Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

Just saw on the news that some clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, despite herself having been married four times and divorced three.

Really? Really? Wow. Picture of her next to the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, please.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/k ... es/6748700

Jailing seems extreme, and likely to produce a martyr. As a retired public servant myself I advise that, she should have stated that she had religious objections and sought an exemption for someone else to do the legal task, if that was refused then either done her job under protest or resigned.

Personally I have no problem with the law being applied to any religious nutter if they oppose it, be they hindu, islamic or khristian.

munroburton wrote:Just saw on the news that some clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, despite herself having been married four times and divorced three.

Really? Really? Wow. Picture of her next to the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, please.

Daryl wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/kentucky-clerk-jailed-for-denying-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6748700

Jailing seems extreme, and likely to produce a martyr. As a retired public servant myself I advise that, she should have stated that she had religious objections and sought an exemption for someone else to do the legal task, if that was refused then either done her job under protest or resigned.

Personally I have no problem with the law being applied to any religious nutter if they oppose it, be they hindu, islamic or khristian.

I agree, but reading further into the story, it seems that she's ordering her deputy clerks not to grant any licenses. Her lawyers are claiming that this calls into question their validity.

So this woman is blockading marriage. Or trying to.

From what I've read, it was the better of the two options the judge had: jail or fines.

Fining her would have her supporters who are currently fundraising for her paying the fine gladly, and still have her in charge preventing marriages.

Jail does make a martyr, but only slightly worse so then option 1, and allows those under her to legalise the marriages in her absence.


givent this, the judge probably made the best choice possible, as she now cant leave jail without resigning or agreeing to sign the marriage certificate. either way, for her, there is now no option but to watch her office hand out gay marriage licenses, as either she signs them, or her underlings do in her name by court order. Lose lose for her, but win win for the gay couples.

Daryl wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/kentucky-clerk-jailed-for-denying-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6748700

Jailing seems extreme, and likely to produce a martyr. As a retired public servant myself I advise that, she should have stated that she had religious objections and sought an exemption for someone else to do the legal task, if that was refused then either done her job under protest or resigned.

Personally I have no problem with the law being applied to any religious nutter if they oppose it, be they hindu, islamic or khristian.

munroburton wrote:Just saw on the news that some clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, despite herself having been married four times and divorced three.

Really? Really? Wow. Picture of her next to the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, please.

Also jail time runs her foul of the new GoFundMe rules.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Daryl wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/kentucky-clerk-jailed-for-denying-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6748700

Jailing seems extreme, and likely to produce a martyr. As a retired public servant myself I advise that, she should have stated that she had religious objections and sought an exemption for someone else to do the legal task, if that was refused then either done her job under protest or resigned.

Personally I have no problem with the law being applied to any religious nutter if they oppose it, be they hindu, islamic or khristian.

munroburton wrote:Just saw on the news that some clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, despite herself having been married four times and divorced three.

Really? Really? Wow. Picture of her next to the definition of hypocrite in the dictionary, please.

She's a martyr only inasmuch as she made herself one. She could have delegated the issuing of marriage licences to one of her deputies, but instead expressly forbade them from doing so. Had she exempted only herself, it would have been a matter of personal conscience, but by instructing her entire office not to issue the licences, she turned it into an attempt to establish her personal beliefs as the official policy of the county government. THAT is not only a violation of the establishment clause, but also an attack on others' religious freedom.

hanuman wrote:She's a martyr only inasmuch as she made herself one. She could have delegated the issuing of marriage licences to one of her deputies, but instead expressly forbade them from doing so. Had she exempted only herself, it would have been a matter of personal conscience, but by instructing her entire office not to issue the licences, she turned it into an attempt to establish her personal beliefs as the official policy of the county government. THAT is not only a violation of the establishment clause, but also an attack on others' religious freedom.

This is what I've been thinking, but I haven't seen anyone else looking at it from this perspective. In her quest to "preserve her first amendment rights", she's actually acting in contradiction to the first amendment.

Starsaber wrote:

hanuman wrote:She's a martyr only inasmuch as she made herself one. She could have delegated the issuing of marriage licences to one of her deputies, but instead expressly forbade them from doing so. Had she exempted only herself, it would have been a matter of personal conscience, but by instructing her entire office not to issue the licences, she turned it into an attempt to establish her personal beliefs as the official policy of the county government. THAT is not only a violation of the establishment clause, but also an attack on others' religious freedom.

This is what I've been thinking, but I haven't seen anyone else looking at it from this perspective. In her quest to "preserve her first amendment rights", she's actually acting in contradiction to the first amendment.

The fact of the matter is that she does not give her approval when she issues a marriage licence; all she does is to certify that the applicants comply with all the legal requirements for entering into a civil marriage contract. She does this as an agent of the State, and she has sworn to uphold and obey the laws and constitutions of the State of Kentucky and the United States when she assumed that office. She is, quite simply, an oathbreaker.

I have all the respect in the world for people who recuse themselves because of a conscientious objection, but no patience whatsoever for those who attempt to force their own beliefs onto others. That is what Kim Davis did when she instructed every other official in her office to act (or not act) in accordance with her own beliefs.

Of course, the.right wing fanatics will hail her as a champion and martyr for religious freedom, but the truth is that she's an advocate for religious tyranny.

Just ask any of the idiots supporting her if it would be ok for a government official to blockade the issuing of gun permits because they were a Quaker and had a religious belief in pacifism... watch how fast their stance on the issue of the religious freedom of government officials in the performance of their duties reverses.

(Or some conservative Muslim stopping the DMV from issuing drivers licenses to women... or etc etc...)

gcomeau wrote:Just ask any of the idiots supporting her if it would be ok for a government official to blockade the issuing of gun permits because they were a Quaker and had a religious belief in pacifism... watch how fast their stance on the issue of the religious freedom of government officials in the performance of their duties reverses.

(Or some conservative Muslim stopping the DMV from issuing drivers licenses to women... or etc etc...)

Exactly. Allowing government officials to use their personal beliefs as a moral yardstick in order to decide who to serve or not will create a legal precedence that will have an impact far beyond the issuing of marriage licences to same sex couples.

But right wing politicians are so keen to gain support among the Republican base that they are willing to gamble with everything America stands for and was founded upon. They forget or willfully ignore that America was founded in part by people who had fled the religious wars and persecution in Europe - and that those wars happened because people tried to force others to conform to their own beliefs.