update 1: understand this the stamp was made clearly for people that mix religion and politics or treat them as the same or even used it in anyway that should not be used. how i view things will not change i am in title in my opinion as well as everyone else. and how i believe is also my right as well and i believe people need to understand that these two do not mix or are the same. this stamp is not just pointing at kim davis it is pointing at people that mix the two or treat them as the same thing when there not.
stamp base: jetprowerthefox.deviantart.com…
But with the same token, some interpret it the wrong way, or go too far.
The judge couldn't. That's why he used "contempt of court". Kim Davis hadn't broken any laws. This is not just a religious freedom issue but also an issue of Habeas Corpus; if Kim Davis broke the law she should be charged with a crime, not locked away indefinitely on a judge's whim then released on a whim as well. The right to a jury trial is specifically protected under the 7th amendment.
Oh, well, go back to gullibly accepting whatever bullshit the mainstream corporate media pushes next. They LOVE to make mountains out of molehills, storms in a teacup, twist and misrepresent everything.
I heard people claiming that Kim Davis was homophobic, which must be a surprise to her homosexual friends (she has several).
I was also told Kim Davis only refused marriage licenses to gays, but in truth she refused to issue licenses to everyone, very fairly.
Media is always filled with crap and lies. The mass corporate media always pretend things are simple, hate-mobs and lynch-mobs can't deal with complexity, but the situation is very complex.
To say that she hadn't broken any laws is absolutely false; rulings handed down by the judge are common law, and it is just as binding as laws which were voted on (which are known as civil law.)
We do, however, agree that the mass media is not something that should be trusted offhand. They tend to spin stories in whatever direction generates the most controversy because that's where the money is.
As for whether or not she was homophobic, I don't know if that's true, nor do I care. I judge people based on whether or not they're assholes (and I believe, given my knowledge of the situation, that Davis was in this case.)
It is true that Davis refused to issue licenses to a number of people, some of whom wanted to enter a same-sex marriage and others of whom wanted to enter differently-sexed unions. I'm not sure of whether or not she refused marriage licenses to everyone, so this requires some citation. I don't know if any of the people whom licenses were refused to were homosexuals or not, but that's not relevant to the question of whether or not she broke the law.
Judge Bunning didn't say she broke a law either. Rulings by a Judge can be breaking the law too; it happens often enough that occasionally a judge will go to prison for doing this. Judges don't make laws - that's a basic part of how it works in the USA that you should've known already. Your claim that a ruling by a judge becomes law is ridiculous, as judges don't make laws; elected lawmakers do. Judges have a legal opinion, it is the lawmakers in the legislature who do the law-making.
You base your opinion on whether or not your opinion of a person is that they're an arsehole - which is basically you making shit up again. You don't know Kim Davis any better than I do; you have never met her. You only know the media portrayal, and that has as much credibility as it ever has - ZERO.
What the hell is "differently sexed"? Are you an alien or a human being? Do you talk so off-the-wall weird in real life and why hasn't anyone called you on it? is this some indoctrinated PC language bullshit that's intended "1984-style" to redefine the language in order to brainwash people? I hope you wake-up from it soon instead of going into denial over what it really is.
You're "not sure"? Then VERIFY it. It's not hard to use any search engine, but it's a fact that Kim Davis hasn't issued even a single marriage license. She's not the only clerk refusing to issue the marriage licenses, yet she's been singled-out to be made an example of, to intimidate others. That's just another sign of the persecution going on.
As for your second part, yes, judges can have their decisions overturned. It does indeed happen. But their ruling remains a law unless this happens. Seriously, just look up common law and court orders. You can learn all a layman needs to know with about 15 minutes' worth of reading. I'm not going to touch on this again; demonstrate that I am wrong, or drop it, since I'm the only one making an argument to address it.
And no, I don't know Davis personally, but I know of one thing she did, and really, what else do I need? Again, I don't care one way or another what her personal beliefs or values are; the fact that she forced them on others by denying marriage licenses on religious grounds is sufficient to make her an asshole.
And to answer your last two questions, I use 'differently-sexed' to differentiate from 'same-sexed'. Ordinarily, I would just call them both "marriage," but for the purposes of this discussion, it was necessary. As for your last question, I am a human, of course, but if you were born on a planet other than earth, I guess that would make me both
If you don't know Kim Davis - then you don't know her at all. Period. Calling her an arsehole and claiming that's enough demonstrates that you are person easily led by the nose by media portrayals.
I suggest you drop your silly pretensions with idiotic language made up by political lobbyists, and stick with how the language is actually used by normal human beings. "differently-sexed" is absurdist rubbish meant to obfuscate clear speech and clear definitions; they did this a lot in the USSR, the Nazis did it in Germany, and it's demonstrated in George Orwell's book "1984". There is something seriously wrong with you if refuse to recognise how brainwashed this makes you appear.
Secondly, I'd like to address your point by saying that I disagree. I do not need to know every single aspect of her life and every single thought she has to see that she is, at least in this respect, a bad person. Somebody abusing their power and forcing their will on others makes them an asshole by definition. Period.
As for your last point, whether or not one is brainwashed is irrelevant to the conversation; it is possible to be both brainwashed and correct.
If you don't like my use of a term, then ask for clarification.
(I would also like to point out that you were the one who decided to split couples into same-sexed and differently-sexed. I merely followed suit. Sorry if you're not able to understand your own language... )
You can't tell which actual law she broke, and neither could the judge cite one.
It's equivalent to saying "She defied a dictator's decision, therefore she must be wrong"
Her rights were still violated. That is the critical issue here.
The issue here is the question of whether or not what Davis was wrong.
The fact of the matter is that by denying marriage licenses to couples who were not legally barred from being married, she:
1) abused her power to force her political and/or religious agenda on others, and
2) violated their civil rights.
What Bunning may or may not have done, and whether or not Davis is a victim, is beyond the scope of this question.
(And to say that I can't cite a law which was broken is demonstrably false, as I have described it by name no less than 3 times. You putting your hands over your ears and saying "Nope! Not listening!" doesn't change anything.)
The only excuse one may possibly have for breaking the law on religious grounds would be a true conflict, i.e. the law demands what a religion forbids, or the law forbids what a religion demands. Even then, one should be as little of a dick as possible when doing so.
What Kim Davis did was wrong, period. She isn't forced to issue marriage licenses - it's a job she chose, and a job that she should have simply resigned from if the issue was really that important to her.
Those licenses later issued by the deputies aren't legal. If Kim Davis had issued licenses, they'd still not be legal. The SCOTUS ruling has made the definition of marriage in most states invalid. The licenses are just useless pieces of paper right now, but even the lawyers are only recently waking up to this.
The deputies who later issued the marriage licenses questioned the judge about the validity of the licenses, but Judge David L Bunning didn't care what the law says. Another judge had to refuse a couple's divorce case because there was no longer an active legal definition on marriage, and therefore none on divorce in that state. Kentucky is in a similar quandary
Until there are new laws voted on, and put in place to redefine marriage, technically all of the licenses issued could be rendered invalid.
Also, according the constitution of the USA, and the constitution of Kentucky, Kim Davis has every right to refuse to do any job that goes against her religious beliefs. Period. The Kentucky constitution is especially clear on this.
Judge David L Bunning must be some kind of power-mad idiot because he violated all of the following;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Right of religious freedom.
No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
1) Irrelevant. I do not need to know the "legal situation in Kentucky" in general, but merely the portion of said "situation" that we are talking about.
2) Source, please, on those licenses and their legality. I'm not willing to simply take your word on it.
3a) The SCotUS ruling said nothing of the definition of marriage. It simply said that marriage (meaning, in my opinion, the state of being married and all legal benefits or penalties associated with it, such as filing taxes as a couple and having joint custody of children) extends to all people, regardless of gender, who are not otherwise barred from marriage.
3b) There are three parts to every thing: the referant (what we are referring to,) the label (what we call it,) and the definition (how we identify it.) Of those, the label and definition are completely arbitrary and can neither be true nor false, nor can they be right nor wrong. Even if the definition of marriage were changed, the referant would not, so it simply does not follow that a change in definition would necessarily render something null and void; if you assert that this is the case, then you need to explain why.
3c) If the states' definition of marriage is now not adequately good (a 'good' definition being one that includes as many instances of the referant as possible, while excluding as much of everything else as possible) then it is up to the states to make their definition better and more consistent with the US Constitution, not the other way around. (See: "Supremacy Clause")
4a) If the judge says so, under their authority as a judge, then it is, in fact, a legally binding document unless otherwise rendered null or void. (See: "Common Law")
4b) The issue with the couple's divorce is irrelevant to the argument, as they were (presumably) previously married under a previous definition of marriage; the laws regarding their divorce, such as the distribution of assets and custody of children, should not have changed due to the ruling of SCotUS.
5) Voting is not necessary. It simply takes one judge ruling that they are either valid or invalid, and that shall be made law until/unless overturned. (See: "Common Law") Also, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
6a) While she does indeed have the right to refuse to do the job on religious grounds, she needs to demonstrate that this is, in fact, against her religious beliefs. (And, as a side note, the Bible allows same-sex marriage in the New Testament, so long as it is under government authority and not God's authority. See Luke 20:25, among others, if you're into that sort of thing...)
6b) You're telling me that she was convicted enough to break the law, but not convicted enough to stop collecting paychecks? A normal, reasonable person would not keep a job they find morally objectionable. What she should have done was resign, or ask to be reassigned to another position more suitable for her.
6c) In the event of conflict, the US Constitution (in this case, the 14th amendment) trumps all other laws. (See: "Supremacy Clause")
7a) The first word in there is "Congress." Congress shall make no law...
7b) Issuing marriage licenses is something done on behalf of the government and on the authority of the government. If she used her power as a government agent (which she does, by issuing or denying marriage licenses) to assert her religious beliefs, then she, as a government employee, is not upholding our separation of church and state.
7c) There was probably a warrant when she was arrested - I assume that's what you are referring to here - but if there wasn't, feel free to support that. The judge issuing an arrest warrant is, in fact, consistent with her fourth amendment rights. Other than that, I can't think of any reason why this would be relevant, although I haven't studied this case extensively. Feel free to point out anything that I may have missed.
7d) Was Davis denied her right to a trial by jury, or did she (or her attorney) waive it? Sometimes people do that, you know... You need to demonstrate that her rights were infringed upon before it can be asserted. Also, this is irrelevant.
8) The Kentucky Costitution cannot supercede the US Constitution. (See: "Supremacy Clause")
I assert that she did was still wrong given her position as a government employee. Even if she was unjustly imprisoned, that's completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed (and besides, two wrongs don't make a right.)
If you are going to number things like an idiot accountant, then describe what the numbers refer to so that others can understand your weird bullet-pointing as well.
If you don't know the legal situation in Kentucky regarding marriages, then you can't comprehend the Kim Davis situation either. Stop being silly in your dismissals.
The SCOTUS ruling result:
Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers: The Supreme Court ruling has completely obliterated the definition of marriage and the process for obtaining a marriage license in Kentucky. The General Assembly will be compelled to amend many sections of Kentucky law, not just for the issuance of marriage licenses, to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision.
Early days yet, in the next few months, a great many people are going to find that the SCOTUS ruling (which only passed by 1 vote, 5-4) is screwed-up a lot of things unintentionally. The state laws regarding divorce cases will have to be rewritten too. Then there's laws in states about gun control and licenses, most of them are no legally valid. It was a very poorly thought-out redefining ruling, and another example of when it is far better that hundreds of lawmakers in a legislature, with free debate, and public discussion, are way more likely to avoid a screw-up and balance the resulting laws than a handful of unelected judges.
Judges don't make law. Judges also get things wrong. A judge's decision can be overturned by another judge.
Voting is always a part of a democracy – it goes against democratic principles when you dismiss voting. Perhaps you are a wannabe Nazi who doesn't like democracy very much. Elected lawmakers write the laws in a representative democracy.
Kim Davis already demonstrated it was against her beliefs. Go ahead, read a Bible. She's an Apostolic Christian, and their beliefs are easily checked. If she was Muslim or Jewish, would that make any difference to you, or are you just biased against her because of her religion? Your citing of a passage out of context in order to attempt to redefine to something that isn't accepted by most Christian churches isn't credible in the slightest. I'm not a Christian, but even I know that. What you're doing is as ridiculously bad as those rightwing bloggers who take words out of context in the Quran in order to falsely portray all Muslims as bloodthirsty terrorist fanatics.
Don't try to put words in other people's mouths either. Being convicted of contempt of court (instead of being charged with breaking any law), does not remove your salary. Are you really that ignorant that you would claim otherwise?
No wonder you don't understand what the constitution actually says, you're too busy trying to redefine the meanings of sentences in a
self-serving way in denial of the facts. Taking two words out of context of the rest of the 1st amendment? How childish of you!
Kim Davis is an elected official, NOT a government employee. Even government employees can refuse on religious grounds. Soldiers can defy orders if those orders go against their religious beliefs too. You're being silly again.
You say there was “probably a warrant”, which is really “I WANT TO MAKE SHIT UP”. If there was a warrant, cite it, otherwise don't resort to games of make-believe.
Kim Davis was denied a trial by jury, and rights guaranteed under the constitution. Judge Bunning sent her to prison using “contempt of court”, which is absolutely wrong for treatment of an elected official according to the law. Judge Bunning gave no bail conditions, but set a condition that he knew meant she had to go against her beliefs in order to abide by that condition; that is dictatorial, and denying her rights yet again. Judge Bunning later ordered her release, again on a whim, and contradicting the conditions he previously set; this demonstrates that Judge Bunning was breaking the law in the first place with his orders, and that he knew it.
Nobody anywhere said the Kentucky Constitution was superseding the USA constitution. Where did you come up with this fictional version of the debate that you seem to be referring to? However, the Kentucky Constitution does apply to the treatment of people in Kentucky in regards to their religious rights, strengthening those already in the USA constitution. Do you have something against acts of conscience and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution?
You can assert whatever you like, but apparently you base a lot of your assertions on fictional versions of the debate. Being unjustly imprisoned is extremely relevant, as this is religious persecution. You imprison a person because they stick by their beliefs and conscience, then you are persecuting them.
Touching on your next point, I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure that the Nazis were democratic, at least amongst themselves.
As for your next point, about Davis being an elected official, you are indeed correct, and I was mistaken. That makes it far worse, in my opinion, as she is not representing the people who elected her. And while, yes, she can refuse on religious grounds, that refusal should come in the form of a resignation, not taking it upon herself to force her will on the people she is supposed to serve.
If she was, in fact, denied her right to a trial by jury, then that is a terrible abuse of power and should be dealt with appropriately. However, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not what she did was wrong. While important (if true), and relevant to society as a whole, it doesn't matter in this discussion. If you wish to discuss the matter of human rights, I'm open for it, but me or make a journal for it or something, because it's a tad off-topic.
And again, she needs to demonstrate that issuing marriage license was against her religion. That's demonstrate, not state. If she did, feel free to link me to it and I'll concede this point, but nothing I've seen about her has indicated to me that she's done this. Many churches have their doctrine listed publicly... Maybe try there? And again, the Bible does not forbid same-sex marriage, or anything else that the government does, provided they do so under the authority of the government. (Luke 20:25 is something to the effect of "give to God what is God's and to Caeser what is Caeser's." Anyone who believes the bible as a whole must necessarily believe this.) Even Jesus was a proponent of the separation of church and state.
Lastly, the conflict between the Kentucky Constitution and the US Constitution is that the US Constitution says that these couples cannot be denied their right to marry, whereas you are stating that the Kentucky Constitution gives Davis the right to deny people the right to marry.
Were you aware that the "gay couples" that turned up there with the media didn't live in that county? It was a set-up.
She doesn't need to demonstrate that issuing a marriage license is against her religion - because that is NOT the reason she refused the marriage licences. She refused to issue them with her SIGNATURE because signing them with her name would be the same as supporting something (homosexual marriages) which actually was against her religious beliefs, and like 57 other clerks in Kentucky, Kim Davis requested the licenses be changed to not require their signature.
Your citing of a passage from the Bible in order to make an argument that Christians should support gay marriages is wrong, any well educated, and well read Christian can tell you why. Sodomy is specifically considered "a very bad thing", so are activities such as bestiality, sex with kids, etc.... ).
No, the USA constitution 1st amendment gives her the right to refuse to act against her own religious beliefs. The Kentucky constitution just happens to strengthen that point within the state of Kentucky. As an elected official in that state, she's also given something akin to diplomatic immunity, so sending her to prison as Judge David L Bunning did was waaaaay over the top violation of her rights. Especially as Judge David L Bunning couldn't cite any specific law that she'd broken. He couldn't even accuse her of being discriminating against gays. So, he resorted to an abuse of his position and charged her with "contempt of court".
Have you read the amendments?
As for your second point, I don't know if any of the people denied marriage licenses were gay or not, and I don't feel that it's an important detail. If the local laws there state that one may only file for a marriage license in the county in which they live, then she was right to deny licenses to those people who lived outside of the county. However, she is still wrong to deny marriage licenses to the others simply to force her agenda on them.
As for your third point, I am not at all convinced that it is her religious beliefs which make her not want to sign. She was perfectly fine with signing them before, was she not? She needs to explain why it was okay then and not okay now. It has nothing whatsoever to do with one's sexual preference, because marriage does not imply that a couple will engage in any sort of sexual acts, nor does the decision by SCotUS say anything about sexuality other than that it should not bar one from marriage. I think that she, like so many others, is just butt-hurt and using the guise of religion as an excuse.
For your next point, yes, sodomy is condemned in the bible. So are a lot of other things. So what? We're talking about whether or not it is okay for Davis to deny other people their rights; sodomy has nothing to do with it. (Also, as a side note, pedophilia is NOT condemned in the bible. Remember that part where Moses tells the Israelites to kill all the men, male children, and adult women who were not virgins, but to keep the virgin girls for themselves? If you had read the book even half as thoroughly as I have you should probably be aware of these things.)
And for your last point, yes, I am familiar with the US Constitution as a whole, including the bill of rights and other amendments made over the years. However, three points need to be addressed:
1) She has not demonstrated that signing/issuing marriage licenses is condemned or forbidden by her religion,
2) She forced her will on others and violated their rights.
3) She acted as an agent of the government when she did so, which was not only an abuse of people, but of power.
As for Bunning, even if we grant, without question or contention, that what he did was completely immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional, it does not mean that what Davis did was right, so it's irrelevant to this conversation. This is simply a red herring to distract people from the other human rights violation that occurred in the county.
No exceptions. Were you even aware of this fact? Of course you are - but it seems you prefer to ignore it.
This is getting ridiculous. Seems to me that whenever a point is raised that refutes your assumptions utterly and completely, you just skip by and pretend it was never mentioned. Trolls and shills do that.
It's already abundantly clear that gay marriage is against actual Christian belief - despite some trying to pretend otherwise by use of misquoting and out-of-context words. Why do you keep up this charade that Kim Davis has to prove what is already well known?! Also paedophilia is condemned by the Bible, referring to the OT proves that you don't know what Christianity is about, but then you also tried to claim that homosexuality isn't condemned by the Bible. You're intentionally spouting bullshit.
Kim Davis is NOT an employee, she's an elected official.
She didn't force her will on anyone, nor deny anyone's rights.
Honestly, I've lost patience with you. You are simply repeating the same lies and misleading claims that were refuted by the facts already. *rolleyes*