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

[suncowiam]

By who?
The impeachment process is very complex and long. And it might not work if she has enough supporters. She does have a lot of them.
Tom

From what I've read, its the governor that can impeach her. But he won't because he would risk his re-election with the majority conservative population.

 

[suncowiam]

Assuming in that Christian's theology God is a very gullible/stupid salvation robot. I don't think most intelligent Christians see it like that.

How then do most Christians see it?

What's up with the "repent or burn in hell" slogan I see commonly in protests?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Let's play the definition game, why don't we?
hy·poc·ri·sy
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Actually, I don't see how your definition comes close to this. You can define your own meanings but declaring others as strange is quite misleading as you did not correctly rebase the meaning.

She is a hypocrite in the sense that she did not obey all of gods commands. Yet she easily commands others to do so. Uhm, what part of that is hard to comprehend concerning hypocrisy?

Your understanding of human behaviour is so simplistic so as to border on the absurd. Who ever lives up to their beliefs? Clearly, hypocrisy isn't simply about having beliefs and not living up to them. Who could ever put forward a moral argument then?

And, ironically, no doubt your idea of hypocrisy here is hypocritical. Something tells me you would not be quite as stringent if the she was backing something you believed in.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

She is literally saying she will not sign the marriage certificates of homosexual couples, even though she herself has been married multiple times, which is a violation of the same law she claims to be standing for. Why does she not set an example, divorce, and preach the wrongness of her own ways rather than condemn the ways of others? She is literally saying 'my own marriage, which violates God's will, is none of your concern, while these marriages, which violates God's will, is a concern of mine."

Who says divorce is against her beliefs? Christians tend to consider divorce tragic, but even many morally conservative sects permit divorce. Besides, I think she wasn't a Christian at the time.

They would be in a better position to speak out against it. I've never drove drunk, I've never killed anyone, so I cannot speak with the authenticity and soul tormenting pains of having killed someone while I was drunk driving and killed someone.

So some people who have done things wrong can still advise others not to do them, obviously.

That is irrevlavent. She claims to act on "God's authority," yet she contradicts that same authority and the same laws by having multiple marriages herself. She is literally saying "my own shortcomings do not matter, but yours do." She is divorced. According to the laws she claims to be standing up for, she should never remarry, and if she does, she should be stoned. That is the law she claims to be standing for.

Your thought has no nuance or appreciation of distinctions.

For many people, something is wrong no matter what we do. It is not clear, therefore, why we should never try to prevent it, even if we have done wrong. Certainly, we should not hold ourselves higher than others, but I don't see why we may not still hold to our moral beliefs. I doubt you would dream of applying this standard to anyone but a nasty conservative, but if we applied it universally, who could ever offer moral advise or wield moral authority?

It isn't a caricature. Many Christians believe OT and Paul are worthy of upholding as law. Clearly this woman does. She should be stoned for her abominable acts of remarriage, but not just one time remarrying, but three times she has been remarried. By her own laws, she should be put to death.

Unless you are talking of Ebionites and other long dead sects of Jewish Christians, I know of no Christians who accept the Old Testament law wholesale. Are you unaware of the raging controversies of the early Church on these issues? Besides, I'm not even sure many Jews around the time of Jesus believed in the punishments you are talking about.

Regardless, many Christians, even conservative ones, think divorce is to be avoided but is legitimate in certain circumstances. Why you think you can wade into these sorts of discussions and decide what she should believe, I have no idea.

She is/was an elected official. She swore to uphold Constitutional law. She failed to uphold this law. Not only that, she stood defiant of this law by refusing same-sex marriage certificates. That is what this whole thing is about. She refused to uphold the oath that she took. She is an oath breaker. She failed to uphold this oath. She took an oath that she failed to uphold. She gave her word to uphold this oath, but apparently her word is more worthless than the dead skin cells I walk upon.

This is a better argument than the divorce nonsense. I'm not sure it is cast iron - she could suggest no oath can bind her to do something like this. But that she is breaking her oath whilst complaining about immorality is an interesting point.

Who is "baying for this woman's bloood?" What does pot have to do with this? (Nothing, in case you are wondering) She took an oath, she failed to uphold this oath. Normally, this is something I would praise (I do actually give her credit for standing on principle), but because she is demanding that others be held to her own private religious beliefs, she is lower than the occasional pile of dog **** I step on. Not everyone believes as her, this is obvious. There are no laws in America that state others should be held to her own private religious views.

Well, all moral beliefs, as far as I can see, are based on the same level of discourse - that of controversial, philosophical understanding - as religion. I really don't see the difference, to be honest, between saying I think we should ignore ICE requests to turn over illegal immigrants because of humanitarianism and this woman's actions.

Anyway, my point was simply that those accusing her of being a hypocrite are themselves hypocrites if they are incensed at her and not the mayor of San Francisco or those who allow the legal use of cannabis in Colorado, unless they can give good arguments to contrary.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who says divorce is against her beliefs? Christians tend to consider divorce tragic, but even many morally conservative sects permit divorce. Besides, I think she wasn't a Christian at the time.

It still stands, however, that she says "I won't do this on religious convictions" while at the same time saying "I'll pardon myself on doing this that violates my religious doctrine."

I doubt you would dream of applying this standard to anyone but a nasty conservative, but if we applied it universally, who could ever offer moral advise or wield moral authority?

Why would I not hold the same standard? I'm one of the few who counters a DEA raid of a California dispensary with "well, it is technically illegal according to federal law, and technically state law cannot, legally, supersede federal law."
As for "moral authority," why bother? Clearly she has a moral conviction that is contradictory to the law. In her personal life, she is harming no one, so why even care? But, as an elected public official, she did violate the law. She did willfully go against the Supreme Court ruling, and if you do the crime it's best that you are willing to do the time.

Unless you are talking of Ebionites and other long dead sects of Jewish Christians, I know of no Christians who accept the Old Testament law wholesale.

You may not know them, but I have been to numerous churches that do uphold the OT, and using it to defend their views on certain issues. They are out there, and there are plenty of them.

Regardless, many Christians, even conservative ones, think divorce is to be avoided but is legitimate in certain circumstances. Why you think you can wade into these sorts of discussions and decide what she should believe, I have no idea.

The Bible is clear in that adultery is the only valid reason for divorce, and it is clear in stating people should not remarry (except for in a few conditions), and that the penalty for not following these orders is death. I'm not saying she should believe such things, but when she claims to act out on the "authority of God," it makes her fair game to criticize her for not living up to her own standards. "Stone the whore," is pretty much what the Bible prescribes for her.

This is a better argument than the divorce nonsense. I'm not sure it is cast iron - she could suggest no oath can bind her to do something like this. But that she is breaking her oath whilst complaining about immorality is an interesting point.

The judge seems to think it is more than cast iron. I agree with him. If you take an oath, if you make a promise, especially for such a position of legal authority, then we should expect that this word will be upheld. She broke her oath, she lied about promising to uphold it. She won't find any Biblical passages to support her, but there are many, from the mouth of Jesus, that oppose her for breaking her oath, being of this world, and not following the laws she is bound to.

Anyway, my point was simply that those accusing her of being a hypocrite are themselves hypocrites if they are incensed at her and not the mayor of San Francisco or those who allow the legal use of cannabis in Colorado, unless they can give good arguments to contrary.

How does it make some a hypocrite for criticizing her? She took an oath to uphold the law, and she blatantly refused to perform her sworn duties. Colorado had a vote, and the voters decided - it was not as if the governor of Colorado (California does not have legal recreational use, so you may want to educate yourself before going on with this issue) said to hell with the law and made it legal anyways.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

It still stands, however, that she says "I won't do this on religious convictions" while at the same time saying "I'll pardon myself on doing this that violates my religious doctrine."

How does it still stand? You haven't shown these are her beliefs?

Why would I not hold the same standard? I'm one of the few who counters a DEA raid of a California dispensary with "well, it is technically illegal according to federal law, and technically state law cannot, legally, supersede federal law."

You are write. I should only judge you on what you, not on what I think, or thought, you probably believe.

You may not know them, but I have been to numerous churches that do uphold the OT, and using it to defend their views on certain issues. They are out there, and there are plenty of them.

Indeed, but it is rarely that a church will believe that the OT applies in toto. Christian views on the OT and the Jewish law are complex. Christians believe the OT has great authority but they don't believe the entire law now applies. They have various ways of understanding how to view the OT and the law. Few Christians I know believe one should follow the law as Rabbinic Judaism does, and even fewer think that the stoning should be practiced.

The Bible is clear in that adultery is the only valid reason for divorce, and it is clear in stating people should not remarry (except for in a few conditions), and that the penalty for not following these orders is death. I'm not saying she should believe such things, but when she claims to act out on the "authority of God," it makes her fair game to criticize her for not living up to her own standards. "Stone the whore," is pretty much what the Bible prescribes for her.

I just don't follow this. Christians are split on divorce. Her beliefs may be that it is legitimate. I really don't see why her actions in this issue mean she must be wrong, and hypocritical, for believing divorce legitimate.

The judge seems to think it is more than cast iron. I agree with him. If you take an oath, if you make a promise, especially for such a position of legal authority, then we should expect that this word will be upheld. She broke her oath, she lied about promising to uphold it. She won't find any Biblical passages to support her, but there are many, from the mouth of Jesus, that oppose her for breaking her oath, being of this world, and not following the laws she is bound to.

The judge is not the ultimate moral arbiter. I think this is a good point you make. I'm simply not a hundred percent sure it is correct. After all, must a Christian, or any one, obey all oaths? What if it were an oath to sacrifice to a pagan god? Or to murder someone? I think it is probably correct that morally she should uphold this oath, though.

How does it make some a hypocrite for criticizing her? She took an oath to uphold the law, and she blatantly refused to perform her sworn duties. Colorado had a vote, and the voters decided - it was not as if the governor of Colorado (California does not have legal recreational use, so you may want to educate yourself before going on with this issue) said to hell with the law and made it legal anyways.

I was referring to San Francisco's policy on illegal immigrant and obeying the federal government in that area.

It would be hypocritical if you were very annoyed at her for breaking the law but not those in Colorado or San Francisco, at least if they can't make a very good argument.

My understanding is that the federal law technically still applies in Colorado and the state has no constitutional right, under the current reading of the constitution, to legalise cannabis. The voting issue is interesting, though. Of course this does create a genuine dilemma for the officials in Colorado, as perhaps they are bound to both make cannabis legal and illegal, according to the duties of office. Still, surely federal law is primary, so they should not be helping to keep cannabis users and dealers from prosecution.

Sanctuary cities and the like are a clear example, it seems, of rule and oath breaking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How does it still stand? You haven't shown these are her beliefs?

It still stands because she has been directly quoted as saying she acted on "God's authority."

Indeed, but it is rarely that a church will believe that the OT applies in toto. Christian views on the OT and the Jewish law are complex. Christians believe the OT has great authority but they don't believe the entire law now applies. They have various ways of understanding how to view the OT and the law. Few Christians I know believe one should follow the law as Rabbinic Judaism does, and even fewer think that the stoning should be practiced.

I used to be a Christian. I know that many do look upon the OT and NT as a source of law. Of course none of them fully practice it, and rather they cherry pick it as to what they should follow and what to ignore, but many of them will cite the OT as a source of law.

I just don't follow this. Christians are split on divorce. Her beliefs may be that it is legitimate. I really don't see why her actions in this issue mean she must be wrong, and hypocritical, for believing divorce legitimate.

The Bible is clear about this issue. Divorce is only acceptable when one of the partners has an extra-marital affair. Remarriage is not allowed. Because she was not a virgin on her second, the Bible states that she should have been stoned. Of course there are other parts of it, including the non-blood stained sheets (a point of gross patriarchy and stupidity in the Bible) being presented before the elders (or whatever word is used, I don't remember the exact wording) to have them declare she wasn't a virgin, but it still stands that the Bible prescribes death by stoning for her.

My understanding is that the federal law technically still applies in Colorado and the state has no constitutional right, under the current reading of the constitution, to legalise cannabis.

That is correct, although California is the state that typically gets picked on. Colorado and Washington have full legalized recreational use, and that is technically unconstitutional. But it's a straw man to bring it up, because those were decided by a public vote, whereas Kim Davis acted on her own accord. The governors of Washington and Colorado had a popular vote behind them when the state laws were altered, Kim Davis had only her own religious convictions. The circumstances of the state's cases of legal marijuana and Kim Davis violating her oath are not comparable.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

It still stands because she has been directly quoted as saying she acted on "God's authority."

Well, there is little point going around and around on this point, but I still can't for the life of me understand why you seem to think that her current actions mean she must accept a controversial position on divorce amongst Christians.

I used to be a Christian. I know that many do look upon the OT and NT as a source of law. Of course none of them fully practice it, and rather they cherry pick it as to what they should follow and what to ignore, but many of them will cite the OT as a source of law.

This is a crude reading of the issue. Early Christians debated the issues greatly. They differentiated, for example, on things thought to be ritual and things thought to be intrinsically immoral. You may not be satisfied in how the distinctions were made, but they are more thoughtful than you are implying.

The Bible is clear about this issue. Divorce is only acceptable when one of the partners has an extra-marital affair. Remarriage is not allowed. Because she was not a virgin on her second, the Bible states that she should have been stoned. Of course there are other parts of it, including the non-blood stained sheets (a point of gross patriarchy and stupidity in the Bible) being presented before the elders (or whatever word is used, I don't remember the exact wording) to have them declare she wasn't a virgin, but it still stands that the Bible prescribes death by stoning for her.

Even if you were correct about the Bible, Christianity is more than the Bible and the Christian tradition has differing positions on divorce. Even the Orthodox accept divorce. I just can't see how you can suggest she is a conservative Christian, therefore she is a hypocrite and completely compromising her beliefs if she believes divorce is legitimate.

That is correct, although California is the state that typically gets picked on. Colorado and Washington have full legalized recreational use, and that is technically unconstitutional. But it's a straw man to bring it up, because those were decided by a public vote, whereas Kim Davis acted on her own accord. The governors of Washington and Colorado had a popular vote behind them when the state laws were altered, Kim Davis had only her own religious convictions. The circumstances of the state's cases of legal marijuana and Kim Davis violating her oath are not comparable.

Sanctuary cities aren't all according to public vote. I also don't see why the amount of people flouting the law makes a difference. Why should one accept flouting of federal law in one instance and not another? A state or city is a minority. Why should they have the right to flout this law? The fact they voted seems a flimsy premise.

 

[suncowiam]

Your understanding of human behaviour is so simplistic so as to border on the absurd. Who ever lives up to their beliefs? Clearly, hypocrisy isn't simply about having beliefs and not living up to them. Who could ever put forward a moral argument then?

And, ironically, no doubt your idea of hypocrisy here is hypocritical. Something tells me you would not be quite as stringent if the she was backing something you believed in.

You wanted to get into a debate over a definition. I gave you standard definition of the word. So far, you're basically giving your personal opinion of the matter which I would acknowledge if we were simply discussing philosophies.

There are two points to this now. The first point which we started in the original discussion is the common definition of hypocrisy. I've already quoted a definition of it. There shouldn't be any debate over that.

The second point is your subjective belief of how one should live up to the moral standard of hypocrisy. Frankly, I disagree with you. To say one has morals and beliefs, is having the alignment of thought, action and, especially, repetitive consistency of the former two. One cannot suggest they have specific morals or beliefs, if they stray from it even a little. I cannot tell you that I like vanilla ice cream when all I do is eat chocolate ice cream.

Again, if Kim Davis wants to cite the "highest" authority when dealing with other peoples' lives then she needs to hold herself accountable to the same "highest" authority.

Your suggestion on why I could be hypocritical has no basis as you have no history of my life. So that's a fling in the dark with no facts. I'm not going to touch that as I have no need to defend myself. If you want to get personal with me, that's another subject but of your choice.

 

[Akivah]

This is not true when she claimed to respect the "sanctity of marriage". Gender is one concern in this context, but, marriage being for life is too. So, it's ironic that she only seems to be unmoveable on one aspect of this claimed "sanctity".

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.

 

[Akivah]

That's not a law. It was a constitutional decision based upon discrimination not supported by any valid legal argument.

Ok. Then a zany constitutional interpretation. Better?

 

[Akivah]

Your subjective opinion that the decision was "zany", or anyone elses for that matter, in no way gives anyone the right to break the law. The Judge did the right thing today. If she felt that she was not able to fulfill her duties because of her religious beliefs, it was on her to resign.

And I totally agree. Since her principles did not allow her to do these actions, then she should have withdrawn from the post.

 

[Cephus]

And I totally agree. Since her principles did not allow her to do these actions, then she should have withdrawn from the post.

And there have been other cases recently where clerks refused to do their jobs and stepped down voluntarily. This is where Davis went wrong.

 

[Akivah]

And there have been other cases recently where clerks refused to do their jobs and stepped down voluntarily. This is where Davis went wrong.

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

 

[Akivah]

Frankly, I disagree with you. To say one has morals and beliefs, is having the alignment of thought, action and, especially, repetitive consistency of the former two. One cannot suggest they have specific morals or beliefs, if they stray from it even a little. I cannot tell you that I like vanilla ice cream when all I do is eat chocolate ice cream.

I don't understand your position. Using your example, one can not claim to like vanilla ice cream unless they never eat any other flavor in their entire life.

Nobody is perfect. We all have moral and precepts that we live by, even though we don't perfectly adhere to those principles for our entire lives. Your interpretation would not allow for any person to have stated principles.

 

[jeager106]

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.

This is true. These days even the most strict Christian churches will
allow a member to divorce on grounds of adultry, domestic violence,
failure to support the family (husband is a dead beat) and habitual drunkenness and a host of Criminal convictions such as armed robbery,
dealing in narcotics, etc. & getting a long prison stretch is allowable
grounds for divorce in many religious organization.
I think too many posters are looking at this Clerks past divorces
and confusing the issues greatly.
We don't know why she got divorced and it should have no bearing
on the issue at hand.
None.

 

[columbus]

Using your example, one can not claim to like vanilla ice cream unless they never eat any ot

A more appropriate metaphor would be insisting that only vanilla ice cream is legal, when you still have smears of chocolate, butter pecan, and mint on your face and dripping down your shirt.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

I don't understand your position. Using your example, one can not claim to like vanilla ice cream unless they never eat any other flavor in their entire life.

Nobody is perfect. We all have moral and precepts that we live by, even though we don't perfectly adhere to those principles for our entire lives. Your interpretation would not allow for any person to have stated principles.

My example is actually not good so that's fair to point out. How about this? One cannot preach to not cheat on their spouse and yet, still cheat on their spouse. And further more, claim to be faithful and then claim to follow the ten commandments. It's a lie.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect. We make exceptions for certain cases that are trivial. This case is not trivial. Kim Davis is affirming her position of power and her actions due to her religion and specifically a "higher" authority. She says its a situation concerning "heaven and hell" for her. Those are her quotes, not mine. Yet, she still defy's this "higher" authority concerning the accepted idea of Christian marriage. I'm not making these rules up, you Christians are. This is hypocrisy. Plain and simple. This questions her moral ground and weakens her overall religious character.

The bottom line... If you preach something, you have to live up to it, yourself, and not only demand from others. It really is that simple. Otherwise, don't preach it. Isn't this fair to assert?

 

[suncowiam]

This is true. These days even the most strict Christian churches will
allow a member to divorce on grounds of adultry, domestic violence,
failure to support the family (husband is a dead beat) and habitual drunkenness and a host of Criminal convictions such as armed robbery,
dealing in narcotics, etc. & getting a long prison stretch is allowable
grounds for divorce in many religious organization.
I think too many posters are looking at this Clerks past divorces
and confusing the issues greatly.
We don't know why she got divorced and it should have no bearing
on the issue at hand.
None.

Ah... Religion and all its varying rules. Ok, so if I start quoting other churches and their acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage, than this point is all mute?

 

[columbus]

We don't know why she got divorced and it should have no bearing
on the issue at hand.
None.

The reason it has bearing is that she is claiming to base her refusal to resign on Jesus' teachings. But anyone familiar with the Gospels knows the 10th chapter of Mark.
Tom