jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I already said I didn't agree with what the county clerk is doing. I just don't find those who confronted her comparable to Rosa Parks. Please try to follow the conversation. I did follow the conversation and understand you disagree with her decision, but you imply that those seeking marriage licenses should just go to another county where they respect the rule of law. What exactly did they do that was morally or legally less admirable than what Rosa Parks did? Ms. Parks could have walked, caught a cab, carpooled, or simply moved to another city where buses weren't segregated. By your logic, that's what she should have done.
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 The world must be ending. I find myself agreeing with you. I think that makes it twice that we've agreed.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Call it one of those weird, twist-of-fate things, but I find myself in agreement with Happy Jack Wagon and, consequently, in disagreement with calmoriah. There is a difference between merely refusing to roll over and be a victim and picking a fight by aggressively confronting someone to demand something, however entitled to that thing one may believe one is. As I understand it, Rosa Parks was exhausted after a hard day of work and, on this occasion, was not going to be intimidated into moving. It was a textbook example of passive resistance. Not so with the marriage license seekers. They were not being forced to do anything. As Russell has pointed out, they could have gone elsewhere and gotten what they wanted. I don't agree with what the county clerk is doing, but those who confronted her are far from comparable to Rosa Parks.I knew the agreement couldn't last Rosa wasn't allowed to sit where she wanted. It was a violation of her civil rights. The marriage license seekers weren't allowed to get MARRIED. Why should they have to go somewhere else to get a license when they should be able to get it from their elected official and as required by law? I guess we could say Rosa shouldn't have made a stink because she could have found a different bus, or maybe rode in car or found a taxi, or walked, or rode a bike, or whatever. But she shouldn't have to do that, and neither should those who are legally seeking a marriage license. ETA- JK Williams beat me too it. He must be a faster typist. Edited September 3, 2015 by HappyJackWagon
ERayR Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I think that makes it twice that we've agreed. We are slowly finding common ground.
Buckeye Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Call it one of those weird, twist-of-fate things, but I find myself in agreement with Happy Jack Wagon and, consequently, in disagreement with calmoriah. There is a difference between merely refusing to roll over and be a victim and picking a fight by aggressively confronting someone to demand something, however entitled to that thing one may believe one is. As I understand it, Rosa Parks was exhausted after a hard day of work and, on this occasion, was not going to be intimidated into moving. It was a textbook example of passive resistance. Not so with the marriage license seekers. They were not being forced to do anything. As Russell has pointed out, they could have gone elsewhere and gotten what they wanted. I don't agree with what the county clerk is doing, but those who confronted her are far from comparable to Rosa Parks. Scott, this is no different than what LDS church leaders did to confront the anti-polygamy laws. As summarized by Wikipedia, church leaders peaceably created a test case to defy the law by instructing Reynolds, a secretary to the FP, to supply the US attorney with evidence of his two marriages: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion, chose to ignore the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act at the time. On the other hand, in subsequent years, efforts had been underway to strengthen the anti-bigamy laws. Eventually, amid the efforts to indict the LDS leadership for bigamy, the First Presidency agreed to furnish adefendant in a test case to be brought before the United States Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the anti-bigamy law. Reynolds, a secretary in the office of the President of the Church, agreed to serve as the defendant, then provided the attorney numerous witnesses who could testify of his being married to two wives, and was indicted for bigamy by a grand jury on October 23, 1874. In 1875, Reynolds was convicted and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison and a fine of five hundred dollars. In 1876 the Utah Territorial Supreme Court upheld the sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States The actions of this couple in Kentucky parallel those taken by the LDS church. In both instances, the party peaceably confronted a government action they considered unjust. 2
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 It's worth noting that Rosa Parks had no legal right to sit where she wanted on the bus in Birmingham, as the lawsuit against the practice wasn't decide until Browder v. Gayle in 1956. Here we are in 2015, and these couples have a Constitutional right upheld by the Supreme Court to obtain marriage licenses in the county of their choice. Ms. Davis is no different from Orval Faubus or George Wallace in refusing to uphold laws she simply doesn't like. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I did follow the conversation and understand you disagree with her decision, but you imply that those seeking marriage licenses should just go to another county where they respect the rule of law.I'm saying they could have done that. What the did do, setting aside whether it was justifiable or not, is not comparable to what Rosa Parks did. She was engaging in passive resistance; they were making assertive and aggressive demands. What exactly did they do that was morally or legally less admirable than what Rosa Parks did? They picked a fight; Rosa Parks did not. HappyJackWagon was right. Ms. Parks could have walked, caught a cab, carpooled, or simply moved to another city where buses weren't segregated. By your logic, that's what she should have done. That does not follow. I have never said nor implied what she should have done. (I actually agree with what she did.) I've only said that it is not comparable to what the gay couples did in the county clerk's office. She was passive; they were aggressive.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Sigh. I wasn't going to get involved in this thread in the first place. I'm out.
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I'm saying they could have done that. What the did do, setting aside whether it was justifiable or not, is not comparable to what Rosa Parks did. She was engaging in passive resistance; they were making assertive and aggressive demands. They picked a fight; Rosa Parks did not. HappyJackWagon was right. Of course she picked a fight. Sitting in a white seat was not a passive act at all, and Rosa Parks knew it. How on earth is going into a county clerk's office and exercising your civil rights somehow wrong, even if one disagrees with one's tone? If you're being denied your civil rights, even if not as directly as in this case, you should be aggressive and assertive in your demands. That does not follow. I have never said nor implied what she should have done. (I actually agree with what she did.) I've only said that it is not comparable to what the gay couples did in the county clerk's office. She was passive; they were aggressive. So, how does one passively ask for a marriage license? What should they have done when Ms. Davis denied their request? I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is with what these guys did.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 They picked a fight; Rosa Parks did not. HappyJackWagon was right. Yes, I was right.No, Rosa did not pick a fight. But neither did the SS couple seeking a license. *The Post is misleading as it implies that I agree with both portions of your prior sentence. I don't.
Buckeye Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I'm saying they could have done that. What the did do, setting aside whether it was justifiable or not, is not comparable to what Rosa Parks did. She was engaging in passive resistance; they were making assertive and aggressive demands. They picked a fight; Rosa Parks did not. HappyJackWagon was right. That does not follow. I have never said nor implied what she should have done. (I actually agree with what she did.) I've only said that it is not comparable to what the gay couples did in the county clerk's office. She was passive; they were aggressive. For the sake of argument, Scott, can you propose any course of actions that the Kentucky couple could have taken to rectify the clerk's discrimination that you would not call an "assertive and aggressive demand"? In other words, how could they have stood up for their rights but at the same time not "picked a fight"?
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Yes, I was right. No, Rosa did not pick a fight. But neither did the SS couple seeking a license. *The Post is misleading as it implies that I agree with both portions of your prior sentence. I don't. Agreed. Going to a government office to get a marriage license is no more "picking a fight" than going to the DMV to renew your driver's license. And you can bet there would be outrage if some DMV clerk refused to issue driver's licenses on religious grounds. Edited September 3, 2015 by jkwilliams 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) This just in.SEEKim Davis found in contempt and taken into federal custody by US Marshal Source: Raw StoryKim Davis, the defiant Kentucky county clerk, was found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ordered Davis, the Rowan County clerk, to be jailed on the contempt charges until she agrees to comply with multiple court orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.The judge ordered her held indefinitely because he did not believe fines would be enough to compel her to follow the law.Davis, an elected official, has argued that she should be exempt from following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges because she objects to same-sex marriage for religious beliefs. Edited September 3, 2015 by thesometimesaint 2
Buckeye Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) UPDATE: Davis found in contempt of court; ordered to jail. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-held-contempt-court-n421126 Edit to add: I'm worried this will turn into a circus. Now she can just sit in jail as a martyr. The better course would be to simply remove her from office, though I'm not sure the federal court has authority to do that. Edited September 3, 2015 by Buckeye 1
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 UPDATE: Davis found in contempt of court; ordered to jail. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-held-contempt-court-n421126 Edit to add: I'm worried this will turn into a circus. Now she can just sit in jail as a martyr. The better course would be to simply remove her from office, though I'm not sure the federal court has authority to do that. I'm not too worried about it. She may be a martyr to a small fringe group on the right, but most people recognize that she's simply refusing to follow the laws of the land. If she were a private citizen, it might be different, but as an elected official she has no right to place herself above the law.
Buckeye Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I'm not too worried about it. She may be a martyr to a small fringe group on the right, but most people recognize that she's simply refusing to follow the laws of the land. If she were a private citizen, it might be different, but as an elected official she has no right to place herself above the law. The article I read said that she can only be removed by the state legislature - which doesn't meet again until January. I have no sympathy for her discrimination, but I fully expect this to be raised in a fast/testimony meeting in the next few months as an example of religious persecution.
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 The article I read said that she can only be removed by the state legislature - which doesn't meet again until January. I have no sympathy for her discrimination, but I fully expect this to be raised in a fast/testimony meeting in the next few months as an example of religious persecution. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Does the Kentucky legislature have the political will to remove her? If not, then what?
jkwilliams Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Trying to think of an analogy for this situation that doesn't involve George Wallace. Imagine that a Saudi immigrant working at the DMV decided on religious grounds not to issue driver's licenses to women, and in order not to discriminate, he simply stopped issuing driver's licenses to anyone, regardless of gender. IMO, that is exactly analogous to what Ms. Davis is doing, and no one would be applauding the DMV clerk for not doing his job. 4
CA Steve Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Trying to think of an analogy for this situation that doesn't involve George Wallace.Imagine that a Saudi immigrant working at the DMV decided on religious grounds not to issue driver's licenses to women, and in order not to discriminate, he simply stopped issuing driver's licenses to anyone, regardless of gender. IMO, that is exactly analogous to what Ms. Davis is doing, and no one would be applauding the DMV clerk for not doing his job.Or a county elected official based out of Colorado City or Hildale Utah claiming they had the religious right to issue marriage licenses to polygamous couples.
Gray Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 http://www.wdrb.com/story/29950237/update-rowan-county-clerk-found-in-contempt-of-court-taken-into-custody She was just taken into custody, found in contempt of court
cinepro Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 My gosh, as a conservative I am too embarrassed for words that any other "conservatives" would support this woman. 3
bluebell Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 http://www.wdrb.com/story/29950237/update-rowan-county-clerk-found-in-contempt-of-court-taken-into-custody She was just taken into custody, found in contempt of court That's as it should be. 1
CA Steve Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Jason Porter, a pastor at Ashland's Gospel Light Baptist Church, spoke for the other side and said he wasn't at the courthouse "to bash people's decisions and lifestyles," but he worried that if people were allowed to continue doing whatever they want to do, "the floodgates will open to other areas of polygamy."He did not elaborate on how same-sex marriage was akin to polygamy, which is the act of having multiple spouses. Polygamy is illegal in every state.Echoing those who cited Acts 5:29, he said he felt Davis had a right to refuse to issue the marriage license and, waving his Bible, he told CNN he bore no hatred toward gay couples and is merely standing "for the truths of my God's word.""I just know the destruction that this brings. As a pastor, I see the background. I see the broken families. I see the AIDS. I see the folks dying of diseases and the brokenness of relationships," he saidNot hard to see where she gets her sound religious principals.So gay marriage leads to polygamy, destruction, broken families, AIDS, people dying of disease and "brokenness of relationships". I am surprised he didn't include war and famine. 1
Teancum Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Sigh. I wasn't going to get involved in this thread in the first place. I'm out. As it should be because your arguments are really rather bad.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 UPDATE: Davis found in contempt of court; ordered to jail. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-held-contempt-court-n421126 Edit to add: I'm worried this will turn into a circus. Now she can just sit in jail as a martyr. The better course would be to simply remove her from office, though I'm not sure the federal court has authority to do that.I'm fine with her acting the part of a martyr as long as it's in jail. I think the judge was right that fines would not have been enough to compel her to act as I'm sure there are many donors who would aid her in paying any fines. Jail hurts. It's sad that she's choosing it but it's difficult to have sympathy for someone who is thumbing her nose at the law and the civil rights of citizens. I assume she could resign her position instead of waiting for the legislature to impeach her. So she does have that option. I assume she wouldn't be subject to jail if she no longer held her elected position.
Recommended Posts