Quetzal
New member
That's fine, too. Regardless, his personal opinion on the matter does not hold weight if the law is to the contrary.aka "they interpret the law"
That's fine, too. Regardless, his personal opinion on the matter does not hold weight if the law is to the contrary.aka "they interpret the law"
She willfully broke the law, put her in jail.
That's all there is to it.
Christians do not deserve special treatment.And you say you are a Christian?
We're not talking about Obama. We're talking about Kim Davis.
Christians do not deserve special treatment.
That's fine, too. Regardless, his personal opinion on the matter does not hold weight if the law is to the contrary.
no, that's ethereal territory beyond my comfort level
I stick with the basics
Homos molest children and should be executed
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.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.
It would appear she is more concerned with being linked to the act, not actually carrying it out. Sounds like a coward to me.“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.
are you unaware of your own prejudice and discriminatiion?
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.
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)).
I'm refusing to issue marriage licences?
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.
So you want the death penalty for something, but you cannot really formulate why it deserves the death penalty? That is not very convincing.
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.
1. Somebody actually remembered something I've previously said and, completely unprompted, brought me up in a thread in a positive light?
“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.
I will if I have time, but if you have them handy and want to post them, the discussion might benefit.research his comments on the ruling in question
Hate and discrimination are not rights listed in the constitution either.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.
It's included in the part where it says marrying someone of a different race is a rightNowhere in the Constitution is two men "marrying" each other listed as 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.