Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses; What is your opinion on this article?

Regardless of who filed, it still happened. According to the gospel of Luke, if either party divorces their spouse they become adulterers. Considering she's been married AND divorced three times........"he who is without sin, cast the first stone." (John 8:7) Just going to put this right here.

It is my understanding (and this is purely RUMINT) that she starting getting involved in church/her walk with Christ after initiating her current marriage. I understand her concerns, but totally disagree with her approach.

According to the article: As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Any impeachment of her would have to wait until the legislature's regular session next year or could come during a costly special session. The law is the law. She was elected to perform her duties accordingly. She hasn't, and therefore should resign or wait to be impeached. If she chooses to wait, she'll be impeached in jail, and that's a lot of jail time.

My take on this subject totally flipped when they put her in jail. A fine I'd agree with, even house arrest, but to put someone in handcuffs and send them to jail is an insult to our first amendment. This is the first time I can think of when someone has been jailed exclusivley for their long standing, documented, religious beliefs. While no employee of the state or Government should exercise their personal discretion in execution of their jobs (we are paid to follow the law) It should never be a crime to stand up for your religion, the Judge should have used a better tool for this case. I completely stand with her today.

Sgt Richard Buckner - But is upholding her oath now vs. when she was elected fair to those she's supposed to support? She wasn't of this brand of Christianity when she was first hired, so if she converted to Islam in the middle of session, we're supposed to bend to her now new religion? I don't care about anyone's religious beliefs. The only thing I'm worried about is can she do the job? If her religious views in any way cloud her judgment, or preclude her from preforming her duties, she has to go. She is an elected official so firing her isn't really on the table at the moment. This is a far fetched scenario, but you wouldn't have a Marine with you in the beginning of a firefight tell you "SGT Buckner I cannot shoot at that person because Buddha told me all life is precious". I'm sure that Marine would discover seven layers of pain from every extension of your body onto his, and he would find out how Leavenworth feels when you (and the Corps) get done with him. If your religious views make it so you cannot do the job, then you need to go. As far as locking her up, she told a judge what she wasn't going to do, after being given a chance to do what was told. Anyone would be locked up at that point. You cannot tell a sitting Judge what you will and will not do in his/her court after they give you an ultimatum.

Sgt Richard Buckner - As they should. I used that scenario on purpose being if you joined the service and suddenly find God (which is fine by me), your beliefs should not interfere with your duties. We've had religious objectors in this war who were grunts, find God, still want to be a grunt but not do their job. You cannot have it your way. In her case, she came into this job one way. Found Jesus, and turned another. If her finding Jesus prevented her from doing what was legally found to be just, she should've done the right thing and quit or allow someone else to assume her position and she into another where her religious views won't hinder the mission. For a service member, they either need to ETS, retire, or just get out honorably somehow. You can't have it both ways without there being some kind of issue that someone's going to have to deal with in the future.

Did you know that if you don't live in Kentucky and you don't vote that you have a right to not care and let Kentuckians decide? I know right? Mind blown.

She be fired! Or atleast resign! If you are NOT going to do the job you don't need to keep it!

MAJ Keira Brennan - Everyone has a right to their own beliefs Ma'am. Even God allows that. That's supposed to be one of the great things about the USA is you can believe, have your on opinion, and say what you want.

MAJ Keira Brennan - And I reserve that right of freedom also Have a great day.

Cpl James Waycasie - Leviticus 20:13 - kill the homosexuals!!!! (like me)

MAJ Keira Brennan - That changed in the New testament Ma'am. That was God's law given to Israel. Jesus came and taught to love everyone. Don't blame me for what God wrote, take it up with him if you have issues with him. Your issue isn't with me, Ma'am. I have homosexual friends, some of the finest people I met live "alternative lifestyles. I am not a homosexual, but I don't go around holding signs and giving them hell. I will pay for my sins and what I do just like everybody else, including you, ma'am will do. Never know, if we met, we might become good friends also Ma'am

SPC Nathan Freeman -
And your calling them "disturbing" is troubling. My first part was clearly joking, as indicated by my use of "L-O-L". My last statement was not joking.

She didn't do her job. She is in jail. If you signed on for a job and did not carry out the very criteria of said job, you have to have consequences. We will part ways on this issue.

CSM (Join to see)

I have put Soldiers in jail for not doing their job...might have come off the top rope on a few of those knuckle heads too!!!

Life should be more like hockey, someone pisses you off and you beat the shit out of them and then spend five minutes in the penalty box. There would be less people running their suck holes!

CSM (Join to see) -
Ahhh, you. :) Get thee back CONUS... soon.

My attitude completely flipped when she went to jail. She should have been placed under house arrest or fined, but jail time for taking a religious stance is a slap in the face of our protected 1st amendment rights.

CSM (Join to see) They'll give her until the end of day. It's not like she can't say she wasn't processing the backlog in her office. It's tomorrow she needs to worry.

That is a good point. She stopped issuing any marriage licensees...

CSM (Join to see) - I think where you were going with that is the all or nothing approach that she cant be discriminating. However unlike a judge who has the choice to marry all or none, the county clerk does not have a choice to not issue marriage licences to anyone that is legally allowed to obtain one. Ceremony is a choice paperwork is not.

I think this is how it should work. Pastours and Preachers should not be made ( and right now they do not have to because of freedom of religion) to perform a wedding against their belief. Now Justice of the peace's and others who hold office involving this issue are not a church and cannot claim that right. If they feel it's against their religious belief, then quit and seek employment elsewhere. Protest if you want, but on your own time. I am a Christian and I am licensed to marry people. I don't believe in same sex marriages, it goes against my religious belief so I do not have to perform any marriage that goes against my belief, but I am not an Official in the government, paid by the government and having to bide by their laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to this matter.

PO3 Dale S. - I thank you for attempting to "poke" at me as if you have proven something wrong in what I said. Maybe you should read the article instead of a couple of lines and comments made by others. “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” Davis said in the statement. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.”

A direct quote from this lady in which you've stated you support and that's fine. However, this goes back to what I said earlier, you cannot pick and choose which portions of God's word you're willing to follow. Isn't it a sin to divorce? She's been married and divorced three times. According to the BIBLE, that makes her an adulterer. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a commandment she has broken three times? Yet you support her. She is complete hypocrite as plain as day just like many others who spout the word of God yet live in sin and rebuke others for doing the same. That's NOT what being a child/follower of God is about nor is that in any of the messages in the bible.

If she is going to follow the word, she needs to do exactly that and not fall into the overly used category of "do as I say, not as I do."

PO3 Dale S. - You're completely missing the ENTIRE argument SHE (the lady you supposedly support). The argument isn't WHAT she's against (same-sex marriage) the argument is WHY (goes against the sanctity of marriage and God's word). That's her entire basis behind her choices. That is why I said you should read the actual article. Her beliefs are what is portrayed and written in the bible according to God. What makes her a hypocrite is her persistent usage of the bible to validate her argument on what marriage is supposed to be while not following GOD'S word regarding marriages in her own.

People who are opposed to same sex marriages shouldn't get one. If it your job to issue marriage license than issue marriage licenses. If you can't because of your "religious beliefs" than find a new job. What if she opposed inter-racial couples would people support her in not issueing them licenses? What about issueing licenses to atheist?

No Christian is perfect. Nonbelievers are hypocrites too but that's another discussion. Even if she didn't sign it herself, if anyone in her office signed it, it will still have her name on it because she is the elected official. I don't know if she coerced or encouraged her employees regarding issuing licenses. The liberal press is always spinning things a certain way. I can see why she would influence them though. She has done all that is in her power now. The rest is up to them.

SPC Nathan Freeman - You want someone in a foxhole with you who would conveniently place their personal convictions above their ACTUAL obligation and sense of duty? So what happens during a firefight when this person finds that YOU are not in their best interests anymore and leave? That whole thought process is absurd, and very shortsighted. Someone like that would allow you to be killed at the drop of a hat, and that's someone you want? Better yet, YOU let a Soldier tell you they don't want to take an APFT, Qual, show up for work on time, or even wear the correct uniform all because of their "religious" convictions. Let me know how that works out for you as the leader and that Soldier. I can tell you now...if you allow that Soldier to get away with that, you will be relieved and looking at the Army from the outside in with that Soldier. You don't get to pick and choose when you want to do something. If you get into a position where the rules are clear cut by your superiors (as the SCOTUS is in her case), you do them or get a new job with the quickness.

she should find another job maybe for god not the government.

COL Jon Thompson I was trying to find that confirmation as well. Beyond sanctity of marriage, how many of them had sex before their previous divorce was finalized? That would still be adultery, even though the marriage was being dissolved.

Sgt Richard Buckner - Whether we agree with it or not, the Judicial branch has been legislating from the bench since the founding of our nation. And even in cases where state and federal laws conflict, the federal law will have primacy.

Is that enough to give her the boot(impeach?)?

SSgt Josh Simonette - Only after she is convicted of a crime and then she would have to be impeached by the next session of the legistature. That could take a long time. Her term might be up before they could get her out of office unless the feds overstep their authority and do it.

PO3 Dale S. - That is fine when it is a private citizen privately espousing their views. This is a government official forcing her religious beliefs on the public. As SSgt Josh Simonette said, she is a hypocrite. If she wants to stand by her beliefs, then she should resign from her office. As it is right now, she is just bringing shame to her community. This is not the kind of press that any community wants to have.

PO3 Dale S. - absolutely! instead she went full retard and stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether.

Yep, because democracy.

"Religious liberty does not mean you get to impose your religion's rules on others," unless those others work for you, so says Hobby Lobby.

SPC Nathan Freeman, based on reading some of your other posts, I think you should un-upvote me. I was being sarcastic above. I believe in the principle that CW3 (Join to see) is talking about (i.e. where I quoted him), but our freedom from religion is at risk due to religious freedom laws and court decisions such as Hobby Lobby. This country is about protecting everyone's interests, and standing up for the vulnerable. Our law is uncertain right now (the Court's refusal to hear Kim Davis' case is merely them temporarily avoiding the fight they will inevitably have to decide unless Congress acts), but we are very close as a nation to saying "you may be forced to choose between having or keeping your job by adhering to someone else's religion, or losing your job to keep with your own morality."

Working for the state (state or federal) is an exception because the state must remain neutral on religion.

I am sure if we got into a full blown discussion we would bump heads, but I, being a Christian and not believing in homosexual lifestyles and any type of sin ( although I mess up and do sin my self) agree with you. Even God allows people to make their own choices and believe anything they choose to.

Rendering to Fraser what is Fraser’s has nothing to do with same sex marriage. You took that verse out of context to fit this view. That is sin. The Jesus is against same sex marriage just as He says that those who divorce for reasons other that sexual immorality are not permitted to be married. That being the case no pastor is to remarry the one who committed the sin of sexual immorality. If that person does remarry they are in adultery and will be judged and the person that married them also commits adultery. She is just standing for what Jesus is against homosexuality. Read 1 Corinthians 6. He does not like for mankind to re-write what he created marriage to be one biological man and one biological woman. No discussion. What is there to debate or discuss?

ER...oppression. Damn text-to-speech on my phone.

PO3 Dale S. - actually her oath is completely different than ours and it still goes back to the fact she has a job to do if she doesn't like then she needs to get a new job. Its obsurd to think she can ignore part of her job because she doesn't like it and expect that to not have consequences.

The Constitution says that elected officials must uphold the law. Kim Davis refused to uphold the law and kept rights away from those entitled to receive them. She should lose her job, and that is NOT religious oppression.

You're basically arguing that she has the right to break the law because of her beliefs. That's the same thing Richard and Mildred Loving were also persecuted for.

PO3 Dale S. - she sure hasnt remembered, she did not give equal anything.