Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

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.

To be clear, in case it sounded like I was arguing for a stricter biblical interpretation, I most certainly was not! I was just pointing out that hurting others while cloaking oneself with the bible (or any religious text from any faith tradition) is an inauthentic and hypocritical canard.

I, personally, am very comfortable accepting that there is much we do not understand about the Universe. I think the impossibility of us processing it leads to multiple different anthropomorphizations of a higher power. But when anybody hides behind their interpretation to harm others, it is wrong to stand idly by and let it go unchallenged.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

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.

No, as this thread demonstrates quite clearly, the arguments are started when people (in this case, a clerk in Kentucky hiding behind her interpretation of her bible to openly defy the law she took an oath to uphold) use their faith to force their values on others.

Comments like the one you are challenging are the byproduct of those same people, e.g. the clerk in Kentucky, forcing their own versions of Sharia law on the rest of the nation, including those who do not share those beliefs. You do not see it that way, because you do not think that the beliefs of the clerk in Kentucky are hurtful and you believe that she's entitled to them. I understand that you repeatedly say that you do not agree with her flagrant contempt of court and that you say she should follow the law, but you do not acknowledge that she is hurting others through her views and that her attack on others, under the banner of her interpretation of her faith, is why threads like this begin.

 

[Ceila]

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

Yes, she was wrong because she refused to act according to the law. And I do agree that her past life choices have no bearing on her current disposition.

However, she IS a hypocrite for refusing to issue marriage licenses as soon as the same-sex-marriage ruling came down but not having refused to issue licenses to divorced people.

 

[kaytieeldr]

ROFL seriously? Bing?

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

Seriously? Disparaging a search engine?

Is Merriam-Webster more acceptable? "
mar·riage

\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\noun
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Full Definition
1
a (1) :the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b :the mutual relation of married persons :wedlock

c :the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
:an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially :the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities"

 

[luvsJack]

Seriously? Disparaging a search engine?

Is Merriam-Webster more acceptable? "
mar·riage

\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\noun
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Full Definition
1
a (1) :the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b :the mutual relation of married persons :wedlock

c :the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
:an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially :the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities"

Again, I am not talking about a definition found in a dictionary. You can quote every one you can find and its still NOT what I am talking about

 

[mnrose]

No, as this thread demonstrates quite clearly, the arguments are started when people (in this case, a clerk in Kentucky hiding behind her interpretation of her bible to openly defy the law she took an oath to uphold) use their faith to force their values on others.

Comments like the one you are challenging are the byproduct of those same people, e.g. the clerk in Kentucky, forcing their own versions of Sharia law on the rest of the nation, including those who do not share those beliefs. You do not see it that way, because you do not think that the beliefs of the clerk in Kentucky are hurtful and you believe that she's entitled to them. I understand that you repeatedly say that you do not agree with her flagrant contempt of court and that you say she should follow the law, but you do not acknowledge that she is hurting others through her views and that her attack on others, under the banner of her interpretation of her faith, is why threads like this begin.

Absolutely. Have whatever values/beliefs/faith you want. But, please don't tell me (and others) how to live our lives. Thank you.

You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex. Belong to a church that supports that Biblical interpretation. But, don't get on your pedestal and tell everyone else that THEY can't get married to someone of the same sex because YOU don't believe it is right. No one is "forcing" you to believe that gay marriage is correct or right or anything else merely because it exists.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Again, I am not talking about a definition found in a dictionary. You can quote every one you can find and its still NOT what I am talking about

And yet, the single definition at issue here is the legal one. You don't appear to be referencing any standard definition - merely your own beliefs.

A couple cannot go solely to a religious officiant and reasonably expect any entity to accept said religious union as legally binding in any manner. No representative of any higher being is necessary for a marriage to be legal.

 

[Gracie09]

Again, I am not talking about a definition found in a dictionary. You can quote every one you can find and its still NOT what I am talking about

But the only one that matters in this context is the legal definition. Some people believe in polygamy some in same sex marriage some in only opposite sex marriage. All of these have religious sects that would say their definition is the one that matters and the right one. But once you become an agent of the govt, the definition that matters is the one the govt recognizes. Marriage at its core is a contract entered into for the benefits of the parties. Part of those benefits are tax, and legal benefits the govt provides for spouses. By denying the citizens that meet the legal requirements of marriageS access to their benefits she is denying them their civil right

 

[tcufrog]

One could argue that the Bible includes separation of church and state in Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (KJV)

 

[matheke]

Just pointing out that according to the reports, she is the only person in the County that can sign marriage licenses. Now how does that happen? To me it is more of a problem with the Kentucky law than anything else. What happens if she is on vacation? No licenses issued. In the hospital for 6-8 weeks? No licenses issued. In jail for contempt? Still no licenses issued. Kentucky, Fix your law, give the authority to more than 1 person in that office so if the Clerk does not want to sign somebody else can.

 

[Christine]

Just pointing out that according to the reports, she is the only person in the County that can sign marriage licenses. Now how does that happen? To me it is more of a problem with the Kentucky law than anything else. What happens if she is on vacation? No licenses issued. In the hospital for 6-8 weeks? No licenses issued. In jail for contempt? Still no licenses issued. Kentucky, Fix your law, give the authority to more than 1 person in that office so if the Clerk does not want to sign somebody else can.

I believe that her signature (electronic) is the only one on the licenses but her deputies have the authority to issue them as long as she delegates that to them. She had been doing that up until that point. I think part of the reason she intervened on behalf of the deputies is that her electronic signature appears on documents that they approve.

 

[JimmyV]

What's funny is that if she were the Secretary of State for Kentucky and one of her responsibilities was to issue and renew business licenses, if she refused to grant or renew a license to any business that intended to do business on Sunday and did not "keep the Sabbath holy", do you think anyone would be running to her defense? If she caused the entire economic engine of the state to shut down because in her personal view, businesses should not be open on Sundays, would we be having this debate? Would anyone question her impeachment or imprisonment? No. This all boils down to the fact that she has chosen to take an insidiously prejudiced stance and not a consistent religious stance.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I bet morning services at the Rowan County Jail were fun this morning.

 

[JaxDad]

I've been wondering how this all works from a strictly legal point of view. Before the SCOTUS decision, KY had definitive statute(s) defining marriage and/or prohibiting specific marriages. (I'm on my phone and too lazy to check exactly what their law said.) The SCOTUS decision then establishes that all or part of certain individual state statutes are unconstitutional. It seems there needs to be an intervening process by the states to revise or remove statutes. Depending on how they are written, it may not be so straightforward. (Again, I don't know how KY's statute(s) were written.) All marriages may not be defined legally until the statute is revised. It may not have been appropriate legally to immediately start issuing marriage licences. I know that is not her reason, but maybe that is why Ms Davis was found in contempt in a federal court and not a state court????

Again, I was just wondering. Please don't bash me for supposedly taking one side or the other. I've followed this thread out of curiosity of an interesting issue, but have been mostly saddened to see how intolerance seems to just breed more intolerance.

 

[Gracie09]

I've been wondering how this works from a strictly legal point of view. Before the SCOTUS decision, KY had definitive statutes defining marriage and/or prohibiting specific marriages. (I'm on my phone and too lazy to check.) The SCOTUS decision then establishes that all or part of the individual statutes

The part of the statute that is in disagreement with the ruling is unconstitutional and therefore no longer in effect. Just like in the loving case (declaring interracial marriage legal). The law may still be on the books so to speak but it no longer can be applied

 

[robinb]

I bet morning services at the Rowan County Jail were fun this morning.

I thought the same thing!

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I've been wondering how this works from a strictly legal point of view. Before the SCOTUS decision, KY had definitive statutes defining marriage and/or prohibiting specific marriages. (I'm on my phone and too lazy to check.) The SCOTUS decision then establishes that all or part of the individual statutes

Federal law has supremacy over state law and supersedes any state law. I haven't read it in detail but I believe the federal law only makes it illegal for any state to have laws making same-sex marriage illegal. I don't think they went too far in defining terms, but I could be mistaken as I haven't researched it a great deal.

 

[JaxDad]

I just wondered if a state's law might be written in such a way that applying the SCOTUS decision without revision would be difficult. I can't think of an example, but maybe some "definition" of marriage that would be inconsistent with the SCOTUS decision but required revision to maintain ANY definition of marriage. I know federal law supercedes state law, but marriage is a state function.

Again, I'm thinking generally, not for the KY case specifically.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I just wondered if a state's law might be written in such a way that applying the SCOTUS decision without revision would be difficult. I can't think of an example, but maybe some "definition" of marriage that would be inconsistent with the SCOTUS decision but required revision to maintain ANY definition of marriage. I know federal law supercedes state law, but marriage is a state function.

Again, I'm thinking generally, not for the KY case specifically.

I really think that may be why they kept it so simple in saying "you can't make same sex marriage illegal". You would think something like that would keep the state specific issues at bay, but here we are.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I bet morning services at the Rowan County Jail were fun this morning.

Instead of coffee and pastries afterwards, it's Nutriloaf and water.