You asked if she had only been married once would her standing up for her beliefs be fine. I said that the number of marriages is immaterial. You don't get to stand up for your beliefs in her job. You stand up for the law.

 

I was asking PP92 for his thoughts on why he believed her beliefs were flawed. We weren't discussing whether she had an obligation to uphold the law.

If she was denying licenses to divorcees then I wouldn't have a problem with her standing up for her beliefs. At least she would be consistent then.

 

I also think she can stand up for her beliefs and still distribute marriage licenses.

 

I agree with your second statement. I think a Christian can find a way to issue marriage licenses and still stand up for his/her belief in traditional marriage.

 

I don't think your comparison of distributing marriage licenses to divorcees, which you say also would violate a religious conviction, is quite the same as distributing a marriage license to a gay couple and therefore requires her to refuse to do either or she is a hypocrite.

 

Not all divorcees are ineligible for re-marriage on religious grounds (Catholics get marriages annulled). For instance, the innocent party of an adulterous affair is not required to remain unmarried if the first marriage dissolves (according to many Christian religious traditions but not all). So she may issue marriage licenses to some people for whom it may be a second marriage. It may also be that the clerk cannot be expected to investigate whether a person meets her accepted religious criteria. It is beyond th purview of her job to do so.

 

But this is different than issuing a license to a same-sex couple because under no circumstance is a same-sex couple eligible to be married under the true definition of marriage. By definition, same-sex couples are ruled out as marriagable partners. Same-sex marriage is a contradiction of terms. It is a logical impossibility.

 

A clerk who refuse to hand out marriage licenses is acting in the only logical way possible for her to act when the definition of marriage requires one man and one woman. Partners of one sex simply cannot be married. The only way they can be married is if the definition of marriage changes.

 

The clerk in question does not believe the government has the right or ability to do that. Hence the crisis in conscience that she is experiencing.

 

You don't have to agree with her, but there is a logic to it that cannot be denied.

Edited August 27, 201511 yr by oldgrappler
sp

She has closed the office for "computer upgrades"

 

Rowan Clerk Kim Davis temporarily shuts down office for 'computer upgrades'

I agree with your second statement. I think a Christian can find a way to issue marriage licenses and still stand up for his/her belief in traditional marriage.

 

I don't think your comparison of distributing marriage licenses to divorcees, which you say also would violate a religious conviction, is quite the same as distributing a marriage license to a gay couple and therefore requires her to refuse to do either or she is a hypocrite.

 

Not all divorcees are ineligible for re-marriage on religious grounds (Catholics get marriages annulled). For instance, the innocent party of an adulterous affair is not required to remain unmarried if the first marriage dissolves (according to many Christian religious traditions but not all). So she may issue marriage licenses to some people for whom it may be a second marriage. It may also be that the clerk cannot be expected to investigate whether a person meets her accepted religious criteria. It is beyond th purview of her job to do so.

 

But this is different than issuing a license to a same-sex couple because under no circumstance is a same-sex couple eligible to be married under the true definition of marriage. By definition, same-sex couples are ruled out as marriagable partners. Same-sex marriage is a contradiction of terms. It is a logical impossibility.

 

A clerk who refuse to hand out marriage licenses is acting in the only logical way possible for her to act when the definition of marriage requires one man and one woman. Partners of one sex simple cannot be married. The only way they can be married is if the definition of marriage changes.

 

The clerk in question does not believe the government has the right or ability to do that. Hence the crisis in conscience that she is experiencing.

 

You don't have to agree with her, but there is a logic to it that cannot be denied.

 

IMO she is just being a hypocrite.

The fact that some individuals still have a theocratic view of this situation is baffling to me. And is the root of the issue.

They need to throw the bigoted hypocrite in jail.

About two months ago when the SCOTUS make their historic ruling, I asked this question, and it was never answered. IF the term marriage is ONLY Biblical, if it is ONLY religious, How do non-believers have marriage licenses? You do atheist have marriage licenses? But NOW that "the gays" (how it seems like some are taking about them) want and now able to get marriage there is an uproar about the wording?

 

Plain and simple, she needs to be thrown in jail for a few weeks, at least. If she says she will start issuing licenses to everyone, or she says that she will resign, then she will be left out of jail, ONLY after she has served at least 14 days. She had a job to do and she refused, she was ordered by the courts, she refused. Now she is having her people say that the other judges orders are still in effect. What part of the court process do they not understand? I would also make it known that if any of her employees listened to her orders to refuse that they too will be sent to jail.

 

Those who bring up a marriage being "annulled", I think that process is a bunch of crap too. She was elected to do a job, she needs to now do it, step aside, or be thrown in jail until she decides to do one of those. At this point, I hope that the county has dozens of gay couples come in wanting to get a marriage licenses and are all refused, and all couples sue the county! As I have said before, just the one couple is already going to cost the county at least 200K. Think if there are more couples, the county will go bankrupt. The people in that county need to think about how much money the county will lose, how many services will be lost, and how many jobs may be lost after she cost the county money in lawsuits.

She has closed the office for "computer upgrades"

 

Rowan Clerk Kim Davis temporarily shuts down office for 'computer upgrades'

:lol2: :lol2:

 

She deserves an A+++ for effort.

They need to throw the bigoted hypocrite in jail.

 

What are you going to charge her with?

Contempt of court.

IMO she is just being a hypocrite.

 

But can you refute her logic? My dictionary defines marriage as "the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

 

Her actions are entirely consistent with this time-tested and indisputed (until very recently) definition of marriage. This really is the crux of the issue.

 

Do you think she is acting illogically?

 

The fact that some individuals still have a theocratic view of this situation is baffling to me. And is the root of the issue.

 

This has nothing to do with theocracy. This has everything to do with western culture and the history of our nation. Marriage has never included homosexual relationships in western culture. It is contrary to nature and to logic. You don't have to be a Christian to hold that view at all. Most of our laws have a basis in the Biblical legal code. But we don't throw them out because a religious document includes a law against, say, stealing, for instance.

 

The root of the issue is that a post modern culture thinks words are meaningless and that we can make it up as we go. But this view does not match the reality of the universe we live in. You can't just make it up as you go and expect there to be no conflict. The word marriage has a very specific meaning and if you change it there will be far-reaching consequences.

 

So now, you have a clerk that says, "Just wait one minute. Do you realize what you've done? I can't go along with that." She is using the 1st amendment to press her case. I don't think she will win because a few activist judges changed the law and with it made up a new definition of a word. But she is right about her stance.

 

One more thing...

 

The definition of a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from his own."

 

So I ask, who is the bigot now? And if a hypocrite is someone who does the things they criticize in others, then I ask, who are the hypocrites now?

 

Go ahead, criticize the County Clerk, call her names, but you judge yourselves in doing so.

RE: Definition of marriage:

 

You don't have to have a legal committment AND a religious ceremony to be married. Take religion out of the equation as it does not have to be there. It's really that simple.

@oldgrappler, anyone who thinks another person should be denied equal rights solely based on their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation is a bigot in my book. Don't really give a crap about other definitions of it.

Oldgrappler - does the 1st Amendment give an elected official the right to pick and choose which laws he/she enforces?

RE: Definition of marriage:

 

You don't have to have a legal committment AND a religious ceremony to be married. Take religion out of the equation as it does not have to be there. It's really that simple.

 

What many seem to be missing here.