Gay Marriage

[sydboy007]

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...clines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/

Atherton’s reasoning? In his words, the Supreme Court needs to clarify “when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

“The conclusion reached by this court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,” Atherton wrote in his judgment.

In other words, the judge believes SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage when it ruled in favor of nationwide marriage equality earlier this summer, therefore it must also change the definition of divorce, and until then he won’t allow anyone, same- or opposite sex, to end their unions.

Good thinking, your honor.

When asked what exactly the couple should do now that they can’t get divorced, Atherton shrugged and said: “Hopefully, they can reconcile” unwittingly letting the world know that he was substituting his judgement for the couple’s own.

 

[Logique]

A complete misunderstanding of the case...

I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.

We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.

If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.

 

[Tisme]

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.

I didn't know you could compelled to do unreasonable employment tasks, even under the direction of the highest court in the land.

If a judge mandated that agitating gays must dismantle their propaganda mill, I wonder if they would comply.

 

[Tisme]

She wasn't standing up for her Christian values,.

For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again

The bible is very clear about christianity v homosexuality, to a practicing christian.

Also the US constitution is christian based, even with reference to the "year of our Lord" and the Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules.

 

[SirRumpole]

Maybe she feels that as an elected official rather than a mere functionary, she has a right to carry out her "policies" ?

It's an interesting situation to have elections for administrative functions. I believe the US has elections for policemen and judges.

Does this provide a better system than what we have ?

Could be arguments both ways on that, but personally I think it could lead to administrative atrophy on a range of issues.

 

[sydboy007]

The bible is very clear about christianity v homosexuality, to a practicing christian.

Also the US constitution is christian based, even with reference to the "year of our Lord" and the Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules.

Well, Christians like tio fluip flop around.

On the one hand, a lot of the evil stuff in the old testament is said to no longer be valid and what the new testament says is how things should be. That way Christians can get away from explaining why beating your slave so badly they die over a day later is not a crime, but then

There is no scripture in the new testament that explicitly deals with homosexuality. Lots of stuff about immorality, but unless you have a valid argument that homosexuality is wrong, then I don't think the bible has much to offer.

If homosexuality was as evil as many of the far right Christians say, why isn't it part of the 11 Commandments? Seems adultery, stealing, coveting werwe all viewed by god as far greater issues than homosexuality.

There's only 7 bible passages that deal with homosexuality, though even some of them are very grey and open to interpretation. Compare this to the sin of hatred mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30 times, greed / avarice etc 40 times, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79 and idolatry 169 times.

Most of the bible passages dealing with homosexuality talk about the practice in terms of breaking other important bible prohibitions eg rape, idolatry, prostitution or pederasty.

personally I feel this woman is partial to the sin of self righteousness and has been encouraged by the far right religious groups to turn herself into a martyr. Sadly the judge sending her to jail has given the religious right exactly what hey want.

 

[sydboy007]

Maybe she feels that as an elected official rather than a mere functionary, she has a right to carry out her "policies" ?

It's an interesting situation to have elections for administrative functions. I believe the US has elections for policemen and judges.

Does this provide a better system than what we have ?

Could be arguments both ways on that, but personally I think it could lead to administrative atrophy on a range of issues.

There's something wrong with a system that leads to judges advertising to get elected.

John Oliver covered this topic earlier in the year

[video=youtube_share;poL7l-Uk3I8]http://youtu.be/poL7l-Uk3I8[/video]

 

[SirRumpole]

There's something wrong with a system that leads to judges advertising to get elected.

John Oliver covered this topic earlier in the year

[video=youtube_share;poL7l-Uk3I8]http://youtu.be/poL7l-Uk3I8[/video]

A very apt and incisive analysis...

Looks like it's a choice between our political judges and their corrupt ones.

 

[Tisme]

Well, Christians like tio fluip flop around.

.

No argument with you there. My stance on sky fairies is fairly consistent.

But if this woman is driven by christian ethics and the skylord hasn't repealed pertinant old testament directives via the new testament, then things don't bode well for relations with this woman and gay couples.

In context, anyone who has travelled the USA knows that christianity pervades society, just as judaism pervades their courts, entertainment and financial systems.

 

[bellenuit]

I didn't know you could compelled to do unreasonable employment tasks, even under the direction of the highest court in the land.

If a judge mandated that agitating gays must dismantle their propaganda mill, I wonder if they would comply.

It wasn't an unreasonable employment task. Since when is upholding the constitution a discretionary task for a state representative. How does she get to override the constitution of the USA. She is not a simple employee, but an elected official who swore under oath to carry out her duties of office. I am sure there are many tasks that she does on a day to day basis that are against her Christian principles (issuing divorces for instance), but she doesn't have an issue with those. On top of that, as I have mentioned, she is the only official in that county authorised to issue marriage licenses and even though she has the discretion to deputise that function, she has steadfastly refused to do it, thus fully frustrating the rights of others,

It should be patently obvious that she is making a political stand aided and abetted by the Christian Right in America and fully funded by a Floridian Christian group.

 

[Value Collector]

The bible is very clear about christianity v homosexuality, to a practicing christian.

.

It's also clear about divorce, her "Values" didn't stop her filing for 3 divorces,

It's also clear about adultery, her 4th husband got her pregnant while she was still married to her 3rd husband.

I bet she would have gone nuts if people refused to file her divorce papers or other marriage papers due to their "Christian Values".

Also the US constitution is christian based, even with reference to the "year of our Lord" and the Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules

The USA constitution separates the church from the state, and explicitly says the government is not to be part of any religion.

Go find the word Jesus or Christian in the constitution and then come back to me.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,

Seems pretty clear to me

prohibits, impeding the free exercise of religion,

This is the wording that people such as this clerk hide behind.

They try to say that by asking them to process marriage documents is impeding their religious freedom, but it's not. they can practice their religion how ever they want, but the can not use their position as a platform to push that religion others, otherwise you are impeding that persons religious freedoms.

eg. the gay couples god obviously doesn't have a problem with them getting married, and even if they don't believe in a god, the have a right to freedom from religion.

Sunday (no business) sabbath. So the court should skew to christian rules

and what's the punishment for working on the Sabbath?

Do you really want courts to follow Christian values?

 

[Value Collector]

No argument with you there. My stance on sky fairies is fairly consistent.

But if this woman is driven by christian ethics and the skylord hasn't repealed pertinant old testament directives via the new testament, then things don't bode well for relations with this woman and gay couples..

Jesus himself said that none of the laws of the old testament will change, Jesus here is stating that Jewish law will not be changed until heaven and earth disappear

Matthew 5: 17-20

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

So Christians that try and cherry pick laws and say "But that's old testament" either don't know what their home boy Jesus actually said, or are lying.

Any way, at what point in the new testament was the ban on eating bacon, shellfish, divorce or working on the Sabbath repealed ?

Seems you don't care about any of the other silly rules, just the silly rules that agree with your pre existing homophobia.

Would you be ok with a court official impeding the development of a piggery or refusing to grant fishing licences to lobster fisherman?

 

[SirRumpole]

Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licences

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...nds-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-licenses/6752096

 

[bellenuit]

I don't think so. The same sex couples wanted a show trial, and that's what they got.

We in Australia have the the opportunity to avoid this sort of consequence for innocent officials, that's the real point.

If Australians vote for same sex marriage in a plebiscite, fair enough, but we should not be criminalizing personal conscience on this issue with a jail term.

Again you fail to understand what the trial was about.

The original case was not brought just by same sex couples (did you read anything that was posted in the last few days), but also by straight couples. Why straight couples?

Because Davis, the only person in the county authorised to issue marriage licences, promised (and delivered) to stop issuing licenses to heterosexual couples as well, until such a time as the United States court system "came to its senses" and reversed its decision to allow gay marriage in every state of the Union.

It was not just a personal choice on her behalf to not do something she felt was against her belief, but a political act to overturn a decision of the US Supreme Court.

And she is not an innocent official. She is an elected official who has sworn to undertake the duties of her position. Again this is the oath she took.....

"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."

She swore under oath to her God to faithfully fulfil the duties of her role as required, not at her discretion. If she felt that a new task being asked of her was not something she could conscionable do, then if she felt so strongly about the issue as she claimed, she should have resigned her post. After all, breaking an oath to her God is also forbidden by the Bible. Resigning would be the only course of action consistent with her religious position.

In the US case, a plebiscite was not needed as the constitution already allowed same sex marriage. It just hadn't been tested prior to that.

Again she was not jailed for following her conscience, which clearly is very selective on what parts of the Bible to accept. She was jailed for refusing to do the duties of her office, which she had sworn to do under oath and for what she was elected to do. As mentioned, if she wanted to follow her conscience, then the right course of action was to resign.

And as the judge indicated, jailing was necessary as a fine would simply have been paid by her backers.

As US News reported Thursday, “ACLU attorney Heather Weaver, who is working on the case, said there was testimony about fundraising efforts on Davis’ behalf, apparently a factor in the judge’s decision not to impose financial penalties.” And DailyKos noted that “Plaintiffs in the case had asked [District Court Judge David] Bunning to fine Davis, but they specifically requested that he not jail her. Bunning, though, said fines would not work because others might raise money to pay the penalty on her behalf.”

More speculatively but no less credibly, the fabulous tweets of @nexttokimdavis observed, “When #KimDavis gets out of jail, you all will move on, but she’s going to be F__KING RICH AND WORSE.”

The expectation that part of the Davis strategy included playing the victim card and letting the donations roll in has been a real and present aspect of the case.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/04/no_...n_the_disturbing_bigots_get_rich_quick_trend/

http://godlessliberals.com/index.php/religion/the-ugly-face-of-religious-bigotry

 

[Macquack]

personally I feel this woman is partial to the sin of self righteousness and has been encouraged by the far right religious groups to turn herself into a martyr. Sadly the judge sending her to jail has given the religious right exactly what hey want.

She has obviously been 'bought and paid for".

I reckon a few on here would be happy to donate to her cause.

 

[Tisme]

J
Any way, at what point in the new testament was the ban on eating bacon, shellfish, divorce or working on the Sabbath repealed ?

Seems you don't care about any of the other silly rules, just the silly rules that agree with your pre existing homophobia.

Would you be ok with a court official impeding the development of a piggery or refusing to grant fishing licences to lobster fisherman?

Is that aimed at me or the "royal" you?

Silly rules are what you decide suits your argument and position. For a christian viewing your posts, I would have no doubt you would be considered enslaved to your own silliness.

Insofar as homophobia, if you think a person is only the sum of how he or she gets their rocks off with their pinky bits, then OK it's not the kind of image I want to be thinking about and I can't modify my primal aversion to it. Your silly rules include forcing me and others to accept your rules and think star shine will intensify around the brotherhood of man.....ain't going to happen with this bigot.

You have created your own dogma and own religion with homosexuality at its core. I'm sure you will find many willing apostles out there to do you bidding. You hatred of christianity is something only you can reconcile, but remember the more you attack it the more you allow Islam to fill the cracks and that's a very intolerant, homophobic movement, just ask wannabe Malaysian prime ministers.... one that would find you in jail for promoting the idea of buggery.

 

[sydboy007]

She has obviously been 'bought and paid for".

I reckon a few on here would be happy to donate to her cause.

It's quite amazing you need a flow chart to full understand her past



By now, everyone knows that Kim Davis is the face (behind bars) of anti-marriage hatred. Everyone also knows that she’s a hypocrite of the first order. Davis has been married four times (twice to the same man). Two of her divorces were separated by just two years. Just to up the Jerry Springer component, she was pregnant by her third husband while still married to the first. She gave birth to twins just five months after she married her second husband, who adopted the kids even though he wasn’t the biological father.

Now, for most reasonable people, Davis’s past would pretty much disqualify her as posing as the Saint of Rowan County. How much hypocritical can you get than proclaiming yourself the defender of marriage when you have a track record as a serial bride and adulterer to boot?

If you didn't understand the way the religious right thinks, you might wonder if they aren't just a wee bit put off by Davis’s past. Of course, you take your fundraising windfalls where you can find them, and Davis has certainly breathed financial life into some moribund outfits, like the National Organization for Marriage. But by most standards, Davis is a mighty flawed figure to be representing a cause.

But not by the religious right’s standards. The very things that make most people see Davis as a hypocrite is exactly the reason why conservative Christians love her.

The clue is in Davis’s statement about why she’s taken it upon herself to disobey the law. A lot of it is self-serving, but the most interesting part is her conversion story, which is a key component of the believer’s narrative.

“Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish,” Davis said. “There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.”

I am forgiven. That’s why Davis is such a heroine to the religious right. There is nothing in your past that can disqualify you once you have repented. All your sins are wiped clean. In fact, that Davis once violated the sanctity of marriage with abandon actually makes her even a better heroine in the eyes of conservative Christians. She’s seen the light, proving that nothing is impossible if you only believe.

It’s the same kind of attitude that animates the ex-gay movement. The biggest prize is the penitent who recants his past. The prodigal son is the one who gets the feast. And if the penitent falls back into bad habits ”” well, you can always get forgiven all over again, and the bad habits won’t count.

Take, for instance, what her right-wing evangelical lawyer said in response to charges of hypocrisy:
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel insisted her marriage and childbearing history is “not really relevant” to her decision to protest the law by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her multiple marriages are “something that happened in her past,” he said, and that when she converted to Christianity “her slate was wiped clean.”

“She was 180 degrees changed,” he said.

For a lot of people, this sounds a bit like a theological stain remover that rewards the sloppy eater. After all, anyone who has been through even one divorce, especially when it involves children, know that while it is a decision that sometimes must be made, it can be ugly and traumatic, and there is no “clean slate.” It reverberates for years after the actual separation. In fact, this is often the religious right’s main argument against divorce: It harms children.

But for the world that Davis inhabits, it’s just another contradiction to sweep away. Her past doesn’t count against her because she is forgiven, no matter how much damage she has done. In fact, it makes the grace of God that much more powerful because it saved a sinner of her magnitude.

 

[SirRumpole]

By now, everyone knows that Kim Davis is the face (behind bars) of anti-marriage hatred.

You can pile as much vindictive as you like at an individual, the real problem is the US system that allows individuals to have so much power in the first place.

If she was an employee like in Australia instead of some kind of Statutory elected official, she could simply be sacked for not carrying out her duties instead of the whole process going before the courts.

People like her will always exist, but there needs to be clear lines of command and accountability. Politicians pass the laws, public servants implement them. The accountability should be with the employers (the State) to ensure that the laws are enforced.

 

[sydboy007]

You can pile as much vindictive as you like at an individual, the real problem is the US system that allows individuals to have so much power in the first place.

If she was an employee like in Australia instead of some kind of Statutory elected official, she could simply be sacked for not carrying out her duties instead of the whole process going before the courts.

People like her will always exist, but there needs to be clear lines of command and accountability. Politicians pass the laws, public servants implement them. The accountability should be with the employers (the State) to ensure that the laws are enforced.

Not vindictive.

It's the rank hypocrisy. The way these religious groups continually try to force their own views onto society and squeal like pigs the minute anyone challenges them. Free speech only seems to work one way for them.

That some on this site are holding her up as a martyr is exactly what the Christian Right had hoped for.

You jumped into the whole issue before you even understood the basic facts that she couldn't be sacked, that she was the only person in the country who could issue the marriage certificates, and that she repeatedly refused to delegate that authority to any of her staff. While I might slightly agree that she had the right to refuse to do the work herself, even though her OATH of office says otherwise, she did have the obligation to delegate the work to one of her staff who didn't have the same views as her. She does not have the right to enforce her views on the general public by denying them their lawful right to have their marriage offically recognised.

You also fail to accept that she was sent to jail due to contempt of court, and that the UCLA argued against a jail term but the judge recognised that various third parties would pay for it so that the perpetrator of the crime would receive no punishment.

The only person you seem to not blame is the actual law breaker!

You've also stooped to Abbott's level on the issue!

I think this reeks of some gay Nazi in the management trying to make an example of her.

Continue on claiming it's a gay attack on the woman, when she was refusing to issue marriage certificates to heterosexual couples as well

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.

I doubt you'd have jumped so quickly to defend a say a muslim man for refusing to serve a woman not wearing at least a hijab, or an aethiest who refused to serve someone wearing a cross.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not vindictive.

Pity you have to resort to ad hominem instead of addressing the issue I raised.

If the person had the same responsibilities in this country the issue would have been resolved quickly by sacking her, giving her other duties or whatever.

A system that gives such powers to an individual has faults that this issue has exposed.

And, on learning more about this issue, the woman seems like a loony.

Happy now ?