Kim Davis - Your Opinions

As I'm sure most of our members in the USA have heard by now, a clerk in Kentucky has refused to give marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This is in spite of the fact that marriage is completely legal between these couples in our country. She claims to follow God's authority, citing her Christian beliefs as a reason that she will not go through with these license issuings. I would like, if I may, to ask the opinions of other TOTJO members on this subject.

My opinion may be seen as radical, though it is not without reason. I believe that Davis should be punished not only for breaking the laws of our country, but also for violating the constitution; moreover, she should be punished as one would be for treason and slander. Ms. Davis (or Mrs., though I'm not certain of this) is an employee of the Unites States government, and as an employee of our government in a position where she interacts with others, she is a representative of our government. What does it say when a representative of our government refuses to comply with the laws and values of our nation? To me, it says that she does not respect them, nor does she respect the institution which she is supposed to represent. This action is not only unlawful, it is an insult painting a negative image of our leadership, and while I wholly support free speech, this action by a representative of our government makes its value lessened in the eyes of the people. I consider it to be slander and defamation of character. And, as a representative of our government, her refusal to comply with our laws is akin to violent anarchism which seeks to overthrow a governing body. It gives a clear image of our laws as something which is weak and without reason to follow, regardless of how just those laws are. More importantly, she has refused to acknowledge the autonomy of our citizens.

The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". And while certainly the Christian attitude against homosexuality is fine to have (we'll not convict anyone of thoughtcrime!), it has no place in our government. For a representative of our government to use Christianity as a means to disrespect the autonomy of other human beings and to belittle our laws, our culture, and our values is a terrible thing and completely out of place. Of course, we cannot fire someone under current laws for nothing other than the religious beliefs that they hold; but when those religious beliefs prevent someone from doing their job, then they shouldn't have that job. I would not expect to see a Christian hired as a Rabbi any more than I would expect to see a Muslim hired as a Catholic Priest. It is clear that some people due to their religious beliefs are unfit to work in certain places, and this is one such case. Kim Davis and those who would go through with the same actions that she has should not have the ability to work in the position that she works in. To do so would be either to reject those religious beliefs that they hold so dear or to disobey the laws of our country and weaken our bonds as citizens.

But that's just how I feel. What about you?

Treason seems a bit harsh, since I'm pretty sure they still execute traitors.

If it hadn't been Davis, it would have been someone else. It was bound to happen somewhere that a clerk would feel compelled to comply with a rigidly dogmatic interpretation of Christian Scripture regarding this issue and then decide that the best way to do so is to refuse to issue marriage licenses to queer couples. Fair disclosure: I think the government's involvement with marriage is a crock. I think that while it is nice to have those benefits I think there are other, less privileging ways to give people tax breaks. I think many of the benefits bestowed on a married couple should be given out to anyone under various circumstances, not just because two people decided to have a legally sanctioned union.

I also didn't want Davis to go to jail. I didn't want this primarily because I don't think that will actually solve anything and we already have a major population problem in our prison system. Secondly, and someone pointed this out to me so it's not my idea originally, I think Davis getting thrown in jail makes her a martyr on the level of St. Paul in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians. Mike Huckabee's Twitter is blowing up with petition after petition to free Kim Davis, stating that Christianity is being criminalized in America (hint: it's not, but when Christianity is the dominant religion for so long, sometimes being knocked down to where everyone else is feels a bit like being criminalized).

Kim Davis is really a symptom of a larger problem in America where people think that freedom of religion gives them a right to enforce their religious ideology on others. If I say I'm a Jedi and that part of my belief system is to regard the Earth as sacred, then would that give me the right to refuse people fuel unless they were getting E85 or driving a hybrid car even though I signed up to work at a gas station?

We also have in the Constitution that she has freedom to believe what she wants, that she has freedom to practice that belief as well. Unlike the military, as far as I know she is not bound by some sort of oath to a separate set of laws which prevents her from acting in such a way that violates her beliefs. That is not to say that I agree with her, or that I feel she shouldn't have some sort of punishment for the offense she has caused- more to the point, she hasn't done anything that is jailable.

But a fine? All day long. I think she should be charged with a $10,000 fine for every marriage certificate she has denied based on bias. Fired? ABSOLUTELY. They can find a replacement, and it sends a message across the nation that if you're going to do something stupid like this, you either need to bite your tongue or get out of the job.

i think shes great! i think this whole thing is great, and here's why; people who feel the issue is important have an excellent opportunity to present their views candidly and clearly

i say good for her for standing by what she believes

and i also say good for that judge who put her in jail for contempt of court

and hopefully good for those couples who will still be allowed to get married without her signature

and especially good for people who want to promote freedom and what freedom means and what it requires

while her experience in county jail is not going to be anything remotely close to hard time in a state or federal prison, i think there is maybe an irony to the fact that she lost her freedom as a result of refusing to respect other peoples freedom

that being said, i also believe that it is important to acknowledge there is something to be respected (at least in the idea) when someone is willing to face conviction for their convictions

im curious how long it will take for her to change her mind - her life at home may not really be that great and if the jail is fairly modern and the staff is professional and if she gets enough money for commissary to stay fed and (relatively) entertained she might hold out for quite a while

the simple solition is for her to quit or be fired, but apparently she cant be fired because shes elected tothe office

i think good presentation and talking points are to be respectful of her beliefs and her willingness to stand by them, but point out that christians are supposed to obey the laws of their land

also that marriage is something that people DO actually have the right to define for themselves, since thats exactly what we do with everything important in life, we define whats important about it

"traditional" marriage includes marriages to children and to multiple partners and to victims of abuse and conquest, and was done in exchange for wealth and to serve the purpose of social status and political alliance

we have redefined marriage to include the idea that love is the most,and maybe even only important factor in marriage, and that definition will naturally be inclusive of same sex marriage

and in a free land you just have to respect that people will use their freedom as they see fit and without your approval

it isnt an attack on you or your culture, its just people being people, and its ok because you want to be allowed to be a person too

Its not really OK to be a person when you are an elected official, or even an appointed one...

You are, in the execution of your position, a representative if all the people you represent...

I am an elected official, and I serve here...

There are times I disagree with the decisions, but my job isn't to form a personal protest, but rather to enforce the "laws of the land" in my elected position, and temple laws/policiies as a council member...

I also have to act as as the group sometimes... As I active for the betterment of the group, sometimes, whether I am doing something for the group, or for myself, gets blurry...

I try to always represent the group publicy, such as my.language is usually clean...

But get to speak to me personally, and I drop f-bombs like GrandMaster Flash dropped the beat!! (Outdated reference? Lol)

@jestor
i agree with everything you said and will raise you a reterence to "Grand Master B"

my post may not have been as clear to read as the ideas were to me in the moment of writing so basically i will just say that my position is that people should have the right to define the major themes of their lives for themselves

also, imo people have not just a right but a sort of obligation to refuse to participate in things which they see as morally wrong

i disagree with this womans view but i agree with her right to say "i wont be a part of this"
however, the job she has still needs to be done and if she wont do it then i agree that someone who will do the job needs to be put in her place

and i think its good this happened because it puts the issue up front in public discourse and this allows me to express my views without running around forcing people into a conversation they werent already having

Everyone's entitled to their personal believes and principles. If those interfere with the job you're doing, it's time to look for a new job. I'm sure this is oversimplified and most people sometimes will let their personal principles mess with their work - but if things start getting out of hand, it's time to pull the plug. I'm just sad that Davis had to be thrown in jail - perhaps they could have found another position for her that doesn't conflict with her belief system.

i read that she "has no intention of resigning or of granting any same sex marriages"
and apparently this is her right, because she was elected, which is why she also *cant be fired

it seems she doesnt want to let go of the position because she wants to make her statement and take her stand on the issue
and it seems that, at least up to an as of yet unreached point, she can do that

OB1Shinobi wrote: i read that she "has no intention of resigning or of granting any same sex marriages"
and apparently this is her right, because she was elected, which is why she also *cant be fired

it seems she doesnt want to let go of the position because she wants to make her statement and take her stand on the issue

I agree with you - she wanted to make a public statement and she probably talked herself (or let others talk her) into believing that what she's doing is necessary.

That said, I'm sure any elected official can be impeached if he or she is incapable of carrying out his or her work. If Davis doesn't want to step down, suspend her and impeach her.

Alethea Thompson wrote: more to the point, she hasn't done anything that is jailable.

Yes, she has. She's being held in contempt of court and has been given reasonable alternatives to jail time that would not compromise her beliefs, and she refused them.

I think people who refuse to do their job should be sacked. If its an elected representative.. Well guess what. They don't just work for the people who voted for them. They also work for the people who didn't vote for them.

As an Elected official in Illinois (like Jestor), one of the facts I have learned is that an elected official cannot be fired. If they act contrary to the law, they can be held in contempt or other violations, and must be given due process of the law to be removed from office.

In this case, her violation is clear and she has been held in contempt. I believe a deputy clerk takes over for the clerk and continues the business of the clerk until she complies or is legally removed.

In her oath of office, she swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State, and County. She has no legal right to withhold licenses based on her personal beliefs.

Phortis Nespin wrote: In her oath of office, she swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State, and County. She has no legal right to withhold licenses based on her personal beliefs.

This does raise an interesting dilemma, does one declare an oath to the constitution as one understands it at the time the oath is taken, or does the very fact that part of the constitution is all about the fact that it can be amended and interpreted mean that one declares an oath to all future versions and interpretations of the constitution? If the latter, then it essentially means that one is declaring an oath to anything and everything legislature deems to change, or judges decide to interpret in the future, in perpetuity, an oath to pretty much any and every twisted act that can be conceived of in the minds of the "wrong judges" or the "wrong legislators".

I would NOT want to be in the position to take that kind of an oath; she should have recused herself from her position if she felt an ethical conflict from the decision.

Like any oath, it is taken with the "oath takers" understanding of the constitution...

Should here be confusion, or a law redefined, or amended, resignation is the answer...

As the law said she was in contempt, she had options, the judge gave her choices...

Found this in Reddit in r/atheism::

www.americaisachristiannation.com

Very interesting... And humorous.... lol...

Phortis Nespin wrote: and must be given due process of the law to be removed from office.

I believe therein lies the problem - an impeachment process would involve other people taking sides, which might be a problem in this case at that could seriously hurt political careers

I agree that it's not her position to judge as the law is the law, it just sucks they will fry her when there are MUUUUCH bigger fish to fry if we want to get into the behavior and actions of elected representatives.

This reminds me of this: A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended from ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs. She has filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

http://www.rt.com/usa/314571-muslim-airline-alcohol-discrimination/

While I admire and respect the faith and dedication to one's religion, I think sometimes we can all take things a little too seriously. The law is the law, the people voted for same sex marriage, the people want alcohol, it's their business, it's your job.

Lightstrider wrote:
This reminds me of this: A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended from ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs. She has filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

http://www.rt.com/usa/314571-muslim-airline-alcohol-discrimination/

While I admire and respect the faith and dedication to one's religion, I think sometimes we can all take things a little too seriously. The law is the law, the people voted for same sex marriage, the people want alcohol, it's their business, it's your job.

The difference between Kim and that woman, however, is the fact that 1) following that woman's conversion and discovery that Islam prohibited her from serving alcohol, she worked out an accommodation with her management for another flight attendant to serve alcohol, while she did their job... essentially a duty switch, and 2) it wasn't the customers who filed a report against her, it was a fellow flight attendant. Further, the report that was filed wasn't even entirely in reference to her request for accommodation in serving alcohol; it also included the fact that she had started wearing a hijab with her flight attendant uniform (something which multiple courts have already ruled is to be allowed by the religious freedom accommodation acts) and that she had a book in "some random funny looking foreign language" (or something like that; which could have basically been anything). And of course they added the refusal to serve the alcohol to the mix. But the simple fact of the matter is is that there had already been accommodations put into place for the one qualm she had, by the airliner itself, and then they decided to revoke that accommodation. Now if they suspended her over the alcohol and hijab factors, then the airliner will lose their case. But if they suspended her over security concerns (ie, the book with funny foreign righting somehow causing them to be concerned she might have become radicalized), then they may win their case. The media is just running with the alcohol line and ignoring the other factors, and as such, we can't know for certain the full extent of why she was placed on suspension.

Whereas with Kim, she was elected and swore an oath to uphold the laws. Kentucky law makes no provisions which allow one of the deputy clerks to sign marriage licenses in her stead, so there is no way for there to be some kind of accommodation made because as law currently stands, any marriage license which does not carry her signature isn't technically valid. Even Judge Bunning told the couples that they would have to risk their marriage licenses not being legally valid if they went ahead and got them following her imprisonment. That's something the state will have to figure out on a legal basis...how are they going to ensure all county clerks are issuing marriage licenses without infringing upon the religious rights. Clearly the majority of the deputies have no issue with issuing those licenses, so that looks like the place to start. As for her impeachment, it won't happen. She's in a predominantly conservative Republican, Christian dominated state. That makes up the basis for their Senate, which is who would have to do the impeachment, and they never will. They'll stand by her religious freedom to the end of time... And she'll never resign or budge. Meaning the only way, at least from where I'm sitting, that this issue will be solved is for state law to be adjusted so that marriage licenses can be signed by either title (such and such county clerk office [though I'm not convinced this will be satisfactory for Kim Davis]) or for deputy clerks to sign.

The tl;dr version of this: The difference is the airliner had made reasonable accommodations which they later decided to revoke based upon the complaint of a fellow employee which included more than just the alcohol issue, not the complaint of a customer. In contrast, Kentucky law does not allow for any kind of accommodation to be made wherein those marriage licenses are legal, meaning that Kim Davis in the only person people in that county can go to, and so her refusal to issue any marriage licenses does, in fact, infringe upon their constitutional rights.

it just sucks they will fry her when there are MUUUUCH bigger fish to fry if we want to get into the behavior and actions of elected representatives

She was given choices...

She is shooting for "martyrdom"....

Waiting for her "crucifixion" by the heathens, lol...

Its why the judge gave her so much leeway...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/tennessee-judge-denies-straight-couple-divorce-same-sex-marriage-ruling?CMP=share_btn_fb

(To show that people are using the SCOTUS ruling to affect more than one aspect of marriage)


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/allen-mcconnell-toledo-refuses-gay-marriage

(To show that Kim Davis isn't the only one refusing)

Avalonslight wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/tennessee-judge-denies-straight-couple-divorce-same-sex-marriage-ruling?CMP=share_btn_fb

There will be more stories...

Kim's will be the "most publisized" or at a minimum, the first "largest" one... lol...