Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[luvsJack]

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.

You do not have any idea what I believe
Do not assume. and do not assume to know what my values are.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

I never said she wasn't hurting anyone. But if we all went to jail for hurting someone, most of the world would be in jail.

Her own faith states that the laws of government should be followed, as does mine. She was wrong. She should have stepped down.

Attaking her past life does not change anything about what is happening now Nor does trying to find links to show that she shouldn't be giving license to someone that is divorced.

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

 

[luvsJack]

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

I wasn't discussing the legal definition or how it has bearing on this case. We were talking about divorce.

 

[Wishing on a star]

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

LuvsJack, on one level, I can completely and totally agree with the first phrase.
NOT on the final statement, at all.

Your point is made completely and totally MUTE by the fact that SHE is the one who is claiming 'faith' to justify what she has done, and to absolve herself of any responsibility for wrongdoing. Sorry, but, if she wants to play the 'religion/faith' card, then she might want to have what it takes to back it up. This, naturally, will be questioned. Especially if either lies or hypocrisy can be alleged/proven.

You might, perhaps, be very sensitive to anyone questioning the Christian faith. But, that doesn't mean that it won't be questioned, that it shouldn't be questioned. And, it most certainly does not mean that nobody has a right to question it. (and remember, this is from a poster who is closer to conservative christian than not)

That being said, as I have mentioned before, all of that is truly irrelevant. I don't care if she has been married 27 times, is a registered pedophile, is black, white, red, brown, or pink and purple polka dotted. EVERYONE, whether they are of a similar faith or not, should be very concerned if any individual in government office were to be allowed to use their office/power as a pulpit for their personal beliefs or faith. And, even more especially to use their office/power to deny others civil rights.

And, the same goes for any other things that are truly irrelevant. Such as (gasp!!!) there have been death threats. etc.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

You do not have any idea what I believe
Do not assume. and do not assume to know what my values are.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

I never said she wasn't hurting anyone. But if we all went to jail for hurting someone, most of the world would be in jail.

Her own faith states that the laws of government should be followed, as does mine. She was wrong. She should have stepped down.

Attaking her past life does not change anything about what is happening now Nor does trying to find links to show that she shouldn't be giving license to someone that is divorced.

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

Wow, I give you credit for having the chutzpah to play the "you don't know what I believe" card after dozens of posts on dozens of threads in which you share your thoughts and opinions quite openly. It is disingenuous, at best. At the very least, own your opinions and don't run from them when called upon them. I own mine; in fact, I'm very proud of mine.

As to not having the right to question her beliefs, I believe you are just flat wrong. She herself made her belief system THE core issue, her sole defense, so questioning her beliefs and pointing out her hypocrisy is the correct recourse. When she admits that she just doesn't like gay people, then I'll address that, instead. But if she hides behind faith, why is it wrong to disassemble those errors and expose her opinions for what they are?

 

[ariel71]

You do not have any idea what I believe
Do not assume. and do not assume to know what my values are.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

I never said she wasn't hurting anyone. But if we all went to jail for hurting someone, most of the world would be in jail.

Her own faith states that the laws of government should be followed, as does mine. She was wrong. She should have stepped down.

Attaking her past life does not change anything about what is happening now Nor does trying to find links to show that she shouldn't be giving license to someone that is divorced.

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

I absolutely have the right to question, on behalf of a society that was founded by people avoiding religious oppression, why someone can think she can invoke "God's law" on a secular matter. I think the fact that there are people, including presidential candidates, who support her to be utterly abhorrent.

I absolutely can think that her faith probably has tenets on divorce and marriage after divorce. There have been no reports of her denying marriage licenses to divorced individuals. Therefore she has likely not been consistent in her application of "God's law" on marriage. That's just common sense. I don't need to know dictum per dictum what her religion says on the matter to make a basic assumption.

No one really cares that you're divorced or has an opinion on why you got divorced or if you are now in a "Godly" marriage. We're using divorce as an example of a marriage-based idea that has both legal and religious importance. It is a relevant and appropriate analogy for this topic. It's not personal so you can stop now.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

As I've stated up thread, she can believe I'm a little green man from Mars if she wants to. But if she makes it an issue by using it to defend defying a judge, people are going to rightly question that belief. You may believe her faith shouldn't be a factor, but it is a factor because she made it so. She is the one that brought such questions upon herself. If she hadn't appointed herself everyone's gift to defending marriage, and rationalized it with her faith, nobody would be asking them. And people have every right to ask them. Now that is not the reason she's in the pokey. She's in the pokey for refusing to comply with a judge. But these are legit tangential questions, and she's the one that brought such questions down on herself.

 

[Peepster]

Unfortunately Ms Davis is, whether she wishes to be or not, being held up as a martyr and it makes me very sad.
As someone who was born gay and having no choice in the matter it hurts a great deal to hear Ms. Davis and her supporters generalize that all of us are not of a religious nature. My wife and I attend our Lutheran church each Sunday, are members of our Altar Guild and I am very proud that my wife is one of the leaders of our church's Second Harvest food bank. I commend Ms. Davis for her religious beliefs and if I expect people to be tolerant of me than I must be tolerant of them. However, as those before me have said, many applauding Ms. Davis' actions go astray at the point of the separation of church and state. While I wish her no ill will personally, her actions have caused the roiling of hatred we so hoped had a chance to be overcome by love. To all who have commented here, both in favor of her objections and opposed, I wish you all peace.

 

[Ceila]

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

The minute she claimed that she was answering to God instead of the laws she SWORE to follow is when everyone gained the right to question her faith as it relates to her performance of her job.

 

[Gracie09]

I wasn't discussing the legal definition or how it has bearing on this case. We were talking about divorce.

In a legal context the only definition of marriage and therefore divorce is the legal one. If I'm an atheist I don't care what your religious book says just like you don't care where what the Hindu or Muslim religious books say.

 

[Jaya]

LuvsJack, on one level, I can completely and totally agree with the first phrase.
NOT on the final statement, at all.

Your point is made completely and totally MUTE by the fact that SHE is the one who is claiming 'faith' to justify what she has done, and to absolve herself of any responsibility for wrongdoing. Sorry, but, if she wants to play the 'religion/faith' card, then she might want to have what it takes to back it up. This, naturally, will be questioned. Especially if either lies or hypocrisy can be alleged/proven.

You might, perhaps, be very sensitive to anyone questioning the Christian faith. But, that doesn't mean that it won't be questioned, that it shouldn't be questioned. And, it most certainly does not mean that nobody has a right to question it. (and remember, this is from a poster who is closer to conservative christian than not)

That being said, as I have mentioned before, all of that is truly irrelevant. I don't care if she has been married 27 times, is a registered pedophile, is black, white, red, brown, or pink and purple polka dotted. EVERYONE, whether they are of a similar faith or not, should be very concerned if any individual in government office were to be allowed to use their office/power as a pulpit for their personal beliefs or faith. And, even more especially to use their office/power to deny others civil rights.

And, the same goes for any other things that are truly irrelevant. Such as (gasp!!!) there have been death threats. etc.

Considering the 449 posts on here, I doubt anyone is planning to be "mute" on this subject, "moot" is another matter.

 

[Hrhpd]

The facts are that she broke the law and her faith should not be a factor nor does anyone have the right to question it. .

Sorry, when she spouts that she is not going to back down because she is “a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place who wants to use the county office to spread “God’s word,” she made it all about her faith. If she is going to claim that she is the specifically chosen vessel, people have every right in the world to question just exactly how clean that vessel is.

 

[Missy1961]

Considering the 449 posts on here, I doubt anyone is planning to be "mute" on this subject, "moot" is another matter.

Thank you. that drives me nuts.

 

[POOHsie]

Sorry, when she spouts that she is not going to back down because she is “a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place who wants to use the county office to spread “God’s word,” she made it all about her faith. If she is going to claim that she is the specifically chosen vessel, people have every right in the world to question just exactly how clean that vessel is.

I understand Miss Davis was elected to office. I'd like to know if she campaigned about that fact that she would use the County Clerk position to spread "God's word." That would have been a big red flag during her election campaign -- that she would choose her religious beliefs when they conflicted with secular laws of government. Or did she come up with this stance after her election was secured, and she felt safe to ambush tax-paying voters with her proselytizing?

 

[Unas]

Sorry, when she spouts that she is not going to back down because she is “a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place who wants to use the county office to spread “God’s word,” she made it all about her faith. If she is going to claim that she is the specifically chosen vessel, people have every right in the world to question just exactly how clean that vessel is.

Maybe the vessel Davis should join the Edmund Fitzgerald and the Titanic . . .

 

[luvsJack]

I absolutely have the right to question, on behalf of a society that was founded by people avoiding religious oppression, why someone can think she can invoke "God's law" on a secular matter. I think the fact that there are people, including presidential candidates, who support her to be utterly abhorrent.

I absolutely can think that her faith probably has tenets on divorce and marriage after divorce. There have been no reports of her denying marriage licenses to divorced individuals. Therefore she has likely not been consistent in her application of "God's law" on marriage. That's just common sense. I don't need to know dictum per dictum what her religion says on the matter to make a basic assumption.

No one really cares that you're divorced or has an opinion on why you got divorced or if you are now in a "Godly" marriage. We're using divorce as an example of a marriage-based idea that has both legal and religious importance. It is a relevant and appropriate analogy for this topic. It's not personal so you can stop now.

My divorce has nothing to do with it. I don't hide it. I will tell anyone that wants to know. But its really irrelevant because this isn't about me. . And I don't take this as personal at all.

I would guess that most religions have tenants on divorce just as they do on marriage but not all Christians believe the same things. Simply quoting the Bible as the pp did doesn't really cover it. Its not like each religious denomination has a written set of rules except for the Bible. And that can be interpreted many ways.

Yes I know that its an example. An example to give reason to continue bashing this woman. And to continue to use her as an excuse to bash all Christians. All Christians don't have issues with gay marriage and many of those that do aren't that vocal about it.

The woman was wrong. I don't know that she should be in jail but not my call to make.

Everyone wants to say that she isn't in jail because of her faith but oh it is about faith because we want to bash it. Pick one, it is or it isn't.

I don't disagree that she brought her faith into this. But one's faith is a very personal thing and that should be between her and God.

Unless you know what the specific teachings are in her church about divorce and marriage after divorce, then you can't say that she was ignoring one of God's laws over another. Its like saying that we don't follow not eating shrimp or catfish so we shouldn't say that someone is sinning when they steal. I know what is taught in my church and it isnt anywhere near as cut and dried as you want to make it.

The Bible has been translated many times over. To the point that sometimes the original meaning to something has gotten lost. To simply quote it and not understand any meaning behind what is being said is worthless. And that is what the pp did and is the only reason I mentioned His defintion of marriage


No one should be able to use whatever power they have to break the law or prevent anyone from doing something they legally have the right to do. So for that reason she should be removed from office.

 

[ariel71]

Do you really think it's likely that her Christianity-based religion teaches that divorce is completely acceptable in every instance? Operative word being "likely". I don't know what she believes and frankly I don't care. If you think that being against same-sex marriage is the only "law" her religion has about marriage, I think you're being disingenuous.

I'm not bashing all Christians, but I am bashing her and her supporters, and I'll do so until the cows come home. I'm bashing anyone who thinks a particular religion (or any religion) is an appropriate basis for laws in this country. From a purely academic perspective, it's pretty much Christians doing that - there aren't a whole of Jews campaigning for kosher dietary laws or Muslims for Sharia law. THAT is why her reason for not doing her job (religion) is part of the public debate. And to your point, it is because there are far too many people out there who DON'T believe that "one's faith is a very personal thing and that should be between her and God".

 

[EMom]

My divorce has nothing to do with it. I don't hide it. I will tell anyone that wants to know. But its really irrelevant because this isn't about me. . And I don't take this as personal at all.

I would guess that most religions have tenants on divorce just as they do on marriage but not all Christians believe the same things. Simply quoting the Bible as the pp did doesn't really cover it. Its not like each religious denomination has a written set of rules except for the Bible. And that can be interpreted many ways.

Yes I know that its an example. An example to give reason to continue bashing this woman. And to continue to use her as an excuse to bash all Christians. All Christians don't have issues with gay marriage and many of those that do aren't that vocal about it.

The woman was wrong. I don't know that she should be in jail but not my call to make.

Everyone wants to say that she isn't in jail because of her faith but oh it is about faith because we want to bash it. Pick one, it is or it isn't.

I don't disagree that she brought her faith into this. But one's faith is a very personal thing and that should be between her and God.

Unless you know what the specific teachings are in her church about divorce and marriage after divorce, then you can't say that she was ignoring one of God's laws over another. Its like saying that we don't follow not eating shrimp or catfish so we shouldn't say that someone is sinning when they steal. I know what is taught in my church and it isnt anywhere near as cut and dried as you want to make it.

The Bible has been translated many times over. To the point that sometimes the original meaning to something has gotten lost. To simply quote it and not understand any meaning behind what is being said is worthless. And that is what the pp did and is the only reason I mentioned His defintion of marriage


No one should be able to use whatever power they have to break the law or prevent anyone from doing something they legally have the right to do. So for that reason she should be removed from office.

Her faith IS between her and God and she should have kept it there. But she chose to use to as a public excuse to refuse to do her job. She's not in jail because of her faith, but because she refused to follow the law and do her job. I am fine with her having her religious beliefs. She is entitled to them. She is not entitled to ignore the law and refuse to do her job and deny others their legal rights. If she cannot bring herself to do that job, she can go apply for some other position and let her current well-paying position become open for someone else.

 

[PlutoPony]

. If she cannot bring herself to do that job, she can go apply for some other position and let her current well-paying position become open for someone else.

Like her son

 

[SirDuff]

I don't disagree that she brought her faith into this. But one's faith is a very personal thing and that should be between her and God.

Then she should have kept it between her and her God. She's the one who didn't; hiding behind that statement know is hypocritical.

 

[JimmyV]

The woman was wrong. I don't know that she should be in jail but not my call to make.

She gave the judge no other choice. The simple facts are that couples appeared in the county clerk's office meeting all of the qualifications for obtaining a license and were repeatedly denied receiving one. When asked by the judge if she were allowed to remain free, would she interfere with the actions of the deputy clerks in issuing licenses and she said yes. At that point the matter is settled. If she were not put in jail the licenses would not have been issued. By putting her in jail, the licenses were issued and several couples are now happily married. If there was some solution to all of this that involved her not being in jail, and the couples receiving their licenses and getting married, the judge didn't see it and neither Davis nor her lawyers offered one up. When someone says: "As long as I remain free, I will continue to be an obstacle who prevents others from obtaining that to which they are legally entitled ", they simply cannot be allowed to remain free.

Everyone wants to say that she isn't in jail because of her faith but oh it is about faith because we want to bash it. Pick one, it is or it isn't.

She very much is in jail because of her faith because it is her faith that caused her to break the law, fail to uphold her oath of office and deny others their legal and civil rights. I have no problem saying that she is in jail because of her faith. The problem here is that there are those who believe that faith and religious beliefs are a get out of jail free card. They are not. The head of a polygamist sect who takes 14 year old girls as "wives" and has sex with them because his faith insists that he do so-- goes to jail. There are men in other countries who kill their own family members for dishonoring their family because their faith insists that they do so. If anyone did that in this country --they woukd go to jail. If a judge who is a Muslim started chopping off the hands of people found guilty of theft instead of handing down sentences as prescribed by law because his faith insists that this is the law of his religion--he would be impeached and go to jail. So yes, I believe that Davis is in jail because of her faith and I don't have a problem with that. When someone's faith causes them to harm others, fines and incarceration are not inappropriate. Let's not forget that freedom of religion has always meant the freedom to practice that religion, not impose it. Freedom of religion means that when one comes to a fork in the road, they are free to choose either path. An illegal imposition of religion is when that person erects an obstacle in front of the path not chosen preventing other people from exercising their own choice when they come upon the same fork in the road. Building such an obstacle can and should result in arrest and if the person pledges to keep putting up obstacles, then incarceration is also warranted, faith or not.

But one's faith is a very personal thing and that should be between her and God.

Under such circumstances she should issue the licenses and pray to God asking for His understanding for rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. An understanding and forgiving God would not find fault with her for upholding her oath of office and following civil law. The moment she denied the couples their licenses, this ceased to between her and her God and it became about her and other people.

Unless you know what the specific teachings are in her church about divorce and marriage after divorce, then you can't say that she was ignoring one of God's laws over another.

This is a very dangerous proposition. It suggests that people can conveniently make up ad hoc rules in the name of religion and use those to justify all sorts of criminal activity. This is the whole problem with the "sincerely held religious belief" defense. Sincerity cannot be tested or measured. Anyone can claim to have a sincerely held religious belief that arranged marriages between men and 14 year old girls is right in God's eyes. Saying that we do not understand her teachings is the whole problem as opposed to being a safety net upon which she can rely. Otherwise people would make up all sorts of stuff as they were being dragged to the courthouse, screaming that their actions were the result of sincerely held religious beliefs and that the rest of us simply "don't understand" their teachings. This is why we have a rule of law in the first place. To circumscribe acceptable behavior.

No one should be able to use whatever power they have to break the law or prevent anyone from doing something they legally have the right to do. So for that reason she should be removed from office.

And this is true even if they hold a Bible in one hand, a cross in the other, and clinch a set of Rosary beads in their teeth while doing so. And the fact that we have numerous presidential candidates with law degrees who do not see this is frightening beyond all measure. How many of them would be rushing to Davis' defense if she refused to grant licenses to both same sex and opposite sex couples because they did not strictly meet and adhere to all the religiuos prerequisites of Muslim law? Woukd they be defending her or calling for her impeachment and detention?