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

[jkwilliams]

How did you get that reading from the decision?  Because it seems fairly clear to me that it states are REQUIRED now to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses.

"The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them."

[Ahab]

Really? You realize you will get fines and possibly go to jail if what you've "figured out" to pay Uncle Sam is different from the tax code, don't you?

Yes. It helps to have a good knowledge of law, including tax laws and codes.

[Ahab]

"The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them."

I wish they would act like nobody can deny them that freedom instead of acting like others have to do as they do.

If a freedom can't be denied then it can't be denied. Freedom doesn't require approval.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes. It helps to have a good knowledge of law, including tax laws and codes.

 

You may have missed my post on the previous page, but please help me with your good knowledge of law to reconcile this from the supreme court decision:

 

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage

between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage

between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully

licensed and performed out-of-State

 

 

How is it "not required" as you say?

Edited September 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[jkwilliams]

I wish they would act like nobody can deny them that freedom instead of acting like others have to do as they do.

If a freedom can't be denied then it can't be denied. Freedom doesn't require approval.

It does if the freedom being denied requires government approval. I have the freedom to vote, but if the election commission refuses to issue me a ballot, I cannot exercise my freedom. If I have a right to marry, and the state is required to issue me a marriage license on my meeting the legal requirements, my freedom is being denied if someone like Kim Davis refuses to issue me a license. This is not a difficult concept.

[danielwoods]

Yes, the church is allowed to refuse to marry the gay couple per their beliefs.

 

The 1st Amendment is what protects us (at least here in the U.S.).

 

I understand the concern you're expressing but if someone's personal beliefs dictate that they cannot perform the duties required by their job, how would you suggest we handle that?

 

I can only hope that the 1st amendment is enough. It wasn't for various shop owners. 

 

If someone's beliefs prevent them from doing their job, they should quit... it seems to me. I'm not impressed with the way the left has attacked Davis, as if she's the only place to get a marriage license. 

 

Yes, ministers have the authority to marry but they are not required to use it. A clerk or justice of the peace is required to use their authority for anyone who asks (assuming all laws are followed).

If tomorrow I were to form the Church of the Holy Bundt Cake and got licensed to marry I cannot be compelled to marry anyone. You cannot sue to force a Mormon Bishop or Catholic Priest to marry you and it is not a dereliction of any duty. Forcing them to marry anyone who asks would turn them into government employees and you would have to pay them so this is never going to happen.

 

The current culture is trending toward seeing the gay lifestyle as normal. The net result is everyone who doesn't agree with that view is considered "extreme" or is violating some discrimination law. I know the first amendment is supposed to protect speech, but speech is limited all the time. My liberal friends no longer tolerate my views, as they say, I'm "intolerable."

 

I see this attack on Davis as the next step to attacking conservative churches. The first amendment doesn't protect certain speech, and once any opposition (speech or otherwise) to the gay lifestyle is categorized as "not-protected" then the next straw breaks. In my opinion at least. Remember, that mayor in Houston?     http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html

 

It is a privilege afforded to churches to perform marriages for the government. It's possible that churches may lose that privilege if they refuse to marry gay couples. If that happens, LDS couples who want to marry in the temple will need to have two ceremonies.

 

Many do already. But, I agree with you, that it's possible that the churches may lose that privilege. 

[Thinking]

There is no person known as "the government". The closest any of us can come to being in any government is to be a government official. And Kim Davis is one of them.

 

And there are government officials who have more authority than Kim Davis. I'm not sure what your point is.

[halconero]

As weird as it may sound, I don't necessarily mind the notion of priest's losing the authority to civilly perform marriages.

The reality is that civil marriage has historically been used to discriminate on the one hand, and elevate on the other. Civil divorce and civil marriage within the Roman Republic and Empire was limited to citizens with special privileges. Religious marriage ceremonies by local cults, philosophical schools, and associations still occurred among the non-enfranchised subjects of the Romans, and without opposition from the government.

Mostly Euroamerican societies operated without licences until the 19th century when they were introduced to limit marriage between races and religions. Yet people still enjoyed religious weddings, including our faith. Since then civil marriage has become so wrapped up in tax laws, property rights, and inheritance that the government's approval of marriage almost takes precedence over God's approval.

If it came to the point where religious authorities lost the ability to perform civil marriages I doubt that would prohibit folks who held such a ceremony to be vital or significant, including myself.

[strappinglad]

Working for the government is like working for McDonalds. The government decides whom it will serve. McDonalds decides whom it will serve. If I want to work for the government, I had better agree with the " who it will serve " decrees. Imagine a person working for McDs and deciding he will not serve blue eyed people on every second Tuesday. Any legal recourse if he is fired for that decision? Didn't think so.

[halconero]

It's the same reason why the Roman Armies were mostly devoid of Christians (with some exceptions) until the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. The legions required sacrifices and devotion to the Emperor's divine genius/personhood. If you didn't want to do that, better not join the legions. Or, alternatively accept martyrdom, but do so with full acknowledgement of the consequences: dismissal, censure, encarceration, and possible execution. I don't think most members here are supporting same-sex marriage, but the reality that it's passing by government changes the civil (not divine) obligations of government officials.

It's like the Gandhi quote in reference to Pakistan:

"Pakistan is a reality that I'm forced to accept, but I don't accept it as legitimate." Same-sex reality, the civil obligation that officials have to recognize it is a legal reality. The legitimacy of that reality may be questioned, rejected, and refuted. It may come through refusal to recognize it and accept legal "martyrdom" (something for which I don't personally feel Kim Davis has qualified for), proselytizing respectfully to neighbours and associates (something encouraged by the church), or a removal from society.

BUT, anyone here who does not accept the legal reality of same-sex marriage, if not its legitimacy necessarily, must also recognize the legal realities that constrain officials. Otherwise those who do not recognize said reality must be as the dodo with its head in the sand.

[Ahab]

And there are government officials who have more authority than Kim Davis. I'm not sure what your point is.

You were asking which religion "the government" should ask to find out what was right, as if there was somebody who can be referred to as "the government".

Follow along, bro. Keep up with the conversation.

[Ahab]

It does if the freedom being denied requires government approval.

You must be talking about limited freedoms, which I see as oxymoronic. A true freedom is free and based on what people "can" do, not on what someone allows or approves of. Like how you are free to do and believe anything you can actually do and believe, which is quite a bit even for us mere mortals, even if others don't like or agree or approve of everything you can actually do and believe.

I have the freedom to vote, but if the election commission refuses to issue me a ballot, I cannot exercise my freedom.

You mean to have them count and approve of your vote. You could still vote though by using something other than their officially approved ballots.

If I have a right to marry, and the state is required to issue me a marriage license on my meeting the legal requirements, my freedom is being denied if someone like Kim Davis refuses to issue me a license. This is not a difficult concept.

No she is not denying anyone's freedom to marry. She is only denying her approval for some people to marry. Other's freedom to marry is still in tact as something they have the freedom to do even without her approval, and if it is a true freedom nobody can take it away. Others may act like they can take it away but a true freedom simply can not be taken away.

But freedoms and rights are not mandatory. They are things people may do, rather than must do. That's what I meant by saying they are not required. Like how I have the freedom and right to marry someone of the same sex without that meaning I must.

It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

[Teancum]

Not my problem but to be fair I think there should be a way for everybody in that county to settle or resettle this issue. For everyone voted into office there should be a way to vote them out of office too. Whether at the next regular election or some special election before then doesn't matter at all to me.

My main point is that she has been doing what everybody should do, standing up for her own values and principles whatever they are, regardless of any peer pressure. And I especially appreciate that she values doing whatever she believes God would want her to do.

Hmmmm. Well Isis feels they are doing what God wants them to do as well. Do you applaud them?

[ttribe]

Every government official has some opposition. Fortunately our Father will settle and sort everything out in the end.

 

Your glib dismissal of the genocidal activities of ISIS in the name of "standing up" for their beliefs is duly noted.

[jkwilliams]

Your glib dismissal of the genocidal activities of ISIS in the name of "standing up" for their beliefs is duly noted.

As long as they think they're doing the right thing, who are we to judge?

[Thinking]

You were asking which religion "the government" should ask to find out what was right, as if there was somebody who can be referred to as "the government".

Follow along, bro. Keep up with the conversation.

 

Yep. Attack the semantics when you don't want to answer a question.

 

Even though you use the same semantics.

No, just not a wise thing to keep doing because of how the American government would have come down hard against the Church.

 

By your logic the government can't consult but it can come down hard. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[ttribe]

As long as they think they're doing the right thing, who are we to judge?

 

Indeed...I stand corrected. 

[rockpond]

I'm not impressed with the way the left has attacked Davis, as if she's the only place to get a marriage license. 

 

My understanding is that she has prohibited all of the clerks in the county from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples since her name appears on them.  So Davis has prevented gay couples from accessing their legal right to a marriage license in the county in which they reside.  I can only imagine the outrage from church members if a county clerk was doing the same thing to LDS couples.

 

I am glad that you and I agree she should quit since her beliefs prevent her from performing the duties required of her elected position.

[Brian 2.0]

Yep. Attack the semantics when you don't want to answer a question.

Even though you use the same semantics.

By your logic the government can't consult but it can come down hard. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Don't take it personally. He also has the Supreme Court decision "not requiring" gay marriage licenses when the text of the decision explicitly stating exactly that.

I'm afraid logic went out the door pages ago on this thread.

[The Nehor]

The current culture is trending toward seeing the gay lifestyle as normal. The net result is everyone who doesn't agree with that view is considered "extreme" or is violating some discrimination law. I know the first amendment is supposed to protect speech, but speech is limited all the time. My liberal friends no longer tolerate my views, as they say, I'm "intolerable."

 

I see this attack on Davis as the next step to attacking conservative churches. The first amendment doesn't protect certain speech, and once any opposition (speech or otherwise) to the gay lifestyle is categorized as "not-protected" then the next straw breaks. In my opinion at least. Remember, that mayor in Houston?     http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html

 

You do realize that the First Amendment is not designed to protect you from your friends not wanting to be around you? It is a protection from government censure or persecution and had nothing to do with friends being required to find others 'tolerable'. Personal relationships are a social issue.

[danielwoods]

You do realize that the First Amendment is not designed to protect you from your friends not wanting to be around you? It is a protection from government censure or persecution and had nothing to do with friends being required to find others 'tolerable'. Personal relationships are a social issue.

Right, and when my friend (who works in government) says that to me, I take note. He justifies his categorization of my position as something that society and government shouldn't tolerate. The same mentality motived the Mayor of Houston to subpoena the pastor's sermon transcripts. The 1st amendment doesn't protect something categorized as "intolerable" by those in power (i.e. government) and it seems to me that's where we are headed. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

Working for the government is like working for McDonalds. The government decides whom it will serve. McDonalds decides whom it will serve. If I want to work for the government, I had better agree with the " who it will serve " decrees. Imagine a person working for McDs and deciding he will not serve blue eyed people on every second Tuesday. Any legal recourse if he is fired for that decision? Didn't think so.

 

Not any more.  The government decides who it will serve and it also decides who McDonalds will serve.

[The Nehor]

Right, and when my friend (who works in government) says that to me, I take note. He justifies his categorization of my position as something that society and government shouldn't tolerate. The same mentality motived the Mayor of Houston to subpoena the pastor's sermon transcripts. The 1st amendment doesn't protect something categorized as "intolerable" by those in power (i.e. government) and it seems to me that's where we are headed.

Find better friends.

[thesometimesaint]

That's right. We can't possibly have people who believe in authentic marriage working in any government capacity.

 

She believes in marriage. Just not what the law calls marriage.

 

Personally I want the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Make them all legally enforceable contracts. Let the churches, mosques, temples, kingdom halls, shrines, what have you do any marriage ceremony they want,

 

OTOH As long as we have state/national laws governing marriages officials of the state/nation need to follow those laws.

[Ahab]

Yep. Attack the semantics when you don't want to answer a question.

Even though you use the same semantics.

By your logic the government can't consult but it can come down hard. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Truly ironic. I answered your question while explaining the fact that when we refer to any government we are referring to PEOPLE who are officials and representatives of that government body.

So when any government wants to ask God what is right the officials and representatives of that government are the ones who will be doing that asking. Like Kim Davis would be, and any other government official would be.

So regardless of whether my intellect is making you dizzy you should at least realize that I did answer your question while explaining what a government is.