Kim Davis

[seashale76]

And you guys actually think it is cool to OK your subordinates to issue a license that you won't?
Please tell me that's not the case. (I could really be misunderstanding you and am trying hard not to.)

What I bolded. She should have resigned her position in protest. That's what I consider the correct option.

 

[seekingsolace]

What I bolded. She should have resigned her position in protest. That's what I consider the correct option.

The message doesn't deliver the same punch then.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either view, just an observation .

 

[seashale76]

The message doesn't deliver the same punch then.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either view, just an observation .

People in elected positions have to follow court orders. If they can't do that, then they resign. I don't consider her actions to be correct.

 

[seekingsolace]

People in elected positions have to follow court orders. If they can't do that, then they resign. I don't consider her actions to be correct.

Yes, but we can't speak for her motives. None of us can say if God purposed it in her heart or not. Not that I believe this was the case. So all this speculation and the disputes arising isn't leading anyone to good. We don't have to agree with her position to understand we aren't privy to every detail.

 

[GregConstantine]

Rus, for the love of God, please stop quoting Chesterton! He is not a saint or one of the Holy Fathers!

 

[GregConstantine]

"None of us can say if God purposed it in her heart or not.None of us can say if God purposed it in her heart or not."


We have free will dude.

 

[seekingsolace]

We have free will dude.

it's not a matter of free will though. If you feel God is leading you to a decision, who knows but you? - Note: Let me clarify this line: If you have a burning in your heart to speak out or act in a certain way, whether a sense of morality or taking a stand - only you know this. The point is, this isn't about free will, its about doing what you felt was right at the time.

Like I've said, we don't have to agree with her decision, yet we can't glorify, or condemn it. Is she a martyr? absolutely not; that's insulting to those who are. Yet from an outside perspective, she either acted in a sense of Christian morality, or prejudice - we don't know which.

Decisions aren't always rational. Sometimes we feel the need to take a stand - whether in the right or not. We haven't been in that position to give a concrete answer. All this speculating, and character assassination is doing what? The decision was made, it's got people talking - heated disputes; reflection for some; worry for others. Did she make the right decision? Yes or No, it doesn't matter now.

Is there a morale to the story worth discussing? yes. Is it worth getting into heated disputes with brothers? absolutely not. I have yet to see a civil discussion on this matter. And it pains me to see Christians drifting further away.

 

[dzheremi]

What on earth are you talking about? How is not a matter of free will when you feel God is leading you to a decision? Remember when God told Moses that he would lead the people, and Moses replied by saying "But Lord, I am not eloquent?" He was trying to get out of it with everything he could think of! I cannot for the life of me understand what is to be gained by the examples of the saints and all the holy people throughout the history of our faith if God's wanting to use us for a specific purpose means that we have no free will. I pray I am misunderstanding you, Seekingsolace, because that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

And this leads us to another question: Many people of the Evangelical persuasion (as well as some Roman Catholics) are quick to receive messages from *God, and accept being "convicted" (to use the popular Evangelical term) in such matters as they present their behavior as being out of their hands, a matter of direct revelation or otherwise divine provenance. Remember when a certain president claimed to have talked to *God prior to the invasion of Iraq which would go on to completely destroy a 2,000 year old Christian community, probably permanently. Now I'm not going to tell people that the messages that they claim to have received were false (though I personally believe them to be, and never put any stock in things like the Fatima apparitions or the Sacred Heart revelation when I was Roman Catholic), but I do have to wonder, since this is not an Evangelical or Roman Catholic board, so such things ought not be indicative of the mindset around here, how the Eastern Orthodox who have supported this woman in this thread or elsewhere feel about these kinds of justifications given for the behavior of Mrs. Davis and similar people. Do any of you feel at least slightly uncomfortable with *God telling her to behave as she has in this case, when in other contexts *God most likely tells her with equal conviction and authority that any number of foundational parts of the faith as you yourselves understand it as Eastern Orthodox people are quite simply wrong, demonic, pagan, 'unbiblical', etc.? On a broader level, does it not give you pause that your own fathers more often show the example of shying away from such direct contact with the divine, as they are spiritually trained to expect such thoughts and messages and not accept them uncritically (as Evangelicals seem to do), but instead be on guard for what may in fact be temptations from the devil?

(* may not actually be God)

 

[seekingsolace]

What on earth are you talking about? How is not a matter of free will when you feel God is leading you to a decision? Remember when God told Moses that he would lead the people, and Moses replied by saying "But Lord, I am not eloquent?" He was trying to get out of it with everything he could think of! I cannot for the life of me understand what is to be gained by the examples of the saints and all the holy people throughout the history of our faith if God's wanting to use us for a specific purpose means that we have no free will. I pray I am misunderstanding you, Seekingsolace, because that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

And this leads us to another question: Many people of the Evangelical persuasion (as well as some Roman Catholics) are quick to receive messages from *God, and accept being "convicted" (to use the popular Evangelical term) in such matters as they present their behavior as being out of their hands, a matter of direct revelation or otherwise divine provenance. Remember when a certain president claimed to have talked to *God prior to the invasion of Iraq which would go on to completely destroy a 2,000 year old Christian community, probably permanently. Now I'm not going to tell people that the messages that they claim to have received were false (though I personally believe them to be, and never put any stock in things like the Fatima apparitions or the Sacred Heart revelation when I was Roman Catholic), but I do have to wonder, since this is not an Evangelical or Roman Catholic board, so such things ought not be indicative of the mindset around here, how the Eastern Orthodox who have supported this woman in this thread or elsewhere feel about these kinds of justifications given for the behavior of Mrs. Davis and similar people. Do any of you feel at least slightly uncomfortable with *God telling her to behave as she has in this case, when in other contexts *God most likely tells her with equal conviction and authority that any number of foundational parts of the faith as you yourselves understand it as Eastern Orthodox people are quite simply wrong, demonic, pagan, 'unbiblical', etc.? On a broader level, does it not give you pause that your own fathers more often show the example of shying away from such direct contact with the divine, as they are spiritually trained to expect such thoughts and messages and not accept them uncritically (as Evangelicals seem to do), but instead be on guard for what may in fact be temptations from the devil?

(* may not actually be God)

You have clearly misinterpreted what I said. Maybe you should read and consider what I actually said rather than ranting. Your interpretation of what I said is so far misconstrued I am a little speechless.

Your 'us' vs 'them' attitude is really concerning.

 

[dzheremi]

Ugh. Nevermind. I'm not here to pull teeth from someone who is unwilling to clarify what they've written and characterizes my post as ranting when I specifically wrote "I pray I am misunderstanding you, Seekingsolace, because that makes no sense to me whatsoever".

Attitude, indeed.

 

[seekingsolace]

Ugh. Nevermind. I'm not here to pull teeth from someone who is unwilling to clarify what they've written and characterizes my post as ranting when I specifically wrote "I pray I am misunderstanding you, Seekingsolace, because that makes no sense to me whatsoever".

Attitude, indeed.

Not quite sure why you are being so defensive. My posts have been from an unbiased stance of 'we don't know'. It seems you are viewing this as Evangelist v Eastern Orthodox, for what reason? I feel (and don't take this personally) some of your prejudices are clouding your judgments. This isn't about evangelists, Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, it's a discussion about a decision a supposed Christian woman has made. Not a denomination war.

Expecting a person to agree with your view is one thing, pigeon holing an entire faith group on no evidence is another. Like I said, we aren't privy to every detail. It's easy to form an opinion when not in their shoes. I am genuinely shocked at how quickly Christians get into disputes over such matters.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't expect anyone to agree with anything I've written ever, on this topic or anything else. All I wanted to know is what you meant by writing "it's not a matter of free will though. If you feel God is leading you to a decision, who knows but you?", but nevermind. It's probably too much of a diversion anyway.

 

[seekingsolace]

I don't expect anyone to agree with anything I've written ever, on this topic or anything else. All I wanted to know is what you meant by writing "it's not a matter of free will though. If you feel God is leading you to a decision, who knows but you?", but nevermind. It's probably too much of a diversion anyway.

This was never about free will, nor was my comment to discredit it. Of course people delude themselves into believing ' they speak the words of God' or 'God told me to do this', that's not what I was referring to. I was speaking of us not knowing the reasoning behind all actions, and that speculation by us is pretty inadequate in the grand scheme of things. Do I believe she was led by God? no. Do I believe she acted in a sense of Christian morality? yes. It's not far fetched to claim God sometimes moves us to speak out. I don't have to agree with her decision, but it's not my place to discredit it. Not one iota of good has come from these discussions - as far as I've seen, only discord and strife.

The point is: all this mindless speculation with our third-hand information is only sowing discord. All the decisions made in life, whether of our own accord or not, lead us forward. A series of events or circumstances can contribute to these decisions, of course we are responsible for them; yet there is only one judge - and it's not us.

If I say, “I will not mention him,
or speak any more in his name,”
there is in my heart as it were a burning fire
shut up in my bones,
and I am weary with holding it in,
and I cannot.

 

[buzuxi02]

Can a married person explain to me what this license is? this is an application form isnt it? Can it be downloaded onto your computer and printed out? All you would need is a notary and mail it in.

The closest I ever came to one is when I was best man to my brothers wedding. I had to sign where they pointed at, I think it vouched that I was a witness. its just a paper with signatures just get it from the stationary store

 

[muichimotsu]

I myself am in contempt of that court. Jail me!

Your disagreement is not sufficient for technical "contempt of court". Trying to twist the meaning to implicate yourself in some kind of persecution complex you don't appear to be aware of isn't helping your case. Contempt of court more specifically refers to an intentional disobedience of a court ruling or, in the context of a court proceeding, disrespecting the judge's position and not having a modicum of civility. In short, you've done neither, because you weren't in a courtroom, which is the more common occurrence of this crime, and you weren't given a court order of any kind to give out marriage licenses, which doesn't strictly constitute any moral approval anymore than you're approving of someone being an alcoholic because you give them their driver's license.

You disagree with the ruling, but perhaps you should see this as an opportunity to promote your "traditional" marriage and appeal to people's sensibilities, if you think that gay marriage is somehow going to be some pandemic and everyone's going to not get married in general. They very idea that somehow people will lose interest in marriage because gay couples can is patently nonsense: I know of 2 straight couples that I'm friends with who are engaged or planning a wedding, so I don't think that says anything bad about people's value of marriage in this day and age, esp. if they cohabitate to actually comprehend if they're compatible rather than just rolling the dice because they're too prudish to even share the same bed in an intimate, but non sexual manner. I'm pretty sure one of the couples are Christian, though I can imagine you'd question their devotion or the like, but that's perfectly fine. You're not God, you can't really make absolute claims like that, just provisional assessments at best.

 

[muichimotsu]

And you guys actually think it is cool to OK your subordinates to issue a license that you won't?
Please tell me that's not the case. (I could really be misunderstanding you and am trying hard not to.)

If your subordinates have no issue with it, why would you care? Your authority as their supervisor doesn't mean they cannot perform particular duties you wouldn't. I'm not obligated to follow my supervisor's orders if they are petty. If they're willing to fire me for handing out marriage licenses to couples that are legitimate, then perhaps that wasn't the best job for me to begin with.

If she takes that much offense to even her subordinates handing out the license, perhaps she isn't cut out for the job either, because she can't comprehend that there's a degree of separation that would make her not culpable in the slightest for such "immorality" (which is sort of a nonissue when the license itself isn't a moral statement to begin with)

 

[muichimotsu]

Can a married person explain to me what this license is? this is an application form isnt it? Can it be downloaded onto your computer and printed out? All you would need is a notary and mail it in.

The closest I ever came to one is when I was best man to my brothers wedding. I had to sign where they pointed at, I think it vouched that I was a witness. its just a paper with signatures just get it from the stationary store

It's an official form, so I'd think making illegal copies or such would be an issue in itself. It's meant to put the union into records for the purposes of recognizing various things that are relevant to married couples. I'm not married, but I don't think it's nearly as complicated as people are making it out to be. Sure there's a whole protocol to the application and such, but it's not like doing taxes

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I would really like to see and experiment with the country divided into those who wish secular rule and those who wish religious rule and set them side by side to see which side would be best.

This thing about America being pushed and pulled in every way possible is completely unproductive. There is no way to clearly determine what works and what doesn't, when both sides are neck and neck and for every step foreword or back is ether countered or demonized to turn public opinion against it, before anything is implemented.

II think there shouldn't be any intentional interrupter as these two new governments begin to plot their own fortunes while the experiment continues.

At the end of a 10 year time period each side would be independently audited and that societies social and political well being would be discussed and the scores would be posted as tallied to see which side's people were in the best of shape.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

It's an official form, so I'd think making illegal copies or such would be an issue in itself. It's meant to put the union into records for the purposes of recognizing various things that are relevant to married couples. I'm not married, but I don't think it's nearly as complicated as people are making it out to be. Sure there's a whole protocol to the application and such, but it's not like doing taxes

It's also a revenue getter that the Government has created to gain the most money from us for as little effort to them.

 

[gzt]

Some of the specifics vary by jurisdiction, but here's the deal. To get a marriage license, what you do is go to the office with your intended spouse and have all the documents on hand to show that you two are who you say you are and are capable of being legally married to each other. Then they issue you a license. You have to get married within ~30 days then. Then, when you do get married, you have the officiant of the marriage sign the license (perhaps with a witness) and you turn it in by mail. Once it's turned in, bam, your marriage is registered with the state and you can ask the state for copies of your certificate of marriage.

So you need to actually go in and have an actual government official to verify the identities and ability to be married.

It's not really a moneymaker for the state, the fee of $50 or whatever is eaten entirely by the expenses.