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

[suncowiam]

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

To add to this, this is the oath of office she vowed to:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

The only point concerning God, is actually for God to help her follow her consitutional duties. I find this ironic.

 

[jeager106]

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?

Hell if I know. I thought since SCOTUS ruled it WAS ALL a moot point?

 

[suncowiam]

Hell if I know. I thought since SCOTUS ruled it WAS ALL a moot point?

Well, if that wasn't sarcasm, then I whole heartedly agree with you.

* High Five *

 

[jeager106]

Well, if that wasn't sarcasm, then I whole heartedly agree with you.

* High Five *

No sarcasm at all. It IS all a moot point.
Those that don't think so need to get over it.
The clerk went to jail for NOTHING. All she does is determine
if the couple is "fit" for a marriage license. I.E. they are not mentally
deficient (whatever that means) they are not father/daughter, brother/sister
etc. Then the clerk is DONE. OVER. She's advocating nothing about
sexual conduct or morality by issuing the license.
What if it were a man and woman, the man a pimp, the woman in charge
of a ring of prostitutes. Bet that ain't on the application.
Cheesh!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

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.

This is just nonsense. The dictionary definition is not a nuanced and proper understanding of human behaviour or moral thought. This is the definition of to steal:

steal. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

If we were having a discussion on the issues surrounding stealing, we couldn't use this definition alone to get to the bottom of what is and isn't stealing, how stealing should be viewed, and so on.

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.

So, in fact, your point of view is that anyone who even in the slightest fails to live up to their beliefs is a hypocrite. There is some truth here in the minor sense of all men failing to live up to the standards they set, but generally we reserve hypocrite for egregious cases. Anyway, if what you say were correct full stop, then it wouldn't make sense to single out this woman. If almost all men are hypocrites, then why single out Kim Davis as one?

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.

Well, we don't know she hasn't. A lot of the claims against her rely on her divorces being immoral according to her beliefs. This is not necessarily the case.

But, more generally, what you say just doesn't seem apparent. Why can't someone who has sinned still believe and advocate for what they believe in? She presumably still feels it is right. If she were holding herself out as perfect or looking down on others for what she herself has done, that would be different, but it is not apparent to me that one cannot stand up for a position if one is not perfect.

There also seems to be an excessive focus on the her person here, compared to the ideal, as if her actions tarnished the ideal. If one held the older view that ideal was something men rise to or fall away from, but which is ever unchanged, then it makes even less sense to suggest that by falling away from it, one should then abandon it and never advocate for it.

Ultimately, hypocrisy, in the proper, egregious sense, is not about failing to live up to our beliefs alone. It is about pretense, as your own definition said. It is about pretending we are perfect or better than others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The vote now stands at 32 to 2. Good.

 

[suncowiam]

This is just nonsense. The dictionary definition is not a nuanced and proper understanding of human behaviour or moral thought. This is the definition of to steal:

steal. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

If we were having a discussion on the issues surrounding stealing, we couldn't use this definition alone to get to the bottom of what is and isn't stealing, how stealing should be viewed, and so on.


So, in fact, your point of view is that anyone who even in the slightest fails to live up to their beliefs is a hypocrite. There is some truth here in the minor sense of all men failing to live up to the standards they set, but generally we reserve hypocrite for egregious cases. Anyway, if what you say were correct full stop, then it wouldn't make sense to single out this woman. If almost all men are hypocrites, then why single out Kim Davis as one?

Well, we don't know she hasn't. A lot of the claims against her rely on her divorces being immoral according to her beliefs. This is not necessarily the case.

But, more generally, what you say just doesn't seem apparent. Why can't someone who has sinned still believe and advocate for what they believe in? She presumably still feels it is right. If she were holding herself out as perfect or looking down on others for what she herself has done, that would be different, but it is not apparent to me that one cannot stand up for a position if one is not perfect.

There also seems to be an excessive focus on the her person here, compared to the ideal, as if her actions tarnished the ideal. If one held the older view that ideal was something men rise to or fall away from, but which is ever unchanged, then it makes even less sense to suggest that by falling away from it, one should then abandon it and never advocate for it.

Ultimately, hypocrisy, in the proper, egregious sense, is not about failing to live up to our beliefs alone. It is about pretense, as your own definition said. It is about pretending we are perfect or better than others.

This is just nonsense. The dictionary definition is not a nuanced and proper understanding of human behaviour or moral thought. This is the definition of to steal:

steal. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

If we were having a discussion on the issues surrounding stealing, we couldn't use this definition alone to get to the bottom of what is and isn't stealing, how stealing should be viewed, and so on.


So, in fact, your point of view is that anyone who even in the slightest fails to live up to their beliefs is a hypocrite. There is some truth here in the minor sense of all men failing to live up to the standards they set, but generally we reserve hypocrite for egregious cases. Anyway, if what you say were correct full stop, then it wouldn't make sense to single out this woman. If almost all men are hypocrites, then why single out Kim Davis as one?

Well, we don't know she hasn't. A lot of the claims against her rely on her divorces being immoral according to her beliefs. This is not necessarily the case.

But, more generally, what you say just doesn't seem apparent. Why can't someone who has sinned still believe and advocate for what they believe in? She presumably still feels it is right. If she were holding herself out as perfect or looking down on others for what she herself has done, that would be different, but it is not apparent to me that one cannot stand up for a position if one is not perfect.

There also seems to be an excessive focus on the her person here, compared to the ideal, as if her actions tarnished the ideal. If one held the older view that ideal was something men rise to or fall away from, but which is ever unchanged, then it makes even less sense to suggest that by falling away from it, one should then abandon it and never advocate for it.

Ultimately, hypocrisy, in the proper, egregious sense, is not about failing to live up to our beliefs alone. It is about pretense, as your own definition said. It is about pretending we are perfect or better than others.

Am I to honor a person than can't behave to her own morals, especially a person in power? Am I to trust this individual with my liberties? Obviously, that was rhetorical.

The big hoopla is because she is a person of power and choose to deny others their constitutional liberties yet she does not restrain herself from the same "higher" authority that she willingly forces on others.

Rather simple context to consider. We can end here with we me still believing she's a hypocrite and you not. I'm fine with that.

Hypocrisy is a simple concept. We are all hypocrites but some matters deserve more visibility and attention than others. That is where the subjectiveness lies between you and I.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Am I to honor a person than can't behave to her own morals, especially a person in power? Am I to trust this individual with my liberties? Obviously, that was rhetorical.

You haven't shown she can't behave to her own morals. But, anyway, we are not talking about someone currently engaging what they consider immorality whilst looking down on others, but someone, perhaps, who in the past has done wrong but is still putting forward their beliefs without pretense they are better than others.

To be a hypocrite is to tell others to not do what you are currently doing, or hide what you have done, or to pretend you are better than others who do what you have done. Simply not living up to your beliefs but still believing in them and advocating for them is not necessarily hypocrisy. You would no doubt recognise this in cases that did not involve nasty conservatives.

The big hoopla is because she is a person of power and choose to deny others their constitutional liberties yet she does not restrain herself from the same "higher" authority that she willingly forces on others.

Rather simple context to consider. We can end here with we me still believing she's a hypocrite and you not. I'm fine with that.

Hypocrisy is a simple concept. We are all hypocrites but some matters deserve more visibility and attention than others. That is where the subjectiveness lies between you and I.

Your concept of hypocrisy is simplistic and lacking any suitable nuance and distinctions. There is also something bordering on the ironic in the fact you are so ready to do all you can to morally look down on this woman for herself allegedly doing so to others.

 

[Baladas]

She is entitled to make her own choices, but every action has a consequence.

 

[suncowiam]

To be a hypocrite is to tell others to not do what you are currently doing, or hide what you have done, or to pretend you are better than others who do what you have done. Simply not living up to your beliefs but still believing in them and advocating for them is not necessarily hypocrisy. You would no doubt recognise this in cases that did not involve nasty conservatives.

Didn't I already suggest this many times. She's not living to God's standards yet, she's forcing God's standards on others?

How does this not fit with your definition? Let me just really simplify this with your first definition: "To be a hypocrite is to tell others to not do what you are currently doing."

This is probably going to open another can of worms. You involved time by mentioning her past versus the present, but that is relative. A second is short to me. Is a lifetime short to God? Who qualified her to be absolved of her divorces if the general consensus of a Christian marriage is to not divorce? Heck, some could identify her as an adulterer? Again, I don't make these rules up. She does and other Christians.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You haven't shown she isn't living up to God's standards. You seem to be basing this on her previous divorces. But, firstly, you haven't her position is these are wrong - many Christians, conservative Christians, accept the legitimacy of divorce. Secondly, these divorces are not her current behaviour. I believe they were before her consensus.

But, anyway, I don't see why her past actions mean she is a hypocrite for using her authority in the way she has. If she is not hiding her past behaviour (accepting now for the sake of argument her behaviour is against her beliefs), or pretending she is perfect, or anything like that, it is not hypocritical, necessarily, to still put forward and advocate for your beliefs, or to use your authority to support them.

Hypocrisy is about the manner in which approach our advise, preaching, and authority. What you are advocating would essentially mean you have to abandon your ideals if you fall away from them. This is nonsense and you would recognise it as such, no doubt, if the issues were different and it wasn't a conservative Christian we were discussing.

 

[suncowiam]

You haven't shown she isn't living up to God's standards. You seem to be basing this on her previous divorces. But, firstly, you haven't her position is these are wrong - many Christians, conservative Christians, accept the legitimacy of divorce. Secondly, these divorces are not her current behaviour. I believe they were before her consensus.

But, anyway, I don't see why her past actions mean she is a hypocrite for using her authority in the way she has. If she is not hiding her past behaviour (accepting now for the sake of argument her behaviour is against her beliefs), or pretending she is perfect, or anything like that, it is not hypocritical, necessarily, to still put forward and advocate for your beliefs, or to use your authority to support them.

Hypocrisy is about the manner in which approach our advise, preaching, and authority. What you are advocating would essentially mean you have to abandon your ideals if you fall away from them. This is nonsense and you would recognise it as such, no doubt, if the issues were different and it wasn't a conservative Christian we were discussing.

Well, neither have you then concerning Christian standards. So this just boils to the definition of a Christian marriage. You can quote your conservative Christian sources and I'm sure I can find more extreme conservative Christian source. Ahhh, this just starts another debate concerning the consistency of religion.

If you read through the whole thread, you will find that I mentioned earlier I would also be against a gay clerk that chose to deny religious partners their wedding certificates.

I would call this gay clerk a hypocrite if he/she happened to already be married.

You know, a proper debate focuses on the subject and not the debaters unless the debate is about the debaters.

I'm going to exit this conversation. Thank you.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, I support people's right to be hypocrites.
But this gal is refusing to do her job.
I don't care what her reasons are.
She must quit or obey the court order.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Well, neither have you then concerning Christian standards. So this just boils to the definition of a Christian marriage. You can quote your conservative Christian sources and I'm sure I can find more extreme conservative Christian source. Ahhh, this just starts another debate concerning the consistency of religion.

I'm not sure what you mean. Her being a hypocrite surely has little to do with whether we think her beliefs are consistent but whether her behaviour is consistent with her beliefs. The only exception might be if her beliefs seemed like special pleading so that she exempted herself from the standards of others. But this isn't the case

If you read through the whole thread, you will find that I mentioned earlier I would also be against a gay clerk that chose to deny religious partners their wedding certificates.

I would call this gay clerk a hypocrite if he/she happened to already be married.

You know, a proper debate focuses on the subject and not the debaters unless the debate is about the debaters.

I'm going to exit this conversation. Thank you.

I was simply searching for a reason for your very strange ideas about hypocrisy. I just don't see how anyone could apply them broadly. They don't make sense.

 

[ChristineES]

A friend of mine and I have been discussing this on Facebook. He stated that by putting her in jail rather than just suspending her from her job (they can't fire her) is having a rather unexpected side-effect. It is making her into a hero in the eyes of the conservative Christians. If they had just suspended her, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this at all.

 

[Jainarayan]

A hero has to accomplish something to be worthy of being a hero. She'll lose her job, same sex couples will still be allowed to marry, and she will not even be a footnote in the history books. She'll pass like a fart in the wind after the stink she's caused. She will have accomplished nothing.

 

[Skwim]

A friend of mine and I have been discussing this on Facebook. He stated that by putting her in jail rather than just suspending her from her job (they can't fire her) is having a rather unexpected side-effect. It is making her into a hero in the eyes of the conservative Christians. If they had just suspended her, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this at all.

From everything I've read, she can't be suspended. That is, told "You're free to go wherever you want, but you can't come back to work until told to."

 

[columbus]

If they had just suspended her, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this at all.

Who is "they" and what does "suspended" mean in this context?
She is an elected official. The rules are different.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? The problem here is that she believes her religion absolves her from an obligation to keep her oaths. That is why we are talking about this.
Tom

 

[ChristineES]

Who is "they" and what does "suspended" mean in this context?
She is an elected official. The rules are different.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? The problem here is that she believes her religion absolves her from an obligation to keep her oaths. That is why we are talking about this.
Tom

About 20 years ago, here in California, we, in a sense, fired our governor, Gray Davis. This was years before the end of his term. We then had a special election and people voted in Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not as hard as you think to get rid of an elected official.

 

[ChristineES]

A hero has to accomplish something to be worthy of being a hero. She'll lose her job, same sex couples will still be allowed to marry, and she will not even be a footnote in the history books. She'll pass like a fart in the wind after the stink she's caused. She will have accomplished nothing.

Well, she's not going to be a hero to you. I said she was turning into a hero for conservative Christians and others who support her.
I don't see her as a hero. But she is standing up for what she believes in and that's what people see.