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

kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
chrysostom said:
very clever question
and
the answer is no
and
that is why she was in jail

have you always supported same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

Thank you. She's out of jail now. If her deputies continue to issue them do you think there is consent?

Not always. But there was a time when I probably didn't have much of an opinion at all.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
chrysostom said:
I see you are still arguing around the edges because you support same sex marriage
but
you don't seem to get it

this is about judicial tyranny and religious freedom

the state law of kentucky says marriage is between man and woman
and
the county clerk must approve marriage licenses

I know you do get it
and
we know you support same sex marriage
Click to expand...

The bottom line question would appear to be whether or not the SCOTUS gets to determine what fits with the US Constitution, since 1803 Marbury v Madison that issue has been settled.
The next question is whether the Federal Constitution trumps state Constitutions. I think that was settled in the Civil War.

You seem to want each state to be able to overrule the US Supremes. Doesn't work that way.

I recognize this is very threatening to you each day, but that is simply the way it is.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
chrysostom said:
very clever question
and
the answer is no
and
that is why she was in jail

have you always supported same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

She was in jail because she refused to obey the ruling of the Supreme Court and the lower court when it followed the Supreme Court. She also refused to do her job as the law required. If she could not do her job because of her religion then she should have quit.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Jonahdog said:
She was in jail because she refused to obey the ruling of the Supreme Court and the lower court when it followed the Supreme Court. She also refused to do her job as the law required. If she could not do her job because of her religion then she should have quit.
Click to expand...

what kentucky state law did she, as an elected kentucky state official, refuse to follow?
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Traditio said:
It's an extremely important point to Catholic moral theology (and probably not even just Catholic moral theology), and if you don't understand it, you are bound to make conflations and confusions at which an educated Catholic would (were he feeling uncharitable that day) simply roll his eyes, and you're not interested?
Click to expand...
Which would seem to mostly (if not exclusively come into play when arguing about Catholic moral theology...and why would I do that?

Really? "Formal vs. material cooperation" is right up there with double effect. As a person of education, this is something that you should at least be familiar with.
Click to expand...
Seriously Trad, you do know anyone with any particular education can be stumped from sunrise to sundown on any number of subjects outside of that or a general education. But as ploys go, an appeal to vanity and the inherent insecurity underneath it in academia is a good one. :thumb: It deserves some reward.

You needn't use my link, of course, but you at least should be familiar, at least on a general level, with the distinction.
Click to expand...
You likely feel that way about a great deal of Church teaching, but it ain't necessarily so.

For those reading along, since he won't likely do it (and why is anyone's guess):

Formal Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent in which the cooperator intends the evil. The assistance need not be essential to the performance of the act in order for the cooperator to intend the evil of the principal agent's act. Formal cooperation in evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is never morally licit.

Material Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent in which the cooperator does not intend the evil. The elements needed to define material cooperation are, first, the free and knowing assistance to the evil act of another, and, second, the absence of intending the principal agent's evil acts. If these two factors obtain in any given case, then the moral agent is engaging in material cooperation. However, not all cooperation defined by these factors is morally permissible. Some types of material cooperation are immoral. Material cooperation can be either immediate or mediate.​

As I've noted prior, this sort of thing operates within a subjective moral context and isn't properly the concern of the law, where furthering a violation of law indirectly would more likely see you charged with aiding and abetting and possibly conspiracy.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Town Heretic said:
Which would seem to mostly (if not exclusively come into play when arguing about Catholic moral theology...and why would I do that?


Seriously Trad, you do know anyone with any particular education can be stumped from sunrise to sundown on any number of subjects outside of that or a general education. But as ploys go, an appeal to vanity and the inherent insecurity underneath it in academia is a good one. :thumb: It deserves some reward.


You likely feel that way about a great deal of Church teaching, but it ain't necessarily so.

For those reading along, since he won't likely do it (and why is anyone's guess):

Formal Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent in which the cooperator intends the evil. The assistance need not be essential to the performance of the act in order for the cooperator to intend the evil of the principal agent's act. Formal cooperation in evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is never morally licit.

Material Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent in which the cooperator does not intend the evil. The elements needed to define material cooperation are, first, the free and knowing assistance to the evil act of another, and, second, the absence of intending the principal agent's evil acts. If these two factors obtain in any given case, then the moral agent is engaging in material cooperation. However, not all cooperation defined by these factors is morally permissible. Some types of material cooperation are immoral. Material cooperation can be either immediate or mediate.​

As I've noted prior, this sort of thing operates within a subjective moral context and isn't properly the concern of the law, where furthering a violation of law indirectly would more likely see you charged with aiding and abetting and possibly conspiracy.
Click to expand...


see when you learn when you're not afraid to google?
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
kmoney said:
:think: This doesn't seem quite right. Are you reducing sexuality to psychology with no biological basis at all?
Click to expand...

I didn't really say one way or the other. My only point is that an inclination, insofar as inclination, is equally adventitious and "uncontrollable." Whether due to biology, psychology or whatever else, what difference is there between an inclination or desire to child-molest and an inclination or desire to have sex with another man and this, note, insofar as an inclination or desire?

You will, of course, tell me that the objects of the inclinations are different, i.e., that they are inclinations to do different things. Fair enough.

But I'll ask you all of the liberal questions: "But does he choose his inclination? Can he stop being inclined if he wants? "

And so forth and so on. And I think you would have a hard time differentiating between the inclination to have sex with a woman, to sodomize, to be sodomized, to rape a child, to have sex with a corpse or to have sex with a cow, for that matter.

I think the 'born that way' can matter as it relates to law. I think there are two primary pillars in the justification of sodomy or gay marriage being legal. 1) consenting adults and 2) born that way
Click to expand...

Why is 2 relevent? What is the difference between 2 in the case of homosexuality and the inclination to any other form of perversion? And let's suppose that a necrophiliac isn't "born that way." So what? Is his inclination any less strong, any more out of his control, etc?

Since when does anyone choose "what turns him on," so to speak?

I think 2) is more relevant to gay marriage laws. Because if homosexuality is a simple choice then the State would have less interest or need to recognize/protect their relationships.
Click to expand...

Is necrophilia (as inclination) a simple choice?

And come to think of it, by the liberal argument, why shouldn't necrophiliac acts be legal? A corpse is not a person. As an inanimate object, at least in the eyes of the secular state, it is a mere thing. If I have the rights to a given corpse, why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?

"Because it's icky" or "because it is likely to cause disease" or "because it's a public health hazard"?

And I'll answer: "Need I remind you what sodomy is? You know how that works, right?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top