation of duties is a reasonable option here, its just an option that Kim Davis has apparently rejected.
A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.
In US First Amendment law, that's not the analysis that matters, because it's not the role of the court to decide what is and isn't a requirement of any given religion. To be sure, generally and consistently held beliefs of major world religions tend to be more readily accepted, but that's not the goal.
The real analysis is that a Sikh's turban doesn't infringe on anybody else. There are places that have rules against headgear, but there is a balancing test between the validity of the business/government interest in no headgear vs. the belief. the courts, in their genuine wisdom, know that a lot of rules exist for very minute justifications, and that allowing them to be bent for religious reasons makes sense. For example, the military requires all men to be clean shaven, ostensibly to allow for better fit on gas masks. However, they've long allowed health exceptions, and I'm reasonably certain they allow religious exemptions as well.
I'd rather she was in the unemployment line at worst... Maybe she should work at DMV.
I've yet to be at one where the clerks weren't pissed at the world (even when they've literally just opened). But then we might run into this same shenanigans, "I can't issue a drivers license to a [bundle of sticks] due to my religious beliefs."
Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples.
Then quit. Do your job or quit.
Only god can officiate marriage, so she should not even be doing that job if she is a real christian
kronk wrote: I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.
Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.
My wife found our officiate on the internet, and while she claims to be a non-denominational minister, it wasn't until after our wedding that we realized that she never said "Christian minister." There's a pretty good chance we were married by a pagan priestess, based on her tattoos and symbolism.
kronk wrote: I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.
Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.
We did the JoP thing too. Easy -peezy-lemon-squeezy. We were, however, made to repeat the common Christian marriage oath, which seemed odd to me, but we'd married each other years before, and were really just there for the license, so I didn't let it bother me or make an issue of it or anything, and maybe one day I can cash in on my wifes oath to "obey" me.
kronk wrote: I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.
Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.
My wife found our officiate on the internet, and while she claims to be a non-denominational minister, it wasn't until after our wedding that we realized that she never said "Christian minister." There's a pretty good chance we were married by a pagan priestess, based on her tattoos and symbolism.
You're first child might have horns and smell of brimstone!
kronk wrote: I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.
Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.
My wife found our officiate on the internet, and while she claims to be a non-denominational minister, it wasn't until after our wedding that we realized that she never said "Christian minister." There's a pretty good chance we were married by a pagan priestess, based on her tattoos and symbolism.
You're first child might have horns and smell of brimstone!
kronk wrote: I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.
Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.
We did the JoP thing too. Easy -peezy-lemon-squeezy. We were, however, made to repeat the common Christian marriage oath, which seemed odd to me, but we'd married each other years before, and were really just there for the license, so I didn't let it bother me or make an issue of it or anything, and maybe one day I can cash in on my wifes oath to "obey" me.
You got your wife to promise to obey? That got cut from our vows. I’m not sure if it was the minister or The Wife who suggested dropping it. The minister was a woman chaplain of a liberal arts college, so very relaxed about a lot of things. I tried to get “obey” replaced with “bake cookies for” but that didn’t fly for the official oaths. I did get that included in a pre-nup, where The Wife is obligated to make a certain number of batches a year, and I owe her a certain number of back rubs. The exact number escapes me, I’d have to look it up.
kronk wrote: I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.
Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.
We did the JoP thing too. Easy -peezy-lemon-squeezy. We were, however, made to repeat the common Christian marriage oath, which seemed odd to me, but we'd married each other years before, and were really just there for the license, so I didn't let it bother me or make an issue of it or anything, and maybe one day I can cash in on my wifes oath to "obey" me.
You got your wife to promise to obey? That got cut from our vows. I’m not sure if it was the minister or The Wife who suggested dropping it. The minister was a woman chaplain of a liberal arts college, so very relaxed about a lot of things. I tried to get “obey” replaced with “bake cookies for” but that didn’t fly for the official oaths. I did get that included in a pre-nup, where The Wife is obligated to make a certain number of batches a year, and I owe her a certain number of back rubs. The exact number escapes me, I’d have to look it up.
We only met the judge 2 minutes before he legally married us. It was very "in and out", no pun intended. Raise your right hand, repeat after me, I now pronounce you man and wife, have a great day!....it reminded me of the oath I took for the Navy. To his credit, the judge did ask if we had oaths prepared, but it was all just a paper exercise for us to get her on my health insurance, so we just went along with the classic oath. We'd been "non-legally" married for years, and likely could legally be described as having a common-law marriage (although I don't know how common-law marriages work in the state in which I reside).
Automatically Appended Next Post: After looking it up, common law marriage does not exist in my state.
A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.
In US First Amendment law, that's not the analysis that matters, because it's not the role of the court to decide what is and isn't a requirement of any given religion. To be sure, generally and consistently held beliefs of major world religions tend to be more readily accepted, but that's not the goal.
The real analysis is that a Sikh's turban doesn't infringe on anybody else. There are places that have rules against headgear, but there is a balancing test between the validity of the business/government interest in no headgear vs. the belief. the courts, in their genuine wisdom, know that a lot of rules exist for very minute justifications, and that allowing them to be bent for religious reasons makes sense. For example, the military requires all men to be clean shaven, ostensibly to allow for better fit on gas masks. However, they've long allowed health exceptions, and I'm reasonably certain they allow religious exemptions as well.
However, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from following a religious doctrine, which she, as a representative of the government, is doing.
The Bible also does not specifically ban gay marriage. Marriage =/= sex (in fact, as that old saw goes, marriage almost immediately means an end to sex). So she isn't even consistent in her beliefs... and, in the news photos I've seen of her, she's been wearing blended fabrics, which is also a sin.
A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.
In US First Amendment law, that's not the analysis that matters, because it's not the role of the court to decide what is and isn't a requirement of any given religion. To be sure, generally and consistently held beliefs of major world religions tend to be more readily accepted, but that's not the goal.
The real analysis is that a Sikh's turban doesn't infringe on anybody else. There are places that have rules against headgear, but there is a balancing test between the validity of the business/government interest in no headgear vs. the belief. the courts, in their genuine wisdom, know that a lot of rules exist for very minute justifications, and that allowing them to be bent for religious reasons makes sense. For example, the military requires all men to be clean shaven, ostensibly to allow for better fit on gas masks. However, they've long allowed health exceptions, and I'm reasonably certain they allow religious exemptions as well.
However, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from following a religious doctrine, which she, as a representative of the government, is doing.
The Bible also does not specifically ban gay marriage. Marriage =/= sex (in fact, as that old saw goes, marriage almost immediately means an end to sex). So she isn't even consistent in her beliefs... and, in the news photos I've seen of her, she's been wearing blended fabrics, which is also a sin.
It worries me you actually looked up a picture of her....
Look it up? No, but I watch TV and read the news. This has been all over the place the last couple of weeks. Not sure how anyone has avoided seeing pictures.
Sometimes, I really wish there was some kind of reputation system on Dakka. I think every one of Polonius' posts in this topic has been both informative and worthy of an exalt.
However, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from following a religious doctrine, which she, as a representative of the government, is doing.
Yeah, that's an interesting argument, but probably not one the courts would be wild about. I mean, the problem isn't that she's establishing religion, its that she's defying the highest law of the land.
That the ACLU will make that argument in their civil action against the county should probably be a factor in the decision making, but frankly a government official refusing to follow the law is usually enough to get trouble.
The Bible also does not specifically ban gay marriage. Marriage =/= sex (in fact, as that old saw goes, marriage almost immediately means an end to sex). So she isn't even consistent in her beliefs... and, in the news photos I've seen of her, she's been wearing blended fabrics, which is also a sin.
Sure. I think every vaguely literate person has made or refuted that argument plenty of times.
The thing about American Religious freedom is that nobody gets to tell you how to follow your religion. That is, in fact, the core of the First Amendment: that the government cannot say "the Bible says this, so you must do that to be a Christian." That is literally what the Amendment (and much of the colonization of the US) was about in the first place.
What is interesting about the Establishment Clause is that originally it was put in the Bill of Rights in part to protect the States which had state religion from the Feds.
CptJake wrote: What is interesting about the Establishment Clause is that originally it was put in the Bill of Rights in part to protect the States which had state religion from the Feds.
Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?
To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?
Kilkrazy wrote: Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?
To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?
It varies by state, but nearly all ordained ministers have the authority to sign and file a marriage license. The license is usually issued by a clerk, and then signed by an officiant (either a minister or justice of the peace). So for most people, the religious and civil ceremonies are simultaneous. In Michigan, the couple signs the license with the witnesses, usually before or after the ceremony, to make it official. In New York, the officiant handles everything after you procure the license from the Clerk.
Most faiths will only marry people that can be legally married, with the prior exception for homosexual couples in some churches. Other faiths will marry people in the faith, regardless of the legality of the marriage (religious polygamy comes to mind).
My wife and I got married at Lake Tahoe... The judge asked if we wanted to do the more "traditional vows" part.. she did... so of course, we had to do that whole ceremony bit. Otherwise we woulda been married in his office, surrounded by baseball memorabilia instead of my now inlaws
Ensis Ferrae wrote: My wife and I got married at Lake Tahoe... The judge asked if we wanted to do the more "traditional vows" part.. she did... so of course, we had to do that whole ceremony bit. Otherwise we woulda been married in his office, surrounded by baseball memorabilia instead of my now inlaws
He have any great one's? I did the Court Clerk marriage. Did not feel like a big wedding....being divorce twice and on my third marriage (married my third time) do far so good but she has been watching a lot of "Snap" crime/drama shows......
Kilkrazy wrote: Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?
To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?
This very much depends on what state you live in. I am an ordained minister (of 2 different religions), but in WA state, until you have your license and paperwork from the county & state, it doesn't matter how many vows you take or how many times I pronounce you whatever-and-whatever... you're not married until you have that government paperwork.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?
To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?
I can't speak for other religions, but I know mine doesn't consider it the same. That being said, the couple is still recognized as married.
He was a Giants fan... I do recall seeing a couple Bonds' things around. There were a bunch, like a dozen or so autographed baseballs, so I would imaging that he had a Mays or McCovey in amongst them.
My point is that the licence clerk is not a minister of religion and when issuing a licence is performing a legal office not a religious one.
For her to refuse to issue licences to gay people is similar to a policeman who happens to be Islamic refusing to arrest someone drunk and disorderly, because his religion forbids alcohol.
Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.
I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
However, I don't think religion can be used as a catch-all "do whatever the hell you want", especially when that means discriminating against others.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
I think that I like the LDS approach to this: "It's all good, it's not like the marriage will matter after you die, anyways"
Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.
I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
However, I don't think religion can be used as a catch-all "do whatever the hell you want", especially when that means discriminating against others.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
I think that I like the LDS approach to this: "It's all good, it's not like the marriage will matter after you die, anyways"
Smacks wrote: I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
I think it depends more than anything on how much that particular requirement is key to the job. Policeman may be barred from having beards so they look neat and professional, but allowing some officers beards as a religious exemption doesn’t actually prevent them doing their job.
This is more like a policeman who says it’s against his religion to arrest people for dealing drugs. Even if it is a genuinely held religious belief, it is often a basic reality that a core part of the job and there comes a point where you can’t make a sensible exception.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
Yeah. In one of the other threads I suggested that if the office was big enough to have multiple clerks handling marriage, then the clerk opposed to gay marriage could simply redirect gay couples to the other clerk – then you’d have a solution where the office grants marriage licenses to everyone who wants them, while the lady gets her religious freedom and her job.
But if such a compromise isn’t possible, or if the people involved aren’t interested in workable compromises and are instead just trying to use this to cause trouble, like the ‘no marriages for anyone’ nonsense, then they probably need to go.
Smacks wrote: I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".
I think it depends more than anything on how much that particular requirement is key to the job. Policeman may be barred from having beards so they look neat and professional, but allowing some officers beards as a religious exemption doesn’t actually prevent them doing their job.
This is more like a policeman who says it’s against his religion to arrest people for dealing drugs. Even if it is a genuinely held religious belief, it is often a basic reality that a core part of the job and there comes a point where you can’t make a sensible exception.
I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".
Yeah. In one of the other threads I suggested that if the office was big enough to have multiple clerks handling marriage, then the clerk opposed to gay marriage could simply redirect gay couples to the other clerk – then you’d have a solution where the office grants marriage licenses to everyone who wants them, while the lady gets her religious freedom and her job.
But if such a compromise isn’t possible, or if the people involved aren’t interested in workable compromises and are instead just trying to use this to cause trouble, like the ‘no marriages for anyone’ nonsense, then they probably need to go.
I couldn't have said it better. There must be some kind of interstellar alighnment happening because I find my self agreeing with you a lot more these days over the course of several threads.
As a Kentuckian who used to live maybe an hour from Morehead, I'm both ashamed of this and not surprised in the slightest. This attitude usually only prevails in the more rural areas, but it's really surprising since Morehead is a college town (and a very liberal one)
I remember when the ruling came through, a lot of people I knew were extremely upset, even friends and family who are otherwise kind and friendly people. People are very stubborn about their beliefs and I expect to see the southeast try to fight this for years, at least until a new generation gets into all these clerk jobs.
The request for a stay pending appeal relates solely to an injunction against Davis in her official capacity. The injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk. In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally
occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court. There is thus little or no likelihood that the Clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal.
Presumably the next steps are being found in contempt, a GoFundMe, and then Fox News Channel appearances.
djones520 wrote: Quit the job. When you are a government employee, you don't have the right to fall back on your beliefs as a guide. It's that damn simple.
Now, at the same time, the recent court ruling that a private bakery can be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, even if they don't want to, is completely bogus in my eyes.
"Interracial Marriages are against my religion."
Whenever theres an issue like this I explain it with different variables. For gay marraige this is my go-to. If something sounds dumb with different variables it likely is. Give it a while and people (hopefully) wont be bigoted donkey-caves. But it is Kentucky...
LeCacty wrote: Give it a while and people (hopefully) wont be bigoted donkey-caves. But it is Kentucky...
It's more a question of age and upbringing, I suppose. My dear mother was born in the 40s and as kind as she usually is she had some difficulty accepting a gay man standing as presidential candidate (he actually got to round two). "Better go vote for the other guy, we can't have one of those as President".
She needs to be fired. Or I guess impeached, since she's elected. Either way, she needs to be removed from a job she clearly has no intention of doing, all while she sits on her bigoted backside on the taxpayer dime.
A Kentucky county clerk who has been outspoken in his opposition to marriage equality now says he'll "die" fighting to keep same-sex couples from tying the knot.
Casey County Clerk Casey Davis has reportedly refused to issue marriage licenses to both heterosexual and same-sex couples in protest of the Supreme Court's June 26 ruling on marriage equality. In an Aug. 24 interview on West Virginia’s The Tom Roten Morning Show, Davis vowed to continue to defy the Supreme Court even if it costs him his life, Right Wing Watch reports.
"It’s a war on Christianity," he told Roten. “There is a travesty taking place with that Supreme Court ruling [that] was completely unconstitutional, completely unconstitutional."
"Our law says ‘one man and one woman,’ and that is what I held my hand up and took an oath to and that is what I expected," he continued. "If it takes my life, I will die ... because I believe I owe that to the people that fought so I can have the freedom that I have, I owe that to them today, and you do, we all do."
He then added, "They fought and died so we could have this freedom, and I’m going to fight and die for my kids and your kids can keep it.”
Previously, Davis had asked Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to call for a special session of the state legislature so it can pass a new law allowing couples to purchase marriage licenses online in a process similar to obtaining a hunting or fishing license.
In July, Davis told The Lexington Herald-Leader that he had, in fact, met with Beshear, but was told to do his job or resign.
Davis is one of two Kentucky clerks who have refused to issue marriage licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. The other, Kim Davis (no relation) of Rowan County, is currently being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two gay couples and two heterosexual couples for denying them marriage licenses.
Previously, Davis had asked Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to call for a special session of the state legislature so it can pass a new law allowing couples to purchase marriage licenses online in a process similar to obtaining a hunting or fishing license.
A Kentucky county clerk who has been outspoken in his opposition to marriage equality now says he'll "die" fighting to keep same-sex couples from tying the knot.
Casey County Clerk Casey Davis has reportedly refused to issue marriage licenses to both heterosexual and same-sex couples in protest of the Supreme Court's June 26 ruling on marriage equality. In an Aug. 24 interview on West Virginia’s The Tom Roten Morning Show, Davis vowed to continue to defy the Supreme Court even if it costs him his life, Right Wing Watch reports.
"It’s a war on Christianity," he told Roten. “There is a travesty taking place with that Supreme Court ruling [that] was completely unconstitutional, completely unconstitutional."
"Our law says ‘one man and one woman,’ and that is what I held my hand up and took an oath to and that is what I expected," he continued. "If it takes my life, I will die ... because I believe I owe that to the people that fought so I can have the freedom that I have, I owe that to them today, and you do, we all do."
He then added, "They fought and died so we could have this freedom, and I’m going to fight and die for my kids and your kids can keep it.”
Previously, Davis had asked Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to call for a special session of the state legislature so it can pass a new law allowing couples to purchase marriage licenses online in a process similar to obtaining a hunting or fishing license.
In July, Davis told The Lexington Herald-Leader that he had, in fact, met with Beshear, but was told to do his job or resign.
Davis is one of two Kentucky clerks who have refused to issue marriage licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. The other, Kim Davis (no relation) of Rowan County, is currently being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two gay couples and two heterosexual couples for denying them marriage licenses.
Casey Davis certainly lives in a very different reality from the rest of us. I mean, I've done an awful lot of LSD in my life but, even then, I've never been trippin' *that* hard.
Relapse wrote: I couldn't have said it better. There must be some kind of interstellar alighnment happening because I find my self agreeing with you a lot more these days over the course of several threads.
A Kentucky county clerk who has been outspoken in his opposition to marriage equality now says he'll "die" fighting to keep same-sex couples from tying the knot.
Casey County Clerk Casey Davis has reportedly refused to issue marriage licenses to both heterosexual and same-sex couples in protest of the Supreme Court's June 26 ruling on marriage equality. In an Aug. 24 interview on West Virginia’s The Tom Roten Morning Show, Davis vowed to continue to defy the Supreme Court even if it costs him his life, Right Wing Watch reports.
"It’s a war on Christianity," he told Roten. “There is a travesty taking place with that Supreme Court ruling [that] was completely unconstitutional, completely unconstitutional."
"Our law says ‘one man and one woman,’ and that is what I held my hand up and took an oath to and that is what I expected," he continued. "If it takes my life, I will die ... because I believe I owe that to the people that fought so I can have the freedom that I have, I owe that to them today, and you do, we all do."
He then added, "They fought and died so we could have this freedom, and I’m going to fight and die for my kids and your kids can keep it.”
For a certain kind of lunatic, being oppressed, and even better being a martyr, can be way more important than boring stuff like leading a decent life or being a constructive member of society. That nonsense is annoying most of the time, but completely awesome when someone starts talking about dying for their cause when absolutely no-one even thought of trying to kill them.
For a certain kind of lunatic, being oppressed, and even better being a martyr, can be way more important than boring stuff like leading a decent life or being a constructive member of society. That nonsense is annoying most of the time, but completely awesome when someone starts talking about dying for their cause when absolutely no-one even thought of trying to kill them.
Hehe.... I'm trying to picture a group of extremely militant homosexuals... I keep coming up with images of them breaking into this guy's house and making it absolutely sparkle with how fabulous it looks!
For a certain kind of lunatic, being oppressed, and even better being a martyr, can be way more important than boring stuff like leading a decent life or being a constructive member of society. That nonsense is annoying most of the time, but completely awesome when someone starts talking about dying for their cause when absolutely no-one even thought of trying to kill them.
Hehe.... I'm trying to picture a group of extremely militant homosexuals... I keep coming up with images of them breaking into this guy's house and making it absolutely sparkle with how fabulous it looks!
While I hesitate to trade too much in stereotypes, keep in mind that not all homosexuals are men, and not all male homosexuals are femme. There are plenty of bears, leather daddies, and "butch" lesbians to cause whatever type of ruckus you have in mind.
For a certain kind of lunatic, being oppressed, and even better being a martyr, can be way more important than boring stuff like leading a decent life or being a constructive member of society. That nonsense is annoying most of the time, but completely awesome when someone starts talking about dying for their cause when absolutely no-one even thought of trying to kill them.
Hehe.... I'm trying to picture a group of extremely militant homosexuals... I keep coming up with images of them breaking into this guy's house and making it absolutely sparkle with how fabulous it looks!
While I hesitate to trade too much in stereotypes, keep in mind that not all homosexuals are men, and not all male homosexuals are femme. There are plenty of bears, leather daddies, and "butch" lesbians to cause whatever type of ruckus you have in mind.
I almost got tongued by a bear once, it was traumatizing for me but hilarious for my wife.
For a certain kind of lunatic, being oppressed, and even better being a martyr, can be way more important than boring stuff like leading a decent life or being a constructive member of society. That nonsense is annoying most of the time, but completely awesome when someone starts talking about dying for their cause when absolutely no-one even thought of trying to kill them.
Hehe.... I'm trying to picture a group of extremely militant homosexuals... I keep coming up with images of them breaking into this guy's house and making it absolutely sparkle with how fabulous it looks!
While I hesitate to trade too much in stereotypes, keep in mind that not all homosexuals are men, and not all male homosexuals are femme. There are plenty of bears, leather daddies, and "butch" lesbians to cause whatever type of ruckus you have in mind.
I almost got tongued by a bear once, it was traumatizing for me but hilarious for my wife.
I read your reply before the quotes and pictures a brown bear trying to kiss you
KRS 522.020 and KRS 522.030 deal with official misconduct in the first and second degree, respectively. “A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office,” according to KRS 522.020.
Remember, she's not allowing her office to issue ANY marriage licenses which is a wacky stance when that's pretty much the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I really want them to take up so they can call her an utter fool to her face.
Are we surprised? The religious exclusion only applies to religious organizations like the Catholic Church, not individuals. I thought this was obvious from the beginning.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Hehe.... I'm trying to picture a group of extremely militant homosexuals... I keep coming up with images of them breaking into this guy's house and making it absolutely sparkle with how fabulous it looks!
You could probably just go with them nailing this clerk to an extremely fabulous cross.
Polonius wrote: While I hesitate to trade too much in stereotypes, keep in mind that not all homosexuals are men, and not all male homosexuals are femme. There are plenty of bears, leather daddies, and "butch" lesbians to cause whatever type of ruckus you have in mind.
Are we comfortable enough with homosexuality to play with the stereotypes a bit?
I mean that as a genuine question, I'm not sure myself and want to know what other people think. It's a tough issue, because I wouldn't want crude jokes to make people feel unwelcome, but on the other hand you don't make people included by making them sacred cows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: I read your reply before the quotes and pictures a brown bear trying to kiss you
I read it the same
In fact I still read it that way and don't want to change.
Protesters asked her if she would be issuing licences, and she said she would not. They asked by what authority, and she replied "God's".
She is going to make so much money from the Chik Fil A crowd, especially if she does a little stint in the pokey for contempt - they eat that right up.
I can see the book titles now: "Into the Lion's Den: One Woman's Stand for Faith".
Maybe Emily Watson can play her when the inevitable Kirk Cameron financed biopic comes out, as well - I can see it now. 6 million at the box office, 4% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I need a job like that, one that I can just show-up and collect a paycheck without doing my job and continue to get away with it; now that's an awesome job.
Boss: "We need you to do your job."
Me: "God told me that I don't have to."
Boss: "Uh, you're fired."
Maybe applications for employment need to be changed to include religion as something that may prevent you from doing your job in addition to disabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'd recommend the spicy chicken sandwich. Once you go spicy, there is no going back to regular.
I worked there in high school. Ask them to double-bread your filet....seriously; so unhealthy but so good.
Why do people always threaten to kill people who disagree with them? I don't agree with what this lady is doing but death threats are silly. Let the courts workit out, as it appears that they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: There you go. I would bet good money she resigns shortly.
Yep, financial penalties sufficiently onerous to make her do her job.
God apparently has no problem with her collecting money she hasn't earned through her honest labor; odd that.
agnosto wrote: Why do people always threaten to kill people who disagree with them? I don't agree with what this lady is doing but death threats are silly. Let the courts workit out, as it appears that they are.
agnosto wrote: Why do people always threaten to kill people who disagree with them? I don't agree with what this lady is doing but death threats are silly. Let the courts workit out, as it appears that they are.
Her husband and lawyers are the one saying she's received death threats.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were trolly death threats being sent her way by teenagers who think they are funny but I would be surprised if there were legitimate death threats which would mandate actual law enforcement intervention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: There you go. I would bet good money she resigns shortly.
Yep, financial penalties sufficiently onerous to make her do her job.
God apparently has no problem with her collecting money she hasn't earned through her honest labor; odd that.
Truthfully, financial penalties are the best way to go--because as Ouze said, if she does any jail time(even a night in a holding cell all by her lonesome with her supporters allowed to be there the whole time) she'll be a martyr for the Right Side of The Argument.
agnosto wrote: Why do people always threaten to kill people who disagree with them? I don't agree with what this lady is doing but death threats are silly. Let the courts workit out, as it appears that they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: There you go. I would bet good money she resigns shortly.
Yep, financial penalties sufficiently onerous to make her do her job.
God apparently has no problem with her collecting money she hasn't earned through her honest labor; odd that.
Hey leave Dog out of this. He got no bone in this hunt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I am sure that any financial penalties will be covered by a GoFundMe drive. You would have to levy it against the county for it to have any effect.
That will require something like the ERA, either on a state level (as in Oregon) or the Federal level. Basically, it would have to extend the protections granted to "race, creed, color, religion and national origins" to "sexual orientation" as well, which would make it a violation of civil rights to discriminate against them.
It is absurd that it got this far. If you were elected to do a job, and your religion forbids you from doing your job, you either quit the religion or quit the job.
Ashiraya wrote: It is absurd that it got this far. If you were elected to do a job, and your religion forbids you from doing your job, you either quit the religion or quit the job.
You don't continue to do your job but not really.
Among her (and the other guy's) arguments, are that when they took their oaths of office, SSM was not legal, and therefore, they are upholding their oath, as administered.
Of course, that is a gakky excuse, because anyone who's been in the military, or taken an oath of office knows that the oath is rather "open ended" in that, things change, and when laws change, your oath reflects that, even if you didn't say anything new.
And when someone shows any evidence that god exists, I am sure we can then start to think about listening to anything it supposedly has to say about anything.
Until that point I'm quite happy to live in a world of equality...
“The public is my boss,” she told the Morehead News during last year’s general election. “Being a public servant is ingrained in me and I want [to] continue providing the high level of customer service we do while treating people with respect, kindness, and helping them with whatever situation they have.”
“The public is my boss,” she told the Morehead News during last year’s general election. “Being a public servant is ingrained in me and I want [to] continue providing the high level of customer service we do while treating people with respect, kindness, and helping them with whatever situation they have.”
....errmmm .......
Clearly "The Gays" are not people in her book. So she's good..... right?
Read a great little article this morning about Kim Davis and the "sanctity of marriage":
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life.
The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008.
She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
Davis has described her desire to strictly adhere to the Bible in stark terms and thus far has shown no sign of bending to court orders on same-sex marriage. She said Tuesday she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders.
Davis' struggle to exempt herself from the Supreme Court's June decision legalizing same-sex marriage has excited some Christian conservatives but legally has proven futile: The Supreme Court refused her request Monday that the justices intervene, and a federal judge will decide Thursday whether to hold her in contempt.
Davis’ divorce records, in the meantime, are a “popular file” at the local courthouse, a woman who answered the phone tells U.S. News, as bloggers and social media users titter with accusations of hypocrisy.
The matter first attracted public attention in July, when WKYT-TV reporter Victor Puente made a passing on-air reference to the fact that Davis’ latest marriage certificate shows she was married four times. Davis’ office stores that document.
Davis did not respond to an emailed request for comment, and her office’s phone line was busy throughout the day Tuesday.
The leader of the organization providing her legal representation, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, says he’s not sure precisely how many husbands Davis has had, but that it's not relevant.
“I know she was married more than once – I’ve heard three [times],” he says. “It’s a matter of fact that she’s been married multiple times.”
Staver says “it’s not really relevant, it’s something that happened in her past” and that her conversion to Christianity about four years ago wiped her slate clean. “It’s something that’s not relevant to the issue at hand,” he says. “She was 180 degrees changed.”
In a Tuesday statement released by Liberty Counsel, Davis admitted she had lived an imperfect life, but insisted her current beliefs are sincere.
“It is not a light issue for me,” she said. “It is a heaven or hell decision.”
Three other Kentucky county clerks have expressed opposition to facilitating same-sex marriages, and one of them says Davis’ divorces in no way diminish her credibility.
Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who is not related to Kim Davis, tells U.S. News he believes there’s a difference between getting a divorce and then repenting and living in a same-sex relationship.
“I don’t have any problem with that whatever, how she was before. If the Lord can forgive her, surely I can,” he says. “That’s something that’s forgivable just like any other sin, but if you continue in it and live in it, there’s a grave danger in that.”
Casey Davis says he wasn’t personally aware Kim Davis had been divorced and that he has no desire to speak with her about that. “You know this, people will say everything and all this stuff, they want to bring the worst out in the best of people. Obviously it’s human nature. I don’t like it and no one should,” he says.
The Casey County clerk currently is riding a bicycle across Kentucky to raise attention to the issue and wants Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to pass a law allowing local clerks to play no role officiating marriages and make their role mere record keeping.
Staver says other possible avenues include the state centralizing marriage issuance or allowing marriages to be performed without attaching the names of county clerks.
But there’s no sign that will happen, and Staver acknowledges it's impossible for clerks to hold out indefinitely against ruinous fines given for contempt.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is advocating on behalf of a male same-sex couple repeatedly denied a marriage license by Kim Davis' office, is asking for fines significant enough to compel compliance.
Thats your assumption. She can treat them with respet, kindness, blah blah and still deny them a certificate. Appears she's denying everyone though.
Me, I'd have more fun. "You mean to tell me you want me to get up out of my seat, walk over there and push print? Have you lost your mind? I'm on coffee break."*
*Standard response Frazzled gets when dealing with the gov.
Kanluwen wrote: She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.
Agreed Big K. Let no one misinterpret that I agree with her or what she is doing. I have faith that the courts will provide sufficient motivation to resolve the situation.
Kanluwen wrote: She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.
Agreed Big K. Let no one misinterpret that I agree with her or what she is doing. I have faith that the courts will provide sufficient motivation to resolve the situation.
Kanluwen wrote: She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.
It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.
Agreed Big K. Let no one misinterpret that I agree with her or what she is doing. I have faith that the courts will provide sufficient motivation to resolve the situation.
WWJDD... (What Would Judge Dredd Do?)
She's kind of following that already, "I am the law!!"
Ouze wrote: $20 says her supporters are the same sort of people who would say sharia law is one of the greatest threats to the US.
inversely,at mean ISIL will attack if she's forced to resign?
More like God will send a plague if she's ousted from office to show his/her displeasure at having a true daughter's adherence to an obscure reference in the bible being questioned while she simultaneously flouts clearly worded doctrine. It's the details that matter.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Lets hope the "court motivation" isnt footed by the taxpayers like her paycheck for the job she isnt doing is
Should be out of her own pockets, and any kickstarter/go fund me should be shut down
Now, I agree with not wanting to see the taxpayers have to pay the bill (but frankly, if the county tax payers do have to, whomever runs against her in the next election can use that like a hammer during the campaign).
But why the desire to shut down any crowd funding she or one of her supporters sets up for her? Are you that vindictive that you would disallow a legal means of fund raising to her? What ends up being your litmus test for allowing crowd funding, your approval of the cause/issue?
Since she is acting outside the scope of her office, I'm certainly hopeful the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for any sanctions that get levied.
Outside of that, I don't care other than to maybe mention that GoFundMe might shut down the campaign if one is started, as they now disallow fundraising "in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.” But if they don't, it's no skin off my teeth of the Chik Fil A crowd wants to throw their money into this particular dumpster fire.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Lets hope the "court motivation" isnt footed by the taxpayers like her paycheck for the job she isnt doing is
Should be out of her own pockets, and any kickstarter/go fund me should be shut down
Now, I agree with not wanting to see the taxpayers have to pay the bill (but frankly, if the county tax payers do have to, whomever runs against her in the next election can use that like a hammer during the campaign).
But why the desire to shut down any crowd funding she or one of her supporters sets up for her? Are you that vindictive that you would disallow a legal means of fund raising to her? What ends up being your litmus test for allowing crowd funding, your approval of the cause/issue?
If the courts levy a financial punishment and her or her family or her "supporters" start a crowdfunding for her, then the financial punishment is meaningless.
The whole reason why the courts are being encouraged by the protesters and ACLU to not give her jail time is because they know she can cash in on that via Fox News and so-called Christian groups that would gladly start lining her pockets.
Let's put this in perspective though. She's an elected official and not doing her job. She's been collecting pay while not doing her job.
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Because, if people are paying money to support her fines, its not a punishment, its no money out of her pocket.
They can pay for her lawyers, rather they pay for that than the state, but if they're paying her fines, its not much of a punishment or a deterrent.
I just see that as massively petty and tyrannical to me. Who cares how she raises the money to pay for any of it (lawyers/fines/what ever)? Is the goal just to bankrupt her? If so, just advocate for total confiscation of all her property. Folks have been finding ways to pay penalties/fines ever since penalties and fines existed. Crowd funding is a newer way of doing so, but not nearly the only way supporters have helped those they deemed worthy pay off fines and penalties.
Kanluwen wrote: Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?
Let's put this in perspective though. She's an elected official and not doing her job. She's been collecting pay while not doing her job.
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
And now you want to disbar her lawyers? Seriously? On what grounds? What illegal act or ethics violation have they committed? Is she not entitled to secure legal representation?
WrentheFaceless wrote: Because, if people are paying money to support her fines, its not a punishment, its no money out of her pocket.
They can pay for her lawyers, rather they pay for that than the state, but if they're paying her fines, its not much of a punishment or a deterrent.
I just see that as massively petty and tyrannical to me. Who cares how she raises the money to pay for any of it (lawyers/fines/what ever)? Is the goal just to bankrupt her? If so, just advocate for total confiscation of all her property. Folks have been finding ways to pay penalties/fines ever since penalties and fines existed. Crowd funding is a newer way of doing so, but not nearly the only way supporters have helped those they deemed worthy pay off fines and penalties.
How is that petty? She's skirting the punishment, why would she feel any different if there is no punshiment to her actions if others are footing the bill. Thats far from petty, making her pay her own fines is justice
Though I dont see any reason to punish the lawyers.
Kanluwen wrote: Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?
Failure to properly substantiate certain claims to the courts/perjury.
Since day one, Liberty Counsel has been claiming that Kim Davis has been receiving "credible death threats" as part of the reason why law enforcement need to be present at the Rowan County Court House where she works.
Also because Liberty Counsel is a mouthpiece for Liberty University, and as trolly as the Westboro Baptist Church--just not calling themselves a church.
Let's put this in perspective though. She's an elected official and not doing her job. She's been collecting pay while not doing her job.
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
And now you want to disbar her lawyers? Seriously? On what grounds? What illegal act or ethics violation have they committed? Is she not entitled to secure legal representation?
Claiming that your client is receiving "credible death threats" to garner public support and as an attempt to get law enforcement protection is an ethical violation, since it amounts to perjury when you do not present any actual evidence.
And calling "Liberty Counsel" legal representation is hilarious. They're lawyers, but they're the Westboro Baptist Church kind of lawyers. As in--"We'll be complete donkey-caves to you, but if you do anything back to us--SUE! SUE! SUE!".
To use an Ouze term, they specialize in poutrage litigation.
Ouze wrote: Since she is acting outside the scope of her office, I'm certainly hopeful the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for any sanctions that get levied.
Its worse. She's actually VIOLATING the scope of her employment, so agreed the taxpayers should pay nothing for her.
But if they don't, it's no skin off my teeth of the Chik Fil A crowd wants to throw their money into this particular dumpster fire.
Again with the Chik FIl A slam. Its so good! I had two sandwiches and my heart rate was only 120 when I woke up at 1.00 in the morning hoping I wouldn't die. I'm sure it wasn't related...
I'm thinking about trying that double breaded thing that was suggested earlier.
If you have a better, or at least less appetite inducing term to use for those guys I'm all ears. I would say "evangelicals" but that seems a little offensive since most (or really any) of the really religious people I know still won't go as far as throwing money at people like this. "Render unto Caesar" and all.
Ouze wrote: There's no evidence she hasn't received death threats and honestly I'd be a little surprised if she hasn't.
Disbarring lawyers for taking unpopular cases seems like the slipperiest of slopes to me.
Ouze--it's not "taking unpopular cases".
It's crap like this:
In 2000, Liberty Counsel threatened legal action against a public library for awarding a "Hogwarts' Certificate of Accomplishment" to young students who read J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in its entirety. Staver said that "witchcraft is a religion, and the certificate of witchcraft endorsed a particular religion in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause."
In December 2005, Liberty Counsel issued a press release accusing an elementary school in Dodgeville, Wisconsin of changing the lyrics of Christmas songs to make them more "secular" and said it would sue the school district "if the district does not immediately remedy the situation." The school was putting on the play "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift," written by Dwight Elrich, a former church choir director.The Dodgeville school district attempted to seek a retraction and apology from Liberty Counsel, as well as reimbursement of $20,000 spent in personnel, security, and attorney fees to fight the accusation. Liberty Counsel's Staver refused, asserting, "There is nothing to apologize for or retract."
Kanluwen wrote: Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?
Indeed. There has been no aspersion that they have completed a breach of the relevant state ethical code in defending their client. If you have a charge you should make it. Saying they should be disbarred (a legal death threat) because they are saying their client gets death threats is almost funny. Do you have any proof she hasn't? Further defendant attorneys have a wide leeway to say all kinds of things like: their client is innocent etc.
Kanluwen wrote: Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.
Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?
Indeed. There has been no aspersion that they have completed a breach of the relevant state ethical code in defending their client. If you have a charge you should make it.
Again:
"Credible death threats have been received by our client and her family".
She's not dead, is she?
I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.
Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?
This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...
Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?
Frazzled wrote: Er...death threat and saying someone killed their client is what we call completely separate things. Did you mean to type that?
My wife has had death threats but it still alive.
I meant what I typed.
"Credible death threats" means that you have evidence suggesting that the threat is imminent; i.e. someone is going to make an attempt.
There have been NO reported attempts on her life, so unless the death threats were about assassinating her character(or lack thereof)..."credible death threats" is perjury.
whembly wrote: I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.
Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?
This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...
Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?
Think her and all members of her office were supposed to report to court today regarding Contempt charges
whembly wrote: I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.
Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?
This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...
Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?
Think her and all members of her office were supposed to report to court today regarding Contempt charges
Exactly.
I meant what I typed.
"Credible death threats" means that you have evidence suggesting that the threat is imminent; i.e. someone is going to make an attempt.
There have been NO reported attempts on her life, so unless the death threats were about assassinating her character(or lack thereof)..."credible death threats" is perjury.
please show where thats a legal standard for disbarment.
Kanluwen wrote: "Credible death threats have been received by our client and her family".
She's not dead, is she?
Not too credible then, are they?
Ehh. I think you're being a bit unreasonable on this one, but I don't think I'm going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me, so - there we are.
The other stuff you listed seems like grounds for complaints to the state bar, to be examined as possible frivolous litigation.
whembly wrote: I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.
Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?
This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...
Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?
Think her and all members of her office were supposed to report to court today regarding Contempt charges
Exactly.
Hope the judge slams her and her staff(which is nothing but family members from what earlier stories have said).
I meant what I typed.
"Credible death threats" means that you have evidence suggesting that the threat is imminent; i.e. someone is going to make an attempt.
There have been NO reported attempts on her life, so unless the death threats were about assassinating her character(or lack thereof)..."credible death threats" is perjury.
please show where thats a legal standard for disbarment.
You trying to say that perjury isn't a legal standard for disbarment?
I think we haven't yet seen evidence of perjury. The fact she has not been killed doesn't mean threats weren't made, and whether they were "credible" or not is probably not a determination made by her camp, but rather by law enforcement.
I'd certainly rather that police (who already getting paid anyway) err on the side of reasonable caution. Adding a few uniforms to the office doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Ouze wrote: I think we haven't yet seen evidence of perjury. The fact she has not been killed doesn't mean threats weren't made, and whether they were "credible" or not is probably not a determination made by her camp, but rather by law enforcement.
The reason I state it's perjury is that it was NOT law enforcement that made the statement, but her lawyers from Liberty Counsel that made the statement.
They used the fact that law enforcement was present at the court house for the protests as "evidence" that the threats were credible.
Law enforcement are always at protests, ergo--lying sacks of crap.
Lets try another tack: lets say you report a death threat to the police.
You call your lawyer, who advises you call the police. You do so., They determine it's credible by whatever metric they use.
The person who issued the death threat now sees the increase police presence and decides their plan is no longer tenable and calls it off.
The lawyer who suggested calling the police should now face disbarment for perjury, since as you weren't killed, the threat couldn't have been credible.
Am I fairly characterizing what you're saying here? Because that is how I am reading what you're saying.
Ouze wrote: Lets try another tack: lets say you report a death threat to the police.
You call your lawyer, who advises you call the police. You do so., They determine it's credible by whatever metric they use.
The person who issued the death threat now sees the increase police presence and decides their plan is no longer tenable and calls it off.
The lawyer who suggested calling the police should now face disbarment for perjury, since as you weren't killed, the threat couldn't have been credible.
Am I fairly characterizing what you're saying here? Because that is how I am reading what you're saying.
No, what I'm saying is this:
Your lawyer claims as part of an ongoing trial that you have received "credible death threats", citing the presence of law enforcement at protests surrounding your office as evidence of the credibility of said death threats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.
Damn well should be in situations like this, where it's a lawyer representing someone in a controversial case like this.
Ouze wrote: I see the distinction. Still, I feel like there is no evidence presented to support that there have been no threats.
I didn't say that "clearly there have been no threats", I said "credible death threats".
I would be astonished if there hadn't been death threats made, as I said earlier in the thread, by teenagers who thought it would be funny.
In Maryland, where I work but not where I am licensed, virtually any death threat would allow an individual to secure a temporary restraining order. Only at a hearing for a permanent RO would you have to show that it was a credible threat.
Not every action of the law requires the same standards of proof.
Polonius wrote: Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.
Damn well should be in situations like this, where it's a lawyer representing someone in a controversial case like this.
I'd like you to meet my good friend, Zealous Representation! He's having a party with his pals Due Process, Freedom of Speech, and the Fourth Estate.
He's a jackass lawyer representing a jackass the only way possible: by being a jackass. Enjoy watching them lose, and leave it at that.
I agree with this statement. She's an asshat and her penalty day is coming. Lawyers do what lawyers do for their clients, right Frazz!? I don't see the disbarment issue here. What's said in a public forum is 100% different than what's said under oath.
Now if the lawyers named persons X, Y, and Z for doing acts 1, 2, and 3, then there could be libel/slander issues, but that's a whole different conversation.
Ouze wrote: I see the distinction. Still, I feel like there is no evidence presented to support that there have been no threats.
I didn't say that "clearly there have been no threats", I said "credible death threats".
I would be astonished if there hadn't been death threats made, as I said earlier in the thread, by teenagers who thought it would be funny.
In Maryland, where I work but not where I am licensed, virtually any death threat would allow an individual to secure a temporary restraining order. Only at a hearing for a permanent RO would you have to show that it was a credible threat.
Not every action of the law requires the same standards of proof.
Right, but by all accounts, she and her family have not gotten any restraining orders on protesters or individuals--temporary or not.
Her lawyers stated she received credible death threats, citing the increased law enforcement presence(which coincides with the fact that there are active protests as it's something like 10-15 officers which is roughly standard for these kinds of protest control) as evidence of the credibility of these threats.
d-usa wrote: Maybe she is still with lawyer 1, but files an injunction drafter by lawyer 3, but which is countersigned by lawyer 2 when she fires lawyer 1?
She's going through lawyers almost as fast as she went through husbands!
Ouze wrote: There's no evidence she hasn't received death threats and honestly I'd be a little surprised if she hasn't.
Disbarring lawyers for taking unpopular cases or being supported by unpleasant people seems like the slipperiest of slopes to me.
It would be pretty surprising in the USA if someone who gets into a public controversy like this one did not receive a death threat. People receive death threats on XBox Live for camping on spawn points.
Now knowing her divorces occurred before she turned to religion, I do not regard that situation as hypocrisy. People are entitled to change their mind. They cannot change their past.
However the argument that their oaths of office do not cover gay marriage is specious. Their oaths were to uphold the law. When the law changed, if they could not in conscience uphold the revised law, they should have resigned honourably from their posts.
d-usa wrote: Maybe she is still with lawyer 1, but files an injunction drafter by lawyer 3, but which is countersigned by lawyer 2 when she fires lawyer 1?
She's going through lawyers almost as fast as she went through husbands!
I didn't realize that the idea behind Sanctuary Cities were based in weird interpretations of biblical scripture; I thought they were separate problems. Still, any chance to propagate one's political ideology in a storm I suppose.
Ahtman wrote: I didn't realize that the idea behind Sanctuary Cities were based in weird interpretations of biblical scripture; I thought they were separate problems. Still, any chance to propagate one's political ideology in a storm I suppose.
Pretty sure he was focusing on the 'refusals to do what their job and the law says they should do' part, and doesn't really care about the motivation for either.
On the other hand, some folks DO think the motivation is the deciding factor. "I won't do it 'cause God says" is bad, "I won't do it because I think enforcing immigration laws is racist" is good.
In the end, you have bureaucrats and elected officials not doing what they are supposed to do.
When there are laws requiring cities to enforce federal immigration laws then the analogy will be a little bit better. It will still be stupid, but it will be a little less stupid.
When cities stop enforcing all laws because they don't want to enforce some of them, then the analogy will also be a little less stupid.
When there is a legal requirement for a city to enforce federal laws and in response to that legal requirement the city shuts down their police department and stops enforcement of all laws, then the analogy would actually makes sense. But none of this is happening.
Until then all we have is people repeating stupid stuff they read in the Internet.
Ahtman wrote: I didn't realize that the idea behind Sanctuary Cities were based in weird interpretations of biblical scripture; I thought they were separate problems. Still, any chance to propagate one's political ideology in a storm I suppose.
You're right. They are based on weird interpretation of compassion and rights of illegal foreigners but the effect and argument is the same. DO YOUR fething JOB.
Exclusive. Just conducted an interview with Cecil Watkins, the Rowan County Attorney. Watkins (who to my knowledge) hasn't given any interviews.
Watkins indicates that Kim Davis "does not represent" Rowan County and is not representative of its inclusive values.
From Day One, Watkins told David I "will not and cannot support" you in her defiance of the law. Not only that he was clear he would not represent her as the law in the case of same sex marriage is clear.
While he has no stance on same sex marriage, well-established federal law must be followed.
Watkins wanted to emphasize several other things.
First that everyone who works at the courthouse has endured cursing as they enter the building. And it's not just at her office. Everyone in the courthouse is scared to come to work.
Second that Liberty Counsel will leave Kim Davis high and dry when this charade is over. Watkins thinks the funds they raise off the case should go to Rowan County.
Finally and most importantly he has learned that deputy clerks would issue lawful marriage licenses. They are simply afraid to do so. And if Judge Bunning instructs them to do so . . . they will.
Davis has put, in the words of Watkins, her employees and everyone in the courthouse in a "terrible position."
Watkins, in his role as the County Attorney, will be in court tomorrow for the hearing at 11:00 in Ashland. He is pictured being sworn in.
Ed. Note - The takeaways from the Watkins interview are clear. Davis is acting alone in her zealous mission. Her conduct has terrorized not just her staff but everyone that works in the courthouse. And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their "religious liberty" mission.
Shannon Ragland
Kentucky Trial Court Review
I'll grant you she does have something of a resemblance to Kathy Bates in "Misery" but she's never struck me as being especially scary.
5 of her clerks are being allowed 30 minutes to confer if they want to issue licenses, or join her in jail.
If they are all absent, the local judge can issue licenses as the office would be considered "vacant". The local judge previously stated they'd be willing to but worried about the legality while the clerk's office was capable of doing so.
Good on the judge. "Do your job"
"No"
"Ok. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Indiegogo, and do not collect crowd funding. Anyone else wanna feth with my decision?"
Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.
In turn how does she morally keep an entire region from having marriages? That seems to foment the sin of coveting thy neighbor's butt and committing adultery. She's in league with...STAN!!! er wait no... SATAN!
Frazzled wrote: Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.
In turn how does she morally keep an entire region from having marriages? That seems to foment the sin of coveting thy neighbor's butt and committing adultery. She's in league with...STAN!!! er wait no... SATAN!
It's clear she doesn't want to do the responsible thing, and it really hasn't been about doing the right thing. She wants to have her cake and eat it to. She wants to do the whole "I'm taking a moral stand" thing, but she doesn't want to give up that sweet sweet government paycheck for it either, at least not until relief in the form of some other opportunity (donor group, fox news speaking fees, etc) comes about.
timetowaste85 wrote: Good on the judge. "Do your job"
"No"
"Ok. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Indiegogo, and do not collect crowd funding. Anyone else wanna feth with my decision?"
Aye, this is a pretty solid way of dealing with this. This clerk is trying to generate drama and draw attention to herself, and while jail may aid in that, it's also skipping the "make me money" part.
Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....not fully realizing that 5 lawyers in Washington would force her to make a decision of conscience.
Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?
The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.
generalgrog wrote: Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....not fully realizing that 5 lawyers in Washington would force her to make a decision of conscience.
Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?
The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
GG
How the can you argue "taking a stand" when you are specifically NOT permitting any legal marriages in your jurisdiction? Thats about as asininely stupid as it gets (not you, her argument).
Grog actually means false Christian ministers. Real Christians value Jesus's ruling about loving your fellow man. "Christians" who oppose that viewpoint are not real Christians. They're pretenders and false practitioners. But GG won't let that get in his way.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
Indeed. The priest from my old church will not marry anyone unless it is inside his church AND he's had at least 2x 1-hour marriage counseling/prayers with them.
They aren't obliged to do jack gak. This bs with the clerk changes nothing. Apples and potatoes.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?
And surely these couples could have gone to another county? Its not like one stick in the mud is stopping all gay marriages everywhere.
generalgrog wrote: Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....
Sure, but elected government employees do not get to use their religious beliefs to justify not doing their job. If they have problem with fulfilling their duties due to private religious beliefs, you resign. You do not get to occupy to position and simply refuse to perform its duties.
Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?
Because ultimately she's the one refusing to perform her duties, she's not being prevented from doing so by lawyers in DC.
The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.
That would be both the easy and responsible thing.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
GG
This is an elected public official refusing to do her job and violating a court order to do so, not a private citizen engaged in private religious ceremonies.
Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?
And surely these couples could have gone to another county? Its not like one stick in the mud is stopping all gay marriages everywhere.
No.
I'm a government employee, a manager, and an attorney. I'm bound by more rules, regulations, and policies than most people can even imagine.
You swear an oath the law the land. If it changes, you don't get a personal little exemption. You sack up or you leave.
What no officer of the court can do, under any circumstances, is refuse to acknowledge the law. You can disagree to your hearts content, but you cannot make a public spectacle of not following the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.
That's so far from anything that's been allowed to happen that it's borderline delusional.
The ACLU would be over a case like that in a heart beat.
timetowaste85 wrote: Grog actually means false Christian ministers. Real Christians value Jesus's ruling about loving your fellow man. "Christians" who oppose that viewpoint are not real Christians. They're pretenders and false practitioners. But GG won't let that get in his way.
LOL....so 100% of all Christian, Jjewish, and Islamic ministers before 1960 were false ministers?
nice logic fail there..
But you actually help to prove my point. The atheist state... declares that anyone not performing gay marriage is a "false minister" and thus loses the right to marry at all. Or any 'false ministers" will be jailed for not marrying gays.
generalgrog wrote: I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.
That's so far from anything that's been allowed to happen that it's borderline delusional.
The ACLU would be over a case like that in a heart beat.
20 years ago you(well maybe not you..but many people would) would have called me delusional if I suggested that there would be gay marriage in the USA.
But you actually help to prove my point. The atheist state... declares that anyone not performing gay marriage is a "false minister" and thus loses the right to marry at all. Or any 'false ministers" will be jailed for not marrying gays.
The end is truly nigh...
GG
She's not performing marriages against her will. She's the county clerk. Its her job to issue licenses. She's not issuing ANY licenses. Her accepting a paycheck is fraudulent activity.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.
GG
I will point you to the Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2:
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
So, either you believe that the governments are in power because God allows them to be, or you don't, and think you can act against what the Bible has mandated because... reasons?
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.
GG
I will point you to the Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2:
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
So, either you believe that the governments are in power because God allows them to be, or you don't, and think you can act against what the Bible has mandated because... reasons?
so martin luther king was evil for civil disobedience? You sound like the rednecks from the 1960's who called king a rabble rouser and, a hypocrite.
making a stand against an immoral law, is different than not paying your taxes.
generalgrog wrote: Could it be that she didn't want to give up the 20+ years she put into that position....not fully realizing that 5 lawyers in Washington would force her to make a decision of conscience.
Why should she give up those 20+ years of service because of 5 lawyers in DC ?
The easy thing would be to resign. I applaud her for taking a stand.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
GG
She only converted to Christianity about two years ago.
generalgrog wrote: 20 years ago you(well maybe not you..but many people would) would have called me delusional if I suggested that there would be gay marriage in the USA.
I don't think so. They may have wanted it to appear delusional, but the writing was on the wall 20 years ago. Don't ask, don't tell landed in 1994, and from everything I've heard from those who served, homosexuality in the ranks was more or less an open secret. Hawaii's supreme court first rules that same sex marriage could be constitutionally required as early as 1993.
Gay characters were appearing in TV shows, and the mood was shifting.
Interestingly, a lot of the noise to ban gay marriage only started around that time, mostly in response to growing gay awareness.
Anyways, I had heard that the assistant clerks were given the same ultimatum. Any word on their decisions?
There is only one Moses...Mel Brooks!
Earlier posts said at least one had agreed to do them. And there's another moral point. She didn't have to do them herself, thus not sinning. Someone else could do them.
Yea so she was going to try to insure that technically no one was going to be legally married in that county ever again? In the words of Darth Vader: WTF???
timetowaste85 wrote: Grog actually means false Christian ministers. Real Christians value Jesus's ruling about loving your fellow man. "Christians" who oppose that viewpoint are not real Christians. They're pretenders and false practitioners. But GG won't let that get in his way.
LOL....so 100% of all Christian, Jjewish, and Islamic ministers before 1960 were false ministers?
nice logic fail there..
But you actually help to prove my point. The atheist state... declares that anyone not performing gay marriage is a "false minister" and thus loses the right to marry at all. Or any 'false ministers" will be jailed for not marrying gays.
The end is truly nigh...
...
To be fair that has been the case since the separation clause took effect. Once the government licensed marriage, which the constitution obliged it to do, all religions were in the same boat and none had any preference.
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.
And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.
I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.
GG
I will point you to the Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2:
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
So, either you believe that the governments are in power because God allows them to be, or you don't, and think you can act against what the Bible has mandated because... reasons?
so martin luther king was evil for civil disobedience? You sound like the rednecks from the 1960's who called king a rabble rouser and, a hypocrite.
making a stand against an immoral law, is different than not paying your taxes.
GG
Evil? I'm not passing judgement here, not my place. Only pointing out that the Bible quite clearly states that the "powers that be" are placed there by God, and one is expected to obey them. If you judge a law as "immoral" is certainly your prerogative... but it is not your prerogative to sit as a part of that government and refuse to enact its lawful mandates. It is certainly your right to move within the bounds of law to change those laws you find immoral. What she is doing is not in keeping with Biblical mandate.
King was a rabble-rouser. That's... exactly what he was, as a matter of fact. You can be a rabble-rouser and still be in the right, there's not a judgement against it, provided you live in a nation where rabble-rousing isn't a crime. A hypocrite? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Was King a sinner? Of course. Everyone is. But King was not a hypocrite in that he was pushing for equal rights and equal treatment while also denying the same to others.
WrentheFaceless wrote: She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.
And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling
This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..
GG
Psienisis wrote:
Evil? I'm not passing judgement here, not my place. Only pointing out that the Bible quite clearly states that the "powers that be" are placed there by God, and one is expected to obey them. If you judge a law as "immoral" is certainly your prerogative... but it is not your prerogative to sit as a part of that government and refuse to enact its lawful mandates. It is certainly your right to move within the bounds of law to change those laws you find immoral. What she is doing is not in keeping with Biblical mandate.
King was a rabble-rouser. That's... exactly what he was, as a matter of fact. You can be a rabble-rouser and still be in the right, there's not a judgement against it, provided you live in a nation where rabble-rousing isn't a crime. A hypocrite? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Was King a sinner? Of course. Everyone is. But King was not a hypocrite in that he was pushing for equal rights and equal treatment while also denying the same to others.
the law of Caeser was to pledge allegiance and ackowledge that caeser was a god. Many Christians in the early church were martyred for not bowing the knee and following the law of the land.
The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings. And America was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by the way. Religious freedom from the state, not the other way around.
WrentheFaceless wrote: She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.
And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling
This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..
GG
No, but her refusal to "do unto others as she would have them do unto her" is pretty telling. As is her refusal to give the grace to others that has been given to her. There's also an admonition from Jesus about worrying over the speck in your neighbor's eye while having a log in your own.
The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings. And America was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by the way. Religious freedom from the state, not the other way around.
And Biblical teachings don't say anything at all about issuing marriage licenses while being part of a secular state, which the US is. You are correct that it is founded on the principal of religious freedom... and her religious beliefs against gay marriage are not being violated. However, her office as county clerk is not part of her religious beliefs. In this case, *she* is the state and is enforcing religious law on others not of her faith.
WrentheFaceless wrote: She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.
And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling
This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..
GG
No, but her refusal to "do unto others as she would have them do unto her" is pretty telling. As is her refusal to give the grace to others that has been given to her. There's also an admonition from Jesus about worrying over the speck in your neighbor's eye while having a log in your own.
She is not divorcing anyone is she? what does her divorces have to do with gay marriage ? You are really determined to hate this woman aren't you?
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
It depends what you mean by "free pass."
Most Christian theology holds that sincere regret is sufficient. Catholic view also requires appropriate penance.
I think the main driving factor is to avoid the trip to the hot place downstairs right? Conversion is essentialy a 'free pass' to that if what i've been reading around the internet regarding this woman's infidelitys and divorces are concerned that they dont count upon her moral standing since she converted
You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a very religious minded person
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
wow....really?
GG
Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.
He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message. Besides, the whole divorce thing in this case is just an ad hominem anyway, the fact that she's not doing her job ought to be more than enough.
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
wow....really?
GG
Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.
He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message.
So its another case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?
WrentheFaceless wrote: She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.
And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling
This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..
GG
No, but her refusal to "do unto others as she would have them do unto her" is pretty telling. As is her refusal to give the grace to others that has been given to her. There's also an admonition from Jesus about worrying over the speck in your neighbor's eye while having a log in your own.
She is not divorcing anyone is she? what does her divorces have to do with gay marriage ? You are really determined to hate this woman aren't you?
GG
I don't hate this woman. Quite the contrary, actually, I feel very sorry for her. That she has been shown Grace and is unwilling to share that Grace. Because what she's doing right now is simply adding ammunition to those who see how she behaves and will distance themselves from God because of her actions.
They see her and they say, "Look at her! If that is how Christians act, then I want nothing to do with them!" rather than her taking the moral stand of "I do not believe that this law is just, and I do not believe that it is in keeping with God's word, and thus I can no longer support this government and must step down as its representative to the people of this county." If she wishes to be a martyr, then that would be the way to do it. But that, of course, doesn't make her famous and won't get her a GoFundMe, appearances on talk shows, and all the rest of the quite-secular goods that go with being internet-famous. She does not do what she does to glorify God, she does it for her selfish aggrandizement.
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
wow....really?
GG
Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.
He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message. Besides, the whole divorce thing in this case is just an ad hominem anyway, the fact that she's not doing her job ought to be more than enough.
Which really makes the use of Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2 as an example used in this thread interesting. When the alleged author of that book was named Saul, he was not a good friend of the early Christians...
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
Yeah, I think god prefers it that way actually. Nothing makes him happier than when a lost sheep, prodigal son, or lazy vineyard worker, shows up at the last minute and makes everyone else feel like they've wasted their time.
Jesus submitted by to the law and let Rome judge and execute him. Unlike her He never ran for Roman office or swore to uphold Roman law, although He did pay his taxes.
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
wow....really?
GG
Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.
He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message.
So its another case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?
Not at all, unless you're claiming that people aren't allowed to change their mind, ever.
Not at all, unless you're claiming that people aren't allowed to change their mind, ever.
People are allowed to change their mind, most certainly. Only issue is when they're hypocrites about it.
The entire point is that it's entirely possible to consider one's own actions in the past to be wrong. You're not a hypocrite if you honestly consider what you did wrong.
Frazzled wrote: Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.
In turn how does she morally keep an entire region from having marriages? That seems to foment the sin of coveting thy neighbor's butt and committing adultery. She's in league with...STAN!!! er wait no... SATAN!
It's because it has nothing at all to do with principle, but her feeding a martyr complex.
Grey Templar wrote: Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?
Nope, no bearing at all, because the oath of office is literally, 'I solemnly swear to do my job.' There's no date attached to it, otherwise it would make things like Loving v Virginia completely pointless until you started electing people after it'd been decided.
When you can no longer follow your oath because the law has changed and you no longer agree with it, then you resign. You don't stop following your oath.
."
