Several people have already pointed out that this is irrelevant; I’ll add that it’s also untrue – she was elected last year, not in some distant Beforetime when the notion of gay marriage was the most unheard of thing anybody had ever heard of, and knew perfectly well (unless he’s so ignorant or mentally incompetent as to be unfit for the job in any case) that she was likely to be faced with this situation.
If they do that, I would consider personally driving down there, parking near them and playing The Pretenders Back on the Chain Gang on a loop, while covering my vehicle with Romans 13 (as above).
To be fair to her with regard to her personal history and religious beliefs, as reluctant as I am to do so, the AP Article points out that:
My understanding of Christian theology and practice, particularly of the Evangelical sort, is that a major element is that a sinner can acknowledge and repent their sins, and strive to live according to his or her faith thereafter. Whatever you think of this theology, it is not hypocritical to her to believe she had repented and was “born again” four years ago, and to now embrace the beliefs she is advocating.
That being said, as Article VI of the US Constitution requires, “all [legislative,] executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall by bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” When she took office as County Clerk, she was required to swear or affirm to support the US Constitution, and to the extent she cannot act in her office in accordance with this oath and the Constitution, she should resign.
So, like matter and anti-matter they cancel each other out. Problem solved. No one wants to get married. Next outrage.
But since her conversion ( “I had my fun, fuck the rest of you.”), she has no doubt handed out licenses to all manner of sinners without problems.
Do you think Kimmie realizes the document that governs the United States is the Constitution and not the Bible? Saddest part of the story will be when the TeaBaggers start running her for Congress.
The majority of the posts in this thread express exasperation over the lack of power there is to fix this problem.
I think its fairly obvious that the reason she hasn’t been removed from office is that the pols who are legally capable of stopping her are also hiding behind her.
It’s not just one stubborn shithead blocking legal process. It’s also a bunch of cowardly shitheads acting like they are powerless to stop her.
The Constitution she is sworn to uphold goes on to say, in that article:
I don’t think our problem is render-unto-Caesar. Our problem stems from good old Martin Luther and his “every man his own priest” idea. That idea invites every person to make up their own rules based on what they would hope their Lord and Savior would say if asked, and assuming that the Lord God Almighty takes a correct view of the situation. Protestants have always been cherry pickers. It is a fundamental doctrine of the faith. There is little point to getting upset because someone picks different cherries than you do.
The real question is not whether public officers are permitted to cherry-pick religious doctrines, but whether they may cherry-pick the lawful duties of their office. The obvious and principles answer to that question is that a public officer does have a choice: perform all the duties or resign. Of course, having a personal agenda might sometimes interfere with doing the obvious and principled thing.
Right - which means you can’t say “to hold this office, you MUST (or must not) believe X or be a practicing Y”.
Says nothing that you can then use your religious convictions to bypass the constitution and the laws that you have sworn to uphold.
Policions today have a tendency to forget that while they have a job to fulfill for thier consituents (making sure they are properly represented up the chain) - that they also have a duty to protect the rights of ALL in their area - not just the ones they like.
The County clerk, being an elected position, is duty bound to be objective and equal to all - and as said above, if they can’t fulfill the duties of teh office - they should resign.
They are free to do so if thier religious convictions conflict with the office - they are NOT free to impose thier religious convictions ON the office or the populace.
She is exactly the reason that the 1st ammendment was created - to PREVENT the kind of abuse of power she is doing.
By a long shot. Russel Monroe from xkcd did this graph. It took until 1995–28 years after it became legal–for it to to reach the acceptance level of SSM–in 2011, four years before it became legal.
That acceptance level being majority acceptance, BTW. That’s right, we had four years of majority acceptance before SSM became legal.
I don’t like all the snickering about her past “sinful” behavior, because it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. She is depriving some citizens of Rowan County equal access to the law. Her personal life doesn’t really come into it; she would be in the wrong even if she were always a shining light of Christian morality. And her private life is no one’s business but her own.
Everything’s upside-down in Australia.
Holy fuck you’re lazy, stupid and ignorant.
That’s a pretty telling graph. I’d like to think that because the arguments against SSM harkens back to interracial marriage so closely, that paved the way for the fast acceptance we had with SSM. There’s no argument I can think of against SSM that couldn’t be used, and wasn’t used back then against interracial marriage
Just heard on the radio news that if she does not comply by the end of today she will face “sanctions”. They did not specify what “sanctions” meant.
She won’t be allowed nuclear weapons.
For those worried that Kim’s gonna win the GoFundMe lottery, I’m pretty sure GoFundMe won’t allow it, because what she’s doing is against the law.
There may be some other way people raise money for her, of course.
And her ships will be blockaded, as well.
I tried to find what the sanctions might be but this was the closest and it just mentions she has until COB today to issue licenses. No mention of possible sanctions. All the other news articles were just snarking on her past.
A bunch of you have responded to my post. Most have done so in a way that merely has us talking passed one another, since you evidently do not recognize religious freedom. Much of that is tied to the low esteem you give religious beliefs generally, so I’m not too surprised.
To be clear for those who have had a hard time understanding my position, which I think agrees with 99% of what has been said:
-
SS couples should not be inconvenienced by the clerk’s religious beliefs
-
the clerk should not be able to block SS licenses by inaction
-
she should not be allowed to hold a position in which she is unable or unwilling to perform the duties listed
-
I do support legally removing her from office, as I mentioned upthread
-
I’m also fine with some legal way to both stop paying her and recouping any payments made to her for the time she was unwilling to perform her duties. I’d be careful here so that she does not have grounds for a lawsuit and winds up getting even more money than what she was paid.
My stance on SS marriage here is irrelevant. She must perform the duties of the job. Period. If she feels she can’t—for whatever reason—let her resign or be removed from her job. To encourage that, let people sue to the municipality or county or the state itself, to prod them to take appropriate action.
Where we differ:
A) I do not think someone should be forced to act in conflict with their religious convictions or go to jail. There might be some extreme life or death scenario, but we should be as lenient as possible with forcing people to do X which goes against your religious convictions or go to jail.
B) I do not think it is immaterial that she was able to perform the duties of her job at the time of her taking the oath. What is immaterial is **Steve MB’**s point about SSM becoming legal was on the horizon at the time of her oath. It was not part of the duties at the time.
Hope that clears things up.
Not that it will matter. :rolleyes: