KY Clerk Jailed Over Gay Marriage Licences

Just John

Just John

New member
Elect
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
847
Reaction score
2
Points
0
I haven't followed every part of this issue but from what I understand she is not willing to sign marriage licences for gay "couples" wanting to be married. I'm by no means a fan of the SCOTUS decision but my initial response is it is the law and Ms. Davis is paid  to administer her duties accordingly. Would it not be more appropriate for her to quit than to  refuse to perform her job, no matter how distasteful?  Tough position.
 
"It is the law"  Really?  Where do you find this "law"?  Drudge Report?  Fox News?

Here is the "law" in KY:

402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

She is following the law.  It appears she is the only one who is.

IMO, if the SC OPINION merits a change to the law, then it is up to the KY legislators to change the law.  Until then, you follow the law as written.
 
IFB X-Files said:
"It is the law"  Really?  Where do you find this "law"?  Drudge Report?  Fox News?

Here is the "law" in KY:

402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

She is following the law.  It appears she is the only one who is.

IMO, if the SC OPINION merits a change to the law, then it is up to the KY legislators to change the law.  Until then, you follow the law as written.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is right... the SCOTUS has declared that all such laws are unconstitutional and thus no longer valid.

I don't agree with their decision, but she cannot hide under that logic.

Jailing her is ridiculous!  If she won't do her job, and you cannot (sincerely) accommodate her beliefs, then fire her.
 
Walt said:
IFB X-Files said:
"It is the law"  Really?  Where do you find this "law"?  Drudge Report?  Fox News?

Here is the "law" in KY:

402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

She is following the law.  It appears she is the only one who is.

IMO, if the SC OPINION merits a change to the law, then it is up to the KY legislators to change the law.  Until then, you follow the law as written.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is right... the SCOTUS has declared that all such laws are unconstitutional and thus no longer valid.

I don't agree with their decision, but she cannot hide under that logic.

Jailing her is ridiculous!  If she won't do her job, and you cannot (sincerely) accommodate her beliefs, then fire her.
Click to expand...

And how does any employee do their job based on the OPINION of a court?  Where is it written down?  How would they know of that opinion?  Does every employee have to stop and think of every SC OPINION and then decide how they do their job?  That is utter madness!  As I stated, it would be up to the KY legislators to change the LAW if they deem it needed.
 
I read that the judge offered to let her out of jail Thursday if she wouldn't interfere with her employees issuing the licenses. she refused.

I don't understand why. Maybe she wants her name off the certificate. I think she has asked for that.
 
This is a test case for reasonable accomodation.
 
Evidently you have problem with Moses' parents defying the 'rule of law' in disobeying the pharaoh's command to kill all the male Hebrew children.  You must also disagree with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo's disobedience to the king's command to bow to the kings image.  You would also take issue with Daniel not obeying the king's command that the people were not to pray to their god, but make all request to the king.  There IS a HIGHER law.  It is God's word.  When obedience to man's law requires disobedience to God's law, then we must obey God rather than man.
 
Welcome to the forum, but whom are you addressing?
 
His Servant said:
Evidently you have problem with Moses' parents defying the 'rule of law' in disobeying the pharaoh's command to kill all the male Hebrew children.  You must also disagree with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo's disobedience to the king's command to bow to the kings image.  You would also take issue with Daniel not obeying the king's command that the people were not to pray to their god, but make all request to the king.  There IS a HIGHER law.  It is God's word.  When obedience to man's law requires disobedience to God's law, then we must obey God rather than man.
Click to expand...

I think people are confused about this passage:

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

They think it means that if the law says your job includes duties to perform abortions on demand or marry gay people, then you should follow the law and do it, because that legal authority wouldn't exist outside of God's will. 

Whatever anyone thinks about Kim Davis and what she's doing, I don't believe they're interpreting this passage correctly. 

 
IFB X-Files said:
"It is the law"  Really?  Where do you find this "law"?  Drudge Report?  Fox News?

Here is the "law" in KY:

402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

She is following the law.  It appears she is the only one who is.

IMO, if the SC OPINION merits a change to the law, then it is up to the KY legislators to change the law.  Until then, you follow the law as written.
Click to expand...

Well I do watch Fox and of course I read Drudge. It's one of the most visited news sites there is with links to many and various sites but my favorite and most visited site is RealClearPolitics. Great link to tons of articles on many topics including policy, history, technology and religion. :)

I might  be wrong but I'm pretty sure it's the "opinions" of the individual justices of the SCOTUS that brings forth a "decision".  And at least since 1819 the the SCOTUS has "implied power over the states" and federal law , excuse the term if you will, trump state's rights.  And the decision in the case of gay marriage it ruled gay marriage is the law of the land. One would have to be living under a rock the last few months to know different. It really doesn't matter what KY law say's. If every clerk in KY did the same thing as Ms. Davis a legal challenge would certainly overturn it. 
 
His Servant said:
Evidently you have problem with Moses' parents defying the 'rule of law' in disobeying the pharaoh's command to kill all the male Hebrew children.  You must also disagree with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo's disobedience to the king's command to bow to the kings image.  You would also take issue with Daniel not obeying the king's command that the people were not to pray to their god, but make all request to the king.  There IS a HIGHER law.  It is God's word.  When obedience to man's law requires disobedience to God's law, then we must obey God rather than man.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with this at all. But I'm not so sure about accepting a paycheck from the government one is disobeying  about a law which will not change. At least not unless and until congress and 2/3rd's of the states pass a constitutional amendment.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
His Servant said:
Evidently you have problem with Moses' parents defying the 'rule of law' in disobeying the pharaoh's command to kill all the male Hebrew children.  You must also disagree with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo's disobedience to the king's command to bow to the kings image.  You would also take issue with Daniel not obeying the king's command that the people were not to pray to their god, but make all request to the king.  There IS a HIGHER law.  It is God's word.  When obedience to man's law requires disobedience to God's law, then we must obey God rather than man.
Click to expand...

I think people are confused about this passage:

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

They think it means that if the law says your job includes duties to perform abortions on demand or marry gay people, then you should follow the law and do it, because that legal authority wouldn't exist outside of God's will. 

Whatever anyone thinks about Kim Davis and what she's doing, I don't believe they're interpreting this passage correctly.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot about Acts 5:29 and Acts 4:19

we ought to obey God rather than man

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye.
 
His Servant said:
Evidently you have problem with Moses' parents defying the 'rule of law' in disobeying the pharaoh's command to kill all the male Hebrew children.  You must also disagree with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo's disobedience to the king's command to bow to the kings image.  You would also take issue with Daniel not obeying the king's command that the people were not to pray to their god, but make all request to the king.  There IS a HIGHER law.  It is God's word.  When obedience to man's law requires disobedience to God's law, then we must obey God rather than man.
Click to expand...

Ms. Davis was not commanded to discriminate by killing anybody. In fact, she was told NOT do discriminate. The Hebrew Children were in essence prisoners of war. For them, there was no option to resign. Also, it would be a direct connection with THEIR sin and God. For Ms. Davis, she does have the option to resign but refuses. The sin against which she is standing is NOT HER SIN. If anything, she is sinning by discriminating because denying a SSM marriage license does not prohibit gay sex, but does prohibit someone from familial and health benefits which they mutually choose to share.

If she feels it is sinful, then she should resign. But she would rather take the 'heroic' stance and is becoming an example of a 'prisoner for the faith' when it is NOT about denying God and she does have another out without having to rebel.

If my company ordered to me to fudge numbers to appeal to the board members, I would take it above the head of the one who gave the order. If I take it as high as I can with no change in orders, I would resign. That is the ethical thing to do for all parties involved.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
His Servant said:
Evidently you have problem with Moses' parents defying the 'rule of law' in disobeying the pharaoh's command to kill all the male Hebrew children.  You must also disagree with Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednigo's disobedience to the king's command to bow to the kings image.  You would also take issue with Daniel not obeying the king's command that the people were not to pray to their god, but make all request to the king.  There IS a HIGHER law.  It is God's word.  When obedience to man's law requires disobedience to God's law, then we must obey God rather than man.
Click to expand...

I think people are confused about this passage:

13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

They think it means that if the law says your job includes duties to perform abortions on demand or marry gay people, then you should follow the law and do it, because that legal authority wouldn't exist outside of God's will. 

Whatever anyone thinks about Kim Davis and what she's doing, I don't believe they're interpreting this passage correctly.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot about Acts 5:29 and Acts 4:19

we ought to obey God rather than man

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye.
Click to expand...

Well, I think Mr. Tomato has made a salient point.  Perhaps people are confused about the passage, specifically as to where the judgment might come from.  In the case of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, they were judged, found guilty and were punished according to the king?s law.  In Moses? case, he received clemency as it were, because Pharaoh?s daughter adopted him.

As that relates to Mrs. Davis, she had more than one choice.  She could have chosen to obey God by resigning her position.  Had she taken that course of action, she would not have disobeyed the government authorities, hence no jail time/judgment.  But she chose to obey God through civil disobedience, much like Peter, John and the other Apostles did in Acts.  And so,  just as God?s word says, she brought judgment upon herself?judgment by governmental authorities. 
 
This case is much bigger than one person's feelings.  This is about prohibiting people of various beliefs and opinions from holding office.  Immediately after she was imprisoned for not denying her particular religious beliefs, the judge declared as legal the certificate without her signature.  For months, there have been petitions to change the form so that a conscientious objector would not be forced to legally unionize a homosexual couple.  No response was ever given because this clerk stated she would not sign.  It is the intent of Gov Beshear and judge Bunning to force this lady to denounce her religious beliefs.  Again, immediately after the imprisonment, the change was made.  Mrs. Davis is being told she will not be released until she denies her religious beliefs.

Do you see the implications here?  This is a pivotal time in history.
 
lnf said:
As that relates to Mrs. Davis, she had more than one choice.  She could have chosen to obey God by resigning her position.  Had she taken that course of action, she would not have disobeyed the government authorities, hence no jail time/judgment.  But she chose to obey God through civil disobedience, much like Peter, John and the other Apostles did in Acts.  And so,  just as God?s word says, she brought judgment upon herself?judgment by governmental authorities.
Click to expand...

I, for one, admire her for her civil disobedience. 
 
I disagree that this is strictly about a person having to "deny her beliefs" as much as deciding to agree to do what is now expected of her job. Since they can't fire her and the judge doesn't think fines will make a difference he puts her in jail. I think that's overkill. Can they stop her paycheck? Probably not.  They probably can't just bar her from the building either.

Here's an interesting defense from Madonna's gay brother:

"Can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i'm not mistaken, it's in the constitution.....something about religious freedom or something......selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy....freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength,' he wrote. 'Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice.

'Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3224030/Madonna-s-gay-brother-defends-Kentucky-clerk-Kim-Davis.html#ixzz3l2GuiuJF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
biscuit1953 said:
One of the U.S. marshals when they were directed by the judge to take her into custody told her he had "never arrested somebody who had not committed a crime."

"Even some people accused of murder are allowed to be free on bail while their trial is pending."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kentucky-clerk-bail-gay/2015/09/06/id/673857/
Click to expand...

That is because civil contempt is rare. H. Beatty Chadwick was held imprisoned for 14 years for not producing $2.5 million to his wife in divorce court.  He was never charged with a crime (in hiding the money in overseas bank accounts) and was eventually released by another court.

It is legal but rarely happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top