So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

acesfull86 said:
I also think it's ridiculous she is in jail. Tell her she has to do her job...if she disagrees, fire her. Case closed, IMO.
Click to expand...

She was ordered by the Court and defied that order.
That is by law Contempt of Court. Being arrested and put in jail is what happens when you defy a court order.
When for instance a man is ordered to pay back child support and doesn't -- he isn't in jail for not paying child support. He is there for simply not doing what the court told him.

That is why Cruz,Huckabee, Paul etal are railing on about a tyrannical court.
 
BedellBrave said:
OHawk, would you be willing to read the following links?

Link1

Link2

Link3

I'm not ready to jump on the band-wagon with all those who are foaming at the mouth with hatred aimed at this woman or those who sneer from their perches of self-righteousness. Maybe, just maybe she's a woman who has been changed and is seeking to not go against her conscience. I still like Luther's famous statement:

"...to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."
Click to expand...

The Court doesn't care about seeing lights. The court objectively only cares that she follow the law.
As she swore to do
 
BedellBrave said:
OHawk, would you be willing to read the following links?

Link1

Link2

Link3

I'm not ready to jump on the band-wagon with all those who are foaming at the mouth with hatred aimed at this woman or those who sneer from their perches of self-righteousness. Maybe, just maybe she's a woman who has been changed and is seeking to not go against her conscience. I still like Luther's famous statement:

"...to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."
Click to expand...

Bedell, she ain't Martin Luther. Stop right there. If you are going to cite Martin Luther here, you probably need to delineate the difference between the Kingdom of the Left (the here and now of the secular state, the economy, and the man-made church) versus the Kingdom of the Right (the Kingdom of God expressed through the Word). Davis is an elected official in the Kingdom of the Left and, as such, is bound to the rule of law unless she somehow cannot subscribe to said law. At that point, she needs to either accede to the power of the state or leave her position. I am not going to question her beliefs, but she is bound to perform her duties under secular law.
 
50PoundHead said:
Kim Davis likely raised her right hand and took an oath of office that dictated she follow the law in the execution of her duties. She has refused to do so. She could choose to resign from office if her beliefs were threatened by the execution of her duties, which would have been the noble thing to do in this instance. What the folks over at First Things fail to understand is that if elected executive officials start picking and choosing which laws they are going to enforce and which ones they are going to ignore, what does that do to the rule of law? I also find Reno's logic laughable in that "the other side does it, so why can't Kim Davis?" I always thought two wrongs don't make a right.

I imagine there are plenty of secretaries of state and local election officials who, by conscience, would love to ignore the tightening of voter identification laws and many Americans would sympathize with them if they refused to tighten the requirements for voting, but again, doing so would ignore the rule of law. There are a litany of other duties elected officials could choose to ignore and anger the left or the right in the process, but that is not what the proper application of secular authority is about.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make it right. Yet, how do we establish something is wrong? Your position it would seem would never allow for a employee of the state to ever conscientiously object to whatever the state should choose to do. That if the State's views/statutes/laws change after one is hired that employee should resign. I'm not sure I buy that and wonder if you really do. I'm not really sure all of this is as tidy as you'd want to make it. I don't want Pandora's Box opened, but neither do I want to act like governments are infallible and are never able to be challenged from within.
 
50PoundHead said:
Frankly, I don't think the state has any right to exclude the contract rights of two people of whatever sex who want to form a family unit. In other words, I don't think the state should be in the marriage business. I realize that is an extreme stance and there are dangers in that interpretation of this stance is open to polyamory and group marriage, but I believe that would be the exception and not the rule. Again, as long as people aren't coerced into marriage arrangements and there are protections in the dissolution of the marriage contract, the situation likely wouldn't be that much different than it is with the state involved. Churches should be able to recognize marriages as they see fit. A civil contract does not, and should not, require religious recognition of the union.

When it comes to contracts, I'm probably pretty close to where libertarians are. In the absence of government involvement, things probably devolve into a "lawyers full-employment act," but it could eliminate a lot of hoop-jumping and minutiae avoidance.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much on the same page. The state can register/record whatever contractual arrangements or civil unions they want to have. Just get out of the marriage business as such. But you know that's not happening because this has always been about something more that state recording and legal protections.
 
50PoundHead said:
I waffle on the whole "business right to refuse service" issue. I can see both sides. To me, it largely depends on context. There's a difference between someone providing a necessary service (food, shelter) and a non-essential service (custom cakes). I don't really buy the argument that access for gays equates access for African-Americans during the Civil Rights Era. The Freedom Riders and the lunch counter demonstrations were aimed at a comprehensive system of discrimination that prevented the rights of a race to do something as simple as drinking at a water fountain. As supportive as I am of gay people, discrimination against them, while still insidious, is not as systematic as Jim Crow was to African-Americans.
Click to expand...

50, have I told you before how much I appreciate your reasonableness?
 
57Brave said:
She was ordered by the Court and defied that order.
That is by law Contempt of Court. Being arrested and put in jail is what happens when you defy a court order.
When for instance a man is ordered to pay back child support and doesn't -- he isn't in jail for not paying child support. He is there for simply not doing what the court told him.

That is why Cruz,Huckabee, Paul etal are railing on about a tyrannical court.
Click to expand...

Is the regular sentence for contempt, indefinite imprisonment until one changes their view?
 
doesn't a marriage contract also involve probate issues that are to be settled by the courts. Isn't marriage also taken into account in child custody cases where the court is asked to rule.
How else would we govern the "marriage" contract ?
I can't remember the clause in the constitution that covers interste commerce. But doe's that also cover a marriage in NY State and someone moving to Ohio ??

I am asking and will not respond
 
57Brave said:
The Court doesn't care about seeing lights. The court objectively only cares that she follow the law.
As she swore to do
Click to expand...

Oh I know, my point/suggestion to OHawk was that we don't have to so quick to judge this woman as a failure, bitch, hypocrite, ****ty, ugly, homely, bigoted, moronic failure. Just seems rather over-the-top from my point of view. She's one person seeking to make what she believes to be a stand based on her convictions.
 
I am not judging her but simply saying she made her stand by disobeying a court order and this is what happens when one disobeys a court order.

To me the whole thing is absurd.
 
50PoundHead said:
Bedell, she ain't Martin Luther. Stop right there. If you are going to cite Martin Luther here, you probably need to delineate the difference between the Kingdom of the Left (the here and now of the secular state, the economy, and the man-made church) versus the Kingdom of the Right (the Kingdom of God expressed through the Word). Davis is an elected official in the Kingdom of the Left and, as such, is bound to the rule of law unless she somehow cannot subscribe to said law. At that point, she needs to either accede to the power of the state or leave her position. I am not going to question her beliefs, but she is bound to perform her duties under secular law.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying she is. I am saying that her argument is based on her conscience.

50, I'm not a Lutheran and thus not a strict 2 kingdom guy. Both the civil magistrate and the church are under a higher authority than their own.
 
57Brave said:
doesn't a marriage contract also involve probate issues that are to be settled by the courts. Isn't marriage also taken into account in child custody cases where the court is asked to rule.
How else would we govern the "marriage" contract ?
I can't remember the clause in the constitution that covers interste commerce. But doe's that also cover a marriage in NY State and someone moving to Ohio ??

I am asking and will not respond
Click to expand...

I think 50 - at least I am - is suggesting that civil unions (not using the religiously entangled language of "marriage") are something the State can regulate/record/register for those very purposes.
 
BedellBrave said:
Two wrongs don't make it right. Yet, how do we establish something is wrong? Your position it would seem would never allow for a employee of the state to ever conscientiously object to whatever the state should choose to do. That if the State's views/statutes/laws change after one is hired that employee should resign. I'm not sure I buy that and wonder if you really do. I'm not really sure all of this is as tidy as you'd want to make it. I don't want Pandora's Box opened, but neither do I want to act like governments are infallible and are never able to be challenged from within.
Click to expand...

There are countless instances where employees are allowed adjustments to not go against their consciences. I grew up in an era where all males were subject to the military draft, but one could apply for conscientious objector status to avoid military service. However, there was an expectation that in being granted that status, the individual would serve in some other capacity. The difference between Davis and an employee is that Davis is an elected official and has taken an oath to uphold the law. Employees usually do not take such an oath. That is a pretty big difference. If Davis were an employee and didn't want to be involved with gay couples due to her beliefs, I'm sure someone else in the office could assume that duty. Unfortunately for her, as an elected official sworn to uphold the Constitution, Davis doesn't have that luxury. There were likely a bunch of officials throughout the country whose worldview was jostled by the Civil Rights Movement. If they were elected officials, they had the same choice then that Davis does now.

The state is fallible by its very nature. It is man-made. It cannot meet the needs and desires of all. Hence, a consensus needs to be reached and, again, by its nature, consensus will not meet with 100% of the desires of 100% of the people.
 
57Brave said:
I am not judging her but simply saying she made her stand by disobeying a court order and this is what happens when one disobeys a court order.

To me the whole thing is absurd.
Click to expand...

May be absurd. But I do think that many of you have been judging the woman actually very harshly using invectives and personal attacks. That's your right to do so. I just find it over-the-top. And it smacks of hypocrisy for it is my suspicion that all of you who are casting stones wouldn't do so if it where a person in a similar position not enforcing a law or statute you disagree with. Selective enforcement seems to be cheered here often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top