Kentucky Clerk Denying Marriage Certificates Married 4 Time!

pdudgeon said:

but what about people who infringe on the rights of Christians?
we certainly don't hear much about them in the news these days.

Click to expand...

Because there's nothing to say.

edit

Blank Stair said:

Actually she's being consistent when she denies all marriage licenses. Because she's not showing bias to issue to straights, while she's holding to her religious conscience denying to same sex.

Click to expand...

If her issue is gays getting married, why not just still give the licenses to straight people. All she seems to be doing now is trying to spite everyone because she thinks she's being persecuted.

A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. - Dr Martin Luther King Jr

We need to support this sister in her conscience battle and the trampling over the first amendment.

Hetta said:

In another twist, this holier than thou clerk “gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second.”

Click to expand...

Good grief. I'm sure that plank in her own eye must be getting pretty heavy by now.

classicalhero said:

A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. - Dr Martin Luther King Jr....We need to support this sister in her conscience battle

Click to expand...

If it were truly a matter of Conscience, she'd quit. Since she took an oath to "faithfully execute the duties of her office" it would be immoral for her to stay, now that she can not live up to the oath she took upon entering that office.

and the trampling over the first amendment.

Click to expand...

What does the first amendment have to do with this?

Mikhael Disciple of Christ said:

Guess what! I'm drunk all the time yet I chastise my closest family and friends for doing the same thing because I know I'm wrong and I know it's bad.

Click to expand...

Why are you drunk all the time? It's such a misery to inflict upon yourself.

I'm confused about why you think your analogy works here anyway.

parousia70 said:

Why not?
She is violating the oath she took to "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality" is she not?
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

Click to expand...

Did you read the 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.

Click to expand...

It is the circuit court that issues marriage licenses. This clerk is conforming to her oath in that in her judgment as a Christian she cannot issue these particular licenses.

Section 228

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (language pertaining to clerk of the court is found on page 23)

Kentucky Constitution
Section 114

Selection -- Removal.
(1) The Supreme Court shall appoint a clerk to serve as it shall determine.

(2) The Court of Appeals shall appoint a clerk to serve as it shall determine.

(3) The clerks of the Circuit Court shall be elected in the manner provided elsewhere in this Constitution. The clerks of the Circuit Court shall serve as the clerks of the District Court. The clerks of the Circuit Court shall be removable from office by the Supreme Court upon good cause shown.

Text as Ratified on: November 4, 1975, effective January 1, 1976.
History: Repeal and reenactment proposed by 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1; original version ratified August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.

Click to expand...

She cannot be fired! She must be removed from office for malfeasance. Which is not evident in this matter since her oath allows her to exercise her judgment as part of her duties of office.

Interesting hair splitting ya got going there...

Click to expand...

Not at all. Until a law is repealed it is enforceable. That's a matter of law in every state in the country.

She is violating her oath of Office. Is that Illegal in Kentucky?

Click to expand...

Per the text of her oath she is not violating her oath. She is upholding it.

It is hardly absolute. Unless Married Couples in Kentucky are required by law to have Sexual relations with one another?
Plenty of opposite sex married couples do not engage in sexual relations with one another, and I personally know same sex couples who do not either.

You may want to check your "absolute" at the door of this debate.

Click to expand...

It is irrelevant what you know and who you know as pertains to the matter being discussed.
Consummation is a matter of civil law in marriage. In fact, if a marriage is not consummated that can be grounds for annulment should one party in the marriage seek to leave the relationship.
Being civil law governs behind the issuance of the state marriage license-contract, sexual relations are indeed a factor.
Ergo, sodomy laws are also.

muichimotsu said:

If her issue is gays getting married, why not just still give the licenses to straight people. All she seems to be doing now is trying to spite everyone because she thinks she's being persecuted.

Click to expand...

I don't presume to think for her.

Blank Stair said:

It is the circuit court that issues marriage licenses. This clerk is conforming to her oath in that in her judgment as a Christian she cannot issue these particular licenses.

Click to expand...

But she is not issuing ANY licences... if it were strictly a judgement call about "these particular licenses" as you claim, she'd simply refuse SSM licences, but she is not. By refusing to issue any and all marriage licenses, She is refusing to faithfully execute the duties of the office she holds, in direct violation her oath.

She has no beef with hetero marriage... heck she loves that so she's had 4 of them herself.

Would you likewise support her if She made the "Judgement as a Christian" not to issue licenses to opposite sex couples who were interracial or interfaith?

I don't presume to think for her.

Click to expand...

Yet You presume what her personal judgments are and how and why she is making them?

Forgive me if I don't see much difference.

eastcoast_bsc said:

If she is incapable of upholding the law then her faith should tell her to quit.

Click to expand...

She's upholding her oath.

The only thing that galled me is her hypocrisy. She was granted a marriage license 4 times but suddenly she is a Pharisee.

Click to expand...

You keep bringing up her past sins and ignore the fact that she's been a Christian for four years. Meaning her past sins are forgiven and God remembers them no more. Why is it that in the name of charity and the love and light of Christ you won't let it go? When God has.

Local laws are irrelevant, as are sodomy laws. A marriage license to marry and does not assume sodomy and is uphrld by Federal law.

Click to expand...

You are quite mistaken. As has been said before, and married couples know this, marriages are consummated. It is a matter of civil law to reinforce the marriage contract that is a civil contract issued by the state, that marriages are consummated.
Keeping within the rules here, it does not take a lot to realize , if one knows the definition and application of sodomy, that that is the primary means afforded sexual congress between same sex people.
State's issue marriage licenses. State sodomy laws that predate the SCOTUS ruling and are not repealed can still be invoked to refuse a state issued marriage license. Because as has been mentioned, a state cannot issue a license that permits violation of a state law.
And since sodomy is the primary sexual congress between same sex people, (toys mimicking heterosexual congress is not what qualifies as fulfilling the requirement for consummation between parties) and civil law states that a civil contract -marriage license, must be consummated to validate the union licensed by the state, a clerk is perfectly within their rights to refuse the license on those grounds.

parousia70 said:

But she is not issuing ANY licences... if it were strictly a judgement call about "these particular licenses" as you claim, she'd simply refuse SSM licences, but she is not. By refusing to issue any and all marriage licenses, She is refusing to faithfully execute the duties of the office she holds, in direct violation her oath.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you miss the language in the oath. She's being consistent in her duties and is not showing preferential treatment or bias by issuing licenses to heterosexual applicants.
And as has been stated, if this couple wanted to get married they'd have their license already. They'd have gone to a different clerk in Kentucky and received their license.
This is a standoff and they want her to concede her position and her faith to their demands. It's like the bakery standoffs , the florist standoffs. Same sex couples could acquire their order at any other shop but that which they knew or found out was owned by a Christian who would or did refuse.
They pursued charges so as to cost the Christian their business because they did not concede to the SSC's demands.
Rational persons would never want someone opposed to their union, be they straight or otherwise, to create something for that special day. Who would want to eat a cake made by someone opposed to baking it? The same with the flowers in the case of florists.

It's a standoff and she's perfectly within her oath to hold her position.

She has no beef with hetero marriage... heck she loves that so much she does it more often than most, so your "judgement as a Christian" claim is groundless.

Click to expand...

Christians don't hold her past against her because God forgave her all of it when she came to Christ. Therefore your claim is groundless.

Yet You presume what her personal judgments are and how and why she is making them?

Forgive me if I don't see much difference.

Click to expand...

I forgive you. Because what I've observed is what is contained in the articles and in the laws. Therefore your judgment is groundless.

So you would support her if She made the judgement call as a Christian not to issue licences to opposite sex couples who are interfaith or interracial?

Blank Stair said:

I don't know how you miss the language in the oath. She's being consistent in her duties and is not showing preferential treatment or bias by issuing licenses to heterosexual applicants.

Click to expand...

Except she is not executing her duty to issue marriage licences.

And as has been stated, if this couple wanted to get married they'd have their license already. They'd have gone to a different clerk in Kentucky and received their license.

Click to expand...

It's not reasonable to burden citizens with having to travel to a different county than the one they live in to obtain a legal document that would be otherwise available in their home county, just because she thinks gays are icky.

This is a standoff and they want her to concede her position and her faith to their demands. It's like the bakery standoffs , the florist standoffs. Same sex couples could acquire their order at any other shop but that which they knew or found out was owned by a Christian who would or did refuse.
They pursued charges so as to cost the Christian their business because they did not concede to the SSC's demands.
Rational persons would never want someone opposed to their union, be they straight or otherwise, to create something for that special day. Who would want to eat a cake made by someone opposed to baking it? The same with the flowers in the case of florists.

Click to expand...

Right... those Black people have a perfectly good soda fountain they can go to down the street. Why would they want to drink a milkshake made by someone opposed to making them a milkshake anyway?

Operating a business is a privilege, not a right. The business owner profits off the community as a whole via their reliance on the commons of public funded and maintained infrastructure to do ANY business in the first place, and is therefore rightfully required to serve their "off the shelf menu" products and services to the community as a whole... or simply choose a different line of work.

Interesting how she has no moral problem cashing the percentage of her salary check paid for by active practicing Homosexuals in her constituency.

Artemis97 said:

Why are you drunk all the time? It's such a misery to inflict upon yourself.

I'm confused about why you think your analogy works here anyway.

Click to expand...

Because I'm an alcoholic. I know I'm a sinner. The point is, I can know I'm a miserable sinner and in the wrong, and still know what is right. So can this lady. Just like Paul. He knew right from wrong, what was sin, yet still was the chief of sinners, doing what he hated without knowing why.

And yeah, it is miserable. Worse living with demons and differences that people will never understand.

parousia70 said:

Except she is not executing her duty to issue marriage licences.

Click to expand...

One can't point out the language of the oath again and hope it gets through.

It's not reasonable to burden citizens with having to travel to a different county than the one they live in to obtain a legal document that would be otherwise available in their home county, just because she thinks gays are icky.

Click to expand...

But it's reasonable to threaten a clerk.

Operating a business is a privilege, not a right.

Click to expand...

Maybe in your country. But in the United States of America it is a right. As long as one is able and comports themselves with the laws that pertain to operation of said business.

The business owner profits off the community as a whole via their reliance on the commons of public funded and maintained infrastructure to do ANY business in the first place, and is therefore rightfully required to serve their "off the shelf menu" products and services to the community as a whole... or simply choose a different line of work.

Click to expand...

Or, those who scream for tolerance could exercise some and rationalize to themselves that someone who is forced to perform a service may not be the best one to hire for that one and only special day. Wherein memories and events will happen once in a lifetime and be recorded forever by friends, family, capturing the event on video or in stills.

While seeking out the many options wherein there are those more than happy to accommodate requests, and often enough are like those now allowed to marry by secular law, are in business.

While I don't condone her picking and choosing what she will and will not do on her job. There are several scenarios that come to mind. Is she a new Christian? We're these marriages something that happened before becoming Christian? Was she widowed in any of these marriages? Or is she like the woman Jesus met at the well? *shrug*

eastcoast_bsc said:

I guess she forgot the the part of scripture where Jesus discusses not to be concerned with the splinter in anothers eye when there is a beam in your own.





http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2...h2zXRR09GRoL/story.html?p1=feature_stack_2_hp

Click to expand...