US: Despite order, office refuses to issue gay marriage license

[wwest5829]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

c

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

We are not all yanks,I don't think your fore fathers foresaw the problems of the modern world,much like when the magna carta was written.

Yes, good we are not all Yanks. We need diversity. It is one reason I study other cultures and read other news reporting. Reality is that each of our nationalities is under pressure to report through our culture's understanding and interests. You cite a very good point about the Magna Carta, it was focused on securing nobles rights against the sovereign. Still, we Yanks recognize it as the beginning of constitutional rights. Yes, I recognize that the Brit constitution is not one written document, unlike our U.S. Constitution.

[wwest5829]

That horse has already left the barn...sorry, U.S. Southern talk. Those opposed on religious grounds badly mishandled the issue IMHO. Those opposed from the get go should have united in arguing that the institution of marriage was one of the traditional seven sacraments of the Christian Church. Thus government, recognizing the Separation of Church and State, would not be allowed to interfere in purely a religious matter. The government would, in its public interest govern, "civil unions" with all equal rights under law being given.

By demanding government not abide by the Separation of Church and State, the U.S. conservative churches have left the door open for all other religions to demand equal rights. Watch for it as Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist prayers are demanded equally before government meetings, public events. This and the 2016 Presidential Campaigns promise a world of entertainment in the near future!

Are you seriously trying to claim marriage as Christian? Are you totally unaware that religions older than Catholicism were performing marriages long before Christ was born? As for the second paragraph, all other churches already have equal rights... what Constitution have you been reading?

As this issue being discussed deals with the U.S. I was using a U.S. arguement which could have been utilized. I am very well aware of world history and cultures much older than the U.S. but those traditions do not hold sway if you are focusing on a U.S. Issue. As to all other religions having equality, well, let me cite this example. I grew up in an area where alcohol sales is still forbidden, by law, to be sold on Sunday. Why? Because it is the traditional holy day of the majority held Christian belief. OK, if I am Jewish, or Seventh a Day Adventist for that matter, does the law forbidden the same on the Sabbath? If I am Moslem all alcohol is forbidden, somehow I don't see equality as a reality. Traditional allowances have been used, as the U.S. finds itself with more diversity changes will be calling for changes.

[2fishin2]

Not sure if you noticed... But she is a Democrat...

Not sure how her Party will feel about this

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News.

What does her party affiliation have to do with the fact that what she did was illegal?

[wwest5829]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

[wwest5829]

Not sure if you noticed... But she is a Democrat...

Not sure how her Party will feel about this

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News.

g

Yup, Kentucky politics are complicated. It is a conservative culture, prides itself as part of Southern culture. Still they elected a Democratic Governor, and voted for Clinton. Still, while the majority registers as Democrat, mostly it is to vote in primary elections. Sticky wicket, say wot?!

[attrayant]

The Dixiecrats haven't all died off yet; it will take a bit more time.

[up-country_sinclair]

Chief Justice Roberts had it right in his dissent of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision .

Five lawyers closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as Constitutional law, thus making social change that much more difficult to achieve.

This sort of judicial activism is rarely prudent, and in my opinion we've only begun to witness the negative repercussions.

[sdanielmcev]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that.
My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me.
Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power.
So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution?

[Credo]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

[sdanielmcev]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

[granuaile]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

[jerojero]

What a bunch of self-righteous Bible-thumbing bigoted F. A.HOLES

[jerojero]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

Yes but practice it within your own circle or family, not force it on others!

[Seastallion]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

That's a very good analogy. I imagine they would feel compelled to resign if they could not do the job they were elected or hired to do.

Can you imagine the uproar if a county employee stopped issuing gun permits on religious grounds in Texas?

[granuaile]

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

Yes but practice it within your own circle or family, not force it on others!

Exactly, but my point is that there are religions that do prohibit weapons and violence, in response to the statement that they know of no religion which does. They also avoid situations that would put them in conflict with with their faith, such as refusing to serve in the military, unlike Kim Davis who chose to run for public office and now refuses to fulfill her responsibilities.

[sdanielmcev]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

No. No. And no. You're confusing pacifism with weapon use, such as in hunting.

[Credo]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

No. No. And no. You're confusing pacifism with weapon use, such as in hunting.

Well, yes, yes and yes. There are groups who do not believe in killing. But you are splitting hairs -- even some Buddhist groups.

This lady was asked to issue a license; she was not asked to perform a marriage. Just issue a license. It is her job.

[sfokevin]

...

[sdanielmcev]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

No. No. And no. You're confusing pacifism with weapon use, such as in hunting.

Well, yes, yes and yes. There are groups who do not believe in killing. But you are splitting hairs -- even some Buddhist groups.

This lady was asked to issue a license; she was not asked to perform a marriage. Just issue a license. It is her job.

Well, then, if Scott will allow, because this is off topic, show me the money. I'm asking about weapons, here. I'll wait.
And why are her convictions less important than a gay couples'? Could it be the media spotlight that beckons? I mean if their marriage is so important, get married elsewhere, then do your fight. And, no, the converse is not true.

[Linky]

Rubbish. Why should they have to get married somewhere else when it is perfectly legal to get married where they are? Why should they be put out because someone wont do their job.

Its like a muslim being employed in a piggery and then refusing to touch the pigs. Their ass would be out of there.

[Linky]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

I know of no religion that restricts the use of weapons, therefore your question is hypothetical. There is no answer.

There are many... Quakers, Amish, Mennonites (many of the last two in Kentucky).... Good people, good hearts, really practice their faith (unlike County Clerk,Kim Davis)

No. No. And no. You're confusing pacifism with weapon use, such as in hunting.

Well, yes, yes and yes. There are groups who do not believe in killing. But you are splitting hairs -- even some Buddhist groups.

This lady was asked to issue a license; she was not asked to perform a marriage. Just issue a license. It is her job.

Well, then, if Scott will allow, because this is off topic, show me the money. I'm asking about weapons, here. I'll wait.
And why are her convictions less important than a gay couples'? Could it be the media spotlight that beckons? I mean if their marriage is so important, get married elsewhere, then do your fight. And, no, the converse is not true.

Her convictions are no less important. She can have all the convictions she wants. But when it comes to doing her job then she must do it. That doesnt stop her convictions.

But with her attitude she will soon have a conviction she doesnt want, and deservedly so.

[HooHaa]

fire her. simples.

[sdanielmcev]

Rubbish. Why should they have to get married somewhere else when it is perfectly legal to get married where they are? Why should they be put out because someone wont do their job.

Its like a muslim being employed in a piggery and then refusing to touch the pigs. Their ass would be out of there.

You can't even get your metaphors right. It would be a Muslim employed at a cattle yard, then asked to work on pigs.

I'm questioning their motives for continuing to stay unmarried. I agree they should be able to get their license there, or anywhere. But since they can't at the moment, it seems suspiciously like demagoguery. Like Kim Davis is doing.

[manarak]

funny how the world news section is often misused to post national US news.

[Scott]

funny how the world news section is often misused to post national US news.

The US is part of the World, but you are not forced to either read or respond to topics.

[Publicus]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court.... <<snip>>

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The right does not like it or accept it, but the SCOTUS ruling presented below established that the Constitution is superior to all illegal acts that are justified by belief in a religion.

This clerk is acting illegally, in that she is in violation of her sworn oath to the US Constitution, violating the constitution of Kentucky to include being in violation of upholding the oath the clerk swore which has no provision of a personal or individual nullification of it.

Here is SCOTUS again anyway this time with a bit more specificity added....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

The Court concluded that to make religious rule or religious law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

In a word, anarchy. Immoral anarchy. This clerk is completely wrongheaded.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Publicus

[Seastallion]

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court.... <<snip>>

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The right does not like it or accept it, but the two paragraphs of SCOTUS below establishe that the Constitution is superior to all illegal acts that are justified by belief in a religion.

This clerk is acting illegally, in that she is in violation of her sworn oath to the US Constitution, the constitution of Kentucky to include being in violation of upholding the oath the clerk swore which has no provisions of any latitude.

Here is SCOTUS again anyway this time with a bit more specificity added....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law

of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

The Court concluded that to make religious rule or law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

In a word, anarchy. Immoral anarchy. This clerk is completely wrongheaded.

Yes. The word "professed" is what is important here. "Professed" in this sense means "claimed". The wise Chief Justice saw that it would be opening the door to bedlam and anarchy. Anyone could claim a religious belief, and thereby skirt the law for anything.

[CMNightRider]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

That's a very good analogy. I imagine they would feel compelled to resign if they could not do the job they were elected or hired to do.

Can you imagine the uproar if a county employee stopped issuing gun permits on religious grounds in Texas?

What???? You have to be kidding me. What on earth do guns have to do with men who want to marry other men or religion?

[Seastallion]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

That's a very good analogy. I imagine they would feel compelled to resign if they could not do the job they were elected or hired to do.

Can you imagine the uproar if a county employee stopped issuing gun permits on religious grounds in Texas?

What???? You have to be kidding me. What on earth do guns have to do with men who want to marry other men or religion?

What???? You have to be kidding me.What on earth are you doing replying to a post on page 5 without having followed the entire dialogue or read the OP?

If you had followed (and comprehended) the dialogue, you would see that an analogy is being used regarding religious convictions and not doing the job you are supposed to do.

When you take out the "men who want to marry other men" (which you should, anyway because the OP is not about that, it's about issuing licenses), and insert "gun license", the point seems to taken differently.

[wwest5829]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that.
My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me.
Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power.
So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution?

The inclusion of the first 10 Amendments was agreed to as part of approving the Constituion in 1783. The U.S. Constitution delineates powers given to the national government and those reserved to the states so it addresses both. As to learning about the U.S. Constitution from others, true, their were others who taught me as I pursued my academic degrees.