Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[robinb]

No, but I think the language is quite clear. "...And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery..."

So, if an abused man or woman remarries after divorce, then yes, according to Jesus, it is adultery. That is why, in my faith tradition, divorce, while not encouraged in most cases, is technically allowed but remarriage after divorce without an annulment is absolutely not allowed. No easy ways out for those who just want what they want when they want it, while trying to deprive others of the same rights.

I did not make those rules, nor do I personally feel they are absolute. But you say that Kim Harris is not a hypocrite but she is selectively enforcing biblical rules if she is issuing marriage licenses to anybody who has previously been divorced. If enforcing a biblical view of marriage is truly a heaven or hell decision for her, then following the direct words of somebody central to her faith tradition would seem to be de rigueur. Otherwise, it's hypocritical hate.

I don't understand what your last sentence means, so I cannot reflect on that.

ETA: I did confirm that the Kentucky Marriage License application DOES ask about prior marriages and status, including "divorced" so the information is provided to her for her review and enforcement under her "biblical view of marriage." http://chfs.ky.gov/nr/rdonlyres/584f6c35-f594-4275-95cb-0bc730b1c752/0/marriageregs.pdf

Great post! Believe me, more people would have been kicking up a fuss a lot earlier if she refused to issue marriage licences to divorced people because it goes against her religious beliefs. That fact that she has no problem marrying divorced people making them adulterers and ten commandment sinners in the eyes of her own religion but refuses to marry same sex couples is absolutely hypocritical.

 

[Christine]

That's not how I read it at all. I see him saying that anyone who makes a death threat because they disagree with someone else is not morally, ethically, spiritually or whatever they think superior. He stated it as a fact. He said IF it happened, which also implies that since the only evidence of death threats came from Davis' family. He did not imply a "two wrongs" argument at all. Your suggested alternative sentence is a complete non sequitur which did not flow with the conversation in this thread prior to what he added. Read what you quoted and read the post he just responded to. You don't see how interpreting what he said that way is reaching?

I was just offering a suggestion on why another poster might have been taking it that way (reading dialogue between sam_gordon and Wishing On A Star).

At the time of the post, yesterday now, and in the heat of the dialogue, it could have been construed as some sort of defense of Smith..albeit mildy. It's just the way it was worded. I'm not saying IT.IS.THAT.WAY but could be taken that way, and apparently was.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Mike Huckabee has tweeted that he is going to Kentucky to support her and to help end religious persecution.

Mike huckabee the man who said that he would fire atheists from public office which is against article six of the constitution.

 

[kimblebee]

Mike huckabee the man who said that he would fire atheists from public office which is against article six of the constitution.

I'm not agreeing with him at all... I was just reporting it.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm not agreeing with him at all... I was just reporting it.

According to some, reporting items means you agree with them or something.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Christopher Ciccone.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/madonnas-brother-defends-jailed-clerk-820753

 

[kaytieeldr]

sam_gordon:

I think the issue here might be in the way/tone you posted your initial point on the death threats. Here's what you said:



To be honest, in reading that statement in that way, it sounds as if you are trying to make it about "two wrongs" and now we're equal. I can see that later on you said you were not trying to do that and I believe you, but the way your wrote that the first time, it kind of sounded that way.

If you had stated:

That would have been a point/fact that was brought up as a point of interest.

The "that is just as wrong as what Davis did" seems like an attempt to exonerate or dilute her actions a bit.

Inferring that two thoughts are connected simply because they're presented by a single person is on the reader, not the writer. The person initially quoted is experienced in making clear statements.

Marriage is supposed to be between two people who are Godly.

No.

The definition of "marriage" would first have to be determined by His standards, not ours.

And no.
Nothing in the Bing definition indicates the requirement of religious beliefs of any kind in relation to or as a requirement for marriage:
" mar·riage
[ˈmarij]

NOUN

1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
   "a happy marriage"
   synonyms: wedding · wedding ceremony · marriage ceremony · nuptials ·
   divorce · separation
   
   • (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
   • the state of being married:
     "they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"
     synonyms: (holy) matrimony · wedlock
2. a combination or mixture of two or more elements:
   "a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"
   synonyms: union · alliance · fusion · mixture · mix · blend · amalgamation ·
   separation
   • (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit. "

 

[PaulaSB12]

According to some, reporting items means you agree with them or something.

No it was meant just as a measure of the man, a man who doesn't believe in his own constitution. By the way someone found the church's statement of faith and she is not obeying them
17. Governmental authority is respected and obeyed. Members serve in a non-combatant status in the military. Oaths are not taken, but truth is affirmed.

http://www.apostolicchristian.org/page.cfm?p=555

 

[Christine]

Inferring that two thoughts are connected simply because they're presented by a single person is on the reader, not the writer. The person initially quoted is experienced in making clear statements.

Exactly. And if you read my post as to what I was saying:

1. I made a caveat in that particular post that the poster later clarified that they were not imply such things.
2. I gave an example/excuse as to a why a particular poster might have "inferred" that.

Are you now thinking that because I came back and gave some sort of rationale for board behavior that I also inferred that meaning? I just explained how it could possibly be taken that way in the heat of posting at that particular snapshot of time on the thread.

See my later post:

I was just offering a suggestion on why another poster might have been taking it that way (reading dialogue between sam_gordon and Wishing On A Star).

At the time of the post, yesterday now, and in the heat of the dialogue, it could have been construed as some sort of defense of Smith..albeit mildy. It's just the way it was worded. I'm not saying IT.IS.THAT.WAY but could be taken that way, and apparently was.

 

[PaulaSB12]

According to the New York times she was offered a deal. She didn't have to hand out marriages licenses but her deputies would, she refused that. So according to her not only can she refuse because of what she believes she can override the opinions of her deputies

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release.

 

[luvsJack]

Inferring that two thoughts are connected simply because they're presented by a single person is on the reader, not the writer. The person initially quoted is experienced in making clear statements.

No. And no.
Nothing in the Bing definition indicates the requirement of religious beliefs of any kind in relation to or as a requirement for marriage:
" mar·riage
[ˈmarij]

NOUN

1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
   "a happy marriage"
   synonyms: wedding · wedding ceremony · marriage ceremony · nuptials ·
   divorce · separation
   
   • (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
   • the state of being married:
     "they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"
     synonyms: (holy) matrimony · wedlock
2. a combination or mixture of two or more elements:
   "a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"
   synonyms: union · alliance · fusion · mixture · mix · blend · amalgamation ·
   separation
   • (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit. "

ROFL seriously? Bing?

When I said "His definition" I did not mean anything you will find in a dictionary.

 

[luvsJack]

No it was meant just as a measure of the man, a man who doesn't believe in his own constitution. By the way someone found the church's statement of faith and she is not obeying them
17. Governmental authority is respected and obeyed. Members serve in a non-combatant status in the military. Oaths are not taken, but truth is affirmed.

http://www.apostolicchristian.org/page.cfm?p=555

Yeah I said earlier that she was not following what is taught about following the laws of government. I didn't know about her particular faith but I knew I had heard it many times.

She was wrong, imho. She should have stepped down. I think that by putting her in jail she is being made a martyr. But I also think that others on the oposite side of this are using argumements against her that are not valid.

She was wrong because she went against the law. Not because of her past life and not because she issued other marriage license.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

ROFL seriously? Bing?

When I said "His definition" I did not mean anything you will find in a dictionary.

But those of us who don't believe in your imaginary friend in the sky don't care about "His" supposed definition of anything. We care about the legal definitions.

 

[plutotek]

No, but I think the language is quite clear. "...And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery..."

So, if an abused man or woman remarries after divorce, then yes, according to Jesus, it is adultery. That is why, in my faith tradition, divorce, while not encouraged in most cases, is technically allowed but remarriage after divorce without an annulment is absolutely not allowed. No easy ways out for those who just want what they want when they want it, while trying to deprive others of the same rights.

I did not make those rules, nor do I personally feel they are absolute. But you say that Kim Harris is not a hypocrite but she is selectively enforcing biblical rules if she is issuing marriage licenses to anybody who has previously been divorced. If enforcing a biblical view of marriage is truly a heaven or hell decision for her, then following the direct words of somebody central to her faith tradition would seem to be de rigueur. Otherwise, it's hypocritical hate.

I don't understand what your last sentence means, so I cannot reflect on that.

ETA: I did confirm that the Kentucky Marriage License application DOES ask about prior marriages and status, including "divorced" so the information is provided to her for her review and enforcement under her "biblical view of marriage." http://chfs.ky.gov/nr/rdonlyres/584f6c35-f594-4275-95cb-0bc730b1c752/0/marriageregs.pdf

And these are just some examples of why I live my life based on the real world and not some book of fairytales. The clerk is every bit the sanctimonious idiot as the judge in Tennessee refusing to grant divorces.

 

[kydisneyfans]

Here's my guess... she'll sit in jail through the end of the year. In January, she tells the judge she'll resign. He lets her out, she resigns, and then collects her pension. Meanwhile, while she's in jail, she still receives her paycheck. What do you think? Would you spend 3 months in jail to collect an $80K pension?

She's not worried 1 bit about her pension. She will walk out the door a millionaire with book and movie deals waiting to be signed. Gofundme rejected the cause, but other crowdsourcing sites are up and running, and are being funded.

 

[luvsJack]

But those of us who don't believe in your imaginary friend in the sky don't care about "His" supposed definition of anything. We care about the legal definitions.

And its comments like this that start the arguements. You are not smarter, or more sophisticated or more anything because you do not believe so stop. You can state your beliefs without being insulting to mine.

I was responding to her response to what I said about a quote from the pp posted from the Bible. So yes that would be about His definition.

 

[luvsJack]

And these are just some examples of why I live my life based on the real world and not some book of fairytales. The clerk is every bit the sanctimonious idiot as the judge in Tennessee refusing to grant divorces.

What she is doing has nothing to do with living a life by the Bible. Nor the judge in TN.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I don't see where I said I was smarter or more sophisticated or more anything??

I think the arguments start (and problems like Kim Davis's behaviours) when some people take their beliefs about what their "god" wants in terms of marriage or anything else, and then try to impose it on others. What we should be concerned about are the legal definitions of marriage, which apply to all.

 

[plutotek]

What she is doing has nothing to do with living a life by the Bible. Nor the judge in TN.

ROFL!!!! Oh, wait, you're serious.....

 

[mnrose]

And which God and which beliefs are we all comfortable being imposed on us by governmental officials? That question has been asked repeatedly in this thread, and not one supporter of Ms. Davis (granted there are only a few) has answered that question. Is if "ok" for a Muslim clerk to deny driver's licenses to women because they believe in a type of Islam where women are not allowed to drive? Is it ok for a Quaker clerk to deny concealed carry permits because she is a pacifist?

This is why our forefathers were quite clear that there is a separation of church and state. There is NO state religion in this country, and even if Christianity was "the" religion in America (which it is not), there is no singularly agreed or accepted Christian doctrine on many, many issues. Gay marriage being a perfect example. People are free to believe and follow ANY religion (or none at all) they want. But, they need to check that religion at the door when they are performing the duties of their governmental job. Do the duties of the job. If your conscious (and/or religion) dictates that you cannot perform certain duties, then get a different job. Ms. Davis is no martyr. She is an idiot.