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

[Archivist]

As an elected official, it is up to the people in her state to deal with her, not the courts. If they are going to deal with violations of oaths, they need to start at the top, not the bottom. Congress and the President.

Wrong. Violating an oath is, according to Scripture, a sin. Contempt of court is a matter for the courts.

 

[ScottA]

If you think the bible is the beginning of recorded history, you don't know your history. I suggest starting by studying the various middle-eastern fables that inspired the later book of Genesis, and predated that book by centuries.

I suggest you start with the Canaanite Pantheon of which Yahweh was a member and served as the God of Israel. He had a consort goddess named Asherah (who's name still survives in some of the earlier books of the bible, for example the Asherah poles that were erected to worship her are mentioned in verses like Exodus 34:13), however he was not the supreme god in the pantheon. That god was known as El, and the "children of El" (i.e. the minor gods) were known as Elohim, which is the Christian source for that word for God.

The reality is Judaism has its roots as an ancient polytheistic religion, which is also reflected in the earlier books of the bible. Verses like Genesis 1:26 which say "let us make man in our image" (i.e. pluralized) is a vestige of those polytheistic roots. That verse makes no sense if there is only one god. Even the first commandment when it says "you shall have no other gods before me" is an admission that there are other gods. If there wasn't, this commandment also makes no sense.

Judaism eventually morphed into a monotheistic religion roughly around 500BC, but polytheism wasn't completely eliminated until the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC.

If you're interested in the oldest continually practiced religion, you'd have to research Hinduism, which predates Judaism by centuries.

All you have to do is look at our more recent history to know that the whole record is a mess of human error and influence. Unfortunately (for you and the secular world), you are also missing the controlling factor presiding over all world events, and just what is and just what is not included: The providence of God.

There is a consequence to turning a blind eye to the elephant in the room.

 

[Archivist]

Which law? The law that was in effect when she was elected or the ruling of the SC?
BTW, a ruling is not a law because courts cannot make law.

Sure they can. Common law comes from the courts. Many crimes that are now governed by statute came from English Commin Law.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

We aren't arguing nazis, but you are talking about the leaders, not the rank and file members. Many followed because Hitler seemed to be the answer to their problems.

I am talking about you using the imagery of something diabolical to seemingly demonize a member who posted a response here. There are many other less inappropriately suggestive examples of those who goosestep after an ideology, but you choose the Nazis. This was a slightly concealed personal attack on another members character or the most thoughtless reply I've ever heard.

 

[smaneck]

Romans 1 doesn't exactly give a glowing endorsement for SS relationships.

That's true, but Romans 1 isn't exactly talking about marriage.

 

[Look Up]

Her signature is not a guarantee of her moral approval but rather an indication that the proper policies and procedures have been followed and that the document is valid according to the law. To use her office as a means of passing or withholding moral approval is a misuse. Perhaps she would be happier as a member of the clergy if she feels called to do that. It is certainly not something that should be paid for out of the citizen's taxes.

Thank you for your response Glass*Soul. Before I saw it, I had already responded to a similar clarification/correction as per my post #1417.

 

[rhymnrzn2zion]

Wrong. Violating an oath is, according to Scripture, a sin. Contempt of court is a matter for the courts.

Actually, there's one that preceeds breaking oath, and that is taking the oath to begin with....

James 5:12 "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

But most people in our government already know this, and pass over it. Like wise many Christians do the pledge of allegiance, as if an oath is an end of all disagreements.

 

[rhymnrzn2zion]

That thinking may apply to the Church you attend, it doesn't however, have any bearing on any rights held by other citizens in the USA. Should the Bible's teaching on divorce or having other gods also be applied in the same way to US citizens?
tulc(is just curious how far this goes)

Yea, but, I'm not sure to what extent we should be concerned. The whole world will wander after the beast, and blaspheme God: will that turn away the consequences of breaking the laws of nature, or prevent the judgment at the return of Jesus Christ?

No. So we should hope for widescale repentance, including for striving about laws.

 

[bhsmte]

Recall election if they want her out. If the majority don't care, she stays and does her job as she sees fit. That's the American way.

In the meantime, it is also the American way, to punish someone for not following a federal court order.

 

[bhsmte]

You can do and believe what you want. I know homosexuality is wrong and i dont need any teacher to teach me that, or to teach me otherwise either.

No problem, you can feel it is wrong all you like, knock yourself out.

 

[Maren]

What law did she break? Who is really being lawless in this situation?

"But is Davis really breaking the law, or is it the Supreme Court who has violated the law? The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution makes no direct references to giving the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

The Constitution establishes basic rights for all Citizens (and even for non-citizens). As such, the federal government does have the right to ensure all Americans have their rights. I'm also curious why you never objected to DOMA being passed into law; funny how those against same-sex marriage are only complaining about "federal intervention" after the Supreme Court ruling -- prior to this they were promoting DOMA, which was the federal government defining marriage.

The 14th Amendment states that people shall not be denied "equal protection of the law," but the 14th Amendment was about race, not sexual orientation.

Please show me where in the text of the 14th Amendment it mentions race. The fact is, you can't because it isn't there. While race (the treatment of Black people) may have been the reason the 14th Amendment was passed, it does not only protect against racial discrimination.

Therefore, the Constitution says nothing about the federal government regulating marriage in regards to sexual orientation. Since that is so, under the 10th Amendment the federal government has no authority to legalize gay marriage and no authority to compel Ms. Davis to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals.

Except, as I've pointed out, that is not the case. Beyond that, you are completely ignoring the 9th Amendment -- which was also used in the case.

Again, the 14th gives "equal protection of the laws," nothing about "equal protection only based on race." The courts found that states laws that tried to limit marriage based on gender (requiring a man and a woman) were unconstitutional. I understand you disagree but they have a valid argument per the Constitution.

Now let's talk about the 13th Amendment, which outlaws involuntary servitude. In other words, the government cannot force people to take specific actions."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...in_violation_of_10th_and_13th_amendments.html

"On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court has used the sword of its unaccountable power to rewrite the Constitution and fundamentally disrupt constitutional processes. Notable examples include, as I’ve pointed out before, Dred Scott and Roe. And then, with the damage done, it has used the shield of the “rule of law” to ensure that its lawless acts are respected and enforced, without exception. The legitimacy of Davis’s protest is inseparable from the illegitimacy of the court opinion that made it necessary. And it is this very illegitimacy that means she should neither resign nor comply. Instead, she has chosen the proper response: resist."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423579/kim-davis-jail-supreme-court-lawless

This is laughable on the face of it. Kim Davis is a slave because she is being required to issue same sex marriage licenses? The judge gave her several choices 1) do her job, 2) quit preventing her deputies from issuing licenses 3) quit. A slave (or involuntary servant) does not have those types of choices -- particularly to quit.

By this logic, I could require a strip club to give me a job as a stripper, despite my age and even though I would never remove my clothes ("involuntary servitude") and then complain if I don't take home the exact same amount of money as the other strippers. It really is that big of a joke that you try to make that point.

"Many people are wrongfully conceding that what the Supreme Court decides is “law of the land.” Just about every talking-head on FOX news and the every presidential candidate is wrongly going along with this false narrative, except for Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum.

Kim Davis hasn’t broken any law. As a matter of fact, she is the one following her oath and the law.
See Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.990:

Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990).

And so what would be a violation of KRS Chapter 402? Oh, well if the clerk issued "


Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/09/06/kim-davis-supreme-court-lawlessness/

Again, the Supreme Court ruling is now the law of the land -- regardless how many people like you or Kim Davis dislike that ruling. In fact, in that sense, the biggest difference between this ruling and Loving v Virginia (allowing interracial marriage, which your logic would also claim was an "illegal ruling and not the law") is that, per the polls, a majority actually want same sex marriage to be legal. With Loving v. Virginia, it took roughly 30 years before polls found an majority of Americans in favor of interracial marriage.

And, since the same sex ruling, KRS Chapter 402 looks more like this: "a license to known relatives, someone who already has a living spouse, someone underage." The last part, banning issuing licences to same sex couples has been struck down by the court from the law -- which is the proper role of the courts.

 

[Maren]

Why not appeal to Chinese law while you're making senseless links?
America tends to follow the lead of England in many areas, including law.
Why they would? I haven't a clue.

Actually, the Ugandan law is very applicable, since it was written and passed with heavy support by American clergy. These same people would love to be able to pass this law in the US.

 

[Poster0]

Why is it wrong?

If you need to ask then there isnt much sense debating it. Been there, done that.

 

[Poster0]

That's true, but Romans 1 isn't exactly talking about marriage.

Never said it was

 

[Poster0]

That's true, but Romans 1 isn't exactly talking about marriage.

Actually, allow me rephrase my last response. It is talking about any SS relationship, which includes marriage.

 

[Cearbhall]

Was Hitler a Christian? If the evidence is considered objectively, the answer must clearly be no. The only way this question could be answered in the affirmative would be if it were qualified with an enormous asterisk referencing an extended explanatory footnote.

No, that's if you're looking at it subjectively. An objective researcher would never play the No True Scotsman card.

 

[loveofourlord]

well...kim davis has officially lost, even the WBC is telling her she's wrong.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/westboro-baptist-church-weighs-kim-davis-article-1.2350856

 

[Poster0]

No, that's if you're looking at it subjectively. An objective researcher would never play the No True Scotsman card.

What exactly is this No True Scotsman fallacy?

Hitler supposedly claimed to be a Christian, however if i say Hitler wasn't a Christian because no true follower of Christ would engage in the things that Hitler did, would that be considered the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Im thinking the answer is no, its not fallacy. But im interested in hearing what you, or others would say. Thanks.

 

[Archivist]

Actually, there's one that preceeds breaking oath, and that is taking the oath to begin with....

James 5:12 "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

But most people in our government already know this, and pass over it. Like wise many Christians do the pledge of allegiance, as if an oath is an end of all disagreements.

If you have read the Kentucky oath, which has been posted in this thread, you know that it gives the option to affirm. I'm sure you also know that Numbers tells us that you are bound by an oath. That has also been quoted in the thread.

 

[rhymnrzn2zion]

Except that Civil Rights includes religion -- or are you saying religion is inborn. More to the point, the consensus is that no one chooses their sexuality, regardless of what causes it. Even while there are religious groups claiming you can change sexuality, even they typically admit that it isn't actually a choice; which is why they have such a horrible rate at "fixing" gay people -- and most don't even claim to change sexuality in any meaningful way anymore, merely that they are able to make people with same sex attraction to be able to "overcome" (not act on) those desires.

Sorry i missed this earlier reply.

As one who has tasted of the Holy Ghost, and understands that the apostles and prophets also had the spirit and grace o f God, i conclude that the Bible is inerrant, chiefly by reason of its contents, not just because i take pleasure in overturning other people's statements.

Having said this, it is clear throughout scripture that there have always been men making these claims to same-sex attraction, if they were not being unapologeticlly naughty. But scripture concludes, and so do i, that it is men burning in lust, and commiting unseemly acts, and for that are presently receiving the recompense that is meet for their error, and are without the one true God and Jesus Christ.