Kentucky Clerk Denying Marriage Certificates Married 4 Time!

[pdudgeon]

First of all, we do not live in a Christian theocracy and Christianity does not rule this land or its government. Therefore, non-Christians living in this country do not have to adhere to the moral codes or written laws of Christianity. Secondly, every single person living in this country, regardless of religious preference, is entitled to equal rights and these rights should not be infringed upon by any religious zealots, who obviously think they are morally superior to the laws of this country. Thirdly, no one singular religion in our secular country, which is governed by a secular government, should be allowed to be dominate over all other religions and people or given exclusive special rights and special privileges that other religious people and secular people living in this country would be denied. And lastly, Christians are more than able to practice their religion in this country as long as they don't infringe on the rights of other people, which includes people they don't like or whose lifestyle they don't approve of.

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

 

[Blank Stair]

I guess what continues to be missed, or my profile is set to ignore by some and that explains why they missed the article, is that this woman was not a Christian when she was married and divorced all those times prior to her conversion.
Any Christian knows that the passages that pertain to prohibitions and the confines that restrict divorce apply only to Christians.

This clerks conversion occurred four years ago! Unless someone can show she's been married four times in four years she was forgiven all her sins when she received Christ. As Christians know, at her conversion, at any persons conversion, God forgives their transgressions and remembers their sins no more. It is as if they never happened.

The hypocrisy therefore would be among those Christians who reiterate her past sins that were not committed contrary to scripture against divorce. She was not beholding to Christian doctrine being she was not then a Christian.

When God forgave her who are you all to keep bringing up that which God does not remember?

 

[Blank Stair]

Justices being elected would be the worst disaster in the history of our nation. We already have them voting too much along party lines, I can't even imagine how bad it would be if they actually got elected from their rulings.

Agreed. It's bad enough that SCOTUS is nominated for their position by an elected official, and that nominee is then confirmed by a body of other elected officials. While the body of 9 in SCOTUS are typically empaneled to as evenly as possible given it is a body of 9 members, the two parties concerned. Democrat and Republican.

 

[pdudgeon]

Exactly.
Her personal Hypocrisy of being married 4 times & being an adulteress herself is actually irrelevant.

If she were the perfect, pious, chaste Church Lady who never sinned, It should be just as objectionable (and illegal) that she is selectively imposing her personal interpretation of scripture over and above the metering out of her assigned Civil tasks equally to all citizens under the law.

She did take an Oath of office to uphold the law after all, which she claims now she is incapable of doing, which in turn is a violation of the oath she took (Likely with her hand on the bible, ironically) to "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality", and therefore she should resign, and if she continues to refuse, she should be impeached or arrested & fined, or all of the above..

two words: moving goal posts.(hint:two wrongs do not make a right.)

 

[Red Fox]

Christians do not have the right to use their Christian beliefs as an excuse to discriminate and be bigoted against anyone, homosexual or otherwise.

 

[pdudgeon]

Christians do not have the right to use their Christian beliefs as an excuse to discriminate and be bigoted against anyone, homosexual or otherwise.

does that door swing the other way too?

 

[Blank Stair]

edit

 

[Red Fox]

Christians are free to practice their religion in this country. They can worship God as they choose, go to a church of their choosing, read their bible, pray in public, preach in public, assembly in public, and teach their own children their faith, but the one thing that they cannot do is use their Christians beliefs as an excuse to discriminate and infringe upon the equal rights of other people. And if some Christians choose to use their beliefs to discriminate, then they could find themselves in a lot of trouble.

 

[parousia70]

does that door swing the other way too?

Of course it does.

Do you have an example in mind where you don't see it swinging both ways to share with the class?

 

[parousia70]

I've yet to see where denying people of different faiths (or of no faith) the right to participate equally in civil society and receive equal protection under civil law is a core tenet of Christianity.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes Blank, we are to forgive seventy times seven, but not to condone such a sin. By signing her name to that permit she is as much as approving of the union, is she not? If I was her I would just find another job.

Couldn't she be honest and say that she only wants to deny marriage licenses to gay couples instead of denying what she probably views as legitimate "Biblical" marriages between straight couples? At least then she'd be consistent and not doing the whole thing out of spite

 

[muichimotsu]

To be fair to the facts in this case, she's refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone who seeks to apply.

If this couple in question simply wanted to get married they could go to any clerk in Kentucky and receive a license.
Their pursuit in this case is to get this Christian woman to concede her position under threat. And as someone has said, even under threat of death and the torching of her home. That speaks to the lows that advocates who call for tolerance will seemingly go to in order to harass and intimidate a Christian.

Furthermore, her position is not a job. It is an elected office. In order for her to be removed she'd have to be prosecuted criminally for malfeasance. Which isn't a viable charge here.
She's currently being represented, as they approached her and offered to take her case, by Liberty Counsel.
In point of fact she is not technically violating any law.

Sodomy laws are still on the books in Kentucky. They're grandfathered in and were extant prior to the SCOTUS June decision that makes this matter an issue now.
The license that is being sought technically grants applicants license to violate those aforementioned laws. One can not give a license to break the law.
And while it can be argued that heterosexuals are just as likely to commit to that violation of the sodomy laws, it is absolute that same sex couples do and shall. Because that is the only methodology employed in their unnatural sexual congress. Therefore, the male couple asking for a license to violate the law in Kentucky are legally able to be denied by law.

Pretty sure those sodomy laws are not valid: being on the books doesn't make them absolutely applicable considering court precedence with decisions that determined they were unconstitutional, since private acts in the bedroom are not really the government's interest, so criminalizing such things, even in regards to marriage, would violate an implicit right to privacy in your personal matters, such as a committed relationship and recognition by the state in regards to meeting the minimum standards.

 

[Blank Stair]

You are quite mistaken.
Any law still on the books is enforceable.

Pretty sure those sodomy laws are not valid: being on the books doesn't make them absolutely applicable considering court precedence with decisions that determined they were unconstitutional, since private acts in the bedroom are not really the government's interest, so criminalizing such things, even in regards to marriage, would violate an implicit right to privacy in your personal matters, such as a committed relationship and recognition by the state in regards to meeting the minimum standards.

 

[Blank Stair]

Couldn't she be honest and say that she only wants to deny marriage licenses to gay couples instead of denying what she probably views as legitimate "Biblical" marriages between straight couples? At least then she'd be consistent and not doing the whole thing out of spite

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.

 

[Zoness]

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.

You're right; she's consistent. Consistently not doing her job, that is.

 

[Fantine]

Ghandi and his followers, Martin Luther King and his followers, St. Thomas More and others stood up against unjust laws and unjust governments (so did the Central and South American martyrs in the late twentieth century, and I am confident they will now be recognized for their courage).

They disobeyed civil war--but they were willing to face the consequences. As did conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War.

This woman needs to do the same--otherwise she's just a whiner.

 

[Red Fox]

Standing up for equal rights and challenging the injustice of discrimination, means standing up for all people in this country, and that includes homosexuals.

 

[parousia70]

Furthermore, her position is not a job. It is an elected office. In order for her to be removed she'd have to be prosecuted criminally for malfeasance. Which isn't a viable charge here.

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

In point of fact she is not technically violating any law.

Interesting hair splitting ya got going there...

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

And while it can be argued that heterosexuals are just as likely to commit to that violation of the sodomy laws, it is absolute that same sex couples do and shall.

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.

 

[parousia70]

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

Again, any examples of this you'd like to share with the class?

 

[Hetta]

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.”