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
CosmicSex said:
Soundwave said:

This kind of silly. Leviticus (which is chief source cited by most Christians who have a bone to pick with homosexuality) in the Bible also prohibits the eating of shell fish and mixed fabrics.

Wait what? Mixed fabrics.... so lol... can you claim religious discrimination if you refuse to serve someone whose outfit is clashing?

according to this radical woman... Yes.. Yes you can... Or at least that is the agenda and precedent she is trying to push/set. 



Around the Network
padib said:
marley said:

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.

Do you really think that's a good argument. Sure she messed up, who hasn't? In this case though (and it's the case I'm commending her for), she did right.

Permission granted?

Nah, that's more of character assassination.  There's really only 1 good argument.  She was elected by the people to enforce the rule of law of the State/Federal Government.  She has failed to do that, and has refused to comply with the order of a Federal Judge, and is now wasting taxpayer dollars.  It's the only argument that matters, your God(s), has no place in this decision, and she's in jail because she thought otherwise.



padib said:
mornelithe said:

Nah, that's more of character assassination.  There's really only 1 good argument.  She was elected by the people to enforce the rule of law of the State/Federal Government.  She has failed to do that, and has refused to comply with the order of a Federal Judge, and is now wasting taxpayer dollars.  It's the only argument that matters, your God(s), has no place in this decision, and she's in jail because she thought otherwise.

At least you acknoledge that his argument was bogus. Very good and refreshing.

However, your faith in law is just as poor as his argument, because laws change all the time. As for God not mattering, God mattered very much for causes in the past such as the influence of Martin Luther King jr. and many LGBT people are fervent believers and they fight for their rights in God's name.

This fight for rights is what leads to laws. However, it still doesn't make it good or bad because good and bad is not defined by an opinion. It's absolute, much like the laws of the universe we live in. Morality is absolute and is dictated by the creator, hence the importance of God.

Sorry, I don't believe in your God, and I would not want anything to do with a celestial dictator, even if such a being were to be proven to exist.  For an absurdly lengthy amount of reasons, I will not go into here.

Also, US Law, doesn't care about your God, either,  It has no power here (and really, has no power anywhere, but...not really the point), if you wish to live in a theocracy, where such things are a reality, there are still plenty of them worldwide.  But the US, is not among them.  You can choose to force your views on others, and be jailed, or fined or whatever.  Or you can learn to control your own life, and let others control theirs.

Also, Marriage (or some form thereof), pre-dates every currently existing religion.  So, you can't lay claim to that, either.

PS.  Just so we're clear here, maybe you don't realize this, but a very major part of the reason for people leaving England and murdering millions of Native American's (a whole other issue), was to escape the Church's influence in England, and to create a place where people of all faiths could co-exist.  Not to create another theocracy where the wishes of the religious majority (or minority) would overrule another persons rights.



padib said:
mornelithe said:

Sorry, I don't believe in your God, and I would not want anything to do with a celestial dictator, even if such a being were to be proven to exist.  For an absurdly lengthy amount of reasons, I will not go into here.

Also, US Law, doesn't care about your God, either,  It has no power here (and really, has no power anywhere, but...not really the point), if you wish to live in a theocracy, where such things are a reality, there are still plenty of them worldwide.  But the US, is not among them.  You can choose to force your views on others, and be jailed, or fined or whatever.  Or you can learn to control your own life, and let others control theirs.

Also, Marriage (or some form thereof), pre-dates every currently existing religion.  So, you can't lay claim to that, either.

And I don't care about US Law, nor do I really care about your opinion, honestly.

PS.  Just so we're clear here, maybe you don't realize this, but a very major part of the reason for people leaving England and murdering millions of Native American's (a whole other issue), was to escape the Church's influence in England, and to create a place where people of all faiths could co-exist.  Not to create another theocracy where the wishes of the religious majority (or minority) would overrule another persons rights.

Nobody was talking about a theocracy.

That's ok, you don't have to care about my opinion, but if you live in the US, you kinda do have to care about US Law.  As Davis has found out.  Your statement on 'absolute morales' and your willingness to overlook secular Governmental rule indicate a desire for a theocracy.  Whether you understand the word or not, isn't really relevant.



padib said:
mornelithe said:

Nah, that's more of character assassination.  There's really only 1 good argument.  She was elected by the people to enforce the rule of law of the State/Federal Government.  She has failed to do that, and has refused to comply with the order of a Federal Judge, and is now wasting taxpayer dollars.  It's the only argument that matters, your God(s), has no place in this decision, and she's in jail because she thought otherwise.

At least you acknoledge that his argument was bogus. Very good and refreshing.

However, your faith in law is just as poor as his argument, because laws change all the time. As for God not mattering, God mattered very much for causes in the past such as the influence of Martin Luther King jr. and many LGBT people are fervent believers and they fight for their rights in God's name.

This fight for rights is what leads to laws. However, it still doesn't make it good or bad because good and bad is not defined by an opinion. It's absolute, much like the laws of the universe we live in. Morality is absolute and is dictated by the creator, hence the importance of God.

god doesnt matter in the courtroom or if its about anything the state has to do...



Around the Network
padib said:
mornelithe said:

That's ok, you don't have to care about my opinion, but if you live in the US, you kinda do have to care about US Law.  As Davis has found out.  Your statement on 'absolute morales' and your willingness to overlook secular Governmental rule indicate a desire for a theocracy.  Whether you understand the word or not, isn't really relevant.

That's your definition of theocracy, and I respect it. It isn't mine at all.

I don't think the world could even live in a theocracy, it can't handle living by God's rules. In this case, I never spoke about changing the law if you noticed, I simply said that I was proud of the lady and do not care that the law condemns what she did.

And no matter where I'm from (not the US btw), I won't ever abide by rules I disagree with. In a democracy, the law is decided by a majority. It thus follows that a portion may not agree with said law, and may not want to live by it.

The law used to forbid same-sex marriage, now it forbits refusing it. So did you like the law before? Did it matter?

Back then, to you, of course it did. And in the name of human rights, you would have claimed how aweful the law was.

And I could simply brush it off and say "I don't care about your ideals on human rights." The argument goes both ways.

I know you're not from the US, that's why I said 'If you're in the US'.  Which you're not.  So, really, your opinion means less than nothing.

And I never said I agreed with all laws.  Laws that blatantly restrict the rights of others, are obscene.  Restricting LGBT to marriage, was obscene and I disagreed with it, because what they do with their lives is of little consequence to me.  Of course, in a country of hundreds of millions of people, there are going to be laws you don't agree with, for the greater peace (though, part of the issue with the US, is the Government doesn't move fluidly enough to address older laws, in any realistic amount of time).

In fact, I actually disagree with Marriage being recognized by the US Government, period.  Largely because the religious like to pretend they own the word.  I'm more than happy to have the word erased from all relevant legislation, and pointing the finger at the religious and saying, you now have to re-register with the State, spend time out of your day, because the religious were dicks.  That would tickle me pink, seriously.  To watch public opinion of the religious drop (not for violence purposes, but to see their power base dwindle) would be the best thing to happen to the US.  But, folks like Davis will do just fine.  What, you think she won points with the hetero couples she denied licenses to, while she had her temper tantrum?  It's possible, but unlikely.  Most people don't like dealing with the Government beauracracy as it is, she prolonged that, just because she wanted to force her superstitions on others.

And, if you ever do visit the US, I suggest you do adhere to it's laws, or you may find yourself a ward of the State, for longer than you'd intended.



marley said:
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.

I agree.  The law is just that: law.  Yet she is no longer serving the law as she swore on the Bible to do. She did not take an oath to protect her own beliefs or serve God in her office, she swore to the state to uphold the law - and she is breaking that oath.


"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Maybe she should follow that passage, since she likes to pick and choose.

"That's the difference between blind faith and wisdom. You don't stop honoring God just because a rule says that you need to be subject to governing authorities. That's silly."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Was she also honoring her god when she got married 4 times and procreated with someone who wasn't her husband?  Her religion has plenty to say about divorce and adultery (surprisingly very little about being gay), yet she feels she has the moral authority to limit someone else's constitutional rights.  "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Right?  

Was she honoring god when she broke the oathe that she made to faithfully uphold the constitution according to law?  An oath that she made to god (and likely with her hand on the bible).  

Why is honoring god only important to her when it comes to limiting gay rights?  


 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished."

Nowhere in the bible does it say that she shouldn't give gay people a marriage license, but it directly says that disobeying the law is akin to disobeying god. I don't remember any bible passages that say you can pick and choose which parts are important enough to follow.  Regardless, if her religious conscience prevents her from performing her job, then she needs to resign.  This holds true to ANY workplace.  She certainly shouldn't be making money off of people that she refuses to serve. 



padib said:

That's your definition of theocracy, and I respect it. It isn't mine at all.

I don't think the world could even live in a theocracy, it can't handle living by God's rules. In this case, I never spoke about changing the law if you noticed, I simply said that I was proud of the lady and do not care that the law condemns what she did.

And no matter where I'm from (not the US btw), I won't ever abide by rules I disagree with. In a democracy, the law is decided by a majority. It thus follows that a portion may not agree with said law, and may not want to live by it.

The law used to forbid same-sex marriage, now it forbids refusing it. So did you like the law before? Did it matter?

Back then, to you, of course it did. And in the name of human rights, you would have claimed how aweful the law was.

And I could simply brush it off and say "I don't care about your ideals on human rights." The argument goes both ways.

I apologize for butting in here, but I have to object to this.

Law is flawed, obviously. However it's a reflection of what is best in protecting the freedoms of all peoples. Or at least it is a goal in an ideal secular society. Is it often objectionable? Of course! I often vehemently disagree with it. But the concerted humanist effort is the best thing we can have. It's a constantly (too often, much too slowly) evolving thing and I would argue that its constant change and willingness to admit its faults is what makes it the best system we have.

Absolutism, however, states that we know what is best and anything to state otherwise is wrong out of hand. A convienient but ultimately intolerant and dangerous stance to take. Socarates claimed that the only thing he is certain of is his own ignorance; that wisdom is only derived from the knowledge that we actually know so very little. It's that lack of humility in absolute truths that have me confused that anyone can claim their validity.



Eh, this was pretty inevitable; when most of the states still considered it illegal folks with their tightly-held beliefs could point to the law to enforce their own ideology, ("You can't get married, see, says right here!") and therefore were pretty secure in these positions since it meshed with their own beliefs. Now that this is no longer the case, of course, anyone who had previously held the law up as a beacon will drop it like a very hot potato, and be forced to decide if they want to move on to a job that won't pester them with such things, or if they'd rather end up in jail for contempt of court. I'm honestly surprised we're only hearing about one, though not sure how many Clerks there are in total. Figured there'd be a string of resignations from people who just couldn't bear to deal with enabling same-sex couples to wed. =P It is a shame that this woman dragged it out to this extent, but apparently she felt it necessary to take a stand, so suppose it was her choice.

The important thing is that, end of the day, her attempts to evade it didn't work out, and her attempts to flat-out ignore and take her stand resulted in the law treating her as it would any other lawbreaker. I was actually concerned that, when push came to shove, the courts would sort of kid-glove the issue and try to find a workaround to keep her happy- and they apparently half did by asking if she'd accept release from jail in exchange for enabling her deputies to sign the documents, which she still refused in favor of stubbornly remaining in jail- buuuut nope, it's all turning out surprisingly well. The certificates are being distributed, regardless of her explicit opposition to it, and given her ongoing refusal, I wouldn't be surprised if she's removed from her position sooner or later.

And before anyone asks 'But you'd see this woman lose her JOB?' my answer is 'She's not DOING her job, so I'd rather see this woman lose the PAYCHEQUE for the job she isn't DOING.'

Still, it'll be really interesting watch the inevitable hyperbole and soapbox-grandstanding that's probably going to take place as they try to make it look like her being in jail wasn't her conscious and deliberate choice, but rather the machinations of something something liberal somethings. Roommate mentioned that one of her supporters referred to her as 'A Jew In Nazy Germany,' which made me facepalm myself so hard I'm still seeing double. -_-



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

It's a tragedy, that yet another believer is persecuted; such is life in this time. Ms. Davis, you have my prayers.