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

[Shadow Wolf]

No, she went to jail at her discretion because she refused to obey a court order. This is not discrimination, but an application of law.

Her discretion to refuse a court order was an order to issue same-sex couples a marriage certificates. And I doubt Jo meant the court making her face the consequences of her actions is discrimination, but rather that her refusal to issue those certificates is discrimination.

 

[Skwim]

Her discretion to refuse a court order was an order to issue same-sex couples a marriage certificates. And I doubt Jo meant the court making her face the consequences of her actions is discrimination, but rather that her refusal to issue those certificates is discrimination.

I believe you're right, and have removed my comment. Thank you for the heads-up.

 

[ChristineES]

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? It doesn't work that way in practice, unfortunately.

You do realize they are supposed to. The problem is that we, as a people, have become apathetic.

 

[Cephus]

You do realize they are supposed to. The problem is that we, as a people, have become apathetic.

That is very true and unfortunate, but we can't point fingers at the government, it's the people who have failed to hold them accountable. If things are ever going to change, it's the voters that are going to have to make the effort and if they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[JoStories]

I thought the judge made it very clear that the case revolved around her breaking the oath she took. She didn't uphold her oath as a government official, which means she not only broke her oath, she broke the law.

?? Isn't it that she refused to issue the licenses, which did break her oath. Am I getting this wrong? The oath was to do her job, which in refusing the license, broke the oath.

 

[JoStories]

You do realize they are supposed to. The problem is that we, as a people, have become apathetic.

This is incredibly true. Look at the fact that the person leading the pack for our next president is Trump. Can you imagine? What kind of first lady will his arm candy wife make for us? Yet the overwhelming amount of people that want him makes me seriously sick.

 

[JoStories]

Her discretion to refuse a court order was an order to issue same-sex couples a marriage certificates. And I doubt Jo meant the court making her face the consequences of her actions is discrimination, but rather that her refusal to issue those certificates is discrimination.

Yes, that is what I meant. Did I miss something?

 

[Quetzal]

This is incredibly true. Look at the fact that the person leading the pack for our next president is Trump. Can you imagine? What kind of first lady will his arm candy wife make for us? Yet the overwhelming amount of people that want him makes me seriously sick.

I think his popularity is exaggerated. While he might lead the GOP polls, I do not believe he leads any national polls. I believe his supporters are a vocal minority.

 

[Jainarayan]

?? Isn't it that she refused to issue the licenses, which did break her oath. Am I getting this wrong? The oath was to do her job, which in refusing the license, broke the oath.

Not only that, she injected her religious beliefs into the procedures of a secular government. Religious freedoms have limits, a concept which which she and too many other people fail to understand.

 

[columbus]

This all reminds me of when Christians were rallying in the defense of Scott Roeder who murdered George Tiller.

Roeder's religious beliefs were such that he considered shooting someone in church justifiable. And lots of Christians agreed.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

This all reminds me of when Christians were rallying in the defense of Scott Roeder who murdered George Tiller.

Roeder's religious beliefs were such that he considered shooting someone in church justifiable. And lots of Christians agreed.
Tom

I just read up on this.

It's enough justification when its perceived that God is on your side.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

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.

I agree with you.

 

[JoStories]

I think his popularity is exaggerated. While he might lead the GOP polls, I do not believe he leads any national polls. I believe his supporters are a vocal minority.

One can hope you are right. However, look at the other candidates. Not much in the way of a good choice, non?

 

[Quetzal]

One can hope you are right. However, look at the other candidates. Not much in the way of a good choice, non?

I am a Bernie fan myself.

 

[Akivah]

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?

No, your example is still no good. You are still requiring perfection to allow a person to state principles. A better example would be if the Clerk of the Court stated that she was against homosexual marriage and was secretly married to a woman. Also, I'm not a Christian, my beliefs are Judaism.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No, your example is still no good. You are still requiring perfection to allow a person to state principles.

No, @suncowiam isn't requiring perfection; they're requiring consistency. Davis demonstrates hypocrisy by refusing to issue marriage licenses 'in violation of Biblical marriage' while at the same time her own marriage is by definition 'un-Biblical'. She was quite happy for a state official to issue at least one licence for her own un-Biblical marriage(s) yet is unhappy to do the same for others.

That is hypocrisy.

 

[Akivah]

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.

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.

 

[Skwim]

No, @suncowiam isn't requiring perfection; they're requiring consistency. Davis demonstrates hypocrisy by refusing to issue marriage licenses 'in violation of Biblical marriage' while at the same time her own marriage is by definition 'un-Biblical'. She was quite happy for a state official to issue at least one licence for her own un-Biblical marriage(s) yet is unhappy to do the same for others.

That is hypocrisy.

Although I detest the woman, I have to bring up the point that she has said she did not become a Christian until 2011, three years after her last divorce.

 

[Akivah]

No, @suncowiam isn't requiring perfection; they're requiring consistency. Davis demonstrates hypocrisy by refusing to issue marriage licenses 'in violation of Biblical marriage' while at the same time her own marriage is by definition 'un-Biblical'. She was quite happy for a state official to issue at least one licence for her own un-Biblical marriage(s) yet is unhappy to do the same for others.

That is hypocrisy.

Well, I'm at a disadvantage since I don't know the rules for Christian marriages or divorces or how her position is unbiblical in accordance with the Christian bible. In Judaism, divorce is acceptable for various reasons. I was going with the rules that I know.

Suncowiam's argument wasn't requiring consistency, but perfection. He stated that if she has a principle, but failed it on even one occasion, then she was a hypocrite. I dispute that position. Making mistakes doesn't equate to hypocrisy. We all have stated principles and we all make mistakes. Making a mistake does not require one to abandon their principles.

 

[suncowiam]

No, your example is still no good. You are still requiring perfection to allow a person to state principles. A better example would be if the Clerk of the Court stated that she was against homosexual marriage and was secretly married to a woman. Also, I'm not a Christian, my beliefs are Judaism.

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.