Bumping this post as it sums up, for the most part, the view of every individual opposed to Ms. Davies' actions.
This is irrelevant to the issue being raised. The issue being raised was "is it ok that a person got jailed for preventing a gay couple to get married in america" the answer of course is no. It's not ok. There is a law preventing this person from doing that whether she herself thought it was ok. Look at islamic state. They think everything they do is morally right. Beheadings and all. Just because of their religion. That does not mean for a second that anything they do is automatically justified by their religion. And you will be able to agree with me on that im sure. This is a very similiar situation. Just because the women thought it was ok to deny the gay couple a marriage does not make it ok.
Well, the terrorists are religious as well. As I have aforementioned, religion can be a very dangerous thing to deal with. There's not much different when you have the potential for religion-motivated acts that are indifferent to law and reason.
You seem to be reinventing recent history. Gay marriage was passing in a rather rapid wave state by state. How the Federal Government, namely the Supreme Court, stepped in. Gay peoples marriages in States where it is legal weren't having their marriages recognized, though legally we'd, in states where it was still not allowed. So by a married couple moving, for whatever reasons, from on state to another they had a risk of having their legal rights disenfranchised by said move. This is where the Supreme Court stepped in and said this was not allowed and by in effect legalizing gay marriage. If you think this process is unconstitutional then I suggest you read on the process and how it works. I only gave a synopsis but this entire movement went through all the proper channels and we are now a better, more accepting, more equal country for it IMO.
Nothing should ever endanger peoples liberties. However this must be within reason. In my opinion you should be allowed to marry anyone you want with their consent and if that person is of legal age. That seems reasonable. 2000 year old scripture should not top liberties of anyone today.
Well written KingCalm. I have issue with someone saying you can just go to a different clerk office to get it done. She refused to perform her role as a government employee based on her personal beliefs/opinions. Her refusal was against the law. Your average citizen is not required, by law, to accommodate someone's personal beliefs when it comes to government functions. Let's say I walk into a driver's license branch wearing a shirt that says I love pepperoni pizza. There is a vegan working behind the counter and he refuses to issue me a license because of his opinion on my t-shirt. He refused me a governmental function because of his opinion/beliefs. I should not have to go to another county to get my driver's license, that is BS, and illegal. I might point out it is sometimes hundreds of miles to the next county clerk office in some states. If you want to work for the government, you can't pick and choose who you serve if they have equal protection under the law.
More accepting and more equal, accept when it comes to Christians refusing to violate their conscience and beliefs. Then it's open season. Also, every time a state voted against gay marriage, it was overrulled. One by one. But that got too slow.
I suggest that everyone re-read their posts before posting as well as refer to the forum guide when quoting others. It is just my suggestion. This thread would become a lot cleaner, easier to read and contribute to.
If she were refusing to issue gun licenses because of her pacifist beliefs, all of her current supporters would instead be demanding she be thrown in jail for defying the law. Some may even respect her personal beliefs, but legitimately argue that those beliefs do not allow her to defy the law (which is exactly what people against Ms. Davies' position argue). In the past, County Clerks cited religious reasons for refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, even after Loving v. Virginia. Very few people would defend those clerks today. In maybe 10 or 20 years, we will view Ms. Davies' refusal to comply with the law in the same way. Until then, she should remove herself from the Clerkship position, so that she can stop denying Americans their Constitutional rights.
Isn't the Supreme Court the ultimate judge of the constitutionality of laws and rulings ? So how can supreme Court rulings be defined unconstitutional by anything less than the Supreme Court ?
The Supreme Court does not rule america. It does not make decisions for all of America. That is up to the state. When you start throwing out laws willy Nilly, because you so felt it prudent, it is unconstitutional, because we have a right for the whole country to vote on it.
I feel like this is a completely irrelevant argument. Whether the law shouldn't be in place or should, the law was there and it was disobeyed by Kim Davies. That's what matters. The only reason there is any controversy about this is because there are people that disagree with gay rights and they are using Kim Davies as a weapon to fight a basic human right that has been denied to the LBGT community for far too long. The simple fact is, we have proven that being gay or straight is within our genes, the same genes that decide who we are as people and we cannot change that, no matter how much you would like to think so. It does not make them inferior, it does not make them any less worthy of marriage than anyone else. It is for those reasons that the law that same sex marriage is legal in all states in america is one that should be treasured and worn as a badge of pride. It makes me sick to my stomach the idea that there are places where gay people can't even admit that they are gay without being executed. It makes me sick to my stomach that people cant see that being gay isnt a choice. Who would honestly chose to be gay? What benefits are there to being gay? you are discriminated, stereotyped and a minority. There is literally no benefits of it. Nobody would chose that, it is so clear that being gay or straight is in your genes, try changing over now and again, you wont manage and do you want to know why? Because it is impossible. Sorry for the rant but damn when people think that it's a bad thing for gay people to have the basic rights of anyone else it just grinds my gears like no other.
Just reading some of the Homophobic comments on this thread made my head hurt. Bottom line is if she can't do her job she should quit
Yourcountry is strange. It's like the EU. bickering over ridiculous stuff. Religion should never top the law, In any country.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is, or is not, Constitutional. (See Marbury v. Madison). And alleged majority rule does not trump Constitutional rights. If you dislike their decisions, there are means to rechallenge those decisions, and ways to legislate changes to the Constitution. It is people who defy the Constitution and the law of the U.S., like Ms. Davies, who are throwing out laws "willy Nilly." Many people disagree with Supreme Court decisions. That does not suddenly render those decisions "unconstitutional" no matter how much you rant and rave. Perhaps a basic American civics lesson would help you understand the way America actually works.
A phobia is a genuine FEAR of something, such as spiders, snakes, or the number 13, just to cite a few common examples. In a phobia, the fear is intense and results in a sharp increase in both heart rate, reparation and adrenaline. Fight or flight reflexes are always triggered. The term "homophobia" has always struck me as offensive hate speech, as it inaccurately pigeonholes people who have a differing value system and dehumanizes them. Weather you agree with or disagree with someone on this thread, throwing around more disrespect isn't the answer.