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

[Calm]

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).

 

It does take longer to walk away from a marriage than it does from a steady relationship (using that term because that was the term in the study I linked to).  However, I would hope that all this struggle results in more than just the legal conditions having an impact.  The argument for the opportunity seems to suggest much more would be impacted to create a longer term, more faithful relationship even as many of those opposed challenged those claims.  It will be interesting (this term is not to diminish its importance, but "fascinated" made it come across like watching them under a microscope) to see which prediction is the closest to the eventuality.  

 

I very much hope that marriage has a comeback and faithfulness walks hand and hand with it, and even better chastity is up front leading the way.  I also don't have a clue how that is possible unless we suddenly have at least a media full of individuals who want to present that way of life not only as an option, but the best option.  Not sure how else the message could be spread as effectively as a group outside of religions which would mean there would be a lot who wouldn't be getting it with the interest in religion dropping.

 

within the gay population (just as that isn't necessarily true of the straight population).

 

 

While it may not for a particular individual, it has been demonstrated that long term sexual fidelity does occur in OSMs more than outside of them so I think it is true for the straight population in general if I understand what you are saying.  In fact, while not demonstrated to be casual, those who choose to limit sexual intimacy to marriage stay marry longer and iirc have happier marriages.

[ttribe]

Whose laws, though? Whose judgments?

 

That's why we do this thing called "voting." Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

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

Well, a baseline minimum might begin with advice that doesn't lead to anarchy and chaos.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Ahab, on 04 Sept 2015 - 2:22 PM, said:

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.

 

TTribe:

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.

 

Ahab's position works just fine for an individual living on an island but it's a recipe for disaster in a civil society.

[Calm]

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

 

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

Most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships

 

Since most of the HIV infections occurred with men in steady relationships (which means they went outside the relationships for sex if I understand it correctly) and since steady relationships are generally the forerunner of marriage relationships (though one would expect a greater commitment level in marriage than steady relationships), I don't think it is currently possible to conclude that in general gays in marriage will be committing to the same level of fidelity as straights, whether in expectations or in practice based on at least this study.  Are there other studies that show sexual fidelity becomes a high priority when two gays commit to each other in other ways?  I am not suggesting that sexual commitment is the only necessary or even the most important commitment we make in marriage or that the rate of such for straights is something to be proud of, but I think it is an essential part of a successful, long term marriage and certainly showing that there was a shift in attitudes in the general gay community occurring and that levels of sexual fidelity mirrored that of straights would be needed if ever gay romantic relationships and marriages were to be given sanction within LDS doctrine or practice imo.

 

 I hope I am wrong in what the study indicates is the starting point of what must be changed, but it seems a great hurdle to overcome and I don't see a lot of promotion for sexual fidelity these days for anyone in our greater culture outside of religion, so hard hill to climb.  Maybe I am just not paying attention, I do have a limited social view these days.

[Ahab]

That's why we do this thing called "voting." Perhaps you've heard of it?

So you're in favor of majority rule, eh?

Well, while I would rather put this issue to a vote by all citizens of this country rather than allowing some judges to decide what our laws should be, I still wouldn't want to wait until everyone voted before making my own judgments and decisions about what I believe to be right.

At some point in our lives we need to become mature enough to make up our own minds.

Well, a baseline minimum might begin with advice that doesn't lead to anarchy and chaos.

But we're still never going to get to the point where everyone agrees with everyone else's judgments.

Anarchy to some government official(s) is inevitable. How about if we just try to keep the chaos to a minimum?

[Calm]

 

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

It doesn't, even in regards to what I concluded as I was poiting out this is happening in steady relationships so it would be a leap to some it would disappear for the most part in marriage.

 

However, I may have misread it...blame it on the drugs.  Perhaps it is saying longer term exposure to one person with HIV is more likely to lead to infection and that is why new infections are showing up in steady relationships more than casual ones as opposed to how I read it at first which was two uninfected hiv individuals commit to each other yet this commitment has in no way a protective value from getting hiv which would mean lack of sexual fidelity.  

 

 

when I am less doped in a few days I will go and reread it.

Edited September 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Ahab's position works just fine for an individual living on an island but it's a recipe for disaster in a civil society.

It works for all like-minded people, whether only a few or a lot of people.

The trouble comes only when there is dissent and disagreement.

[Calm]

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.

When you say things like this, you should almost always include the rest of the story of 'and by acting as you best deem fit, you also accept the consequences that come from those actions when others disagree with you'.

 

It is confusing because the way you often write it makes it appear you think that we can all go out and do what we believe is best and then just go on with our life without having to anticipate any impact of doing right besides perhaps being an example to others to teach them the best way to live without any anyone reacting in other ways.

 

It is like this woman and her civil disobedience.  it does not appear to be well thought out, as if she would do it and magically the best solution for her would just magically appear because she did what was Right.  She doesn't speak like she thought it out, she didn't act like she was reacting in any thoughtful way or anticipated the negativity but instead just hide from it, etc.  It comes across as a little child's decision to do something, but she is not a child and we are taught that we will not see things as a child when the Spirit teaches us God's will....so it is better if we show evidence of thoughtful intent instead of a gut reaction based on an understanding that doesn't go much beyond a line of "this is God's law" (which is the beginning of wisdom, but not the end of it and teaches nothing).

[Calm]

 Death row is filled with people who thought their moral judgment superior to the law.

I find that unlikely.  I suspect it was more along the lines of they didn't care, not that they thought they were morally superior.

 

Or maybe I haven't been keeping track of who is in that elite membership lately and the type of character has changed.

[Calm]

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

Huckabee and who else, falling asleep too much to keep track of all the details...

[Stargazer]

I don't have time to read all 356 replies to this topic (yes, I'm a wuss, but my time is limited), so someone has probably already responded like this:

 

Bravo for her standing up for her religious beliefs.  However, as a public elected official she has taken an oath to carry out her office, obey the laws and uphold the constitutions of her state and the nation.  The court of last resort has now said (erroneously in my opinion, but nevertheless) that the laws and those constitutions recognize gay marriage.  Therefore, there is only one thing she can do in order to not be in violation of her oath of office, while at the same time stand up for her religious beliefs, and that is to resign her office and let another be appointed in her stead.

 

Imagine a similar situation with the county sheriff.  A person is murdered, but since the Sheriff hates the victim he refuses to arrest the perpetrator.  The clerk is in exactly the same moral position. 

 

She must resign.  That's all there is to it.

[Ahab]

When you say things like this, you should almost always include the rest of the story of 'and by acting as you best deem fit, you also accept the consequences that come from those actions when others disagree with you'.

It is confusing because the way you often write it makes it appear you think that we can all go out and do what we believe is best and then just go on with our life without having to anticipate any impact of doing right besides perhaps being an example to others to teach them the best way to live without any anyone reacting in other ways.

It is like this woman and her civil disobedience. it does not appear to be well thought out, as if she would do it and magically the best solution for her would just magically appear because she did what was Right. She doesn't speak like she thought it out, she didn't act like she was reacting in any thoughtful way or anticipated the negativity but instead just hide from it, etc. It comes across as a little child's decision to do something, but she is not a child and we are taught that we will not see things as a child when the Spirit teaches us God's will....so it is better if we show evidence of thoughtful intent instead of a gut reaction based on an understanding that doesn't go much beyond a line of "this is God's law" (which is the beginning of wisdom, but not the end of it and teaches nothing).

That's a nice addition but not necessary to make my point.

Whatever we do we should do what we do because we think or feel that what we are doing is the right thing to do.

What other people think in response to what we do may test our resolve or bring up another situation where we would need to do something else, but whenever we do whatever we do our actions should be our expression of what we think is the right thing to do.

It sometimes takes a while before we catch on to the full consequences of our actions.

[Tacenda]

The world must be ending. I find myself agreeing with you.

It's been your stance, guarding the constitution... as I'm recalling my worries over the FLDS. You stood up for their rights as you are with SSM folks. BTW, I'm on my way to the dunes in St. Anthony's. Going to be near your neck of the woods soon, getting gas at Bob's Kwik Serv! Beautiful country Idaho is! Edited September 4, 2015 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

Huckabee and who else, falling asleep too much to keep track of all the details...

Paul and Jindal.

[Stargazer]

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.

 

There are legitimate situations where folks can and even sometimes do exercise discretion as to the law, legitimately, but the county clerk's situation is not one of those cases.

 

A police officer may pull over a person who has committed a motor vehicle infraction and then NOT issue a citation, but merely warn the driver, at the officer's discretion.  In a trial, a juror may refuse to vote to convict for any reason at all, including a belief that the law is unjust, or that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  That's called "jury nullification" or "jury lawlessness", by the way, and such a juror cannot be held liable for any crime for so acting.  Judges (and prosecutors) do not like this and will dismiss any potential juror who admits to knowing the concept.  Judges will also "instruct" jurors falsely that they are only to allow the judge to interpret the law.  See the Wikipedia article for more information.

 

But this county clerk is in violation of her oath of office (an impeachable offense in itself), and must resign or be removed from office.

[jkwilliams]

There are legitimate situations where folks can and even sometimes do exercise discretion as to the law, legitimately, but the county clerk's situation is not one of those cases.

 

A police officer may pull over a person who has committed a motor vehicle infraction and then NOT issue a citation, but merely warn the driver, at the officer's discretion.  In a trial, a juror may refuse to vote to convict for any reason at all, including a belief that the law is unjust, or that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  That's called "jury nullification" or "jury lawlessness", by the way, and such a juror cannot be held liable for any crime for so acting.  Judges (and prosecutors) do not like this and will dismiss any potential juror who admits to knowing the concept.  Judges will also "instruct" jurors falsely that they are only to allow the judge to interpret the law.  See the Wikipedia article for more information.

 

But this county clerk is in violation of her oath of office (an impeachable offense in itself), and must resign or be removed from office.

Agreed. I would say, however, that jury nullification is not a right or legitimate use of discretion. But in the end we agree that a government employee has no right to decide not to uphold the law, let alone prohibit her staff from upholding the law. Here in Virginia, our attorney general declined to represent the state in defending the state's law against same-sex marriage. As much as I am opposed to such laws, I think the AG was wrong for unilaterally deciding not to do his job. Of course, there was no court order for him to do so, so he could not be held in contempt.

[Stargazer]

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:

 

 

 

(bold added)

 

It doesn't surprise me.  It is perfectly consistent to be opposed to SSM while at the same time be opposed to an elected official who refuses to uphold her oath of office. 

[Stargazer]

Agreed. I would say, however, that jury nullification is not a right or legitimate use of discretion. But in the end we agree that a government employee has no right to decide not to uphold the law, let alone prohibit her staff from upholding the law. Here in Virginia, our attorney general declined to represent the state in defending the state's law against same-sex marriage. As much as I am opposed to such laws, I think the AG was wrong for unilaterally deciding not to do his job. Of course, there was no court order for him to do so, so he could not be held in contempt.

 

Not wanting to wrench the thread away from its topic, I suggest you read the WP article I linked to as to the right of a jury to use its discretion in finding a verdict.  I think you'll change your mind.  Jury nullification has a long and rich history, both here and in the UK.

 

Oh, and by the way, your blog post on Trump was hilarious.  I loved it.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Stargazer

[Calm]

Paul and Jindal.

Thank you

[jkwilliams]

Not wanting to wrench the thread away from its topic, I suggest you read the WP article I linked to as to the right of a jury to use its discretion in finding a verdict.  I think you'll change your mind.  Jury nullification has a long and rich history, both here and in the UK.

 

Oh, and by the way, your blog post on Trump was hilarious.  I loved it.

Thanks. I'm doing a series of them. The satire writes itself.

[The Nehor]

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?

I may not voluntarily turn myself in and may try to evade getting caught but yeah, I am willing the LDS faith (like many others) has a history of going to jail for such things,

[jkwilliams]

I may not voluntarily turn myself in and may try to evade getting caught but yeah, I am willing the LDS faith (like many others) has a history of going to jail for such things,

The bigger question is whether you are willing to quit your job for your religion.

[ttribe]

So you're in favor of majority rule, eh?

Well, while I would rather put this issue to a vote by all citizens of this country rather than allowing some judges to decide what our laws should be, I still wouldn't want to wait until everyone voted before making my own judgments and decisions about what I believe to be right.

At some point in our lives we need to become mature enough to make up our own minds.

But we're still never going to get to the point where everyone agrees with everyone else's judgments.

Anarchy to some government official(s) is inevitable. How about if we just try to keep the chaos to a minimum?

 

I prefer a "majority rule" system, tempered by Constitutional protections, over the alternatives in the forms of Communism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Socialism, etc.  In other words, I kind of like what we have; despite all of its imperfections.

 

It works for all like-minded people, whether only a few or a lot of people.

The trouble comes only when there is dissent and disagreement.

 

Which is inevitable in any human group size > 1.

 

That's a nice addition but not necessary to make my point.

Whatever we do we should do what we do because we think or feel that what we are doing is the right thing to do.

What other people think in response to what we do may test our resolve or bring up another situation where we would need to do something else, but whenever we do whatever we do our actions should be our expression of what we think is the right thing to do.

It sometimes takes a while before we catch on to the full consequences of our actions.

 

This is either deeply naive, or horrifyingly disturbing.  I'm currently undecided on which, at this point.

[The Nehor]

The bigger question is whether you are willing to quit your job for your religion.

As my job involves enforcing the Word of Wisdom on drivers I do not have such a problem.

If my job were to switch to something more offensive to my faith then I would make a matter of reflection and prayer and quit if I had to. Wither that or become such a screw up that they fire me and I can get unemployment.

[cinepro]

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.

Hopefully she knows that she isn't "authorizing" anything.  She is recording it. 

 

A few weeks ago, my son got the Melchizedek Priesthood.  Our ward clerk prepared a certificate that was signed and showed that the ordinance had been done.  But had the ward clerk authorized the ordinance?  Was it done under his authority?

 

A few months ago, I went to our local city hall to renew my business license.  I clerk named Jenny took my money and issued my license.  Was it Jenny who authorized me to do business in this city?  If Jenny saw what kind of business I'm in and decided she doesn't like it (or maybe I compete with her husband's business, or maybe she's having a bad day), does she have the power to deny me a business license?  It's not a question of whether or not she has a good reason to, it's a question of whether or not it is within the scope of her power at all.

 

The problem with Kim Davis isn't that she is misusing her "authority". The problem is that she does not have this authority in the first place.  She is a "clerk", which is someone who files the paperwork and conducts business.  Her job is to make sure that the laws are properly enacted and recorded, not to decide which laws she likes and doesn't like and use her position to disrupt those she doesn't like.  A person who has to interpret and make judgements about a law is called, interestingly enough, a "judge".  Kim Davis is not a "judge", and every other judge in the country knows how this works.

 

If Kim Davis is right and clerks and other bureaucratic workers do have this authority, there are so many ways that government could go off the rails at the local, state and federal levels, for both liberals and conservatives, that I'm shocked anyone is giving her any kind of support. 

 

The fact that this is about gay marriage seems to have confused a lot of people, but that doesn't change the basic principles of the situation.   For example, imagine if this inspires all the Catholic court workers around the country to stop processing divorce paperwork on the same grounds?

Edited September 4, 2015 by cinepro