Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refuses to licence marriage to same sex couples, yes you guessed, because it is against her religious beliefs. Apparently, god is her first love and she is standing for him. So as a result, she stopped giving marriage licences altogether as a clerk. Of course she is ordered that she must under the oath she took.
This is an important case, because apparently there is a lot coming. But then it is also a good thing she did this, she will lose the case and it will also be a good example. And the more they are shut down, this bullshit will be over there in the US soon.
Now the funniest part to me, as you know the general rejection these people have against legalising marriage is that 'the sanctity of marriage', its 'morals' are in danger that it is between a man and a woman. Other media sources report that Kim Davis got married four times. I really don't care if somebody got married 40 or 400 times, however, how does this really fly even among their own lot, I am really curious. Isn't that the whole idea with their religions? And the others? This is something beyond hypocrisy.
In my opinion, this is also completely political, has very little to do with religious beliefs, if any at all. Like how head scarf is being used in semi secular islamic countries. The one I live in for example.
Also the comment made by her lawyer couldn't be more political I guess. Do you think she has a chance to win? Seems unlikley to me.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/14/same-sex-marriage-ruling-backlash-losing-steam
QuoteTwo months after same-sex marriage became legal nationwide in a landmark supreme court decision meant to resolve the issue once and for all, lower court rulings and legal threats around the country are slapping down one attempt after another to resist the decision.
An Ohio judicial conduct board said that probate judges can’t refuse to marry same-sex couples for personal reasons earlier this week. In Alabama, where the state judicial system mounted the strongest opposition to same-sex marriage in the US, probate judges have had to stop issuing marriage licenses to all couples to show their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Private businesses like bakeries have had little success in their fight to not participate in same-sex marriages in Colorado. And in Texas, attorney general Ken Paxton was held in contempt of court over his refusal to enforce the same-sex marriage rule.
Paxton has since relented, as have many other officials across the US attempted to stall implementation of the law.
But some government employees are still attempting to block such marriages.
Among them is Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who has continued to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in spite of a federal judge’s order on Wednesday to follow the supreme court ruling.
Kentucky clerk defies federal judge's order to issue marriage licenses
Her office in Rowan County turned away same-sex couples on Thursday, with Davis citing her religious objections to such marriages. Judge David Bunning said that while she is entitled to her beliefs, it does not excuse her from performing a “purely legal†task. And Governor Steven Beshear ordered her to obey the ruling or resign.
Liberty Counsel, a Christian nonprofit legal group that opposes same-sex marriage, is representing Davis and has filed a notice of appeal. Disputing the constitution, federal government and state government is a hefty task, but Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said it is a battle worth waging.
“Whether it’s difficult or not, the point is that she does not lose her first amendment rights,†Staver said.
He believes the supreme court’s ruling is “fundamentally weakâ€, though it determined in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right. Staver does not think Davis should have to adhere to the ruling because it violates her religious beliefs and was not part of the duties she was told she would have to fulfill when she was voted in as county clerk. “She didn’t sign up for this,†Staver said.
Gay marriage plaintiff Obergefell: push for religious freedom laws is offensive
Staver said that Davis’s case is just the beginning. “The litigation is going to explode,†he said.
Bob Trent, a spokesman for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative nonprofit that works on these types of religious freedom cases, said the group has not yet been approached by people like Davis, a government employee attempting to violate US law. “I don’t think it’s a strategic decision, it’s just the way things have fallen out,†Trent said.
He said that he could not determine the constitutionality of the Davis case without more details, but that ADF would represent people who can prove that same-sex marriage is violating their first amendment rights.
These people, like those who allow prayer in public schools, put religious symbols on government property, etc., are like whack-a-moles. The law keeps whacking them down, but they keep popping up elsewhere.
It is absolutely political. She is making an attempt at martyrdom here, and I am sure she is seen in that light by her fellow hypocrites and attention whores.
It's further embarrassment to Americans, but it's unsurprising. It is, however, satisfying to see her and her ilk squashed like bugs.
QuoteLiberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said it is a battle worth waging
I'm honestly sorry you guys over in the U.S have to deal with these mollusks. When they are outright saying they want the right to discriminate and its there fundamental right to do so, that is when the law needs to poke them with a taser and lock them in the loonie bin.
Quote from: Mermaid on August 16, 2015, 10:09:27 AM
It's further embarrassment to Americans, but it's unsurprising. It is, however, satisfying to see her and her ilk squashed like bugs.
I don't see it as an embarrasment, Mermaid. You shouldn't either in my opinion. This is a good thing. They are just learning. They are moving to the 21st century, it will take some time. If there was no backlash, I would think that as a bad thing.
Despite my strong opposition and despise I feel against USA foreign politics, I believe good things are happening in your country. The issue of racism, wages...etc. It's a struggle, nothing happens without conflict.
And trust me, most of the people around the world have no clue and the rest doesn't express it, because of the general dislike. Most people cannot connect domestic progress reflecting itself in international issues, or get the idea how solving the every day issues,development of a collective consiousness of a society determines far bigger acts in its influence.
QuoteStaver does not think Davis should have to adhere to the ruling because it violates her religious beliefs and was not part of the duties she was told she would have to fulfill when she was voted in as county clerk. “She didn’t sign up for this,†Staver said.
Apparently this jackwagon was too hungover to show up the day they learned what oaths are back in law school.
The last time I checked the office of clerk of courts isn't a job vacancy filled by conscription. It's not AS IF anyone has ever been forced to take the job of clerk of courts. If you happen to work as a clerk of courts there is no law requiring you to remain as a clerk of courts. You're free to quit and find a job sweeping out church basements if you object to the requirements of the job. You are required to fulfill the duties of the job as long as you have the job, otherwise quit and go flip burgers or whatever.
It's really not appropriate for a judge to say this, but any judge should just tell her she has no constitutional right to be a bigot and to shut the fuck up.
Actually she is perfectly within her rights to be a bigot. That's as it should be and its one of things that I think make this country a great place to live. People are allowed to believe what they want to believe and they're free to express those beliefs.
What she should not be allowed to do is deny others access to marriage licenses based on her own religious beliefs when she draws a government derived paycheck for issuing said licenses. She took an oath to perform her duties according to the laws of the state and country.
The fact that the laws have changed since she took the oath is of no consequence. No one can predict what the laws will be in the future and only an idiot would assume laws will never change. She took an oath to perform her duties no matter what the laws were. If she wasn't prepared to do that, she should have never taken the oath. But more importantly, if she's not prepared to do it now, then she has no business being employed in that job.
In the private sector? Have at it. Don't want to preform gay weddings or fix gay transmissions? Don't. And if you're smart, post that you won't on facebook so you can get a few death threats (or claim you did) and make a quick couple hundred grand from donations in the process. But that's a story for another thread. But if you have a government job, you leave your beliefs at the door or you go home.
Suppose she decided she didn't want to issue a marriage certificate to an atheist couple? Or, gasp, jews? She'd be fired so fast it'd make her head spin.
Hmmm..that gives me an idea. I could be a grifter posing as an anti gay, anti black, anti woman and anti whatever and rake in the bucks from the idiots gulible enough to send cash to support my phoney claims. Is there anyone who objects to taking the suckers money?