By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Kentucky Clerk Denies Marriage Licenses | Update: Clerk Freed w/Warning!

 

Should Someone's Religious Beliefs Circumvent Another's Legal Rights

Yes 47 14.33%
 
No 251 76.52%
 
See Results 30 9.15%
 
Total:328
mornelithe on 04 September 2015
Lawlight said:
mornelithe said:

No, I'd prefer she did the right thing, and resigned her position.  She's clearly unfit, and I honestly have no desire to force someone to do something they don't want.  However, she's singularly shutting down marriage for the area she covers.  She has been ruled against twice, by a secular Government.  She knows this, and she's certainly aware that her position is for the State, not God.  They have churches for that, and other such church owned/funded organizations.

I highly doubt most people want her shot, in fact I'd venture to say the vast, vast majority do not.  That's hyperbollic, and given all the shots fired in the name of God(s), seems like a bit of projection.  Her punishment is self-inflicted and she's wasting taxpayer money dealing with her bullshit.

Seems like the issue is with the legislation if the only way to remove someone from office is via a jail term. Heck, they fired a prime minister in Australia.

US isn't Australia.  Different States have different laws regarding their elected officials, and unless the law is set at the Federal Level (which I doubt it is), even the Government is hesitant to get involved (unless it's a human/civil rights issue).  

They shouldn't have to either, her actions aren't about respecting her own faith, her actions are intended to force her faith onto others.  If that weren't the case, why wouldn't she just quit?



Around the Network
bouzane on 04 September 2015
binary solo said:
bouzane said:
binary solo said:
She shouldn't have been gaoled, she should have been given a verbal warning, then a written warning saying that she will be terminated unless she issues the licenses, and then been fired if she did not obey.

It's in the constitution, you cannot establish religion. And that means you can't apply your religious beliefs to the lawful engagement with agencies of the local state and federal govt.

Loving the hypocrisy again coming out of the Republican candidates. They wrap themselves in the constitution any chance they get, but they are quick to ignore the constitution when it impinges on their desire to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. Oh well, just another day in politics I suppose.


She did get a written warning in the form of a court order. You act as if she wasn't given ample opportunity to change her ways but that certainly isn't the case. Also, she was an elected official who couldn't simply be fired.

It probably would be simple, possibly more simple than firing a country/state/federal employee. If you refuse to carry out your elected duty then you are no longer serving according to the terms under which you were elected and can therefore be removed from office. It would be a different process than the normal firing of hired employees, but it would be no less difficult to act upon.

The problem with gaol is it makes her into a rallying point for the homophobes. Ultimately, the will of the supreme court and the power of the constitution will win out, which means same sex couples will get the marriage licences they want from the county office.

Marriage licences should be federally issued anyway (a marriage is transferrable inter-state, which should make it a federal thing), which means a federal employee should be issuing the licences, not a locally elected official.


I guess I stand corrected. Although firing the clerk to save her from being found in contempt of court would be special treatment which she doesn't deserve.

Who cares if this is a rallying point for homophobes? I think it's great because the opposition has virtually no merit due to legal precedent and, thanks to the Clerks character (or lack thereof), virtually no ground to stand on from a religious perspective either. This woman is a hypocrite who ignores religious and secular law when it isn't convinient and that makes it impossible to defend her. It makes defending her actions impossible as well. Let people flock to support her so they can be identified and confronted with reason.

I'm not a fan of expanding the duties and powers of the central government in most cases but... I see little reason why they shouldn't be handling marriage so I must agree.



naruball on 04 September 2015
padib said:

I'll be praying for her. God's design for marriage is the best plan, and I am so proud of her for sticking up for what is right. The law is just that: law. It is made by people to follow their whims and has never been a compass for morality.

Jesus gave us the right model: "A man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they shall become one flesh". Go God.

How can you not be proud of a woman who is sticking up for what it right by having married 4 times and divorced 3 so far, only to tell gay men they can't get married?

Let's all pray for this wonderful woman sticking to her beliefs.



supafly on 04 September 2015

Good for her. Need more people like that. The 'progressive' liberals will not stop until the entire US is a decadent socialist ghetto.



XanderXT on 04 September 2015

Why is this so popular? This is one of the reasons I was inactive for a long time. People like stirring controversy by making threads like these. And most of you guys are seriously misquoting some bible verses.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 04 September 2015
supafly said:
Good for her. Need more people like that. The 'progressive' liberals will not stop until the entire US is a decadent socialist ghetto.


Because a lot of gay people live in the ghetto.



Puppyroach on 04 September 2015

Well, good thing she is in jail. They might not be able to fire her, but fines and jailtime might send some good signals :).



Lawlight on 04 September 2015
Puppyroach said:
Well, good thing she is in jail. They might not be able to fire her, but fines and jailtime might send some good signals :).


Which signals are those? I'm curious because seems like you want her throw in jail for not agreeing with gay marriage and not for being held for contempt in court.



Puppyroach on 04 September 2015
Lawlight said:
Puppyroach said:
Well, good thing she is in jail. They might not be able to fire her, but fines and jailtime might send some good signals :).

Which signals are those? I'm curious because seems like you want her throw in jail for not agreeing with gay marriage and not for being held for contempt in court.

No, she can have any opinion she wants about gay marriage, it´s her behaviour of refusing to do her job assigned by the government that I oppose.



bouzane on 04 September 2015
supafly said:
Good for her. Need more people like that. The 'progressive' liberals will not stop until the entire US is a decadent socialist ghetto.


You know your ideology is pathetic when a law breaking three times divorced adulterer is a role model. If that's not decadence what is excactly? Being a four times divorced adulterer with six kids born out of wedlock? The double standards are hilarious and they make you look like a fool.

I also love how the religious values she pretends to uphold don't even allow women to hold positions of authority in the first place. It's funny how people only follow what is convinient for themselves while ignoring the rest. Oh well, it only makes ignoring the whole thing so much easier for me. When "Christians" don't give a damn about Biblical law and refuse to apply it to their own lives that makes a mockery out of it all. Lead by example or don't bother taking a stand in the first place.

Now tell me more about how those evil "progressive liberals" are ruining America, a nation founded and shaped by liberals and progressives. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is so asinine it is mind blowing. Let me ask you something. Do you currently live in a liberal democracy, enjoying the rights and freedoms secured for you by these ideologies?