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

[Daniel2]

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 you premise.  Se calmoriah's post # 316.

 

And what do you think the study posted by Calmoriah is saying that's related to whether marriage increases relationship stability?

 

As I read it, that study examines HIV infection rates, comparing "steady" vs "casual" partnerships, within populations among some of whom are already infected with HIV but use highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).  Given such populations, which already have HIV and are using disease-suppressive drugs, it's obvious they would be at more risk of HIV infection in steady partnerships than if we were to compare them to  populations that don't have HIV and aren't using HAART. 

 

So, how does that study have any bearing on how marriage increases relationship stability....??

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[ERayR]

And what do you think the study posted by Calmoriah is saying that's related to whether marriage increases relationship stability?

 

As I read it, that study examines "steady" vs "casual" HIV infection rates within populations among some of whom are already infected with HIV but use highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).  How does that have any bearing on how marriage increases relationship stability....??

 

OOps that wasn't the one I was thinking of.  I can't locate what I was reading right now. 

[KevinG]

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

 

I read it...  I answered it.  Just because I disagree with your assessment doesn't mean I didn't read it.

 

The way this decision was made is a big departure from previous rulings on constitutionality and I think Kennedy along with other justices blew it when they affirmed a federal decision that overreached the constitution and state rights.

[jkwilliams]

I read it...  I answered it.  Just because I disagree with your assessment doesn't mean I didn't read it.

 

The way this decision was made is a big departure from previous rulings on constitutionality and I think Kennedy along with other justices blew it when they affirmed a federal decision that overreached the constitution and state rights.

 

What you're saying, then, is that you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. Fair enough. But none of us has the right to ignore a Supreme Court decision, especially if we're talking about a government official.

[Ahab]

What you're saying, then, is that you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. Fair enough. But none of us has the right to ignore a Supreme Court decision, especially if we're talking about a government official.

Actually we all have the right to ignore the Supreme Court's decision, as well as anything else we want to ignore. We can do or not do anything we can manage to do, logistically. We can even ignore God's judgments and decisions. Heck I bet even you have done that not only once but many times. And God has a LOT more power and authority than anyone on the Supreme Court has or has ever had.

Embrace the power you have.

[jkwilliams]

Actually we all have the right to ignore the Supreme Court's decision, as well as anything else we want to ignore. We can do or not do anything we can manage to do, logistically. We can even ignore God's judgments and decisions. Heck I bet even you have done that not only once but many times. And God has a LOT more power and authority than anyone on the Supreme Court has or has ever had.

Embrace the power you have.

 

We do not have a legal right to ignore the laws of the country. If we break the law, as this woman has, we should expect to face the consequences. Sure, do what you think is right, but don't expect to be free of consequences.

[Ahab]

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

Each of us decides what is right, according to our own perception and understanding of what is right, regardless of whether God or anyone else tries to influence our decisions.

This is taught extensively in our Sunday schools. Did you somehow not see the memos?

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.

I see that as evidence that you can make your own decisions, either agreeing or not agreeing with whatever you are told.

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.

Whatever any of us does we should do whatever we do because we think it is right to do it. Not just because somebody tells us to do it. Not like a robot or automaton that doesn't use it's own mind or doesn't even have a mind to use. If YOU do anything it should be because YOU think that is the right thing to do. And government officials shouldn't act like robots either.

[jkwilliams]

Each of us decides what is right, according to our own perception and understanding of what is right, regardless of whether God or anyone else tries to influence our decisions.

This is taught extensively in our Sunday schools. Did you somehow not see the memos?

I see that as evidence that you can make your own decisions, either agreeing or not agreeing with whatever you are told.

Whatever any of us does we should do whatever we do because we think it is right to do it. Not just because somebody tells us to do it. Not like a robot or automaton that doesn't use it's own mind or doesn't even have a mind to use. If YOU do anything it should be because YOU think that is the right thing to do. And government officials shouldn't act like robots either.

 

Obedience to the law does not make people robots. Even under Communism, members of the church were counseled to follow Articles of Faith 12:

 

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

It's troubling that active members of the church would counsel others, including government officials, to ignore the law and place their own judgment ahead of it. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Ahab, on 04 Sept 2015 - 1:51 PM, said:

Each of us decides what is right, according to our own perception and understanding of what is right, regardless of whether God or anyone else tries to influence our decisions.

This is taught extensively in our Sunday schools. Did you somehow not see the memos?

I see that as evidence that you can make your own decisions, either agreeing or not agreeing with whatever you are told.

Whatever any of us does we should do whatever we do because we think it is right to do it. Not just because somebody tells us to do it. Not like a robot or automaton that doesn't use it's own mind or doesn't even have a mind to use. If YOU do anything it should be because YOU think that is the right thing to do. And government officials shouldn't act like robots either.

 

JKWIlliams-

Obedience to the law does not make people robots. Even under Communism, members of the church were counseled to follow Articles of Faith 12:

 

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

It's troubling that active members of the church would counsel others, including government officials, to ignore the law and place their own judgment ahead of it. 

 

At least Ahab is being consistent. It's a dangerous position, but it's consistent.

 

While I'm not a fan of the type of political anarchy he is advocating if citizens at large and government officials only obey the laws they choose to without risk of consequence, I think he's got a point when it comes to how we interact with the church.

[jkwilliams]

At least Ahab is being consistent. It's a dangerous position, but it's consistent.

 

While I'm not a fan of the type of political anarchy he is advocating if citizens at large and government officials only obey the laws they choose to without risk of consequence, I think he's got a point when it comes to how we interact with the church.

 

I appreciate the consistency, too, but yes, that is an extremely dangerous position, as it throws out thousands of years of the social contract. Death row is filled with people who thought their moral judgment superior to the law.

[Daniel2]

I read it...  I answered it.  Just because I disagree with your assessment doesn't mean I didn't read it.

 

The way this decision was made is a big departure from previous rulings on constitutionality and I think Kennedy along with other justices blew it when they affirmed a federal decision that overreached the constitution and state rights.

 

The way this decision was made was using the same legal precedent that Loving (let along many other marriage-expansion rulings) was made, which struck down several states' laws based on constitutional review.

 

Do you feel that Loving (and all the others) were "overreaching"?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

Obedience to the law does not make people robots. Even under Communism, members of the church were counseled to follow Articles of Faith 12:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

It's troubling that active members of the church would counsel others, including government officials, to ignore the law and place their own judgment ahead of it.

I don't know why it should be troubling to you. And I don't know why anybody, member of the Church or not, would suggest that everybody should do whatever any king or president says they should do regardless of what any king or president tells them to do.

Maybe if kings or presidents told others to do only what was right. Maybe then we could say we believe in obeying and honoring them. But when they tell us to do something bad we should definitely not.

We should do only what is good and right to do, and let the consequence follow.

[jkwilliams]

I don't know why it should be troubling to you. And I don't know why anybody, member of the Church or not, would suggest that everybody should do whatever any king or president says they should do regardless of what any king or president tells them to do.

Maybe if kings or presidents told others to do only what was right. Maybe then we could say we believe in obeying and honoring them. But when they tell us to do something bad we should definitely not.

We should do only what is good and right to do, and let the consequence follow.

 

Here's the thing: there's no "if kings or presidents told others to do only what was right" clause in Article of Faith 12. It's interesting that you would put conditions on some of the foundational teachings of the church. I don't think you'd find any church leaders who would support your editing of the scripture.

 

Everyone is certainly free to disobey the law, but they can't complain if they suffer the consequences of breaking the law. 

[thesometimesaint]

Ironically... Ms. Davis is a democrat. And here I thought it was the "conservative" in her. Lol

 

Not ironic rather imbecilic. which it not exclusive to any political party.  Interestingly it is two republican presidential candidates that support her.

[jkwilliams]

Not ironic rather imbecilic. which it not exclusive to any political party.  Interestingly it is two republican presidential candidates that support her.

 

I'm a Republican, and yesterday's statements of support for her have helped me rule out some candidates.

[cinepro]

I don't know why it should be troubling to you. And I don't know why anybody, member of the Church or not, would suggest that everybody should do whatever any king or president says they should do regardless of what any king or president tells them to do.

Maybe if kings or presidents told others to do only what was right. Maybe then we could say we believe in obeying and honoring them. But when they tell us to do something bad we should definitely not.

We should do only what is good and right to do, and let the consequence follow.

 

The problem I have with the situation in Kentucky is how easily any argument in support of Kim Davis falls apart upon the simplest reflection.

 

Even at its most basic, a government worker granting a license isn't condoning the morality of the licensed action.  They are simply acknowledging the legality of that action, and recording the paperwork that the government requires as is their job.

 

LDS do this all the time.  Utah must be filled with LDS who work in their government capacities to license stores that sell alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, and remain open on Sundays.  Film permits are granted for movies and TV shows that may not meet LDS standards. 

 

I do not support Kim Davis because I don't want to live in a country where every government worker who acts as a "gatekeeper" feels they have the right to decide who does or doesn't get a license, permit or other sanction.  Even if we agree with her in principle about gay marriage, it is more dangerous to society to have government workers disobeying the rule of law and not performing their duties as required. 

[jkwilliams]

The problem I have with the situation in Kentucky is how easily any argument in support of Kim Davis falls apart upon the simplest reflection.

 

Even at its most basic, a government worker granting a license isn't condoning the morality of the licensed action.  They are simply acknowledging the legality of that action, and recording the paperwork that the government requires as is their job.

 

LDS do this all the time.  Utah must be filled with LDS who work in their government capacities to license stores that sell alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, and remain open on Sundays.  Film permits are granted for movies and TV shows that may not meet LDS standards. 

 

I do not support Kim Davis because I don't want to live in a country where every government worker who acts as a "gatekeeper" feels they have the right to decide who does or doesn't get a license, permit or other sanction.  Even if we agree with her in principle about gay marriage, it is more dangerous to society to have government workers disobeying the rule of law and not performing their duties as required. 

 

This. As I said, I can't believe believing LDS support such folks placing themselves above the law and deciding to whom the law applies or not.

[Ahab]

Here's the thing: there's no "if kings or presidents told others to do only what was right" clause in Article of Faith 12. It's interesting that you would put conditions on some of the foundational teachings of the church. I don't think you'd find any church leaders who would support your editing of the scripture.

I would argue, as I have before, that context is important when understanding any scripture or teaching. And in the end it should still come down to doing what is believed to be right.

Everyone is certainly free to disobey the law, but they can't complain if they suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Oh we can complain too if we want to. And the laws of man often conflict with God's laws so we still should do only what we believe to be right, following the good laws and not the bad ones.

[jkwilliams]

I would argue, as I have before, that context is important when understanding any scripture or teaching. And in the end it should still come down to doing what is believed to be right.

There's no context for that scripture that justifies your "obey only the laws you agree with" philosophy.

Oh we can complain too if we want to. And the laws of man often conflict with God's laws so we still should do only what we believe to be right, following the good laws and not the bad ones.

Leaving aside that being in complete opposition to the teachings of the church, who decides what God's law is and when it should or should not trump the laws of the land? By your logic, what the Laffertys did was right.

[Daniel2]

Oh we can complain too if we want to. And the laws of man often conflict with God's laws so we still should do only what we believe to be right, following the good laws and not the bad ones.

 

I'm confused at your sense of morality, given that you're also on record saying you'd also refuse callings from the bishop regardless of whether he advised you the Lord called you to said position.

 

Seems to me like you feel you shouldn't answer to man or God, while at the same time advocating for a government that uniquely reflects your own values through mandatory indoctrination and enforcement.

 

Should you ever run for office, don't count on my vote.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

The problem I have with the situation in Kentucky is how easily any argument in support of Kim Davis falls apart upon the simplest reflection.

Even at its most basic, a government worker granting a license isn't condoning the morality of the licensed action. They are simply acknowledging the legality of that action, and recording the paperwork that the government requires as is their job.

That's how you see it, not necessarily as she does, and I don't think she sees it that way. I think she thinks she is authorizing a marriage by issuing a license for it with her name on it and she doesn't want to authorize any same sex marriage.

LDS do this all the time. Utah must be filled with LDS who work in their government capacities to license stores that sell alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, and remain open on Sundays. Film permits are granted for movies and TV shows that may not meet LDS standards.

I think the issue is more about HER idea of what is right and HER not wanting to do anything SHE doesn't think is right, including what SHE thinks God thinks, than it is about whether or not she is actually right or wrong.

I do not support Kim Davis because I don't want to live in a country where every government worker who acts as a "gatekeeper" feels they have the right to decide who does or doesn't get a license, permit or other sanction. Even if we agree with her in principle about gay marriage, it is more dangerous to society to have government workers disobeying the rule of law and not performing their duties as required.

I support Kim Davis in this only in the sense that I believe she should do only what she thinks is right. Just as I support anyone else by believing each person should Do only what they believe is right.

Government officials should realize that all other government officials are people, and that as people each person has their own ideas and values. They don't cease being people when they become government officials. So the government isn't necessarily right all of the time because government consists of government officials who aren't necessarily right all of the time. They all should be trying to do what they believe is right, though.

I don't approve of any government official who intentionally does what he/she believes is not right.

[Ahab]

I'm confused at your sense of morality, given that you're also on record saying you'd also refuse callings from the bishop regardless of whether he advised you the Lord called you to said position.

Seems to me like you feel you shouldn't answer to man or God, while at the same time advocating for a government that uniquely reflects your own values through mandatory indoctrination and enforcement.

Should you ever run for office, don't count on my vote.

Your representation of me is not right so naturally I wouldn't expect you be right about who you would be voting for if I were to choose to run for a government office, which I at this time am not saying I will.

And this thread is about Kim Davis, not me, and not Rosa Parks either.

Just go ahead and do what you think is right.

[ttribe]

I don't know why it should be troubling to you. And I don't know why anybody, member of the Church or not, would suggest that everybody should do whatever any king or president says they should do regardless of what any king or president tells them to do.

Maybe if kings or presidents told others to do only what was right. Maybe then we could say we believe in obeying and honoring them. But when they tell us to do something bad we should definitely not.

We should do only what is good and right to do, and let the consequence follow.

 

Do you understand that there's no way to get consensus on "what is good and right?"  Hence, this is a recipe for chaos absent the rule of law.

Edited September 4, 2015 by ttribe

[Daniel2]

Breitbart legal editor Ken Klukowski used to be the “Director Of Religious Liberty” at the Family Research Council and these days he’s the senior counsel at the equally conervative Liberty Institute. Because of his past affiliations, his latest column at Breitbart may surprise some:

 

Christian County Clerk Kim Davis Goes to Jail over Same-Sex Marriage

 

by Ken Klukowski3 Sep 2015

Washington, D.C.6674

 

A Christian who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples—Kim Davis, the county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky—has been ordered to jail for contempt of court.

 

Davis was ordered by a federal district judge to begin issuing licenses. She asked a federal appeals court, and then the Supreme Court, to put the district court’s order on hold while her case is pending on appeal, but the higher courts declined to do so.

 

As Breitbart News explained earlier this week, Davis is not merely claiming a First Amendment right not to participate in same-sex marriages by issuing a marriage certificate. Such a refusal should be accommodated under the First Amendment in the same way that this country accommodates religious objectors to war: by assigning to noncombat roles those whose faith forbids them from using military weapons.

 

But as Breitbart News previously reported, Davis is claiming the right to use her governmental power to order all of her deputy clerks and other subordinates that they shall not issue marriages licenses, either. Her personal right to religiously object probably does not extend to using her public-office power to order other government workers to conform to her personal faith-based beliefs. To use the military example again, this would be like a religious pacifist agreeing to be assigned to command an infantry combat unit, then ordering all the troops under her command to lay down their weapons and refuse to fight.

 

Ken Klukowski is legal editor for Breitbart News and senior counsel for Liberty Institute. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

 

(bold added)

[Ahab]

Do you understand that there's no way to get consensus on "what is good and right?" Hence, this is a recipe for chaos absent the rule of law.

Whose laws, though? Whose judgments?

What better advice is there to give other people than to advise them that they should all do what is right?