County Clerk Defies Federal, Appeals, And Scotus Court Orders Against Her, Invoking Her Faith And Religious Freedom

[jkwilliams]

Good grief, No, you still don't get it!!!

Nobody should be having sexual relations with anyone of the same sex, regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is legal or thinks it's an "evolution" in society for everyone on the planet to get onboard with the idea that sexual relatoons between people of the same sex is okay. Those who think same sex sexual relations is okay need to wake up and realuze that it really is not oksy and should not be accepted as if it is okay. Teachers should be deployed all over the world if necessary to teach how and why it is not okay, and those who make laws should be legally required to hear those teachers and get a passing grade from the teachers before being allowed to make any more laws. When any lawmaker makes any law that says it is legal to do something bad we need to have some way to stop those lawmakers from making and upholding bad laws. As it ia now a lot of lawmakers need to be losing their jobs instead of continuing to uphold and make some bad laws.

Kim Davia isn't exactly what I have in my mind as the poster child for the revolution that is needed but at least she is doing the right thing by not upholding bad laws. What we really need though is some way to overturn all of the bad laws on this planet, along with taking all bad lawmakers out of office.

The change that is needed now is an almighty big change.

 

Can you explain why it's "not okay" for people of the same sex to marry and/or have sexual relations? Obviously, for you and a lot of others, this is a religious issue, but for those who don't share your religious beliefs, please explain why same-sex relations and marriage are "not okay" and "bad."

[Daniel2]

Kennedy upended over 50 years of jurisprudence on civil rights and equal protection under the law by imposing a federal standard from the bench that was not originated in the congress, or enumerated in the constitution, thus forcing states to adopt a law they had no voice in creating.

 

You still haven't explained exactly what you're talking about here.  Are you referring to all of the judicial rulings at the state, federal, appeals, and ultimately supreme level that culiminated in the Obergefell decision....?? 

 

If so, Kennedy was one of a long series of judges in multiple states, jurisdictions, appeals courts, and even a plurality of judges on SCOTUS that all justly acted according to their role to interpret whether the laws initiated by congress were permissible because of the constitution--just as the judicial branch was designed to do, and just as it has been doing for a couple centuries now.  Even in Obergefell, Justice Kennedy was only one individual who ruled among 5 at SCOTUS. 

 

So, again... Obergefell upheld numerous lower state and federal court rulings, and Justice Kennedy was never on trial--entirely unlike Ms. Davis' situation, where she refused to do her job and lost  her appeals at every level.

 

Again--the situations are nothing alike.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Good grief, No, you still don't get it!!!

Nobody should be having sexual relations with anyone of the same sex, regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is legal or some people think it's an "evolution" in society for everyone on the planet to get onboard with the idea that sexual relatoons between people of the same sex is okay. Those who think same sex sexual relations is okay need to wake up and realuze that it really is not oksy and should not be accepted as if it is okay. Teachers should be deployed all over the world if necessary to teach how and why it is not okay, and those who make laws should be legally required to hear those teachers and get a passing grade from the teachers before being allowed to make any more laws. When any lawmaker makes any law that says it is legal to do something bad we need to have some way to stop those lawmakers from making and upholding bad laws. As it ia now a lot of lawmakers need to be losing their jobs instead of continuing to uphold and make some bad laws.

Kim Davia isn't exactly what I have in my mind as the poster child for the revolution that is needed but at least she is doing the right thing by not upholding bad laws. What we really need though is some way to overturn all of the bad laws on this planet, along with taking all bad lawmakers out of office.

The change that is needed now is an almighty big change.

 

So, Ahab, what you're saying is you long for some sort of quasi-theocracy where you can enforce your values on everyone else... 

 

Thankfully, in America, we believe that the government shall make no law establishing any one specific religion or enforcing it's values upon our citizens.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[jkwilliams]

You still haven't explained exactly what you're talking about here.  Are you referring to the Obergefell decision....??

 

My understanding is that the Obergefell decision rested at least in part on precedent from Loving and Windsor, so in that respect, it didn't upend anything but simply followed on precedent. And that's what is supposed to happen.

[Storm Rider]

I am all for Kim Davis being put in jail for contempt of court.  She should have resigned her position.

I am all for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome being put in jail for issuing same sex marriage liscenses before they were the law of the land.  He should have resigned his position.

I am all for Justice Anthony Kennedy being impeached for his judicial activism imposing one state's law on all states over an issue that is not enumerated in the Constitution and upending 200 years of jurisprudence.  He should resign his position.

I am all for Barak Obama being put in jail for contempt of congress.  He should have resigned his position.

I am all for Hillary Clinton being put in jail for braking espionage laws.  She should have resigned her position.

I am all for the mayors of  Washington, D.C.; New York City (see also Illegal immigration in New York City); Jersey City; Los Angeles; Philadelphia, San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; San Jose; Oakland; Salt Lake City; Houston; Detroit; Chicago; Salinas, California; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven; Somerville; Cambridge; and Portland, Maine being put in jail for creating sanctuary cities and failing to uphold several immigration and licensing laws.  They should resign their positions.

 

At least I'm consistent.

 

Hey, hey, hey!  We only like it when the sword cuts our way and the standard is applied to others.  It is not fair when our standard for others is applied to us.  

 

It is fun to observe ourselves when our own words condemn us and we act stunned, offended, and even surprised.  

 

This is the same, tired, refrian of "I am tolerant of all people as long as they think exactly like I do; if they do not they need to be dealt with swiftly and completely. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Storm Rider

[HappyJackWagon]

Good grief, No, you still don't get it!!!

Nobody should be having sexual relations with anyone of the same sex, regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is legal or some people think it's an "evolution" in society for everyone on the planet to get onboard with the idea that sexual relatoons between people of the same sex is okay. Those who think same sex sexual relations is okay need to wake up and realuze that it really is not oksy and should not be accepted as if it is okay. Teachers should be deployed all over the world if necessary to teach how and why it is not okay, and those who make laws should be legally required to hear those teachers and get a passing grade from the teachers before being allowed to make any more laws. When any lawmaker makes any law that says it is legal to do something bad we need to have some way to stop those lawmakers from making and upholding bad laws. As it ia now a lot of lawmakers need to be losing their jobs instead of continuing to uphold and make some bad laws.

Kim Davia isn't exactly what I have in my mind as the poster child for the revolution that is needed but at least she is doing the right thing by not upholding bad laws. What we really need though is some way to overturn all of the bad laws on this planet, along with taking all bad lawmakers out of office.

The change that is needed now is an almighty big change.

Sorry Ahab but you're not grasping the argument. I have a few questions for you.

 

You would state that any gay behavior is bad. We should teach this to everyone and implement government policy based on your religious belief. Ok- it's a given that you don't accept any kind of gay behavior but it is also a given (I hope) that gay people will continue to exist and therefore so will the behavior. 

-Is it better for gays to be permiscuous where the liklihood of spreading disease is increased, or is it better for gays to be in monogomous, committed relationships?

 

IF it is better for them to be in monogomous, committed relationships, is there a government policy reason you can think of  why society and governemnt should discriminate against them and not allow them to marry like monogomous hetero couples?

 

Aside from your personal religious view about the sanctity of the word "marriage", is there a reason people like you should have more rights than gays, thus forcing your religous views on others with other religious views.

 

Does it it sound like religious freedom when you force your views on people with different religious views?

[KevinG]

You still haven't explained exactly what you're talking about here.  Are you referring to the Obergefell decision....??

 

Yes.

 

...and I'm still seeing you justify illegal activities on the part of people you support while celebrating them on the part of people you don't support.

 

Judicial activism, even in civil rights cases, sets a very scary precedent that makes the courts superior law, not just superior justice.

 

Again- coming from someone who supports gay marriage and wishes it had been done on a state level...  the way it was done is inconsistent and sets the table for potential legal tyranny in the future.  Those who are celebrating Ms. Davis incarceration should keep in mind that if someone gains power that disagrees with their rights, they can be victims of that person making up rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

 

How we go about creating law is just as important as what laws we create for those very reasons.

 

A few of our Supreme Court Justices said it better than I can in their dissenting opinions.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[Ahab]

Do we really want to imbue a lowly governement official like a county clerk, the authority to override the Supreme Court and create & enforce her own law (which she claims is God's law)?

She's acting like a tyrant, infringing on the personal liberty and religious liberty of her staff and her constituents.

What I hope comes out of this mess is that all government officials, and all judges (including those in the SCOTUS), are people. As in PEOPLE. People who have their own ideas and values and who use those when making decisions and judgments. People who sometimes make mistakes and errors in judgment. People, who as people, can be wrong.

The fact that some people have positions of power in this world doesn't mean they should be obeyed. Especially when those people make bad decisions and bad errors in judgment. Even if those people have the power to put us in one of their jail cells.

We all need to do what is right, by whatever means necessary.

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes.

 

...and I'm still seeing you justify illegal activities on the part of people you support while celebrating them on the part of people you don't support.

 

Judicial activism, even in civil rights cases, sets a very scary precedent that makes the courts superior law, not just superior justice.

 

Again- coming from someone who supports gay marriage and wishes it had been done on a state level...  the way it was done is inconsistent and sets the table for potential legal tyranny in the future.  Those who are celebrating Ms. Davis incarceration should keep in mind that if someone gains power that disagrees with their rights, they can be victims of that person making up rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

 

How we go about creating law is just as important as what laws we create for those very reasons.

 

A few of our Supreme Court Justices said it better than I can in their dissenting opinions.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

This is clearly a dispute about politics and the role of the co-equal branches of government. Libertarians are not likely to agree with liberals on this issue.

[jkwilliams]

Hey, hey, hey!  We only like it when the sword cuts our way and the standard is applied to others.  It is not fair when the our standard for others is applied to us.  It is fun to observe ourselves when our own words condemn us and we act stunned, offended, and even surprised.  

 

This is the same, tired, refrian of "I am tolerant of all people as long as they think exactly like I do; if they do not they need to be dealt with swiftly and completely. 

 

Seems more like a list of grievances that may or may not be particularly analogous to the situation with Ms. Davis. 

 

Yes, Mr. Newsom exceeded his authority, but AFAIK, no legal case was ever brought against him. As I recall, when ordered to stop issuing licenses, he did so.

I have no idea what Justice Kennedy did that is so heinous, so I can't comment.

Without knowing what you're referring to, it's also impossible to comment on the president's being in contempt of Congress. I'm not a huge Obama fan--I voted against him both times--but I'm wondering what you have in mind here.

If Hillary Clinton's obvious carelessness with classified material turns out to have been intentional sharing of classified material, then, yes, she should be prosecuted.

As much as I sympathize with the sentiment behind the sanctuary movement, it is indeed wrong for localities to simply ignore the laws of the state and country, full stop.

 

These are not all the same situations, so a consistent demand for prosecution or resignation seems a bit silly.

[HappyJackWagon]

What I hope comes out of this mess is that all government officials, and all judges (including those in the SCOTUS), are people. As in PEOPLE. People who have their own ideas and values and who use those when making decisions and judgments. People who sometimes make mistakes and errors in judgment. People, who as people, can be wrong.

The fact that some people have positions of power in this world doesn't mean they should be obeyed. Especially when those people make bad decisions and bad errors in judgment. Even if those people have the power to put us in one of their jail cells.

We all need to do what is right, by whatever means necessary.

Aside from the jail comment, are we talking about the government or the church?

Edited September 4, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[jkwilliams]

What I hope comes out of this mess is that all government officials, and all judges (including those in the SCOTUS), are people. As in PEOPLE. People who have their own ideas and values and who use those when making decisions and judgments. People who sometimes make mistakes and errors in judgment. People, who as people, can be wrong.

The fact that some people have positions of power in this world doesn't mean they should be obeyed. Especially when those people make bad decisions and bad errors in judgment. Even if those people have the power to put us in one of their jail cells.

We all need to do what is right, by whatever means necessary.

 

Do we really want to live in a country where laws are ignored in favor of someone's personal moral judgment? I don't. People are complaining about SCOTUS upending 200 years of law, but allowing (even encouraging, apparently) government officials to apply the law only when it aligns with their personal beliefs would do much more damage to our Consitutional republic than anything the courts could do. That anyone is supporting this kind of free-for-all ought to scare the heck out of reasonable folks.

 

As I asked earlier, if a Muslim DMV clerk decided that her religious beliefs prohibited her from issuing driver's licenses to women, would you be OK with that? What if, for consistency, she simply decided to stop issuing driver's licenses? Should she still be paid for sitting behind the counter and doing nothing, or would that be a legitimate exercise of religious freedom?

Edited September 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

Do we really want to live in a country where laws are ignored in favor of someone's personal moral judgment? I don't. People are complaining about SCOTUS upending 200 years of law, but allowing (even encouraging, apparently) government officials to apply the law only when it aligns with their personal beliefs would do much more damage to our Consitutional republic than anything the courts could do. That anyone is supporting this kind of free-for-all ought to scare the heck out of reasonable folks.

 

As I asked earlier, if a Muslim DMV clerk decided that her religious beliefs prohibited her from issuing driver's licenses to women, would you be OK with that? What if, for consistency, she simply decided to stop issuing driver's licenses? Should she still be paid for sitting behind the counter and doing nothing, or would that be a legitimate exercise of religious freedom?

This clerk is claiming that her religious liberty is being denied yet she is denying religious liberty to her staff and constituents. A government employee forcing her religous views on others is EXACTLY what the separation of church and state is about. She doesn't have the right to use her position of power to require others to follow her religion.

 

To the issue of the Clerk's religious freedom being violated- It's just not the case. She can live her religion. No one is preventing her from doing that. What she can't do is require others to live her religion.

[jkwilliams]

This clerk is claiming that her religious liberty is being denied yet she is denying religious liberty to her staff and constituents. A government employee forcing her religous views on others is EXACTLY what the separation of church and state is about. She doesn't have the right to use her position of power to require others to follow her religion.

 

To the issue of the Clerk's religious freedom being violated- It's just not the case. She can live her religion. No one is preventing her from doing that. What she can't do is require others to live her religion.

 

Exactly. Government employees are supposed to follow the law, and if they can't in good conscience follow the law, they should not be employed by the government. I can't believe people support the right of government officials to ignore the laws they don't like. 

[The Nehor]

Does this undermine the "civil disobedience" argument I've seen apologists use regarding early polygamy? Haha. Sorry. I don't mean to hijack the thread

I do not think so. When secular law and religious law directly contradict I will break secular law. This is not a direct contradiction.

[CA Steve]

Do we really want to live in a country where laws are ignored in favor of someone's personal moral judgment? I don't. People are complaining about SCOTUS upending 200 years of law, but allowing (even encouraging, apparently) government officials to apply the law only when it aligns with their personal beliefs would do much more damage to our Consitutional republic than anything the courts could do. That anyone is supporting this kind of free-for-all ought to scare the heck out of reasonable folks.

 

As I asked earlier, if a Muslim DMV clerk decided that her religious beliefs prohibited her from issuing driver's licenses to women, would you be OK with that? What if, for consistency, she simply decided to stop issuing driver's licenses? Should she still be paid for sitting behind the counter and doing nothing, or would that be a legitimate exercise of religious freedom?

Well, obviously the solution is for women who want to get driver's licenses to just drive to the next closest DMV and remain silent about it. For any one to publicly raise a stink about it would be disingenuous. If they were to say anything publicly, it would be immediately obvious that they just are attention seekers of the worst sort who could not be trusted to drive anyways.

 

The elephant in the room here is the problem with allowing women to drive. What does it say about our country when the requirements for driving are so low even women are allowed to drive? How difficult is it to find a qualified licensed male to ask to drive them somewhere? It is the same thing, after all. Both are riding in the car and both get to the same destination. It really doesn't matter who drives does it?

[The Nehor]

And, to address a tangent, I think Newsome was wrong to issue those licenses. I give him a little more slack then I do Davis because he was the mayor and is supposed to make more high level decisions. Clerks are not supposed to ignore governors.

[jkwilliams]

And, to address a tangent, I think Newsome was wrong to issue those licenses. I give him a little more slack then I do Davis because he was the mayor and is supposed to make more high level decisions. Clerks are not supposed to ignore governors.

 

Yep. Newsom definitely exceeded his authority, but when ordered to stop, he did. If he hadn't stopped, he should have been found in contempt of court and jailed, just like Ms. Davis.

[ERayR]

 

-Is it better for gays to be permiscuous where the liklihood of spreading disease is increased, or is it better for gays to be in monogomous, committed relationships?

 

False dichotomy.  It is not a homo-sexual marriage or a promiscuous life style choice.  Homo-sexual marriage does not/will not eliminate promiscuity. 

[jkwilliams]

False dichotomy.  It is not a homo-sexual marriage or a promiscuous life style choice.  Homo-sexual marriage does not/will not eliminate promiscuity. 

 

Nothing will eliminate promiscuity, but marriage in general is designed to provide incentives for stable relationships, which in turn benefit society. 

[ERayR]

Nothing will eliminate promiscuity, but marriage in general is designed to provide incentives for stable relationships, which in turn benefit society. 

 I know what the theory is.

[HappyJackWagon]

 I know what the theory is.

Didn't sound like it.

[jkwilliams]

 I know what the theory is.

 

That has traditionally been one of the main reasons for legal marriage. Are you suggesting that married couples are not any more stable in any way than unwed cohabiters? 

[ERayR]

Didn't sound like it.

 

I thought it was simple and obvious.  "Homo-sexual marriage does not/will not eliminate promiscuity".  Think about it it will come to you.

[jkwilliams]

I thought it was simple and obvious.  "Homo-sexual marriage does not/will not eliminate promiscuity".  Think about it it will come to you.

 

Heterosexual marriage doesn't eliminate promiscuity, either. I'm not sure what your point is.