Is Kim Davis a hero?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 8 years ago

   
   According to Fox News, a ton of republicans are calling Kim Davis a hero for not doing her job, and not issuing marriage licenses to gay people because it's against her religion.  GOP presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz are supporting her, so what are your thoughts?  Is she a hero for exercising her religious rights to not do her job?  Or do you think otherwise?  Please discuss. 
   
   Personally, I think it's sad we're throwing the word, "hero", around so loosely these days, as I always thought a hero was someone like a fireman, police officer, military solider. doctor or even a damn teacher.  Hell, I would even call a parent that works one or two full time jobs to support their family a real hero, but to call this woman a hero for not doing her job?  That sounds crazy to me, but what do I know?

   replyreport
   1. 40

      Bentlymontclaireposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No, personally I don't consider her acts heroic. One should do what the job requires especially when dealing with law. Her reasoning is due to her Christian beliefs .This is what can happen or worse when one's religion interfere with their job and others civil rights. At the end of the day everyone is going to hell on there merrits.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Kim Davis is furthest from the definition of hero.  A hero is someone who does something uplifting and positive for humankind.  A hero thinks of others before h/she thinks of himself/herself and act accordingly. A hero does not permit his/her spirituality or personal feelings/beliefs preclude him/her from doing what is conclusive to uplift/help humanity.  Well by that definition, Ms. Davis is the total antithesis of what a hero is.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Perfect!

         replyreport
   3. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      She is using her position to communicate a truth. She is against people of the same sex being legally married. She is standing against the politicians who put this into law. The majority did not weigh in on it. She is rebelling as one of the majority.
        Unless the majority has changed their minds.
      
      It should have been left up to the states.
      I say its a good fight and someone needs to do it. Why not someone in such a position? She got her job back… that tells you something.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Anna C Taylorposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Her job is to uphold the law and she isn't doing it. In any other job that would be grounds to be fired.
         
         I get standing up for what you believe in, I really do. While I personally disagree massively with her beliefs she has the right to have them. Free country and all. What she doesn't have the right to do is to ignore the law and impose her beliefs on others.
         
         A hero is a teacher, a soldier, a doctor, a helper. A hero isn't someone who purposefully hurts others.
         
         She got her job back because we have a broken system.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            She is rebelling against a law that should not have been implemented.
            She speaks for them as well, one presumes.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Paul Wingertposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               She's an idiot and needs to resign and get her job back at McDonalds.

               replyreport
   4. 78

      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Let the fun begin? 
      "Hit Kim Davis with Marriage Applications in New Android Game"
      https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/hit-kim-da … 57215.html

      replyreport
   5. 82

      Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I really want to see the reaction of Davis and her supporters when a Muslim government employee stops doing his or her job, because it's not compliant with his interpretation of Sharia. Like a Muslim employee at the DMV refusing to issue driving licenses to women because they don't want to endorse something that is against their religious beliefs (some Muslims do not believe women should be allowed to drive).
      
      As this is all about "religious freedom", all the arguments Davis' lawyers have made would equally apply surely. I'd love to ask if Davis if she thinks the state has an obligation to accommodate the refusal in the above scenario? And whether the state would be impinging on the employee's "religious freedom" if it didn't? I can only imagine the mental gymnastics they would do to suggest that it's not the same. Would be fun to watch.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         It would be fun at that - almost as much fun as watching Davis use her "voice for God" to force her religion onto others while claiming she is not doing just that.

         replyreport
2. 0

   thegeckoposted 8 years ago

   Fox News is nothing more than a tabloid channel catering to a certain demographic of the Republican party and conservative right, riddled with misinformation, conspiracy theories, and outright lies. No one should take them seriously and they should not be allowed to promote their brand of reality opinion shows as news. Kim Davis is not a hero. George Washington was a hero. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi were heroes. Davis is merely a prime representative of a large segment of America continuing to subdue our country under backward and bigotted agendas making us a culture to be mocked at by much of the modern industrialized world.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Do You Mean Like ALL the others ? MSNBC ? CNN ? No, she is no particular hero , though I commend her for standing for Something . My opinion is that most Americans these days  , FALL for anything !

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      THANK YOU, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

      replyreport
   3. 57

      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      thegecko ~ ABSOLUTELY ~

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I disagree.

         replyreport
3. 60

   Live to Learnposted 8 years ago

   I don't see her as a hero. I see her as a malcontent who will do anything to harass people whose lifestyle she doesn't participate in.
   
   I could be wrong, but I assume Kentucky is the same as other states. She isn't a justice of the peace and she is not a preacher. She is simply a clerk. This new stance of hers, to alter the paperwork with some childish wording, is nothing more than petty behavior by a little person with a little mind.

   replyreport
4. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 8 years ago

   She needs to do her job.  Period.  I give her credit for saying she is forgiven for the less thank Godly life she has lived, but that has nothing to do with her doing her job.  If she really wants to live her convictions she should resign and leave the job to someone else.

   replyreport
5. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago

   Kim Davis is the George Wallace of our time.  She will go down in history as a bigot.  If she were truly principled, she would resign.  Instead, she is trying to force her personal religious beliefs into her role as an elected official.  She is supposed to serve everyone, not just those who behave according to her personal beliefs.

   replyreport
6. 78

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   I think too much has been made of the Kim Davis story by making an example of her. There are many other cases of refusing to perform same sex marriages going on around the country.  No one else is going to jail over it. 
   
   I have a life long friend that just got married this past week, a same sex marriage.  I support them in their choice although I do not agree that they are married even though they have a license. 
   
   I may as well hop on the wheel with the gerbils now...

   replyreport
7. 60

   janesixposted 8 years ago

   She should do her job or be fired. Simple as that.
   
   Sending her to jail is ridiculous though. I think that was overboard.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      She is an elected official and cannot be fired.  She must be impeached, and my understanding is that it cannot be done until the next election cycle.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
      
      As far as jail goes, she disobeyed a court order and was held in contempt of court.  Therefore, jail time.  That was her choice and her own doing.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The attorney's asked for a fine, but the judge said that any fine would simply be paid by her millions of supporters, with no penalty or effect on Davis.  Thinking about it, the judge was correct and thus the jail time.  Of course, even after jail I don't she understands yet that she is not above the law of the land regardless of what she thinks her god says or wants.
      
      PP - I believe she could be impeached at any time, but considering where she lives it will never happen.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      calculus-geometryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      She can't be "fired" in the usual sense because she was elected to the position, not appointed.  Impeachment takes longer.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         janesixposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah I didn't know that at first.

         replyreport
8. 86

   rebekahELLEposted 8 years ago

   I don't think the two are synonymous in any way.  Heroes are people (and numerous courageous dogs) that anyone and everyone can look up to and admire for their courage and compassion for all living things.   She is more about self-righteous, 'look at me', religious extremism.  It doesn't bring people together, it divides and breeds intolerance.

   replyreport
9. 60

   janesixposted 8 years ago

   No Kim Davis is NOT a hero, she is simply a bigot who abuses what little power she has.

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    The sad part is , How could anyone not have realized that this entire gay marriage thing wouldn't destroy careers , definitely  alter  a lot of lives ,  transform about  any public office and job in the country .   All for the benefit of  a small percentage of  those gays  who will marry .   Was it really worth it  to alter forever the institution of marriage and  many, many jobs  simply because  of ones belief in  changing traditional Christian marriage .   I for one , still believe it should have ended at  civil unions !
    
    It is ALL simply about forcibly changing  everyone's  acceptance and opinion of Gays , but for who's benefit ,  for who's  reward .  To bad the , cities , states and courts folded  just to save legal fees .  Those who  don't accept gays and their legal  manifest's , still won't  .

    replyreport
    1. 60

       janesixposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       This has nothing to do with Christians. It has to do with rights, which has nothing to do with any particular religion.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Could you give us some idea as to how two people of the same sex being allowed to marry has destroyed careers, altered lives of those other than the two getting married, transformed public office and every job in the country?  Because, I think two people in love being allowed to enjoy the benefits of love is very important. Even if it is one couple out of a million that doesn't imply that they shouldn't have the same rights to happiness as the other 999,999.
       
       Could you explain how this changes the institution of marriage, other than allowing two people of the same sex to claim they are married? I honestly think the institution of marriage has had some pretty drastic changes over the last 50 years that are more earth shattering and family damaging than gay marriage.
       
       Actually, if you could tell me how two people of the same sex who want to be married negatively affects your ability to live a full and happy life I'd appreciate it.

       replyreport
11. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    And yet , like Kim Davis  whom I don't particularly support , you all cannot see how it all can destroy some lives , how blind !

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       You can either share an example or some might assume you are just making this up as you go. Whose life is ruined by another person's happiness?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Good luck with getting a direct answer to a direct question. 
          
          

          replyreport
       2. 67

          A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          He means all the bigots that decided to close down businesses so that they didn't have to make cakes for gay people or rent out their spaces for gay weddings, etc. because they didn't want to be sued for not wanting to do it. I say good riddance. They were in the wrong business anyway. The public sector is the public sector.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Oh. OK. That's a valid complaint to some. I've had this discussion with people and there are those who believe that a privately owned company should have the right to deny service on grounds of conscience. They do bristle when I remind them of the fact that once accepted racial discrimination is now seen as ludicrous by the majority of the population.
             
             Although as a business owner I am inclined to believe that the person whose blood, sweat and tears built that business should be given ample latitude to conduct their business in a manner that they are comfortable with I also believe that we should take every opportunity to attempt to understand why we object to the things we object to and change our attitudes when we find ourselves in the wrong; not to obstinately remain intractable. But, I do also think that the person who wants to be the customer has an obligation to do the same; and have some compassion for the human being on the other side of the problem.

             replyreport
             1. 94

                wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                As I see it, any business should be able to refuse service to individuals.  Drunk, obnoxious, etc. 
                
                But not to whole classes/groups.  Refusing service because of skin color, sex, religious affiliation or belief, etc. is something we need to stamp out, not allow or encourage.  It may be offensive in some cases (Kim Davis) but it is necessary for the continuity and peace of our country.  Recognizing that we live in a society and that doing so requires a loss of some freedom, the loss of freedom to discriminate against a group of people we don't like does far more damage to the country as a whole than being forced to accept everyone does to an individual person or company.  We do NOT need yet another "second class" citizenry to be abused at will by the bigoted.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   And I agree. But what do we do with those who don't agree, whose services are not essential and, by nature, usually religious in why the service is traditionally needed? Are we going to force the mohel to circumcise babies at a catholic christening, or prohibit him from performing the ceremony for jewish babies? Do we insist that the muslim not wear a hijab because we don't like the custom, or force everyone to wear a hijab so they will feel more comfortable? Do we incarcerate the store clerks with foreign accents who make it very clear that they are working diligently to ensure there is no skin contact in the exchange of funds at the cash register because..I don't really know why, but it does irritate me.
                   
                   It isn't a simple question of whether or not you and I agree to what is good and right. The government has an obligation to protect the right of each and every individual to a reasonable expectation of the ability to pursue happiness. And I do agree that gay couples should be allowed to be seen by our government as married in the eyes of the law.  But, we do not have the right to force a minister of any particular religion to marry them. We do not have the right to force anyone to participate in that ceremonial process. If the cake maker isn't going out of their way to impede that couple's ability to marry I'm not sure I see where it is their obligation to create a cake just because they've been asked to. I would make the cake. Lots of people would be happy to make the cake. Many businesses would be thrilled with the patronage. Why must we force, penalize and/or harass one business who quietly says no?

                   replyreport
                   1. 80

                      jlparkposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      If you are referring to Sweet Cakes By Melissa - the refusal to bake the cake was actually the smallest part of it. Aaron (melissa's husband) posted personal details of the couple who they had declined the cake for on his personal Facebook page, which lead to threats (including death threats from memory) against the couple who dared to ask for a wedding cake and happened to be gay.
                      
                      So, as a gay woman, I'm ok with people declining to bake my wedding cake, as long as that is where it ends for me - i go on my way and have another person's business bake my cake (and recommend my friends not to frequent the originally declining bakery...as is my right, as is anyones right). But if my details are posted, because I dared to ask for a cake to be made...by a baker who makes cakes...for my same sex marriage celebration...then there is LEGALLY a problem.
                      
                      So, if they quietly say no, and unfortunately bear the brunt of bad publicity for that (because, if someone is upset about being denied, they are likely to tell others...), then fine. When they go out of their way to make the life of someone else who's sexuality they disagree with difficult....there in lies the problem.
                      
                      I would never want anyone who didn't agree that I was equal to them, my relationship was equal to them, to be associated with my happy day, so I'd hope people say "sorry, but no"...so I can take my business elsewhere.
                      
                      There is usually a bigger picture to the ones that make the news - and depending on media reporting you'll get one side or the other, but never both at the same time (or on the same channel!)

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                         I wasn't referring to any particular case and I was not aware of the one you mentioned here. But, I agree with you on all counts and believe you have a healthy attitude toward the dilemma.

                         replyreport
    2. 67

       A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Everything is going to effect some lives. "Destroy" is a little dramatic. LoL. I'm sure many of the white plantation owners felt like their lives were "destroyed" when blacks became free. So what? I'm happy to at least not be born that kind of slave, though we're nearly all modern day slaves in this day and age, but that's another conversation entirely.

       replyreport
12. 57

    Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

    Is anyone genuinely surprised that conservative republicans are cheering this self centered, media mongrel as a "HERO" ~
    
    She is trying desperately to OBSTRUCT Gay Individuals from Marriage, this is the epitome of "Righteous Behavior" to republicans, as unlawful and despicable as it truly is ~

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Wrong terminology - it isn't "conservative republicans" that are cheering, it's the radical Christians.  Much like claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, you're putting the face of a few onto a whole group - while there are radical Christians in the ranks of republicans (just as there are some in the ranks of Democrats) it is wrong to assume the entire party fits that description.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          wilderness ~ You might be correct in republican "Pretend Land" but here in the REAL world you're not ~
          
          I'm absolutely using the CORRECT Terminology ~ The Vast Majority of conservatives have OPPOSED Gay Rights since the begining of time while Progressive Democrats have strived mightily to bring about this ground breaking Supreme Court Decision which now affords common sense EQUALITY to Gay Individuals ~
          
          Now, the same conservative republicans who tried to PROLONG the inevitable, gleefully condone this demented woman's illegal actions of Obstructing Gay Marriage ~ She needs to be REMOVED from office ASAP ~

          replyreport
          1. 94

             wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Absolutely.  That explains why, with the country roughly divided equally between Democrat and Republican, gay rights have triumphed.  Because all R's oppose it.  Got it.
             
             Absolutely she needs removed; such "law making" is intolerable.  From a Conservative Republican, I might add...

             replyreport
             1. 78

                colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I might add "hog wash"...
                Or, is that PC incorrect now?
                "Pork"  or "bacon" seems to be.

                replyreport
                1. 94

                   wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   I prefer "baloney!", but then I'm from another generation.

                   replyreport
                   1. 78

                      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      It is incorrect to call a manhole and manhole now.
                      It is utility hole or maintenance hole. 

                      replyreport
       2. 78

          colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, I may be more conservative on points.
          I may be more liberal "on points".
          I do not think you are in pretend land for a second.

          replyreport
13. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    I will clarify , I am not opposed to gay rights , not at all  !   But there has to be a point where  , in defense of the marriage institution  , one can oppose  Gay Marriage without being labeled  . Or for that matter , losing their job    I don't get why that's so hard for the "liberal intellectual " to understand .     I opposed gay's being  allowed marriage .    Nor will I apologize for it . JMO!

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       But that point ends at your personal decision not to marry the same sex.  It does not include discrimination of others that DO wish such a marriage, and it certainly does not include forbidding them to do so.

       replyreport
    2. 67

       A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       A lot of white people used to be, and quite frankly some still are, opposed to black people being able to marry white people. At one point, it was against the law. Scripture was used to defend those stances, as well... I'm sure many people still feel the same way you do towards gay people. "Well sure they can do their own thing, you know. 'Separate, but equal.'" What's worse is that people want to keep gay people from -get this- marrying each other... Makes a whole lot of sense... They're still gay. They're still having gay sex. LoL. The only difference is that they stop being lesser citizens. God forbid that happens...

       replyreport
14. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Sometimes I wonder ,  recently near here a new bed and breakfast  and function facility  opened  ,   almost immediately  was sued by a gay couple for refusing to book a gay wedding  celebration ,  by now they have accrued  thousands and thousands of dollars of legal expenses , at the same time the state  started allowing gay weddings .   
    
    If , in  the moral or religious  compass of the owners , they are disgusted with the ideas  of gays , does that mean that they HAVE to serve them ?
    Would you ? 
    Can they not , like all business' , refuse to serve anyone?
    What gay couple would even WANT to be married there to begin with  , except for political activists? And that is my question.

    replyreport
15. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Everyone is all about ' political correctness' , except when that 'political  correctness'  is all about   traditional beliefs , .......interesting !

    replyreport
16. 58

    Amonisblogposted 8 years ago

    Agreed with the last paragragh!!

    replyreport
17. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    I believe that Kim Davis is enjoying the attention ride  ,   at this point , gays have won the right to marry through the threat of  financial  and  legal attritional warfare .  Most states actually caved to gay marriage because of this , I do give her credit for standing up for her beliefs though  ,  rather than liberally falling for anything , as many here have , 
    
    And to associate this with racism is simply wrong yet so politically correct    [ for A Thousand Words } !   Somehow I believe every controversial issue  becomes one of racism , please ! ......get real .

    replyreport
    1. 78

       colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Peoples' fear of the spreading of the truth! When the truth doesn't match their twisted thinking then its considered 'racist'.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          As it has nothing to do with race, I'd say the appropriate terms to use would be "discrimination" and "prejudice."

          replyreport
    2. 60

       Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       It is compared to racism solely because there was a time when racism was considered to be biblically correct. That has passed to the wayside. Perhaps the same will be said about this current hatred 50 years from now.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          psycheskinnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Also because marrying across race used to be illegal and a mixed marriage was refused by a judge as recently as last year. The parallel is bindingly obvious.

          replyreport
    3. 67

       A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know how politically correct it is. I just know that it's true... A group of people being denied rights because they're different from the "norm." Sounds about right. You don't get to marry, but we'll give you "Civil Unions." You will not be served in our establishments. Etc.

       replyreport
    4. 82

       Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       So in the case of a Muslim employee at the DMV who refuses to issue driving licenses to women on the basis of "god's authority" (some Muslims do not believe women should be allowed to drive), can I assume you would also give them credit for standing up for their beliefs and not "liberally falling for anything" too?

       replyreport
18. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Don W , In a Muslim country fine , in America no !

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Can we infer, then, that Americans (perhaps because we're a "Christian nation" full of atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and everything else under the sun) should be required to follow Christian edicts?
       
       If not, I fail to understand the difference between Muslim countries and ours: Davis is forcing her religious views on others just as Muslims do.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          + 1 bazillion (That's not a real number, but, you get the gist!)

          replyreport
    2. 82

       Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       What's the difference between a Christian refusing to issue a marriage license on the grounds of religious conviction, and a Muslim refusing to issue a driving license on the grounds of religious conviction? If it's all about "religious" freedom, then that applies to all religions, right?

       replyreport
19. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    if I were gay and had gone to KIm Davis'  office to get a marriage certificate and couldn't ;......I would go elsewhere  and get one  !    But then - doing that would get me on the major network TV news would it ?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Kim Davis is elected to serve all citizens, not just those she approves of, but then, doing that wouldn't get her on the major network TV news, would it?
       
       
       
       This image says it all. 

       replyreport
       1. 78

          colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          The picture is representative of Exodus 17:11-12?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Now she's Moses?

             replyreport
    2. 94

       wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       You would be happy driving to the next county because the clerk YOU pay the salary for ignores the orders of the SCOTUS in favor of her personal religious beliefs being forced onto you?
       
       You are far more forgiving of bigotry than I would be.  And of public employees refusing to do their job, or re-writing laws to conform to their personal belief.

       replyreport
    3. 82

       Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       It's not about that. Belief in Christian religious doctrine is not the criteria for whether someone is entitled to a government service. By withholding a government service on those grounds, Davis has established Christianity as the de facto religion of Rowan County, in direct violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
       
       In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to receive a marriage license. So that right is protected under Constitutional law. If they are refused that right in Rowan County, then they are being denied the equal protection of the law in violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, that says no State shall ". . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
       
       State government employees cannot choose which Constitutional rights to observe based on personal beliefs. That defeats the object of having a Constitution. Federal and State government employees (who represent the Federal and State governments respectively) have a duty to act in accordance with the Constitution, regardless of their personal beliefs. If they sincerely feel there is a clash between upholding the Constitutional rights of individuals, and their personal beliefs, then they are free to relinquish their position as a government employee. But they are not free to simply ignore the Constitution.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you.

          replyreport
    4. 67

       A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       I think Wilderness hit the nail in the head with his response. While, personally, I would go elsewhere if a private establishment decided I wasn't welcome there (of course it wouldn't be without consequence), this is a different situation. A worker such as herself doesn't have that luxury. She is to serve ALL people that are getting married legally; whether she believes they should be or not is irrelevant. She doesn't have to recognize their marriage. She does have to do her job.

       replyreport
20. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Interesting take on the constitutional controversy  , as what happens between the state and the feds is   A balance of sorts  that may very well become imbalanced in the future . Perhaps even causing a   repeal of  gay rights to marriage .   No,  one doesn't necessarily have to honor the federal  law in all cases .

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Sheriff Mariposa seems to have found out different.  What cases are you thinking of?

       replyreport
    2. 82

       Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ". . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (my emphasis)
       (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution)
       http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte … 27.html#14
       
       That seems pretty unambiguous.
       
       But if you still think there is some ambiguity, Kim Davis has also violated the oath of office for state government employees, under section 228 of the Kentucky constitution:
       
       "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .....  according to law;"  (my emphasis)
       (Kentucky Constitution, Section 228, Oath of officers and attorneys)
       http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/legresou/constitu/228.htm
       
       And in addition to that, her oath of office as a county clerk under Kentucky statute law:
       
       "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ......County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." (my emphasis)
       (Kentucky Revised Statutes, Title IV, Judicial Branch, Chapter 30A, Section 20)
       http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176
       
       In addition to that, it is also crime under Kentucky statute law for a government official to refrain from performing a duty imposed on them by virtue of their office:
       
       "A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly:
       (a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
       (b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office; or
       (c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. " (my emphasis)
       (Kentucky Revised Statutes, Title L - Kentucky Penal Code, Chapter 522, Abuse of Public Office)
       http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19888
       
       So no, there is no ambiguity here. Kim Davis has violated both the US and Kentucky constitutions, her oath of office, and the law.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          A Thousand Wordsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          LoL. Would it be weird to say Amen?

          replyreport
          1. 80

             jlparkposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Nah...It fits!

             replyreport
21. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Welcome to America , The New land of the free and the home of  anything goes  and God help you if you buck the new ,quickly changing , politically correct  system .

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Don Wposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Is it political correctness to uphold the US and State Constitutions, the law and your oath of office? I'm not sure I follow.

       replyreport