Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Fromabove

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
She swore on a bible to uphold the Constitution; not the other way around. I am beyond pleased that the judge saw things the same way!

A court ruling is not the Constitution, it is a ruling (opinion) of a court. There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

Is there any law that says she can't?

Not being argumentative, but I've seen this aspect. Wouldn't denial of a marriage license be in violation of law?

No, because a ruling that says you can doesn't mean shall. In law the word "may" means optional. The word "shall" means must be so. She currently has the option of saying yes or no based on her qualifications as a clerk, just as with incest and bigamy. So unless congress makes a law enforcing the ruling it is optional at this point. There would be other clerks that would still issue the licenses anyway, just not from her.

originally posted by: Fromabove

One thing we Christians must understand is that this is not our world (yet). We cannot change what is evil and make them obey God, it will never happen. It is better to keep ourselves from them and let them relish in their sinful ways. Our righteousness is sin to them as their sin is righteousness to them.

Jesus already told us that in this present world we would be despised and hated because we won't give in and be like them. If we did they would love us as they do each other. So the woman will suffer for her obedience to God and they will like that, and it will make them feel vindicated, even though they are not.

Christians, let them do what they want to do, and what we should do is preserve ourselves. These are the final days and not long from now things are going to change in a big way. Be patient. Right now this is their world and we don't like that but soon we will have it and they will be out.

There is no government on earth that does good. We have to stay out of the societal change business and just be Christians. Jesus will come back just as they are about to destroy the earth with war, disease, and death. If homosexuals want to marry and the government says they can, it's their choice to do it. But if I were that clerk I would have done exactly as she did and not compromise my faith.

I can't argue with any of that.

It shows the strength of your convictions.

Fortunately, we are still free to have that.

originally posted by: Fromabove

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Fromabove

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
She swore on a bible to uphold the Constitution; not the other way around. I am beyond pleased that the judge saw things the same way!

A court ruling is not the Constitution, it is a ruling (opinion) of a court. There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

Is there any law that says she can't?

Not being argumentative, but I've seen this aspect. Wouldn't denial of a marriage license be in violation of law?

No, because a ruling that says you can doesn't mean shall. In law the word "may" means optional. The word "shall" means must be so. She currently has the option of saying yes or no based on her qualifications as a clerk, just as with incest and bigamy. So unless congress makes a law enforcing the ruling it is optional at this point. There would be other clerks that would still issue the licenses anyway, just not from her.

Okay.

I'll have to give that some thought.

originally posted by: Kali74
What if her new found faith told her that she should stop issuing gun licenses?

I haven't seen a response to this... Has anyone?

Can anyone who thinks Kim Davis is in the right answer this question?

a reply to: wayforward

I haven't once said I am happy this woman went to jail. I think she should have:
1. Permitted her staff to issue marriage licenses OR
2. Stepped down because her beliefs and her commitment to the people that elected her and pay her salary were incompatible.

a reply to: Klassified

I imagine this sort of think will happen all across the country, as people get used to LGBT people having their equal rights recognized and respected by government. It's a process. There will be more lawsuits and more court cases because change is hard for some...

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
how would you feel about a Muslim DMV worker denying driver's licenses to women, or a Jewish USDA inspector denying permits to hog farms

Man, I would LOVE to hear an answer to those questions.

a reply to: Volund

Not that sodomy has ANYTHING to do with this case, all sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme court in 2003. Just as an aside, not all gay people practice sodomy and some straight couples do.

Lawrence v Texas

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6–3 ruling the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Fromabove

There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

There is no law that specifically says she has to issue one to anyone, the Constitution is not a laundry list of things you are permitted to do.


The issue is that she was found in violation of their 14th Amendment rights.

Not correct. She is not the government. Another clerk could issue the license. She was targeted for being a Christian and they insisted that "she" do it. Additionally, the ruling only says that it was a violation and that homosexuals may marry. But that's it, now unless a law is made to enforce it remains an opinion of the court.

originally posted by: Fromabove

One thing we Christians must understand

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that not everyone believes in your God, your religion or your biblically mandated "rules".

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that it is wrong on every conceivable level to push your beliefs onto others that don't share those same beliefs.

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that when someone disagrees with you, or the law does not allow one of your "rules" to be pushed onto others, that is NOT persecution nor is it an excuse to claim you are being "persecuted".

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that by enforcing your "rules" on others who do not agree/believe in them, it is actually YOU who are doing the persecuting of others.

What an absolute disgrace.

a reply to: Fromabove

She was targeted because not only did she herself refuse to issue the licenses, she also forbid any of her employees to issue the licenses, AND she refused to resign. Has nothing to do with her being Christian. She was determined to make sure that no same sex marriage licenses happened in her county - period. It has nothing to do with her personally not wanting to participate - it has to do with her trying to legislate HER morality on the whole county.

originally posted by: Fromabove
Not correct. She is not the government.

She is an elected official of the government.

Another clerk could issue the license.

She would not permit it! She's the boss and told all her deputies NOT to issue the licenses.

She was targeted for being a Christian and they insisted that "she" do it.

NOT true. If she had allowed her deputies to issue them, this WHOLE thing would have never made the news.

originally posted by: Fromabove

One thing we Christians must understand is that this is not our world (yet).

Funny you should say that, seems to be the same mindset that ISIS also has. Society has moved on from religion and the need of a threat of eternal damnation for not adhering to the words of shepherds.

"One thing we non religious people must understand is that its not our world YET" whilst we still have folk using scripture written by men that believed the world was flat and the sun was magic as their "moral Compass" on this planet.

Jesus already told us that in this present world we would be despised and hated because we won't give in and be like them.

He probably realised that a bunch of uneducated numpties would use his name as a reason to persecute humanity for thousands of years!

originally posted by: Fromabove
Not correct. She is not the government.

She most certainly is, hence the reason she is in the pokey as we speak.

Another clerk could issue the license.

Yeah, except she ordered everyone in her office not to issue them either.

She was targeted for being a Christian and they insisted that "she" do it.

She was targeted because she violated the Constitution. The fact that she is a Christian is irrelevant.

Additionally, the ruling only says that it was a violation and that homosexuals may marry. But that's it, now unless a law is made to enforce it remains an opinion of the court.

Uh, no. Maybe if you read the ruling you would have picked up on that it is a fundamental right for all people to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

Additionally, no law needs to be passed to enforce the ruling, the ruling reaffirms ('re' as in 'states it again') what the Constitution of The United States of America already enumerated.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I haven't once said I am happy this woman went to jail. I think she should have:
1. Permitted her staff to issue marriage licenses OR
2. Stepped down because her beliefs and her commitment to the people that elected her and pay her salary were incompatible.

To be honest I think she WANTED the punishment so that then she, and those that agree with her, can play victim and cry persecution to elicit a sympathy vote.

It's a tactic "Christians" use regularly. Do something they know is wrong, claim religious freedom, get denied then cry about being persecuted to elicit sympathy votes.

a reply to: beezzer

Fortunately, we are still free to have that.

And we still are free.

She needs the boot.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

actually we probably could take the word "homsexuality" out of the equation since because she didn't want to issue marriages to gay couples she refuse to do her job, or allow those under her to, and issue any marriage licenses, which is part of the responsibilities of the office she was elected to. so what we had, was an elected official refusing to do a major portion of the job she was elected to do. I believe it is state law that requires those holding the elected office she is in to take charge of issuing marriage licenses.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Fromabove

One thing we Christians must understand

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that not everyone believes in your God, your religion or your biblically mandated "rules".

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that it is wrong on every conceivable level to push your beliefs onto others that don't share those same beliefs.

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that when someone disagrees with you, or the law does not allow one of your "rules" to be pushed onto others, that is NOT persecution nor is it an excuse to claim you are being "persecuted".

What you "Christians" don't seem to understand is that by enforcing your "rules" on others who do not agree/believe in them, it is actually YOU who are doing the persecuting of others.

What an absolute disgrace.

Wow. It seems like someone must have urinated in your breakfast cereal this morning.
I noticed this in the post that you were responding to:

Christians, let them do what they want to do , and what we should do is preserve ourselves.

Do want you want to do.... very pushy, eh?

originally posted by: Fromabove

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Fromabove

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
She swore on a bible to uphold the Constitution; not the other way around. I am beyond pleased that the judge saw things the same way!

A court ruling is not the Constitution, it is a ruling (opinion) of a court. There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

Is there any law that says she can't?

Not being argumentative, but I've seen this aspect. Wouldn't denial of a marriage license be in violation of law?

No, because a ruling that says you can doesn't mean shall. In law the word "may" means optional. The word "shall" means must be so. She currently has the option of saying yes or no based on her qualifications as a clerk, just as with incest and bigamy. So unless congress makes a law enforcing the ruling it is optional at this point. There would be other clerks that would still issue the licenses anyway, just not from her.

I think the issue is whether government or the individual should determine who is entitled to a marriage license.

I believe that the individual(s) should determine whether they receive a marriage license or not.

It is not up to government, or any government representative to make that determination.

Governments only function should be to facilitate the license if the couple decides to obtain one.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Question- Some local level governments can choose not to enforce some federal laws with no repercussions (e.g. marijuana, persons in the country illegally). I realize this is a supreme court ruling so it may not be exactly analogous. And I'm not drawing a line on one side of either of issue but merely using them as examples. But it would seems that some laws/rulings/mandates are enforced (or not enforced) with some bias. Is this just my perception and understanding of this correct? Maybe someone in the legal profession can chime in and explain the difference between the examples and this particular issue.

Having said that, this woman is public servant and it's not her duty or place to decide which court rulings/laws/mandates to enforce. She can believe what she wants personally, but should step down if she refuses to do what her position requires.

when the federal gov makes a law they say please enforce this to the states and counties making it at the discression of the jurisdiction. but when a judge says you cant persecute people or mistreat them it is not optional

originally posted by: dawnstar
actually we probably could take the word "homsexuality" out of the equation...

I believe I did but I agree that the major point of contention from the 'Christians' is that it is them icky gays that want to get married and we aint have none of that because Jesus.

What if County Clerk LaVey said he was not going to issue marriage licenses to Christians because the Dark Lord told him that they were misguided tools following some Bronze Age mumbo-jumbo and it ran counter to his religion? Popcorn anyone?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

If she had allowed her deputies to issue them, this WHOLE thing would have never made the news.

Absolutely. I would have respected her personal beliefs if she had arranged for the same sex marriage licenses to be issued by someone other than her. But she wasn't satisfied with just making sure that SHE didn't issue the licenses - she made sure that NO ONE in her county issued them. That's a different statement altogether that she is making.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
But she wasn't satisfied with just making sure that SHE didn't issue the licenses - she made sure that NO ONE in her county issued them. That's a different statement altogether that she is making.

Frankly I think Saint Kimberly the Incarcerated was looking for martyrdom.

originally posted by: butcherguy

Wow. It seems like someone must have urinated in your breakfast cereal this morning.
I noticed this in the post that you were responding to:

Christians, let them do what they want to do , and what we should do is preserve ourselves.

Do want you want to do.... very pushy, eh?

He was clearly trying to play victim, I was simply putting him in his place with the truth.