So sayeth the world according to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on her side. I just understand that the same right that allows her to oppose gay marriage is the right that I have to believe in the big bang and natural selection. I believe there is a proper coarse of action for this dilemma. She has the religious right to oppose gay marriage and she has the legal right to continue to work as clerk of court, at least until she is impeached, found unworthy and removed by representatives of the same people who voted her into her position.
Christ all mighty. You said she had tow options and I've consistently said that the only ethical solution to this dilemma is impeachment. Her choice isn't just to do her job or quit.
She was sent to jail because that was believed by some to be the quickest way to get her out of the way. As it turns out, she filed an appeal today hoping to stop the county from filing any marriage licenses to any couple gay or straight. The judge who sent her to jail will be forced with a difficult decision Monday when she goes back to work because he's turned an administrative problem into a crusade.
this I think is key. She has the right to continue work as a clerk of the court . Doesn't that imply then that she has to actually DO the work?
She was sent to jail because that was believed by some to be the quickest way to get her out of the way. As it turns out, she filed an appeal today hoping to stop the county from filing any marriage licenses to any couple gay or straight. The judge who sent her to jail will be forced with a difficult decision Monday when she goes back to work because he's turned an administrative problem into a crusade.
So sayeth the world according to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on her side. I just understand that the same right that allows her to oppose gay marriage is the right that I have to believe in the big bang and natural selection. I believe there is a proper coarse of action for this dilemma. She has the religious right to oppose gay marriage and she has the legal right to continue to work as clerk of court, at least until she is impeached, found unworthy and removed by representatives of the same people who voted her into her position.
The clerk of court does more than marriage licenses. Her moral dilemma remains.
I don't believe that what you said is accurate. The Kentucky State legislature isn't in session. I would believe that they would take up impeachment when they return. What you want and who you want to call names is meaningless. I believe that injustice has to be dealt with in an orderly and just process. Sending a christian woman to jail because she doesn't see the world the same way you do is neither orderly or just. She was elected by her constituents and deserves to be impeached by the representatives of her state.
Ethically, she has two options. Impeachment isn't one of her choices, but rather something mandated upon her. It would be the consequence of her continuing to unethically choose not to do her job as she agreed to do it, impartially.
And her appeal went to the 6th Circuit Court, the Circuit Court that received her previous appeal to have the Rowan County Clerks Office not issue any Marriage Licenses.
Why do you thing after rejecting the previous stay request to be allowed not have any licenses issued do you thing the 6th Circuit will issue a stay this time to allow her to order the office not to issue any licenses?
BTW - after the first request to the 6th Circuit the request to shut down marriage license operation went to the Unite States Supreme Court who also denied her request.
>>>>
Complex Question
Definition:
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.
The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question
Personally, I don't care what Kentucky or Rowan County does. I have no plans ever to reside in either. I do support Kentucky handling the matter as Kentucky wants to handle it. But that is not where religious activists want it to stop.
I am opposed to religion being involved in government. I don't want her religion or your religion or my religion involved in government at any level. I believe you disagree. I believe you would like to see your brand of religion involved in government.
I do believe that a comparatively small, extremely conservative number of religionists are, among other things, using hapless people such as Davis to worm their way into government to attempt to establish precedence. Davis has proven to be a fine useful idiot. At first I believed that her Messiah complex eruption was a spanner in their works, but it now appears the religionists have welcomed it.
Most of us know (you thinking yourself so slick and cunning that no one else sees it) that there is little chance of the KY State Legislature impeaching and removing Davis from office. It's Kentucky! She lives in rural Kentucky, in Appalachia as far as I can determine. I don't know that most people in Kentucky go to church, most people don't anymore. But, I wouldn't be surprised to find that most people in her part of Kentucky who do identify with a church are likely to be foot stomping, hell fire and brimstone, religionists like Davis. And no, I don't care. I've already said I have no plans to live there.
Given her rural location and all of the above, Kentucky politicos are highly unlikely to impeach and dismiss Davis. Kentucky would not likely support that. (Surprise! We all know that.) However with Kentucky politics in mind Davis' situation has become a golden opportunity for national religious extremists to establish a bit of religious entitlement in government. Huckabee, Liberty University and others are jumping on it like flies on a dung heap.
-------
You are misstating the reason she was sent to jail. She was sent to jail because she refused to perform her job as ordered by the court. She refused to perform duties for which she was elected and for which she is paid because of her religious convictions, which she has determined, take priority over the work of the people.
At this point, because the courts made a martyr out of her, she has a fan club, followers and backers with lots of money the stay will go back to court.. Handling this the wrong way has made the hole deal a big circle jerk.
Wrong. Not in any way, shape, or form did I or anyone else present a Complex Question. You asked "which government employees" to the question of whether you support other government employees who basically faced the same situation you claimed Davis faced, having the law changed after taking office. The questions are very much related. Do you support such a condition, allowing religious beliefs to be considered a valid excuse to not do your job as you swore to do, for all or only certain positions? For example, would you support Kim Davis if she was a clerk in 1969 (held the office since 1967) who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because her religious beliefs deemed such couples as sinful, basically the same way the actual Kim Davis views same sex couples now? If not, then what is the reason that you support Kim Davis basically being grandfathered from having to uphold her oath of office, but not the earlier clerk?
At this point, because the courts made a martyr out of her, she has a fan club, followers and backers with lots of money the stay will go back to court.. Handling this the wrong way has made the hole deal a big circle jerk.
She had that same exact "fan club" prior to being put in jail. The only people who view her as a "martyr" are those who viewed her as some sort of hero to begin with for "standing up for her beliefs against gay marriage", and even that crowd is not really all viewing her as a martyr.
Show that support for her has increased since she was put in jail.
You didn't articulate why that request asking for the same thing that was previously asked for of the District Court and was denied, 6th Circuit Court and denied, and the United States Supreme Court and was denied would result in a different outcome when asking for the same thing.
Actually it's been handled quite well, calmly with allowing Ms. Davis to present her case - no circle jerk about it. Just because the outcome, at this point, was not what Ms. Davis wants (to be able to not provide Civil Marriage licenses) does not mean it was handled incorrectly.
>>>>
There is no way its a reasonable argument. Her job is to enforce the law. She was not enforcing the law but instead defying it.
I don't know what the hell you're taking about. Someone conjoined the question of interracial marriage and gay marriage. Those two subjects are materially different from an ethical and religious standpoint. There is understandable religious dogma that opposes gay marriage. Don't ask me to be an expert on religion. I am the least religious person you will ever speak to. I don't know of any religious dogma which opposes interracial marriage.
Conjoining the two different subjects is a logical fallacy.
You didn't articulate why that request asking for the same thing that was previously asked for of the District Court and was denied, 6th Circuit Court and denied, and the United States Supreme Court and was denied would result in a different outcome when asking for the same thing.
Actually it's been handled quite well, calmly with allowing Ms. Davis to present her case - no circle jerk about it. Just because the outcome, at this point, was not what Ms. Davis wants (to be able to not provide Civil Marriage licenses) does not mean it was handled incorrectly.
>>>>
The circle jerk has just begun.
I don't know what the hell you're taking about. Someone conjoined the question of interracial marriage and gay marriage. Those two subjects are materially different from an ethical and religious standpoint. There is understandable religious dogma that opposes gay marriage. Don't ask me to be an expert on religion. I am the least religious person you will ever speak to. I don't know of any religious dogma which opposes interracial marriage.
Conjoining the two different subjects is a logical fallacy.
I rather hope she interferes as I think there is reasonable argument to be made that this is a states' rights issue.
It's one thing for the Fed to say a marriage legal in one state is a marriage legal in all. It's another thing for the Fed to force individuals to defy their religious beliefs.
Everything you've said in this post is diametrically opposed to reality.
Your dodge and inability to articulate an answer is noted.
Thank you.
>>>>
Everything you've said in this post is diametrically opposed to reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?