Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
That's fine, too. Regardless, his personal opinion on the matter does not hold weight if the law is to the contrary.

of course it does

it goes to nuance of interpretation and influences his decision of punishment

for example, he could have chosen to accept Davis' offer to issue the licenses without her signature affixed - no law would have been broken
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
no, that's ethereal territory beyond my comfort level

I stick with the basics

Homos molest children and should be executed

So you want the death penalty for something, but you cannot really formulate why it deserves the death penalty? That is not very convincing.

"Homos molest children". Say what? No, homosexuals are those who are attracted to people of the same sex. They are completely capable of entering into consenting relationships. You need to argue that homosexuality per se (in and of itself) is immoral. Your argument is "some homosexuals may also be pedophiles, therefore they should all be executed". That is incoherent at best.
Heterosexuals molest sometimes molest children as well. I might as well exchange homosexual with heterosexual in your argument, or say something like: "Heterosexuals beat their spouses, so they should all be imprisoned".

Pedophilia is something completely different. They are more or less indifferent to the sexuality of their victims because that is not what attracts them. The very nature of their attraction makes it impossible for them to enter into a consenting relationship, so it is, should and will remain illegal. Got nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever.
 

Quetzal

New member
of course it does

it goes to nuance of interpretation and influences his decision of punishment

for example, he could have chosen to accept Davis' offer to issue the licenses without her signature affixed - no law would have been broken
If that is the case, then it would appear you are incorrect. His ruling aligned with his conscience and morality. Further, if that is the case, he feels that he ruled justly. Otherwise, he would have done something else, as you said.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
If that is the case, then it would appear you are incorrect. His ruling aligned with his conscience and morality. Further, if that is the case, he feels that he ruled justly. Otherwise, he would have done something else, as you said.

“She doesn’t have a problem with recording” a license for a same-sex couple, her attorney said. “But she has a problem with her name being listed on it.”

Now think about that. She's concerned with the appearance of her name on the thing. If they stripped that away she'd be handing them out like candy.

Apply that to a more obvious moral objection. "She doesn't have a problem with a permit for human sacrifice, but she has a problem with her name being listed on it" and you see what is and isn't happening here.
 

Quetzal

New member
“She doesn’t have a problem with recording” a license for a same-sex couple, her attorney said. “But she has a problem with her name being listed on it.”

Now think about that. She's concerned with the appearance of her name on the thing. If they stripped that away she'd be handing them out like candy.

Apply that to a more obvious moral objection. "She doesn't have a problem with a permit for human sacrifice, but she has a problem with her name being listed on it" and you see what is and isn't happening here.
It would appear she is more concerned with being linked to the act, not actually carrying it out. Sounds like a coward to me.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
From what I remember, I did not find those arguments very convincing. They were natural law arguments, which in many cases rely on selective and ambigious interpretation of nature and the deduction of an ought from an is, and even a "projected is" as well in the sense of projecting an interpretation of what the final cause of a particular natural act must be, certainly a restrictive interpretation of it.

But feel free to reiterate them or another argument if you so wish.

1. Somebody actually remembered something I've previously said and, completely unprompted, brought me up in a thread in a positive light? I feel like I've won the Oscars! :second:

2. I actually wrote part of a lecture on this point. I'll just quote the relevent portion of the lecture.

Note, however, the following: the lecture presupposes a prior awareness of the four causes and the difference between first and second actuality.

Lecture on II De Anima said:
[Here, in fact, let us consider the utter baseness of sins against temperance (temperance being the virtue whereby we moderate our desires for food, drink and sexual intercourse). At first glance, it may seem as though the person who thus sins (namely, against temperance), gives in simply to his animal desires. This isn’t entirely correct. Whereas it is true that plants don’t eat or have sexual intercourse in the manner that animals do (the animal division of male and female is required for the latter; furthermore, the sensuality or concupiscible appetition or appetitive drive to obtain these things, ultimately based on the sense of touch (which is, let us note, the “lowest” of the five external senses) is required for the uniquely animal expression of these powers), nonetheless, the powers of self-nourishment, growth and reproduction are common to all living things, not insofar as they are animals, but insofar as they are alive at all. Even plants have these powers (i.e., of self-nourishment, growth and reproduction). It is, in fact, precisely for this reason that the temptation to commit such sins is so common, strong and “difficult” to resist. The desires to nourish oneself (and so preserve one’s body) and to reproduce (and so preserve the being of the species) are common to all living things.]...

...In fact, at this point, a simple consideration of the reproductive faculty should show us that things like abortion and contraceptives are disordered. Which faculty or power does the animal use in sexual intercourse? He makes use of the reproductive faculty, which he shares in common even with plants. What is the “purpose” of this faculty? Its purpose is the production of a new individual which is specifically (or, at least, generically) the same as the parent (thus, dogs beget dogs; even horses and donkeys, when they produce offspring with each other, produce something similar to horses and donkeys (i.e., mules). The use of contraceptives, then, as contraceptive, involves the exercise of the reproductive faculty with the expressed intent of circumventing the end or goal to which that faculty is ordered. (Note, this isn’t my argument; this is a common Thomistic argument; with respect to contraceptives, one should also consult Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI.) It would be like eating with the expressed intent of failing to be nourished. Thus, the one who uses contraceptives makes use of the reproductive faculty with the expressed intent of failing to reproduce. His intent is to sterilize the operation of his reproductive faculty, the very nature of which is to be fecund. (Note that the same argument also applies to other sexual acts which subvert the natural ordering of the reproductive faculty in the same way (e.g., sodomy)).
 

TracerBullet

New member
You need to show how it was a lawful order and how she was sworn to uphold it.


When the clerk swore an oath, the word "marriage" meant the union of a man and a woman.
Issuing "marriage" licenses to same sex couples was not something covered by her oath.

To illustrate just how stupid this sounds consider this: The law changes and in order to renew their driving licence individuals over the age of 70 have to pass a driving test. However everyone at the DMV started their job well before this new law took effect. So no one over the age of 70 can renew their driver's licence because the whole driving test thing was not part of the clerk's initial job description.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So you want the death penalty for something, but you cannot really formulate why it deserves the death penalty? That is not very convincing.

I rely on God for that

Sorry if you don't find Him convincing :idunno:





don't have time for the rest :wave2:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
If that is the case, then it would appear you are incorrect. His ruling aligned with his conscience and morality. Further, if that is the case, he feels that he ruled justly. Otherwise, he would have done something else, as you said.

research his comments on the ruling in question
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
“She doesn’t have a problem with recording” a license for a same-sex couple, her attorney said. “But she has a problem with her name being listed on it.”

Now think about that. She's concerned with the appearance of her name on the thing. If they stripped that away she'd be handing them out like candy.

Apply that to a more obvious moral objection. "She doesn't have a problem with a permit for human sacrifice, but she has a problem with her name being listed on it" and you see what is and isn't happening here.


you're making a tortured analogy? :idunno:
 

TracerBullet

New member
The first civil right written into the Constitutional amendments is the right to the free exercise of religion.
Nowhere in the Constitution or the amendments is engaging in sexual perversions listed as a right.
Hate and discrimination are not rights listed in the constitution either.


Davis' is not being prevented from participating in the religion of her choice. She is free to worship or whatever it is she does. She doesn't have the right to discriminate in the execution of her job however. In her private life she is free to hate gays or Jews or blacks or anyone else she likes and she is free to pretend that her choice to hate is part of her religion. However, her right to hate others ends when she acts on that hate and infringes on the rights of other people



Nowhere in the Constitution is two men "marrying" each other listed as a right.
It's included in the part where it says marrying someone of a different race is a right

No, the only Civil Right that is involved in this matter is the clerk's civil right to be free to exercise her religious convictions, and that is being violated.

a racist is free to exercise his/her religious convictions as well, but that racist doesn't have the right to burn a cross in someone's yard
 
Top