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

[lasthero]

Kentucky law does not permit homosexual marriage

The Constitution, however, does.

So.

Tough cookies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Nope. They can go to another county.

I do believe in religious freedom for Muslims, but if the Muslim clerk was making the voters unhappy, they would be impeached. It would not be an issue for long.

See, being tolerant means making accommodations for people's differences. What if the county clerk is in a wheelchair? We can't have all kinds of disabled people needing all kinds of weird ways to move around... Oh wait, we can accommodate that. What if the county clerk was a smoker? We can't have people taking off work for a break to... Oh, wait, we do that, too. What if the county clerk was a Jew? We can't have people taking off weird religious holidays and... Oh, we do that too, huh? But, what if the county clerk was transgendered? We can't have men dressing as women and women dressing as men, and problems with the bathrooms, and have to change all the name prefixes on our forms, and... What? We do that, too?

So, to be tolerant, what we need to do is to understand that people are different and be loving and accepting and work through their differences with them, right? If we can accommodate conscientious objectors in the military, and everything I just mentioned, and a lot more I didn't mention, then we should be able to accommodate people's religious and ethical compunctions against lying and approving of sin, both against the Christian religion and worthy of damnation, according to our beliefs, which are thousands of years older than any Supreme Court of the United States ruling. She is not "forcing" anyone to do anything, because they can go to a different county. On the contrary, she is the one being coerced, because she is the one in jail.

No, actually many people (for example those who don't own a car) in many cases can't go to another county.

However, even for those people who can travel to another country, they don't have to, and shouldn't have to. They have the right to equal protection under the law, and they have the right to not be discriminated against by the local government office.

Tolerance is good in many cases, however it is not good in every case. Tolerating intolerance is one of those examples. She swore to uphold the constitution and the law of the land, then broke her oath and used the powers of the government to violate the civil rights of others. She is not deserving of tolerance for those actions for a number of reasons, least of all that she displays no tolerance for others herself.

She is not being coerced, she can follow the law she swore an oath to uphold, or resign her position. She's in jail because she flagrantly broke the law.

 

[brewmama]

The Constitution, however, does.

So.

Tough cookies.

Actually no, it doesn't. 5 justices made it up. And the person I was responding to mentioned Kentucky law.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are comparing black and white and calling them both gray. She was elected to do a certain job. The Supreme Court took it upon themselves to redefine her job without her knowledge or consent, or the consent of the voters who elected her. By the way, nobody voted for the SC. And if she is abusing anyone, she is doing it fairly as she didn't give one group licenses and not the other.

That is a far cry from her choosing to do something other than what she was elected to do, as in your second example.

She swore to uphold the law and constitution when she accepted the job, anyone that gets into her position goes into it knowing that all laws are subject to change. She is sworn to uphold them whatever they are.

If the law changes and she feels she can no longer in good conscience continue to uphold that law, the only honourable thing to do is resign her position.

 

[lasthero]

Actually no, it doesn't. 5 justices made it up.

No, they interpreted the Constitution.

Which is their job.

Which has always been their job.

If you don't like it, tough.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Actually no, it doesn't. 5 justices made it up. And the person I was responding to mentioned Kentucky law.

The supreme court is the final arbiter of constitutional disputes, that's one of the main reasons for its existence.

As for Kentucky law, it should go without saying the federal constitution takes precedence over the state one. Were you not aware of that?

 

[Archivist]

She is getting paid $80000 to do her job. Among her duties is issuing marriage licenses. Don't think it is asking too much to have her do what she was elected to do. If she feels that she can't then she should resign.

 

[Archivist]

I actually think she should just be fired for not doing her job. But I also think it is hypocritical not to tolerate her beliefs.

She is an elected official. She cannot be fired. She can resign or be impeached.

She is welcome to have her beliefs so long as she does the job for which she is getting paid $80000 per year.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is just as much evidence out there that Hitler was NOT a Christian. You are also wrong about the Catholic Church.

Citation needed

Well THAT'S ridiculous. Just because the Jews don't use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Christianity comes out of Judaism, which gives them a philosophy that is descended from both.

Actually, yes... In order to lump their religion in with yours it would go without saying that you should get their views on the matter. Jews don't accept any of the Christian doctrine, and don't believe Jesus was a messiah of any regard. It's rather presumptuous to claim them as part of your team when they don't agree with what your team stands for

Christ was a Jew you know.

Actually, no I don't. In fact I am rather skeptical of the claim that there was a Jesus at all.

Kentucky law does not permit homosexual marriage. So she in fact was being loyal to whatever oath she took and to her state.

And Kentucky ratified the US constitution, meaning she is sworn to uphold that as well. Federal law trumps state law, and she broke that law.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

How is keeping a record of an immoral decision approval of said immoral decision?

I can see both sides here, and I am not utterly convinced that issuing the license would or would not be sinful. I just know that in my line of work, we enable people to do stuff we don't approve of all the time, whether the employee is Christian or not that doesn't matter. It's web hosting. You can find inappropriate content sites and church sites on the same server sometimes. I might disapprove of the inappropriate content, my atheist coworkers might disapprove of the church. Everybody helps to keep a server up that has at least one site with content they passionately disagree with. If there's disagreement, how does that constitute approval?

 

[katerinah1947]

That's how the Supreme Court works and has always worked. What's the problem?

Nope. And that's a very good thing.

So she just wasn't doing her job?

Maybe this was covered already, but didn't she take an oath?

Hi,

Since she is a Christian, then she should be following God's Laws, and all of them if she can, which technically none of us capable of, but she should at the very least, support and want to follow God's Laws, and Not Oppose them as she had done, in Kentucky.

How can I say that. Well there is a section of Scripture that deals with God's Laws as given to Civilians, which according to God, through The Holy Spirit or Jesus, and given to Paul to tell us, The Government's Laws are God's Laws, as it says in Romans 13:1-5.

She is deciding, by accident or her teachers of Religion, that Romans 13:1-5 is not important, even though the instructions there are for all Chrisitians to follow them also, as they are God's Laws also.

Then He was giving them intructions to Chrisians, to follow the Roman Laws of the time.

Please, she is merely not fully versed in what The Bible Says. She is following God's Laws, but as spoken of Romans 14, and allowed, as she really is not aware yet that she is in error. Thus to her it is a sin, but since God made that the law of the land, she can no either follow God's laws for this, or be in contempt of court, and in knowing or accidental disobediance to the God she loves and trys to serve.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[ScottA]

She is an elected official. She cannot be fired. She can resign or be impeached.

She is welcome to have her beliefs so long as she does the job for which she is getting paid $80000 per year.

So then the choices are whether to impeach her for not doing her job and be guilty of hypocrisy, or grant her a similar tolerance as the law she rejects does others.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So then the choices are whether to impeach her for not doing her job and be guilty of hypocrisy, or grant her a similar tolerance as the law she rejects does others.

You're leaving out the third option, sue her for her actions and get a federal court ruling that requires her to do her job.

She was jailed because that very thing happened, and she was held in contempt of court when she purposefully failed to abide by the ruling.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If she wasn't discriminating, then why the court order?

Because she was refusing to do her job and a judge is the only one who can get her to either do the job she was elected for or resign, since she can't be fired from an elected position. She chose to ignore the court order and was found in contempt. That behavior will land you in jail no matter who you are or what you believe. When a federal judge tells you to do something, you do it or you face the consequences.

This would be similar to the President all of the sudden deciding that he no longer is going to do his job. He's not signing bills into law, he's not going to command the military, he's not going to meet with foreign dignitaries anymore but he's also not going to step down so someone actually can do the work. Do you think that would be acceptable? Do think the people supporting this woman would support the president in raising his middle finger to the oath he swore?

 

[Archivist]

So then the choices are whether to impeach her for not doing her job and be guilty of hypocrisy, or grant her a similar tolerance as the law she rejects does others.

My understanding is that the Kentucky legislature only meets in odd-numbered years for a 30 day session. Impeachment would require calling it back into session which would be a sizable expense. Someone from Kentucky please correct me if I'm incorrect on that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Again, why did the judge interfere in her department if she wasn't discriminating against anyone?

BECAUSE SHE REFUSED TO DO HER JOB. YOU CAN'T JUST NOT DO YOUR JOB THAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO.

 

[pat34lee]

She was discriminating, I don't think anyone is arguing that. That's just not the reason she was jailed... she was jailed for contempt of court.

I'm saying she wasn't discriminating. She didn't provide licenses for anyone.
Discrimination would mean she gave them to one group but not the other.

 

[pat34lee]

Maybe this was covered already, but didn't she take an oath?

Yes. To her state and the people in it. Not to the Supreme Court.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm saying she wasn't discriminating. She didn't provide licenses for anyone.
Discrimination would mean she gave them to one group but not the other.

That's not why she was sent to jail though.

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.
​

That is why she's in jail.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes. To her state and the people in it. Not to the Supreme Court.

And her state is bound by the Constitution which is interpreted by the Supreme Court. That's how America works.