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

[nightflight]

Are there any examples out there of other officials who defied the law out of conscience? It would be interesting to look at those and see the reactions of people.

 

[Belk]

Are there any examples out there of other officials who defied the law out of conscience? It would be interesting to look at those and see the reactions of people.

Several during the removal of Jim Crow from the south. Were you thinking historically or contemporary?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Nazi Germany: excuses for those brought to trial for ther outright colloboration with the "lawless "Law" of the rulers in the courts of Nazi Germany did not save their lives when righteousness in the land again prevailed, and they were brought to the courts of true justice, after the reign of tyranny and lawlessness against the Word of God was put down.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Are there any examples out there of other officials who defied the law out of conscience? It would be interesting to look at those and see the reactions of people.

Yes, the resistance fighters against Nazi Germany's unlawful and against God's Laws, rulers and minions, who tried to excuse themselves from guilt whenever they were hunted down and brought to trial, as "only obeying the law of the land".

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Jesus did not try to cling to a position in the government of the time. Perhaps that was wise.

Jesus was crucified for not obeying the "Law"of the Pharisees"...

 

[loveofourlord]

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".

yes and in this case the undue hardship would be for her to allow the other clerks to issue licenses wich she has refused, she has rejected the undue hardship clause.

 

[Belk]

Nazi Germany: excuses for those brought to trial for ther outright colloboration with the "lawless "Law" of the rulers in the courts of Nazi Germany did not save their lives when righteousness in the land again prevailed, and they were brought to the courts of true justice, after the reign of tyranny and lawlessness against the Word of God was put down.

And... godwin.. Page 8.... /thread

 

[loveofourlord]

I think it's obviously at this point this isn't about objecting to being made to issue licenses, it's to punish gays. If she truly objected, she would resign or allow others to do it, instead she's remained where she is so that she can make sure no gays will marry under her watch.

 

[Maren]

I think it's obviously at this point this isn't about objecting to being made to issue licenses, it's to punish gays. If she truly objected, she would resign or allow others to do it, instead she's remained where she is so that she can make sure no gays will marry under her watch.

I think, to be truly accurate, you need to remove that last "under her watch," if she resigns it is no longer "her watch."

 

[TerranceL]

It's odd how those on this forum who love to quote scripture forget "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers" when it becomes convenient.

 

[loveofourlord]

I think, to be truly accurate, you need to remove that last "under her watch," if she resigns it is no longer "her watch."

no thats right :> I'm saying that she won't resign, because doing so would mean she couldn't stop gays from being married. her goal isn't, or least not JUST objecting to them married, or not wanting to do it herself, she wants no one to do it.

Think of it like a muslim that was on a football team, they don't want to play becuse they would have to touch the football, well they could quit, or he could play defense where he wouldn't touch the ball, instead he wants to be the quarterback and won't allow anyone else to be quarterback because that would be allowing others to touch the ball.

 

[Maren]

no thats right :> I'm saying that she won't resign, because doing so would mean she couldn't stop gays from being married. her goal isn't, or least not JUST objecting to them married, or not wanting to do it herself, she wants no one to do it.

Think of it like a muslim that was on a football team, they don't want to play becuse they would have to touch the football, well they could quit, or he could play defense where he wouldn't touch the ball, instead he wants to be the quarterback and won't allow anyone else to be quarterback because that would be allowing others to touch the ball.

I understood what you meant, just stating that your post is stronger if you remove the "under her watch" at the end.

 

[Red Fox]

And... godwin.. Page 8.... /thread

You called it.

 

[loveofourlord]

There should be a new law for black civil rights, other topic had people equating not being allowed to take rights away from gays, as being equivalent to rights being taken away from blacks.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Justice Antonin Scalia's statement is becoming more relevant every day: "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

It was a ridiculous statement when he made it, and it's no less ridiculous now. The nine are nominated by the people (the elected President) and confirmed by the states (the elected Congress).

 

[Look Up]

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.

So far as I understand the framers of the US Constitution, fear of powers both clerical and otherwise motivated the then-proposed legal framework of "checks and balances" between branches of federal government; they looked to the history of English law in part in doing so. To such I agree in principle. Nonetheless in advocating and ratifying the US Constitution as "the highest law of the land," a legal claim was accepted by implication placing that Constitution over the law of the true God where conflicts might arise; as such, the US Constitution claims to "speak for [a] [g]od" akin to Caesar (even if there have been modifying traditions particularly stemming from Christianity).

With regret I am unaware of a way to escape this conclusion. In that the US Constitution does not look to the true God as highest lawgiver, it looks to that which the true God is not. Secular neutrality in matters religious is a myth even if independence of interest provides limited shielding against biases. And given human nature, how does one safeguard against both abuse of power and systemic idolatry in all its forms (nominally Christian and otherwise)?

 

[Ringo84]

(Ahem)

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

 

[AirPo]

Are there any examples out there of other officials who defied the law out of conscience? It would be interesting to look at those and see the reactions of people.

I was tempted to look for and post the Forrest Gump one.

 

[Hank77]

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?

If I was ordered and refused to say gun down a village of women and children, I face the consequences. Which could be jail time.

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?

She is in jail because she refused to let other clerks issue the licenses. She was given that option by the judge.

Because the law violated her deeply held religious beliefs. You'll get no sympathy from me in this matter, I'm a Covenanter.

Then she shouldn't expect to be paid for not doing her job or letting others do theirs. It's not like she is being forced to stay in that position or being threatened with jail if she doesn't stay in that position. If I were in her position I would have taken the court's offer of the other five clerks issuing the licenses and started looking for another job or just resigned. Just like any other job if I don't like the added duties.

So, you think the government should be obeyed the way we obey God?

No, God comes first and sometimes there are consequences for making that decision.

To force someone to violate their beliefs is religious intolerance, just like banning the hijab in France and banning circumcision in Germany.

She isn't being forced to do anything against her conscience. She has alternatives.

So, for example, the Fugitive Slave Law, how should a Christian have behaved there?

I think I would have ignored that law but have accepted the fact that by doing so I may have to suffer the consequences if discovered. Just like this woman I would be making the decision myself, not being FORCED into that decision or being FORCED to do something I didn't want to do.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

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

/2 cents

The United States unemployment rate is at a seven-year low and the county she lives in has a healthy job economy.
As I stated before, with the staggering amount of publicity she has generated through her actions and the support she's received she would have significantly better chances of finding gainful employment than the overwhelming majority of those seeking jobs. Even back in late June and early July when she'd already made the news, already gained a following, she would have been on good footing to find another job if she made any effort to do so. It is indeed easy to say that if she had professional and personal integrity she would have humbly resigned. The median household salary for Rowan County is approximately $34,000 and her salary as one of their public servants was $80,000. Absolutely those who were earning a fraction of what she did and having their taxes go towards paying her salary for her job she was egotistically refusing to fully perform but wanting full compensation for have the right to be outraged. It's basic fairness. Maybe if she took another job she wouldn't be making as much as her neighbors, but if her actions were truly about her morals rather than her paycheck, that should be something she'd willingly accept.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ~
I do believe Matthew 5:10 is true. What I don't for a millisecond believe is that it's true about Kim Davis' situation. She is not being persecuted for righteousness, and it's a mockery to state that she is. She is being held accountable for her self-righteousness and selfishness. Yes, that would have been a sacrifice for her to resign, but if her convictions were truly that deep and that strong it would have been a worthwhile one. And again, I don't think it would have been a tremendous sacrifice - certainly nothing like those who are genuinely persecuted around the world for their religion, losing life or limb, or like those in the Bible who were - because others would have been willing to help her in obtaining a new job.

I also believe in Matthew 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. She's not a peacemaker. She's a peace breaker.