KY County Clerk could be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses

[Skwim]

Yes.
She could go back to her first husband. Then apply to the RCC for annulment of the other ones. She'll have to express contrition for the sins of course. And pay an ecclesiastical lawyer of course. And wait until the Vatican gets around to her case for judgement of course.

Didn't know she had been a Catholic. Interesting.

Or she could just rely on the secular laws of the USA about divorce.

To do what?

Hmmmmm....
I wonder if mere secular laws are good enough for her divorces. I bet she thinks that they are.
Tom

Certainly appears so.

 

[columbus]

Didn't know she had been a Catholic. Interestin

Oh, well of course she must first return to The One True Church.
Did I forget to mention that most obvious of first steps to get right with God?
Real Christians all know that already.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

I don't think she's a hero. I think she wants to eat her cake and have it too. Regardless of her personal convictions, she is assigned certain job functions. Since her personal convictions don't allow her to do this job, she should have resigned it. I would have had respect for her, if she not only stated her convictions but also followed through on them by leaving her job.

There's a lot of people who want that today, people who want to engage in civil disobedience, but suffer no repercussions from violating the law. There are far too many people who have no clue what civil disobedience is all about and who just don't want to be bothered by being held accountable for their actions.

 

[Looncall]

You are missing the entire point of the Supreme Court ruling. It overturned all such laws, federal and state and local.
Ms Davis is breaking the law in Kentucky. She can't quite be held accountable due to being an elected official. But she can be jailed for contempt of court. That is the way the system works.
She cannot legally impose her personal religious beliefs on other people when the law contradicts them.
Tom

This is the crux of the matter. She is trying to apply her superstitious taboos to everyone.

 

[JoStories]

Really? Calling a cheater a hypocrite when he preaches others not to cheat is unrealistic? That's actually a very good example of hypocrisy. I seriously don't understand where you're coming from now.

Concerning Kim Davis, she is still a hypocrite and can still hold on to her beliefs whatever they may be. Being a hypocrite just means we can question her character. It places doubt on her ideals. It does not mean she can't hold the same ideals.

Hence, why politicians are always dinged on their hypocritical past. They have to prove to the public that they have changed and demonstrated reasonable commitment to their current ideals. Kim Davis is no different, being a person in office. She is a politician that controls people's lives. She has not explained her hypocritical past so I and others have right to question it.

You make a good point however, since divorce is so common place now, and really, I cannot see how her past including these divorces really factor into this. One of the main premises of Christianity is that one is born again, washing away all sins of the past. This would include those divorces.

 

[JoStories]

This brings up another subject concerning repentance or born again in religion. It's like a reset button and absolves a persons past. I don't get this. So believing in God fixes hypocrisy?

Here is an article disucssing her past.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...is-married-FOUR-times-gave-birth-wedlock.html

It actually states that she had sex and had twins out of wedlock with her first husband.

Ok, all is forgiven, if I ask Jesus for forgiveness? Now I can start throwing rocks at other people and force them to God's door steps. Is that seriously how this works?

According to what I have learned, the answer is yes. I don't agree but as I have said about the man in prison who was a Chinese hitman, who was born again btw, he firmly believed he was going to heaven as his conversion to Christianity absolved him of all crimes prior to his conversion. Personally, I find that mindset to be absolutely bull s**t but it is what that faith is built on.

 

[leibowde84]

If the woman is not Catholic, does it matter to the protestant faith? I see so many of that faith that are more lax in the tenets. Just wondering here.

She's an Apostolic Christian.

 

[leibowde84]

The "sanctity" of marriage doesn't say that couples must stay together in all circumstances. G-d gave rules that marriages can be terminated with the proper circumstances.

What are these rules for Apostolic Christianity? I know that some denominations have these rules, but I was not aware that this was the case with the Apostolics, apart from physical abuse of course.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok. Then a zany constitutional interpretation. Better?

What was "zany" about it. They did it "by the book", and they didn't have much of a choice either. If you aren't happy with the outcome, you should be poining at the failure of the "traditional marriage" defenders to provide a valid legal argument. Their attempt at doing this was pretty pathetic, which left the SCOTUS with no choice.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree. Once the legal interpretation changed and her own boss told her what to do, she could no longer serve in that position.

And, remember, she wasn't a Christian when she originally took the post.

 

[Muffled]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Now, after the SCOTUS refused to issue an injunction allowing her to keep on refusing to do her job, many want this county clerk to be held in contempt of court. I think this is EXACTLY what "contempt of court" was designed for ... those who refuse to follow direct orders from judges. Further, this is a government actor refusing to do her job, which is now legal discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, people should be able to believe what they want. But, once their beliefs cause harm, both monetarily and emotionally, to others, their right to religious liberty ends there. I think she should be given the option to either resign or do her job. If she refuses both options, she should be held in contempt.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

I disagree not because it isn't contempt of court but because the judge is accountable to do that which is right before God.

 

[Muffled]

This woman is really working my nerves. She's sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If she cannot do that, she needs to resign. She's not being prohibited from practicing her religion. She can practice it anywhere she wants, but not as a public servant under the US Constitution. The real Good News is that like all Special Snowflakes, she will melt away eventually.

The constitution upholds law and the law is that same sex marriage is prohibited in Kentucky. The Supreme Court judges have judged the constitution falsely so an oath to uphold the constitution does not mean that one must adhere to the decision of judges.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree not because it isn't contempt of court but because the judge is accountable to do that which is right before God.

The Judge is accountable to do that which is right according to the law. Judges are NOT permitted to follow what they subjectively believe to be God's will if it contradicts the law. Do you have anything to support your claim though? Because, it is pretty outlandish. No one knows what is "right before God". Many have different beliefs about this. You can't possibly be saying that Judges should go by their own feelings and beliefs as to what God wants and put these beliefs above the law, can you?

 

[columbus]

I disagree not because it isn't contempt of court but because the judge is accountable to do that which is right before God.

That same logic could be used to justify imposing Sharia on Kentucky.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

The constitution upholds law and the law is that same sex marriage is prohibited in Kentucky. The Supreme Court judges have judged the constitution falsely so an oath to uphold the constitution does not mean that one must adhere to the decision of judges.

SCOTUS decisions and Federal Laws trump State Laws, according to constitutional law. An individuals opinion of SCOTUS decisions doesn't change this at all. You don't get to ignore the law because you don't agree with judicial decisions. That would be anarchy.

 

[leibowde84]

The constitution upholds law and the law is that same sex marriage is prohibited in Kentucky. The Supreme Court judges have judged the constitution falsely so an oath to uphold the constitution does not mean that one must adhere to the decision of judges.

You do realize that the Constitution grants SCOTUS authority, right? Thus, an oath to uphold the constitution = an oath to adhere to SCOTUS decisions and orders.

 

[Muffled]

The Judge is accountable to do that which is right according to the law. Judges are NOT permitted to follow what they subjectively believe to be God's will if it contradicts the law. Do you have anything to support your claim though? Because, it is pretty outlandish. No one knows what is "right before God". Many have different beliefs about this. You can't possibly be saying that Judges should go by their own feelings and beliefs as to what God wants and put these beliefs above the law, can you?

I believe everyone has to answer to ones own conscience. JUdges are not usually held liable for bad decisions but appeals can be made to a higher court and the higher court can order the judge to compy. What happens if he does not comply I don't know. Maybe a judge could be held in contempt of court and put in jail.

 

[Jainarayan]

The constitution upholds law and the law is that same sex marriage is prohibited in Kentucky. The Supreme Court judges have judged the constitution falsely so an oath to uphold the constitution does not mean that one must adhere to the decision of judges.

That is so wrong it's beyond wrong. The justices can't judge the Constitution falsely because they are the ultimate and highest jurists in the US. It's their job to interpret the Constitution and weigh other laws against it. They ruled that KY's and every other state ban on same sex marriage violates the US Constitution. The US Constitution supersedes every state law and state constitution, and federal and local laws. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, this is the fact.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe everyone has to answer to ones own conscience. JUdges are not usually held liable for bad decisions but appeals can be made to a higher court and the higher court can order the judge to compy. What happens if he does not comply I don't know. Maybe a judge could be held in contempt of court and put in jail.

Judges can be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the orders of higher courts. And, public officials take an oath to not allow their personal beliefs to interfere with them fulfilling their duties. She has had the ability to resign this since this issue came up, but she refused.

 

[Jainarayan]

I disagree not because it isn't contempt of court but because the judge is accountable to do that which is right before God.

More wrongness. We have no accountability to any God. God has no place in US civil law. God is not mentioned in the Constitution... anywhere... period.