Is Kim Davis wrong? Or is the Supreme Ct wrong about requiring acceptance of same-sex "marriage"?

[Syriusly]

Yes, they decided that portion based on their Constitutional mandate...

... where they went wrong was to expand that to gay marriages...

... which is extra-judicial and falls outside the parameters of their jurisdiction.

Had they kicked it back to Congress to give Congress a legislative reason for doing what they did, then the Supreme Court would have performed their Constitutionall given function...

... but instead, they went beyond their boundary and imposed their will...

... rather than the will of Congress.

The protected status of gender vs. sexual orientation may be splitting hairs...

... but that is Congress's function to do the haircut - not the Supreme Court.

Congress has no authority to tell States how they can regulate marriage.

The Supreme Court however has the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether a Federal law(DOMA) or State law is unconstitutional.

 

[oreo]

Excellent description of opening up Pandora's box. It's not about if you agree or disagree with the U.S Supreme court--it's about putting the taxpayers at risk for class action lawsuits because of your religious beliefs or opinions.

This Kentucky clerk has two options: Either quit her job, or do her job.

 

[g5000]

The reason for Davis' opinion is immaterial. Much like it is immaterial if a person thinks that gay marriage is a right, doesn't make it a right. Even the SCOTUS ruling does not make it a right it just forces the states to do something that is beyond their laws.

I swear you are the most ignorant people on the planet. The SCOTUS protects rights AGAINST state legislation that denies those rights.

I don't disagree but once again you slap me with a red herring. THIS is not what the SCOTUS did, they MADE law. Will you agree that there are states that changed their laws for accommodate gay marriage? Thus that is proof enough that existing law did not accommodate gay marriage. It is one thing for the SCOTUS to strike down a law, but to say a law says something it does not and redefine the word marriage, as used in all existing law is just not constitutional, in my opinion.

So let's get into a discussion on how the SCOTUS thinks corporations are people.

They redefined marriage when I was a kid. They took out the "of the same race" part. You know, even though it went against the Bible and stuff.

"We've always oppressed these people" is not a legal argument.

 

[g5000]

Why not just get married in your church and call it good? Why do you need to have the State's approval?

Huh?

Because you want the government cash and prizes. It has NOTHING to do with religion. So stop pretending your feelings are hurt. You just don't want to share with people you don't like. It's as simple as that.

 

[mudwhistle]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage, but I wanted them to get it in a more legit manner, not through lying and ignoring the eventual Pandora's Box this will eventually open.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

The Supreme Court was wrong.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. To call anything else a marriage does not make it so, and only makes a sick mockery of genuine marriage.

There is nothing in the Constitution which allows or supports the outrageous attempt to redefine marriage to include sick mockeries thereof; and in any case, such a redefinition is nonsense, just as if the court had ruled that a rotifer is an elephant.

So...you wish to force your interpretation onto the rest of the country. Cool...

Obviously you have forced your interpretation on the rest of the country. 10 years ago this wasn't even worth considering. Now the media has not only made it into an idea, but a reality. This is how propaganda works.

Its on thing to give someone the right to do this. Quite another thing when you start throwing people in jail and taking away their freedom.

Really? We are forcing you to have a gay marriage? When's the date?

We all have to take a big bite and then ask for seconds.....or get thrown in jail. And all you had to do was be more reasonable. But no!!

I'm sensing a backlash coming in 2016.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

Kim Davis is using her position as a State official to use State authority to force people to follow her religion. The 1st amendment explicitly forbids this. The government cannot establish religion. Kim Davis did so.

She was offered a perfectly reasonable compromise: with 5 of the 6 deputy clerks willing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, allow one of the other clerks to issue the licenses.

Kim Davis refusing, insisting that she would do everything in her power to interfere with any clerk attempting to issue such a license. She forced her religion on the public. She forced her religion on her fellow clerks.

And she doesn't have the authority to force it on anyone.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

The Supreme Court was wrong.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. To call anything else a marriage does not make it so, and only makes a sick mockery of genuine marriage.

There is nothing in the Constitution which allows or supports the outrageous attempt to redefine marriage to include sick mockeries thereof; and in any case, such a redefinition is nonsense, just as if the court had ruled that a rotifer is an elephant.

So...you wish to force your interpretation onto the rest of the country. Cool...

Obviously you have forced your interpretation on the rest of the country. 10 years ago this wasn't even worth considering. Now the media has not only made it into an idea, but a reality. This is how propaganda works.

Its on thing to give someone the right to do this. Quite another thing when you start throwing people in jail and taking away their freedom.

Really? We are forcing you to have a gay marriage? When's the date?

We all have to take a big bite and then ask for seconds.....or get thrown in jail. And all you had to do was be more reasonable. But no!!

I'm sensing a backlash coming in 2016.

When Kim Davis refused the reasonable compromise offered to her by the judge in question, she lost any moral high ground. The judge asked her merely to not interfere with another clerk in her office issuing the license. Kim Davis insisted she would interfere with any clerk who did so.

She had a chance to be reasonable. She refused, instead trying to use the State to force unwilling people to obey her religion. She was checked. And rightly so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage, but I wanted them to get it in a more legit manner, not through lying and ignoring the eventual Pandora's Box this will eventually open.

You're lying.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Congress has no authority to tell States how they can regulate marriage.
The Supreme Court however has the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether a Federal law(DOMA) or State law is unconstitutional.

So, did the people who wrote and ratified the 14th, intend it to mean that it was now OK for government to make a law forcing people to go against their own religion, as long as it could be couched in language claiming it would give someone else "equal rights"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Congress has no authority to tell States how they can regulate marriage.
The Supreme Court however has the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether a Federal law(DOMA) or State law is unconstitutional.

So, did the people who wrote and ratified the 14th, intend it to mean that it was now OK for government to make a law forcing people to go against their own religion, as long as it could be couched in language claiming it would give someone else "equal rights"?

Yes.

 

[Skylar]

Congress has no authority to tell States how they can regulate marriage.
The Supreme Court however has the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether a Federal law(DOMA) or State law is unconstitutional.

So, did the people who wrote and ratified the 14th, intend it to mean that it was now OK for government to make a law forcing people to go against their own religion, as long as it could be couched in language claiming it would give someone else "equal rights"?

The people that wrote the 14th most definitely intended it to apply the bill of rights to the States. And the states are explicitly forbidden from establishing religion. Kim Davis used her state authority to force people to obey her religion. Violating the 1st amendment by establishing religion by the State.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Kim Davis used her state authority to force people to obey her religion.

No, she refused to enforce a law that required her to violate her own religion.

Did the people who wrote and ratified the 14th, intend for it to force people to violate their own religion? If it could be couched in language claiming to provide "equal rights" to someone else?

 

[Skylar]

Kim Davis used her state authority to force people to obey her religion.

No, she refused to enforce a law that required her to violate her own religion.

As a state official, she's wielding state power. She used that position and that power to force people to abide her religion. She invented a religious test that eligible citizens had to pass before they were 'allowed' to receive state services.

She has no authority to force others to abide her religion. She has no authority to invent a religious test for state services.

She was offered a perfectly reasonable comprimise: allow any of the other 5 clerks who were willing to issue the licenses to do so. She refused, insisting that she would do everything in her power to interfere with any clerk attempting to issue such a license. Imposing her religion upon her clerks.

Any such imposition using State authority is a 1st amendment violation. As it is establishing religion by the State. Invalidating Kim Davis' position yet again. There's a reason her record in every court to hear her case was one of perfect failure.

 

[Claudette]

Kim Davis is way wrong. She's trying to force her religious beliefs on others.

If she doesn't want to do her job because of those beliefs then she can resign and someone else will be elected to do that job.

Davis is an idiot.

 

[mudwhistle]

Kim Davis is way wrong. She's trying to force her religious beliefs on others.

If she doesn't want to do her job because of those beliefs then she can resign and someone else will be elected to do that job.

Davis is an idiot.

She didn't force anything.

She told them to go to Hell and then gave them directions.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress has no authority to tell States how they can regulate marriage.
The Supreme Court however has the authority to interpret the Constitution and determine whether a Federal law(DOMA) or State law is unconstitutional.

So, did the people who wrote and ratified the 14th, intend it to mean that it was now OK for government to make a law forcing people to go against their own religion, as long as it could be couched in language claiming it would give someone else "equal rights"?

Sure- there were Christians slave owners who believed that God intended them to own slaves. There were others who- based upon their Christian faith- firmly believed that negroes were incapable of voting, or being elected officials, or even had the same actual rights as 'whites'- the 14th Amendment didn't care about the religious beliefs of those who would prevent African Americans from voting.

The 14th Amendment didn't say that the law applies to everyone- except Christians.

 

[Skylar]

Kim Davis is way wrong. She's trying to force her religious beliefs on others.

If she doesn't want to do her job because of those beliefs then she can resign and someone else will be elected to do that job.

Davis is an idiot.

She didn't force anything.

Oh, she did. She made up a religious test that eligible citizens had to 'pass' before they were allowed to receive state services. She has no authority to make up such a test. She has no authority to deny state services to eligible ctizens.

She used her position as a state official to force both the public and her clerks to abide her religion.

She failed. As she should have.

 

[Syriusly]

Kim Davis used her state authority to force people to obey her religion.

No, she refused to enforce a law that required her to violate her own religion.

According to her.

Do we then allow anyone to refuse to do anything if they claim it violates their religion?

Do we allow judges to refuse to condemn someone to death?
Do we allow sheriffs to refuse to issue gun licenses?
Do we allow Muslims to refuse to issue marriage licenses to Christians?

Allowing people to refuse to do something- claiming it violates his or her religion is an all or nothing kind of thing- unless of course you want the government deciding who has legitimate religious objections.....and that is even scarier.

 

[bodecea]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage, but I wanted them to get it in a more legit manner, not through lying and ignoring the eventual Pandora's Box this will eventually open.

What is the "more legit manner" you have in mind? Using the court system set up by the U.S. Constitution isn't legit?