KY - Rowan County clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt, 2015

[Irisha]

Thank you, you beat me to it. Her Christianity is not the issue here, at least not for me (aside from my disdain for what I perceive as her hypocrisy).

The issue is that as a government employee, she is not allowed to deny citizens their legal rights based on her own personal beliefs. She is obligated to follow the law whether she personally agrees with it or not.

And this is true whether she is a Christian or a member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

SBM

OMG I love Spaghetti, where's this church at?

 

[zippitydoda]

I think in some strange way that it is good for society to have someone like this woman be seen for what they really are. When someone seeks a position of authority, and then uses that authority to negatively affect others for their own personal reasons - it becomes a problem for everyone. She will eventually fade from this attention, but there are others just like her, who clothe themselves in righteousness to justify their hatred.

http://www.lex18.com/story/29933844/kim-davis-releases-statement

I lost count as to how many times she uses the words "I" and "me" in her statement. She appears to be a "right fighter" and I don't think she is capable of thinking that its not about her and what she wants, its about obeying the laws her clerk position is required to follow.

 

[zwiebel]

Thought peeps on this thread might be interested; back in 2013 in (usually) very easygoing Islington, in London, England had a very similar kind of controversy. Marriage registrar Lillian Ladele wanted to opt out of conducting same sex marriages due to her Christian beliefs, and brought a case against her district employers for discrimination because they said no.

She originally won but the case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights where her district employers won on the grounds it had a duty to prevent discrimination against gay people. She's working elsewhere now.

*There is a firm delineation between church and state marriages in England, as far as I recollect. So the end result (I think) is that same sex couples can be legally married by public officials throughout the country (and those public officials can't refuse) but the Church of England will only carry out optional 'blessing services' for same sex couples in churches, which have no legal standing.

Feel free to correct me, anyone with more up to date info!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iage-no-opt-out-for-Christian-registrars.html

 

[bluesneakers]

I think in some strange way that it is good for society to have someone like this woman be seen for what they really are. When someone seeks a position of authority, and then uses that authority to negatively affect others for their own personal reasons - it becomes a problem for everyone. She will eventually fade from this attention, but there are others just like her, who clothe themselves in righteousness to justify their hatred.

http://www.lex18.com/story/29933844/kim-davis-releases-statement

I lost count as to how many times she uses the words "I" and "me" in her statement. She appears to be a "right fighter" and I don't think she is capable of thinking that its not about her and what she wants, its about obeying the laws her clerk position is required to follow.

You are right. She makes it very clear this is all about her. She even says Jesus "loves me and gave His life for me." [emphasis mine]

From her statement:
"But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God. I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience."

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

I think it's time for her to make a choice.

 

[Irisha]

My mother would say "She's full of herself."

Give your mother a :websleuther::highfive::scale: group hug < missing that emo's. Also tell her she very gracious in how she states it. I'm not have no tolerance for ill willed people.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Can anyone here point me to the specific Bible verses she's referencing in which Jesus teaches against gay marriage?

 

[KaaBoom]

She should do her job or resign. That being said, there are some on this thread criticizing her actions as a Christian.

I find it very interesting that her religious beliefs are so important to her that she can't do her job and issue marriage licenses to gays, but not so important that she is willing to resign her job. So her job is more important then her Christian beliefs. That kind of makes her case for being a martyr kind of weak. IMHO.

 

[TorisMom003]

Can anyone here point me to the specific Bible verses she's referencing in which Jesus teaches against gay marriage?

While I can not point out what specific Bible verses she's referencing, I can say that there are NO Bible verses in which Jesus teaches against gay marriage. There are Bible verses about marriage between men and women but none specifying about gay marriage. I found the following link that has the marriage Bible verses together.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/marriage-bible-verses/

ETA: There are Bible verses that speak against man being with man in the same way he is with woman. Two follow.
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

 

[bluesneakers]

I find it very interesting that her religious beliefs are so important to her that she can't do her job and issue marriage licenses to gays, but not so important that she is willing to resign her job. So her job is more important then her Christian beliefs. That kind of makes her case for being a martyr kind of weak. IMHO.

The job (ie, money) vs. her beliefs is what made me think of the two masters verse. I think that's her answer right there. She's trying to serve both and it's not working.

 

[LinasK]

I think in some strange way that it is good for society to have someone like this woman be seen for what they really are. When someone seeks a position of authority, and then uses that authority to negatively affect others for their own personal reasons - it becomes a problem for everyone. She will eventually fade from this attention, but there are others just like her, who clothe themselves in righteousness to justify their hatred.

http://www.lex18.com/story/29933844/kim-davis-releases-statement

I lost count as to how many times she uses the words "I" and "me" in her statement. She appears to be a "right fighter" and I don't think she is capable of thinking that its not about her and what she wants, its about obeying the laws her clerk position is required to follow.

Hopefully it will force Kentucky to reexamine it's laws. I just can't believe she makes $80,000 just to do that job!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[LinasK]

I find it very interesting that her religious beliefs are so important to her that she can't do her job and issue marriage licenses to gays, but not so important that she is willing to resign her job. So her job is more important then her Christian beliefs. That kind of makes her case for being a martyr kind of weak. IMHO.

Her job is more important to her because it's an $80,000/year position!!!

 

[TorisMom003]

It appears Mr. Davis was a little quick in speaking on behalf of the son that worked with Mrs. Davis. As the son is not sitting in a jail cell with his mother, it appears that he agreed to issue marriage licenses to all couples. Since there has been no word that he quit his job, and I feel sure that information would be told if he had, he apparently believes that his job is more important than standing by his mother and her husbands ideas.

MOO

 

[bluesneakers]

While I can not point out what specific Bible verses she's referencing, I can say that there are NO Bible verses in which Jesus teaches against gay marriage. There are Bible verses about marriage between men and women but none specifying about gay marriage. I found the following link that has the marriage Bible verses together.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/marriage-bible-verses/

ETA: There are Bible verses that speak against man being with man in the same way he is with woman. Two follow.
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

After reading these I have gained zero insight into why she's doing what she's doing, or what her point is, but I sure do like this verse:

Deuteronomy 24:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

The issue is that as a government employee, she is not allowed to deny citizens their legal rights based on her own personal beliefs. She is obligated to follow the law whether she personally agrees with it or not.

And this is true whether she is a Christian or a member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

SBM

OMG I love Spaghetti, where's this church at?

Google is your friend. :wink:

 

[K_Z]

Thought peeps on this thread might be interested; back in 2013 in (usually) very easygoing Islington, in London, England had a very similar kind of controversy. Marriage registrar Lillian Ladele wanted to opt out of conducting same sex marriages due to her Christian beliefs, and brought a case against her district employers for discrimination because they said no.

She originally won but the case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights where her district employers won on the grounds it had a duty to prevent discrimination against gay people. She's working elsewhere now.

*There is a firm delineation between church and state marriages in England, as far as I recollect. So the end result (I think) is that same sex couples can be legally married by public officials throughout the country (and those public officials can't refuse) but the Church of England will only carry out optional 'blessing services' for same sex couples in churches, which have no legal standing.

Feel free to correct me, anyone with more up to date info!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iage-no-opt-out-for-Christian-registrars.html

IMO, part of the problem we have now is the use of the word "marriage" in government and civil affairs.

IMO, the word "marriage" should be left up to churches to define and decide who they will bless or "marry" in their membership populations.

If we inserted the word "civil" before the word marriage in State, federal, and local rules, regulations, and laws, or substituted some other phrase that omits the word marriage, a lot of these religious issues would be moved back into religious institutions where they belong, IMO. Government agencies should not be in the business of licensing "marriage". They should be in the business of determining if the civil domestic union is a lawful contract, and issuing a permit.

All citizens would then be free to "marry", or not marry in the church/ faith/ philosophy of their choice, or not. Free to have a civil domestic union contract, or not. Free to have both. The only one that would "count" legally would be the civil union. It would be the ultimate way to "level the playing field" for everyone.

And it would more clearly define for everyone that this kind of workplace disobedience is grounds for termination for not doing your job under the law, and not some kind of religious civil rights stand.

I personally think we need to pass many more laws strengthening the separation between church and state-- our growing religious and cultural diversity as a nation will demand it, IMO.

I also think there should be many more clearly defined limits as to what kind of accommodations a civil workplace should have to make for an employee's personal religious beliefs or expressions of those beliefs. JMO.

 

[lonetraveler]

Yes, I saw that. I hope you don't think I was disagreeing with you. I was just adding my own superfluous agreement to what you wrote.

Thank you for the backup.

 

[lonetraveler]

IMO, part of the problem we have now is the use of the word "marriage" in government and civil affairs.

IMO, the word "marriage" should be left up to churches to define and decide who they will bless or "marry" in their membership populations.

If we inserted the word "civil" before the word marriage in State, federal, and local rules, regulations, and laws, or substituted some other phrase that omits the word marriage, a lot of these religious issues would be moved back into religious institutions where they belong, IMO. Government agencies should not be in the business of licensing "marriage". They should be in the business of determining if the civil domestic union is a lawful contract, and issuing a permit.

All citizens would then be free to "marry", or not marry in the church/ faith/ philosophy of their choice, or not. Free to have a civil domestic union contract, or not. Free to have both. The only one that would "count" legally would be the civil union. It would be the ultimate way to "level the playing field" for everyone.

And it would more clearly define for everyone that this kind of workplace disobedience is grounds for termination for not doing your job under the law, and not some kind of religious civil rights stand.

I personally think we need to pass many more laws strengthening the separation between church and state-- our growing religious and cultural diversity as a nation will demand it, IMO.

I also think there should be many more clearly defined limits as to what kind of accommodations a civil workplace should have to make for an employee's personal religious beliefs or expressions of those beliefs. JMO.

You know, Davis was not asked to "marry" anyone, she was expected to issue a marriage license to two people who have the right to "legally" get married.

 

[LinasK]

You know, Davis was not asked to "marry" anyone, she was expected to issue a marriage license to two people who have the right to "legally" get married.

From the way she's acting, you would've thought she was...

 

[flourish]

From the way she's acting, you would've thought she was...

https://youtu.be/zFosUj6A22c

 

[Nova]

Thought peeps on this thread might be interested; back in 2013 in (usually) very easygoing Islington, in London, England had a very similar kind of controversy. Marriage registrar Lillian Ladele wanted to opt out of conducting same sex marriages due to her Christian beliefs, and brought a case against her district employers for discrimination because they said no.

She originally won but the case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights where her district employers won on the grounds it had a duty to prevent discrimination against gay people. She's working elsewhere now.

*There is a firm delineation between church and state marriages in England, as far as I recollect. So the end result (I think) is that same sex couples can be legally married by public officials throughout the country (and those public officials can't refuse) but the Church of England will only carry out optional 'blessing services' for same sex couples in churches, which have no legal standing.

Feel free to correct me, anyone with more up to date info!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iage-no-opt-out-for-Christian-registrars.html

No, it appears you are correct. Same-sex couples cannot be legally married in the Church of England. Frankly, I'm shocked to learn they are so backward. Although some Episcopal Churches have withdrawn from the Episcopal union (whatever it's called in North America), thousands of others now allow same-sex marriages and conduct them in the same manner as mixed-sex marriages.

When gay marriage first because legal here in California, our local (Palm Springs) Episcopal church was the FIRST in town to announce it would consecrate gay marriages henceforth.