Kentucky clerk refused have same sex marriages license!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its important to really understand...for anyone, lgbtqa, anyone who holds freedom dear.
History has shown time and time again..jailing people for their believes, has a negative cancerous effect on any gains made by a persecuted group in whos name people are jailed.
The 20th century offers plenty of examples..
I hope history is headed..
It looks to me though....it wont be...
 
whatdidyousay! said:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/06/politics/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage/


She said she would issues the marriages licenses if her name was not on them . That sound fair enough to me.


Staver said Davis has no plans to resign and would remain in jail until a compromise is reached. He said his client would be willing to issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.

Davis' husband, Joe, told reporters Friday that his wife was willing to stay in jail until that proposed compromise happened."
Click to expand...



This is a good way for everyone involved to come to their senses.
Its win win.
Liscenses are issued
No one is jailed for their faith
Every one wins..
Why her or the govs laywers didnt think of this before this travesty of justice is anybodies guess.
But seems like good way to resolve it
 
hoichi said:
This is a good way for everyone involved to come to their senses.
Its win win.
Liscenses are issued
No one is jailed for their faith
Every one wins..
Why her or the govs laywers didnt think of this before this travesty of justice is anybodies guess.
But seems like good way to resolve it
Click to expand...

So who exactly is going to put their name on the license? The woman was elected to the office and I'm sure took an oath to uphold the constitution, so if she is unable to do it, she needs to resign and let someone do the job who is capable of doing what she is unable to do.
 
seb said:
My point is, if she is locked up long enough, she may decide to obey the law that was set down to her, not enforce her own beliefs.
Click to expand...

50% chance.
 
seb said:
So who exactly is going to put their name on the license? The woman was elected to the office and I'm sure took an oath to uphold the constitution, so if she is unable to do it, she needs to resign and let someone do the job who is capable of doing what she is unable to do.
Click to expand...

or deputy clerk could sign - that's enough.
 
seb said:
So who exactly is going to put their name on the license? The woman was elected to the office and I'm sure took an oath to uphold the constitution, so if she is unable to do it, she needs to resign and let someone do the job who is capable of doing what she is unable to do.
Click to expand...
The way I'm thinking (and mentioned before) is possibly to 'redesign' the license so that her name does not appear already printed on the license but allow for just signatures of the deputies representing the county clerk office.

I don't know how that would work out though if most documents are signed by whomever is the elected official (in this case the County Clerk).

It's a reasonable proposal though and one I hope she does accept. She might reject it on principle if she's already rejected allowing anyone else in her office to issue them.
 
DeafDucky said:
The way I'm thinking (and mentioned before) is possibly to 'redesign' the license so that her name does not appear already printed on the license but allow for just signatures of the deputies representing the county clerk office.

I don't know how that would work out though if most documents are signed by whomever is the elected official (in this case the County Clerk).

It's a reasonable proposal though and one I hope she does accept. She might reject it on principle if she's already rejected allowing anyone else in her office to issue them.
Click to expand...

Why change the rules? She just needs to do her job as it is laid out before her under the laws or resign and let someone else do the job.
 
seb said:
So who exactly is going to put their name on the license? The woman was elected to the office and I'm sure took an oath to uphold the constitution, so if she is unable to do it, she needs to resign and let someone do the job who is capable of doing what she is unable to do.
Click to expand...

Right.
She was elected to that office. And since her election the laws, the intrepertation of them have changed. The supreme court just decided, very recently the issue.
I think given the issue and the mere weeks that its been decided, some adjustment is only fair...not many can disregard or ignore
thier faith or beliefs they hold, just becaase a court decided..some can and thats cool,but many it will take time..if the issue here is just to punish this women...then so be it
But if the issue is actually about rights,and marriege licenses, then the suggestion that her name isnt on it,is a good one..

Licenses get issiued.=win..(unless its just really about punishing her)
Her name isnt on them=win
She was voted in, so unless we want to disregard the system as it stands, the majority of people voted her in..the next election cycle, she can be voted out.
As for who will sign them...thats up to the the office and gov i guess, prob somone there who doesnt care one way or another, or someone who supports it.
 
seb said:
Obviously five days was not a long enough stay, lets see how she feels after two or three months.
Click to expand...

Why?
How much does it cost society to incarcerate people one day?
Why the lust to punish her?
Is she violent?
How has she harmed society at large?
Why the lust to jail this women for months?
How about years?
Why not just execute the monster and get on with it?
What exactly is the motive here?
To get marriege licenses issued or to just punish a christian women?
Is making her a maryter really the best long term strategy for lgbqta rights?
Does jailing someone due their faith actually work?
What is the motive?
The licenses are getting issued. So its not that.
What is it?
In my eyes mercy here will go allot longer for the lgbtqa under whos flag shes been chained then swift and merciless punishment of a women, who is not violent,and has harmed no one.
She just has offended an ascended minority who it looks like to me wont be able to tolerate others differences..which in the end will come back to haunt them.
Licesnses as last friday were being issues(unless that has changed),
So why keep her in jail?
Who is it protecting? Who is she a danger too?
 
DeafDucky said:
The way I'm thinking (and mentioned before) is possibly to 'redesign' the license so that her name does not appear already printed on the license but allow for just signatures of the deputies representing the county clerk office.

I don't know how that would work out though if most documents are signed by whomever is the elected official (in this case the County Clerk).

It's a reasonable proposal though and one I hope she does accept. She might reject it on principle if she's already rejected allowing anyone else in her office to issue them.
Click to expand...

Hasnt she already stated she would accept that? And issue the licesnes.as long as her name isnt on it?
 
seb said:
Why change the rules? She just needs to do her job as it is laid out before her under the laws or resign and let someone else do the job.
Click to expand...

Why change the rules....?
Funny...
Thats preety well what many christians and others of other faiths have asked re this entire issue of marriege
Dripping with irony...
 
Foxrac said:
http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/07/...e-david-bunning-while-lunatics-protest-video/

Oh wow, no wonder about why many Americans left Christianity as non-religion growing at fast rate.

Until 1970s, religious people stayed out of government.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely true...the nation was founded by very religious people, the consitution written by christians, most if not all in gov since then up to the mid 20th century where christian of various sorts and strips...
I doubt we could find many athiests involved from the founding all the way to the 60s. If they were, they were the extreme minority..and silient.
The soviet union, was the opposite of course, where non religion and athiest dogma was inforced...
Why any would want to emulate that is anybodies guess, considering how well that worked out..north korea is another athiest state, cuba another, east germany (when that workers paradise existed)....another, really not much to emulate all round...
 
seb said:
My point is, if she is locked up long enough, she may decide to obey the law that was set down to her, not enforce her own beliefs.
Click to expand...

Im curious
Is the law made and set down for man, or man made and set down for the law?
 
Foxrac said:
They are not my problem and it is not my type to judge on someone.

In my experience, most Christians here are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Most humans are, everywhere...
It doesnt stop at the border, nor at ones.faith
Looking at how tolerent the glbta have been....
Seems hypocrasy is just a pan human phenomonon really...of all creeds, races, and sexual orentations, and philosophies, ect..ect...
 
hoichi said:
Thats not entirely true...the nation was founded by very religious people, the consitution written by christians, most if not all in gov since then up to the mid 20th century where christian of various sorts and strips...
I doubt we could find many athiests involved from the founding all the way to the 60s. If they were, they were the extreme minority..and silient.
The soviet union, was the opposite of course, where non religion and athiest dogma was inforced...
Why any would want to emulate that is anybodies guess, considering how well that worked out..north korea is another athiest state, cuba another, east germany (when that workers paradise existed)....another, really not much to emulate all round...
Click to expand...

No, that's not true and the US was founded by colonists who against religious aggression and they don't want to belong to Church of England, also they wrote First Amendment that banned the government from sponsor or endorse the religious organizations. The Christianity isn't mention in US Constitution and First Amendment guaranteed everyone to practice their own religion or spirits.

Religious people stayed out of government until mid 1970s - known as Moral Majority and integrate of government and religion is against the traditional Baptist principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

In old time, most republicans were libertarians and they don't care about your religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top