She claims that her objections are based on her religious beliefs, but she does not appear to actually believe them–except on the single issue where she chooses to use those beliefs to hide her personal prejudices.
This is not a case of a “religious” politician getting caught lying, stealing, or otherwise violating the rules of the religion. It is closer to a politician who ran on a platform of “family values” showing up with an account at Ashley Madison and a mistress. Her claim is that she is defending marriage by refusing to do her job–yet she specifically has violated her religion’s rules of marriage.
She is not being punished for her religious beliefs, only her bigoted actions.
I don’t know the wording of the oath she took, but I suspect it had something about the US Constitution, perhaps something about the Kentucky Constitution, and maybe something about upholding the laws of Kentucky. I’m sure it did not list the laws in force at the time of the oath. Since the Supreme Court found that SSM is protected by the Constitution, she is violating her oath, as she does not get to dispute their findings. If she does, then it is okay for some clerk to refuse to issue gun permits because he feels they should be more restrictive than the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the Court says. She also does not get to have veto power on any new laws that the legislature passes that she might disagree with religiously.
So, if she thought her oath just covered the laws at the time, her understanding of her oath is incorrect.
But you don’t know that. That’s your take, based primarily on her falling short of her own ideals in her own life. Additionally, I’m not of the mind that one need to embrace all aspects of a religion equally to feel that one is doing a good job of trying to live a life consistent with religious principles. For instance, I’d say that many Christians would say that they make an allowance for divorce, but not adultery. So someone who is divorced can still take a moral stand against adultery.
The point is, maybe you’re right. But it behooves us as a society to give religion a wider berth as opposed to a narrower one. And I say that as someone, as you know, is not religious myself. It’s just that I do believe that the principles that the country was founded upon were good ones and that they matter. Will people game the system from time to time? Undoubtedly. But I see that as a small cost.
You’ve already admitted you don’t want to die on Kim Davis’ particular hill, so what do you care? She may not be a hypocrite, but she’s definitely stupid.
I agree with you. I think you’re giving the point I made that you cited more weight than I am. I do not think it excuses her behavior, only that it is a small point in her favor that she shouldn’t be thrown in jail. I agree that she should not hold that position. Maybe your point about her violating her oath can be ground for her removal. I’d fully support that.
No–the state is saying “We are paying you money to do a job. If you do not do the job, you do not get money.”
The end.
If this dumb broad wants to keep suckling at the government teat for her trained-chimp level job, then she by God needs to do the work she’s paid to do, which is to rubber stamp marriages which the courts/legislature decide are legal. If she doesn’t want to put her name on those documents, she can quit or defy the judge and hopefully go to jail. If she does quit, she wins her “moral” victory.
She should be thrown in jail for contempt of court. If the judge says “I want you to jump for me.” you either say “How high?” or go to jail. Her job and or diseased convictions have nothing to do with the contempt of court charge. Or would you let a man get away with not paying court-ordered child support because he morally opposes them?
I don’t she where’s she’s stupid or not stupid. I do see how she is being a twit. I think the honorable thing for her to do would be to resign. I mean, if you’re given a job to do, and you feel you can’t do it for whatever reason, you’re in the wrong job.
The only pushback I’ve been offering has to do with what should be done to her beyond having her removed from office. It’s a larger issue concerning what lengths the state should go to to force someone to act in a way that conflicts with their religious objection. It’s not about her for me, I think she’s a twit, it’s about the larger issue of religious freedom.
In what world is cherry picking (as you have defined it) only a Protestant phenomenon? Catholics have their explanations for why they interpret a specific Scripture a certain way, too–choices that can effectively negate the entire point of it. The Bible does contradict itself on a naive reading.
The difference is, it’s much, much harder to change with new information. I expect the Catholic Church to be the last to accept homosexuality. There’s even a literalist interpretation that can be used to treat the homophobic stuff the same way we treat the misogynistic stuff. But there’s no real way to argue against Catholic. You just have to hope the Pope stumbles upon something.
Not entirely. There’s still the matter of how every legally-eligible couple in that county gets licensed to marry in that county. The state has to have a way to make that happen without undue difficulty, this individual notwithstanding.
I basically agree with that, as the judge’s orders are an attempt to remedy the situation without throwing her in jail. The out she has is to just resign. Problem solved.
Are people forgetting that she’s also ordered her whole staff to follow her personal religious convictions.
It’d be very interesting to see what would happen if one of her clerks started issuing licenses in defiance of her orders. Or one of them sued her for violating their religious beliefs by ordering non0compliance with the law.
Since her whole staff was supposed to be in court today, I wonder if they were questioned as to whether they all shared this same belief, or they were ordered to act as if they did.
Or simply to be reminded that they too had sworn to uphold the Constitution, to receive the same compliance order, and to be cautioned that they too could be held in contempt.
