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

[pdudgeon]

Whatever they swore to do they must do.

It is not their job to stand in judgment of the Government of the US, or its President. If the Government says it is constitutional to eat only doughnuts every Thursday they should head to the bakery first thing every Thursday morning.

Armies who take it into their heads to judge the Government ultimately lead to Dictatorships. If they want unconstitutional then that is the way to go.

but you would be ok with judging a king's actions as unlawful?

 

[Catherineanne]

but you would be ok with judging a king's actions as unlawful?

Same principle. Magna Carta; 15 June 1215 this time; the King is not above the law.

 

[Catherineanne]

neither is bending to accomodate it.

No bending required. Resign.

 

[ken777]

Didn't the law change after she had been elected to office? That put her in an awkward position. Maybe she should have resigned, and other believers who are in such positions should resign en masse. (I wouldn't want that position since I wouldn't want to issue marriage licenses to divorced and remarried couples, but whatever.)

What I don't like seeing though, is a shrinking field of career options for people of faith.

Yes, that would put her in an awkward position.
I was interested to learn that a Christian pharmacist can be excused from filling birth control prescriptions when it does not cause "undue hardship".

 

[Catherineanne]

That makes no difference. All but two statutes of Magna Carta have been revoked, but the essential principles remain in subsequent laws, including the Human Rights Act.

Nobody is above the law.

 

[pdudgeon]

The oath says to defend the Constitution and to obey the President, so what part of the oath do you think they should obey?

Kindly do not attempt to put words into my mouth. I have already said that the Statute of Praemunire established a good 700 years ago that the law of the land takes precedence. Not because God is not supreme but because people are far too likely to twist the law in his name and then use his name to oppress other people. It is far too easy to claim, 'God says it, therefore we must do it.' Who on earth can argue with such statements? And they inevitably lead to the most dreadful oppression. Therefore, the law of the land is higher. 1393. Look it up.

I repeat, it is not the job of the army to judge the Government.

If people want to change the law they must do it through their vote, or else stand for election. And if anyone's conscience is troubled they must resign and find a job where their conscience is not troubled. Fwiw, where such a troubled conscience involves imposing religious views on other people I am unlikely to have much sympathy.

An oath cannot be treated lightly. Or, putting it another way; 'Let your yes be yes and your no be no.'

your only problem is that you are defending the creating of the law. That law has been repealed and is no longer in effect.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So, you think it right to treat human beings as property? Aren't God's laws higher and better than man's laws?

Not in the United States.... the U.S. is constitutionally secular, which means that no religious law trumps the law of the land.

In places like Saudi Arabia however, god's law reigns supreme.... I personally think the U.S. has a better system in place.

 

[Catherineanne]

your only problem is that you are defending the creating of the law. That law has been repealed and is no longer in effect.

That is not how it works. The principle was established in 1390, and the principle remains in English law. Nobody is above the law; nobody at all.

I cannot speak for the US, but I would be surprised if it allows anyone to be above the law.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So now its OK to impeach someone for following their religious conscience?

Yes, if their religious conscience leads them to violate federal court orders and unconstitutionally try to impose their religious views on the citizens of their county via the power of the local government.

That's very reasonable grounds for impeachment.

 

[pdudgeon]

That makes no difference. All but two statutes of Magna Carta have been revoked, but the essential principles remain in subsequent laws, including the Human Rights Act.

Nobody is above the law.

it helps if the law you're trying to enforce is still on the books. There is a reason that subsequent laws were created to replace the original. the original was flawed.

 

[Catherineanne]

Not in the United States.... the U.S. is constitutionally secular, which means that no religious law trumps the law of the land.

In places like Saudi Arabia however, god's law reigns supreme.... I personally think the U.S. has a better system in place.

Yes, that is a clear enough illustration of the problem. Who speaks for God? In a theocracy it is not really God ruling at all, it is man ruling as if he were God, which is blasphemous in the extreme.

Medieval England was not unGodly, but it recognised that this was the path to very great abuse, and rightly attempted to put a stop to it. It took many hundreds of years to achieve, but we got there in the end.

 

[pdudgeon]

That is not how it works. The principle was established in 1390, and the principle remains in English law. Nobody is above the law; nobody at all.

I cannot speak for the US, but I would be surprised if it allows anyone to be above the law.

so how does one enforce a principle? (since that is what we are talking about.)

 

[pdudgeon]

That is not how it works. The principle was established in 1390, and the principle remains in English law. Nobody is above the law; nobody at all.

I cannot speak for the US, but I would be surprised if it allows anyone to be above the law.

you forgot about God.
As Creator,He is above the laws of men, and His laws should hold prescidence for the citizens of His Kingdom.

 

[Catherineanne]

it helps if the law you're trying to enforce is still on the books. There is a reason that subsequent laws were created to replace the original. the original was flawed.

No, that is not how English law works. Subsequent laws have expanded on the principle, but the principle itself remains. Article 7, HRA. Here it is:

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

 

[Catherineanne]

so how does one enforce a principle? (since that is what we are talking about.)

By law. The principle is that nobody is above the law, and that remains in just about every civilised country in the world. Dictatorships might be an exception, but only for the person at the very top.

 

[pdudgeon]

Yes, that is a clear enough illustration of the problem. Who speaks for God? In a theocracy it is not really God ruling at all, it is man ruling as if he were God, which is blasphemous in the extreme.

Medieval England was not unGodly, but it recognised that this was the path to very great abuse, and rightly attempted to put a stop to it. It took many hundreds of years to achieve, but we got there in the end.

and look what they wound up with; a queen in name only, a governmont run amok, a kingdom sabotaged by foreigners, and lost colonies.

 

[pdudgeon]

No, that is not how English law works. Subsequent laws have expanded on the principle, but the principle itself remains. Article 7, HRA. Here it is:

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

but this is not England. And it hasn't been England's for quite some time now.

 

[pdudgeon]

That is not how it works. The principle was established in 1390, and the principle remains in English law. Nobody is above the law; nobody at all.

I cannot speak for the US, but I would be surprised if it allows anyone to be above the law.

then be surprised, because there is allowance for conscience still.

 

[pdudgeon]

nm

 

[Catherineanne]

but this is not England. And it hasn't been England's for quite some time now.

Are you sure? What language are you using?

The HRA enshrines the principle that nobody is above the law; a principle declared in Magna Carta and the Statute of Praemunire. And the US constitution, following the principles of Magna Carta, states that all men are created equal.

QED.