In my cursory googling of "sanctuary cities" I see generally what you described.

 

I'm not sure how a city can make an official policy that goes against Federal law. Seems to be more of a situation of "I'll turn my head this way so I don't see something I shouldn't see."

 

If there's a way to show that someone intentionally violated a law, like this lady in Rowan County, then it's no different. They have to pay the price.

 

I'm stunned this lady still has a job.

 

According to Wikipedia, the city of Madison, Wisconsin back in the 80's passed an ordinance forbidding city employees from cooperating with immigration officials. And from what I've read, most of the cities don't allow their law enforcement officials to ask about a person's immigration status.

Clyde said: Didn't the SCOTUS define a marriage?

 

This is my point. She has a quarrel with how SCOTUS defined marriage. She does not hate gay people and therefore has gone out looking for ways to discriminate against them.

 

I think she probably treats everyone the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

She refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. She probably would refuse to issue a marriage license to two heterosexual women who asked for one in the same way she refuses to issue it to two homosexual women.

 

She has issued marriage licenses to couples where the partners are of the opposite sex. I think she would probably issue a marriage license to an opposite sex couple even in the event that one of more of them were homosexual. She probably wouldn't ever even ask.

 

In this way she is treating all people the same. They have equal access. That is why I said she is not discriminating against gay people as a class of people. She just only recognizes marriage as between opposite sexes. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether she issues the license. Whether the partners are marriageable is.

Edited August 28, 201511 yr by oldgrappler
include what I was responding to

 

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.

 

So Jefferson was influenced by the Bible and not the times known as the Age of Enlightenment? Which Bible? Was it the one he edited himself? The influence was more than the Bible. Deists were not Orthodox believers let alone Evangelical in their theology.

Hatz, that does not discount what I said. I am not one that says the only influence on the founders was the Bible. But they were influenced by the Bible. It is the most quoted document by the founders. It also is responsible for much of Western Culture and so it also had an indirect influence on the men of the 18th century as well. You could not have the freedoms the founders sought without the influence of the Bible. No, not all of the founders were evangelical believers but they respected the foundations of evangelical faith.

Do you feel that way about Dred Scott? Should everyone have gone along with that law because it was the law of the land? It is hard to be consistent, isn't it? Especially when dealing with fallible humans making the laws.

 

I wasn't around the time so I can only speculate.

 

Had I been an elected official whose job was to enforce CURRENT law then I would hope I would have either done my job properly or stepped down because of my PERSONAL issues.

 

I can't believe you would object to the whites at Oberlin College who ignored the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that required anyone who found an escaped slave to return him/her to the owner. An escaped slave came to them and was pursued by slave-catchers. They hid the slave. But he was eventually caught and was o stand trial and would be sent back with the slave-catchers. The Oberlinites arrested the slave catchers and held them on a charge of kidnapping. The effect was that there were no witnesses in the next county to identify the African as an escaped slave. A deal was struck for the release of the slave-catchers and in return the escaped slave was spirited off to another location and on to Canada.

 

You surely would not tell the Oberlin abolitionists to cooperate with the law of the land by returning the escaped slave to captivity! I would not. The Oberlin abolitionists did the right thing.

 

You see that the law of the land created a crisis of conscience for a lot of people in that day. That is what is happening for the County Clerk in Rowan County. She is opposing the overreach of government. For her, it is a crisis of conscience. She is going to lose but I respect her position. I don't respect the action of the SCOTUS.

You see that the law of the land created a crisis of conscience for a lot of people in that day. That is what is happening for the County Clerk in Rowan County. She is opposing the overreach of government. For her, it is a crisis of conscience. She is going to lose but I respect her position. I don't respect the action of the SCOTUS.

 

C'mon, you can't possibly compare active abolitionists to this lady. That is beyond a stretch. I understand your broader point, but c'mon.

 

The Dred Scott decision was assuredly a black eye on our country, but even if I disagreed with Obergefell, it has nothing to do with the present situation. I realize you are using it to point out that sometimes SCOTUS gets it wrong, but Dred Scott solidified the fact that blacks essentially had no rights. The present case explicitly stated a right that belongs to all. The right to marry. Davis isn't allowing someone to do something they don't have the right to, she is imposing her personal views on others at the expense of their rights as US citizens.

 

I'm having a difficult time following your position because you seemingly go back and forth between holding a traditionalist viewpoint vs. citing religious arguments. Times change. They always have and they always will. The Supreme Court holding wasn't one of interpreting a federal law or telling individuals they cannot do something. The Court explicitly gave individuals the right to marry through substantive due process. This is essentially no different than the right to vote, have a gun, or go to church. I'm not saying the rights can't eventually be limited, but once enumerated, the Court generally isn't in the business of taking them away.

Clyde said: Didn't the SCOTUS define a marriage?

 

This is my point. She has a quarrel with how SCOTUS defined marriage. She does not hate gay people and therefore has gone out looking for ways to discriminate against them.

 

I think she probably treats everyone the same regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

She refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. She probably would refuse to issue a marriage license to two heterosexual women who asked for one in the same way she refuses to issue it to two homosexual women.

 

She has issued marriage licenses to couples where the partners are of the opposite sex. I think she would probably issue a marriage license to an opposite sex couple even in the event that one of more of them were homosexual. She probably wouldn't ever even ask.

 

In this way she is treating all people the same. They have equal access. That is why I said she is not discriminating against gay people as a class of people. She just only recognizes marriage as between opposite sexes. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether she issues the license. Whether the partners are marriageable is.

 

Admittedly, I haven't completely thought this through, but a hypothetical came to mind that I might as well throw out here.

 

Let's ignore the fact that Davis is a government actor and all of the problems that arise with her actions associated with her position. Let's say that instead of being a county clerk Jane Doe holds some sort of position in a bank. She abhors all candidates and the Republican and Democrat parties in all major elections on religious grounds. She hates the fact that the Dems outwardly support abortion, and hates the fact that the Repubs run on a capitalistic platform that glorifies greed, not to mention their greater likelihood of supporting some sort of war. She can't in good conscience support anyone who professes any or all of these beliefs.

 

Let's say like Davis, Doe understands it is the law, but thinks that like Obergefell, the Supreme Court also just got the Citizens United decision wrong. In her banking position Jane has access to quite a few major accounts. She isn't targeting Republicans nor Democrats, and actually she doesn't even check to see to whom money is flowing. Jane places a hold on the accounts of all major PACs to any political party or candidate.

 

This is a problem, right? Those that share her religious beliefs might cheer her on, and those disgusted with campaign finance in this country might support her actions, but she's fired, right? Sure the PACs can bank somewhere else, but by taking matters into her own hands, she sure as heck discriminated against them.

 

Of course I'm not trying to conjure up sympathy for some of the sleaziest groups around, and surely we shouldn't all be lemmings, but I just find it disgusting when someone (e.g. Kim Davis) believes that not only does the law not apply to me, but I'm going to make sure that others can't benefit from it because I have my own conflict I can't get over. This is a "her" problem, not a "them" problem.

 

 

She refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

 

...she is treating all people the same. .

 

Gotta admit. I'm still not following this logic.

Bipsic, the Dred Scott comparison and the account of the aboltionists had a limited purpose--my discussion with Clyde in which he said the law of the land had to be obeyed. I agree that is the normal requirement. Sometimes, in limited circumstances, one cannot. The crisis of conscience for the clerk may be similar. I don't necessarily agree that it is, but no one seems willing to see it from her perspective. They keep asking, "How can she do this?" This is how.

 

Your comparison to the banking situation isn't the same as this. The clerk's actions were required of her prior to June 2015. In 2005 no one would have batted an eye at her refusal. Now she's considered a bigot, or one of the worst human beings you will find.

 

Regarding your other post where you state, "The Court explicitly gave individuals the right to marry through substantive due process." They didn't give individuals the right to marry. All individuals already had that right and could practice that right without hindrance. The court significantly changed the definition and nature of marriage to include same-sex couples. This right is no where to be found in the US constitution with its amendments. This is government overreach. I do agree the clerk is going to get squashed in this dispute. Since SCOTUS has established the law, she will not be allowed to protest for long.

 

mcpapa: I can't explain it any more clearly than I did in post #332 and other posts. I don't think you are having trouble in grasping the logic. It's pretty straightforward. You just don't agree with her stance.

mcpapa: I can't explain it any more clearly than I did in post #332 and other posts. I don't think you are having trouble in grasping the logic. It's pretty straightforward. You just don't agree with her stance.

 

I guess I'm just dense (wouldn't be the first time I couldn't comprehend something). I did take a logic class, but that was a long time ago. Maybe the SCOTUS has since changed how this stuff works. Taken from Post 332:

 

 

She refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

 

She has issued marriage licenses to couples where the partners are of the opposite sex.

 

And from post 325:

 

She treats everyone equally.

 

Gotta admit. I'm still not following this logic.

 

Agreed. If one person can marry the person they love, shouldn't all have that opportunity?

 

Overall, I still feel that the government should not be in control of marriage. Churches should make individual marriage decisions, while the government can issue civil union certificates.

^ please, that's touching but it doesn't work that way now or ever. You can't marry just anybody you love. Publicly recognized marital unions have never been only about who a person loves. This is propaganda we've been hearing for the last ten years, nothing less.

It really boggles my mind that you continue to defend blatant bigotry and discrimination.

 

She needs to either resign or be thrown in jail, end of story. Actually she should be thrown in jail regardless for contempt of court.

^ please, that's touching but it doesn't work that way now or ever. You can't marry just anybody you love. Publicly recognized marital unions have never been only about who a person loves. This is propaganda we've been hearing for the last ten years, nothing less.

Where I get lost in her and I guess your logic is using her religious beliefs to make this stance. How is issue a state marriage license going against her religious beliefs? It's a piece of paper that allows them shared benefits by the state and federal government. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not force any regular citizen, church, or religion to recognize the marriage or perform the ceremony.

Clyde said: Didn't the SCOTUS define a marriage?

 

This is my point. She has a quarrel with how SCOTUS defined marriage. .

 

I don't mind her "quarrel." She just can't go about it this way. Resign and take up the cause but you can't keep your job AND deny people their rights.