Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

[Look Up]

It is not right for any Christian to break an oath given when we take on any given role; that is a very serious matter indeed. If this woman swore to do her job as directed by the law, then she must do it or resign; there are no other options.

Marriage licenses were introduced into the US legal system by state in the 1920s; homosexual marriage battles in recent years and prior to Obergefell v Hodges were fought on a state-by-state basis. Kim Davis's oath of office is very probably based on State of Kentucky law. What the connection between said oath and federal law is I do not know, but the nature of federal and state law in the US would at least have me asking questions as to the nature of her oath--to which I have no ready answer. I would feel more confident in your conclusion if I knew Davis's oath was at issue in court, but as of this writing I have no definite evidence that it was or is. At issue is contempt of court with respect to a federal law.

Furthermore I do not understand the reasonableness of making an oath encompassing unforeseen demands future to the oath taking (a kind of carte blanche), whatever the nature of the actual case. You may have more experience in this than I do (and I am grateful for your remarks), though in the US there is a tradition of lesser magistrates civilly disobeying higher ranking ones in aggravated cases (with varied results). It would be interesting to read if the oath contained a clause to the effect, "if you disagree in future, resign" as I have seen elsewhere.

Noteworthy also is that the Bible does encourage belief in rabbinic "heavy and light" law hierarchy such that for example a priest may circumcise (i.e., do work) on the Sabbath if that Sabbath is the child's eighth day after birth. However, whether the "heavy and light" principle applies in a Christian's or in Kim Davis's viewpoint to a proposed hierarchy between oath breaking (assuming such in this case) and, say, blaspheming God by signalling consent to a marriage which violates the Imago Dei, is uncertain (at least to me).

There is no doubt the Bible (and western governments traditionally) regard oath breaking as a serious offense (albeit not always equally enforced in government). You may be correct in your above assertions, and as I had written on this thread, I am unaware why Davis chose not to resign. But as far as I know as of this writing, enough serious questions remain for me to question whether Davis's oath of office is the crux or a crux in the case.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Part of the freedom to exercise religion is for the Christian to be able to obey God. But the government is attempting to force Kim to sin against Him. This freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment and this is where the government has violated its own law.

The court isn't forcing her to be gay. They are forcing her to do the job she pursued as a career and was elected to do. You have a right to your religious beliefs. You do not have a right to force your employer to change the nature of your job to suit your religious convictions. Get a different job if your conscience won't allow you to do the one you have. It's called personal responsibility and it's something conservatives used to talk a lot about until recently.

 

[smaneck]

Are there any examples out there of other officials who defied the law out of conscience? It would be interesting to look at those and see the reactions of people.

Sure. Those who refused to register black people to vote. And then there is Sheriff Joe Arpaio who self-righteously denies people their basic civil rights on a regular basis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

 

[loveofourlord]

It is the state legislature that requires the county clerk to have her name printed (not really signed) on the marriage license. That is her grounds for prohibiting her deputies from issuing licenses.

That was in reponse to the claim that she offerd the reasonable acomidation of having her name removed, wich as others have pointed out the court can't do, so her request wasn't resonable.

 

[golgotha61]

The court isn't forcing her to be gay. They are forcing her to do the job she pursued as a career and was elected to do. You have a right to your religious beliefs. You do not have a right to force your employer to change the nature of your job to suit your religious convictions. Get a different job if your conscience won't allow you to do the one you have. It's called personal responsibility and it's something conservatives used to talk a lot about until recently.

She was not elected to violate her conscience in respect to her religious beliefs, that is suppose to be protected by this employer. The First Amendment states that we have the right to exercise our religion not just believe in its tenets, which involves being obedient to God's laws and being in compliance with His character. Unless you are suggesting that the government is also going to define how we worship and what constitutes worship along with what marriage is.

The imposition is on the part of the government placed upon Kim Davis and that makes the government the offender and the bully. Kim was already employed by the bureau but the government changed the rules while she was employed. This is governmental imposition upon her religious freedoms. If she was not employed at the time that the courts changed the definition of marriage and then she was hired by the bureau, I agree that she should not expect accommodation but this is not the case. I say again that this is not about Kim, this is a message from the government to the Church that Christians no longer have the constitutional rights that they once enjoyed.

 

[golgotha61]

That was in reponse to the claim that she offerd the reasonable acomidation of having her name removed, wich as others have pointed out the court can't do, so her request wasn't resonable.

If the government can change the definition of marriage then it can change the signature rule; which is easier?

 

[golgotha61]

It is not your problem or mine to worry about what happens when we resign; if our conscience is troubled, then it is right to do so. I commend your decision to do the right thing, when you were faced with this problem.

It is not right for any Christian to break an oath given when we take on any given role; that is a very serious matter indeed. If this woman swore to do her job as directed by the law, then she must do it or resign; there are no other options.

If she took an oath, it was under the law that had not redefine marriage as the court has recently done. If this was a completely secular issue, the employer changed his part of the agreement and broke the oath.

 

[smaneck]

That is bullying and far short of choice that is based on freedom.

Insisting that someone do their job is bullying?

This is not any employer,it is the government itself who is supposed to protect her religious freedom, not violate them.

I see. So if a Muslim government employee won't give a license to a Muslim woman who wishes to marry a non-Muslim the government is suppose to protect his religious freedom?

Kim is being told what she cannot do in respect to worshiping God through obedience to His character. These folks can and will get married, that is not the issue. Kim is the one who is being violated.

Nonsense. If her job violates God's character she is free to resign. She is to violate other people's right to get married by not doing her job.

Perhaps she will not win in the temporal court but be assured her faithfulness to God will not be unrewarded.

I think she may be surprised by God's judgement.

The contract, as you call it, is embedded in the constitution that guarantees her the ability to express her religion and that expression, in this case, is to obey the character of God. This is a much deeper issue theologically than has been expressed. I suggest that you do some research of the doctrine of the marriage between Christ and the Church as outlined in Revelation.

Again, how much freedom are you willing to allow Muslims to express their religion in ways that violates our laws?

 

[smaneck]

Kim was already employed by the bureau but the government changed the rules while she was employed.

Happens all the time. If the job description no longer fits what you want to do, you quit. That's not bullying it is life.

 

[TheBear]

Insisting that someone do their job is bullying?



I see. So if a Muslim government employee won't give a license to a Muslim woman who wishes to marry a non-Muslim the government is suppose to protect his religious freedom?



Nonsense. If her job violates God's character she is free to resign. She is to violate other people's right to get married by not doing her job.



I think she may be surprised by God's judgement.



Again, how much freedom are you willing to allow Muslims to express their religion in ways that violates our laws?

Oh, but you don't understand. The Constitution is set up for only the Christians. All the other religions don't count. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[smaneck]

If she took an oath, it was under the law that had not redefine marriage as the court has recently done. If this was a completely secular issue, the employer changed his part of the agreement and broke the oath.

Her oath was to uphold and defend the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court which defines the Constitution.

 

[durangodawood]

If she took an oath, it was under the law that had not redefine marriage as the court has recently done. If this was a completely secular issue, the employer changed his part of the agreement and broke the oath.

Total nonsense. Laws change. They always have. Thats part of being a law officer, which is what a clerk does.

Could you imagine if, say, police officers could decide to disregard any change in the laws.

This is silliness.

 

[Strathos]

There's nothing freaky about it. They can't fire her. SHe's an elected official. The only recourse at the moment is to jail or fine her, and the judge from the testimony he heard, decided that jail was the only way to resolve the situation and get the office back to doing its job, and that the fines would not have impacted her (she had plenty of right wingers sending her money to help her out).

Well he could have tried to place incredibly high fines on her that she would have no hope of paying, even with donations.

funny then how the concept of one group superior then another is older then evolution, but don't let reality and truth get in the way of good propaganda lie.

no he explained how it worked.

And this is off topic and meaningless because evolution is true, so anyone missussing it or abusing it doesn't mean anything, or would you argue that all the abuse and missusings by Christians some how makes Christianity false?

And lets not forget that even if hitler wasn't a Christian, many of the germans that followed him were.

That's why that Nazi's had belt buckles that read, "Darwin With Us" right?

Wait not, it was "God Wish Us".

Huh.

I hate this whole argument.

Here's a radical thought: Hitler didn't do what he did because he was Christian, religious, atheist, pagan, evolutionist, or whatever. He did it because he was a racist nutcase. Attempting to score points by blaming his actions on a group you personally don't like is just petty and trivializes all the people who died because of them.

 

[loveofourlord]

Well he could have tried to place incredibly high fines on her that she would have no hope of paying, even with donations.







I hate this whole argument.

Here's a radical thought: Hitler didn't do what he did because he was Christian, religious, atheist, pagan, evolutionist, or whatever. He did it because he was a racist nutcase. Attempting to score points by blaming his actions on a group you personally don't like is just petty and trivializes all the people who died because of them.

I think it can be helpful to know why he did it just to try to avoid it happening again.

 

[HonestTruth]

What the connection between said oath and federal law is I do not know

see the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hitler was using that excuse for his own purposes. There was no adherence to any religious doctrine that he held to as sacred. In fact, history teaches us that Hitler was an enemy of the Judeo-Christian philosophy and a familiarization with the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer will make this very plain. The belief of this clerk and the sacredness of marriage in God's plan is not something that is divined from Scripture; it is not a hidden doctrine. The sacredness of marriage is well established and clear all through the Bible. What Kim did is a righteous deed.

1) Hitler was a self-described Catholic who worked very cooperatively with the Catholic Church during his time in power. Likewise, the Catholic Church had very little to say in regards to Nazi atrocities.

2) There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" philosophy. The one group you never hear mention the phrase "Judeo-Christian" are the Jews. It's an exclusively Christian term which tries to co-opt the Jews in with them, and arose largely from the guilt of centuries of anti-Semitic persecution from essentially every brand of Christianity.

3) The "sacredness" of marriage, or anything scripture has to say is totally irrelevant to U.S. law. When dealing with the U.S. or Kentucky State governments, we are dealing with civil, not religious marriage. That's a legal contract completely separate from the doctrines of any particular religion. So quite frankly, what Kim Davis did is an illegal deed and has nothing at all to do with religion. She denied people a secular marriage on her personal religious grounds, and that's just flat out unacceptable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hitler was opposed to Christianity, yet early in his regime he showed he supported it but privately he opposed it and later in his regime and strived to replace Christianity with a new Nazi church where there was no God, but Hitler instead of God is the messiah.

Hitler embraced social Darwinism, which took Charles Darwin ideas on the theory of Evolution on the survival of the fittest of plants and animals and then placed that theory on human races. He saw that the Aryan race is superiour and the Jews are inferior.

Hitler exalted evolution itself to the status of a moral absolute--everything that advances evolution is morally good and everything that hinders it is immoral. Since he viewed the Aryan race as the most advanced race on the earth, indeed the only race capable of creating civilization and a higher culture, this came to mean that whatever promotes the expansion of the Aryan race was good and whatever hindered their expansion was evil. Hitler sincerely believed that his policies and decisions were good and beneficial. His pursuit of a "noble ideal" to benefit abstract humanity in a universe without God, without morality, and without human rights, produced intense suffering, horror, and destruction for real people.https://www.csustan.edu/history/roots-hitlers-evil

I suggest you read some actual history, what you wrote here is so divorced from reality I don't even know where to start.

Hitler was a self described Christian and had a great respect for Martin Luther. In fact, his anti-Semitism was directly credited to Martin Luther, which is why he chose to carry out Kristallnacht on Martin Luther's birthday.

His first act upon taking power was to sign a concordat with the Vatican, which gave the Catholic Church a large amount of control over the German education system.

He also closed down every freethought group in Germany and the Atheists were thrown into concentration camps along with the Jews and other undesirables. That's a rather odd thing to do if he was in fact an atheist.

Lastly, Hitler flatly rejected Darwinism. He believed in a creator god, and accepted the Lamarckian model of evolution, which was an early competitor of Darwin's theory. Also, it's worth noting that Eugenics is fundamentally incompatible with Natural Selection, which was the hallmark of Darwin's work.

I could keep going, but I think I've said enough.

 

[Pammalamma]

The court isn't forcing her to be gay.

Romans 1 says that approving of sin is actually worse than committing that sin. So, by forcing her to call a perverted, pagan relationship "a marriage," they are causing her to sin, which could send her to Hell.

As I mentioned, we cannot say "It is always right for government employees to do their jobs, and the outcome is not their responsibility," because that is what Adolf Eichmann said in Nuremberg, that he was just doing his job.

That means the following reasoning:

1. It is right for government employees to always do their jobs and follow the law
2. Kim Davis is a government employee
Therefore, it is right for Kim Davis to do her job and follow the law

is not sound reasoning, because 1. has been proven false by Aldof Eichmann (see "The Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt for details.) Unless you have some other syllogism to offer, you cannot posit that proposition as a general truth again, here, because it's been disproven. I can also disprove it by contradiction, but unless you have another argument against Kim Davis' actions, all you can say is that you don't like what she did. You can say it makes you angry, you can say she's an idiot or a bigot, you can say she broke the law or that you want her to do her job. But you really should not say that she should do her job because the government told her to, because if you do, you've created a problem for yourself, in that approving of Eichmann's actions is a logical consequence of your reasoning, unless you just like to be illogical and inconsistent or don't care about the truth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is so wrong, it should be reportable as a lie. Hitler hated the church and any other possible opposition to his control. His view of favored and undesirable races came from Darwin and evolution.

I'm sorry, but you're just flat out wrong.

Hitler credited Martin Luther has a "great warrior, a true statesmen, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great" in Mein Kampf. He used Luther's 1543 treatise "On the Jews and their lies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies as the blueprint for Kristallnacht, and carried it out on Luther's birthday as a tribute to him.

Hitler also rejected Darwinism and said that very plainly on multiple occasions during his life. In the "table talk" collection of private memoirs and conversations he held, he was quoted as saying "Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place"

That's basically the standard Christian "micro, but not macro" evolution argument.

He did however make multiple other quotes supporting intelligent design, for example:

"Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise." - Mein Kampf, vol 2, ch 1

"It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will." - Mein Kampf, vol 2, ch 10

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator" - Table Talk

In reality, Hitler was a creationist who accepted Lamarck's model of evolution, which for a time was a competitor of Darwin's theory. He was also a self-described Roman Catholic, who largely credited his anti-Semitism to Christian ideals.

I suggest you stop buying into what your church is trying to teach you about history, and read into the actual history of the man. He was as much against Atheists as he was against Jews. For example, read up on the German Freethinkers League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Freethinkers_League

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F03EFDB1538E333A25757C1A9639C946294D6CF

That's the really offensive thing of the matter to Atheists. If I was alive in the 1930/1940s and living in Germany I would very likely find myself rounded up and taken to a concentration camp. Telling an atheist that Hitler was an atheist and acted on anti-theistic principles is roughly equivalent to telling a Jew that Hitler was really a Jew and acted mainly in the interests of Judaism. I realize you're likely ignorant of the actual history and didn't mean to be openly offensive, however before you want to go parroting what you have been taught by religious groups, I suggest you read some history from an unbiased source without their own motives in play.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Romans 1 says that approving of sin is actually worse than committing that sin. So, by forcing her to call a perverted, pagan relationship "a marriage," they are causing her to sin, which could send her to Hell.

As I mentioned, we cannot say "It is always right for government employees to do their jobs, and the outcome is not their responsibility," because that is what Adolf Eichmann said in Nuremberg, that he was just doing his job.

That means the following reasoning:

1. It is right for government employees to always do their jobs and follow the law
2. Kim Davis is a government employee
Therefore, it is right for Kim Davis to do her job and follow the law

is not sound reasoning, because 1. has been proven false by Aldof Eichmann (see "The Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt for details.) Unless you have some other syllogism to offer, you cannot posit that proposition as a general truth again, here, because it's been disproven. I can also disprove it by contradiction, but unless you have another argument against Kim Davis' actions, all you can say is that you don't like what she did. You can say it makes you angry, you can say she's an idiot or a bigot, you can say she broke the law or that you want her to do her job. But you really should not say that she should do her job because the government told her to, because if you do, you've created a problem for yourself, in that approving of Eichmann's actions is a logical consequence of your reasoning, unless you just like to be illogical and inconsistent or don't care about the truth.

Are you aware of the difference between civil and religious marriage?