Kentucky Clerk Denying Marriage Certificates Married 4 Time!

[Ada Lovelace]

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.

I'm sorry you are afflicted with alcoholism.

The analogy still doesn't work. You, as someone who is intimately acquainted with the risks and misery of alcoholism have the experience to warn friends and family when you worry they are abusing alcohol. That's valid. You're also doing this not as your paid profession but out of love for the people you care about.

To make it more analogous to what Kim Davis is doing - let's pretend that you are a professional addiction counselor who has been hired by a rehab facility to work with all patients. At first you are glad to help fellow alcoholics. Then you have to start helping patients with prescription pain addiction. You find their addiction to be abhorrent. You outright refuse to work with them in any capacity, because of personal beliefs that those who abuse prescription drugs make it harder for them to be obtained by those who truly need them (this is not actually my own belief, just something I'm putting in here). When you are called out on your hypocrisy, your solution is to stop helping all patients. Yet, due to you having an employment contract, you cannot be terminated and are still paid for the job you are failing to perform. Instead of accepting any responsibility, you cite your personal beliefs and place all the blame on the patients with the prescription pain addiction.

 

[zippy2]

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.

God be with you, Mikhael, for speaking His truth in love.

 

[Michie]

I have a horrible habit of replying before reading the whole thread. Sorry!

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*

 

[pdudgeon]

Michael the thing that kills me is that I get the feeling that a lot of people and maybe her, view Homosexuality as a higher sin which often reaches hysteria.

According to our faith she is living in sin and is an adulteress. Should she leave her 4th husband?

except that she is not a Catholic. therefore the Catholic restrictions don't apply to her--the restrictions of her own faith would.
and as far as i can tell she is perfectly within her rights as far as marriage goes with her religion.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

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*

Here is another point. I work in a large health care facility. I work in IT , so I have no direct patient contact, but if I did and I was asked tp participate somehow in an abortion. I would decline and walk away.

This woman has direct contact with marriage license seekers. She is not going to win, nor is Kentucky. The horse has left the barn, Gay marriage is here to stay. She needs to decide where she will stand as far as employment.


You may be right Michie but it was the 4 marriage thing that got me a bit. She came across a bit judgemental, and she was completely unaware that the media machines would Vet her then chew her up and spit her out. Thats how it is done.

I have a brother on his 4th marriage. One would think that after marriage 2 or 3 that it is probably best that one lives alone. I am not sure 4 users the charm.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

except that she is not a Catholic. therefore the Catholic restrictions don't apply to her--the restrictions of her own faith would.
and as far as i can tell she is perfectly within her rights as far as marriage goes with her religion.

She is Christian. The same restrictions apply.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I have a horrible habit of replying before reading the whole thread. Sorry!

We'll if you do it 4 times, then we have problems. Lol

 

[Michie]

We'll if you do it 4 times, then we have problems. Lol

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I'm sorry you are afflicted with alcoholism.

The analogy still doesn't work. You, as someone who is intimately acquainted with the risks and misery of alcoholism have the experience to warn friends and family when you worry they are abusing alcohol. That's valid. You're also doing this not as your paid profession but out of love for the people you care about.

To make it more analogous to what Kim Davis is doing - let's pretend that you are a professional addiction counselor who has been hired by a rehab facility to work with all patients. At first you are glad to help fellow alcoholics. Then you have to start helping patients with prescription pain addiction. You find their addiction to be abhorrent. You outright refuse to work with them in any capacity, because of personal beliefs that those who abuse prescription drugs make it harder for them to be obtained by those who truly need them (this is not actually my own belief, just something I'm putting in here). When you are called out on your hypocrisy, your solution is to stop helping all patients. Yet, due to you having an employment contract, you cannot be terminated and are still paid for the job you are failing to perform. Instead of accepting any responsibility, you cite your personal beliefs and place all the blame on the patients with the prescription pain addiction.

It does work. The only point is that a sinner can still know right from wrong. That's it.

 

[pdudgeon]

I'm sorry you are afflicted with alcoholism.

The analogy still doesn't work. You, as someone who is intimately acquainted with the risks and misery of alcoholism have the experience to warn friends and family when you worry they are abusing alcohol. That's valid. You're also doing this not as your paid profession but out of love for the people you care about.

To make it more analogous to what Kim Davis is doing - let's pretend that you are a professional addiction counselor who has been hired by a rehab facility to work with all patients. At first you are glad to help fellow alcoholics. Then you have to start helping patients with prescription pain addiction. You find their addiction to be abhorrent. You outright refuse to work with them in any capacity, because of personal beliefs that those who abuse prescription drugs make it harder for them to be obtained by those who truly need them (this is not actually my own belief, just something I'm putting in here). When you are called out on your hypocrisy, your solution is to stop helping all patients. Yet, due to you having an employment contract, you cannot be terminated and are still paid for the job you are failing to perform. Instead of accepting any responsibility, you cite your personal beliefs and place all the blame on the patients with the prescription pain addiction.

if she were the only employee in the office, you would have a valid case. according to the news article she is not the only employee.

the thing here is that this is not the only Christian state/county employee who has had this same dilema.
in other federal/state offices the jobs have been shuffled around to suit the circumstances.
and so long as the customers were being served everyone was fine with it.

my guess is that is what will happen here as well. jobs will be shuffled, people will calm down, and everything will get back to normal.

tempest in a tea pot just to stir up the downtrodden to feel more put upon and entitled and special. Does anyone have any Turkish Delight handy?

 

[dzheremi]

except that she is not a Catholic. therefore the Catholic restrictions don't apply to her--the restrictions of her own faith would.
and as far as i can tell she is perfectly within her rights as far as marriage goes with her religion.

Isn't that what other people have been saying in this same thread, though? The people to whom she is denying marriage licenses may not be Christians, so why is it that she gets to live in a way that is against Catholicism because she is not a Catholic, but she is denying other people the right to live in non-Christian ways when they are not Christians because she, as a Christian, feels what they are doing is wrong?

This is the danger of trying to mix religion and government in the first place. I wouldn't want that, because your version of what it means to be a Christian and mine are not the same. Much less would I want some completely non-Christian religion to rule over me or my community (like it does in Egypt...), so it's really short-sighted to act as she's acting. Heck, we have Christians on this very message board who decry persecution of Christians because they are feeling push-back when Christians are still ~70% of the USA, but they used to be 85% or what have you! If you can't handle a 15% decrease, imagine being 10% (as in Egypt), or 2% (India), or 0.01% (Somalia). Then will these same people be asking for their right to live as they wish even if their ways offend the majority? I think so.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not just a handy saying to recite when wagging your finger at others for what you feel is unfair treatment; it's something we're actually supposed to live by as Christians.

 

[parousia70]

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

Oh, I understand the argument on hers and your interpretation o the language of the oath. I just don't agree with it. I'm content to let the legal system decide.

But it's reasonable to threaten a clerk.

Threaten with what? dismissal? yes? violence? no.

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.

That's the privilege part... if it were A RIGHT, you wouldn't have to comport to anything other than your own desires.
Instead, we have laws that state a business can not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation/identity.

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.

Right, just like black people should exercise some tolerance toward business owners who would rather serve whites only, and stick with using Black owned businesses?

 

[bhsmte]

5 unelected officials get to tell us what the law is, and they get to tell an actual elected official, who it's been admitted of that she lives in a conservative state and would not be impeached because the people side with her, what to do.

Do you realize this elected official took an oath to uphold the constitution?

Are you familiar with what the constitution says about supreme court rulings?

She can hold her personal theology beliefs, but have the integrity, to understand you CAN NOT uphold the oath you took to serve the public that elected her and resign.

If she maintains her current position, a federal judge will have no choice but to lock her up. In fact, it would be her choice, because she is making it.

We are a nation of laws, whether some agree with them or not.

 

[parousia70]

and as far as i can tell she is perfectly within her rights as far as marriage goes with her religion.

Except no one is asking HER to get Gay married, so she is not being asked to violate ANY tenet Christianity.

Remember folks, Civil Marriage is not Holy Matrimony.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

As I stated in the other thread, far more heterosexuals by number engage in sodomy than homosexuals.

What would happen to you if you had a job to serve the customers of the business and you refused to? What steps do you think your boss would take?

 

[bhsmte]

Except no one is asking HER to get Gay married, so she is not being asked to violate ANY tenet Christianity.

Remember folks, Civil Marriage is not Holy Matrimony.

Yea, I have yet to hear a case, where gay couples looking for a marriage license, forced the clerk to engage in gay marriage.

 

[LoAmmi]

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

I'm sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. When a law is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the legislature of the individual states not repealing a law is not relevant. The law becomes illegal and unenforceable. The ruling in 2003 made such laws illegal.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. When a law is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the legislature of the individual states not repealing a law is not relevant. The law becomes illegal and unenforceable. The ruling in 2003 made such laws illegal.

Correct.

Some states, still have laws on the books for oral sex, believe it or not.

 

[Blank Stair]

I'm sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. When a law is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the legislature of the individual states not repealing a law is not relevant. The law becomes illegal and unenforceable. The ruling in 2003 made such laws illegal.

I believe you are confused. Sodomy laws, unless repealed in the state wherein they exist, are enforceable.
The LGBTQ community oppose these laws . Something that can be found with any search engine. That they do so is an indicator of their opposition to laws prosecuting their sexual congress. However, those laws are enforceable and should forever remain on the books for prosecution so that those who violate children, rape women, rape men, can be prosecuted for those specific sexual violations.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

if she were the only employee in the office, you would have a valid case. according to the news article she is not the only employee.

the thing here is that this is not the only Christian state/county employee who has had this same dilema.
in other federal/state offices the jobs have been shuffled around to suit the circumstances.
and so long as the customers were being served everyone was fine with it.

my guess is that is what will happen here as well. jobs will be shuffled, people will calm down, and everything will get back to normal.

tempest in a tea pot just to stir up the downtrodden to feel more put upon and entitled and special. Does anyone have any Turkish Delight handy?

The number of employees in the office is not a valid point. She is still accepting her full salary when she is not performing the full duties of her job. I personally disagree with her beliefs, but absolutely respect her right to have them in her personal life. If she feels so passionately about her religious convictions that she cannot fulfill the requirements of her job, then she needs to simply resign and obtain a new job.

Yes, she is the tempest in a tea pot because she feels entitled and special, and sadly obtuse people are categorizing her as the downtrodden. Send her some Turkish Delight.