 |
Well it was inevitable I guess, after exhausting all legal remedies a Kentucky clerk was found in contempt of a judges order to issue marriage licenses to her constituents. She chose to issue none to gay or straights in her county.
She was found in contempt and was jailed!
Kentucky clerk jailed over refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples | US news | The Guardian
Should she have just stepped aside? Or does she have a right to step on the rights of her own constituents?
Her "right" to impose her religion everywhere she goes? She doesn't have that right. Too many people think freedom of religion is above all other freedoms. Freedoms have to be weighed against each other all the time. As a citizen of the US, she has to abide by the SCOTUS ruling. She is free to petition the court, resign, go to another state, but she isn't free to flaunt the law without being charged with a crime.
When you look at her history it's a little difficult to believe the sincerity of her actions. Married several times, at least two kids out of wedlock, and who knows what else. I am not judging just stating facts as I've heard them. What's next a prime time interview? Book deal? Monday Night Movie? She was disobedient to an order from the court and it will play on from here. It's just too bad she gets notoriety from it.
I was not aware of that. To me, that is hypocrisy to a high degree. I assumed this was a very pious person, strictly following the teachings of her religion. Not that it should have mattered, her responsibility to her position overshadows her religious convictions in any case. While I do admire her for going to jail rather then succumb, that is where she belongs, in jail for flaunting the law. She exhausted all her legal avenues, so she had three choices. Give the licenses, quit her job or martyr herself by going to jail. She apparently chose door # 3Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
What if her motivations are not pure? Think Justin Bieber crying during his song at the music awards. Genuine? I highly doubt it. Think Subway Jared setting up a children's charity to fight childhood obesity. We know the ending of that movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
I just hope when her 15 seconds of fame are over, she goes away and isn't one of these people that try to keep themselves famous long after we stopped caring.
The children out of wedlock and the first three marriages were before she became a Christian. She says God has forgiven her, and all is right in HER world.
Well good then she's free to judge and place judgment on us all.
It is Kentucky after all.
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The Bible does mention something about judging, but she'd rather cherry-pick verses that support her personal beliefs. And there are verses about obeying government authorities (Heb. 13:17, and others)....Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
Just for the record, not agreeing with something does not automatically equate to passing judgment. Since the law stands, she should have sought employment elsewhere, if possible, since she did not feel that she could fulfill the requirements/expectations of her occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
It seems the pandering is exclusive to some religions and the others must be pushed aside to make way.
Muslims seem to get many things their way based on their religion.
Muslim drivers at Cleveland airport refuse to drive cabs with Gay Games advertising | Fox News
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/wo...2566.html?_r=0
Even given mandatory time off to pray. Seems like they have better lawyers at this time.
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Agree but the statements she has made, such as this is a heaven or hell issue and others, is passing judgment where she sees fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoulaLC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
Most religions have a damnation clause as far as Im aware of. Their has always been ying / yang type of struggle going on. Also the promise of enlightenment plays heavy into the equation.
Allright, maybe being "born again" takes away part of the hypocrisy. It also makes her stance a bit more understandable (from her POV) because I've found that most "born agains" I've encountered are extremely adamant about imposing their beliefs on others.
But the facts here are very simple. She was elected to do a job. Even if the job requirements changed after being elected, she swore to uphold the law when she took office. If she could not do so, then she should have resigned.
My point is when someone like her talks about gays and sinning in the same breath, they talk like gays are damned worse that murderers and what Subway Jared is accused of. Sinning is sinning and it will always be sinning. The straight person's perspective is interesting because they have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to gay people or the struggle of being gay especially when you are a child. Just think about the 13 year old that doesn't understand why he or she feels the way they do but is watching this self appointed judge and jury mouth off when she really has no idea what she is talking about.
*... climbing off my soap box now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Ahhh, that is a different situation then. I hadn't seen what she has said. Unfortunately, people often do forget/ignore, or never learn in the first place, teachings of Christianity in regard to passing judgment. Sadly, it can often put Christians in a bad light when they forget that all fall short for various reasons, and then some people will paint all Christians with the same brush because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver2011
She does know what she is talking about. Maybe you cant see it from her perspective. From her side it is wrong. She is standing by that belief. Even the catholic church says it is wrong. It is all about perspective. From your side it is a painful journey. Either way it is a belief system that you both are pushing with.
If her job requires she act against her conscience she should resign, this is the Christian position
cdad, I don't care whether she is required to give licenses to same sex couples to marry, or Nazis to march, or licenses to exotic animals as pets. The issue here is that the law requires her to issue licenses for whatever. If she refuses to do her job, then she should resign or be sanctioned. End of story.
The constitution provides for separation of church and state. That means that government can't make laws that prevent someone from worshipping the way they want. But it also means that churches can't interfere with the operation of the government. And that's what this woman tried to do. And she lost, so now she has to accept the consequences of that loss. Either follow the law, quit or go to jail.
It doesn't matter that her refusal was to grant licenses to same sex marriages. What matters only is that she refused to obey the law of the land.
I agree with what your saying. The only problem is that there are ways to deal with this problem internally. The position she holds is an elected one. So impeachment could happen to force her to step aside. Also the state legislature can remove her from office.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Why hasnt there been any form of remedy ? It is her right as citizen to take the stand that she has but she also must face all the consequences that go with that position.
Why hasnt anyone acted on it already ?
I love the irony of her party affiliation.
Rowan County Kentucky Clerk
The Kentucky legislature doesn't reconvene until January and the governor refused to call a special session. However as has been said she had more options available than jail, or even compliance, as a leave of absence was a choice also.
https://personnel.ky.gov/Pages/Leave-.aspx
However,
Ky. clerk's office will issue marriage licenses Friday - without the clerk - Religion News Service
Quote:
Among her deputies, the holdout was Davis' son, Nathan Davis. Yet the other deputy clerks had reservations, some based on religion, as Davis has maintained, others with questions about their legal authority to sign off on forms without the elected official's consent.
Kim Davis' lawyers also called into question whether any licenses issued in her absence would be legal. But Bunning said couples will have to decide whether to take that risk on their own. He indicated that he would lift the contempt charge against the defiant county clerk if deputies began issuing marriage licenses but said he was reluctant to release Kim Davis too quickly because of the possibility that she would stop the process and again try to go through the courts in a sort of ping-pong match.
I will mention, she was elected to office to issue marriage licence and other legal issues, but it did not include gay marriage. Her state has never voted or enacted state gay marriage laws.
The issue here, is that many people believe the Federal Government has no right to rule on marriage laws, and esp that of gay and lesbian.
This is a two fold issue, one that the Supreme Court made a unconstitutional ruling based more on political pressure than rule of law.
The other from a Christian prospective, like many examples of the Bible, if a law is against God's word, a Christian has a duty to disregard it. Jesus own death is an example of not obeying the "law". As was the many times Peter and Paul were beaten and jailed.
The real problem is that she is about the only Christian to say NO.. If every clerk, and every clerk assistant, if every Christian government worker refused to file any court papers about this, and so on. The government would have issues jailing 1000's
What I see, is very weak Christians, with no backbone to stand up for their faith. They have been tested, and all found wanting in the real world of following the Bible.
Forgive me, I didn't read other posts.
Bottom line, gay marriage is now legal in her state. She is paid good money to issue marriage licenses. If her religious beliefs prevent her from doing so, she should either quit and find a new job, or be fired because she can't perform the duties she's paid for!
She's been married 4 times, and she dares to spout her religious beliefs as a reason to say no to a legal gay marriage? She really needs to re-read the bible, and get off her high horse.
Shocked that she hasn't been fired, or jailed for this. It's the law!
So a pastor, "must" marry a gay couple? Since it is a "law"?
A prison chaplain who works for the government?
A pastor can choose who to marry. Church is not governed, right? Prison chaplain? How many people get married in prison? Really. And I'm very sure that any marriage a prison chaplain is not okay with, would be issued to a different chaplain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
She works at the clerks office, where they issue marriage licenses. It's now the law that gay couples can marry in her State. So refusing to issue those marriage licenses, because of her beliefs, is against the law!
Bottom line, if her beliefs hinder her from doing her job, then she should quit, or be fired, and find a job that she can do while adhering to her hypocritical beliefs. Seem to remember something in the bible about divorce, and it being a very bad thing, frowned upon, hell and damnation, to mention a few things. Divorce is not okay in the bible. This woman has been married 4 times, and she thinks she gets to judge others? HYPOCRITE!
Actually there are quite a few marriages in prison, we had one or two each week, in one of the larger Federal Prisons. The same reasoning on this, any of those gay couples could have easily went to the next county and got a license. They were not stopped.
She is not judging, the issue of judging, is way over stated. The bible does not allow gay marriage, as such no christian should take part in it. Her past sins, are not issues in this, some of the greatest sinners, (Paul, who used to be Saul in the bible) is a great example of this, Saul, was one of the hardest attackers of Christians, perhaps having many killed.
The issue of Government forcing Christians to do, unchristian things is the real issue.
Marriage licenses, baking the cakes (really the silliest thing). Druggists being forced to issue birth control and abortion pills (the people could just go to other drug stores).
Company insurance being forced to include birth control.
So in America, a Christian can believe what they want, as long as they don't really practice it in public.
A Christian, is suppose to follow the same rules they believe in public, and on Sunday. The issue in America today, is that all Christians, (the majority of people in America, if they really are) did not all stand up and say no.
There is not enough courts, jails or prisons, to hold all the Christians, if they all refused to obey such laws. And of course Christian judges would not even hear the cases.
I have 200 real Christians, that meet every Sunday, they risk being put in prison, being beaten, losing their money, just to meet and worship. They risk more punishment by disregarding laws that force and require abortions.
So yes, real Christians should go against any law, that is against Christian teaching.
That is the real issue in America, all they want to do is pray, they are just Sunday Christians, not willing to risk prison to stand up for their beliefs. If everyone who is a claims to be a Christian in America, actually lived their beliefs, It would shut America down, it would close abortion clinics, it would stop most gay marriage in a few days.
This issue arises because a Christian doesn't understand what her beliefs really say. She cannot compromise by keeping her job and disobeying civil authorities, however herrendous their instructions. What she must do is follow her conscience and leave the employment that expects her to compromise her beliefs.
This is even more obvious where separation of church and state is the law. There are many laws which compromise Christian beliefs and they must be resisted but not in this manner
The SCOTUS decision on right of same sex marriage follows the reasoning they used for the right of prisoners and interracial couples, all under the 14th.
Fr_Chuck, I disagree with you about Christians 'who actually lived their beliefs.' I think MOST Christians in America are very open minded. They just aren't as vocal as yours.
Christians aren't called to be open minded, they are called to have the mind of Christ, which means there is a standard, a higher standard than open mindedness and it calls for a person to walk away from what they consider to be outside their beliefs. If the law demands they take a certain action in an employment and they cannot do that with good conscience, they walk away, not rebel
Jesus strikes me as open minded.
Seems like you are advocating a theocracy since that's really the only way that would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
As I stated earlier the issue is not that she is refusing to issue licenses for same sex couples, but that she is refusing to perform the duties of the office that she was elected for. Any arguments as to the reason she is refusing have been put down in a court of law (several of them).
If she feels her religious beliefs prevent her from performing the duties of her office then she should step down. Separation of church and state doctrines mean that her refusal to issue licenses is imposing her religious beliefs on others and that is unconstitutional. I actually applaud her for sticking to her religious beliefs. But if she wants to stick to them, then once she exhausted all legal avenues, then she should have resigned. She has NO right to defy the law. And that is the only reason she is in jail. It is NOT an issue of gay rights it is an issue of force of law.
It depends on what you call open minded even Jesus paid proper respect to temporal authorities. This didn't mean he endorsed what they didQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
Denying taxpayers lawful services doesn't seem like a very good way to exercise one's religious beliefs to me, not in a democracy.
Sorry, but by definition whatever ruling the Supreme Court makes is by definition "constitutional."Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
It seems that as of this morning the clerk's office is issuing licenses to gay couples. Apparently this same approach has been used in a number of other counties in KY and other states - if the clerk refuses to issue licenses then someone else is authorized to do so. In that way the individual clerk doesn't have to violate his/her beliefs, but the clerk's office still issues the license and the gay couple's rights are not violated. Of course the problem with this is what happens if ALL the clerks in an office refuse to follow the law? We'll have to see if that example pops up - I would bet that sooner of later it will.
It’s interesting to me that so many people have to make a big to do about every single issue. Where I live our city and county fought against giving marriage licenses to couples but the county just to the south was issuing them. We would have been fine going there. I am not for discrimination but I am also not for giving attention to bad behavior. To the couple in Kentucky, what is more important to them? Marrying the person you love or this fight? To me it was marrying the person I love. It’s just too bad that some of these couples and others have to be the face of an issue because it does little to win more people over.
Hello:
When she took her OATH of office, wherein she SWORE to uphold the Constitution, she had her hand on the BIBLE..
Was she lying THEN, or is she lying NOW?
excon
She lied when she said "Until death do us part" to three men in the past but then she unlied and married two of them again. I guess that would be unlying, lying again, and unlying. So the count is 4 lies and 2 unlies.
Oliver,
Depending on where one lives, going to another county may be an unnecessary inconvenience. And people should fight for their legal rights when those rights are being denied unlawfully.
The couple that sued for the right to get a license felt it was equally important to express their love by marrying as it was to fight for their rights. Why should the two be mutually exclusive. What would have happened to civil rights if Rosa Parks had just gone to the back of the bus?
I get it. It's just not my style. There are more normal couples that run households, have great jobs, have kids, and have great friendships that I would rather be the face on some of these issues. Rosa Parks had class and style and maintained those through all of her years.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:32 PM. |