Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy
Discussion
When even Fox News says that you are a wingnut, that may be Nature's way of telling you that you are a wingnut.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbada...
Context, for anyone not aware of the story: Kim Davis, a municipal clerk in Kentucky whose job it is to issue marriage licences refuses to do so when the people wishing to marry are a same sex couple, thereby breaching her obligations as a public employee. A Federal Judge ordered her to perform her duty. She refused. He jailed her for contempt of Court. GOP candidate Huckabee has used the issue to boost his flagging campaign, saying that citizens only have to obey the laws that they like. All the usual gay haters and religious loons have come out of the woodwork to support the "martyr" Davis. BTW, her own marital history makes Henry VIII's look simple, but that is OK, because marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and let those (M/F) trailer trash whom God has joined in matrimony never be put asunder (until they get knocked up by the next guy at a 'gator wrasslin' monster truck festival), Amen.
This issue was dealt with in the UK a few years ago (the Registrar was employed by Islington Council and declined to deal with civil partnerships. He lost his case all the way to the ECtHR in Strasbourg). The US Supreme Court ruled several years ago that personal beliefs cannot trump compliance with public duty and the general law. Properly understood, the right to freedom of religion is not even engaged here, as no one is stopping the hate filled bigot from practising her hateful beliefs. She can't set them up above the law and the rights of others under the law, that's all.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbada...
Context, for anyone not aware of the story: Kim Davis, a municipal clerk in Kentucky whose job it is to issue marriage licences refuses to do so when the people wishing to marry are a same sex couple, thereby breaching her obligations as a public employee. A Federal Judge ordered her to perform her duty. She refused. He jailed her for contempt of Court. GOP candidate Huckabee has used the issue to boost his flagging campaign, saying that citizens only have to obey the laws that they like. All the usual gay haters and religious loons have come out of the woodwork to support the "martyr" Davis. BTW, her own marital history makes Henry VIII's look simple, but that is OK, because marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and let those (M/F) trailer trash whom God has joined in matrimony never be put asunder (until they get knocked up by the next guy at a 'gator wrasslin' monster truck festival), Amen.
This issue was dealt with in the UK a few years ago (the Registrar was employed by Islington Council and declined to deal with civil partnerships. He lost his case all the way to the ECtHR in Strasbourg). The US Supreme Court ruled several years ago that personal beliefs cannot trump compliance with public duty and the general law. Properly understood, the right to freedom of religion is not even engaged here, as no one is stopping the hate filled bigot from practising her hateful beliefs. She can't set them up above the law and the rights of others under the law, that's all.
Davis is not merely seeking tolerance for her beliefs. She is seeking to set her beliefs above the rights of others and the general law. I think that we should tolerate Davis' beliefs (although I think that they are appalling) and I would defend her right to hold and express those beliefs, but that tolerance does not require that she be permitted to disregard her public duty or contravene the rules established by a democratic society.
Davis has prevented marriages in her area (not the whole State of Kentucky). She would not allow her deputies to issue licences. Davis has sought to privilege her views above the views of others. She has in effect converted her job description to that of professional self styled martyr.
As noted above, Davis is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the laws of the US and of the State of Kentucky. The laws of the State of Kentucky must give way to the Constitution of the US. The Supreme Court, which rules on what the Constitution means, has ruled that the Constitution allows all consenting adults who are not otherwise married to marry one another, regardless of gender.
The US is a secular Republic governed by the rule of law. The US is emphatically NOT a State founded on any religion. Separation of church and State is routinely enforced in settings such as schools, and elsewhere, as here, in public life. Opinion is free, and religious belief, affiliation and practice are protected. Davis remains free to follow her conscience, but she should not at the same time hold a public office in which she refuses to act as the Constitution requires her to act.
As noted above, Davis is duty bound to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the laws of the US and of the State of Kentucky. The laws of the State of Kentucky must give way to the Constitution of the US. The Supreme Court, which rules on what the Constitution means, has ruled that the Constitution allows all consenting adults who are not otherwise married to marry one another, regardless of gender.
The US is a secular Republic governed by the rule of law. The US is emphatically NOT a State founded on any religion. Separation of church and State is routinely enforced in settings such as schools, and elsewhere, as here, in public life. Opinion is free, and religious belief, affiliation and practice are protected. Davis remains free to follow her conscience, but she should not at the same time hold a public office in which she refuses to act as the Constitution requires her to act.
A modern democracy is not merely an electoral system. If democracy is reduced to voting, then crude majoritarianism will prevail. Two foxes and one chicken voting on what to have for lunch is not a very good model for democracy. The public might vote in favour of bear baiting, public hanging, free money, you name it, if they had the chance, so the question of what the majority want is not always the only question. See Edmund Burke's explanation in 1774 of how a representative and not a delegate legislature works.
A modern democracy consists of many elements, including a ballot system, a legislature, an executive, a free press, and the rule of law, administered by Judges (and sometimes juries). In the US, the Constitution is a living and evolving instrument, to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus the democratic settlement of the US gives to the majority in the nine Judge Court the right and power to determine what the living instrumemnt means from time to time.
A modern democracy consists of many elements, including a ballot system, a legislature, an executive, a free press, and the rule of law, administered by Judges (and sometimes juries). In the US, the Constitution is a living and evolving instrument, to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus the democratic settlement of the US gives to the majority in the nine Judge Court the right and power to determine what the living instrumemnt means from time to time.
jimmybobby said:
I am no expert on US political or legal affairs so I can merely take your word on that.
As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
I infer that you would oppose same sex marriage if asked to vote on it. If my inference is correct, can you please explain why? "Because God tells me to" is not an answer. As to the UK it was passed in parliament but it was neither asked for nor was it voted on to see if the general population were in agreement with the change.
Obviously this is all water under the bridge as it is not going to be changed back and it simply has to be accepted and we all have to move on and live our lives.
In the UK, a Coalition Government that had, under our system, a democratic mandate, legislated for change. One of Cameron's relatively few admirable acts, IMO - he did not have to do it, and he made enemies in his own party by doing it. You can quarrel with the system that confers a mandate on Government in the UK (even with a minority of voter support for the party or parties that rule), but you cannot really say that the decision in the UK was just sneaked in by some Henry VIII style decree.
PS: Henry VIII? Didn't he have some sort of marriage stuff going on? I forget.
Does it not discomfort you to have an opinion that you cannot explain?
On mandates, our system does not require that the party of Government must include every policy and decision in its pre election manifesto. See again Edmund Burke's description of the system from 1774, as true today as it was then (the UK was not a democracy in 1774, BTW, but the representative system of legislation continued when the UK transitioned from propertied oligarchy to democracy). Note also that MPs across Parliament voted in favour of the change - it was not forced through by the Coalition without cross-party support. Some Bishops opposed it, but who GAF about them?
On mandates, our system does not require that the party of Government must include every policy and decision in its pre election manifesto. See again Edmund Burke's description of the system from 1774, as true today as it was then (the UK was not a democracy in 1774, BTW, but the representative system of legislation continued when the UK transitioned from propertied oligarchy to democracy). Note also that MPs across Parliament voted in favour of the change - it was not forced through by the Coalition without cross-party support. Some Bishops opposed it, but who GAF about them?
kowalski655 said:
So if she says her stamp is needed to make stuff valid,what happens when she is on holiday? Has she hidden the stamp somewhere? If so surely they can order a new one,and have whoever deputises for her hols to do the stamping /signing.
She doesn't need to sign it for it to be valid; http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=364...Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license. This form shall provide for the entering of all of the information required in this section, and may also provide for the entering of additional information prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives. The form shall consist of:
(1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of:
(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;
(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and
full names of parents; and
(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.
Pope Francis has been trying to give people the impression that he is a liberal dude. In fact, as was tolerably plain all along, he is just as much of a hatey medieval fruitloop as the last two Popes. He met with Davis and offered her his support. Catholicism, the hatey death cult that just keeps on giving!
http://newsthump.com/2015/09/28/god-weeps-at-child...
"Our Lord weeps when he thinks of your suffering, but not like how you weep when you care enough to want to take action.”
“It’s more like when you’re watching a sad film and you go ‘Oh, that’s sad’, grab a tissue, but then get on with your day and forget about it.”
“It’s not that God doesn’t love you, it’s just that he has more important things to be doing than taking direct action to stop priests fiddling with children.”
“You know that ‘mysterious ways’ thing we use to excuse the inexcusable? Well this is one of those.”
“Direct intervention in human activities on Earth is not something God is willing to do – unless it’s for something really important, you know, like putting his son’s face in some toast, or making a statue cry.”
“That takes a lot of energy, and he doesn’t have much energy left to think about ending any human suffering once the toast and statues are finished.”
“Anyway, the donation plate is over there, please give generously.”
"Our Lord weeps when he thinks of your suffering, but not like how you weep when you care enough to want to take action.”
“It’s more like when you’re watching a sad film and you go ‘Oh, that’s sad’, grab a tissue, but then get on with your day and forget about it.”
“It’s not that God doesn’t love you, it’s just that he has more important things to be doing than taking direct action to stop priests fiddling with children.”
“You know that ‘mysterious ways’ thing we use to excuse the inexcusable? Well this is one of those.”
“Direct intervention in human activities on Earth is not something God is willing to do – unless it’s for something really important, you know, like putting his son’s face in some toast, or making a statue cry.”
“That takes a lot of energy, and he doesn’t have much energy left to think about ending any human suffering once the toast and statues are finished.”
“Anyway, the donation plate is over there, please give generously.”
News.Mic said:
On his flight back to Rome, Francis told a reporter he felt government officials had a right to conscientious objection when fulfilling the duties of their office violated their religious convictions. The original question specifically cited marriage equality as an example.
"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," said Francis. "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
This is crazy stuff. No one conscripted Davis into an army and ordered her to shoot people. If the Pope wants the principle of conscientious objection to apply to all laws, what of the anarchist who conscientiously believes that a law against theft is a bad law? What of the libertarian who conscientiously believes that a tax law is immoral? What of the Satanist who conscientiously believes that human sacrifice is not murder?"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," said Francis. "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
Davis chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 09:16
So, the Pope goes to the US, has some high level meetings, does some walkabouts and conducts some big Masses, addresses the UN and then visits, of all the people in the USA, a usually obscure individual who isn't even a Catholic but who is embroiled in a big issue of church vs state and gay rights, and that isn't an endorsement of that individual. Yeah, right. Remind me again how many private meetings the Pope had with ordinary citizens whose views he might not necessarily agree with? A gay couple unable to marry in Davis' bailliwick, maybe? Errrrm....
jimmybobby said:
Breadvan72 said:
Davis chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirementsAs for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 09:16
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 19:09
It is you who are incorrect, apparently because of your lack of understanding of the relevant facts and of how constitutional law works in the USA. It appears that your support for Davis is causing you to adopt convoluted arguments unrelated to the facts and the law.
Why does same sex marriage bother you?
Why does same sex marriage bother you?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff