Kentucky County Clerk still Refuses to issue Gay Marriage License

[BruceVC]

Brave of her to take a stand, when all the conservative christian right (in the EU and US) does is watch and grumble as their countries are trampled over by the terror of political correctness and minorities that have outright usurped the political system to advance their agenda.

 

In this particular case, I believe the dissenting opinion of the supreme court judge summed up the matter best. It has been "resolved" without true consent, in truth forced on people, so that not only is it a hollow victory - it will likely not stand the test of time.

 

PS: we have indeed gone to the ****ter when Volourn is the voice of reason in a political thread. (:

No Volo is only  the voice of reason for a small number of people. And you can't count me in that group 

[Blarghagh]

Brave of her to take a stand,

 

Yes, very brave that a woman on her third marriage with children born out of wedlock while married to another man stands up for the sanctity of marriage because as she states she will be damned to hell if she doesn't. If there was such a thing, her seat would have been reserved a long time ago. If this is who you respect for taking a stand...

[Guard Dog]

The correct way to take a stand here would have been to resign. Do it publicly with a press release, Say your piece about the Supreme Court, the illegitimacy of the decision, whatever. Then step aside. As an elected official you do not get to pick and choose which law you follow and which you don't.

 

Unless of course your name is Barack Hussein Obama. Then you get to do whatever the f--k you please and the law, people, and constitution be damned because no one has the spine to stop you.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Her private life has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage, which has much greater societal implications than a mere relationship between two individuals. 

 

And yes, for her to speak against the issue, knowing that the liberal media and individuals like you will do their best to drag up every mistake she made in her life to use it against her does take courage. 

 

Its so so easy to sit behind the comfortable moral relativism of atheism and talk **** about people.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The correct way to take a stand here would have been to resign. Do it publicly with a press release, Say your piece about the Supreme Court, the illegitimacy of the decision, whatever. Then step aside. As an elected official you do not get to pick and choose which law you follow and which you don't.

.

 

No, politically, its much better to force them to tear you down instead of stepping aside. The outcome is the same, but the former will gain you more exposure, support from like minded individuals etc.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Blarghagh]

Her private life has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage, which has much greater societal implications than a mere relationship between two individuals. 

 

And yes, for her to speak against the issue, knowing that the liberal media and individuals like you will do their best to drag up every mistake she made in her life to use it against her does take courage. 

 

Its so so easy to sit behind the comfortable moral relativism of atheism and talk **** about people.

 

Yes, it is easy. Just like it is easy to not take a public stand yourself because you're too afraid, and instead let the least qualified people (who are probably suffering from mental illness) take the hits.

[Guard Dog]

 

The correct way to take a stand here would have been to resign. Do it publicly with a press release, Say your piece about the Supreme Court, the illegitimacy of the decision, whatever. Then step aside. As an elected official you do not get to pick and choose which law you follow and which you don't.

.

 

No, politically, its much better to force them to tear you down instead of stepping aside. The outcome is the same, but the former will gain you more exposure, support from like minded individuals etc.

 

Either way she would be a hero to those who share her view. And you are right, the outcome will be the same. The licenses will be issued and she will still be gone. That means the big show and going to jail was unnecessary and IMO hurts her more than helps. I posted before that I think what she did, refusing to follow the law, was not a moral stand it was a selfish one.

 

I don't imagine this is a person who dreams of holding higher offices and it's not for me to say if her Christian beliefs are genuine. But even if they are the Christian thing to do is to follow the law of step aside. Not to break it. In the end the only soul we are responsible for is our own. If you think gay couples who marry are sinning then that is between them and God. It has nothing to do with you.

 

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's" . Paul wrote "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

The biggest problem with the Christian faith I have found is that so many who claim to follow it know so little about it.

[Zoraptor]

 

Brave of her to take a stand,

 

Yes, very brave that a woman on her third marriage with children born out of wedlock while married to another man stands up for the sanctity of marriage because as she states she will be damned to hell if she doesn't. If there was such a thing, her seat would have been reserved a long time ago. If this is who you respect for taking a stand...

 

 

I thought it was married #1, had baby with yet to be #2, divorced #1, married #2, divorced #2, married #3, divorced #3, remarried #2. In which case it at least wouldn't be an out of wedlock birth from (yet) another man but from one she actually married, albeit belatedly and not the man to whom she was married at the time. And who she then divorced and remarried with another bloke in between, but what's one more conjugal contortion to that list.

 

Of course I may be misremembering as it's nowhere near as catchy and easy to remember as "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived" even if it's technically less to remember. Still, she's about as appropriate a source as Henry VIII for lecturing others on the sanctity of marriage.

 

Then again I've always disliked the combination/ conflation of secular and religious marriage, I'd far prefer every marriage as they're called now was a civil union and if you were religious you could combine it with a religious ceremony if you wanted.

[Guard Dog]

BTW Boo, that last post was not meant to be directed at you in any way. I forgot I was writing a reply.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

The correct way to take a stand here would have been to resign. Do it publicly with a press release, Say your piece about the Supreme Court, the illegitimacy of the decision, whatever. Then step aside. As an elected official you do not get to pick and choose which law you follow and which you don't.

.

 

No, politically, its much better to force them to tear you down instead of stepping aside. The outcome is the same, but the former will gain you more exposure, support from like minded individuals etc.

 

Either way she would be a hero to those who share her view. And you are right, the outcome will be the same. The licenses will be issued and she will still be gone. That means the big show and going to jail was unnecessary and IMO hurts her more than helps. I posted before that I think what she did, refusing to follow the law, was not a moral stand it was a selfish one.

 

I don't imagine this is a person who dreams of holding higher offices and it's not for me to say if her Christian beliefs are genuine. But even if they are the Christian thing to do is to follow the law of step aside. Not to break it. In the end the only soul we are responsible for is our own. If you think gay couples who marry are sinning then that is between them and God. It has nothing to do with you.

 

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's" . Paul wrote "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

The biggest problem with the Christian faith I have found is that so many who claim to follow it know so little about it.

 

 

What the Christian thing to do is changes with the times. The first Christians blatantly separated themselves from the laws and customs of the Roman empire tearing it down from within until the Romans rolled over. Once the faith became that of the upper classes then "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's" became the new law. Never forget that the text of the New Testament was shaped over time, by the church, which is an institution of power interested in its own self-preservation and it would not, once established, like its followers to rock the boat. This doesn't invalidate the Christian teachings, but things have to be understood in their proper context and context is a fluctuating thing.

 

Anyway, you could argue that a Christian shouldn't care about the laws of man as it will be God who will decide who was wrong and who was right when the time comes. On the other hand you could also argue that a Christian is obligated to try to shape his life and society in a way that would bring it closer to God, obligated to resist, to the point of martyrdom, what he/she views as wrong, as the first Christians did. Both perspectives are right in their own way.

 

How this relates to what we're discussing depends on what's going on in her head, and if she truly believes what she says - and we can't know that. There is probably a degree of ego and selfishness in any martyrdom, in the way it forces the other side to react, but that does not necessarily invalidate it.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

There is probably a degree of ego and selfishness in any martyrdom, in the way it forces the other side to react, but that does not necessarily invalidate it.

 

Well said!

[Volourn]

Notice how Brucee continues to ignore his hypocrisy.  It confirms what I knew - he only goes 'must follow the law' when it is convienent for him.

 

I have no doubt Bruce would be the first to cry foul if every illegal was rounded up and thrown in prison for breaking the law.

 

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with her (I completely disagree with her) it's about the hypocrisy of her many critics.

[213374U]

The correct way to take a stand here would have been to resign. Do it publicly with a press release, Say your piece about the Supreme Court, the illegitimacy of the decision, whatever. Then step aside. As an elected official you do not get to pick and choose which law you follow and which you don't.

 

Unless of course your name is Barack Hussein Obama. Then you get to do whatever the f--k you please and the law, people, and constitution be damned because no one has the spine to stop you.

 

Normally I'd agree with you, but this is one of those cases. This law didn't exist when she ran for office, and it wasn't passed as a result of the will of the people (previous to Obergefell there was a statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in KY; indeed, statutes specifically mentioned penalties for clerks issuing marriage licences outside of the definition in KY law), but rather it was handed top-down as a result of a closed-door decision by nine unelected lawyers elsewhere in the country. You may not agree with her on this particular issue -I know I don't- but I can't fully condemn her decision to obstruct the process. Would you be more sympathetic to her if instead of doing it out of religious bigotry she was doing it for civic reasons?

 

Regardless, I find it really baffling that some people are worried about "due process" wrt dismissal of elected officials, which in this case requires the official in question to be convicted of willful neglect of duty or another misdemeanor (and failing that, impeachment proceedings could be instituted by the House or at the request of any person), but such worries disappear or no longer apply when we're talking about imprisonment, because the always expeditious "contempt of court" is legal. Must be a cultural thing.

[Wrath of Dagon]

She is an elected official, she cannot simply be dismissed.  She is free to resign, or follow the court order.  Because she refuses to do either, she is being held in contempt.  It's quite a pickle, no one in their right mind wants a government that can simply remove an elected official from office without due process, but you also can't have every county clerk across the country trying to interpret the law based on their 'feels'

Yet you were fine with the Supreme Court doing exactly that. You didn't seem to object to Obola's illegal amnesty either. I guess it's a case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi", the height of hypocrisy.

 

The clerk can be impeached, probably by Kentucky legislature, but they agree with her, so why would they do that? A judge can not remove a public official, all he can do is enforce his ruling by sending her to jail or assessing a fine for every day she's not in compliance, which is arguably worse. He really can't just let her get away with disobeying the court.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

Her private life has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage, which has much greater societal implications than a mere relationship between two individuals. 

 

And yes, for her to speak against the issue, knowing that the liberal media and individuals like you will do their best to drag up every mistake she made in her life to use it against her does take courage. 

 

Its so so easy to sit behind the comfortable moral relativism of atheism and talk **** about people.

 

While I'm not a fan of focusing on her private life, I do think it is important to understand that she is the one bringing her private beliefs into the public spectrum.  

 

But as I said originally, all this is doing is increasing her martyrdom. 

[Hurlshort]

 

Yet you were fine with the Supreme Court doing exactly that. You didn't seem to object to Obola's illegal amnesty either. I guess it's a case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi", the height of hypocrisy.

 

 

Yes, I am much more comfortable with the Supreme Court interpreting laws than a country clerk from Kentucky.  

 

 

I am not a fan of anything that is currently being done in regards to immigration in DC.  Both the Congress and the White House are a mess on the issue.  There is no amnesty by the way, just a ham handed directive that has pretty clearly failed.  We didn't really talk about it here, and it's quite a bit off topic, so cheers.  

 

edit:  You seem to still think I'm a liberal.  I'm a hardcore moderate.  I just look liberal because you are so far out there.  

Edited September 7, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Raithe]

And for the other dissonance.. the Westboro Baptist Church are also joining in on the hate of said clerk..  They're hammering her for not having repented adultery and that she should get back to her first husband because if she was a good and devout Christian she wouldn't be living in sin with another man..since a true Christian wouldn't recognise divorce or remarriage while the first husband is alive.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Yet you were fine with the Supreme Court doing exactly that. You didn't seem to object to Obola's illegal amnesty either. I guess it's a case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi", the height of hypocrisy.

 

 

Yes, I am much more comfortable with the Supreme Court interpreting laws than a country clerk from Kentucky.  

 

 

I am not a fan of anything that is currently being done in regards to immigration in DC.  Both the Congress and the White House are a mess on the issue.  There is no amnesty by the way, just a ham handed directive that has pretty clearly failed.  We didn't really talk about it here, and it's quite a bit off topic, so cheers.  

 

edit:  You seem to still think I'm a liberal.  I'm a hardcore moderate.  I just look liberal because you are so far out there.  

 

Hurlie, let me ask you straight out and I really want you to think about this. You are an educated man and you know what the 1st & 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution are all about. Can you honestly say you have no problem with the way Obergefell was decided? 

[Volourn]

"edit:  You seem to still think I'm a liberal.  I'm a hardcore moderate.  I just look liberal because you are so far out there."

 

You aren't a moderate. Stop pretending. Though aren't liberal either. You are SJW.

\

Just admit it. You are only pro law when it suits your purposes. Nothing with that. Vast majority of people are hypocritical like that.

 

Unless you are gonna pretend that all those people who helped slaves escape should have been in jail for their illegal actions.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

"edit:  You seem to still think I'm a liberal.  I'm a hardcore moderate.  I just look liberal because you are so far out there."

 

You aren't a moderate. Stop pretending. Though aren't liberal either. You are SJW.

\

Just admit it. You are only pro law when it suits your purposes. Nothing with that. Vast majority of people are hypocritical like that.

 

Unless you are gonna pretend that all those people who helped slaves escape should have been in jail for their illegal actions.

Volo you seem unusually belligerent..is something wrong? Do you want to discuss anything, its best in life to be honest about your feelings 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Yet you were fine with the Supreme Court doing exactly that. You didn't seem to object to Obola's illegal amnesty either. I guess it's a case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi", the height of hypocrisy.

 

Yes, I am much more comfortable with the Supreme Court interpreting laws than a country clerk from Kentucky.  

 

Yet it is the Supreme Court whose foremost responsibility is maintaining the rule of law, and nothing undermines that like making decisions based on their "feels".

 

 

Hurlie, let me ask you straight out and I really want you to think about this. You are an educated man and you know what the 1st & 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution are all about. Can you honestly say you have no problem with the way Obergefell was decided?

He already demonstrated in another thread that he either doesn't know or doesn't care about any of those things, so long as he gets his way, so much for him not being a liberal.

 

 

Unless you are gonna pretend that all those people who helped slaves escape should have been in jail for their illegal actions.

A system of laws can be so morally unconscionable that it has to be overthrown through extra-judicial means, which is what happened in the Civil War. Edited September 7, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

 

Hurlie, let me ask you straight out and I really want you to think about this. You are an educated man and you know what the 1st & 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution are all about. Can you honestly say you have no problem with the way Obergefell was decided? 

 

 

 

I definitely have an issue with parts of it.  Namely, I agree with Roberts about the consequences for religious liberty.  I would have preferred a majority opinion that was more clear about the limits of the 14th amendment here.  I believe we are going to have another decade or more where this is still a major issue in the courts and in the press.  

 

That being said, I support civil rights fully.  This isn't the first time our country has taken a messy route to ensure equality for its citizens.  This pales in comparison to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 19th Amendment.  And don't forget that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, Barry Goldwater made almost the same arguments about states rights and individual liberty in regards to ending segregation.  

 

As someone who knows a number of fabulous gay couples, I am extremely happy to know they will be treated equally under the law.  We are progressively becoming a more tolerant society in many respects.  The idea that we are sacrificing religious tolerance for this is overstated by many, but it is something that we need to be aware of.  I will protect religious liberty with the same zeal that I do civil liberties. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Civil Rights Act is a completely phony example here because the 14th Amendment was specifically passed to protect the rights of blacks and gave Congress the right to implement whatever laws were necessary to that end. Sodomy on the other hand was illegal in every state at that time.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

The Civil Rights Act is a completely phony example here because the 14th Amendment was specifically passed to protect the rights of blacks and gave Congress the right to implement whatever laws were necessary to that end. Sodomy on the other hand was illegal in every state at that time.

 

Well that pretty much tips your hand.   

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, it tips my hand that I know history.