Kentucky county clerk jailed on contempt charges until she agrees to issue same-sex marriage licenses

[homersapien 11,373]

These arguments are no more valid than a religious objection to interracial marriage.

Refusal to respect all laws regarding civil rights is reason enough on it's own to prevent someone from serving as a judge. The stated reason for such a position is moot.

[telling tiger 156]

[TitanTiger 20,482]

These arguments are no more valid than a religious objection to interracial marriage.'

Not the same thing. Never has been.

Refusal to respect all laws regarding civil rights is reason enough on it's own to prevent someone from serving as a judge. The stated reason for such a position is moot.

There are such things as reasonable accommodations that we acknowledge in the law. We currently view abortion as a right. We also allow that a doctor should not be forced to perform one and if a woman wishes to procure an abortion, she can seek out a doctor who will. There's really no difference in that and referring someone to another judge (or clergy) to marry them. And he has decided to take himself out off the marriage issue altogether, not just for same sex couples.

[homersapien 11,373]

These arguments are no more valid than a religious objection to interracial marriage.'

Not the same thing. Never has been.

I didn't say they were the same thing. But they are analogous.

[homersapien 11,373]

There are such things as reasonable accommodations that we acknowledge in the law. We currently view abortion as a right. We also allow that a doctor should not be forced to perform one and if a woman wishes to procure an abortion, she can seek out a doctor who will. There's really no difference in that and referring someone to another judge (or clergy) to marry them. And he has decided to take himself out off the marriage issue altogether, not just for same sex couples.

Not the same. Never has been.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Lot's of posts here about the same sex marriage law. I agree that Scotus has the role to say a law is constitional or not BUT nobody gave the Scotus the role of redefining marriage. To me that's where the problem started. They should have approved civil unions and associated benefits and things would have been a lot easier for many people. JMHO

[homersapien 11,373]

Lot's of posts here about the same sex marriage law. I agree that Scotus has the role to say a law is constitional or not BUT nobody gave the Scotus the role of redefining marriage. To me that's where the problem started. They should have approved civil unions and associated benefits and things would have been a lot easier for many people. JMHO

That's exactly what SCOTUS did. "Marriage" is a term that is used both legally as well as religiously. SCOTUS cannot and should not try to rule on who can and cannot use the term.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I may be wrong but the case brought to Scotus was whether same sex marriage was legal. By ruling yes they in essence redefined marriage as something other than man and woman.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

These arguments are no more valid than a religious objection to interracial marriage.'

Not the same thing. Never has been.

I didn't say they were the same thing. But they are analogous.

No, they aren't even really that. Here are some articles that explain why, one of which is from someone who fully supports gay marriage.

http://www.slate.com..._different.html

http://www.thepublic.../2015/07/15350/

http://blogs.telegra...acial-marriage/

And yes, the abortion issue is analogous. Reasonable accommodations can be made for people who have moral objections to participating in an event such as this. And the same would apply if someone had a moral objection to officiating over a polyamorous marriage should that be permitted (I give it less than 10 years before it will be). There are myriad other clergy or judges that would be more than happy to fulfill the request (something that differs this stance from that of Kim Davis, who was preventing anyone in her office from handling the requests). There's no reason to railroad a person's religious convictions when such an accommodation exists, unless your real objective is simply to muzzle any dissent and drive orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims from the public square.

[alexava 6,973]

She is elected to serve people. This is not analogous with drs who refuse abortion. You simply go to a Dr that does. Elected and paid by the public, i agree with jailing her till she agrees to do her job or resign. She don't have to like it.

[homersapien 11,373]

These arguments are no more valid than a religious objection to interracial marriage.'

Not the same thing. Never has been.

I didn't say they were the same thing. But they are analogous.

No, they aren't even really that. Here are some articles that explain why, one of which is from someone who fully supports gay marriage.

http://www.slate.com..._different.html

http://www.thepublic.../2015/07/15350/

http://blogs.telegra...acial-marriage/

And yes, the abortion issue is analogous. Reasonable accommodations can be made for people who have moral objections to participating in an event such as this. And the same would apply if someone had a moral objection to officiating over a polyamorous marriage should that be permitted (I give it less than 10 years before it will be). There are myriad other clergy or judges that would be more than happy to fulfill the request (something that differs this stance from that of Kim Davis, who was preventing anyone in her office from handling the requests). There's no reason to railroad a person's religious convictions when such an accommodation exists, unless your real objective is simply to muzzle any dissent and drive orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims from the public square.

Well, we'll just disagree on the first issue. I think it's an obvious analogy. Opinions to the contrary are simply drawing distinctions that aren't relevant to the analogy.

On the second, if you are saying that accommodations could be made that would make the application process equivalent for applicants - such as having someone else grant the license instead of Davis - then I agree completely. But my understanding is that has been rejected by Davis herself. She wants to prevent these these couples from getting a license, period.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Well, we'll just disagree on the first issue. I think it's an obvious analogy. Opinions to the contrary are simply drawing distinctions that aren't relevant to the analogy.

On the second, if you are saying that accommodations could be made that would make the application process equivalent for applicants - such as having someone else grant the license instead of Davis - then I agree completely. But my understanding is that has been rejected by Davis herself. She wants to prevent these these couples from getting a license, period.

I was more talking about the judge, but yeah I agree that a reasonable thing for Mrs. Davis to have done would be to recuse herself from issuing any licenses that violate her conscience, but permitting someone else in the office that doesn't have that problem to issue it instead. The judge seems to be doing that - he's taking himself out of the pool of judges that perform wedding ceremonies. There are myriad other judges and clergy can easily step in to do it in his stead. Hell, these days anyone can get a clergy license on the internet in minutes and be able to legally perform a wedding. Him stepping out of that role imposes little to no burden on the people seeking an officiant.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Freedom ! She's out of jail. Justice has prevailed.

Or whatever, I don't really care.

* apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

[DKW 86 7,423]

Freedom ! She's out of jail. Justice has prevailed.

Or whatever, I don't really care.

* apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

Somewhere...Andy Warhol is laughing at all this.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Andy Warhol ? Wanna connect the dots on that one for me ?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

*apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

This is what I would have preferred as well.

[alexava 6,973]

Freedom ! She's out of jail. Justice has prevailed.

Or whatever, I don't really care.

* apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

because she would not have got her 5 minutes of fame with such a logical arrangement.

[telling tiger 156]

This little campaign rally should be uh.......................interesting.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Freedom ! She's out of jail. Justice has prevailed.

Or whatever, I don't really care.

* apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

because she would not have got her 5 minutes of fame with such a logical arrangemen

Andy Warhol ? Wanna connect the dots on that one for me ?

Warhol is famously quoted as having said, In the future everyone would be world famous for 15 minutes.

Kim Davis is the last award winner proving him correct.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Warhol is famously quoted as having said, In the future everyone would be world famous for 15 minutes.

Kim Davis is the last award winner proving him correct.

I wasn't even thinking of her 15 minutes. I thought it was some commentary on his being gay and her denying gay wedding licenses... I'll sit down now.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

*apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

This is what I would have preferred as well.

But she hasn't agreed, has she?

[AURaptor 1,123]

*apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

This is what I would have preferred as well.

But she hasn't agreed, has she?

She's free now, so I'd say she agreed to something.

[alexava 6,973]

*apparently she has to agree to not interfere with the other clerks who will issue gay marriage licenses in order for her to be free.

Why couldn't this have been settled before she had to go to jail?

This is what I would have preferred as well.

But she hasn't agreed, has she?

she might have said what it took to got out of the slammer. i suspect she makes work/life hell for the clerks that do process the SSM license. i think she ends up back in or costing the state a civil suit for creating a hostile work environment.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Huckabee was at the post release party / rally when she came out. You'd think she'd been held in Iran for 444 days. Kinda funny.

[aubfaninga 16]

Why is that extreme compared to opposing homosexual marriage? (Serious question.)

I am having a hard time figuring if DKW is promoting "lack of self discipline" (aka Gluttony) or just making fun of a biblical principle that gluttony is not a desired goal.