Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
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.

Exactly. That's what somebody who was following their principles would do, if they found themselves in a position where their beliefs no longer allowed them to do their job.

Davis has made it abundantly clear that principle has nothing to do with it.

Interestingly, the Kentucky Oath of Office has been getting passed around on-line, the last line of which is now pretty interesting.

“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

Again, how is it moral to deny wedding licenses to an entire jurisdiction for everyone?

I say everybody get married so that they can share my pai.....er bliss, yes bliss!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
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.

Exactly. That's what somebody who was following their principles would do, if they found themselves in a position where their beliefs no longer allowed them to do their job.

Davis has made it abundantly clear that principle has nothing to do with it.

Interestingly, the Kentucky Oath of Office has been getting passed around on-line, the last line of which is now pretty interesting.

“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God

*GASP*

She broke an oath made before God!?!?!111 You're right lady, it was a heaven or hell decision.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

Yeah, actually, it is. Well, converting and praying for forgiveness. I mean, if you think you can "trick" God into believing yourself truly repentant, then, well, good luck with that...

Heh, actually I was pointing out the 'without favor, affection, or partiality,' bit, but that works too.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

There are some folks of various religions who hold the view that if they commit the sin themselves, that's bad. But nearly as bad, is if they knowingly "allow" another to sin, or allow another to sin on their behalf.

Apparently this lady is one such believer, who felt that her sin would be just as great if she allowed others to do their jobs in her stead.

http://gawker.com/kim-daviss-deputies-agree-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-li-1728569873

Turns out 5 of the 6 clerks agreed to issue licenses durring her incarceration. The only deputy clerk to not agree is, surprise surprise, her son.

Sounds about right.

The most important thing is that she was taken into custody by us marshals for contempt of court. In Kentucky. So one could say that it was entirely...Justified.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

There are some folks of various religions who hold the view that if they commit the sin themselves, that's bad. But nearly as bad, is if they knowingly "allow" another to sin, or allow another to sin on their behalf.

Apparently this lady is one such believer, who felt that her sin would be just as great if she allowed others to do their jobs in her stead.

There's... well, I'm trying really hard to find a Biblical justification for that belief, but I'm drawing a blank. The Bible teaches to lead by example, and in so doing, be humble in one's faith. To pray at home, behind closed doors with curtains drawn, and not loudly in public out in the streets. I can't think of a passage that tells you that by not stopping someone from committing a sin you are also committing a sin, since attempting to do so is likely to result in the commission of several other sins.

 motyak wrote:
The most important thing is that she was taken into custody by us marshals for contempt of court. In Kentucky. So one could say that it was entirely...Justified.

*Slow clap*

Raylan Givens demanded I give you an exalt. Who am I to deny him?

 whembly wrote:
It's really not different from Sanctuary Cities...

Whatever one thinks of the sanctuary cities, it’s fairly easy to see how letting them operate as they are encouraged others to do the same.

For that to be the case with this, it’d rely on people somehow just letting this woman carry on as she has. I can see no slightly plausible hypothetical that would produce that result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I’ve never heard of a Christian sermon that fantasized about the martyrdom of resignation. If you want to be a martyr it’s got to be death or prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

Reality is a lot less fun than persecution fantasies.

 d-usa wrote:
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.

Great... when will Obama resign for not following immigration laws?

Or, mayors of sanctuary cities like San Francisco?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
The most important thing is that she was taken into custody by us marshals for contempt of court. In Kentucky. So one could say that it was entirely...Justified.

Heh... saw what you did there!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?

Yeah, and policemen can choose not to enforce any laws that have been made since they joined.

For feth’s sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
The end is truly nigh...

It must be so frustrating to keep calling for the end of civilisation, only for civilisation to keep carrying on just fine. Hardline Christians have been suffering from apocalypse blue balls for about 1,800 years now, it must be really getting to you guys.

 sebster wrote:

It must be so frustrating to keep calling for the end of civilisation, only for civilisation to keep carrying on just fine. Hardline Christians have been suffering from apocalypse blue balls for about 1,800 years now, it must be really getting to you guys.

TBH, it gets a bit tiresome for those of us who don't believe period, yet are related to hardliners. Seriously, everytime my grandmother visits, I hear some new "thing" about how we're surely in the end times.

Sorry, folks. The Bible makes it pretty clear that the Apocalypse will come when people least expect it. Jesus himself said that he will return "like a thief in the night".

It will be a time when religions have all gone from the face of the Earth, when there are none who even remembered that there was a man/prophet/Messiah named Jesus. When there are no more churches, when the evening news does not even speak of the beliefs of different people, because those beliefs simply do not exist.

When it happens, there will be none alive who can say "I told you so". These days are most certainly not those days.

 Psienesis wrote:
Sorry, folks. The Bible makes it pretty clear that the Apocalypse will come when people least expect it.

Kinda like this??




Anyhow... I'm much more a fan of Ragnarok, let's get that party started already

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sorry, folks. The Bible makes it pretty clear that the Apocalypse will come when people least expect it.

Kinda like this??

Spoiler:

Anyhow... I'm much more a fan of Ragnarok, let's get that party started already

LOL....nice one.

GG

I’ve never heard of a Christian sermon that fantasized about the martyrdom of resignation. If you want to be a martyr it’s got to be death or prison.

You never heard of resigning on principle? I mean I know public integrity disappeared decades ago, but I thought you were older than that.

Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.

I'm actually fine with that compromise.

I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or "Stolen from the desk of Jack Daniels."

 kronk wrote:
Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.

I think that was always the core of the issue. As the county clerk, it was her name and signature "authorizing" the marriage certificate. It is my understanding that this is the reason why she didn't simply pawn the job off on one of the other people in her office (I won't issue them, but let me get Susie to get it for you) because even if Susie did all the paper work it would still be "issued" by the clerk.

I'm actually fine with that compromise.

I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or

My only issue is that this is not something for her to decide, or the judge to decide. What it says on the certificate, including who issues it, is set by law and she swore to uphold and follow that law with her job. I'm fine if she, and others, want to petition the legislature to change the forms, but until then she should follow the law or resign.

"Stolen from the desk of Jack Daniels."

Jack Daniels is probably responsible for a lot of marriages...

 d-usa wrote:

I'm actually fine with that compromise.

I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or

My only issue is that this is not something for her to decide, or the judge to decide. What it says on the certificate, including who issues it, is set by law and she swore to uphold and follow that law with her job. I'm fine if she, and others, want to petition the legislature to change the forms, but until then she should follow the law or resign.

I don't disagree, mind you. I've never once seen her appeal to the Kentucky legislature, so this might just be blowing smoke. Dunno. Perhaps she has and they told her to suck it.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything on that either. She has petitioned the governor who told her to suck it, but I think that's it.

 kronk wrote:
Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.

It was bs.


This has been about her and Liberty Counsel trying to get attention.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
TBH, it gets a bit tiresome for those of us who don't believe period, yet are related to hardliners. Seriously, everytime my grandmother visits, I hear some new "thing" about how we're surely in the end times.

Fair enough. To me its a novelty and quite fun, but if you experience all the time, and in a social environment where you can't just crack a joke and move on, I can see how it would wear.

A bit like facing a drop bear attack here. To a US tourist that life and death struggle would be quite exciting, but for us it's just something we have to put up to go buy some bread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
You never heard of resigning on principle? I mean I know public integrity disappeared decades ago, but I thought you were older than that.

Oh I've not only heard of resigning on principle, I think it's still quite common.

But this is nothing to do with principle. This is about a woman following her own private martyrdom fantasy.

The clerks office has started issuing licences.

Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.

Hopefully the forms still have her name on them

 Ouze wrote:
The clerks office has started issuing licences.

Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.

She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.

She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The clerks office has started issuing licences.

Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.

She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.

She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.

Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The clerks office has started issuing licences.

Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.

She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.

She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.

Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.

GG

For someone suggesting that I'm acting as though I'm a mind reader, you sure seem to be making some assumptions yourself there buddy.

She had an opportunity to resign and to try and actually work things out in a manner beneficial to her. She chose instead to make a political statement and accepted the legal representation of Liberty Counsel, a group which does nothing but make actual Christians look bad.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The clerks office has started issuing licences.

Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.

She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.

She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.

Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.

GG

I'm a straight married Christian with the (unpopular) view that homosexuality is a sin and that a "Christian" marriage is between a man and a woman, yet I still think that she should have resigned and that she deserves the punishment she is getting.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just an employee of the federal government who is married to a black woman and who has a biracial daughter who somehow manages to do my job even if it involves taking care of rapists, racists, Muslims, and every other group. I help Muslims get on the ground so that they can pray, I facilitated religious ceremonies for native Americans, and go out of my way to make sure that my patients believes and religious practices are respected and accommodated even if it goes against my own. Because if I don't like doing my job, even if my job is to take care of a racist pedophile satan worshiper, I can quit.