Lesbian couple, like Kentucky clerk, standing up for beliefs

[Boon Mee]

On a lighter note, get this:

Ms. Davis gave birth to twins five months after marrying her second husband. So she was an adulteress while married to her first husband.*

It gets worse. The twins weren't even her second husband's kids. While married to husband #1, she was having sexy times with the guy who would later become her third husband. Even though the second husband adopted the twins, the marriage didn't last and she then married the actual father of her twins. But that didn't last either and she's now married to husband #4.

Yet, she says she's worried about going to hell for issuing same sex marriage licences. Frankly, it looks to me like she's already in some kinda goofy hell.

*http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

T

Well, she's a Democrat. Were you expecting somebody of high moral character?

Heh...you must be joking. While Republicans are not all pure as the driven snow, one simply cannot trust a Democrat not to lie, cheat & steal with general abandon. Liberialism is a terrible affliction worse than cancer...

[smotherb]

On a lighter note, get this:

Ms. Davis gave birth to twins five months after marrying her second husband. So she was an adulteress while married to her first husband.*

It gets worse. The twins weren't even her second husband's kids. While married to husband #1, she was having sexy times with the guy who would later become her third husband. Even though the second husband adopted the twins, the marriage didn't last and she then married the actual father of her twins. But that didn't last either and she's now married to husband #4.

Yet, she says she's worried about going to hell for issuing same sex marriage licences. Frankly, it looks to me like she's already in some kinda goofy hell.

*http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

T

Well, she's a Democrat. Were you expecting somebody of high moral character?

Heh...you must be joking. While Republicans are not all pure as the driven snow, one simply cannot trust a Democrat not to lie, cheat & steal with general abandon. Liberialism is a terrible affliction worse than cancer...

You think she is liberal? Her views on religion and same sex marriage are conservative. Her past is not to be used against her; she is a born-again Christian--another conservative undertaking. I suggest ignorance is the terrible affliction worse than cancer. How many of your conservative or liberal friends could even explain the platform of their party candidates in terms of more than one or two issues? Political Pundits from all political angles use misleading information, unsubstantiated statements, and unrelated analogy to sway the views of their gullible constituencies.

[Thakkar]

On a lighter note, get this:

Ms. Davis gave birth to twins five months after marrying her second husband. So she was an adulteress while married to her first husband.*

It gets worse. The twins weren't even her second husband's kids. While married to husband #1, she was having sexy times with the guy who would later become her third husband. Even though the second husband adopted the twins, the marriage didn't last and she then married the actual father of her twins. But that didn't last either and she's now married to husband #4.

Yet, she says she's worried about going to hell for issuing same sex marriage licences. Frankly, it looks to me like she's already in some kinda goofy hell.

*http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

T

Well, she's a Democrat. Were you expecting somebody of high moral character?

Heh...you must be joking. While Republicans are not all pure as the driven snow, one simply cannot trust a Democrat not to lie, cheat & steal with general abandon. Liberialism is a terrible affliction worse than cancer...

American Liberalism has given its people 40 hour work weeks, weekends, vacations, women's voting rights, child labor laws, healthcare, national parks, Social Security, bank deposit insurance, clean air act, clean water act, Medicare, right to due process, right to organise and protest, veterans medical care, Miranda rights, the right to vote, The Glass-Steagall Act (also removed by a liberal--Clinton--hence the banking crisis), vehicles safety standards, 911 emergency system, public transportation, water and sewage treatment, The Freedom of Information Act, U.S. postal service, the separation of church and state (the very liberal tenet this "Democrat" Ms Davis is violating), and The Internet.

If all that is cancerous, gimme more, please.

What has Conservatism wrought? Tax cuts for the rich, benefits cuts for the poor, clamps on women's right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and war.

Look it up; the truth is out there.

T

Edited September 4, 2015 by Thakkar

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[JDGRUEN]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

No, the solution to the problem is for employees/servants of the state/county to separate their religious beliefs from their civic duties.

Issuing a piece of paper with a stamp is not forbidden in any religion that I am aware of.

You, like Davis, miss the point completely

NOBODY is forcing Davis to believe in anything! NOBODY is forcing her to do anything against her religion......Unless her religion tells her to not issue a stamp on a piece of paper. I would be very surprised if her religion has that prohibition.

Why change the system of an entire nation just because a few nutters can not see the illogic and the inconsistencies of their stance?

As JT pointed out somewhere, if a gay county clerk refused to issue licences to straight couples because of his religion....would you countenance that or suggest that the system be altered to cater for his dumb odd attitude?

I do not think your read and / or understood what I posted - so I will post it again .... with added emphasis...

As I said in another post forced compliance to the LAW is never going to be enough - as acceptable to the rabid leftists and gays ... My plan gives equal legal rights ... but full equal EQUAL rights will never EVER be enough for the control freaks - who feel compelled to force people to believe a certain way. FULL FORCED EMBRACING of their beliefs and bowing down to the LEFTISTS Gods will only be enough.

Full Acceptance of and Full Embracing of gayness and all that it entails at a personal level is the only thing that will EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH for the Rabid Gay element of America... Subjugation is the goal - Group think -- controlled thought. Freedom of individual personal thought, personal attitude and any suggestion of opposing anything gay must be stamped out ... adherence to the Gay Gods is all that is acceptable

Edited September 4, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Seastallion]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

No, the solution to the problem is for employees/servants of the state/county to separate their religious beliefs from their civic duties.

Issuing a piece of paper with a stamp is not forbidden in any religion that I am aware of.

You, like Davis, miss the point completely

NOBODY is forcing Davis to believe in anything! NOBODY is forcing her to do anything against her religion......Unless her religion tells her to not issue a stamp on a piece of paper. I would be very surprised if her religion has that prohibition.

Why change the system of an entire nation just because a few nutters can not see the illogic and the inconsistencies of their stance?

As JT pointed out somewhere, if a gay county clerk refused to issue licences to straight couples because of his religion....would you countenance that or suggest that the system be altered to cater for his dumb odd attitude?

I do not think your read and / or understood what I posted - so I will post it again .... with added emphasis...

As I said in another post forced compliance to the LAW is never going to be enough - as acceptable to the rabid leftists and gays ... My plan gives equal legal rights ... but full equal EQUAL rights will never EVER be enough for the control freaks - who feel compelled to force people to believe a certain way. FULL FORCED EMBRACING of their beliefs and bowing down to the LEFTISTS Gods will only be enough.

Full Acceptance of and Full Embracing of gayness and all that it entails at a personal level is the only thing that will EVER BE GOOD ENOUGH for the Rabid Gay element of America... Subjugation is the goal - Group think -- controlled thought. Freedom of individual personal thought, personal attitude and any suggestion of opposing anything gay must be stamped out ... adherence to the Gay Gods is all that is acceptable

Emphasise as much as you like, shout it...I understand everything you say, and it still does not relate to the issue at hand or to what I wrote.

[Chicog]

Someone wittily pointed out this morning the hullabaloo that would have come from the same set of indignant moralists had it been a gun license that she refused to sign.

[Linky]

The stupid woman failed to understand that SHE does not have to issue the licence but merely let others in the office do it. She flatly refused.

So she is forcing her idiotic views on her workmates. What about THEIR constitutional rights?

[Publicus]

The clerk's office is issuing marriage licenses. Davis says from jail via her evangelical attorneys that they are not valid without her authority, approval, permission. This is wrong and the county attorney said so today.

Davis ignores that the federal judge hauled her deputy clerks before the court and that the clerks said they would comply with the court's order to issue licenses. The deputy clerks thus avoided the contempt citations they had risked when they'd previously said they'd continue to not issue licenses.

The clerk Davis is in jail because she is contempt of the court for refusing to comply with the court's order. Anyone in the US cited for civil contempt of a federal court loses almost all Constitutional protections to include almost all eligibility of trial by jury. The principle is that if one denies and rejects the Constitution, the person loses its rights, privileges, entitlements.

This right wing god-hugger is one lulu of a lulu

[CWMcMurray]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

While it is true impeachment is required to remove her from her county clerk position, it is not a shoe-in. It is the Kentucky legislature which would vote for impeachment and many in the legislature have heard "God's Word" too.

Even worse, this unchaste harlot is still collecting her salary despite. Rather hypocritical of the state legislators who constantly claim that they are for good government, see nothing wrong in allowing this harlot, who has disobeyed a rightful legal order to continue to collect her salary. What I do not understand is how anyone can even try to defend the lying clerk. She took an oath of office and she has broken it.

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court. Effective: January 2, 1978 History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

I am also astounded that her fellow apostolic church members have so quickly looked the other way in respect to her sexually deviant and morally depraved ways. The apostolic church holds that the bible is infallible and that its every word must be obeyed.How this woman, a self admitted multiple fornicator who did not respect the sanctity of marriage nor obey her husband as the bible commands, has been made into a pillar of the church, a beacon of moral guidance defies logic.

I expect many Christians, particularly those who do not attempt to force their religious views on others are offended. So much for the separation of church and state. It seems that Kentucky is a place that time left behind like Afghanistan and Pakistan.I can see now why thse hillbilly people always show up on "Cops" with their crystal meth and feuding cousins/wives.

I take it you don't think she has the right to withhold the marriage license, huh?

Do you believe that if she was a proud member of the KKK, then she would have the right to withhold issue marriage licenses to any mixed race couples ?

Or can she also selective fulfill any of her other duties as well?

What if she doesn't think Latino Americans should be allowed to vote ? Can she not register them to vote if they come to her office?

Or what if she does not think women should hunt.. Can she not issue hunting licenses to women?

Is she then the sole decider of who can qualify for any of the services provided by her office?

What if. The next county clerk is a homosexual and they believe straight people should not be allowed to marry... Could that person legally refuse issuing marriage licenses to all straight couples?

Where is the line drawn?

Not saying she is a KKK member or would do any of the other things mentioned... Just using as an example..

Of course she can refuse to issue the licenses, but then she must be willing to accept the responsibility of that decision ...

Just like any other law breaker... She can continue to do as she is doing and spend the rest of her days in Jail for contempt of court or she can be impeached

But the reality is, if she feels that strongly about not being able to fulfill her duties, she should resign

[JDGRUEN]

Yes - we all know that the occupant of the White House has never taken actions above the rule of law ....

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa .... This is the Mount Denali of Hypocrisy .... And done with a straight face... Amazing !

WHITE HOUSE ON KIM DAVIS: NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW




http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/white-house-on-kim-davis-no-public-official-above-the-rule-of-law/

[Ace of Pop]

All over a Bit of Paper. The nutters who want one are as dumb as the ones who try to stop them .

[Seastallion]

Yes - we all know that the occupant of the White House has never taken actions above the rule of law ....

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa .... This is the Mount Denali of Hypocrisy .... And done with a straight face... Amazing !

WHITE HOUSE ON KIM DAVIS: NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/white-house-on-kim-davis-no-public-official-above-the-rule-of-law/

So you're saying that the POTUS can break the law and nobody can stop him?

So much for the greatest democracy in the world!

Your suggestion is ridiculous, or your democracy and judicial system are a farce. I tend towards the former.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Seastallion

[ttthailand]

When you accept a job and you are working for the People (Government) you accept the responsibilities of that job and respect the wishes of the people. Do your job or quit! To me it is that simple.

[augustwest]

What happened to the separation of church and state. You work for the state you follow state laws! Go to Mass or a temple or even a satanic session on your time,you have no right to discriminate while on the systems payroll. Ahh John Lennon,no religion too.people are so afraid of death they will continue to believe in their imaginary friend,and man made

[Michael8511]

"Mr Wolfe, nobody ask you to watch any gay couples kissing or making out. You mention guys. There is a lot of female gays too. What this is about is that "this lady democrats with religious believe" have to do her job. Your religious believe you should leave at home and do the job that you get paid $100.000 for. I hope one day the republicans will be aware of the separation of church and the state. There are laws that you have to follow regardless your religious believe. In the U.S.republicans are very quick to judge and they always use " my religious believe " what is the difference when Muslims use their religion to stone people to death or cut off fingers of hands on people steeling. Should we also accept that since it is their religious believe. Or the Mormons believe of multiple wife's, satanists believe of sacrifice animals etc. the list will go on and on.

The bottom line is that the law is there to be followed regardless of your political or religious believe.

[Chicog]

Yes - we all know that the occupant of the White House has never taken actions above the rule of law ....

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa .... This is the Mount Denali of Hypocrisy .... And done with a straight face... Amazing !

WHITE HOUSE ON KIM DAVIS: NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/white-house-on-kim-davis-no-public-official-above-the-rule-of-law/

Quoting Ted Cruz adds such gravitas to your point.

[luckizuchinni]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

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

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials have been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

[thaibeachlovers]

Said clerk has been divorced more than once I believe, in which case her position is based on selective and hypocritical citing of a book of fiction.

She has only been a Christian believer for 4 years.

Who are you to denigrate the Bible? Billions have believed in it. You don't have to, but why mock billions of believers?

IMO they are vindictive b****s that are going out of their way to persecute someone they don't like. Plenty of other offices to register their "marriage".

[Jingthing]

Said clerk has been divorced more than once I believe, in which case her position is based on selective and hypocritical citing of a book of fiction.

She has only been a Christian believer for 4 years.

Who are you to denigrate the Bible? Billions have believed in it. You don't have to, but why mock billions of believers?

IMO they are vindictive b****s that are going out of their way to persecute someone they don't like. Plenty of other offices to register their "marriage".

Why do you put "marriage" in quotes? That's something I expect from anti-gay bigots who don't see GLBT as equal human beings under the law. Well, in the USA, I have some news for the bigots. GLBT American citizens are now EQUAL under the marriage laws. Not equal under all laws, but the MARRIAGE laws, yes. So for people who don't want to project themselves as anti-gay bigots, it's time to drop the QUOTES.

Not so many years ago, there wasn't even one state in the USA where same sex couples could legally marry, much less having their marriage fully recognized by the federal government.

Back then many couples had ceremonies anyway and called themselves married but they weren't married under the law. In those case, saying "marriage" in quotes was rather more apt.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

Said clerk has been divorced more than once I believe, in which case her position is based on selective and hypocritical citing of a book of fiction.

She has only been a Christian believer for 4 years.

Who are you to denigrate the Bible? Billions have believed in it. You don't have to, but why mock billions of believers?

IMO they are vindictive b****s that are going out of their way to persecute someone they don't like. Plenty of other offices to register their "marriage".

Why do you put "marriage" in quotes? That's something I expect from anti-gay bigots who don't see GLBT as equal human beings under the law. Well, in the USA, I have some news for the bigots. GLBT American citizens are now EQUAL under the marriage laws. Not equal under all laws, but the MARRIAGE laws, yes. So for people who don't want to project themselves as anti-gay bigots, it's time to drop the QUOTES.

Not so many years ago, there wasn't even one state in the USA where same sex couples could legally marry, much less having their marriage fully recognized by the federal government.

Back then many couples had ceremonies anyway and called themselves married but they weren't married under the law. In those case, saying "marriage" in quotes was rather more apt.

I put it in quotes because IMO western "marriage" is a crock of poo that benefits only the divorce lawyers, and makes a mockery of promises to live together till "death us do part" and cherish the other. Liars all.

Used to be that only women benefited from divorce but now it's going to make it difficult for the judges LOL.

[chuckd]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

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

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials have been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

She has every right to refuse to perform an act that might be against her religious beliefs.

She is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to all employers, including the government, and requires that employers grant reasonable religious accommodations to employees, provided those accommodations don’t create an undue hardship for the employer.

Where Ms. Davis screwed the pooch is when she told her employees they would not be permitted to issue the marriage license.

When she refused to permit her staff members to issue the certificates, she no longer had the protection provided by Title VII..

That was where she erred.

The red herring in this thread began with voodoo practitioners killing chickens.

[Publicus]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

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

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials have been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

She has every right to refuse to perform an act that might be against her religious beliefs.

She is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to all employers, including the government, and requires that employers grant reasonable religious accommodations to employees, provided those accommodations don’t create an undue hardship for the employer.

Where Ms. Davis screwed the pooch is when she told her employees they would not be permitted to issue the marriage license.

When she refused to permit her staff members to issue the certificates, she no longer had the protection provided by Title VII..

That was where she erred.

The red herring in this thread began with voodoo practitioners killing chickens.

Take some time off dude cause you sound overwhelmed and winded.

And forget about Title VII of CRA because the protections in the Constitution do not apply to citizens who are in contempt of court which is where the Davis dingbat was headed from the start of this Kim in Kentucky deep fried mysticism and old time religion stuff.

Trying to cite the CRA of 1964 as the basis of gay people violating the Constitutional rights of some born again coonskin clerk is absurd; assinine. Did the Kentucky clerk Davis try to file a charge of unlawful discrimination with the EEOC based in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)? Kentucky Kim would be laughed out of there too. How the right ever got downwind of this crap is probably a funny story even in a monastery.

Your response should prove to be even more interestinger.

[Thakkar]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

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

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials haU ve been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

In other words, your religious rights do not allow you to deny others their rights.

T

[thaibeachlovers]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

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

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials haU ve been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

In other words, your religious rights do not allow you to deny others their rights.

T

Their rights were not denied as they could have got the licence at another office.

The fault lies with her employers for not substituting her with another clerk that would issue permits to homosexuals. They are in charge, she was not. They didn't have to sack her, just move her to another position.

[Jingthing]

Dude we're sick of being treated as second class citizens by bigots. Some offices that won't serve gays or blacks. Forget about it bigots. You lost.

[thaibeachlovers]

Dude we're sick of being treated as second class citizens by bigots. Some offices that won't serve gays or blacks. Forget about it bigots. You lost.

There is no religious edict against black people, so there's no cover under religion for that.

She isn't stopping homosexuals from living together, just getting married, which is a mistake, but it hardly makes her a bigot.

[Jingthing]

Dude we're sick of being treated as second class citizens by bigots. Some offices that won't serve gays or blacks. Forget about it bigots. You lost.

There is no religious edict against black people, so there's no cover under religion for that.

She isn't stopping homosexuals from living together, just getting married, which is a mistake, but it hardly makes her a bigot.

Dude not that long ago interracial marriage was illegal in a number of states. The disgusting racists back then also used religion as a justification. You're on the wrong side of history. Again it's over. The bigots lost again.

[FritsSikkink]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

the solution to the problem is to fire every idiot who doesn't obey the law

[Thakkar]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

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

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That's a red herring argument.

There has been case after case where the "free exercise thereof" has been denied when the practice is against secular law. Voodoo practitioners have been denied the right to sacrifice poultry, Christian Scientist have been jailed and had their kids taken away for refusing to get them medical care, Rastafarians have been denied their right to use marijuana in their ceremonies, and in our past, government officials haU ve been jailed over refusing to register both African-Americans and women for the vote due to claimed religious grounds.

The courts have been pretty clear that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to break the law.

In other words, your religious rights do not allow you to deny others their rights.

T

Their rights were not denied as they could have got the licence at another office.

The fault lies with her employers for not substituting her with another clerk that would issue permits to homosexuals. They are in charge, she was not. They didn't have to sack her, just move her to another position.

Your post calls for two answers. A general answer that applies to anyone in a government position and a specific answer that applies in the case of Ms Davis. Both draw the conclusion that what she did is wrong, illegal and assholerry.

Laws and constitutions are living documents and change over time. Civil servants pledge to uphold the laws and constitution of the U.S. when taking on the job. The law now unequivocally requires government servants in her position to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All the legal battles have concluded and the decision is in. End of story. Uphold your pledge.

Specifically, Ms. Davis was elected to her position. She cannot be moved to a different position. It's like the president deciding to move the senator from Alaska to be the congressman from Ohio.

Also note that Davis has refused to authorize anyone else from her office to issue marriage licenses.

When the performance of your job conflicts with your religious convictions, you either change your convictions or resign your job. Trying to have it both ways is assholerry of the highest order because it seeks to impose your convictions on others whose taxes pay your salary.

Her defence stands on the premise that she should not be forced to go against her religious convictions by facilitating a homosexual liaison (presumably the men have been saving themselves till after they get married). If allowed, and taking the argument to its logical conclusion, people working in government housing division would not approve housing for homosexual couples because of all the buttsex they'll be having in the apartment. DMV employees can refuse driving licences to lesbians for fear of all the girl-on-girl kissing that will no doubt be going on in the car.

Hmmm...girl-on-girl kissing in a cramped Corvette. Excuse me, I need to be alone.

T