Pope met with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis during his US trip, according to her lawyers

  • Thread starter Thread starter ServusHumilis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FollowChrist34 said:
Sure - let us make the standard “reasonable.” We’ve accommodated conscientious war objectors in the Vietnam War - somehow we figured it out.
Click to expand...
However, what is considered reasonable to some may not be considered reasonable to others. For some, denying a gay couple the legal right to marry, which is now the law of the land, is unreasonable since it is a denial of civil rights.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I think your post is calm and well-reasoned and shows the absolute necessity of a public official doing the work he or she has sworn an oath to do. Some of the clerks may have an objection to issuing a marriage license to a legally and validly divorced person. Under the reasoning of some posters here, they should be able to exercise that. If we allowed all this conscientious objection in public office, government would soon be anarchy.

I had a private PR firm. If I turned someone down, they could just go to another PR firm. It wasn’t like I was the only game in town. However, government is a different ball game altogether.
Click to expand...
Just an fyi, add another voice to the mix.

Responding to a reporter’s question as to whether a government official can be a conscientious objector, **the Pope said that conscientious objection “is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right.” **

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26276
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Conscientious objectors often have taken oaths, the military foremost among them. The President took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the nation, but we see how much weight that carries. He picks and chooses the laws he chooses to enforce. As was pointed out, we have had people refusing what they perceived were unjust laws throughout the nation’s history. Look at our wonderful sanctuary cities.

What is it about this one lowely clerk that gets people so fired up, while the same actions of prominent world leaders don’t get more than a “meh…”??

And please stop saying the Pope was used. By whom? He wasn’t set up (the way Priests have often been by homosexual activists at Mass). He’s not an idiot, and he has never seemed to care whether people use his words or actions to twist something to their own ends. That’s been one of the most discussed aspects of his Pontificate.
Click to expand...
Please explain to me how you KNOW he was not “used.”
 
meltzerboy said:
However, what is considered reasonable to some may not be considered reasonable to others. For some, denying a gay couple the legal right to marry, which is now the law of the land, is unreasonable since it is a denial of civil rights.
Click to expand...
My guess is it would also be “unreasonable” for a Christian to refuse to serve in a war by this logic. Or to distribute contraceptives. And on and on.
 
meltzerboy said:
However, what is considered reasonable to some may not be considered reasonable to others. For some, denying a gay couple the legal right to marry, which is now the law of the land, is unreasonable since it is a denial of civil rights.
Click to expand...
I’m Catholic. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I grew up in a cloister. I am a theology instructor at a Catholic college. However, if I swore an oath to follow the law of the US, I would issue a marriage license to a gay couple. It is their civil right to marry. I would not marry another woman myself, but I would issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple.

But it isn’t Kim Davis’ refusal to even do her job that irks me so about her. It’s that she wants to have her cake and eat it, too. If she finds issuing certain marriage licenses conflicts with her faith and she can no longer do her job, then she should quit or go to prison.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Ummm, you made the claim. It is on you to back it up, not for me to disprove your wild claim.
Click to expand...
I see you are backpeddling, which is kind of funny. No, I never made the claim that he was NOT used. You did. Please explain how he was NOT used. Thank you.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I’m Catholic. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I grew up in a cloister. I am a theology instructor at a Catholic college. However, if I swore an oath to follow the law of the US, I would issue a marriage license to a gay couple. It is their civil right to marry. I would not marry another woman myself, but I would issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple.

But it isn’t Kim Davis’ refusal to even do her job that irks me so about her. It’s that she wants to have her cake and eat it, too. If she finds issuing certain marriage licenses conflicts with her faith and she can no longer do her job, then she should quit or go to prison.
Click to expand...
Umm, she did go to jail. And was released. And accomodations have been made.

What is the problem again, since she got what you were rooting for anyway?
 
FollowChrist34 said:
My guess is it would also be “unreasonable” for a Christian to refuse to serve in a war by this logic. Or to distribute contraceptives. And on and on.
Click to expand...
Or for a Quaker to serve in a war based on religious grounds in addition to personal moral conscience. And the morality of contraceptive distribution might apply to non-Catholics as well as Catholics even though the recipients have no such qualms. This becomes a complex issue since we want to ensure protection of religious freedom and personal conscience but, at the same time, not interfere with others’ religious freedom and personal conscience in doing so.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Umm, she did go to jail. And was released. And accomodations have been made.

What is the problem again, since she got what you were rooting for anyway?
Click to expand...
Please point out where I said I was “rooting” for anything. Thank you.
 
meltzerboy said:
Or for a Quaker to serve in a war based on religious grounds in addition to personal moral conscience. And the morality of contraceptive distribution might apply to non-Catholics as well as Catholics even though the recipients have no such qualms. This becomes a complex issue since we want to ensure protection of religious freedom and personal conscience but, at the same time, not interfere with others’ religious freedom and personal conscience in doing so.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. If 40% of the country opposes SSM, I think we can safely assume a number of those individuals are Christians (or other religious) who serve in the government. The goal is reasonable fair accommodations. The same way we would a Muslim transporting alcohol, etc.

Obama Sues Trucking Company For Requiring Muslim Drivers to Deliver Alcohol
conservativeinfidel.com/obama-sues-trucking-company-for-requiring-muslim-drivers-to-deliver-alcohol/
 
These “Kim Davis” threads really need to be closed.

The voice of sanity down here is meltzerboy. I have adored every Jewish person I’ve ever met. Maybe their levelheadedness and politeness is why.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I see you are backpeddling, which is kind of funny. No, I never made the claim that he was NOT used. You did. Please explain how he was NOT used. Thank you.
Click to expand...
LOL, come on.This isn’t that hard.
  1. You said you were “sad that he was used.”
  2. I said that “you don’t know he was used, and I doubted he was.”
  3. You then said “prove he wasn’t used.”
  4. I then said the burden of proof is on you - YOU MADE THE CLAIM HE WAS USED. It is then up to you to back that up. It isn’t up to me to disprove your wilde theories which you have no evidence for.
Similarly, if I make the claim that my mother is a gorilla, and you were to say “I don’t think your mother is a gorilla…” it would be illogical and silly for me to respond “prove that my mother wasn’t a gorilla.” The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. For example, I’d have to offer DNA evidence, family history of having a penchant for bananas, and the like.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
These “Kim Davis” threads really need to be closed.

The voice of sanity down here is meltzerboy. I have adored every Jewish person I’ve ever met. Maybe their levelheadedness and politeness is why.
Click to expand...
I think the thread was supposed to be more about the Pope meeting with her.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I’m Catholic. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I grew up in a cloister. I am a theology instructor at a Catholic college. However, if I swore an oath to follow the law of the US, I would issue a marriage license to a gay couple. It is their civil right to marry. I would not marry another woman myself, but I would issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple.

But it isn’t Kim Davis’ refusal to even do her job that irks me so about her. It’s that she wants to have her cake and eat it, too. If she finds issuing certain marriage licenses conflicts with her faith and she can no longer do her job, then she should quit or go to prison.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court decided that marriage equality is the law of the land.

Kim Davis and her legal team are upset because they don’t want the law of the land to apply to them. Her position is untenable.

There are more questions than answers about this supposed meeting with the Pope. “Under 15 minutes” could have been a 15-second meet-and-greet, much like a receiving line at a formal function. I doubt that the Pope requested a meeting with Kim Davis. I suspect her legal team was working furiously behind the scenes to make it happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top