Interesting topic. Seems pretty simple to me: 1. She swore an oath to perform her job as a governmental employee. Government here believes in separation of church and state (on paper anyway). She has a religious problem with her governmental duties. Her issue. 2. She was offered a compromise so she would not be required to sign the documents (thereby not forcing her to do something against her religion). Compromise made, problem averted. 3. Except she refused to compromise. It's on her at that point. Moose brings up the Utah compromise, it works, good compromise. If she refuses to compromise, she should go find a job at a religious organization that agrees with her beliefs so she doesn't need to follow governmental mandates or oaths. 4. I can't stand the media in this country. All of it, we have Soooooo many problems and we are concerned about what pet a rich brat buys? Their treatment of this story is just stupid. Let's see how many commercials we can sell by spending time on this issue that offends so many.
I find it funny she has stated that she wants to "protect traditional marriage" yet she herself has divorced 6 times and had numerous children with different men (some of which while married to other men) What a hypocrite
She's in jail... ...and her deputy clerks are issuing the marriage licenses she refused to... ...end of story. No need to shoot more bullets into a dead body. Unless it's Osama bin Laden, of course.
Nicely done Moose. Like how the second comment reiterates the first deadly sin. I came off harsh before and didn't mean to, just tired of hearing people deny other people their rights based off something that isn't our government. She's an elected official who swore an oath. On top of that she was ordered to by a Judge to stop this nonsense. She didn't, that's why she's in jail now. If she truly had this much of a problem she could've stepped down. Its clear though she views herself as some martyr to her cause. She's even said she's a modern Rosa Parks. I mean are you serious? The worst part is there are going to be people who champion her as an idol. Pride is plentiful all around this.
On what news channel was it reported that she called herself a modern Rosa Parks? I did some searching on Bing and Google and only found reports of a "hate group" labeling her as the "anti-gay Rosa Parks" on very few web pages.
I've actually been torn on this one. On one hand, you have people like Carly Fiorina who says the lady should have done her job, or quit. I was thinking about it and yes, she had taken an oath. But to quote Edward Snowden, "I took an oath to the constitution, not an oath of secrecy to the NSA." I paraphrase. The bottom line is, it is an illegal, unconstitutional law that was passed illegally. Now this is where people disagree. Some say she could/should have quit, but I don't think so. When it's a law like this, where The Supreme Court MAJORLY overstepped it's bounds, and passed an illegal, unconstitutional law that forces you to violate your religious beliefs or quit your job? No! Those people could have easily gone to another clerk. They knew she didn't want to do it. Why do you think gays rushes there to FORCE her to do it, or get arrested? For the argument that her deputies could have done it, her name would have still been on the license. She would have still knowingly been allowing something she disagreed with and didn't believe in take place in her place of work. The people above Kim Davies, all the way to the Supreme Court members failed HER. Her direct superior rolled over and let an illegal law steam roll him. I am against Gay marriage. But if the individual state votes and allows it, that is fine, that is to the voters of the STATE. But when congress passes a law that is illegal, and violates religious liberty worse than anything in American history, Kim Davies had a right to refuse. They could have gone ANYWHERE else, and they knowingly chose her.
I never heard about her calling herself that. I heard Mark Livine compare her to Rosa Parks, in that this is a country were we used to be able to excersise our religious rights without having a government force us to do something, or quit our jobs.
Actually, this statement isn't quite accurate. It's close, but the reality of the situation is worse. Davies is NOT in jail because she refused to issue marriage liscenses to gays. A reasonable compromise was offerd where she could avoid signing any certificate that caused her to violate her morality by simply letting her coworkers certify the gay marriages. Davies is in jail because, in addition to not issuing marriage certificates, she prevented others in her office from carrying out the law. That's a subtle but crucial difference. I believe that citizens should not be forced to act against their morality/religious belief structure, but I also believe in reasonable solutions, and one was clearly offered here and rejected.
That's just plain wrong. Plain wrong if that was the case. Get a woman arrested for her religious beliefs? What is wrong with this world.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God." For those curious about the sworn oath.
She'll probly meet a woman in jail that'll force herself on her sexually. see how she likes it. Just my 2cents
I feel like you're just blaming the victim here. Was it the news reporters faults that they got beheaded by islamic state? No. This is a very similiar instance. Just since nobody died, the victims are being blamed for the abuse to their human rights. Sure they couldve gone to any clerk anywhere else but they didnt. It's not their choice to refuse to marry them, it's the clerk's choice. Nobody should have to be choosey about clerks just because the one they want is against it.
Obviously her religious freedom didn't trump anything, as she was sent to jail. Of course she did it for controversy, she wants to feel like a martyr. It just screams " LOOK AT ME AND WHAT I'M DOING!"
An therein lies the issue. Yes, she could have let her coworkers do it, but in doing so, she would have again basically be letting them be married in her building, with her knowledge. Her name would have still been on the license. She would still be listed as the county clerk in the county where they were married. Everybody says she should do her job or quit, they knew she didn't want to to this! Why couldn't they have gone elsewhere? Who take priority in this situation? The woman who's religious liberty has been oppressed, or those who are coming to a woman who they know dislikes them, to get married under an illegal law?
It's an oath to the constitution. The law is unconstitutional. Which is her priority? To quote the judge "Oath's mean things."
Excellent post except for the part where you mentioned congress or laws passed by congress as this situation had exactly nothing to do with congress. It's a Supreme Court ruling that said you can't discrimate based on orientation in regards to marriage. It doesn't force church's to marry but ensures that everyone can access the same protections and guarantees in marriage. So if you'd like to try your point again maybe with some actual relevant facts you go wild. Oh and the couples who sued Mrs Davis are tax paying residents of the county so it's likely that they'd apply to have their licenses at the county they live in..