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

[ERayR]

Happy Jack posted this:

 

-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?

 

 

I was pointing out that was a

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

[Ahab]

Do we really want to live in a country where laws are ignored in favor of someone's personal moral judgment? I don't.

Take a step back to think about how somebody's judgment becomes a law in the first place. Why accept that judgment if you don't agree with that judgment? The fact that somebody's judgment is codified into law doesn't mean you must agree with it or live your life by it. And since you can't live by everbody's judgment since not everybody agrees you have to make your own judgments which will inevitably clash with somebody else's judgment.

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.

It sounds a lot better to me than upholding somebody's judgment I don't agree with. We're never going to get to the point where we agree with everybody else anyway.

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?

Why ask me what I think? You can make your own judgments regardless of what anyone else thinks.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 04 Sept 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

-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?

 

 

I was pointing out that was a

ERayR, on 04 Sept 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

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

 

I was trying to suggest that it is better to encourage monogomous, committed relationships among gays, just like we would do for heteros. For heteros that usually leads to marriage but for some reason we're afraid to encourage the same for gays. To me this seems counterintuitive.

[HappyJackWagon]

Take a step back to think about how somebody's judgment becomes a law in the first place. Why accept that judgment if you don't agree with that judgment? The fact that somebody's judgment is codified into law doesn't mean you must agree with it or live your life by it. And since you can't live by everbody's judgment since not everybody agrees you have to make your own judgments which will inevitably clash with somebody else's judgment.

 

Umm...yeah. That's pretty much what it means to live in a community. Without the rule of law society would collapse into pure chaos.

 

Are you really suggesting that everyone has the right to ignore whatever law they don't agree with? Really? Really? No, seriously...really?

 

I guess this kind of fits in with your whole "plagiarism is acceptable and even flattering" mindeset. I don't understand it. Why have law or society at all. Every man for himself.

Edited September 4, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Daniel2]

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

 

I think you missed the rest of my post, which I added on as an edit:

 

 

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 of SCOTUS.

 

So, again... Obergefell upheld numerous lower state and federal court rulings, and Justice Kennedy was never personally 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

[jkwilliams]

Umm...yeah. That's pretty much what it means to live in a community. Without the rule of law society would collapse into pure chaos.

 

Are you really suggesting that everyone has the right to ignore whatever law they don't agree with? Really? Really? No, seriously...really?

 

I guess this kind of fits in with your whole "plagiarism is acceptable and even flattering" mindeset. I don't understand it. Why have law or society at all. Every man for himself.

 

That appears to be his position. Scary.

[Daniel2]

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?

 

   

 

SPOT ON imitation.

 

Loved it!

[jkwilliams]

Arkansas DMV Clerk Stands Up for Religious Freedom

 

Salt Lick, Arkansas (URP)--Tyson County DMV clerk Jason Durgess is garnering praise from around the country for his principled defense of his religious rights. Durgess, a member of the Apostolic Regeneration Brethren Church, announced Thursday that, in keeping with his religious beliefs, he could no longer in good conscience issue driver’s licenses to female residents.

 

“The scriptures are clear,” Durgess said today while sitting at his closed clerk’s station. “‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’ I didn’t make that up. Jesus said it, and Reverend Gary says I can’t do anything that undermines the authority of the man, who is ‘the saviour of the body.'”

 

When applicants complained that Durgess was approving licenses only for men, he had a change of heart. “I knew I needed to be just and fair, and it wasn’t right to single out women.” Accordingly, Durgess decided to refuse to issue licenses to anyone, male or female.

 

“I just feel like my right to freedom of religion needs to be respected, and I shouldn’t be forced to do things that the Bible says are wrong.”

 

Supervisors at the DMV tried to accommodate Durgess by assigning him to the vehicle registration department, but he quickly found his conscience wouldn’t allow him to register vehicles that might be driven by women. “This is a life-or-death matter for me. I cannot condone or approve of behavior that goes against the central teachings of the gospel.”

 

When supervisors told Durgess he had to resume issuing licenses or be fired, he called on the Libertas Counsel, an organization that supports religious freedom for all.

 

“When Jason called us, I was shocked,” said Cleophas Stemmelbow, lead counsel at Libertas. “It’s appalling that in the 21st century we are threatening people’s livelihoods if they don’t violate their most cherished religious beliefs. This isn’t Nazi Germany or Massachusetts. This is America, and this sort of thing isn’t supposed to happen here!”

 

Fearing a lawsuit, supervisors agreed to allow Durgess to continue his employment without any responsibilities. “Yeah, he just sits there playing games on his iPhone all day, but what are we supposed to do?”

 

As lines grew longer, patron tempers grew shorter. “I don’t know what this guy’s problem is,” said an exasperated Tiffany Meadows, who was trying to calm a fussy infant while waiting in line. “I’ve been here almost 2 hours, and that guy’s just sitting there on his butt, doing nothing.”

 

“Look,” Durgess said, looking up from Angry Birds, “if you are that desperate, go to another clerk or another county, and they’ll fix you up just fine.”

 

Local pastor Robert McDowell approached Durgess’s clerk station while his wife, Barbara McDowell, recorded the conversation on her phone. “Son, you have a legal responsibility to issue me a driver’s license,” said an obviously irritated McDowell. “I and every other taxpayer in this county are paying your salary. You can’t just sit there. Do you really want us to beg you? This is just humiliating!”

 

Durgess dismissed the complaints. “These are just whiners who are looking for attention. They claim they’re humiliated, but it’s all fake. If they were really humiliated, they wouldn’t have recorded anything and published it. Get real. They’re just some angry losers who want to sin.”

 

As more people filed past Durgess’s station, he smiled wistfully and said he felt proud to stand up for the values that have made this country great. “I’ve had a few phone calls from Republican presidential candidates, and there’s even talk of a Lifetime movie. Life is good when you trust in the Lord.”

Edited September 4, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Daniel2]

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.

 

I agree.

 

No court found Mr. Newsom to be in contempt, because he stopped when ordered to.

 

Additionally, no one's civil rights were violated, and ultimately in the end, the entire chain of judicial review (from his local state supreme court, to the courts of appeals all the way to SCOTUS) actually sided with Newsom's actions.--which is the exact opposite of Ms. Davis' behaviors and the outcomes of all of her appeals.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[ERayR]

I was trying to suggest that it is better to encourage monogomous, committed relationships among gays, just like we would do for heteros. For heteros that usually leads to marriage but for some reason we're afraid to encourage the same for gays. To me this seems counterintuitive.

 

No matter which community you are talking about it was/is a false dichotomy. 

[Teancum]

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."

 

 

It really must boil down to "Because my God says so!" 

[Calm]

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

Is there research that demonstrates this is happening in homosexual relationships?

[ttribe]

Is there research that demonstrates this is happening in homosexual relationships?

 

I suspect there's not enough data, yet.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Who decides what is right? You?  Your religion?  The Catholics?  The Muslims?  Do you want theocracy?  Whose theocracy?

 

Heck we see here how often it is argued LDS leaders can get a lot wrong.  Do you want an  LDS Theocracy?  I sure don't and didn't even when I was more solid in my LDS belief.

 

We live in a secular nation that is called a republic.  It is messy business and not always does it result in the best outcome.  But it is rule by the representatives of the people as well as an appointed judicial body that at times may over step.   But I think it is the best we have for now.  So we live by the rule of law.  You don't like the law?  You can disobey but you may go to jail as this woman did in this case.

[jkwilliams]

Is there research that demonstrates this is happening in homosexual relationships?

 

Last I checked, there isn't much research one way or the other. A while back I looked at some Family Research Council pieces that purported to show that gay marriages were inherently unstable, but when I actually looked at the data they cited, it didn't show much of anything. For example, one of their studies about gay marriage was a survey of single gay men at a sex club in the Netherlands that specifically excluded respondents in a committed relationship, married or otherwise.

 

So, in short, there's not really any good data. Either way, is potential marital instability a good reason for denying someone the right to marry? That question never comes up in discussing heterosexual couples' right to marry.

[Calm]

Happy Jack posted this:

 

 

I was pointing out that was a false dicotomy

.

As indicated by this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12700453

See conclusion.

While not marriage, fidelity outside of marriage is a stromg indicator of fidelity within.

[Teancum]

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

 

 

If you choose to break secular law in favor of religious law that is your choice of course.  Are you willing to go to jail for it?

[Daniel2]

No matter which community you are talking about it was/is a false dichotomy. 

 

No one said it's an either/or position...  But even when you view "marriage recognition" as one choice among many alternatives, it's difficult to take anyone seriously if they were to suggest that "allowing marriage for gay couples" somehow doesn't promote greater relationship stability far more than "banning marriage for same-sex couples" promotes relationship stability.

[Daniel2]

Is there research that demonstrates this is happening in homosexual relationships?

 

The fact that there are now marriages among gay couples is prima facie evidence that their relationships are more stable, because marriage already provides so many tangible legal benefits that were previously unavailable to same-sex couples--therefore, they're ALREADY more stable than cohabiting couples once were.

 

However, I agree that what doesn't immediately follow is whether marriage will automatically decrease promiscuity, longterm, within the gay population (just as that isn't necessarily true of the straight population).

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[HappyJackWagon]

I didn't realize there were multiple Kentucky clerks all refusing to issue marriage licences for SS couples. I think it's fair to expect our elected officials to obey the law.

 

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3895809.shtml

[ERayR]

No one said it's an either/or position...  But even when you view "marriage recognition" as one choice among many alternatives, it's difficult to take anyone seriously if they were to suggest that "allowing marriage for gay couples" somehow doesn't promote greater relationship stability far more than "banning marriage for same-sex couples" promotes relationship stability.

 

HappyJackWagon, on 04 Sept 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

-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?

 

He presented it as an either or proposition.  I pointed out the false dichotomy. 

 

See Calmoriah's post #316.

[Daniel2]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 04 Sept 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

-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?

 

He presented it as an either or proposition.  I pointed out the false dichotomy. 

 

See Calmoriah's post #316.

 

 

Thanks for the correction--I see that HJW's WAS an "or" presentation...

 

My subsequent point (that "even when you view "marriage recognition" as one choice among many alternatives, it's difficult to take anyone seriously if they were to suggest that "allowing marriage for gay couples" somehow doesn't promote greater relationship stability far more than "banning marriage for same-sex couples" promotes relationship stability") is still valid when the issue is regarded as a spectrum of options.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I didn't realize there were multiple Kentucky clerks all refusing to issue marriage licences for SS couples. I think it's fair to expect our elected officials to obey the law.

 

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3895809.shtml

 

It's unclear to me from that article whether or not other clerk's from Mr. Davis' (no relation) office are being allowed to issue licenses, or whether he's blocking anyone from his own office in doing so...  Does anyone know?

[Daniel2]

.

As indicated by this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12700453

See conclusion.

While not marriage, fidelity outside of marriage is a stromg indicator of fidelity within.

 

I'm not certain I understand what you're suggesting about this study, Cal.

 

Can you "dumb it down" for me...?

[ERayR]

Thanks for the correction--I see that HJW's WAS an "or" presentation...

 

My subsequent point (that "even when you view "marriage recognition" as one choice among many alternatives, it's difficult to take anyone seriously if they were to suggest that "allowing marriage for gay couples" somehow doesn't promote greater relationship stability far more than "banning marriage for same-sex couples" promotes relationship stability") is still valid when the issue is regarded as a spectrum of options.

 

I must admit that at this point SSM isn't enough of an issue for me to do much research but what I have seen doesn't necessarily support your premise.  See calmoriah's post # 316.

Edited September 4, 2015 by ERayR