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

[Red Fox]

She is rightfully in jail because she disobeyed the direct orders of a federal judge.

Exactly.

 

[AirPo]

A very sanctimonious screed. If someone believes that taking an action will send them to Hell, it's a violation of their religious freedom for the government to coerce them to do it. That's not making people follow your religion. It is following your own religion, because to approve of sin is one of the worst sins a Christian can commit (Romans 1). The government makes accommodations for conscientious objectors in the military, so they can make accommodations for conscientious objectors in the county clerk's office. It's really not that hard to figure out. There are also other county clerks.

Have you noticed nobody seems to talk about tolerance anymore? I think it's because of situations like this. To force someone to violate their beliefs is religious intolerance, just like banning the hijab in France and banning circumcision in Germany.

She wasn't coerced, she volunteered when she ran for election.

 

[Red Fox]

She wasn't coerced, she volunteered when she ran for election.

She took an oath to uphold her responsibilities while in office as an elected official. She has since broken that oath.

 

[Red Fox]

When Christians opposed American wars they were persecuted and thrown in jail - often for years. Not so strangely, the right wingers defended the government's actions and called these true Christians commies and traitors.

Double standards, much?

I just wanted to quote this for emphasis.

 

[Marius27]

So, if someone stands up for what they believe in, even when the government tells them to do something they believe is very wrong, you see that as a *lack* of integrity? Personally, I think it shows a lot more integrity to stick to your morals no matter what the government and other people say. That is what Jesus did.

Really? Jesus defrauded tax payers to keep an $80,000 salary while not doing the job his constituents elected him for, bullied the employees under him so they couldn't do the job either, and denied people their civil rights in a secular country?

Yeah no, she's nothing like Christ. Stop pretending she is.

 

[Subliminal]

I respect her. She was elected into the position and relies on the income for living. Same-sex marriage was only federally legalized ~2 months ago. I don't know how long she's been working there, but it's safe to say longer than ~2 months. The state of Kentucky has defined marriage as between a man and a women (statue defining marriage on Kentucky's legislative website found here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464) so she didn't go into the job with the intent on refusing gay couples licenses.

By looking at the specifics regarding marriage laws in KY (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205 ) same-sex marriages have been prohibited by the state government and if out-of-state gay couples with a license from another state moved into KY the license became void.
Of course, this doesn't matter now that the federal government legalized gay marriage and unfortunately, in most cases, federal trumps state law when the laws conflict.
This was a federal judge who threw her in jail "until she obeys federal law," ridiculous!

It's easy to sit back and say "she should resign and find another job," really, put yourself in her shoes. We have a poor economy and jobs in the US aren't always easy to come by. Could just as easily say "two people of the same sex wanting a marriage license should look somewhere else nearby."
She had the job and rights of only handing out state licenses to a man/women before same sex couples had the federal rights to marry. Good for her for sticking with her beliefs even under the threat of the feds and jail. Shows how strong her conviction is, isn't afraid to stand up for her faith regardless of mans consequences, and that she fears God (in a good way) more than man. How many of us would hide/forfeit our faith/beliefs for fear of others?
Does the verse "Do not fear one who can inflict the body, but cannot inflict the soul. Fear the One who can inflict both the body and soul," or how about "Do not be conformed to the ways of this world," ring a bell?

I firmly believe in the divide between federal/state laws/powers and furthermore believe in free exercise of religion, regardless of how fundamentalist/hardcore legalistic the sect is (with exceptions of course).
This should be a states rights issue, along with all social issues.

A side note on a conflicting federal-state rights marijuana example... Skip quotes to disregard...

Take medical marijuana for example. Many states have legal medical marijuana laws, some even recreational, yet under federal law it is strictly illegal and categorized with hard drugs such as heroin. There are many cases of people being penalized/fined/arrested under federal law even though they live in a state where it is legal. Do you consider this wrong?

If you believe it's wrong, go a little further and consider this: do you support the freedom to use marijuana in states where it's legal, without being punished by federal law, AND yet at the same time universally support same-sex marriage in all states granting no one the freedom of religious expression to not associate with same-sex marriage or provide those services, even in states where marriage is defined between a man and women? If so, IMO is hypocritical. Sorry if I wrote the question in a way that sounds complex, but it's actually a simple question. What I'm saying is, just because on the federal level something is legal or illegal, doesn't mean the states shouldn't have any power to pass laws contrary to federal law.

My Christian brothers and sisters, what has been happening and what we are witnessing in this country is merely the beginning of persecution against Christians and those of religious faith. Even private businesses and individuals, such as food caterers, photographers, etc, are being fined for refusing to provide services for gay weddings. The rejection of Godly principles is diminishing as people of faith are increasingly becoming criticized, mocked in our culture while secular humanism is on the rise.

Personally, if it was me I would provide a service to someone who is gay/bi/etc and treat them equally in any situation because Jesus tells us to love each other as oneself and that the same measure by which we judge others, we will be judged. Furthermore it would be ridiculous and hypocritical if I were to ask a straight man/woman what sins they've committed to determine if I'd provide services for them, obviously. -.-

Nonetheless, this women has an established, first amendment religious right to believe this is a "heaven or hell" decision for her and shouldn't be forced to issue the license or resign from her job. She can be impeached, which will take time and by all means let that process take its course, but in the meantime she shouldn't be put behind bars by a federal judge. On the other hand she also has a duty to perform her government role. Sounds like she's willing to be in jail though.

+1 to "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

/2 cents

 

[durangodawood]

So we agree, it's not about "law." I think we should be honest. If you think she's wrong, fine, but I don't like dishonest posturing about "the law" when most people think it's okay to disobey unjust laws.

Hey, calm down with the accusations there.

I did NOT say the (hypothetical) lawbreaking clerk who issued interracial marriages should stay in office without consequences that may even include jail. I said I'd applaud her for issuing the licences.

 

[durangodawood]

Have you noticed that it was before she was saved? Paul was a murderer, but we don't hold that against him, now, do we?

Then how come he was out and about preaching rather than in jail? Does getting saved just release us from the consequences of our actions???

 

[Maren]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If they swear to do what the President says, and to uphold the Constitution, but the President tells them to violate the Constitution, they cannot do both of those things. They contradict each other. You are acting like obeying the oath and the government is simple, but it is not always that way.

""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." "

Does this belief of yours in blind obedience to the government apply only to our government, or to all governments?

And I think you are trying to twist the oath that our servicemen and women take. The idea of that oath isn't that every soldier gets to pick and choose what laws they think are Constitutional. Instead, they are to uphold the law as determined by Congress and the Supreme Court -- they cannot ignore a law that they personally feel may be unconstitutional.

You are correct that they can refuse to follow what they feel is not a "lawful order", but that is when the order would force the service member to break the law.

I don't know enough about American law to reach a conclusion but I do know that you have a law that requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs & practices of employees. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Why would this not apply in this case?

The key words there are "reasonable accommodation". The pharmacy example is a good one, if one Christian pharmacist feels he cannot supply birth control but there are other pharmacists on duty, then the other pharmacists would fill that prescription. Of course, if he was the only pharmacist on duty, then he would be required to fill it.

In this case, Kim Davis is the one responsible for issuing marriage licenses -- particularly when she is using her position to prevent the clerks working for her to not issue the licenses. As such, there is no "reasonable accommodation" for her, as she is the sole authority in the county for issuing marriage licenses.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that, with Kim Davis in prison, the deputy clerks are now issuing licenses.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I respect her. She was elected into the position and relies on the income for living. Same-sex marriage was only federally legalized ~2 months ago. I don't know how long she's been working there, but it's safe to say longer than ~2 months. The state of Kentucky has defined marriage as between a man and a women (statue defining marriage on Kentucky's legislative website found here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464) so she didn't go into the job with the intent on refusing gay couples licenses.

By looking at the specifics regarding marriage laws in KY (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205 ) same-sex marriages have been prohibited by the state government and if out-of-state gay couples with a license from another state moved into KY the license became void.
Of course, this doesn't matter now that the federal government legalized gay marriage and unfortunately, in most cases, federal trumps state law when the laws conflict.
This was a federal judge who threw her in jail "until she obeys federal law," ridiculous!

Federal law trumps state laws, period. This is plainly laid out within the constitution. Judges' orders are laws in this county, if you disobey it, you can be held on contempt of court.

Nonetheless, this women has an established, first amendment religious right to believe this is a "heaven or hell" decision for her and shouldn't be forced to issue the license or resign from her job. She can be impeached, which will take time and by all means let that process take its course, but in the meantime she shouldn't be put behind bars by a federal judge. On the other hand she also has a duty to perform her government role. Sounds like she's willing to be in jail though.

+1 to "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

/2 cents

When she took her office, she swore to uphold the constitution of the United States, which now has legalized same-sex marriage. As County Clerk, she is the lead authority on licensing in the county, and was using her power to prevent the other clerks from giving marriage licenses (4 of 5 or 5 of 6 said they would). A federal judge ordered her to follow the law and she still refused, and thus was arrested for that, not failing to give out marriage licenses.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Christians, discuss your opinion of the situation here.

Keep in mind, the forum rules say that this forum believes that homosexuality is immoral, so that is *not* up for discussion.

Is Kim Davis engaging in passive resistance, because her right to religious freedom is being violated? Because it is a lie to say that a gay relationship constitutes "a marriage," would it be a sin for her to issue gay marriage licenses, which is "approving of sin?"

Or, is Kim Davis rightfully in jail, because she did not do her job, and we cannot let government employees pick and choose which orders to follow?

I have heard Christians who oppose gay marriage say both of these things today.

What would happen if we let everyone ignore orders because of religious beliefs? Conversely, what would happen if we forced everyone to obey the government under all circumstances?

Article for your information:
I have heard Christians who oppose gay marriage say both of these things today.

What religious freedom is being violated exactly? Can tell me how issuing licenses to gay couples interferes with her freedom of expressing her religion?

 

[Red Fox]

What religious freedom is being violated exactly? Can tell me how issuing licenses to gay couples interferes with her freedom of expressing her religion?

Well, that's easy. She's not being allowed to express her religion through discrimination and bigotry of homosexuals.

 

[Belk]

Ah, this play is fun to watch. I especially like the part where conservative Christians who distrust government suddenly wish to give government workers the right to decide which citizens it will serve. As an added bonus some even advocate for government workers to be able to ignore supreme court rulings. You can't make up a story this good.

 

[Red Fox]

Ah, this play is fun to watch. I especially like the part where conservative Christians who distrust government suddenly wish to give government workers the right to decide which citizens it will serve. As an added bonus some even advocate for government workers to be able to ignore supreme court rulings. You can't make up a story this good.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[SinnerInTheHands]

Then how come he was out and about preaching rather than in jail?

He killed Christians, which was [at the time] not against the law.

 

[Look Up]

From Kim Davis's statement comprising part of the Gospel Coalition blog post here, I understand that she had a religious objection as clerk to issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couple applicants (apparently interpreted as such licenses as she is held responsible for issuing partly via subordinates?), but as of this writing I do not know why she chose not to resign nor what she intended to accomplish by not resigning. I suspect or infer she expected to receive negative judicial consequences and perhaps that by such consequences she intended to make a public statement intended to exert pressure to change law or failing that as a religious witness against her county or state or nation pending action by the Judge of all flesh. Perhaps she was influenced by the unpopularity of homosexual marriage in her area. One can imagine future laws changed to accommodate such persons as Kim Davis. But as of this writing, I don't know with much confidence what her intentions are/have been or whether they will become more clear in time. (I side among minority opinion of Supreme Court judges on Obergefell v. Hodges.)

 

[nightflight]

I have to assume you're talking about the President... I didn't know Obama was a.) and illegal immigrant or b.) an immigration officer.

I wasn't talking about Obama.

 

[gord44]

I think the more 'Godly' option for this lady would have been to resign. To practice non-resistance and at the same time not compromise what she saw as her beliefs. Instead she took the route of resistance, which I believe is counter to Christ's teachings. I am guessing some ego might come into play. I have no doubt she is in her cell feeling like she is Paul or something.

 

[Catherineanne]

He killed Christians, which was [at the time] not against the law.

If you are talking about St Paul he did persecute Christians, but there is no evidence that he killed any.

 

[Red Fox]

I think the more 'Godly' option for this lady would have been to resign. To practice non-resistance and at the same time not compromise what she saw as her beliefs. Instead she took the route of resistance, which I believe is counter to Christ's teachings. I am guessing some ego might come into play. I have no doubt she is in her cell feeling like she is Paul or something.

I have no doubt that she's sitting in that jail cell right now relishing her "persecution" as a Christian.