KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Guest]

 

Why don't you just believe what you want and allow those who believe in the same marriage that their great-grandma had available to her to believe what they want too?    Win-win  Everyone minds their own business and allows the other to have an opposing belief without attacking and labeling.   

 

You can definitely still have your great grandma's marriage, is the point.

 

And do make sure to take YOUR great grandma's marriage, not mine. You wouldn't want mine. You'd be dead by now if you accidentally took hers. Caaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuusssseee she had no legal recourse for the way she was treated.

[Amira]

I also wanted to chime in that this woman's job didn't change in June. Her job has always been to issue marriage licenses to those who ask for them and legally qualify for them. It does not matter who qualified for them in the past. She was not elected to decide who qualified for them. That is not the right of the executive branch.

 

There are many government employees who face similar issues. If you work for the US State Department, your job is to promote US foreign policy as determined by the POTUS. Even though US foreign policy goals will change while you are employed there, it's not your job to decide what US foreign policy is any more than it's Ms. Davis's right to decide what US law is. This is not religious discrimination, this is simply a question of whether Ms. Davis is willing to do the job she was elected to do. If she's not, she should resign.

[TranquilMind]

Many , many people around the world hold the traditional belief that any female sexual pleasure is abhorrant. FGM is the result. I disagree with that , and with you.

I love how no one will address anything I ask or state but merely keeps adding another "But what about THIS thing we aren't even talking about?"  as if I am proposing the irrelevant thing. 

 

No one is speaking of this at all.   It is not relevant to the discussion at hand which is what IS marriage and why Kim Davis did what she did, right or wrong. 

[TranquilMind]

You can definitely still have your great grandma's marriage, is the point.

 

And do make sure to take YOUR great grandma's marriage, not mine. You wouldn't want mine. You'd be dead by now if you accidentally took hers. Caaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuusssseee she had no legal recourse for the way she was treated.

I don't even know what the long, drawn out letters are supposed to mean or the relevance of your insinuations. 

 

But yeah, great-grandma was married 50+ years from what I read- as were most of her peers-  and we are definitely moving on in that direction with several decades under our belts.  I'll take it.

[poppy]

I love how no one will address anything I ask or state but merely keeps adding another "But what about THIS thing we aren't even talking about?" as if I am proposing the irrelevant thing.

 

No one is speaking of this at all. It is not relevant to the discussion at hand which is what IS marriage and why Kim Davis did what she did, right or wrong.

Well your question was, is gay sexuality abhorrent. I will answer, of course it isn't. Better?

[SKL]

I don't agree that the clerk's job did not change.

 

Suppose it was your job to check convicts into a jail.  When you took the job, this meant checking adults into a jail.  Then one day the law changed and they started sending elementary-aged kids to jail.  Did your job change?  Of course it did.

[TranquilMind]

I also wanted to chime in that this woman's job didn't change in June. Her job has always been to issue marriage licenses to those who ask for them and legally qualify for them. It does not matter who qualified for them in the past. She was not elected to decide who qualified for them. That is not the right of the executive branch.

 

There are many government employees who face similar issues. If you work for the US State Department, your job is to promote US foreign policy as determined by the POTUS. Even though US foreign policy goals will change while you are employed there, its not your job to decide what US foreign policy is any more than it's Ms. Davis's right to decide what US law is. This is not religious discrimination, this is simply a question of whether Ms. Davis is willing to do the job she was elected to do. If she's not, she should resign.

No, but marriage was defined by state law at the time, and everything not specifically relegated to the federal government is to be left to the states, constitutionally.  She had a legitimate point. 

 

The Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage.  That should concern anyone.  What's next?  Motherhood? Citizenship?  Worth?

[Greta]

Well, I don't know. What is the context? Am I trying to force someone to give me a license despite his own conscience and all historical context?

The context is that you've gone to the proper government agent to exercise your legal right as a citizen, but your legal right is denied by that agent because of her religious beliefs, not because you haven't met the legal criteria.

 

That IS the context we're talking about here. Period.

[Amira]

No, but marriage was defined by state law at the time, and everything not specifically relegated to the federal government is to be left to the states, constitutionally. She had a legitimate point.

 

The Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage. That should concern anyone. What's next? Motherhood?

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you about whether it had a right to make a country-wide decision about gay marriage.

 

As for your second question, if the law changes, then I expect elected officials to uphold it. If they don't like it, then I hope they use legal means to change it. I hope they don't use the power of their elected position to make a point.

[Mimm]

The original families into which the kids were born should have been protected and did have those advantages, assuming actual marriage and not just getting impregnated. 

 

Gay parents are very often the original families into which those children are born. Oh my goodness. It's as if you've never looked outside your bubble and your very narrow understanding of how families are made.

 

What about straight parents who use a surrogate, or adopt a newborn? Should they have fewer rights or only just those awful gays?

[Mimm]

I love how no one will address anything I ask or state but merely keeps adding another "But what about THIS thing we aren't even talking about?"  as if I am proposing the irrelevant thing. 

 

No one is speaking of this at all.   It is not relevant to the discussion at hand which is what IS marriage and why Kim Davis did what she did, right or wrong. 

 

It's relevant because you are stating that your (and Kim Davis') religious beliefs should define what is ok sexually.

 

Should ALL people's religious beliefs define what is ok sexually? Or just yours and Kim Davis'? Why are you and Kim Davis a higher authority than everyone else? Because God is on your side? Because other people think God is on their side.

 

This is why I err on the side of freedom. It's not my job to define what two consenting adults are allowed to do in bed. There are plenty of things I don't find appealing that gay and straight couples both do. But that's not my business.

[zoobie]

The argument that she's doing something new and the newness allows her to use her religion to contradict her oath and the law is nonsensical. Laws change. Court cases happen. Religious beliefs change. None of that affects her oath of office. She swore to uphold the law. That doesn't mean the law taken at a freeze frame the instant of her oath. It means the law currently as she continues to act as Clerk. She could decide in jail to become a Jehovah's Witness (or whatever) and not believe in swearing oaths. She doesn't get to opt out of doing her job for the rest of the time because it contradicts her religious beliefs. Her choice is to do her damn job or resign and let someone else take over. The government doesn't stop for one person's religious epiphanies.

[Halftime Hope]

I also wanted to chime in that this woman's job didn't change in June. Her job has always been to issue marriage licenses to those who ask for them and legally qualify for them. It does not matter who qualified for them in the past. She was not elected to decide who qualified for them. That is not the right of the executive branch.

 

While you are welcome write the words, "her job did not change," that is not the full truth, and we both know it. 

 

The definition of marriage has been widened--and not by the people of KY--to include (for now) two same-sex partners.  To her, the everyday outworking of that change is that *her job has changed*.  She is now having to have her name on documents that legitimize lawful unions that were previously not lawful, indeed they were constitutionally banned in her state.

 

 

 

 

[Mergath]

I mean it in the sense that these people "suffered" a brief, inconvenient delay in acquiring licenses and now got what they wanted.

Hardly earth-shattering grievances. 

 

And I guess we're just going to ignore the "brief delay" of their entire lives they had to deal with before gay marriage was finally legalized? When you've been waiting your entire life for something like this, someone trying to take that right away yet again isn't just a minor inconvenience. 

 

But I guess you're so enshrouded in privilege that it's hard to see anything else.

[poppy]

It's relevant because you are stating that your (and Kim Davis') religious beliefs should define what is ok sexually.

 

Should ALL people's religious beliefs define what is ok sexually? Or just yours and Kim Davis'? Why are you and Kim Davis a higher authority than everyone else? Because God is on your side? Because other people think God is on their side.

 

This is why I err on the side of freedom. It's not my job to define what two consenting adults are allowed to do in bed. There are plenty of things I don't find appealing that gay and straight couples both do. But that's not my business.

 

This is exactly right.  Even Kim Davis is posing the question as "should religious beliefs allow for exemptions from duty?" not "should traditional Christian views of marriage (post-interracial marriage being "ok") allow for exemptions of from duty"?

[Amira]

And I have to disagree that we both know that her job changed. I strongly disagree with that idea. Her job is now and always has been to uphold the law whether or not she agrees with it. Her name does not have to be on the licenses now because she is allowed to resign.

[Mergath]

No, but marriage was defined by state law at the time, and everything not specifically relegated to the federal government is to be left to the states, constitutionally.  She had a legitimate point. 

 

The Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage.  That should concern anyone.  What's next?  Motherhood? Citizenship?  Worth?

 

You need to look up what "unilateral" means. They did not "unilaterally" redefine marriage. They struck down laws banning ssm because of the huge movement seeking equality in this country. You can pout about SCOTUS all you like, but the fact is that a majority of people in this country support equality, and THAT is why things have changed. 

[Guest]

 

 

You keep saying this (the things you keep saying--my quote thing is messed up) but she is an employee of the GOVERNMENT.

 

The law changes, then the job "changes" in the sense that the law changed, but all along, her job has been to do what the government says she has to do.

 

My husband is in the military. His mission changes all the time. How well do you think it would go over if he decided he is not going to do the mission he has to do, because he was previously doing something (verrry very slightly) different?

 

I can tell you! He'd be in the brig.

 

Because he works for the government. He has to do what they say until he stop working for them.

[Joules]

 

Why don't you just believe what you want and allow those who believe in the same marriage that their great-grandma had available to her to believe what they want too?    Win-win  Everyone minds their own business and allows the other to have an opposing belief without attacking and labeling.   

 

Isn't that exactly what we are doing?  You can have a marriage like your great-grandma, I can have my more modern marriage, and my neighbors (both male) can have their marriage.  Everyone gets the marriage that they want and goes on.  The reason we object to people like Kim Davis is that she wants to have the marriage that she wants AND wants to force everyone else to have a marriage just like hers.  

 

I think most of us are responding and not attacking.  The nice people asking for marriage licenses in Kentucky WERE minding their own business- the business of applying for a marriage license. (They became somewhat defensive when told they were perverts and didn't deserve one.)

[CAMom]

I'm only on page 13 of the thread but I'm going to throw this out there anyway. :D

 

First, I want to thank everyone for the discussion! It has really helped me process my thoughts.

 

As to this specific case, I think Davis is dead wrong. I do believe she has an obligation to fulfill her oath and that is to issue marriage licenses. She is not being asked to sin. If she were, I might have a different opinion (I'm still thinking that through), but in this case she is not.

 

She is not being asked to approve of or endorse same-sex marriage. She is simply required to issue a license certifying that the marriage is legal. Whether she wants it to be legal is another matter. It is not a sin for me to say, "Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States," and it is not a sin for her to sign a document saying the same.

 

She can believe same-sex marriage itself is a sin but she cannot say it is not legal.

 

It's really pretty simple.

[Halftime Hope]

You keep saying this (the things you keep saying--my quote thing is messed up) but she is an employee of the GOVERNMENT.

 

The law changes, then the job "changes" in the sense that the law changed, but all along, her job has been to do what the government says she has to do.

 

My husband is in the military. His mission changes all the time. How well do you think it would go over if he decided he is not going to do the mission he has to do, because he was previously doing something (verrry very slightly) different?

 

I can tell you! He'd be in the brig.

 

Because he works for the government. He has to do what they say until he stop working for them.

 

And I guess that is where I differ from Kim Davis.  And I have the privilege to do so.  /sarcasm/  

 

No, seriously, I have the ability financially to walk away from my job and eat peanut butter and beans until I find a new one.  I have the education needed to find a new job, and the luxury of time and privacy to consider the situation.  And I have you guys.  I doubt she has any of those.  /sarcasm still on./

[Guest]

And I guess that is where I differ from Kim Davis.  And I have the privilege to do so.  /sarcasm/  

 

No, seriously, I have the ability financially to walk away from my job and eat peanut butter and beans until I find a new one.  I have the education needed to find a new job, and the luxury of time and privacy to consider the situation.  And I have you guys.  I doubt she has any of those.  /sarcasm still on./

 

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[LucyStoner]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I'm confused too. Kim Davis has been making far more than the average wage for her low cost of living area for many years now, even before she was the elected clerk. She's married.

 

I don't get the impression she lacks the resources to go without her job for a bit or that she is incapable of finding other work. In fact she just found great work: attaching her name to a book she doesn't have to write and being the featured guest at this or that gathering of people who agree with her. She's set. Her meal ticket is punched for the ribeye option from here on out .

[*Lulu*]

First, I think this thread has been very informative and civil so far. I would hate for it to decend into circular arguments and another round of "onward Christian bakers".

 

Second, I think Kim Davis' position is not so much like military service, (which is a contract that cannot be walked away from), and more like the position of a school board member or city councilman/woman, who can always resign. She, or any elected official, does not have the right to refuse to do their job because they don't like the way the system works. She argued that she did have that right, her case was heard, she lost. The system did exactly as it is supposed to and she is sitting in a cell, not because of her religious beliefs, but because she stomped her foot like a tantruming toddler when things didn't go her way.

[Guest]

First, I think this thread has been very informative and civil so far. I would hate for it to decend into circular arguments and another round of "onward Christian bakers".

 

Second, I think Kim Davis' position is not so much like military service, (which is a contract that cannot be walked away from), and more like the position of a school board member or city councilman/woman, who can always resign. She, or any elected official, does not have the right to refuse to do their job because they don't like the way the system works. She argued that she did have that right, her case was heard, she lost. The system did exactly as it is supposed to and she is sitting in a cell, not because of her religious beliefs, but because she stomped her foot like a tantruming toddler when things didn't go her way.

 

Right, yes. The analogy breaks down because she can resign at any time if the mission changes.

 

And, again, her mission (do some stuff with paper) didn't change.

[Mergath]

And I have to disagree that we both know that her job changed. I strongly disagree with that idea. Her job is now and always has been to uphold the law whether or not she agrees with it. Her name does not have to be on the licenses now because she is allowed to resign.

Not to mention, where is it written that once you take a job, the rules and responsibilities are never, ever allowed to change? Back when I worked in group homes, the rules and procedures changed all the time. I either did my job, changes and all, or else I wouldn't have had one. Had I said that I had a religious issue with my responsibilities and that not only did I refuse to do it but none of my coworkers would be allowed to do it, I would have been fired instantly.

 

Society does not have to cater to the whim of each and every person and all the many shades of their varied beliefs. It can't. People need to get used to that.

[Halftime Hope]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

 

So maybe I was wrong about her financial situation; around here county clerks don't get paid much.  I doubt I'm wrong about her education based on what I'm seeing.  

 

As far as the "you guys" part of my post, it's become a minefield participating in threads here.  I learn a lot about many other perspectives, but at what cost? 

[Joanne]

And I guess that is where I differ from Kim Davis.  And I have the privilege to do so.  /sarcasm/  

 

No, seriously, I have the ability financially to walk away from my job and eat peanut butter and beans until I find a new one.  I have the education needed to find a new job, and the luxury of time and privacy to consider the situation.  And I have you guys.  I doubt she has any of those.  /sarcasm still on./

 

 

She was given alternatives to keep her job and have the office honor the law.

 

She declined.

 

It really, truly, is that straightforward.

[TranquilMind]

You need to look up what "unilateral" means. They did not "unilaterally" redefine marriage. They struck down laws banning ssm because of the huge movement seeking equality in this country. You can pout about SCOTUS all you like, but the fact is that a majority of people in this country support equality, and THAT is why things have changed. 

Everything you are saying is inaccurate.  THIRTY SEVEN (last I checked) states had passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman prior to this sudden flip.  Barack Obama and everyone else at the time supported marriage as always defined.   Every proposition or vote on this anywhere had adhered to the traditional definition of marriage. 

 

Even the Supreme Court barely passed this decision, with 4 dissenting judges.  No one is pouting, not even the four justices who dissented.  But they did speak up.  You are free to disbelieve anything you like, but it is all public record. 

 

Statistically, the numbers aren't there.   Just SEVEN years ago, California, the most liberal state in the nation, passed Proposition 8.

 

The cutting edge fringe supports this wholesale change of the definition of marriage, but not the nation as a whole, which is why it had to happen via judicial activism. 

[Guest]

So maybe I was wrong about her financial situation; around here county clerks don't get paid much.  I doubt I'm wrong about her education based on what I'm seeing.  

 

As far as the "you guys" part of my post, it's become a minefield participating in threads here.  I learn a lot about many other perspectives, but at what cost? 

 

I'm sorry, I literally did not understand what you meant in that post with the sarcasm things, so I am trying to figure it out from this post.

 

So you were saying that she probably could not afford to leave her job? And that she isn't well-educated? And that that affects her options going forward when her boss tells her she has to do something at work...and then her decision-making process when a judge tells her she has to do something or be held in contempt?

 

If that's what you meant...I'm sure people do  indeed take their life circumstances into account when they make most major decisions.

[LucyStoner]

So maybe I was wrong about her financial situation; around here county clerks don't get paid much. I doubt I'm wrong about her education based on what I'm seeing.

 

As a deputy clerk in 2011 she pulled down >$60k. Now she makes $80k. In a county with median family income (not per worker, per family) of $33k.

 

I don't get the impression either that she lacks intellectual resources. I do think she lacks some human kindness (just the tone, facial expressions and word choices). But intellect and kindness don't always go together.

[TranquilMind]

Not to mention, where is it written that once you take a job, the rules and responsibilities are never, ever allowed to change? Back when I worked in group homes, the rules and procedures changed all the time. I either did my job, changes and all, or else I wouldn't have had one. Had I said that I had a religious issue with my responsibilities and that not only did I refuse to do it but none of my coworkers would be allowed to do it, I would have been fired instantly.

 

Society does not have to cater to the whim of each and every person and all the many shades of their varied beliefs. It can't. People need to get used to that.

Well, if it is something that turns your job on its head and violates your religious beliefs, then that is not the same as just a change of procedure. Stop trying to equate the two.

 

Her job is to (among other things) sign marriage licenses.  Marriage has a specific meaning to those in Kentucky, according to state law as well as her faith, and she has always signed marriage licenses.

 

Her faith and her job were never in conflict, all of the years she did the job.

 

All of the sudden, marriage is redefined, in conflict with Kentucky state law as well as her faith.  She has a conflict now that did not previously exist.  There are various ways to resolve it.  I do not think she chose the right way, but jobs aren't that easy to find.  

 

She took a stand.  She is going down.  You can rejoice and gloat. 

 

It doesn't change the meaning of what marriage is, despite the decision.   But now, any future holder of the job is aware that Kentucky law and the will of the people (when passed) is moot, and the Supreme Court decision is paramount over the meaning of marriage. 

 

[Mergath]

Everything you are saying is inaccurate. THIRTY SEVEN (last I checked) states had passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman prior to this sudden flip. Barack Obama and everyone else at the time supported marriage as always defined. Every proposition or vote on this anywhere had adhered to the traditional definition of marriage.

 

Even the Supreme Court barely passed this decision, with 4 dissenting judges. No one is pouting, not even the four justices who dissented. But they did speak up. You are free to disbelieve anything you like, but it is all public record.

 

Statistically, the numbers aren't there. Just SEVEN years ago, California, the most liberal state in the nation, passed Proposition 8.

 

The cutting edge fringe supports this wholesale change of the definition of marriage, but not the nation as a whole, which is why it had to happen via judicial activism.

No, not every vote anywhere held up traditional marriage. Here in MN someone tried to push through a law (or an amendment, can't recall offhand which) to ban gay marriage, and it was defeated. A majority of people in the US now support legal ssm. The reason so many states still have laws supporting their bigotry is that there has been a huge shift in thinking over just the last couple of years. Had the SCOTUS ruling not happened, I'd bet most of those laws would have been gone within five years. With the southern states stubbornly clinging to their hate and prejudice for another fifty years like they did with interracial marriage, of course.

[Mergath]

Well, if it is something that turns your job on its head and violates your religious beliefs, then that is not the same as just a change of procedure. Stop trying to equate the two.

 

Her job is to (among other things) sign marriage licenses. Marriage has a specific meaning to those in Kentucky, according to state law as well as her faith, and she has always signed marriage licenses.

 

Her faith and her job were never in conflict, all of the years she did the job.

 

All of the sudden, marriage is redefined, in conflict with Kentucky state law as well as her faith. She has a conflict now that did not previously exist. There are various ways to resolve it. I do not think she chose the right way, but jobs aren't that easy to find.

 

She took a stand. She is going down. You can rejoice and gloat.

 

It doesn't change the meaning of what marriage is, despite the decision. But now, any future holder of the job is aware that Kentucky law and the will of the people (when passed) is moot, and the Supreme Court decision is paramount over the meaning of marriage.

She has the religious freedom to hate gay people just as she always did. Just like you.

[Guest]

Everything you are saying is inaccurate.  THIRTY SEVEN (last I checked) states had passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman prior to this sudden flip.  Barack Obama and everyone else at the time supported marriage as always defined.   Every proposition or vote on this anywhere had adhered to the traditional definition of marriage. 

 

Even the Supreme Court barely passed this decision, with 4 dissenting judges.  No one is pouting, not even the four justices who dissented.  But they did speak up.  You are free to disbelieve anything you like, but it is all public record. 

 

Statistically, the numbers aren't there.   Just SEVEN years ago, California, the most liberal state in the nation, passed Proposition 8.

 

The cutting edge fringe supports this wholesale change of the definition of marriage, but not the nation as a whole, which is why it had to happen via judicial activism. 

 

Hey man, seven years ago, California still had almost enough water.

And it's not even close to the most liberal state.

[TranquilMind]

No, not every vote anywhere held up traditional marriage. Here in MN someone tried to push through a law (or an amendment, can't recall offhand which) to ban gay marriage, and it was defeated. A majority of people in the US now support legal ssm. The reason so many states still have laws supporting their bigotry is that there has been a huge shift in thinking over just the last couple of years. Had the SCOTUS ruling not happened, I'd bet most of those laws would have been gone within five years. With the southern states stubbornly clinging to their hate and prejudice for another fifty years like they did with interracial marriage, of course.

What you derisively call "bigotry" is merely the refusal to wholeheartedly embrace relationships in conflict with traditional morality/faith and call them "marriage". 

 

And it has nothing to do with the legitimate civil rights movement. It is so offensively obnoxious for this group to jump on that train, but it's a winner, so everyone co-opts it wherever possible.

 

Race is an immutable characteristic, completely unlike sexual behavior.  Don't even begin to equate the two. The discussion is over when inapposite comparisons are made.   It's the "Nazi" card of this discussion and always trotted out, then, laughably,  liberal screaming occurs when the traditional marriage supporters attempt to use it, which apparently recently happened. 

[TranquilMind]

She has the religious freedom to hate gay people just as she always did. Just like you.

Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary and this one is just woefully inaccurate.  

 

I can't speak for Kim Davis, of course.  She may indeed hate someone, or several someones, or groups of people, or no one.  But the fact that she supports traditional marriage, standing alone, does not mean she "hates" anyone. 

[Mergath]

What you derisively call "bigotry" is in conflict with traditional morality/faith.

 

And it has nothing to do with the legitimate civil rights movement. It is so offensively obnoxious for this group to jump on that train, but it's a winner, so everyone co-opts it wherever possible.

 

Race is an immutable characteristic, completely unlike sexual behavior. Don't even begin to equate the two. The discussion is over when inapposite comparisons are made. It's the "Nazi" card of this discussion and always trotted out, then, laughably, liberal screaming occurs when the traditional marriage supporters attempt to use it, which apparently recently happened.

 

Bigotry is bigotry.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Mergath
Removed the insult to another faith.

[TranquilMind]

nm 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed deleted content.

[Mergath]

nm 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Mergath
Sarcasm is not an argument.

[Joules]

Everything you are saying is inaccurate.  THIRTY SEVEN (last I checked) states had passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman prior to this sudden flip.  Barack Obama and everyone else at the time supported marriage as always defined.   Every proposition or vote on this anywhere had adhered to the traditional definition of marriage. 

 

Even the Supreme Court barely passed this decision, with 4 dissenting judges.  No one is pouting, not even the four justices who dissented.  But they did speak up.  You are free to disbelieve anything you like, but it is all public record. 

 

Statistically, the numbers aren't there.   Just SEVEN years ago, California, the most liberal state in the nation, passed Proposition 8.

 

The cutting edge fringe supports this wholesale change of the definition of marriage, but not the nation as a whole, which is why it had to happen via judicial activism. 

 

I think the majority of Americans do support it now, and support is growing (particularly considering it is mostly older people who object).  

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

 

It's similar to how the approval rating rose for interracial marriages:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

[SKL]

While I don't agree with every supreme court decision, I was kind of hoping this one would allow the "marriage equality" fuss to die a fairly quick death.  So we could move on to things that really matter.  So I wish this lady, and others in the news, would just get over it in this case.

[justasque]

Her job has always been to issue marriage licenses to husbands and wives.  Suddenly, she is asked to issue the same marriage license to pairs who cannot be married (in her faith).  There is her quandary. 

 

She's handling it this way, and whether it is good or bad, is up for debate.  Personally, I think it is the wrong way to go about it, and she should just quit, but that's easier said than done in this crappy economy.

 

She is perfectly willing to do the job she has always done.  Suddenly, she is being asked to do something that cannot be done (in her faith tradition).  The goal posts have been moved.

 

Hmmm.  She is asked to issue the marriage license to anyone who meets the legal criteria in her state.  I assume that her signature on the license is stating that pretty much that - not that she "approves" of the marriage in the "I think this marriage is peachy-keen" sense, but in the "I have examined the documents (birth certificates or whatever) and this couple meets the requirements, so I approve their application" sense.  Anyone know what the language is on a KY license?

 

 <pause to Google>

 

This KY license is addressed to clergy, and says "You are permitted to solemnize the rites of matrimony between __ and ___, the requirements of the law having been complied with.  Witness my signature as the clerk of the ___ county court (date, signature).  This one is similar.

This one is a little different.  Interestingly, while there are separate lines for each party's age, place of birth, and residence, there is only one line for their race; the form itself assumes they are both of the same race.

The clerk is giving the officiant the state's permission for the marriage to take place.

 

She has been asked to issue the marriage license to couples who cannot be married in her faith all along.  Ironically, her mother before her likely issued Mrs. Davis's first marriage license, her second, her third (to the man with whom she conceived her twins while married to her first husband, an act of adultery), and her fourth, the latter three of which are also against Mrs. Davis's current faith.  Would she have expected her mother to refuse her a license for those marriages?

 

[Mergath]

nm 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Mergath
This is no longer a discussion.

[TranquilMind]

While I don't agree with every supreme court decision, I was kind of hoping this one would allow the "marriage equality" fuss to die a fairly quick death.  So we could move on to things that really matter.  So I wish this lady, and others in the news, would just get over it in this case.

Well, it's pretty over.  This lady is going down.  Even Custer had a last stand.  It won't do her any good.  Caesar has spoken, through the Supreme Court, despite Kentucky's laws and Constitution. 

[justasque]

PEOPLE - Rise above, y'all.  Keep it civil.  Don't feed the trolls.  Rise above.  

[unsinkable]

nm 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed deleted content.

[albeto.]

Her faith and her job were never in conflict, all of the years she did the job.

 

All of the sudden, marriage is redefined, in conflict with Kentucky state law as well as her faith.  She has a conflict now that did not previously exist.  There are various ways to resolve it.  I do not think she chose the right way, but jobs aren't that easy to find.  

 

She took a stand.  She is going down.  You can rejoice and gloat. 

 

Is it part of the real xian faith to restrict others from doing what they are able and willing if it conflicts with your own personal belief? 

 

Why do you think more real xians don't go to jail in when their sincerely held beliefs conflict with the law? I ask because she didn't simply quit her job (or pass that one element on to others), as most real xians might. 

[Mergath]

PEOPLE - Rise above, y'all. Keep it civil. Don't feed the trolls. Rise above.

I did pretty good for several days. But everyone has their limits.

[TranquilMind]

Hmmm.  She is asked to issue the marriage license to anyone who meets the legal criteria in her state.  I assume that her signature on the license is stating that pretty much that - not that she "approves" of the marriage in the "I think this marriage is peachy-keen" sense, but in the "I have examined the documents (birth certificates or whatever) and this couple meets the requirements, so I approve their application" sense.  Anyone know what the language is on a KY license?

 

 <pause to Google>

 

This KY license is addressed to clergy, and says "You are permitted to solemnize the rites of matrimony between __ and ___, the requirements of the law having been complied with.  Witness my signature as the clerk of the ___ county court (date, signature).  This one is similar.

This one is a little different.  Interestingly, while there are separate lines for each party's age, place of birth, and residence, there is only one line for their race; the form itself assumes they are both of the same race.

The clerk is giving the officiant the state's permission for the marriage to take place.

 

She has been asked to issue the marriage license to couples who cannot be married in her faith all along.  Ironically, her mother before her likely issued Mrs. Davis's first marriage license, her second, her third (to the man with whom she conceived her twins while married to her first husband, an act of adultery), and her fourth, the latter three of which are also against Mrs. Davis's current faith.  Would she have expected her mother to refuse her a license for those marriages?

 

The State Constitution had already defined marriage as between a man and a woman only.  So she operated on that legal criteria throughout the period in office.   Then this decision contradicted the State law and her conscience, apparently. She took a stand.  She did not win.  It was a losing stance to begin with, the way the winds are blowing these days. 

It's over. 

 

Yes, her mother could have declined on conscience, but not on state law.