United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Claire Valofaro
Post Date: 2015-09-01 10:04:38 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 36146
Comments: 339
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" - this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her. On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis was in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant the licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt of court, which can carry steep fines or jail time. As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold to leave her office after they were denied a license Tuesday morning - the couple's fourth rejection. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras. "We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said. "Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him. From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground." Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job." Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience." Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. After Tuesday's denials, the rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that the attorneys file that day to have Davis held in contempt. Shortly after Davis' remarks in her office, the sheriff's office cleared the room and building of those gathered to support both sides of the issue. The two groups lined up on the lawn, on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters have told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job." Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail. "But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said. Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting. "I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky, *Religious History and Issues* (#0)
Wonder if these same activists know that doctors cannot be forced into giving sex change operations or even performing abortions and prescribing birth control pills. If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses. I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. So why push someone to do something against their convictions? "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
So why push someone to do something against their convictions? They are doing it on principle, and they will certainly win too. The woman is a public official America is a secular, pagan state, with secular pagan laws, one of which is the legality of slaughtering babies in the womb, and another of which is the constitutional requirement to treat gay couples the same as any normal couple when it comes to marriage. She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar. If he conscience does not allow her to serve Caesar because of what Caesar demands of her, then she must stop taking Caesar's coin. She must resign her post and leave it. Before the issue was litigated before the Supreme Court, it was an open question, but now Caesar has spoken, very clearly. You cannot serve both God and Caesar on the matter of gay marriage. If you try to, you are breaking the laws of Caesar, and you will be punished by Caesar. Of course, Christians do not need to get married by the state at all to be married in the eyes of God. The state's license and sanction mean nothing, at all, in the court of God. Did a man and a woman consecrate themselves to the other before God, consummate the union, and keep to each other having no others? Then they are married. The state has all sorts of contracts and the laws that govern the relationship in its pagan ways, but Christians are not required by God to go through any licensing or formal ceremony to be married. You cannot serve both God and money, and you cannot serve both God and the American government either. There was a time when you could, sort of, but that time has passed. You cannot do so anymore, in the capacity of clerk. The proper answer is for her, and everybody else, to understand that state- sanctioned marriage is not marriage. Marriage is a spiritual union before God, a covenant that God consecrates. The state was permitted to come to that table, but the state has attempted to take over that table. In fact, neither the state NOR the Church is required to consecrate a covenant of marriage before God. All that is required is God and the two individuals who are marrying, and their following God's law of marriage. There is no marriage license requirement in God's law, and there is no requirement of a minister or a church service either. To the extent that the laws of men - both governmental and church - have become so oppressive as to try to cancel out the spiritual essence of marriage, those who follow God need to stop submitting to the laws of men - whether governmental OR ECCLESIAL - and marry before God. No witnesses are required either: that is a Christian and Jewish tradition only, not a commandment. That's the truth. Christians used to control American government. Trouble is, the Christians behaved very evilly - engaging in slavery, and in warfare, and in oppressive economic practices, all in violation of God's law. The Hypocritical Christian was (and is) the American standard, and hypocrisy utterly discredits the organized faith in the eyes of everybody. Those OUTSIDE the faith treat it as the joke that it IS, when it is hypocritical. And those WITHIN the faith make a public display but do as they please in public. Speak for Christ, actually QUOTE the law, chapter and verse, and Hypocritical Christians will scream at you. They will not be silent, repent and follow God. And so the Christian edifice rotted and lost power. Now, there is grasping at straws, trying to straddle an absurdity. Here's the truth: if a man and a woman who are virgins consecrate themselves to each other before God, in private, with nobody else present, and consummate the marriage sexually, and keep God's law, THEY ARE MARRIED. The Church says they are not, but God never ever gave the Church any authority to determine what a marriage is: THAT is established by God's law, not by human tradition. And the STATE has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. The proper thing for Christians to do today is to "shack up", in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of their churches, for life. No Church will marry people without a marriage license, but what the state gives is not a license to marry, for the state has no power to limit real marriage. Christians should ignore the state completely and get no marriage licenses. And that means that their Churches will not marry them, which is fine, because the Church marriage is nothing but a party and a ceremony. Christians should shack up for life and be faithful, wear rings and call themselves married, because THEY ARE. Play the game of licenses and churches, and you submit to Satan. And given this, the woman can keep her job, give out these fake licenses to anybody, but must herself hew to what "marriage" actually is - and it requires neither license nor ceremony. If she wants to immolate herself as a martyr, she can. The problem is that she is martyring herself for the principle that what the state offers is "marriage", and it is not. The state has no power to offer marriage. Marriage is a covenant between three: two people and God. Nobody else's permission is required, and nobody has to be present, or told about it, for it to exist.
No, she is a public official in our republic, sworn to uphold the Constitution as written. That fascistic idea was rejected at Nuremburg. OR, -- she has the option, and freedom, to fight for her convictions. It's the American way...
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key. She is responsible for duties on the authority derived directly from the people of her voting district (county) and it seems to me that any judge that would jail her would violate the separation of powers, undermining the will of the majority of county voters. The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge. She is committing no crime. If the county voters think she is doing poorly, they can vote her out of office in the next election. That's the "remedy", if one is needed.
She can indeed. And she is currently. And she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it. American law allows no conscience exception to laws of general applicability. American Indians did indeed use peyote in their sacred rituals, but the Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws supersede their religious practices, and they were prosecuted for using it. I think it was Clinton who pressed for the law change to let them, or perhaps just directed that the AG was not to permit the Justice Department to prosecute such cases. Same thing here. The Republic has moved. The court has spoken. This official has chosen to disobey the law. Now she will be punished until she yields or is removed. Christian religious scruples are not going to be allowed to stand against the applicability of a law to a public official. She can take her stand and many will cheer her on. And in an ultimate moral sense she is right that gay marriage is not marriage. But marriage licenses are not about ultimate moral sense. They are confections of the state, sold by the state. What the license grants, is the contractual right for the licensees to get survivor benefits from public programs. From a governmental perspective, that it what marriage means: a spouse dies, the other spouse gets Social Security survivors benefits.
In America, the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. The Courts have spoken, and the Supreme Court has declined a hearing. Therefore, she is acting illegally under American law, and she will be prosecuted and fined for her illegal behavior. Christians can - and probably will - fight a rearguard retreat on this matter, but they will lose. Theologically, the proper answer is for Christians to shake off their addiction to the pagan state and secular power, and to ecclesial power as a secondary means to secular power. The days in which government is controlled by active Christians has passed, and the country is not willing to be governed by Christian sexual norms any more. The unwillingness to accept that fact will cause Christians to exhaust themselves in hopeless political efforts. The proper answer is to clean house and go directly to the God-revealed principles, and not fight over power regarding the rest. For power has little purchase against the actual principle. Actual marriage is between two people and God. There is no need for the state or for a church ceremony to make a real marriage. Whether the state recognizes the marriage or not is a separate matter whose only relevance relates to obtaining entitlement money from the state. To get your partner's Social Security entitlement money from the government after you croak, you have to buy the state's "marriage license". The state only recognizes marriages for which the marriage licensing tax has been paid. You also have to pay the marriage licensing tax to get the benefit of the state's tax laws. It may be worth it for Christians to pay the franchise tax in order to get the tax and survivor benefits, but that's simply a matter of buying insurance - regardless what the state calls it. The state may call it "marriage", but the only thing that really IS marriage is what God defines as marriage. The two definitions used to largely overlap. Now they don't. And they won't in the foreseeable future. Her is a hopeless stand and she will be destroyed by the law. There is no prospect of victory for her on that front.
We rejected such fascistic reasoning at Nuremburg.. Well put, and absolutely true. She could be 'impeached', I'd guess, but that would raise questions on the constitutionality of an impeachment over religious beliefs, that I doubt the courts would want to face.
In America, the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. The Courts have spoken, and the Supreme Court has declined a hearing. Therefore, she is acting illegally under American law, and she will be prosecuted and fined for her illegal behavior. Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order. I'd bet that it can't and won't be done..
I agree. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
She could be 'impeached', I'd guess, but that would raise questions on the constitutionality of an impeachment over religious beliefs, that I doubt the courts would want to face. She will not be impeached. She has violated a court order, and the regular police will enforce the bench warrants that result. She will be commanded to appear in court, and she will appear. If she does not, she will be hauled in by the local marshals. Once in court, the judge will enquire as to the circumstances of her disobedience of his orders. He will assign punishment, including at least a fine and possibly jailing, for her contempt of court. The sentence will be carried out by the sheriffs levying her property if she does not pay it voluntarily, or by the bailiffs remanding her to the jail. If she continues to defy the orders, she will spend more time in jail. Ultimately either her term will expire or she will be removed by the legislative or executive action of some higher authority in her state. And that will be that. The next occupant of the office will issue the licenses. The disobedient agent will suffer the loss of money, job and, if jailed, time, and will lose. She will comply or be punished and removed. She will not remain in office and successfully resist a decision of the judicial system.
I'd bet that it can't and won't be done.. A steak dinner, here, now. This woman will comply, or she will be punished and ultimately removed from office.
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order. I'd bet that it can't and won't be done.. And if the local authorities refuse? -- You do realize they have that same power, to refuse to obey constitutionally debatable 'orders'? Do you really think the feds will send in forces? -- Nope, it ain't gonna happen.
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order. I'd bet that it can't and won't be done.. You're on -- Where's 'here' for you? I'll buy at Sweet Lorraines, in Quincy Ca.
Here's what will happen: She has been called to federal court. She will go. If she does not, the court will find her in contempt and the judge will issue orders to take her into custody, which the Federal Marshals will most certainly carry out. If she shows up, the judge will ask her to present evidence as to why he should not hold her in contempt. She will plead her religious exception. The (Republican) Supreme Court having already refused to hear the case (and note well, there are five Republicans on the Court, so if the Republicans wanted to protect this woman, they not only have the power to hear the case but to decide it in her favor - instead they refused to hear it). their refusal will be cited by the judge as having decided the religious exception issue - and the judge will proceed to find her in contempt. The judge will order her to perform again, and he may order her jailed for contempt. Periodically he will summon her to see if she is ready to relent and obey the court. If she agrees to and is sent back to the office, and refuses to do as she said, she will go back into jail for contempt. As long as she refuses, she will remain in jail for contempt. In lieu of jail, the judge may also order fines against her, to cripple her financially as well as take her liberty. She may serve out her term and be bankrupted for contempt, or the judge may order to state to act under its statutes to place a provisional official in charge of issuing licenses. She will not successfully resist the will of a federal court who has already gotten the nod from the Supreme Court that this woman has no case.
If I'm in California and win, you'll buy for me there. If you win, I'll buy for you there. You or I will buy at 323 in Westport, CT, unless you - being in CT and all - would prefer the local Northeastern seafood (oysters, clams, lobster), in which case we'll get it and eat it down at the beach pavilion. So, when are you getting out to Connecticut/NYC to buy me my seafood dinner?
The current regime will call for her head and the Pubbies will stand by and watch it all happen, quietly.
When hell freezes over and your authoritarian dream comes true. --- IF, big if, she is cited for contempt, she will never pay a fine, or serve a day. One way or another, this hot potato constitutional issue will be dropped by the Court system.
One way or another, this hot potato constitutional issue will be dropped by the Court system. They will never drop it. A petty official has stood against the political tide, the social tide AND the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court brushed off the case, and a local official has publicly, before the nation, defied a Federal justice. The system will close in on her like white blood cells on an infection, and she will be made a national example of how individual Christian conscience in petty officials WILL bow down before the law in America, of how local officials SHALL obey federal officials with jurisdiction. This will not be a close case, and the Federal judiciary will most certainly assert its power with her bloody hide.
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the
minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron
Paul,2012)
I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. Or if this PUBLIC SERVANT is all that concerned with violating her religious beliefs,she could step aside and let one of the other clerks issue the license. She didn't want to do that because she wanted to become a martyr and a public figure. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
Lies and pedophile propaganda deleted.
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
Lies and Obama pedophile propaganda deleted.
Elected officials are state employees. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Lies and pedophile propaganda deleted.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the
minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron
Paul,2012)
Deleted contained lies and pedophile propaganda.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the
minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron
Paul,2012)
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate her willingness to take a stand. But it's sort of like the folks taking a stand against illegal aliens by trying to ignore the 14th Amendment: you have to choose your weapon carefully pick the ground on which you decide to fight. Taking a knife to a gunfight, or choosing to fight with a flamethrower in a barn full of dry straw is below-average headwork. The right answer to all of it is for Christians to return to a correct definition and understanding of marriage as God made it, which requires neither state OR church to make it real, and which cannot be dissolved at all. And what "enforces" marriage? God. Break your marriage vows and you are an adulterer. Die unrepentant, and you are thrown into the flames at judgment. No chance to cheat - and place for human law to surveil or gain purchase. So, what is all of this business of marriage "licensing"? You are purchasing, for a modest fee, a permanent reduced tax status. And you're purchasing the entitlement to your co-contractant's Social Security survivor benefits. You're purchasing the right to certain forms of confidential access, and a specific legal privilege that makes what you say to each other immune from questioning in court. The state affords certain major benefits to those who purchase this license. But it has nothing to do with God. If the state wants to accord that to gays, or bestials, or whomever, that is their business. It is not "marriage", in the divine sense, no matter what the state calls it. And as far as the Church marriage goes - there is no such thing required by God. It is a tradition that arose among men. There is nothing wrong with the tradition, as such, but it became the earlier form of the marriage license back in earlier times. There were no states back then with staff to do this. But the Church handled family law, and charged fees, and ran the marriage courts. So, the usurping nature of the state in matters of marriage is merely the latter, secular-day evolution of the earlier usurpation of the Church in the same matter, for it was the Church that converted the religious celebration OF a marriage into an obligatory, fee-paid rite to CREATE a marriage. Christians have to shed the baggage of the secular state AND their own rotten religious tradition which pretends, without any authority from God, to make the Church the CREATOR of marriage. Neither the Church NOR the state are required, in any capacity, to form a true marriage. That is formed, in the only form that exists, between one man, one woman, and God. It is a three-way covenant, and there is no role for the clergy in it. It is a custom to include the clergy - a custom which became mandatory when the church became the state. That move was always illegitimate, and today we're bearing the bad fruit of it. Now, to this woman, and to many many Christians, she is suffering martyrdom for refusing to back down on a matter of religious principle. However, Christians need to understand that the principle on which this sacrifice is being made is merely the principle that an old Christian tradition - which is not commanded by God - is being supplanted by a new secular state tradition. No assault is being made on actual marriage itself, which can only be formed between a man, woman and God, and in the creation of which neither Church nor State have any role whatever, for God never gave one single role to any priest of Israel or Apostle of the Church to the creation of marriage. The only role Jesus himself performed at a marriage was to be a guest who performed a miracle there, with wine. Leviticus describes how to gut and skin and burn animal parts for myriad rituals, but there is no ritual of marriage in the Torah. Jewish marriage, also, is an entirely human tradition with no Scriptural basis. That's the truth. If Christians grasp the nettle of the truth, their faith will be purer, and the foolish, mad gyrations of secular society and church politics on the issue will be clearly seen to be as irrelevant and spiritually inconsequential as they in fact are. But that's hard learning. It's easier to just be pissed, on both sides, because one's tradition isn't being respected.
Marriage existed long before the birth of Christ. The Son of God was present at the first marriage. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It's not prosecution. It's being held in contempt. Legally a very different thing.
She could be re-elected even from jail. And if her stand is popular with the county, impeachment might not be a viable political option. And even in jail, she still has authority to run her office, and can still refuse to issue licenses. Will she pay a high price? Very possible. Will she win in the end? Probably not in the eyes of the world. Will she hold her head high, standing by her conscience? It seems yes, she will.
If I understand correctly, she is refusing to issue all marriage licenses, not just gay ones, so equal treatment is not an issue. If I understand the issues correctly.
The only thing she'd be jailed for is contempt. She is not in any danger of prosecution. No crimes are involved with contempt, as I understand the terms.
Yes they get paid, but removing an employee from service is absolutely not the same thing as removing an elected official.
Kim Davis - thrice divorced, is invoking "her" religious beliefs.... What would be the reaction if she were Muslim? What a circus. "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
Will she pay a high price? Very possible. Will she win in the end? Probably not in the eyes of the world. Will she hold her head high, standing by her conscience? It seems yes, she will. Perhaps. But the judge probably will not target her liberty only. He will start to fine her, and drain away her personal assets. Which means that when she leaves jail, she will be left homeless and destitute. Nobody takes on the federal government head to head, defies the federal courts, and wins. Nobody. Ever. The government can be defeated in court, but once the court decides, it enforces its will, and it never lets anybody get away with thwarting it. There was some guy in New York who sat in jail for, what was it?, 14 years, for contempt, without having ever been tried, because the judge jailed him for contempt until he complied with an order. This lady is taking a courageous stand, but she is quite doomed. She cannot win this fight - it's too public, against too strong a foe, who will be determined. And her position is not perfectly right. She's mixing religion and public office in a way that it does not HAVE to be mixed - meaning that Christians CAN see a way around this mess. I've already written about it. So it will come down to a test of power. On the one side there will be a determined federal government - in particular, a determined federal judiciary. There will be a lot of determined public support for the gays. On the other side will be a minority that backs her, including Christians who think there really is a way through this without the head on confrontation she has chosen. It reminds me of the choice many people are insisting upon: to fight the anchor baby phenomenon by simply disregarding the 14th Amendment and pretending it says what it does not say. That is bad ground. It's a battleground on which the fight cannot be won. This woman is fighting the secular state over the performance of secular duties in a secular job. She considers it to be a religious principle for which she is fighting, and many do, but all of the religious - myself included - do not agree that it really IS a religious principle. Marriage is not, in fact, something that requires the state or a church at all. So she is not going to get some sort of unified Christian backing...because when you get right down to it, she's wrong both legally and theologically. It is painful to see her destroy herself like this. She should resign. But if she will not, then she's going to be pounded to pieces by the law and made a terrible example of, and in the process, the weakness of the Christian response will demonstrate the real weakness of traditional Christianity in American government, and result in further losses. That may be salutary. Because of our own hypocrisy, we Christians lost control of the culture. We are not going to wrest back control by destroying ourselves trying to defend traditions, and traditions of control, that do not in fact have their roots in Biblical truth. We have got to turn our eyes to the actual LAW of God, and be CONSISTENT (for once) about insisting on all of that. And frankly, the law of God does not set well at all with American marriage traditions, or with American economic traditions, or with American traditions about law enforcement and punishment and trials, or with American traditions of military assertiveness. Our American traditions are at odds with what God said in the Bible in so very many ways, so we cannot, in fact, rely upon His aid in fighting battles for our traditions, because our traditions are, in fact, heavily adulterated with evil. We are finding ourselves now in a time of great sorting, and the Christians who deluded themselves into believing the America was some sort of "New Israel" with some sort of special relationship with God are going to find their traditional beliefs destroyed, because they are not true. America is nothing more than another Gentile state, so unimportant in God's eyes that it is never mentioned in any prophesy. It's been evil - in a Christian law sense - for its entire history, and it deserves the judgment it is getting. One cannot serve both America and Christ. Time was that Americans deceived themselves into believing they could, because it was easy then, there was fat in the land. But that was burnt up by immorality, including hard-minded and closed-minded Christian hypocrisy about money, peace and the fair treatment of others. A monstrously unfair and bloody state became powerful, but had no discipline, and is now decaying around us. To the extent that Christianity tied itself to it, Christianity must now dissociate itself from America, for America is proceeding with a will to formally dissociate itself from Christianity. Faced with the choice between Christ and God's law and America, Christians must scrape off America like shit off a boot and remain with God, or simply melt into the Gentiles and fade with the fading of this never-ever-truly-Christian nation. A Christian nation does not obtain its land through genocide. A Christian nation does not enslave a quarter of its population. A Christian nation does not impose racial apartheid. And all of that was during the period when America was overwhelmingly self- identifying as Christian. A Christian nation does not kill 2 million babies per year. Was America still "Christian" in 1973? A Christian nation does not engage in endless imperial wars. America has called itself a Christian nation, but that was an insult to Christ. It has NEVER been a Christian nation, at any point in its existence. It was a Gentile nation that, for most of its history, was populated by Christian hypocrites who trammeled on the most basic of God's laws in open, violent and horrific ways. Indeed, the nation itself was ACQUIRED by crimes against humanity and against God. We have a tradition of hypocritically CALLING OURSELVES a Christian nation, and then wrapping Christ in the American flag. But those days are done. Christians have always been divided, and Christian principles have never ruled. And today, the non-Christians are unwilling to even allow the symbols of Christianity to remain over the state. So this poor, deceived, deluded woman will stand for a principle regarding marriage licenses that, in fact, doesn't really have anything to do with God and his laws - which she and others have merely confused in their minds with God's law because of history and tradition. But in taking on the very real and very determined power of the US federal judiciary, she will be destroyed. And those who rally for her cause will see a stinging defeat. Unfortunately for her, those who rally to her cause will not, after she is stripped of everything, dig down into their own financial resources and the resources of their churches to buy her a replacement house for the one she loses when she fights this fight to the end and is left destitute. She will be a martyr for a cause that she and they imagine is Christian, but is really related to a national tradition, and when she is financially destroyed by it, the Christians will follow their national tradition of Christianity and not deplete their own wealth to reimburse her for having fought the fight. She will lose, and the sagging credibility of hypocritical Christianity will suffer a further devastating blow, because nobody else will be willing to stand up to the government on such principles again, seeing how this poor woman is wiped out. Really want to stand up for Christian truth? Then stop going to the state to get married. Marry by taking two to the Church and presenting yourselves, without a marriage license, to be blessed - and when the Church will not marry you because it does not have the sanctioned license of the state - see starkly that the Church is not in fact serving Christ and God, but is compromised by its traditions into serving the state instead of God. Shake the dust off your sandals and "shack up" in the eyes of the compromised "Christian" church and the state, be truly married, by lifelong fidelity and childrearing, without ever having the "approval" of a Church that ought to bless the marriage without respecting any state licensing "requirement". THAT is where the fight should be fought. The Churches - every Christian Church - should stand up and refuse to demand a marriage license for marriage, perform the marriage, issue the Church certificate, and leave the matter of civil marriage to the state. If the state wants to remove the tax immunity, let it. Christianity build massive real estate edifices which, to maintain, requires tax deductions which, in turn, require the Church to comply with state dictates that violate the Law of God. When people come to Church for the blessing of their marriage, no minister should ever be asking for a marriage license. They all do, because "The law" requires them to. THAT is where the Christian Churches should be fighting - by universal defiance of the marriage licensing laws: marriage is by God between two individuals, and Christian Churches have no right to allow the state to impose a payment and a licensing requirement. Civil marriage licensing is a choice - to obtain tax benefits. The Churches should all stand right there - universal Christian disobedience, at the institutional levels, of all state laws. The Vatican should order that. The Churches will not, because they are hypocritical Christians, and follow their traditions, which tie them - fatally - to the secular states. That is why the Christians Church, writ large, is dying out. What will remain is a remnant. If Christians want to make a statement, they should "shack up" in the eyes of the church, without a license, if no priest or minister will marry them. The Christian churches should be forced, by Christians, to break the law - universally - in order to uphold the law of God. THAT is where the test should be falling, on the instutional churches themselves, not on some poor woman in Tennessee taking a hopeless stand against the government, being destroyed, losing her property, and not being reimbursed her losses by the Christian churches for which she took the hopeless stand. Organized Chrisitianity, standing up en masse as Churches, COULD break the strangehold of the seculars. But the Churches are compromised. They would lose money and property, and you cannot serve both God and money. So they serve money. Which is why Christians should shack up in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of their churches, but be married in the eyes of God.
A man sat in a cell for 14 years for contempt. Another sat for 7. Without a trial, and without appeal. When in jail for contempt, you sit there until you submit to the judge's will and do exactly what he says. There is no trial. There is no trial clock. The judge has the authority to jail you, for life, without trial, and without process, until you comply with his order. He can also issue fines. And of course if you're sitting in jail and not working, your financial affairs go to ruin and you lose everything. That is not a taking. No individual is going to stand up to the federal judiciary and win on this battlefield.
Here in Washoe County, the county clerk's office handles just about all of the county's public records. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Comments (41 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDavis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages.
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
(Edited)
I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license.
#3. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL and (#2)
redleghunter (#1) (Edited) --- I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. So why push someone to do something against their convictions?
Vicomte -- They are doing it on principle, and they will certainly win too. -- - The woman is a public official America is a secular, pagan state, with secular pagan laws, one of which is the legality of slaughtering babies in the womb, and another of which is the constitutional requirement to treat gay couples the same as any normal couple when it comes to marriage.
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
If he conscience does not allow her to serve Caesar because of what Caesar demands of her, then she must stop taking Caesar's coin. She must resign her post and leave it.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
#5. To: tpaine (#3)
OR, -- she has the option, and freedom, to fight for her convictions. It's the American way...
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge.
#7. To: Pinguinite, Y'ALL (#4)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key. She is responsible for duties on the authority derived directly from the people of her voting district (county) and it seems to me that any judge that would jail her would violate the separation of powers, undermining the will of the majority of county voters. The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge. --- She is committing no crime. If the county voters think she is doing poorly, they can vote her out of office in the next election. That's the "remedy", if one is needed. --- Pinguinite.
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
#8. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#6)
Pinguinite (#4) -- The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
Marriage is a spiritual union before God, a covenant that God consecrates. The state was permitted to come to that table, but the state has attempted to take over that table.
#10. To: tpaine (#7)
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
#11. To: tpaine (#8)
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
In America, the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. The Courts have spoken, and the Supreme Court has declined a hearing. Therefore, she is acting illegally under American law, and she will be prosecuted and fined for her illegal behavior.
She has violated a court order, and the regular police will enforce the bench warrants that result.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
A steak dinner, here, now. This woman will comply, or she will be punished and ultimately removed from office.
#14. To: tpaine (#12)
Do you really think the feds will send in forces? -- Nope, it ain't gonna happen.
#15. To: tpaine (#13)
#16. To: tpaine (#12)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
So, when are you getting out to Connecticut/NYC to buy me my seafood dinner
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
When hell freezes over and your authoritarian dream comes true. --- IF, big if, she is cited for contempt, she will never pay a fine, or serve a day.
#19. To: cranky (#0)
#20. To: redleghunter (#1)
If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#22. To: Pinguinite (#4)
#23. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government...
#24. To: tpaine (#3)
#25. To: Pinguinite (#4)
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key.
#26. To: tpaine (#7)
#27. To: redleghunter (#9)
#28. To: tpaine (#17)
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#23)
#30. To: sneakypete (#21)
#31. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#27)
Blah,blah,blah,BullBush squared.
#32. To: tpaine (#8)
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
If she continues to defy the orders, she will spend more time in jail. Ultimately either her term will expire or she will be removed by the legislative or executive action of some higher authority in her state.
#34. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government that is tasked with the OBLIGATION to treat all citizens equally IS tasked with doing exactly that.
#35. To: sneakypete (#22)
She is committing no crime.
Of course she is. She is not only discriminating against a group of American citizens,she is also violating her oath to serve the public interest as well as denying them their freedom of association.
#36. To: sneakypete (#26)
Elected officials get paid by the state,have state retirement plans,and swear to obey all the laws of the state.
#37. To: cranky (#0)
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority"
#38. To: Pinguinite (#33)
(Edited)
She could be re-elected even from jail. And if her stand is popular with the county, impeachment might not be a viable political option. And even in jail, she still has authority to run her office, and can still refuse to issue licenses.
#39. To: Pinguinite (#35)
The only thing she'd be jailed for is contempt.
#40. To: redleghunter (#1)
If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]