Stivers, in the above quote, said it rather well, I think. That's exactly what needs to be happening. Again, I refer you to the Supremacy Clause of the constitution...
Touching on your next point, I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure that the Nazis were democratic, at least amongst themselves.
As for your next point, about Davis being an elected official, you are indeed correct, and I was mistaken. That makes it far worse, in my opinion, as she is not representing the people who elected her. And while, yes, she can refuse on religious grounds, that refusal should come in the form of a resignation, not taking it upon herself to force her will on the people she is supposed to serve.
If she was, in fact, denied her right to a trial by jury, then that is a terrible abuse of power and should be dealt with appropriately. However, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not what she did was wrong. While important (if true), and relevant to society as a whole, it doesn't matter in this discussion. If you wish to discuss the matter of human rights, I'm open for it, but
me or make a journal for it or something, because it's a tad off-topic.
And again, she needs to demonstrate that issuing marriage license was against her religion. That's demonstrate, not state. If she did, feel free to link me to it and I'll concede this point, but nothing I've seen about her has indicated to me that she's done this. Many churches have their doctrine listed publicly... Maybe try there? And again, the Bible does not forbid same-sex marriage, or anything else that the government does, provided they do so under the authority of the government. (Luke 20:25 is something to the effect of "give to God what is God's and to Caeser what is Caeser's." Anyone who believes the bible as a whole must necessarily believe this.) Even Jesus was a proponent of the separation of church and state.
Lastly, the conflict between the Kentucky Constitution and the US Constitution is that the US Constitution says that these couples cannot be denied their right to marry, whereas you are stating that the Kentucky Constitution gives Davis the right to deny people the right to marry.
Touching on your next point, I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure that the Nazis were democratic, at least amongst themselves.
As for your next point, about Davis being an elected official, you are indeed correct, and I was mistaken. That makes it far worse, in my opinion, as she is not representing the people who elected her. And while, yes, she can refuse on religious grounds, that refusal should come in the form of a resignation, not taking it upon herself to force her will on the people she is supposed to serve.
If she was, in fact, denied her right to a trial by jury, then that is a terrible abuse of power and should be dealt with appropriately. However, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not what she did was wrong. While important (if true), and relevant to society as a whole, it doesn't matter in this discussion. If you wish to discuss the matter of human rights, I'm open for it, but
me or make a journal for it or something, because it's a tad off-topic.And again, she needs to demonstrate that issuing marriage license was against her religion. That's demonstrate, not state. If she did, feel free to link me to it and I'll concede this point, but nothing I've seen about her has indicated to me that she's done this. Many churches have their doctrine listed publicly... Maybe try there? And again, the Bible does not forbid same-sex marriage, or anything else that the government does, provided they do so under the authority of the government. (Luke 20:25 is something to the effect of "give to God what is God's and to Caeser what is Caeser's." Anyone who believes the bible as a whole must necessarily believe this.) Even Jesus was a proponent of the separation of church and state.
Lastly, the conflict between the Kentucky Constitution and the US Constitution is that the US Constitution says that these couples cannot be denied their right to marry, whereas you are stating that the Kentucky Constitution gives Davis the right to deny people the right to marry.
Those who elected Kim Davis were no doubt desiring exactly the outcome that she carried out, they were well aware what her beliefs were. Small community in Rowan County.
Were you aware that the "gay couples" that turned up there with the media didn't live in that county? It was a set-up.
She doesn't need to demonstrate that issuing a marriage license is against her religion - because that is NOT the reason she refused the marriage licences. She refused to issue them with her SIGNATURE because signing them with her name would be the same as supporting something (homosexual marriages) which actually was against her religious beliefs, and like 57 other clerks in Kentucky, Kim Davis requested the licenses be changed to not require their signature.
Your citing of a passage from the Bible in order to make an argument that Christians should support gay marriages is wrong, any well educated, and well read Christian can tell you why. Sodomy is specifically considered "a very bad thing", so are activities such as bestiality, sex with kids, etc.... ).
No, the USA constitution 1st amendment gives her the right to refuse to act against her own religious beliefs. The Kentucky constitution just happens to strengthen that point within the state of Kentucky. As an elected official in that state, she's also given something akin to diplomatic immunity, so sending her to prison as Judge David L Bunning did was waaaaay over the top violation of her rights. Especially as Judge David L Bunning couldn't cite any specific law that she'd broken. He couldn't even accuse her of being discriminating against gays. So, he resorted to an abuse of his position and charged her with "contempt of court".
Have you read the amendments?
Were you aware that the "gay couples" that turned up there with the media didn't live in that county? It was a set-up.
She doesn't need to demonstrate that issuing a marriage license is against her religion - because that is NOT the reason she refused the marriage licences. She refused to issue them with her SIGNATURE because signing them with her name would be the same as supporting something (homosexual marriages) which actually was against her religious beliefs, and like 57 other clerks in Kentucky, Kim Davis requested the licenses be changed to not require their signature.
Your citing of a passage from the Bible in order to make an argument that Christians should support gay marriages is wrong, any well educated, and well read Christian can tell you why. Sodomy is specifically considered "a very bad thing", so are activities such as bestiality, sex with kids, etc.... ).
No, the USA constitution 1st amendment gives her the right to refuse to act against her own religious beliefs. The Kentucky constitution just happens to strengthen that point within the state of Kentucky. As an elected official in that state, she's also given something akin to diplomatic immunity, so sending her to prison as Judge David L Bunning did was waaaaay over the top violation of her rights. Especially as Judge David L Bunning couldn't cite any specific law that she'd broken. He couldn't even accuse her of being discriminating against gays. So, he resorted to an abuse of his position and charged her with "contempt of court".
Have you read the amendments?
What about the couples that she refused? You mean to tell me that they wished not to receive a marriage license despite the fact that they went out of their way to file for one? I don't think that's very likely. Even if it were the case, I still think that she did the wrong thing by abusing her power as county clerk to force her agenda on others.
As for your second point, I don't know if any of the people denied marriage licenses were gay or not, and I don't feel that it's an important detail. If the local laws there state that one may only file for a marriage license in the county in which they live, then she was right to deny licenses to those people who lived outside of the county. However, she is still wrong to deny marriage licenses to the others simply to force her agenda on them.
As for your third point, I am not at all convinced that it is her religious beliefs which make her not want to sign. She was perfectly fine with signing them before, was she not? She needs to explain why it was okay then and not okay now. It has nothing whatsoever to do with one's sexual preference, because marriage does not imply that a couple will engage in any sort of sexual acts, nor does the decision by SCotUS say anything about sexuality other than that it should not bar one from marriage. I think that she, like so many others, is just butt-hurt and using the guise of religion as an excuse.
For your next point, yes, sodomy is condemned in the bible. So are a lot of other things. So what? We're talking about whether or not it is okay for Davis to deny other people their rights; sodomy has nothing to do with it. (Also, as a side note, pedophilia is NOT condemned in the bible. Remember that part where Moses tells the Israelites to kill all the men, male children, and adult women who were not virgins, but to keep the virgin girls for themselves? If you had read the book even half as thoroughly as I have you should probably be aware of these things.)
And for your last point, yes, I am familiar with the US Constitution as a whole, including the bill of rights and other amendments made over the years. However, three points need to be addressed:
1) She has not demonstrated that signing/issuing marriage licenses is condemned or forbidden by her religion,
2) She forced her will on others and violated their rights.
3) She acted as an agent of the government when she did so, which was not only an abuse of people, but of power.
As for Bunning, even if we grant, without question or contention, that what he did was completely immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional, it does not mean that what Davis did was right, so it's irrelevant to this conversation. This is simply a red herring to distract people from the other human rights violation that occurred in the county.
As for your second point, I don't know if any of the people denied marriage licenses were gay or not, and I don't feel that it's an important detail. If the local laws there state that one may only file for a marriage license in the county in which they live, then she was right to deny licenses to those people who lived outside of the county. However, she is still wrong to deny marriage licenses to the others simply to force her agenda on them.
As for your third point, I am not at all convinced that it is her religious beliefs which make her not want to sign. She was perfectly fine with signing them before, was she not? She needs to explain why it was okay then and not okay now. It has nothing whatsoever to do with one's sexual preference, because marriage does not imply that a couple will engage in any sort of sexual acts, nor does the decision by SCotUS say anything about sexuality other than that it should not bar one from marriage. I think that she, like so many others, is just butt-hurt and using the guise of religion as an excuse.
For your next point, yes, sodomy is condemned in the bible. So are a lot of other things. So what? We're talking about whether or not it is okay for Davis to deny other people their rights; sodomy has nothing to do with it. (Also, as a side note, pedophilia is NOT condemned in the bible. Remember that part where Moses tells the Israelites to kill all the men, male children, and adult women who were not virgins, but to keep the virgin girls for themselves? If you had read the book even half as thoroughly as I have you should probably be aware of these things.)
And for your last point, yes, I am familiar with the US Constitution as a whole, including the bill of rights and other amendments made over the years. However, three points need to be addressed:
1) She has not demonstrated that signing/issuing marriage licenses is condemned or forbidden by her religion,
2) She forced her will on others and violated their rights.
3) She acted as an agent of the government when she did so, which was not only an abuse of people, but of power.
As for Bunning, even if we grant, without question or contention, that what he did was completely immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional, it does not mean that what Davis did was right, so it's irrelevant to this conversation. This is simply a red herring to distract people from the other human rights violation that occurred in the county.
She refused EVERYONE. Kim Davis never issued a single marriage license to anyone.
No exceptions. Were you even aware of this fact? Of course you are - but it seems you prefer to ignore it.
This is getting ridiculous. Seems to me that whenever a point is raised that refutes your assumptions utterly and completely, you just skip by and pretend it was never mentioned. Trolls and shills do that.
It's already abundantly clear that gay marriage is against actual Christian belief - despite some trying to pretend otherwise by use of misquoting and out-of-context words. Why do you keep up this charade that Kim Davis has to prove what is already well known?! Also paedophilia is condemned by the Bible, referring to the OT proves that you don't know what Christianity is about, but then you also tried to claim that homosexuality isn't condemned by the Bible. You're intentionally spouting bullshit.
Kim Davis is NOT an employee, she's an elected official.
She didn't force her will on anyone, nor deny anyone's rights.
Honestly, I've lost patience with you. You are simply repeating the same lies and misleading claims that were refuted by the facts already. *rolleyes*
Goodbye.
No exceptions. Were you even aware of this fact? Of course you are - but it seems you prefer to ignore it.
This is getting ridiculous. Seems to me that whenever a point is raised that refutes your assumptions utterly and completely, you just skip by and pretend it was never mentioned. Trolls and shills do that.
It's already abundantly clear that gay marriage is against actual Christian belief - despite some trying to pretend otherwise by use of misquoting and out-of-context words. Why do you keep up this charade that Kim Davis has to prove what is already well known?! Also paedophilia is condemned by the Bible, referring to the OT proves that you don't know what Christianity is about, but then you also tried to claim that homosexuality isn't condemned by the Bible. You're intentionally spouting bullshit.
Kim Davis is NOT an employee, she's an elected official.
She didn't force her will on anyone, nor deny anyone's rights.
Honestly, I've lost patience with you. You are simply repeating the same lies and misleading claims that were refuted by the facts already. *rolleyes*
Goodbye.
She really never issued one? Not since she was elected back in 2014? Not one person in that county was legally married in those 6+ months?
Now I'm more sure than ever that you're just making things up.
I'm through talking with you. You don't listen, you don't research, and you throw out one red herring after another hoping to somehow stump me even when I am demonstrably right about the point of contention.
This conversation is over
Now I'm more sure than ever that you're just making things up.
I'm through talking with you. You don't listen, you don't research, and you throw out one red herring after another hoping to somehow stump me even when I am demonstrably right about the point of contention.
This conversation is over
You already KNOW that she didn't issue a single licence, you liar.