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

[Alate_One]

It means her own record on marriage is no better than those she has decided to judge. The fact that she is momentarily settled down doesn't change her own example of marital commitment.

Very true and bound up with it is the question of do the people coming for marriage licences are Christians themselves. Why enforce a moral law over someone that has no faith claims?

The statements of "she did these things before she was a Christian" is an exact parallel to many gay couples. And mind you that's how homosexuality is mentioned in the new testament.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[Jose Fly]

Her state still says homosexual marriage is illegal. They have yet to meet and change the law declared unconstitutional.

Your ignorance of our system of government is once again noted.

 

[Rusha]

What is her example of marital commitment (since shes been saved?)

That she, at least at one point was, by her own example, a failure at marriage. She may fail again ... and would still be able to marry umpteen more times without any bias towards her own less then sterling example.

She got a redo ... good for her. Now she wishes to deprive others of a chance for marital bliss based solely on her religious bias against them.

I WOULD support her to refusal to marry anyone she pleased IF she were doing so as a member of the religious clergy. However, she is not self-employed ... nor does she run her own business. She is being selective about what job duties she is willing to perform, and should be held to the standard of any other employee who refused to perform ALL of her required duties. No jail time ... a simple firing would suffice.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That she, at least at one point was, by her own example, a failure at marriage. She may fail again ... and would still be able to marry umpteen more times without any bias towards her own less then sterling example.

She got a redo ... good for her. Now she wishes to deprive others of a chance for marital bliss based solely on her religious bias against them.

I WOULD support her to refusal to marry anyone she pleased IF she were doing so as a member of the religious clergy. However, she is not self-employed ... nor does she run her own business. She is being selective about what job duties she is willing to perform, and should be held to the standard of any other employee who refused to perform ALL of her required duties. No jail time ... a simple firing would suffice.

She might fail again means shes a hypocrite now how?

You can be forgiven too right now of everything in your past, people might still judge you now, like you are this woman, but God wont.

 

[Yorzhik]

The funny thing is this isn't without historical precedent . . .

I met the love of my life more than 40 years ago in Raleigh. Thomas is a lifelong North Carolinian. I was a recent transplant from Vermont. We are both legally blind, and soon after we met, we moved to Winston-Salem to work for the Industries of the Blind. Our friendship blossomed into love, and in 1976, Thomas proposed. I very happily said yes. But when we walked into that government office together, we were told that the magistrate on duty wouldn’t give us a marriage license. I was flabbergasted. We had planned everything, we had all our paperwork and we were legally eligible to get married. So why wouldn’t he marry us? The reason, it turned out, was because Thomas is African-American, and I am white. The magistrate told us that marrying an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. Our happy day quickly turned into a nightmare. Whether gay or straight, black or white, Jew or Gentile, nobody has a right to tell anyone who they can love or marry. House representatives must finally stop Senate Bill 2 and sustain the governor’s veto so that no other couple in North Carolina ever has to go through what we did when they want to marry the person they love.

Interracial couples were denied by county clerks in the 1970s.

Ah, yes, the old "biology is the same as behavior" trope.

It was wrong when it was first used, and it's still wrong today. The behavior of a man lying with a man as with a woman is not biology. It can be done regardless of one's DNA... or not. And since the behavior is bad not only for society but for the individuals that engage in said behavior, everyone in society and the law should do what they can to discourage the behavior or at least keep it in the closet.

 

[Rusha]

She might fail again means shes a hypocrite now how?

Her actions are a statement of WHAT marriage should and shouldn't be. She has no discernment to judge who is or is not fit for marriage UNLESS she actually knows those involved.

According to her standard, if she puts her signature on the marriage of a heterosexual couple and one of them ends up murdering the other and their child, she endorsed and gave her seal of approval for *their* marriage.

IF she wishes to only endorse those marriages that she approves of, that means she endorses everything that goes on in those marriages ... via her own logic.

 

[kiwimacahau]

...because you spit on God's Word and call evil good and good evil


Isaiah 5:20

In YOUR opinion.

 

[Alate_One]

Ah, yes, the old "biology is the same as behavior" trope.

That whooshing sound you probably heard while reading my post was my point flying over your head. The point is it was the clerk/magistrate's BELIEF that was used as an excuse in both cases.

Additionally lot of people believed (and some still do) that people of African descent have bad behaviors which are genetic. Interracial marriage (and even sex) was bad because it "contaminated" the white race.

Bottom line is if you think the Kentucky clerk's religious objections are valid, why would we as a society not have to accept ANY religious objections?

Two Christians could not be married because one was born a Muslim and conversion to Christianity is a terrible sin in Islam.

 

[Yorzhik]

That whooshing sound you probably heard while reading my post was my point flying over your head. The point is it was the clerk/magistrate's BELIEF that was used as an excuse in both cases.

The point was not lost on me. Sure there is a reason used when refusing a marriage license. Sometimes it is a good reason, and at other times it could be a bad reason. Biology would be a bad reason. Certain wrong behaviors would be a good reason.

 

[Alate_One]

The point was not lost on me. Sure there is a reason used when refusing a marriage license. Sometimes it is a good reason, and at other times it could be a bad reason. Biology would be a bad reason. Certain wrong behaviors would be a good reason.

None of them are a good reason in a pluralistic society. Because you have to either accept everyone's exception or none of them. I prefer none of them and the rule of law.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, shoot, no one is empowered to decide what the law is except the people in government who's job it is to create the law. Let's call them the legislature.

Would you at least admit to that?

Edit: to clarify

Admit is a peculiar word, as it infers a resistance that isn't present in my position on the law. That said and with the same intent to be clear the legislature's job is to write and pass law. The Court's job is to make certain that law passes Constitutional muster, when objection is made via due process, which is what happened in the case of gay marriage.

 

[StanJ]

Her state still says homosexual marriage is illegal. They have yet to meet and change the law declared unconstitutional.

NOT factual...if it was she wouldn't be in contempt for NOT following the laws of the state, as she is a COUNTY Clerk, bound by her office, to administrate the laws of Kentucky.

If a law is struck down by the supreme court, it is NOT enforceable.

 

[TracerBullet]

Kim Davis has been "married" four times. I read somewhere that she got pregnant for "husband" number 3 while still married to husband number 1.

She has religious objections? Really?

actually she married husband number 1 when she was 5 months pregnant with the child of the man who would become husband number 3.

 

[Yorzhik]

Admit is a peculiar word, as it infers a resistance that isn't present in my position on the law. That said and with the same intent to be clear the legislature's job is to write and pass law. The Court's job is to make certain that law passes Constitutional muster, when objection is made via due process, which is what happened in the case of gay marriage.

So it's the legislature's job to create law, and the courts job to make sure the previously written constitution says the new law is OK to be enforced. Is that what you are saying here?

 

[TracerBullet]

is that why she is in jail?
you really are an idiot

she is in jail because her name is on the license
and
she does not approve of same sex marriage

what part of that don't you understand

you idiot

no, she is in jail for contempt of court

 

[Rusha]

actually she married husband number 1 when she was 5 months pregnant with the child of the man who would become husband number 3.

:jawdrop: So she was a promiscuous adulteress as well as thrice married divorcee!

Yeah, such a judge of character and marriage ...

 

[Jose Fly]

If a law is struck down by the supreme court, it is NOT enforceable.

Exactly!

Previously in some states, when same sex couples applied for marriage licenses, they were denied due to laws banning same sex marriages. The Supreme Court ruled those laws unconstitutional. Thus, now when same sex couples apply for marriage licenses, it is unconstitutional to deny them the license.

Glad to see you understand how our system works. :up:

 

[StanJ]

Your lack of an answer makes me believe that you're ashamed of associating with a certain behavior Stan. Why is that?

I don't feed trolls of your ilk aCW.

Not that I don't grasp every word that you say, but tell me again.
Regarding my "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!" threads:
75,000 views since Part 3 closed just over a month ago is hardly "no action" Stan. 5,500 in Part 4 in 3 weeks time isn't bad either (and I haven't even started the good stuff yet).

Then go back to your little hole and stop polluting the rest of this forum.
You should get checked to see if you have Asperger's syndrome.
It would explain so many things about you.

 

[TracerBullet]

...because you spit on God's Word and call evil good and good evil


Isaiah 5:20

so apparently to be seen as a "christian" in your eyes I not only have hate all the same minorities as you do i also have to ignore the actual teachings of Jesus the way you do.

 

[TracerBullet]

It means her own record on marriage is no better than those she has decided to judge. The fact that she is momentarily settled down doesn't change her own example of marital commitment.

Considering the couple she has worked so hard to discriminate against has been together for 18 years I think she would do better to try and learn something from them rather than play "moral" judge