yes
but what if she was feeding babies to starving wolves?
Depends. Whose babies? Mine, or Og’s?
Also depends on her motivations or attitudes. In general, civil disobedience involves breaking the law for the purpose of protesting against/calling attention to the injustice of the law rather than, e.g., to make money. And it involves openness, and an acceptance of the sanctions and consequences that ensue - all of this is part of the protest.
If your hypothetical Davis threw the babies to the wolves in the sincere belief that, e.g., this was the only way to prevent the wolves from invading the town and eating everyone, and that in doing so she was benefitting the community, and that the law which prevented this was wrong, unjust and immoral, and if she did not resist arrest, imprisonment, etc, then, yes, she would be engaged in civil disobedience. Why not?
I feel the same way. It was wrong for many reasons – diplomatic, moral, and ethical. But as we saw with some of the antics of Benedict, who severely chastised a group of American nuns for spending too much time helping the poor and unmarried pregnant women and not enough time promulgating church dogma against gays and the like, a Pope’s job can be pretty political. And it’s depressing to think that this may have been a political tactic intended to solidify the support of the fundie wingnuts and strengthen the “base”.
Perhaps a reminder that, as good a guy as he may be in so many ways, he’s also the administrative head of a gigantic organized religion, and among its missions is to grow its membership and to instill orthodox beliefs in the loyal flock. Let’s face it, he hasn’t rescinded any of the previous encyclicals that dance a fine line between expressing “God’s love for everyone” and condemning homosexuality as an “abomination”. And I am frankly disgusted by some of the homophobic antics of local churches and, worse, Catholic school boards, where vulnerable young students are directly affected.
Breaking News:
Vatican officials announced on Friday that Pope Francis did not hold a private meeting with Kim Davis last week in Washington — as has been widely reported — but that Ms. Davis was among dozens of guests ushered into the Vatican’s Embassy in Washington for a brief meeting with him.
Francis was unaware of the specifics of the case of Ms. Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who has refused to grant a marriage license to a gay couple, despite a judge’s orders that she do so. The case has become a focal point in the debate over the tensions between religious liberty and marriage equality in the United States.
“Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released on Friday morning, referring to the Vatican’s term for its embassy.
Still, that she was invited at all and it was allowed to go on this long w/o clarifying speaks to a Church Establishment that -was- too ready to say “we need an example of someone standing up for the Values” and not ask questions, and say to the boss “Holy Father, these are brave people who need to be blessedand encouraged”
There is no religion where having Kim Davis’s signature on your marriage license is a duty. This is simply nonsensical.
I may not be just a simple country lawyer, but she has proposed having the office issue licenses to gay couples that do not have her name on them. That does not seem an undue burden on the government to me. The whole point of the RFRA is to try to balance an individuals rights to religion against those of the employer to have the job done. By not considering any other way to have marriage licenses issued the court in her case has acted in a way that is unlawful.
It is an undue burden to call the legislature into special session to amend the statute solely for the benefit of this one precious snowflake.
And the court in her case is federal and has no other way available to it. It cannot unilaterally rewrite Kentucky law.
This is factually incorrect. All licenses issued in that county have her name on them as she is the county clerk. She felt that having her name on them was violating her religious beliefs and that is why she wanted her name off of them.It did not matter to her who signed them but that her name was on them.
What is “factually incorrect”?
You miss the part of the law that says the religious infringement has to be the least intrusive way of accomplishing the government interest. If there is a way to get licenses issued without compelling her to violate her conscience than the law says that must be done. In this case I have seen no indication that the court tried to fulfill the government interest in a less intrusive way.
She could have resigned if she doesn’t like it. If she wants to be County Clerk then her name goes on every document whether she approves of the purpose or not. If she doesn’t like that that then she can’t perform her job. All of her claims are specious.
As you would not, since the court is not subject to the Kentucky RFRA, and Davis did not challenge the law.
and how many times has she been divorced?
It is when the law states that paperwork without her name (well, without the name of the Head of Clerks of whatever her exact role is) and signature on it is invalid.
If one takes this at face value as stated – and I see no reason not to – then Pope Francis is off the hook as far as I’m concerned and it’s the church establishment (as JRDelirious already said) that was at fault – and sadly, I suspect, for the reasons stated earlier – to instill the standard orthodoxy, such as homophobia. I think it’s very likely that the Pope had no idea who this woman was. It’s interesting to see the Vatican back-pedaling on this.
Really?
The secret service/his own security people are not going to let him meet with anyone they don’t know all about ahead of time. I’d call this (them, not you) a boldly transparent lie.
What? The Vatican nunciate knew who she was. The Pope himself didn’t.
Which is silly when you think of it. Why does the current officeholder have to have their name, as opposed to the office? The Great Seal of the US doesn’t say “Barack Hussein Obama” on it, why should marriage certificates say “Kim Davis” on them?
For that matter, why do I write my property taxes each year to the county tax assessor-collector as if they were a personal friend? Why the hell would I be writing multi-thousand dollar checks to “John Ames” instead of “Dallas County Tax Assessor-Collector’s Office.” I have this ludicrous picture of him spending his days frantically endorsing a million checks each year and pulling out his wallet over and over to show his ID at the bank. Then gleefully cackling as his balance dwarfs that of Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban for a few moments before he himself writes a check to Dallas County Treasury for billions.
Just ridiculous. No individual’s names should be on state documents unless they’re the subject of the document. The only marriage license that should have Kim Davis’s name on it is the one she got when she married her husband.
Enjoy,
Steven