Is this any different than the clerk denying blacks or Latinos a license? What would we do if a clerk claimed doing so violated their beliefs?

Kim Davis' job is to issue legal documents (marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.). A marriage license is a document that the state recognizes as two individuals being legally married. That means the married couple has property rights, parental rights, insurance coverage, etc. She is not doing her job in issuing documents that the the courts says she is required to do.

Throw this one in the cell with her as well.

 

This Kentucky Clerk Vows To Die For The Right To Oppose Gay Marriage

Throw this one in the cell with her as well.

 

This Kentucky Clerk Vows To Die For The Right To Oppose Gay Marriage

 

Casey County Clerk rides across state in support of Kim Davis

 

 

 

Hopefully he'll just keep on pedaling when he gets to Paducah.

Contempt of court.

 

Judge has to hand down that charge, right?

Him using the "war on Christianity" is absurd. Both of these clerks and most of the people sticking up for them would be the first people in line protesting a Muslim refusing to do something the law required and calling for them to quite, go to jail, and even to "go back home".

 

It's because of people like these two were I tend to agree with the people who say that any hint of any religion should not enter politics or anyway this county is ran.

Judge has to hand down that charge, right?

 

Yes but since a judge has told her "issue marriage certificates" and she has not, the judge can now throw that charge at her. It'll be interesting to see if the judge does.

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

You created scenarios to back your logic. We all know her stance and her logic. She's made that clear.

Yes but since a judge has told her "issue marriage certificates" and she has not, the judge can now throw that charge at her. It'll be interesting to see if the judge does.

 

Judges don't like to be shown up, I think he/she will charge her.

Casey County Clerk rides across state in support of Kim Davis

 

 

 

Hopefully he'll just keep on pedaling when he gets to Paducah.

 

I read today that he was appearing on radio in WVa. They can keep him.

Judges don't like to be shown up, I think he/she will charge her.

 

Judges also like to get re-elected and if I'll bet they weigh that in their decision to bring or not bring contempt charges. I believe they could find her in contempt but not issue a warrant and cover all the bases.

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.

 

I agree, lawildcat. I don't think the definition means you have to have all of those things in the list to be recognized. For instance, what is an "etc." It was just listing some of the ways society recognizes a marriage. It is through a civil ceremony, or a religious ceremony, or some other means where it is publicly witnessed and recognized as legitimate.

 

@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.

 

The clerk is not discriminating against gay people. She is simply applying the definition of marriage that has been accepted in our nation and culture for hundreds of years. In fact, I am sure she has never inquired whether someone was gay when issuing a marriage license. I know several people who are homosexual but got married to a member of the opposite sex and have been so for twenty years+. Clearly, they are not discriminated against. They too may marry. What the clerk objects to is sanctioning a relationship that is not really a marriage and trying to call it one.

 

See the definition I provided of marriage. Under that definition two people of the same sex cannot get married. It is a contradiction of terms. Has nothing to do with a bigotry against gay people. I am sure she would not issue a marriage license to two heterosexual people of the same sex either. Say they were good friends who are in their 70's or 80's and they want to protect their property and have their friend make end of life decisions if it comes to that. They could, I suppose, get married under the new law with no intention of having a sexual relationship. The clerk would also deny them a license. She doesn't discriminate against people for their sexual orientation. She just is insisting that they adhere to the proper understanding of what constitutes a marriage.

 

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

 

It does give the public a right to the free exercise of religion. I suppose there may be a case when a law is passed that actually violates that right. It will need to be sorted out and it may take some time. Dred Scott denied that all people were created equal. the SCOTUS missed it on that one. That took some time, plus a civil war to get straightened out.

 

Listen, I have stated several times that I think this clerk will lose her case and be forced to issue a license, unless of course the state reps write a new law that takes it out of the hands of clerks before the process gets worked out. I think the SCOTUS gives the state no choice but to issue licenses to same-sex couples. This clerk will have to decide whether she can continue to be a county clerk or resign. I think it is headed there.

 

By the way, rights are not given to us by the government. If so, they can be removed by the government. Rights are given to us by our Creator, so says the Declaration of Independence. Don't ever forget that. The government does not have the authority to grant rights or take away rights. Your freedom depends on that fact.

 

Folks, I don't disagree that SCOTUS gives public officials little choice but to allow gay marriage. I just think it is an overreach of the government to do so. And that is what this is all about.

Judges also like to get re-elected and if I'll bet they weigh that in their decision to bring or not bring contempt charges. I believe they could find her in contempt but not issue a warrant and cover all the bases.

 

Federal judges are not elected, they are appointed.

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?

 

 

Those who bring up a marriage being "annulled", I think that process is a bunch of crap too.

 

The definition isn't only Biblical. It is the definition carried by western culture for hundreds of years. Precedent favors the traditional view of marriage and yes, it agrees with the Biblical def. No reason to throw it out. We'd have to throw out a ton of laws if that was the case.

 

I agree, you don't have to be married in a Christian church to be really married. It is a creational ordinance intended for all people of all cultures. It is the foundation of family and society.

 

And I also agree, annullment is not much different than divorce in most cases. I mentioned it only to be inclusive when talking about divorce and Christian convictions. It had to do with a secondary point brought up by someone else.

 

Is this any different than the clerk denying blacks or Latinos a license? What would we do if a clerk claimed doing so violated their beliefs?

 

It is very different. The definition of marriage never excluded people due to ethnicity. Neither is there a long standing tradition in any religion to do so. I was a matter of convenience for racists in this country to invent a religious justification for slavery and then it carried over to views on interracial marriage. But the truth is, you cannot find this as a long standing tradition among Chrisians. It only occurred in this context, arrived at late, because of obvious racisim. This is easily refuted.

 

Him using the "war on Christianity" is absurd. Both of these clerks and most of the people sticking up for them would be the first people in line protesting a Muslim refusing to do something the law required and calling for them to quite, go to jail, and even to "go back home".

 

It's because of people like these two were I tend to agree with the people who say that any hint of any religion should not enter politics or anyway this county is ran.

 

I would support a Muslim objecting to the redefinition of marriage.

 

If religion were not involved in government you would not have the Constitution of the U.S. nor the Declaration of Independence. The worldview that led to these documents came from the Bible primarily, not secularism. A secular worldview is not a good starting point for "unalienable rights." I agree, no one religion should be sanctioned by the government. Separation there is valuable. But if you think that not allowing religious views to influence public policy is a good idea, I hope you don't live long enough to see it or suffer the natural consequences. Ask those who lived during the Soviet Union or Romania prior to 1989.

 

 

 

The clerk is not discriminating against gay people. She is simply applying the definition of marriage that has been accepted in our nation and culture for hundreds of years. In fact, I am sure she has never inquired whether someone was gay when issuing a marriage license. I know several people who are homosexual but got married to a member of the opposite sex and have been so for twenty years+. Clearly, they are not discriminated against. They too may marry. What the clerk objects to is sanctioning a relationship that is not really a marriage and trying to call it one.

 

It does not matter what HAS BEEN accepted. The law TODAY matters. She doesn't get to pick and choose.

 

Yes, she has 1000% freedom of religion. That means she gets to go to church where she wants and express her views as a citizen. It does NOT mean she gets to serve the public as clerk and IMPOSE her religious views.

 

This is such a non-debate that I'm shocked it's still being debated. She is IN VIOLATION of the law. She's not the Queen. Abide by CURRENT law or get the hell out of the office.