Should Kim Davis be forced to give out marriage licenses when she get's back to

1. 75

   Josh Ratzburgposted 8 years ago

   Should Kim Davis be forced to give out marriage licenses when she get's back to work? And will she?
   
   Kim Davis was recently released from prison and is due back to work this week, do you think she will follow the law this time? If she doesn't, isn't she breaking God's law also? Isn't one sin no greater than another?
   Romans 13
   1Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 59

   mosaicmanposted 8 years ago

   You have to follow the law of her job. If she feels uncomfortable or is unwilling to do what is required of her in her job, she should find a job where she isn't breaking her moral code of ethics and beliefs.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Josh Ratzburgposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your answer, I agree completely.

      replyreport
3. 59

   adagio4639posted 8 years ago

   Assuming that she goes back to work, if she tries to block the issuing of licenses, she should, and will go back to jail. The office she holds does not entitle her to deny a license to people based on her religious views. Those who believe it does, like Mike Huckabee and a few others, have no understanding of the 1st Amendment and the Free Ex clause of the Amendment.
   
   “Freedom of religion embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be”. Cantwell v. Connecticut
   
   An overlooked aspect of the free exercise clause which is a blind spot among Republicans, and especially Huckabee  is that it looks back to the establishment clause for its definition of "religion." The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of "religion," while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise "thereof." Logically, the word "thereof" must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as "religion" for one clause must count as "religion" for the other.
   
   The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it can't erect a nativity scene on its front lawn even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. Private prayer and nativity scenes are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitute religions in and of themselves.
   
   If prayer and nativity scenes count as "religion" for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as "religion" for the purposes of the establishment clause.
   
   A marriage license is not a religion. By objecting to issuing a license on religious grounds she's invoking the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. But what counts as Religion for the purposes of Free Exercise, MUST also count as Religion for the purposes of establishment. What she's doing is establishing religion as a litmus test in Kentucky for issuing a Marriage license, and that clearly violates the First Amendment and the concept of Separation of Church and State. She has Zero legal grounds to stand on, and she'll wind up in jail again if she continues to pursue this unconstitutional position.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      heylady612posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, this is the best explanation I have read that make sense. I am a Christian myself and I  do not agree with her reasoning. Kim is fighting against same sex marriages by way of not issuing a license. The license is just a peace of paper.

      replyreport
4. 93

   CharlieClaywellposted 8 years ago

   She has a moral obligation to uphold the United State laws since she is an elected official. If her religious conviction prohibits her from performing the tasks of the office, she should resign. However, the judge gave her a fair and reasonable way to keep her job and uphold her own convictions -- just don't interfere with her deputies and let them sign the marriage licenses. This is, in essence, a way for her to "save face" while still allowing the business of government to be conducted.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      heylady612posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. Kim Davis is blessed to have this job, so she should not interfere. However, I don't think that she will be able to work there without causing confusion for her staff because of her position and supervision that will be needed.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Michael-Milecposted 8 years ago

   She should issue that worthless peace of  certificate for the sake of keeping her working position. God the Creator of the universe is not affected by man's  meaningless decision's, (ordinances , laws) or government's propagated religion, nether are His children. No one is loosing  the spiritual battle happening on mental or physical ground, neither will Kim Davis if she'll  continue  performing her duty.

   replyreport
6. 60

   Peter Grujicposted 8 years ago

   Good question but there is only one answer= She absolutely should dispense marriage licenses to whomever  is allowed to marry, BY LAW. What if she felt people of mixed races shouldn't be allowed to marry.. and on and on. Where do you draw the line? The line is to follow the law or quit.  Her job is to simply follow the laws of the land - not laws created by her chaotic thinking or personal beliefs. Her confidence in her "belief" will be so erroneously "puffed up" by people like Hucklebee and Cruz, who are using her for their own political goals, that she very likely will refuse and had better be  hauled back to jail. Of course she will become a poster child of the ultra-conservatives and will cash in on interviews, books and movie deals, etc. Move over Sara Palin. My religious beliefs support anyone who want to extrapolate their love to a committed relationship via marriage. Period!

   replyreport
   1. 53

      heylady612posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry but mixed races and same sex marriages are totally different. However, I believe that she should work somewhere eles that doesn't conflict with her beliefs. We all have the right to believe and live anyway we chose including Huckabee &

      replyreport
7. 81

   febriedethanposted 8 years ago

   I think if she can't follow the Law, she should quit her job.
   
   There is no such Law in my country. We never permit same-sex marriage, but we face corruption, double bookkeeping to avoid tax etc, so as a financial and accounting staff, if I can't obey my Boss command, I just quit my job.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Michael-Milecposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Your country is smart. There isn't such a thing as a "same- sex marriage,''- if anything it is a business to capitalize on some peoples ignorance who wants  publicly to be acknowledged that they are plunging their souls into the mud of  destruction.

      replyreport
   2. 53

      heylady612posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, most people do not know how blessed they are.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Commander Timmyposted 8 years ago

   Do your job, God will understand. He knows your heart, why care about the rest. Might consider getting a new job, tho. 
   
   I'm still copping that there is such a thing as homosexuality and that its normal. I love people but I think its a sexual perversion, but most of us are already perverted by media. Again, I don't understand why all the good looking men like other good looking men, oh wait, yeah I do. But still our population is going to die out if we can't procreate.
   
   
   
   Bottom line, we are all screwed up, gay or straight we all stand on the same ground.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      adagio4639posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "But still our population is going to die out if we can't procreate."  Homosexuality has been around forever, and our population has only increased over the centuries. I don't think you have to worry about the population dying out.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      Josh Ratzburgposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, the ONLY thing that has changed is gay couples can get married. It's not like because the government said they couldn't marry, they were all of a sudden straight... It doesn't work like that.

      replyreport
   3. 53

      heylady612posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, your right! The paper really doesn't matter. This is much more than a piece of paper. This is where most Christians don't have a clue...the fight is on your knees in prayer.

      replyreport
9. 68

   MikeNVposted 8 years ago

   When  you accept a job you accept the responsibilities that come with that job.  If you don't want to perform your duties under the law for some reason then you should find more suitable employment.

   replyreport
10. 61

    Qmarpatposted 8 years ago

    I think long story short, she should just fill out a job transfer form, and change positions. She can have her beliefs, but job mandates are different. The laws and regulations recently changed. She could ask for a Writ of Habeas, and inform the judge, that she's changing jobs because it conflicts with her beliefs. That way she can stay true to herself, and not make herself a martyr.

    replyreport
    1. 53

       heylady612posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       I agree.

       replyreport