Kentucky clerk, citing God, defies courts on gay marriage

[attrayant]

She can be fined and jailed. That's good enough.

[pitrevie]

Dan Savage explains it all for you:

http://www.advocate.com/marriage-equality/2015/09/02/watch-dan-savage-tackles-kentucky-clerk-s-marriage-hypocrisy

All you have to do is say you have been born again and all your previous sins are washed away. I forget how many times some fornicating GOP candidate has gotten away with the same nonsense.

[Seastallion]

Of course people in this modern day and age should be free to make their own sexual lifestyle choices with full protection under the law.

Anything else is bigotry and a violation of their human rights.

Bring back legalised polygamy immediately.

Sure, why not? I can't see the harm in it. The provisos the Indonesian Military put on polygamy were good ones, though, such as showing financial capability, and previous spouses' agreement. Of course, it should work with both genders, and obviously for gay polygamists as well.

Did that last sentence put a damper on your sarcasm?

I wasn't being sarcastic at all.

I'm just asking for consistency.

Once you abandon the biblical notion of marriage as "the union of one man with one woman", then everything is on the table. The fact is that while gays "demand" equal rights for their sexual unions, even consensual polygamy has been outlawed for over 150 years in the US.

As for "gay polygamists", how many gays are there who want to marry multiple women?

Sorry. Forgive me, I thought there was sarcasm there.

I agree...polygamy would be consistent with the trend towards equality for all.

I don't get your thing about gay polygamists wanting to marry women. If "marriage" is between consenting adults, and that includes consenting same-sex adults, why would polygamy suddenly take on only heterosexual qualities? A gay polygamist would want to marry other gays of his or her orientation.

[Ulysses G.]

Yeah well, she quotes scripture but have you read her life history? Divorced 3 times, several children out of wedlock, some children with different father even while married to a certain husband. Hardly a role model.

I don't agree with her, but plenty of sinners have become saints. "St. Augustine." is just one of them. In fact, Christians believe that they are ALL sinners. Her life before she was "saved" is not fair game.

[attrayant]

Does that mean prisoners who have committed violent crimes can be "saved" and subsequently absolved of their prior actions?

[Seastallion]

Yeah well, she quotes scripture but have you read her life history? Divorced 3 times, several children out of wedlock, some children with different father even while married to a certain husband. Hardly a role model.

I don't agree with her, but plenty of sinners have become saints. "St. Augustine." is just one of them. In fact, Christians believe that they are ALL sinners. Her life before she was "saved" is not fair game.

So, a person with previous history of rape (say) should not have those rapes considered if he is suspected again? After all, he may have changed his ways.

To be fair, I do take your point. However...this woman is even today inconsistent and hypocritical.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Seastallion

[gk10002000]

For you Europeans that asked for an explanation. It will be hard to explain how deep rooted the thinking is in many parts of the Southern USA states such as Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, et. al. The US civil war is still being fought in the minds of many southerners, not the majority, but certainly many. I am a "yankee", having been born and raised in the North (Rhode Island), and I have lived and worked in the south. You have to experience the people and the regions to really understand it. Religion, whether legitimate or not, carries great weight in much of the south. If somebody invokes God or scripture, they are given tremendous latitude. One has a hard time combatting them if they resort to quoting the bible and their faith. The term in America is a "bible thumper". Preaches and ministers are presumed to have high esteem. Come to the USA and you will probably be surprised by the numbers of churches, and other places of "worship" that have legal standing as bona fide religious places. Of course when they get that, they get lots of Tax breaks, their employees can get lots of per diem tax free, lots of the church income is considered tax free and not for profit, even when many churches take in millions of cash, mostly undocumented, but much is documented as people send in checks. Yes every year and historically there have been some huge church frauds, people went to jail, the parish was completely taken advantage of, etc.

But to the point, this lady in that county, right or wrong will not face much resistance from anybody local.

[gk10002000]

Does that mean prisoners who have committed violent crimes can be "saved" and subsequently absolved of their prior actions?

many try. In the USA "finding religion" in prison is not uncommon. How many really believe in it versus how many do it in an attempt to get some leniency form the parole board or reduced sentences is up for debate. The USA kind of still revolves around so-called "good Christian" faith. It is embedded in many state laws, oaths of office, sentencing guidelines, etc.

[Kerryd]

Oh for the love of cold fusion - she can't be "fired" because she is an elected official, got it ?

The state legislature would have to impeach her in order to remove her.

Not only would that require a special process (depending on the state) but would be difficult to do in her state in any event (as most of people involved would probably sympathize with her anyways).

It seems that in the history of the USA there have only been 24 Impeachments of State/Territorial officials (note: I did not say FEDERAL officials).

Of those 24 cases, 15 were "removed" from office, 2 were acquitted and the rest either resigned or were censured/suspended (or lost the next election).

[smotherb]

"I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word," her statement said.

"God's Word?" Funny, I did not hear that. She is an elected official sworn to uphold the laws of her county, state and country. She has been ordered to issue the licenses by the supreme court and she refuses claiming some sort of knowledge in a doctrine of a make-believe God--another hate crime based on religion.

Is this some form of Christian Sharia law?

[chuckd]

There is also that little problem with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I realize SCOTUS has deemed same sex marriages as being Constitutional. However does that decision make void all other Constitutional rights an individual might otherwise have?

Ms. Davis has the Constitutional right to refuse to take any action that she deems detrimental to her religious belief, IMHO.

Having said that, I fail to understand how she can direct employees under her supervision to follow her religious belief as well. If they don't follow her particular belief, she would seem to be violating their individual rights just as much as the government is violating hers.

While it is true she is an elected official and can only be removed by impeachment, it must also be true that she reports to a higher authority in the County government. If so, that authority, County Commissioners perhaps, should solve the problem by taking the licensing power away from her individually and have someone in her department issue the license.

I don't know the Kentucky Constitution however, so the answer might not be that simple.

Perhaps there are no easy solutions, but I fail to understand how this thread has managed to get nearly three pages of posts about something as insignificant as a County Clerk in Kentucky failing to do her job.

Now some may pile on me. i would ask you to read my signature first.

[mikebike]

There is also that little problem with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I realize SCOTUS has deemed same sex marriages as being Constitutional. However does that decision make void all other Constitutional rights an individual might otherwise have?

Ms. Davis has the Constitutional right to refuse to take any action that she deems detrimental to her religious belief, IMHO.

The depth of your misunderstanding of the Constitution is flabbergasting.

[mikebike]

Let's quickly review Ms. Davis' life prior to her 'finding Christianity' in 2011:

Divorced in 1994

Divorced in 2006

Divorced in 2008

Currently married and trying again

No annulments

Twins born 5 months after her first divorce (fathered by her third husband), adopted by her second husband.

Please explain how she can claim moral high ground. Oh right, she was 'saved' and can now concentrate on fiddling with other peoples lives!

[Jingthing]

Under the law, all the couples coming in there, anywhere in the USA, are EQUAL in the eyes of the law.

I'd like to see this scenario for a change. A gay city clerk refuses to marry opposite sex couples just because of his religious beliefs. What religion is that? Doesn't matter ... the USA has religious freedom.

Imagine the furor and imagine how much quicker the system would come down on him compared to this Kentucky bigot.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

There is also that little problem with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I realize SCOTUS has deemed same sex marriages as being Constitutional. However does that decision make void all other Constitutional rights an individual might otherwise have?

Ms. Davis has the Constitutional right to refuse to take any action that she deems detrimental to her religious belief, IMHO.

Having said that, I fail to understand how she can direct employees under her supervision to follow her religious belief as well. If they don't follow her particular belief, she would seem to be violating their individual rights just as much as the government is violating hers.

While it is true she is an elected official and can only be removed by impeachment, it must also be true that she reports to a higher authority in the County government. If so, that authority, County Commissioners perhaps, should solve the problem by taking the licensing power away from her individually and have someone in her department issue the license.

I don't know the Kentucky Constitution however, so the answer might not be that simple.

Perhaps there are no easy solutions, but I fail to understand how this thread has managed to get nearly three pages of posts about something as insignificant as a County Clerk in Kentucky failing to do her job.

Now some may pile on me. i would ask you to read my signature first.

I understand conscientious objection, which I think is what you're claiming she has a right to, or something similar.

Where that fails dismally in her case is she is not being asked to do anything that her religion forbids her to do. Her religion does not say "Thou shalt not facilitate the marriage of same-sex couples".

I'm not even sure that the Bible forbids same-sex marriage...it says somewhere that a man lying with another man is an abomination.....but that's to do with sex, not marriage, and marriage does not facilitate the sex.....and the marriages she's denying are legal ones, not religious ones.

The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it doesn't say that it's NOT between a or a man and a man or a woman and a woman,.....speaking of which, the Bible does not say that a woman lying with another woman is an abomination, so where does she get her attitude towards lesbians? (Was that an oversight by God, or did the writers at the time actually quite enjoy a bit of girl-on-girl action, like so many men these days?)

There is nothing that she has been ordered to do that goes against her religion.

She is still able to express freely her religion. She can say what she wants, but she can't deny others their legal rights.

She should be thrown in gaol for contempt.

[chuckd]

There is also that little problem with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I realize SCOTUS has deemed same sex marriages as being Constitutional. However does that decision make void all other Constitutional rights an individual might otherwise have?

Ms. Davis has the Constitutional right to refuse to take any action that she deems detrimental to her religious belief, IMHO.

The depth of your misunderstanding of the Constitution is flabbergasting.

And your post without further explanation is astonishingly dumb.

[Chicog]

She can be fined and jailed. That's good enough.

Ironically the couples she is persecuting have said that they do not want her to be sent to jail.

They seem more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus than that hypocritical bint.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Chicog

[Jingthing]

Post withdrawn.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Jingthing

[bendejo]

Something to be pointed out is sometimes organizations step in to support, or inspire, these things.

For example, there was a fellow in the US military who refused to follow orders because he claimed that Obama was not the legitimate commander-in-chief. A far-right organization (or two...) encouraged him to take it all the way, providing legal support. He lost.

I would suspect that, with all the publicity this case is getting, she has been approached by a bunch of these organizations by now. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, so I don't know what their gambit is at this point, if there is any at all outside of just making a fuss. The right-wingers general response to gay marriage is behaving as if they are being forced to become gay. It wasn't what Jesus had in mind when he delivered the Constitution onto the American people.

[smotherb]

There is also that little problem with the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says in part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I realize SCOTUS has deemed same sex marriages as being Constitutional. However does that decision make void all other Constitutional rights an individual might otherwise have?

Ms. Davis has the Constitutional right to refuse to take any action that she deems detrimental to her religious belief, IMHO.

Having said that, I fail to understand how she can direct employees under her supervision to follow her religious belief as well. If they don't follow her particular belief, she would seem to be violating their individual rights just as much as the government is violating hers.

While it is true she is an elected official and can only be removed by impeachment, it must also be true that she reports to a higher authority in the County government. If so, that authority, County Commissioners perhaps, should solve the problem by taking the licensing power away from her individually and have someone in her department issue the license.

I don't know the Kentucky Constitution however, so the answer might not be that simple.

Perhaps there are no easy solutions, but I fail to understand how this thread has managed to get nearly three pages of posts about something as insignificant as a County Clerk in Kentucky failing to do her job.

Now some may pile on me. i would ask you to read my signature first.

I don't see this issue as only a county clerk not doing her job. There is a much larger issue at stake; the widespread penchant for spreading religious hatred and intolerance of others. As long as people are allowed to bring religion and superstition into politics and public law we will have problems.

The first amendment does not guarantee a public servant the right to hold their religious beliefs over the law. If a pubic servant’s religious beliefs will not allow them to uphold the law, they should resign.

Let's face it, the existence of God is debatable. However, it seems to be religion, not God, which is at the heart of so many acts of intolerance, violence, and war. All religions are man-made; thus all religions suffer the fallacies of man. They can be wrong.

[smotherb]

Could somebody try and explain this situation to a European?

It seems rather simple, perhaps you are confused by the federal system of states’ autonomy within federal law. The county clerk is an elected local official under state law and has several duties, as prescribed by state legislation, usually ranging from secretary of the county commission to issues with local taxation. The county clerk is the record keeper for the county. Among the specific duties of the county clerk is to administer the various licensing issues; one of which is the marriage license. The State courts and the US federal Supreme Court, the highest law in the land, has ruled that same-sex marriage is constitutional and that no government agency or law should hamper such unions.

The county clerk in question has refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because she believes “God’s Word” tells her it is immoral.

[smotherb]

Could somebody try and explain this situation to a European?

It seems rather simple, perhaps you are confused by the federal system of states’ autonomy within federal law. The county clerk is an elected local official under state law and has several duties, as prescribed by state legislation, usually ranging from secretary of the county commission to issues with local taxation. The county clerk is the record keeper for the county. Among the specific duties of the county clerk is to administer the various licensing issues; one of which is the marriage license. The State courts and the US federal Supreme Court, the highest law in the land, has ruled that same-sex marriage is constitutional and that no government agency or law should hamper such unions.

The county clerk in question has refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because she believes “God’s Word” tells her it is immoral.

Sorry, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the US, the Constitution is the highest law.