Gay Marriage

[Logique]

This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.

A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.

Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
By ALAN BLINDERSEPT. 3, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody...

 

[Tink]

Agree, Logique, as I mentioned in this thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=30166&page=9&p=881676&viewfull=1#post881676

When the militant homosexual lobby and its supporters tell you no one will be adversely impacted when homosexual marriage goes through, they are lying.

They know full well that everything changes – for the worse.

 

[SirRumpole]

This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.

A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.

A gaol term is completely innappropriate in this case. I'm sure they could have shuffled her duties around so that she didn't have to hand out the certificates if it offended her. I think this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her.

 

[bellenuit]

This poor woman in the US was thrown into jail, simply for standing by her Christian values, and refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

It exactly the sort of thing opponents of gay marriage in this country have been warning about.

A decent Christian woman thrown into jail, on the say so of the gays. Welcome to the Brave New World.

A complete misunderstanding of the case.

She was put in jail for contempt of court and it was not on the say so of the gays. She openly refused to carry out her duties in that civil capacity, which she had sworn an oath to do. Joe Dunman, the civil rights lawyer who represents the same-sex couples in this case, said that it was never his or his clients' desire that Davis be incarcerated.

"We didn't ask for it," he said. "We didn't want for her to be put in jail."

But (US District Judge) Bunning ordered her detained anyway. According to the Courier-Journal, he said he could not "condone willful disobedience."

If you support what she did, then you would also have to support a Muslim clerk refusing to perform her sworn civil duties is she refused to serve a woman not wearing a headscarf, for instance. Or an Amish refusing to issue a war pension to an army veteran. Or a science teacher refusing to teach evolution to his class if it were part of the curriculum because he doesn't personally believe in it. The clerk in this case, was not issuing marriage licences in her personal capacity but as an agent of the state. What type of society do you think we would have if our ability to obtain rightful government entitlements were dependent on the religious whim of the person serving us.

The point here was that the clerk had the option to either resign or request another posting within that department, but she chose to remain in her post knowing that she was the only person in the county (I think) that had authority to issue marriage licences. That would have forced gay couples, who have every right to get a marriage licence, to travel to another county to do so. Again the Christian lobby fail to see that it is they who are discriminating against the rights of others, not vice-versa. As the court ruled, the clerk does not have the right to selectively perform her duties and had sworn an oath to that effect, so her rights were not infringed. The gay couple have a right to get a marriage licence in their home county. It was their rights that were infringed.

 

[Value Collector]

simply for standing by her Christian values,
.

She wasn't standing up for her Christian values, no one was trying to force her to have a gay marriage.

She was refusing to do her job, and in the process trying to deny some one else their legal rights and force her Christian values on them.

She could always just resign from her post if she can't carry out her duties.

 

[sydboy007]

A gaol term is completely innappropriate in this case. I'm sure they could have shuffled her duties around so that she didn't have to hand out the certificates if it offended her. I think this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her.

There was a report of a US woman who got a job as a domestic airline flight attendant. About 1 month before (after) she got the position she converted to Islam. She tried to make it so that the only other flight attendant working with here would have to serve all the alcohol to customers.

She's currently on administration leave.

Do you believe that refusing to do the job you are paid for is acceptable? Do you believe that when you have been ordered by the courts to do your job, and are fully aware of the consequences if you continue to break the law, that you should be left off with a stern look for continuing to break the law?

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you believe that refusing to do the job you are paid for is acceptable? Do you believe that when you have been ordered by the courts to do your job, and are fully aware of the consequences if you continue to break the law, that you should be left off with a stern look for continuing to break the law?

Since when should it be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE do refuse to do duties as directed in a job ?

It may well be a sackable offence, but to throw someone in gaol for it is criminal (pardon the pun).

 

[Value Collector]

Since when should it be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE do refuse to do duties as directed in a job ?

.

Since when?

for hundreds of years, when you have sworn an oath and taken a government position, you must follow lawful orders.

If a soldier refused to obey a lawful command, he would not get the sack (not right away atleast), he would be jailed.

She at least had the option to resign, a soldier often doesn't.

In her capacity as a government official, she is there to comply with the law and conduct her duties, if she can't she can resign.

 

[SirRumpole]

Since when?

for hundreds of years, when you have sworn an oath and taken a government position, you must follow lawful orders.

If a soldier refused to obey a lawful command, he would not get the sack (not right away atleast), he would be jailed.

She at least had the option to resign, a soldier often doesn't.

And her employer had the option to sack her.

You can't compare the army where lives are at stake with handing out certificates.

This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution.

 

[Value Collector]

And her employer had the option to sack her.

.

the employer gave her the option to resign or to comply with the lawful order.

You can't compare the army where lives are at stake with handing out certificates.

You can be Jailed in the army for defying a lawful order when no lives are at stake. if you just called up and said, I am not coming into work anymore, you would be jailed.

We used to be told, if you don't show up for work, they will first send an army ambulance to your house and if they find you well, they will send a military police vehicle.

This smells like a setup to me, the certificate could have been posted out. It looks to me as though she's been singled out by some militant gays for retribution

Are you kidding? it comes down to the fact that she holds a serious position in the legal system, She has certain duties to fulfil as part of that position, It is not part of her capacity to protest laws, she can do that on her own time, when she is fulfilling her role, she has to carry out her duties, if you allow the government positions to become platforms for protest and disobedience everything will go to crap.

She has to carry out her duties blindfolded to her own opinions and prejudice. if not she is going against the very core of our system of justice, that can not be taken lightly. If she isn't happy with that, she can resign, but she can not stay where she is and protest.

 

[sydboy007]

Since when should it be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE do refuse to do duties as directed in a job ?

It may well be a sackable offence, but to throw someone in gaol for it is criminal (pardon the pun).

It becamse a criminal offence when she disobeyed a court order.

I seem to remember one of your proposed ways to reduce child abuse was by more stricly enforcing AVOs ie enforcing a court order.

This woman is not in jail for being a Christian, nor for her Christina beliefs. She's in jail because she has repeatedly refused to do the job she accepts money for from the tax payer, after fronting a judge who ordered her to perform her sworn duties. It's not like she ended up in jail immediately after refusing to do the job. She has mad a conscious decision to cross the line and now faces the punishment.

Do you believe the female FA I talked about in my prior post that converted to islam and refused to serve alcohol, a part of the job she knew before applying for the job and which she accepted to do when accepting to take the position, should be allowed to not server alcohol due to her religious beliefs, or should she have resigned / not accepted the position?

 

[SirRumpole]

It becamse a criminal offence when she disobeyed a court order.

Do you really believe people should be jailed for not handing a certificate to someone ?

You quite rightly protested about Border Protection who were going to do the job they were assigned interviewing people about their visas. If one of them decided that wasn't the right thing to do (even though it was legal to do so) would you criticise them ?

This jailing is an example of an extreme reaction to a minor issue, something I never expected to see in a country that prides itself on the Rights of the individual.

Do you believe the female FA I talked about in my prior post that converted to islam and refused to serve alcohol, a part of the job she knew before applying for the job and which she accepted to do when accepting to take the position, should be allowed to not server alcohol due to her religious beliefs, or should she have resigned / not accepted the position?

Was she thrown in gaol ?

 

[Value Collector]

Was she thrown in gaol ?

The airlines don't have the power to do that, But if a member of the air force defied a lawful order and was given the option to resign, but stayed and continued to defy the order they would be thrown in jail for sure.

 

[trainspotter]

I think everyone should go back and read bellenuit post #1804

 

[SirRumpole]

I think everyone should go back and read bellenuit post #1804

The court order should have been served on her employer, the State of Kentucky who is responsible for her doing her job. The State could then have sacked her or moved her elsewhere.

It's up to the employer to enforce the law.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for her, but gaol is an over reaction if you can simply take the responsibility away from that person and give it to someone else who will do the job.

 

[SirRumpole]

The airlines don't have the power to do that, But if a member of the air force defied a lawful order and was given the option to resign, but stayed and continued to defy the order they would be thrown in jail for sure.

Huh ?

Why wouldn't the Air Force dismiss the person if they didn't resign instead of throwing them in jail ?

 

[bellenuit]

Some facts you may not be aware of:

And her employer had the option to sack her.

Hers is an elected office. She can be impeached, but not sacked. And it is debatable if she can be assigned to another role. She could, however, resign if she finds the role she has sworn to undertake is unpalatable to her.

Do you really believe people should be jailed for not handing a certificate to someone ?

This jailing is an example of an extreme reaction to a minor issue, something I never expected to see in a country that prides itself on the Rights of the individual.

It is not minor.

Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, has repeatedly refused to grant marriage licenses to all couples based on her religious beliefs that oppose gay marriage, despite the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to intervene in her favor. She was sued by a group of gay and straight couples in July and a federal judge ordered that she begin issuing the licenses.

Davis, the clerk, is the only one in that county that can issue marriage licences. She has six deputies working for her whom she could authorise to issue the licences if she didn't want to do so herself. Davis, however, said she would not authorize the deputies to issue the licenses. Even though the court has now ordered the deputies to issue licences, it seems that without Davis' approval those licenses may not be valid. The lack of validity would have to be tested in court.

On taking her position, Davis swore the following oath:

"I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

If she is not being hypocritical, she might want to consider these words in the Bible:

Deuteronomy.

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. (23:21-23).

Numbers.

If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (30:2).

She has adopted her stance after becoming an Apostolic Christian, a group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (which somehow excludes adherence to the above commands from Deuteronomy and Numbers)

And if anyone should think that she is not being used for political purposes, they should realise that she is not fighting this on her own but is being legally represented at no cost by Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian religious advocacy organisation.

She is also being supported by the usual motley collection of religious extremists in the US: Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Pat Robertson etc.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-federal-custody-contempt

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...or-denying-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6748700

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/09/03/christian-clerk-is-jailed-for-contempt/

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37608/kim-davis-kentucky/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-...in-luther-king-jr_b_8084636.html?ir=Australia

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/let-explain-religious-freedom-kentucky-county-clerk-kim-davis/

 

[Value Collector]

Huh ?

Why wouldn't the Air Force dismiss the person if they didn't resign instead of throwing them in jail ?

They may be dismissed after they had served their sentence.

you can not defy a lawful command from the government, regardless whether your a soldier or a legal clerk.

In peacetime they may give you the option to resign your post, but you can't stay in your position and openly defy a legal order, you will comply with the order of be charged.

 

[SirRumpole]

Hers is an elected office. She can be impeached, but not sacked. And it is debatable if she can be assigned to another role. She could, however, resign if she finds the role she has sworn to undertake is unpalatable to her.

Well, that's different in that case.

Funny system they have over there.

 

[bellenuit]

Some additional information on Kim Davis the Rowan County Clerk at the centre of this dispute. Many have assumed that because she has the word clerk in her description, she is probably some lowly paid lady sitting at the front office stamping applications from the public and being intimidated into doing something she doesn't want to so.

Quite the contrary, her role is that of an elected official, and she is the only person in the county (Rowan, Kentucky) allowed to perform her role (apart from those she deputises). To obtain that position she had to get the nomination of her party (Democrats) in the primaries and then had to stand against a Republican candidate for the election to that position. Her position has a salary of $80,000+ and generous expenses. Having an elected position, she is entitled to employ family members. Her son is one of her deputies (we don't know his salary, but when Davis herself was a deputy clerk in 2011, she had an annual wage of $51,812 and an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation). So we are not talking about some lowly paid front desk form stamper.

As an elected official she must swear an oath when taking office and I have previous outlined that oath.

Davis has 6 deputies working for her. Although she cannot be sacked, just impeached (which is quite difficult to achieve) and cannot be forcefully reassigned to other duties, she could herself resign or voluntarily allocate the issuing of gay marriage licences to her deputies, if she herself really felt doing so herself a religious no-no. She has refused each of those alternative options.

Following the June 26, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the right to marry is guaranteed to same sex couples, Davis reacted to the ruling by forbidding her clerks from issuing any marriage licenses at all, resulting in a strained workplace atmosphere. The Kentucky Trial Court Review wrote that her "conduct has terrorized not just her staff but everyone that works in the courthouse. And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their 'religious liberty' mission."

In August 2015, Davis refused to follow a court order requiring her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She refused on the grounds of religious freedom, stating that she was acting "under God’s authority". Some sources have questioned whether Davis, having been married four times, was acting hypocritically in the "application of her beliefs"......

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled she must issue marriage licenses to all applicants, and both that court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay that ruling pending appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to stay the District Court's ruling, and she continued her defiance of the District Court's order.......

Davis was ordered to appear with her six deputy clerks before a U.S. district court judge on September 3 in Ashland. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the court to impose a fine on Davis rather than incarcerate her, but following the court appearance, Davis was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals and was jailed for contempt of court. The judge said she will remain incarcerated until she complies with the court's order to issue marriage licenses. The judge reportedly said that fines were not an option "because outsiders would pay them for her.".....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)