Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy

[hornet]

Mrr T said:

However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument.

How exactly is it an imposition? By my reading of the decision, they haven't specifically allowed gay marriage, rather decided there's no basis in the constitution to continue to disallow it. The argument that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage as some sort of protest to it being used now is nonsense, as it had nothing to do with abortion either, yet was central to Roe vs Wade. Was that therefore equally undemocratic? There's no impact of any sort on straight couples, who can carry on getting married exactly as before, it's just they can now be joined by same sex couples. Whether that conflicts with their personal beliefs is their issue, but there is no impediment to their getting married thanks to this judgement.

[pincher]

jimmybobby said:

True but in approving it she thereby approves them to get married which is against her religious beliefs.... She is not marrying them that much is true. She is in fact giving or denying them that privilege.

So what happens if her religion declares tomorrow that they are actually fully supportive of same-sex marriages - will she then be happy to issue licenses?

If so, that doesn't sound much like a belief. If not, then it sounds more like old-fashioned bigotry.

[Timsta]

pincher said:

So what happens if her religion declares tomorrow that they are actually fully supportive of same-sex marriages - will she then be happy to issue licenses?

If so, that doesn't sound much like a belief. If not, then it sounds more like old-fashioned bigotry.

I would agree with it just being plain old bigotry. Off the top of my head, she's already committed the following sins:

• Adultery (Exodus 20:14)
• Wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
• Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:12)
• Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7)
• Assuming authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12)

I believe some of these carry the death penalty.

[ViperDave]

Timsta said:

I would agree with it just being plain old bigotry. Off the top of my head, she's already committed the following sins:

• Adultery (Exodus 20:14)
• Wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
• Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:12)
• Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7)
• Assuming authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12)

I believe some of these carry the death penalty.

She also swore an oath with the words "will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." so by breaking that oath she has already sinned against her word to god. her only way to absolve herself of sin was to resign her position.

[Mrr T]

ViperDave said:

Timsta said:

I would agree with it just being plain old bigotry. Off the top of my head, she's already committed the following sins:

• Adultery (Exodus 20:14)
• Wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
• Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:12)
• Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7)
• Assuming authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12)

I believe some of these carry the death penalty.

She also swore an oath with the words "will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." so by breaking that oath she has already sinned against her word to god. her only way to absolve herself of sin was to resign her position.

As I have repeated said Obama also swears and oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Since his actions on Obama Care and the DAPA have broken the oath should he resign?

[Bullett]

God - nailed it.

http://thegoodlordabove.com/articles/details/138

[ViperDave]

Mrr T said:

ViperDave said:

Timsta said:

I would agree with it just being plain old bigotry. Off the top of my head, she's already committed the following sins:

• Adultery (Exodus 20:14)
• Wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
• Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:12)
• Eating pork (Leviticus 11:7)
• Assuming authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12)

I believe some of these carry the death penalty.

She also swore an oath with the words "will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." so by breaking that oath she has already sinned against her word to god. her only way to absolve herself of sin was to resign her position.

As I have repeated said Obama also swears and oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Since his actions on Obama Care and the DAPA have broken the oath should he resign?

Is he saying God told him to do it, because that is what Kim Davis is saying, My point you quoted was that she was either sinning because she was not following God' word, or sinning because she had broken the oath she swore on God name to uphold. Her only recourse to avoid sin was resignation.

As for Obama and Obama Care or DAPA, I'm not saying your wrong, You just keep going on about it without giving a direct reference to what your taking about, as such i can only assume your ranting about Obama like many do, as after all he is still president. For all i know i may agree with you on that point but i don't know what the details of your point are and even if i did it wouldn't change the arguments in respect to Kim Davis.

[Mrr T]

hornet said:

Mrr T said:

However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument.

How exactly is it an imposition? By my reading of the decision, they haven't specifically allowed gay marriage, rather decided there's no basis in the constitution to continue to disallow it. The argument that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage as some sort of protest to it being used now is nonsense, as it had nothing to do with abortion either, yet was central to Roe vs Wade. Was that therefore equally undemocratic? There's no impact of any sort on straight couples, who can carry on getting married exactly as before, it's just they can now be joined by same sex couples. Whether that conflicts with their personal beliefs is their issue, but there is no impediment to their getting married thanks to this judgement.

Not sure I understand your argument. The law of many states limited marriage to a man and a woman. The decision by the judges said this did not give equal protect for homosexuals. There are many things wrong with the judgement. But the most important is that if you apply the logic then many things which are illegal today would have to be created legal. At the very least it clear that the judges would have no option but to agree to polygamy on the basis the current law limits marriage to 2 people where as some religions accept polygamy. If you apply the same logic what other laws are unfair to certain groups and what else should be legal which is not?

I would suggest you read the 14th amendment and its back ground. The judges had to torture the wording to fit into their judgement.

More importantly the 5 judges ignored the democratic process.

Finally, its always amusing when the left defend the 14th amendment on gay marriage but say its use in the Bush election result was fundamentally wrong.

[jimmybobby]

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

True but in approving it she thereby approves them to get married which is against her religious beliefs.... She is not marrying them that much is true. She is in fact giving or denying them that privilege.

It isn't her job to approve them or not, that is the whole point. Her job is to give a licence to people who meet the criteria according to law. Whether she agrees or not is completely beside the point.

Ok lets put it like this. You work for the prison service your job is to incarcerate people. Then one day you come into work and they have changed the law and you now as part of your job you are also expected to both take them to be executed and on occasion carry out executions as well.

All the government has done is change the law but in turn it has changed your job and you have had to go from mere jailor to executioner.
Failure to either execute the prisoner or prepare them for and take them to their execution is a dismissible offence for failure to carry out your duty.

As such you can of course quit your job however the market for professional trained jailors is pretty slim since its a gov run organisation and as such you will possibly suffer personal and financial hardship.

What do you do? Do you accept that you now have to kill people as part of your job even thought the idea is abhorrent to you? Do you quit your job?

[esxste]

Mrr T said:

Not sure I understand your argument. The law of many states limited marriage to a man and a woman. The decision by the judges said this did not give equal protect for homosexuals. There are many things wrong with the judgement. But the most important is that if you apply the logic then many things which are illegal today would have to be created legal. At the very least it clear that the judges would have no option but to agree to polygamy on the basis the current law limits marriage to 2 people where as some religions accept polygamy. If you apply the same logic what other laws are unfair to certain groups and what else should be legal which is not?

I would suggest you read the 14th amendment and its back ground. The judges had to torture the wording to fit into their judgement.

More importantly the 5 judges ignored the democratic process.

Finally, its always amusing when the left defend the 14th amendment on gay marriage but say its use in the Bush election result was fundamentally wrong.

You lost me with the polygamy and other implied "what else may be made legal" argument. They are weak arguments that have no basis in reality. Countries and states that have allowed same sex marriage many, many years ago, are not contemplating legalising any of the implied horrors you imagine.

All of that makes me question the basis of your opinion that the Judges has to "torture" wording to fit their judgement.

[esxste]

jimmybobby said:

Ok lets put it like this. You work for the prison service your job is to incarcerate people. Then one day you come into work and they have changed the law and you now as part of your job you are also expected to both take them to be executed and on occasion carry out executions as well.

All the government has done is change the law but in turn it has changed your job and you have had to go from mere jailor to executioner.
Failure to either execute the prisoner or prepare them for and take them to their execution is a dismissible offence for failure to carry out your duty.

As such you can of course quit your job however the market for professional trained jailors is pretty slim since its a gov run organisation and as such you will possibly suffer personal and financial hardship.

What do you do? Do you accept that you now have to kill people as part of your job even thought the idea is abhorrent to you? Do you quit your job?

How twisted must one be to compare an act of love to the act of death.

[jimmybobby]

esxste said:

How twisted must one be to compare an act of love to the act of death.

If you need to make me out as some sort of bad guy because you cannot answer the question that's fine.

[wolves_wanderer]

jimmybobby said:

Ok lets put it like this. You work for the prison service your job is to incarcerate people. Then one day you come into work and they have changed the law and you now as part of your job you are also expected to both take them to be executed and on occasion carry out executions as well.

All the government has done is change the law but in turn it has changed your job and you have had to go from mere jailor to executioner.
Failure to either execute the prisoner or prepare them for and take them to their execution is a dismissible offence for failure to carry out your duty.

As such you can of course quit your job however the market for professional trained jailors is pretty slim since its a gov run organisation and as such you will possibly suffer personal and financial hardship.

What do you do? Do you accept that you now have to kill people as part of your job even thought the idea is abhorrent to you? Do you quit your job?

What a daft analogy. A more appropriate comparison would be if the state had suddenly asked her to carry out the marriage as well as issue a licence, in which case I would agree that it isn't reasonable.

[ViperDave]

wolves_wanderer said:

jimmybobby said:

Ok lets put it like this. You work for the prison service your job is to incarcerate people. Then one day you come into work and they have changed the law and you now as part of your job you are also expected to both take them to be executed and on occasion carry out executions as well.

All the government has done is change the law but in turn it has changed your job and you have had to go from mere jailor to executioner.
Failure to either execute the prisoner or prepare them for and take them to their execution is a dismissible offence for failure to carry out your duty.

As such you can of course quit your job however the market for professional trained jailors is pretty slim since its a gov run organisation and as such you will possibly suffer personal and financial hardship.

What do you do? Do you accept that you now have to kill people as part of your job even thought the idea is abhorrent to you? Do you quit your job?

What a daft analogy. A more appropriate comparison would be if the state had suddenly asked her to carry out the marriage as well as issue a licence, in which case I would agree that it isn't reasonable.

Or in the case of the prison officer it would be more like, when the prisoner gets off the bus from the court the intake officer has to check the name serial number and sentence and sign the bus drivers delivery note to say that the inmate has been received and its the same inmate that was sent by the court, and rather than just checking the details for a lifer, they also now have to check the details of death row inmates. They are no more involved with the incarceration or execution than Kim Davis is in the marriage process, its just a 5 minute contact, fact check and rubber stamp, to go beyond the intake officers check to include overseeing incarceration, the execution and even taking part goes far far beyond the involvement Kim Davis has in the marriage process.

[jimmybobby]

wolves_wanderer said:

What a daft analogy. A more appropriate comparison would be if the state had suddenly asked her to carry out the marriage as well as issue a licence, in which case I would agree that it isn't reasonable.

This is like the speeding argument and you seem not to be getting it. In the US you cannot marry unless you have a certificate stating you are allowed to marry. This woman has been told to hand out certificates which state they are permitted to marry. Put another way she is giving them permission to get get married. Put another way she is saying it acceptable to A: Be gay and B: For a man and man or woman and woman to get married which goes against her religious belief.

Without her giving the marriage certificate they cannot legally marry. She plays a bigger part in the marriage system than the person who carries out the ceremony.

Its a bit like a car. A car is a car however if it has no engine it cannot operate as a car which is a device to transport people and goods from one point to another.

She is the engine to the marriage car. No engine no marriage.

[ViperDave]

jimmybobby said:

This is like the speeding argument and you seem not to be getting it. In the US you cannot marry unless you have a certificate stating you are allowed to marry. This woman has been told to hand out certificates which state they are permitted to marry. Put another way she is giving them permission to get get married. Put another way she is saying it acceptable legal to A: Be gay and B: For a man and man or woman and woman to get married which goes against her religious belief (deleted for irrelevance) .

Without her giving the marriage certificate they cannot legally marry. She plays a bigger minor but vital part in the marriage system than the person who carries out the ceremony.

Its a bit like a car. A car is a car however if it has no engine it cannot operate as a car which is a device to transport people and goods from one point to another.

She is the engine to the marriage car. No engine no marriage.

Edited for accuracy.

And the car analogy is just bizarre but i would suggest she is more the examiner issuing the MOT certificate and she is now being asked to mot electric cars

Edited by ViperDave on Tuesday 15th September 21:54

[jimmybobby]

Pointless. You have made up your mind. You refuse point blank to recognise that the reality is far more complicated than you wish to imply.

[SamHH]

jimmybobby said:

Ok lets put it like this. You work for the prison service your job is to incarcerate people. Then one day you come into work and they have changed the law and you now as part of your job you are also expected to both take them to be executed and on occasion carry out executions as well.

All the government has done is change the law but in turn it has changed your job and you have had to go from mere jailor to executioner.
Failure to either execute the prisoner or prepare them for and take them to their execution is a dismissible offence for failure to carry out your duty.

As such you can of course quit your job however the market for professional trained jailors is pretty slim since its a gov run organisation and as such you will possibly suffer personal and financial hardship.

What do you do? Do you accept that you now have to kill people as part of your job even thought the idea is abhorrent to you? Do you quit your job?

I'm not sure what point this hypothetical is meant to raise, but returning to the actual facts, yeah, Davis should resign if she doesn't want to do the job any more. What's wrong with that?

[Foppo]

She does want to do her job,except issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

Whatever you think of it that is her choice.Her contract was changed not taking into account her religious beliefs.You can keep going round in circles with this.

[Mrr T]

esxste said:

Mrr T said:

Not sure I understand your argument. The law of many states limited marriage to a man and a woman. The decision by the judges said this did not give equal protect for homosexuals. There are many things wrong with the judgement. But the most important is that if you apply the logic then many things which are illegal today would have to be created legal. At the very least it clear that the judges would have no option but to agree to polygamy on the basis the current law limits marriage to 2 people where as some religions accept polygamy. If you apply the same logic what other laws are unfair to certain groups and what else should be legal which is not?

I would suggest you read the 14th amendment and its back ground. The judges had to torture the wording to fit into their judgement.

More importantly the 5 judges ignored the democratic process.

Finally, its always amusing when the left defend the 14th amendment on gay marriage but say its use in the Bush election result was fundamentally wrong.

You lost me with the polygamy and other implied "what else may be made legal" argument. They are weak arguments that have no basis in reality. Countries and states that have allowed same sex marriage many, many years ago, are not contemplating legalising any of the implied horrors you imagine.

All of that makes me question the basis of your opinion that the Judges has to "torture" wording to fit their judgement.

Apologies if I lost you. The fact is the arguments are complex.

My reason for posting on the thread is most people have only read the UK coverage of the case which has been very simplistic.

To follow my arguments you need to:

1. The introduction of gay marriage in the US was not based on legislation as it was in the UK.

2. The legislation on marriage in many US states limited marriage to a man and a woman.

3. In the case of Obergefell V Hodges 5 Supreme Court judges (4 disagreed) that state marriage legislation which limited marriage to a man and a woman was in breach of the 14th amendment to the constitutions.

4. One of the main arguments in the affirmative decision was that marriage gave certain privileges to a spouse which would therefore be denied to a homosexual couple.

5. . The argument would suggest the court could not refuse a similar application for a poligimous group, or say a brother and sister wishing to marry.

My suggestion is you need to read the 14th amendment and the back ground to its introductions and the judgements in the case which show how complexed this matter is.