thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on Sept 2, 2015 8:12:21 GMT -5
This bigot, who is an elected official in Kentucky, responsible for issuing marriage licenses in a misguided and illegal conflation of her personal faith and her government job has....wait for it....been married 4 times and had twins out of wedlock. Outstanding. You couldn't make that up if you were writing a novel or screenplay of a hillbilly bigot being made into a martyr for "religious freedom" It would be too on the nose so you would have to dial it down a notch. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219147/Kentucky-clerk-Kim-Davis-married-FOUR-times-gave-birth-wedlock.html
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2015 9:02:57 GMT -5
The entire recent movement to reinvigorate "religious freedom" laws in the U.S. is just the new face they put on the same old bigotry.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on Sept 2, 2015 9:15:21 GMT -5
I take some solace in noting that they are most certainly now on their heels rather than on their toes.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Sept 2, 2015 9:31:38 GMT -5
I get that the point is that she's a giant hypocrite even with the reasons she's denying these licenses, but I wish more of the focus of this story was on the people she's hurting rather than this lady's 4 marriages or whatever her status was at the point at which she had kids. We either care about that stuff or we don't, even when it suits our argument.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,834
|
Post by thebin on Sept 2, 2015 9:41:19 GMT -5
This is a distinction without a difference TC. She is the only one violating the law; why shouldn't the focus be on her hypocrisy? This woman is undermining other Americans constitutional rights at this point; of that there can be no argument and that has been known for some time. What is new news is this person, who was being turned into a martyr by people who clearly don't understand or accept the separation of church and state as it exists in reality, has undermined her entire fictitious claim of moral authority by having lived a life that is as anti-Christian as the gays seeking marriage licenses. It is not necessary for this to be so for her to be removed from her job and fined for failing in her oath to serve the law without recourse to any band of faith, but it sure as hell is relevant.
File this one under sunlight being the greatest disinfectant.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2015 9:52:19 GMT -5
Agreed - pointing out hypocrisy here isn't in the 'gotcha' sense, it's about the fundamental disingenuous nature of this entire movement.
It's not about religion or religious freedom. It's about making sure that homosexuality is not fully accepted as a part of American culture.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 2, 2015 9:56:33 GMT -5
She should immediately resign her position. The law is clear. Her duties are clear. If she wants her own conscience to be clear she needs to quit. Period.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 2, 2015 14:12:54 GMT -5
Her past is irrelevant as is her religious beliefs. It's the law and she's not following it as her job requires her to do. She should be let go. Since when is a marriage license at all related to any religious organization? It's a legal document that she's required to issue to those legally allowed to apply for one. She's refusing and should be fired for insubordination.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 2, 2015 14:14:23 GMT -5
This bigot, who is an elected official in Kentucky, responsible for issuing marriage licenses in a misguided and illegal conflation of her personal faith and her government job has....wait for it....been married 4 times and had twins out of wedlock. Outstanding. You couldn't make that up if you were writing a novel or screenplay of a hillbilly bigot being made into a martyr for "religious freedom" It would be too on the nose so you would have to dial it down a notch. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219147/Kentucky-clerk-Kim-Davis-married-FOUR-times-gave-birth-wedlock.htmlShe's not a bigot. She has a reasonable belief that two persons of the same sex cannot be married - a belief held by a significant percentage of people in this country. That being said, I do think she ought to adopt Justice Scalia's position and resign. BTW, great job continuing your recent streak of demeaning someone you deem lesser than you. "Hillbilly Bigot" That's a good one.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Sept 2, 2015 14:16:40 GMT -5
I'm confused why this is even a discussion. They are numerous duties you might be assigned as a government official that are in violation of your beliefs.
If you want the job you have to be willing to do the job, otherwise you have to resign.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 2, 2015 14:22:34 GMT -5
Her past is irrelevant as is her religious beliefs. It's the law and she's not following it as her job requires her to do. She should be let go. Since when is a marriage license at all related to any religious organization? It's a legal document that she's required to issue to those legally allowed to apply for one. She's refusing and should be fired for insubordination. Who is going to fire her?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 2, 2015 14:46:28 GMT -5
Her past is irrelevant as is her religious beliefs. It's the law and she's not following it as her job requires her to do. She should be let go. Since when is a marriage license at all related to any religious organization? It's a legal document that she's required to issue to those legally allowed to apply for one. She's refusing and should be fired for insubordination. Who is going to fire her? Government workers don't get fired
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 2, 2015 17:37:57 GMT -5
Who is going to fire her? Government workers don't get fired Apologies. Impeached. TBird, I assume you mean elected officials because government workers do get fired. It's not as straightforward as employment at will but it does happen.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,062
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 2, 2015 18:27:36 GMT -5
Government workers don't get fired Apologies. Impeached. TBird, I assume you mean elected officials because government workers do get fired. It's not as straightforward as employment at will but it does happen. Scalia: " n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do."
Davis should resign if she cannot obey the law and carry out her ministerial duty.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Sept 2, 2015 22:49:45 GMT -5
This is absolutely bigotry. It's bigotry couched in "religious freedom."
If she were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage then she would not act as she has, contrary to that belief. Since she doesn't seem to place much value on the other Christian teachings regarding marriage, it seems that this isn't so much a religious issue as a it is a personal one.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 3, 2015 0:47:03 GMT -5
This is absolutely bigotry. It's bigotry couched in "religious freedom." If she were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage then she would not act as she has, contrary to that belief. Since she doesn't seem to place much value on the other Christian teachings regarding marriage, it seems that this isn't so much a religious issue as a it is a personal one. Only those without sin can try to live according to the teachings of the Church? That's an interesting take on the faith.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 3, 2015 11:53:16 GMT -5
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act stating marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage in June of this year, DOMA remained the law of the land. Despite that, several states attempted to legalize same sex marriage and started issuing licenses to same sex couples. Shouldn't those clerks issuing licenses to same sexes instead have resigned rather than disobeying the law of the land?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 3, 2015 12:08:43 GMT -5
DOMA did not make same-sex marriage illegal. It restricted the benefits same-sex couples could receive and allowed states without marriage equality to refuse to recognize marriages legally entered into by same-sex couples in other states (specifically to address getting around the full faith and credit clause).
Which, of course, does not make it nothing, and the culpability of those who supported it is a completely fair thing to bring up.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 3, 2015 12:11:13 GMT -5
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act stating marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage in June of this year, DOMA remained the law of the land. Despite that, several states attempted to legalize same sex marriage and started issuing licenses to same sex couples. Shouldn't those clerks issuing licenses to same sexes instead have resigned rather than disobeying the law of the land? Ed, the defense of marriage act was, as you note, a federal law. It permitted states to not recognize marriages from other states, but it didn't require them to do so. States were free to do as they wished. So, if a state legalized (not "attempted to legalize") same sex marriage, that was then the law of that particular state. And, therefore, a clerk was obligated legally to follow the law of that state. Those clerks never were in violation of federal law; DOMA simply didn't apply to them. Really, the better example (however implausible) is this: If a homosexual served as a county clerk in say, 1963, and a gay couple came to him (perhaps knowing his sexual orientation) and sought a marriage license, that clerk certainly may have thought that gay marriage was appropriate and should have been legal, but he nonetheless had to refuse to grant the license. Because the law required it, despite his personal views. The situation is really extremely simple: When you take a job in which the purpose is to issue governmental licenses in accordance with applicable law, you have to issue the licenses that the law requires you to issue. If you don't like it, resign. Sure, the law changed on her mid-stream, and in that sense, it's unfair that she should have to lose her job and paycheck when she took the job in a very different context, but it doesn't change the fact that she's simply not doing her job. And she's violating other's rights in the process. I have no doubt that some of this is financial: If she could afford to simply resign, she probably would.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 3, 2015 13:04:06 GMT -5
|
|