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

[genuineoriginal]

homosexuals are those who are attracted to people of the same sex

Being attracted to people of the same gender has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty for same gender sexual acts.

The death penalty is to be given to heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, pansexuals, and sexually fluid people when they engage in same gender sexual acts.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

You are actually trying to claim that being over 70 years old is the same thing as being a sexual pervert?

I didn't think you were very smart to begin with, but you have now sunk to a new level of stupidity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hate and discrimination are not rights listed in the constitution either.

Yes, so your hatred and discrimination against Christians for practicing their religion (as stated in the First Amendment) has no place in America.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Jesus died for SIN...ALL sin...period. It's kind of impossible for me to explain the Bible to someone who has already denied many of it's truths.

It is impossible for you to explain the Bible, since you really have no clue what it actually says.

Try reading the actual words that are written in the Bible instead of relying on what you were told that it says.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That's not comparable to Davis. If the government bans prayer, even in your own home, and someone goes to jail over it then I will join in your support of that person. This isn't even close to that though.

Praying in your own home is not the definition of living a Christian life.

Evil people have targeted Christians and made laws against Christian beliefs in order to outlaw Christianity.

In America, they have declared that a Christian's religious beliefs must be thrown away in order for a Christian to hold a public office.

 

[exminister]

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.

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "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." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
Effective: January 2, 1978
History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

 

[genuineoriginal]

She's an elected officer of the Court with proscribed duties. Her job is to follow the law and execute the obligations of her office. If her conscience won't allow for it then she should resign...though as I noted, in this case she didn't have to do either, but she decided on the present course.


The law isn't holding out a moral opinion. So it is neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with you on your belief. It's simply denying you the right to impose that belief on someone who doesn't share it.

The clerk was not imposing her belief on others by not sanctioning in their sexual perversions, it is the others that are imposing their beliefs on the clerk by insisting that she sanction their sexual perversions.

 

[genuineoriginal]

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "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." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
Effective: January 2, 1978
History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

Refusing to issue "marriage" licenses to same gender couples does not violate that oath.
Rather, issuing "marriage" licenses would violate that oath which she swore before God.

 

[TheHolyClub]

Rape is also natural, it occurs in many other species, it comes from a biological imperative to perpetuate the species.
In the other species it may not be a choice, but in humans it is a choice and it is immoral.
Homosexuality, like rape, is both a choice and is immoral.

I always find it funny, when discussing this topic with non-Christians, how they are so deluded by these people who, like the evolutionist, call themselves "scientist"... I call them the "animal whisperers"... for somehow they know those 2 male penguins sharing a nest together are gazing into each others eyes and thinking sweet nothings of each other, and not just sharing a nest... Or those 2 male dolphins who have traveled together for years are crazy in love, and not just traveling in pacts...

I expect that foolishness from the world... For "professing to be wise, they became fools"... But, hear it from someone who professes to be a "Christian" is disturbing...

 

[kiwimacahau]

Citing the Bible to prove homosexuality is immoral is a perfectly fine argument.
The reason: Homosexuality is listed as being worthy of the death penalty.

And of course it is not.

 

[exminister]

Try following my argument, instead of quote mining me and taking what I said out of its rhetorical context. The point of my statement was to provoke the very answer you give here. Republickchick made the claim that homosexuality was wrong because it is unnatural. She fell for it in exactly the same manner. Natural does not equal moral, it follows that unnatural does not equal immoral. So her claim that homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural (an argument that a lot of people here make) is complete nonsense. Morality is about what ought to be the case, nature is about what is the case.

Of course, then you need to present an argument for why homosexuality is immoral. Citing the Bible is not an argument. There are plenty of laws in the Bible that those very same people wouldnt even dream of following today, in fact the very same people criticize groups like IS for doing things similar to the things those laws allow (such as enslaving the population of a sacked city). So you need to present an actual rational argument using reason and empirical facts to argue why homosexuality is immoral. So far, I've not seen anyone here being able to do that. And then I mean homosexuality in and of itself.

Some here (serpentdove) claim that these other OT laws are ceremonial rather than moral. The law that allows the enslavement of the citizens of a sacked city is not even remotely close to being a ceremonial law, it is however a reprehensible law.



You calling out people for not answering questions and the fullness of a post is pretty much the objective definition of absolute irony.
I have answered it as well. I said I was OK with it.

I don't feel this was adequately addressed. So you want an argument outside the Bible.

You disavow offspring as a valid reason for heterosexuality marriage only. But it does give purpose to such a union. In rare cases offspring are not produced. That shouldn't thereby justify same sex marriage.

Consent. That is critical for a marriage and would easily dismissed the slippery slope notion of adult/child and human/other species since the latter in the union cannot give consent.

Love and commitment. That is the highest modern argument for marriage. However, doesn't this reject pre-arranged marriages? This is done in many societies and was in Biblical times. Isn't this just a modern idea and adds to current confusion? If marriages went back to being pre-arrange that would eliminate same sex marriages. Pre-arranged marriages are the norm in India and stand as a model. Pre-marital sex, same sex and divorce are all anathema there.

Polygamy. Do you have any reasoned argument against it? If consent is there are you OK with it? The Bible has clear text against it even though it tolerated it.

Celibacy. Paul certainly encouraged this, but the majority "burn with desire" so it too high a standard for most. It doesn't seem natural.

Anyway I just threw out stuff randomly but wanted your thoughts wherever they go.

Could you swap seats and give non-biblical reasons against same sex marriage?

 

[exminister]

No I don't...her name is also on divorce certificates, business licences for porn shops and bars, so this is strictly a personal vendetta against a legal citizen of Kentucky. It is nothing more than religious bigotry hiding behind the freedom of religion, which is not even a defensible stance in the U.S., because of it being illegal to force your religious beliefs on anyone, plus the fact that the Bible does NOT condone legislated morality.

I wonder if she gave pause for recording documents for porn shops or bars. Maybe it's a dry county.

while I get it doesn't condone legislative morality (my kingdom is not of this world; 1Cor 5; the entire failure of establishing a healthy theocracy in the OT) does it condemn it at least even in part? You know brighten the corner where you are.

 

[Totton Linnet]

There's no confusion or contradiction in what I've written. We were talking about individuals, first about the clerk. I said and it remains true that we don't as individuals decide what laws are valid. The laws are objective restraints and guarantees relating to right. Those rights and laws begin with the Constitution and the Court is charged with determining what meets or runs afoul of it.

So if you don't care for that you'll have to change the Constitution itself. And there's just not the will or numbers to do it.


Rather, I'm just telling you the plain fact of it independent of your desire and belief.


Just as demonstrably wrong as the first time you wrote it, supra and prior.


Well, I'm having a conversation with you, so I understand the speculation, but no. I have no more reason to think I'm either than I do to believe you're capable of sustained civil discourse.


You don't have to go to hypothetical extremes for that point though. We have laws that legalize killing right now. Abortion. Is it the law? Absolutely. Is it morally objectionable? I believe so. Would I perform an abortion if someone added it to my duties as an attorney? No, I wouldn't. And I'd take whatever consequence came with that position. Wouldn't alter the fact of the law though.


As I said to someone earlier, allowing people the freedom to make choices relating to their own personal and moral consequence isn't tyranny. Denying them that can be.


No, but with all the shouting and name calling I can tell you believe it. I've told you the truth. You just don't like it. Well, you don't have to. I don't always, but it doesn't alter it.

I'm continuing to step around your notions regarding constitutionality because it just doesn't control anything and given the name calling and shouting I'm fairly sure you wouldn't listen to me anyway.


I've said we don't determine the law as individuals. I've never said anyone isn't free to an opinion about whether a law is just or unjust, well reasoned or idiotic.

*
Townie what percent of laws came about by people agitating against impossible situations, agitating perhaps even to the point of breaking the law....isn't law fluid rather than established ?

 

[lifeisgood]

Where are you getting the notion that Quetzal is affirming that you have no rights at all over a difference of opinion?

:AMR:

Does no one read for understanding anymore?

 

[chrysostom]

*
Townie what percent of laws came about by people agitating against impossible situations, agitating perhaps even to the point of breaking the law....isn't law fluid rather than established ?

the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.

 

[lifeisgood]

Eh, why didn't you go the whole hog and say man/child as well? Only the most paranoid conspiracy nut would think that the floodgates have opened for those unable to consent to be "lawfully wed" simply because homosexual consenting adults are allowed to do so.

I forgot to aggregate man/child, woman/child.

You do know that NAMBLA would love for that to happen don't you.

It would be so nice if all of us would read for understanding.

 

[kmoney]

Worth a read:

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/this-story-isnt-about-marriage#When:05:01:00Z

AMR

What if the drive wasn't under 30 minutes? What if it's 60 minutes? Is that still an acceptable compromise? Where is the line?

 

[TracerBullet]

Obergefell is unconstitutional. It... IS NOT THE LAW.

Yeah it is, just like Loving v Virgina and Brown v the board of education

 

[kmoney]

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "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." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
Effective: January 2, 1978
History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

Hmm, so the oath doesn't mention making a moral judgment about every marriage license that crosses her desk. :think:

 

[TracerBullet]

Yes. We do.

Even if our decision is "anything X says is law."



Not true.

Again, the ruling is unconstitutional. Not only does the text of the "amendment" cited in no way support the conclusion reached, the 14th amendment isn't even an amendment. The 14th never received the required number of votes to pass constitutional and legal muster, and don't drag out the falsehood that the slave states would never have passed it, because the same legislatures that didn't pass the 14th DID pass the 13th. Do you consider the 13th law? why? Consistency? Bueller? Consistency? Bueller?

Obergefell is not law.

Anyone enforcing it is breaking the law.

Except the 14th amendment did pass.
The 14th amendment was ratified by congress in 1866 and ratified by 30 states by 1868