How is that relevant? I will gladly accept a Protestant as an ally over secular atheists. Whether she was catholic at one time is irrelevant. On this point she remains correct.I had to do a bit of reading about Kim. The Washington Post said her parents are ‘lifelong Catholics’ which makes her official position in the eyes of the church an apostate I think (I may be wrong).
Yes, and it was a legal issue and not a matter of contientious objection. She was thrown in jail for refusing to issue any marriage licenses when she was required to do so, as a matter of law, as the sole legal authority for issuing marriage licenses in that county. To assert any contientious objection, she would have had to resign her position. She did not. By remaining in that position, she remains the legal authority for those licenses issued to SSM couples. In that way, she is in effect advocating for the issuance of marriage licenses for SSM couples since issuing those marriage licenses under her authority is precisely what she is doing.I have no idea where you are getting your information but what I understand is that she was thrown in jail for refusing to issue “SSM” licenses.
Others have already pointed out that she is an elected official. As such, it is a legal issue and no different from a U.S. President refusing to follow a Supreme Court decision or an order from a federal court. It is a matter of the rule of law and would present certain impeachment. It has nothing to do with advocating for homosexuals. Elected officials and other government officials either uphold the law and carry out what is legally required or resign as a matter of conscience. Kim Davis is doing what the federal judge directed what she must do if she is to stay out of jail.Homosexual advocates seem bent on preseting this woman as as “worker” holding a “job” but, as I pointed out earlier, she is, in fact, an elected official. But even if she were merely worker holding a job, it does not follow that her job is to do whatever five idiots on the supreme court demand of her. Pope Francis was clear enough and others have offered similar arguments against the one-sided demands for bliind servitude:
No, one is not obligated to resign an elected office in order to oppose an injustice. I dont know why she chose to issue no licenses instead of just issueing legitimate licenses but that is her tactical choice. shhe made her point anyway. To argue that she is issuing what she has expicitly not isssued is almosg as absurd as “ssm” itself.Yes, and it was a legal issue and not a matter of contientious objection. She was thrown in jail for refusing to issue any marriage licenses when she was required to do so, as a matter of law, as the sole legal authority for issuing marriage licenses in that county. To assert any contientious objection, she would have had to resign her position. She did not. By remaining in that position, she remains the legal authority for those licenses issued to SSM couples. In that way, she is in effect advocating for the issuance of marriage licenses for SSM couples since issuing those marriage licenses under her authority is precisely what she is doing.
An unjust law is not law. Its that simple.Others have already pointed out that she is an elected official. As such, it is a legal issue and no different from a U.S. President refusing to follow a Supreme Court decision or an order from a federal court. It is a matter of the rule of law and would present certain impeachment. It has nothing to do with advocating for homosexuals. Elected officials and other government officials either uphold the law and carry out what is legally required or resign as a matter of conscience. Kim Davis is doing what the federal judge directed what she must do if she is to stay out of jail.
Even if you are right and the Pope just met with her without really knowing all the details about her, surely SOME pictures or video was taken of this…right? I know if I went there, i would definitely have someone take a picture of me when the Pope is close by, as to get him in the same shot?That’s exactly what I believe. I don’t know why people get so upset just because she didn’t have a private audience. We all know the pope endorses conscientious objection because he said he did. He did not say whether or not he endorses Kim Davis, of course, just conscientious objection.
If I were ever invited to a meet-and-greet, that would be enough for me! But I would try to get a photo with the pope. He seems to like to take photos, which is nice. I guess he knows how much people cherish them.
This is the most absurd comment I’ve read on this thread.Her own shortcomings hardly make her the best candidate for handing out licences to good Catholics let alone gays
Not when the point is that the SSM marriage licenses are being issued by her authority. If she refused to allow this to occur, she would be right back in jail. She cannot delegate the authority of her elected office. When she earlier refused to permit her subordinates to issue marriage licenses the court ruled otherwise, put her in jail until she agreed to comply and by court order she cannot obstruct this order without a return to jail.No, one is not obligated to resign an elected office in order to oppose an injustice. I dont know why she chose to issue no licenses instead of just issueing legitimate licenses but that is her tactical choice. shhe made her point anyway. To argue that she is issuing what she has expicitly not isssued is almosg as absurd as “ssm” itself.
She is not and cannot be at all obstructive by the order of the federal court.I would love to see her be more obstructive but she is making her point.
I was not there so I cannot speak firsthand, but from what I have heard on various news outlets, only photos of Kim were taken (by those with Kim, we all know photos of the Pope and Mr. Grassi, and others were taken). No photos of Kim and the pope were taken together. The Vatican simply says the pope did not appear in any photos with Mrs. Davis.Even if you are right and the Pope just met with her without really knowing all the details about her, surely SOME pictures or video was taken of this…right? I know if I went there, i would definitely have someone take a picture of me when the Pope is close by, as to get him in the same shot?
Where are the pictures from Davis’s meeting, whatever the meeting actually was? lol There must be some reason they are not letting them out?
Actually, she’s not doing her job. When she was elected, she swore an oath, BEFORE GOD, to carry out the duties of the County Clerk WHATEVER THEY MAY BE. She is not doing that. Instead, she played the “diva” card and wanted special accommodations made for her so she could keep her job and salary and try to make others think she was a heroine when she is nothing close to that. A heroine would quit. A heroine would refuse to issue marriage licenses to SS couples under her authority.How is that relevant? I will gladly accept a Protestant as an ally over secular atheists. Whether she was catholic at one time is irrelevant. On this point she remains correct.
She was elected to office, then the court decided to change her job after she was elected. She is doing what she was elected to do.
As I understand it she has neither authorized the distribution of “SSM” license nor obstructed the judicial coup against her office. The court has chosen not to require her authority, only not to interferre with it’s own takevoer of her office.Not when the point is that the SSM marriage licenses are being issued by her authority. If she refused to allow this to occur, she would be right back in jail. She cannot delegate the authority of her elected office. When she earlier refused to permit her subordinates to issue marriage licenses the court ruled otherwise, put her in jail until she agreed to comply and by court order she cannot obstruct this order without a return to jail.
In the same sense that an elected official cannot obstruct a military coup, yes. A wise official stands aside and let’s the military have its way but does not lend his authority to it.She is not and cannot be at all obstructive by the order of the federal court.
All marriage licenses in the State of Kentucky are still being issued under the authority of the Clerk of the Court of each county. That would include Mrs. Davis. By issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, whether her name in on the license or not, Mrs. Davis is facilitating the marriage of same-sex couples. She might as well just come right out and give it her stamp of approval.As I understand it she has neither authorized the distributions of “SSM” license nor obstructed the judicial coup against her office. The court has chosen not to requier her authority, only not to interferre.
As you say, she cannot delegate the authority of her elected office. But any court that can invent “SSM” can invent its own authority. And she has, in fact, instructed that any licenses issued be issued on the authority of the court and not her authority.
Pretty clever, I think.
In the same sense that an elected official cannot obstruct a military coup, yes. A wise official stands aside and let’s the coup have its way but does not lend his authority to it.
Nobody swears an oath to be a servant of evil.Actually, she’s not doing her job. When she was elected, she swore an oath, BEFORE GOD, to carry out the duties of the County Clerk WHATEVER THEY MAY BE.
No, she is doing exactly what she should. I only wish more of her staff were taking a similar position. She has done enough on her own and to demand more is to place the blame wrongly.All marriage licenses in the State of Kentucky are still being issued under the authority of the Clerk of the Court of each county. That would include Mrs. Davis. By issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, whether her name in on the license or not, Mrs. Davis is facilitating the marriage of same-sex couples. She might as well just come right out and give it her stamp of approval.
I believe she has a right to object and not do it, but that would require resigning her position as County Clerk, and she will not do that. However, should she find she honestly objects to SSM, resigning is always an option that is open to her.
You are free to believe anything you want, but I can tell you I am VERY serious. If I weren’t, it would be a waste of my time, and I do not waste my time. I am far too busy. Attacking my honestly, or anyone else’s, will not advance your argument.No, she is doing exactly what she should. I only wish more of her staff were taking a similar position. She has done enough on her own and to demand more is to place the blame wrongly.
The problem, though, is that I don’t believe you are being honest in the argument that you are advancing so it’s very difficult to take it seriously.
She did not get to be the County Clerk without swearing an oath to do her job.Nobody swears an oath to be a servant of evil.
The sort of argunent you are maing was rejected at the Nuremburg trials.
“I was just following orders” is no defense.
The “arguments” you are advancing sound like the sophistry one would hear from a first-year debate student. He thinks he is being clever but everyone is just rolling their eyes.You are free to believe anything you want, but I can tell you I am VERY serious. If I weren’t, it would be a waste of my time, and I do not waste my time. I am far too busy. Attacking my honestly, or anyone else’s, will not advance your argument.
I don’t think Kim Davis is being honest. Every SSM license that is issued in her county goes out under her authority, making her a facilitator to SSM. She had a choice: leave her position in protest of SSM or stay and facilitate SSM. She chose to stay. Her actions speak much louder than her words.
I quoted you. See above.She did not get to be the County Clerk without swearing an oath to do her job.
You must have me confused with someone else. I never said anything even remotely close to the other things you are talking about. I haven’t read any posts in this thread that did.
You weren’t quoting me. I never said those things.I quoted you. See above.
Nobody swears an oath to serve evil.
And, for that matter, why dont you show us the oath she supposedly took to “do her job”.
You claimed that she sworw to do the duties of the county clerk “no matter what they may be”.You weren’t quoting me. I never said those things.
Here’s the oath she swore, word-for-word:
She did not vow to blindly do as ordered but to use her judgement and avoid malfeasence.
She didn’t adhere to her oath, she is showing partiality. A federal judge agrees with me, he jailed her for contempt of court when she would not adhere to the oath she took BEFORE GOD. I think it’s safe to say, a federal judge knows the law.You claimed that she sworw to do the duties of the county clerk “no matter what they may be”.
That was the constructuin, which appears nowhere in the oath, that is the same as demanding blind obedience to evil insofar as the court may arbirtarily redefine those duties.
She did not vow to blindly do as ordered but to use her judgement and avoid malfeasence.
Kudos to her for keeping her oath.
You said she didn’t swear an oath at all.You claimed that she sworw to do the duties of the county clerk “no matter what they may be”.
That was the constructuin, which appears nowhere in the oath, that is the same as demanding blind obedience to evil insofar as the court may arbirtarily redefine those duties.
She did not vow to blindly do as ordered but to use her judgement and avoid malfeasence.
Kudos to her for keeping her oath.