Kentucky County Clerk still Refuses to issue Gay Marriage License

[BruceVC]

http://www.lex18.com/story/29929988/rowan-county-clerk-defies-judge-refuses-to-issue-marriage-license

 

This story interests me, despite the US supreme court ruling that all states cannot refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay couples there are still some people in the US who refuse to abide by the law 

 

There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority?

 

So what do you think should happen to her and others who simply refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay couples, I say just keep it simple, you just fire people who refuse to do there jobs

[Leferd]

She can't simply be fired. The Rowan County Clerk is an elected position.

 

That said, she's in clear contempt of the court(s) and appropriate action should be taken against her and those in her staff who are refusing a legal court order.

 

Also, there's a lot of unnecessary grandstanding on both sides -- if the couples really want to get married, just apply for the marriage license at another county. 

[BruceVC]

She can't simply be fired. The Rowan County Clerk is an elected position.

 

That said, she's in clear contempt of the court(s) and appropriate action should be taken against her and those in her staff who are refusing a legal court order.

 

Also, there's a lot of unnecessary grandstanding on both sides -- if the couples really want to get married, just apply for the marriage license at another county. 

 

Interesting response, I never realized she can't be fired. What would happen to her if she was guilty of lets say theft or sexual misconduct?

 

I understand that gay couples could just get married in another state, would you feel that is an appropriate solution if an African American couple were receiving really bad treatment at a certain restaurant and this was clearly due to the racial element. Would you feel the solution is also for them to just go eat at another restaurant ?

 

I am not trying to catch you out, I am just interested in how a person differentiates between racism and homophobia. And I know you have liberal views so this isn't a personal attack on you   

[Leferd]

There's ways of relieving one from office especially for misconduct or abuse of office. But she can't be fired in the normal traditional sense.

 

Gay couples don't even need to go out of state. There are 119 other counties in the state of Kentucky who are under court order to not refuse marriage applicants due to sexual orientation.

 

Lots of businesses post this sign. 

 

Usually, it's used to keep the general rabble and troublemakers away. Aside from crazy gun kooks and deranged bigots, most racists will take your money regardless of skin color. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a very powerful law and specifically prohibits places of hospitality from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin. If someone were to refuse me due to my ethnicity, I'm going to document the incident and call a civil rights attorney.

 

Moving back to Rowan County, Ms. Davis is clearly in the wrong and is not fulfilling her duties as County Clerk. If she claims that she holds no hatred towards gay couples and believes that by exercising her office's duties she will be judged by a higher power as committing mortal sin, the sensible action would be for her to step down. If she doesn't well, it's obvious she's grandstanding and has a martyrdom complex.

 

 

[BruceVC]

There's ways of relieving one from office especially for misconduct or abuse of office. But she can't be fired in the normal traditional sense.

 

Gay couples don't even need to go out of state. There are 119 other counties in the state of Kentucky who are under court order to not refuse marriage applicants due to sexual orientation.

 

Lots of businesses post this sign. 

 

Usually, it's used to keep the general rabble and troublemakers away. Aside from crazy gun kooks and deranged bigots, most racists will take your money regardless of skin color. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a very powerful law and specifically prohibits places of hospitality from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin. If someone were to refuse me due to my ethnicity, I'm going to document the incident and call a civil rights attorney.

 

Moving back to Rowan County, Ms. Davis is clearly in the wrong and is not fulfilling her duties as County Clerk. If she claims that she holds no hatred towards gay couples and believes that by exercising her office's duties she will be judged by a higher power as committing mortal sin, the sensible action would be for her to step down. If she doesn't well, it's obvious she's grandstanding and has a martyrdom complex.

 

That's a reasonable and informative  post, I get what you are saying

 

So in this example she clearly feels she is being judged by a higher power do you agree she should then step down?

[BruceVC]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/will-clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-court-ruling/

 

Here are some more details around the clerks view, what is particularly interesting is the text below 

 

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” Davis said in the statement. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.”

 

So for her she clearly feels she faces eternal damnation if she issues these gay marriage  licenses...mmmm...

[Blarghagh]

This story interests me, despite the US supreme court ruling that all states cannot refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay couples there are still some people in the US who refuse to abide by the law 

 

There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority?

 

Hm. I used to be that annoying guy that would challenge christians on their beliefs all the time (a side effect of being one of the few atheists in a christian high school I suppose) and there was this one guy who I'm still friends with to this day because of a mutual respect in belief - he was always able to provide a satisfactory answer to everything I grilled him with and he grilled me right back (he introduced me to the convergent evolution conundrum). He's the only Christian I know that really knows his bible and really follows the doctrine of forgiveness rather than judgement, so I once asked him how it affects christians that gay marriage is legal. He pointed me towards Matthew 18:18 -

 

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

(This specific quotation is from the New English Standard)

 

The way he explained this verse (and several similar verses in Matthew) to me was that Jesus gave his disciples reign to make decisions about law, and if the disciples feel that law should be changed on earth then it will change also in heaven. Now, obviously he only had few specific disciples then but the common interpretation is that any christian is a disciple of Jesus, so the law has changed based on what christian society has accepted. It's why christians are now allowed to wear clothing made of two different fabrics, or eat pork, or don't have to stone their entire city to death if it has a single non-believer. If good people accept homosexuality (the law being a symbol of that acceptance) and homosexuals live good, full lives they will be accepted into heaven just like anyone else who doesn't follow archaic old testament rules. Now the jury is out on whether or not believers have accepted homosexuality, but considering the amount of christian homosexuals I'd say the silent majority has.

 

To be fair, Matthew is also the book in which Jesus himself has a temper tantrum and kills a tree because it didn't happen to have any fruit for him that day. The entire book is nonsensical to me.

 

Anyway, just thought it was an interesting perspective from the only Christian I have ever respected (not to say I don't respect Christians as people, but the only one I have respected in their belief). Personally, I think all those old school bible belt Christians who deny homosexuals rights should also follow all the other rules in their little book. Considering how many rules the good book has and how little of it gets followed, I'd say that 99% of them will be stoned to death within a week. I mean, if they find the rules of Leviticus to be so important, they better never have shaved because that book condemns that about as much as it does a man lying with a man as he does with a woman. I hope they've never eaten lobster or calamari. And if they ever, even once disobeyed their daddies? Stoned to death! The problem would solve itself. But I'm cynical.

 

EDIT: It would be fun to get a tattoo of the specific sentence in Leviticus forbidding tattoos.

Edited September 2, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Rosbjerg]

I find it extremely humors when Christians quote the old testament as law, since they are basically saying that the new testament (and therefore in effect Jesus sacrificing himself to seal the deal) is meaningless.

 

And jesus never said anything about homosexuals.. but I'm pretty sure he would've washed their feet and married them on the spot - if they were good and righteous people.

 

In fact I'm sure he would have much more disdain for the rich than any homosexual.

 

 

 

Moving back to Rowan County, Ms. Davis is clearly in the wrong and is not fulfilling her duties as County Clerk. If she claims that she holds no hatred towards gay couples and believes that by exercising her office's duties she will be judged by a higher power as committing mortal sin, the sensible action would be for her to step down. If she doesn't well, it's obvious she's grandstanding and has a martyrdom complex.

 

This is the only appropriate response she can take - if she holds any moral reservations to the duties she is lawfully required to perfom, she should resign in protest.

[Fighter]

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” Davis said in the statement. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.”

 

I wonder how many other rules that are in the bible she strictly follows. Scant few probably.

[HoonDing]

Those nice guilt based Abrahamic religions.

[BruceVC]

 

This story interests me, despite the US supreme court ruling that all states cannot refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay couples there are still some people in the US who refuse to abide by the law 

 

There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority?

 

Hm. I used to be that annoying guy that would challenge christians on their beliefs all the time (a side effect of being one of the few atheists in a christian high school I suppose) and there was this one guy who I'm still friends with to this day because of a mutual respect in belief - he was always able to provide a satisfactory answer to everything I grilled him with and he grilled me right back (he introduced me to the convergent evolution conundrum). He's the only Christian I know that really knows his bible and really follows the doctrine of forgiveness rather than judgement, so I once asked him how it affects christians that gay marriage is legal. He pointed me towards Matthew 18:18 -

 

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

(This specific quotation is from the New English Standard)

 

The way he explained this verse (and several similar verses in Matthew) to me was that Jesus gave his disciples reign to make decisions about law, and if the disciples feel that law should be changed on earth then it will change also in heaven. Now, obviously he only had few specific disciples then but the common interpretation is that any christian is a disciple of Jesus, so the law has changed based on what christian society has accepted. It's why christians are now allowed to wear clothing made of two different fabrics, or eat pork, or don't have to stone their entire city to death if it has a single non-believer. If good people accept homosexuality (the law being a symbol of that acceptance) and homosexuals live good, full lives they will be accepted into heaven just like anyone else who doesn't follow archaic old testament rules. Now the jury is out on whether or not believers have accepted homosexuality, but considering the amount of christian homosexuals I'd say the silent majority has.

 

To be fair, Matthew is also the book in which Jesus himself has a temper tantrum and kills a tree because it didn't happen to have any fruit for him that day. The entire book is nonsensical to me.

 

Anyway, just thought it was an interesting perspective from the only Christian I have ever respected (not to say I don't respect Christians as people, but the only one I have respected in their belief). Personally, I think all those old school bible belt Christians who deny homosexuals rights should also follow all the other rules in their little book. Considering how many rules the good book has and how little of it gets followed, I'd say that 99% of them will be stoned to death within a week. I mean, if they find the rules of Leviticus to be so important, they better never have shaved because that book condemns that about as much as it does a man lying with a man as he does with a woman. I hope they've never eaten lobster or calamari. And if they ever, even once disobeyed their daddies? Stoned to death! The problem would solve itself. But I'm cynical.

 

EDIT: It would be fun to get a tattoo of the specific sentence in Leviticus forbidding tattoos.

 

Good post

 

Something else I feel relevant to this discussion is that Christianity has generally always seen a separation between the church and state, at least in the last 500 years. So Jesus for example said  "  "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

 

The common interpretation to this is "people should obey the laws of the land...in this case it was the paying of taxes which some people at the time of Jesus  questioned as why should Jews pay a tax to a foreign country " 

 

Muslim countries typically don't believe in a separation of religious and governmental  laws, there religious doctrine is normally inextricably linked to how there governments function...which IMO is one of the huge issues why many countries in the Middle East are so conservative and have laws that many of us consider anathema 

[BruceVC]

 

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” Davis said in the statement. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.”

 

I wonder how many other rules that are in the bible she strictly follows. Scant few probably.

 

Indeed, for example the old Testament says anyone who works on the Sabbath needs to be put to death...does she advocate the death penalty for people who work on a Sunday? Probably not I guess

 

" Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. " 

Edited September 2, 2015 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

Since this thread turned into Sunday school, here is my favourite quote: (Corinthians 13)

 

 

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away

Edited September 2, 2015 by Meshugger

[Gfted1]

This is one of the things that really annoys me about our legal system. Even though the highest court in the land has already ruled on the matter, one lone jerk can bring everything to a halt. They should just grab her up by the collar and throw her out on the courthouse lawn.  

[Barothmuk]

Since this thread turned into Sunday school, here is my favourite quote: (Corinthians 13)

 

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away

 

I liked the one where God and Jacob wrestle.

[Amentep]

There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority?

 

Er...to be fair, if God exists (and prohibits something) then surely His authority would actually be more important and relevant than any state or federal authority?

[Hurlshort]

I think she is angling for a reality TV show.  Someone has to replace the Duggars.

 

 

edit:  Also, I feel a chance at a Kentucky Fried Chicken reference was missed in the topic header.  Let's brainstorm and come up with a better one.

 

 

edit:  This lady has been married 4 times.  There is very little reason to take her seriously as a Christian.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Hurlshot

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This lady has been married 4 times.  There is very little reason to take her seriously as a Christian.

That just shows she loves marriage so much she did it four times. Now that's commitment.

[BruceVC]

 

There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority?

 

Er...to be fair, if God exists (and prohibits something) then surely His authority would actually be more important and relevant than any state or federal authority?

 

Whats your personal view on this matter? Do you think she has a right to defy Federal law due to religious convictions ?

 

I think she is angling for a reality TV show.  Someone has to replace the Duggars.

 

 

edit:  Also, I feel a chance at a Kentucky Fried Chicken reference was missed in the topic header.  Let's brainstorm and come up with a better one.

 

 

edit:  This lady has been married 4 times.  There is very little reason to take her seriously as a Christian.

Sure, I am well aware  she doesn't represent the majority of Christians as it has been well established that the majority of Americans are supportive of same sex marriage and all the legal rights this gives couples 

[Amentep]

Whats your personal view on this matter? Do you think she has a right to defy Federal law due to religious convictions ?

I think she should follow the law or vacate her office.

[Leferd]

 

Whats your personal view on this matter? Do you think she has a right to defy Federal law due to religious convictions ?

I think she should follow the law or vacate her office.

That would be the sensible approach.

[Bartimaeus]

 

There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority?

 

Er...to be fair, if God exists (and prohibits something) then surely His authority would actually be more important and relevant than any state or federal authority?

 

 

I agree...however, for me, the contention is whether or not that's really what God would want you to do when your government/legal authorities say otherwise. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's. If she really believes that is the correct course of action...well, fine: she's free to interpret her faith and act upon it (...and live with the consequences) however she wishes. Just as we're free to criticize the thought process leading up to her choosing that course of action,

Edited September 2, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Amentep]

^I was mostly commenting on how Bruce worded his question.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, which is why I agreed with you in the opening of my post, but went on to argue anyways, I guess.

[Zoraptor]

I find it extremely humors when Christians quote the old testament as law, since they are basically saying that the new testament (and therefore in effect Jesus sacrificing himself to seal the deal) is meaningless.

 

It isn't wholly an old testament thing, Paul is the main new testament justification for anti gay christianity. Though it is, of course, questionable as to whether his word trumps all of Jesus's "Do unto others"/ "Turn the other cheek"/ "Love one another as I have loved you"/ "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" type stuff. That's the thing really, people will use stuff in the OT (mainly) and NT to justify their views, historically most christian atrocities were couched as 'saving the souls' of those being force converted/ killed and it really hasn't shifted much from there in some people's minds. They either decide that Jesus was basically a hippy making things to aim for rather than live for, or decide that he just didn't intend [group name] to be included in his blanket statements.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Zoraptor