Wise Fool Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 How does not wanting to have your name on a piece of paper a religious belief, anyway? I mean, okay, I get it - the religious belief is that being gay is wrong, and so it seems as if she's being forced to approve of something (gayness), which violates her religious belief about the evil of homosexuality. It can't be about simply gay marriage, because that's a topic that is brought up exactly zero times in the Bible; it's something that's too new for religious philosophy to have a position for or against (same with transgender issues, for example), and we are talking about a religious belief, not merely a political one (right? so she says? unless Republicanism can now qualify as a religion?). So it must indeed be that she deeply believes homosexuality is a sin, and it is a sin that's apparently contagious - you can become sinful by association (i.e., your name on a legal document) with it. But if that's the case, then how is it not also equally sinful (and a violation of this woman's religious belief about the universal sinfulness of gaydom) if she pays taxes to a government which winds up helping homosexuals? Can she not simply bleat "religious freedom!" to avoid having her tax dollars accidentally helping a gay? There are some "religious beliefs" we should honor and respect, and some we should not. This isn't about Muslims serving wine or pork chops here; a religious belief that you shouldn't drink wine or eat pork is maybe just a bit weird, and I mean I don't agree (because omg bacon and ham and sausage and red red wine), but whatever, I see no reason not to honor it if that's what you truly believe. No reason whatsoever. But if your religious belief is that you should not exist as a homosexual then I think society needs to stop "accommodating" that shit asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Reporters at the jail claim that upon release, Davis is planning on refusing to comply with the judge's order prohibiting her from interfering with the issuance of licenses. If true (and I would expect it) she's really aiming to be the Rosa Parks of hate-gays. First they came for the hate-gays, but I didn't speak out, because I did not hate gays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 ... Why should she have to resign her job, or violate her faith, if Kentucky's RFRA gives her a legally cognizable claim for accommodation? That is all fine and up to that court case, but until then why should she have the right to hurt others directly in the mean time? Which is what all of this fuss is about. If she simply petitioned to not to have to handle the parts of her job that are against her religion that would be fine and we wouldn't know about this, but that hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I personally think that when she inevitably violates the terms of her release, the judge should not send her back to jail. Certainly, if he has the power to strip away all of a person's rights and liberties, there should be a way for him to keep her from an office building. I think this way for two reasons. 1. I have a long standing belief that our prison system is horrible, and people who do not pose a direct and violent threat don't need to be locked up 2. All jailing is doing is making her a martyr for her bigoted cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Re: mormont Why is there any need to modify the form? As far as I'm aware, nothing about the current form suggests in any way, shape or form that the signatory personally approves of the marriage in any way. That's not what the clerk's job is. Clerks do not approve of marriages: they register them. The job is purely bureaucratic. Moral judgement doesn't play any part. Ms Davis has signed off on many, many marriages; it would be ludicrous to suggest that she personally approved of any one of them. How could she? These people are largely strangers to her! It's equally ludicrous, therefore, to suggest that her signing a marriage certificate for two men indicates personal approval of gay marriage. It does not. Modifying the form is just pandering to her erroneous notions about what her job actually entails. I agree, completely. It's ludicrous to believe Davis personally approves of the moral characters of all the however-many couples she has registered for before this, or to assert that none of the couples she has registered before had not run afoul Biblical prohibitions of some sort. That means that her current protestation is insincere, at best. However. As far as I know, sincerity in one's religious belief is irrelevant in the U.S. for consideration of reasonable accommodation. So as much as we know that Davis' claim of religious convictions being violated is a facade, we cannot simply declare her ineligible for legal protections because she is inconsistent and insincere in applying these religious beliefs. That said, if this case goes to litigation (civil case?), I imagine that Davis' insincerity will no doubt be raised as a point. Re: Seli That is all fine and up to that court case, but until then why should she have the right to hurt others directly in the mean time? Which is what all of this fuss is about. If she simply petitioned to not to have to handle the parts of her job that are against her religion that would be fine and we wouldn't know about this, but that hasn't happened. I believe that she had indeed asked to be able to issue the licenses without her name written on them. What's fuzzy to me is who denied that or who rejected that compromise, and on what grounds. Re:Howdy I personally think that when she inevitably violates the terms of her release, the judge should not send her back to jail. Certainly, if he has the power to strip away all of a person's rights and liberties, there should be a way for him to keep her from an office building. I am not aware of the extent of a Judge's power in this. I don't know how he can issue an injunction to have her barred from the office building. ETA Anyone got links to Kentucky state legislators on this issue? Some of them must have commented, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 "A Kentucky county clerk emerged from jail on Tuesday, six days after a federal judge put her behind bars for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, as her attorneys reasserted their argument that licenses issued in her absence are not valid." The last part of that sentence tells us all we need to know. This is not about her conscience, this is political and hateful. Otherwise, why the insistence that the licenses issued in her absence are not valid? She's actively using her position to fight against gay marriage. And the law. ETA:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/08/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-released-from-jail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I just saw a video clip of a crowd cheering Kim Davis as a hero. Don't tell me there's not a GIANT PILE of anti-gay bigotry in this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I just saw a video clip of a crowd cheering Kim Davis as a hero. Don't tell me there's not a GIANT PILE of anti-gay bigotry in this nation. Well since we got over our racism, it won't be long before we get over our anti-gay sentiments. I am predicting, say, by the end of October, before Halloween? </sarcasm> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I am predicting, say, by the end of October, before Halloween When do the Kim Davis costumes go on sale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I just saw a video clip of a crowd cheering Kim Davis as a hero. Don't tell me there's not a GIANT PILE of anti-gay bigotry in this nation. It's Christian morality, not hate! Word is that a Mike Huckabee staffer physically blocked Ted Cruz from getting in on the photo ops. These Republican McJesus-panderers are incredible in their shamelessness. So Christ-like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The people rallying to Kim Davis make me so sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 It's Christian morality, not hate! Word is that a Mike Huckabee staffer physically blocked Ted Cruz from getting in on the photo ops. These Republican McJesus-panderers are incredible in their shamelessness. So Christ-like! Maddow had video of that last night. It was quite humorous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The people rallying to Kim Davis make me so sad. Me too. At least you are a couple states away from the drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The people rallying to Kim Davis make me so sad. When I saw that lot I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Very fortunately I'm an ocean away from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Word is that a Mike Huckabee staffer physically blocked Ted Cruz from getting in on the photo ops. These Republican McJesus-panderers are incredible in their shamelessness. So Christ-like! If Cruz had been smart he'd have gotten Davis' people to get him an exclusive with her, perhaps in exchange for some role in his campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 "Fire the cowardly clerks that are lawbreakers." http://news.yahoo.com/defiant-kentucky-clerks-backers-want-aides-fired-over-144618000.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Why is there any need to modify the form? As far as I'm aware, nothing about the current form suggests in any way, shape or form that the signatory personally approves of the marriage in any way. That's not what the clerk's job is. Clerks do not approve of marriages: they register them. The job is purely bureaucratic. Moral judgement doesn't play any part. Ms Davis has signed off on many, many marriages; it would be ludicrous to suggest that she personally approved of any one of them. How could she? These people are largely strangers to her! It's equally ludicrous, therefore, to suggest that her signing a marriage certificate for two men indicates personal approval of gay marriage. It does not. Modifying the form is just pandering to her erroneous notions about what her job actually entails. What a job entails is normally a matter between employer and employee. Her job, as defined by employer, authorizes her and requires her to give marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples; but fails to authorize her, and in fact does not even permit her, to give them to same-sex couples. If it is her "job" to issue documents describing same-sex couples as "married", it is only because she has been ordered to do so by Federal Courts. But she does not work for the Federal courts. Hence, her decision to comply with this order, or to defy it, cannot be considered a "ministerial" function in any ordinary sense of the word. Moral judgment IS involved, and whether you consider her moral judgment defective is neither here nor there. Meanwhile, the Governor of Kentucky has said that this is a matter between her and the Federal Courts. Any claim that issuing same-sex marriage licenses is her "job" is by heavy implication a claim that Justice Kennedy and/or Judge Bunning are her direct bosses. Maybe you will take issue with the above and argue that the State of Kentucky HAS ordered her, on its own authority, to issue same sex marriage licenses. But that's fine. I have always taken the position that the State of Kentucky can fire her if they don't like the way she is performing her "ministerial" functions. Her private beliefs do not protect her from her employer's right to have her do her job the way the employer wants. But then again, if that's really the way it is, then why are the Federal Courts involved? The issue is not too different from if she were ordered by Judge Bunning to hand out flyers stating "Justice Kennedy is God and all citizens of Kentucky must kiss his holy ass". If she refuses, because she does not believe that Justice Kennedy is God or that citizens of Kentucky should kiss his holy ass, and Judge Bunning sends her to jail for contempt of court because of this refusal, does that violate her rights of free speech, not only as a private person, but also as a public official? I would think so. Maybe you will argue that this is somehow different, but it seems to me just a little too close for comfort. She is ordered to issue a document saying that two same-sex people are "married". She may regard this as an untrue statement, not merely according to her religious convictions, but also according to the dictionary on her desk (unless it is a VERY recent edition), according to the definition of the word as supplied in the laws of Kentucky, and according the normal usage and practice of the community in which she lives. Under formerly-accepted definition, to say that two people are "married" was to say that they are of the opposite sex (hence to say that two homosexuals were married to each other would necessarily imply that one was a gay man and the other a lesbian woman); and to apply that to same sex couples can be construed as an untrue statement. I'm not big fan of equating semantics with "truth". I'm flexible with language. Even if one defines "marriage" as only "between a man and a woman", and calls committed gay couples by another term like "same-sex unions" I could still in theory argue that couples in "same-sex unions" should receive all the same legal rights and benefits of "married" couples. Conversely, even if you redefine "marriage" broadly to include same-sex unions, I am still in theory capable of arguing that a "same-sex marriage" is not precisely the same thing as a "traditional marriage" and should not be treated as precisely the same for all legal purposes. (To take an obvious example, it is not at all clear, to say the least, that the marital "presumption of legitimacy" should apply in exactly the same way in the context of same-sex unions.) Reality is stubborn, language an imperfect tool, and what a thing IS does not depend on what you choose to CALL it. But while I'm not narrow with semantic issues, I cannot help noticing that others don't feel the same way. Gay rights groups feel very strongly that the word "married" is the proper term, because it implies approval or legitimacy. And of course, as a believer in civil liberties, I strongly support the right of gay rights groups to use language as they wish for whatever rhetorical purposes they choose. Already, many state legislatures have gone along with them, and redefined "marriage" for statutory purposes along the lines they suggest, and I'm not trying to stop that either. State legislatures can do what they want. (IIRC, at least one other state had insisted on the term "civil union" but still given same-sex unions pretty-much all the same rights as "marriage", but this left gay rights groups unhappy because of wrong semantics). And Justice Kennedy also feels that semantics are important. As framed by Kennedy, the OBERGEFELL decision is about how the word marriage is "defined". It is an extremely vague, confusing, fuzzy and worrisome decision, because it sets a precedent and nobody knows what it means. It is not clearly based on the Equal Protection clause, but apparently on Justice Kennedy's idiosyncratic idea of a "dignity" right, which is broad enough to require that State Governments define "marriage" in a specific way, apparently as a way of expressing official approval of the homosexual lifestyle, which official approval is somehow necessary for their "dignity". I don't agree with this because it involves Federal Courts playing "word police" on a national scale. This seems Orwellian, as well as violative of free speech rights. All of us, even state officials, should be allowed to choose our own words, not have our semantics dictated to us by Justice Kennedy. And if the purpose of using the word "marriage" is to signal acceptance and approval, then no-one, whether State Official or not, should be required by law to issue documents intended to express the opinions of Justice Kennedy. Personally, I doubt I'd be willing to go to jail over a semantic issue. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe semantics ARE important. Maybe we SHOULD start standing up to this nonsense. I don't have to be happy about some unsophisticated woman being sent to jail, for not agreeing with the opinions of Justice Kennedy, just because all the rest of you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 What a job entails is normally a matter between employer and employee. Her job, as defined by employer, authorizes her and requires her to give marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples; but fails to authorize her, and in fact does not even permit her, to give them to same-sex couples. I can only assume this is some sort of attempt to troll, given the length of time taken to respond, not to mention the specious and factually inaccurate nature of the response. Whether serious or trolling, 1/10, must try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I can only assume this is some sort of attempt to troll, given the length of time taken to respond, not to mention the specious and factually inaccurate nature of the response. Whether serious or trolling, 1/10, must try harder. Your post lacks content. It's only purpose is to insult and show contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Chilly Polly- your entire post is rendered inaccurate by the fact that she is not an employee, she is an elected official. Her oath of office includes upholding the constitution and laws of the United States. Both of these are defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court as the highest authority on it. She cannot simply be fired by the state or the county. Court orders and holding in contempt of court are the legal system's recourse on violation of court orders and oaths of office. If you violated a court order of any kind, you would similarly be held in contempt of court if the judge wished to do so. This is very standard legal procedure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.