Pointing out the double standard

So i'm sure we have all seen by now the registered democrat Kim Davis has been arrested for contempt of court for not following the law and issuing marraige liscenses to same sex couples.

Now personally i dont think she made a wise move, i think she should have upheld the law, or stepped down from her post, i dont think your personal beliefs trump the law. For me something smells fishy about this whole situation but that's not what i want to concentrate on, what i want to talk about is the double standard.

Now we know In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of California state law, based on what he felt was right, his feeling his Conscience etc, and when he did so, the progressives, liberals, GLBT etc hailed him a hero, posts like this for example

www.bilerico.com...

But he wasnt the only one, there were many more who were in the exact same situation as Kim but somehow they got a free pass from the left....

In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of California state law. In 2004, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of New York state law.
In 2010, attorney general Jerry Brown declined to answer legal challenges to California’s marriage law, which, after Proposition 8, was that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid.” His job was to represent the state of California in legal matters and defend its laws, including those he didn’t like.
In 2013, D. Bruce Hanes, an official of Montgomery County, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of Pennsylvania state law.

The history of the movement to redefine marriage is shot through with defiance of laws that those who broke them sincerely felt were deeply wrong. To be consistent, anyone who thinks that Newsom, West, Brown, and Hanes were courageous and principled must now judge Davis by the same standard.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

www.nationalreview.com...

But this isnt the only example of double standards...those who favour immigration, will turn a blind eye to the sanctuary cities that are in clear violation of the law, because they are in favour of immigration, yet will point a finger and chastise the likes of trump for wanting to uphold the law and paint him to be some kind of monster or a racist.

Or what abut the concealed carry laws, where officials in DC wouldnt issue permits, and those against guns were happy to turn a blind eye to those laws being broken because it suited their views, and hillary,,,sheesh, they dont care that she broke the law by sending highly classified documents on an unsecured server and putting americas safety at risk, yet when republicans david petraeus or scooter libby had private servers the law mattered then.

Now i wont say that there arent double standards on both sides of the political spectrum, but in this instance its a clear double standard, Kim is getting crap for not wanting to issue same sex marraige liscences based on her faith and her conscience and newsom did the exact same thing and broke the law for issuing marraige liscences based on his feels, and was hailed a hero, and was even re-elected as governor....

And you have to laugh at the video that surfaced of the cameras in kims office , so a guy came all the from UTAH to the only office in SC that wasnt issuing marraige liscences to get one and brings a camera crew with him, cmon now lol

So what do you guys think? double standard or not?

I don't see the double standard, one person was trying to let gay people marry and the other one was trying to deny them.

If I am for gay marriage I don't see why I should be upset that someone else was for gay marriage...

Perhaps if I was an attorney I'd see things differently, but I'm not.

double standard? sounds like it
personally though, i am in favor of things i am in favor of.
so, if someone goes against the tide for something i support, then im on board.

i mean if you break law and break into someones home i would like to see you punished.
if you break the law for consuming by breath a green plant, i wish you all the best

those are just examples

Oh the 'double' standard was this.

Our government gets to pick and choose when it wants to follow the law.

But country clerks don't get that option.

How did they issue licenses if it wasn't parallel with the Law?

Wouldn't they be invalid?

Seeing as this is now moot, with the national mandate, it seems like the examples here were moving in the right direction. This was moving towards equality. This woman is just a stubborn individual that thinks her beliefs trump all. I wouldn't call that magnanimous.

originally posted by: Elton
I don't see the double standard, one person was trying to let gay people marry and the other one was trying to deny them.

If I am for gay marriage I don't see why I should be upset that someone else was for gay marriage...

Perhaps if I was an attorney I'd see things differently, but I'm not.

but again , how you feel shouldnt trump the law, the double standard is that both were in the same situation, both broke the law based on their personal beliefs and one was hailed a hero and the other is villanized...THAT is the double standard

The law of the land is secular. The bible holds no legal merit. If it did, that man who shot those reporters could have built a case around the fact he did it because 'God told him to do it in revenge for the killings in the black church' After all, this lady's argument is simply her conscience wont allow her to issue the marriage licenses because of the law of the bible.

It's unfortunate that this woman ended up in prison, but her own beligerent behavior forced the hand of the legal system. The judge tried to do deals with her to stop her from going to prison, but she refused, preferring to think of herself as a holy martyr instead.

We in the gay community should mourn the fact this has happened - this is not what we wanted. But at the end of the day, she made her own bed and now she has to lay in it.

a reply to: kellyjay

No double standard because the situations were different.
Kim denied marriage licenses to everyone, she was not doing her job.
Gavin and West denied nothing to anyone (besides the fact that the licenses which were issued were not valid.)

As a side note, you could flip all over those arguments 180 and find the double standard of the other direction.

But where would the fun in that be.

a reply to: Phage

both broke the law based on their personal beliefs and one was hailed a hero and the other is villanized.

What law was broken in either case? Kim was jailed for contempt of court.
Kim is held as a hero by some. Newsom was villified by many. That's not a double standard, that's a difference of opinion.

There is no equivalency, therefore no double standard.

a reply to: Phage

Invalid?

As I suspected.


What an anticlimax.

originally posted by: intrepid
Seeing as this is now moot, with the national mandate, it seems like the examples here were moving in the right direction. This was moving towards equality. This woman is just a stubborn individual that thinks her beliefs trump all. I wouldn't call that magnanimous.

but do the ends justify breaking the law? thats the point, you cant cherry pick the laws based on what you feel is right or wrong, in both cases the law has been broken...how does ones morality or feelings trump anothers? how do we decide whos feeling should matter and whos doesnt? 83% of the population are christian and a tiny minority (not sure exactly the percent) are gay/lesbian....do we say that the majoritys feelings are discounted to protect the feelings of a smaller minority?

a reply to: kellyjay

but do the ends justify breaking the law?

Ask Rosa Parks and the billions who love her for what she did.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

No double standard because the situations were different.
Kim denied marriage licenses to everyone, she was not doing her job.
Gavin and West denied nothing to anyone (besides the fact that the licenses which were issued were not valid.)

He broke the law by issuing liscences when he shouldnt have, as gay marraige at that point was against the law

a reply to: kellyjay

in both cases the law has been broken

Newsome based his actions on the California constitution, which like the US constitution, trumps state law. When he was told to stop, by the court, he did. Kim, on the other hand...

No equivalence.

as gay marraige at that point was against the law

Which law prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: kellyjay

but do the ends justify breaking the law?

Ask Rosa Parks and the billions who love her for what she did.

rosa parks isnt the topic here...

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

No double standard because the situations were different.
Kim denied marriage licenses to everyone, she was not doing her job.
Gavin and West denied nothing to anyone (besides the fact that the licenses which were issued were not valid.)

He broke the law by issuing liscences when he shouldnt have, as gay marraige at that point was against the law

Invalid licenses.

It's like someone being given an inheritance of 100,000 monopoly dollars and people complaining that none of it was taxed.

originally posted by: kellyjay
you cant cherry pick the laws based on what you feel is right or wrong,

why?
i do it all the time. im willing to bet everyone does to some degree or another
i dont abide by all laws just cause it is the law.

i have to weigh my options.
what law am i about to break? how strongly do i feel about this law? what is the possible/probably punishment if i get popped for breaking said law?
those are but a few calculations that go through my head in an instant before i decide to proceed.

some laws i abide by cause i agree with them.
some laws i abide by because if i get popped then it will be bad for me
other laws are worth the risk in breaking

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid
Seeing as this is now moot, with the national mandate, it seems like the examples here were moving in the right direction. This was moving towards equality. This woman is just a stubborn individual that thinks her beliefs trump all. I wouldn't call that magnanimous.

but do the ends justify breaking the law? thats the point, you cant cherry pick the laws based on what you feel is right or wrong, in both cases the law has been broken...how does ones morality or feelings trump anothers?

That's exactly the point. Those that mandated that marriage licenses be given to gays was inclusive. The opposite is exclusionary. Therefore, as Phage pointed out, different issues altogether.

how do we decide whos feeling should matter and whos doesnt? 83% of the population are christian and a tiny minority (not sure exactly the percent) are gay/lesbian....do we say that the majoritys feelings are discounted to protect the feelings of a smaller minority?

Society is changing. And most Christians are fine with this. It's the vocal minority that can't accept that, as is said in The Dark Tower, "The world has moved on."