Posted on Sep 1, 2015
Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses; What is your opinion on this article?
43.5K
697
346
47
47
0
LGBTQ+
Family
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 105
1
1
0
Capt Jeff S.
Rather than fire her for not performing her job, they jail her? Really? The White House came out with a statement saying "No Government Official is above the law." If we were to hold the current Administration to that standard, Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Holder, Lerner, etc. would all be sitting in jail. There's your hypocrisy. Is this not Government Gone Wild?
In the case of Kim Davis, she was hired and then the conditions of her employment changed through no fault of her own. For deeply held religious reasons she simply didn't want to be involved in helping two individuals take part in a ceremony meant for a man and a woman that the courts turned into an abomination.
For a Christian to be forced into helping a same sex couple to get married is violating every moral principle they have. The word abomination isn't used very often in the Bible, but it IS used to describe homosexual acts. That should tell you something about the magnitude of the offense in Biblical terms.
Strangely enough, the Amish are exempt from paying Social Security Tax and they are exempt from the Obamacare penalty. Please tell me they didn't get a religious exemption from following the law.
In the case of Kim Davis, she was hired and then the conditions of her employment changed through no fault of her own. For deeply held religious reasons she simply didn't want to be involved in helping two individuals take part in a ceremony meant for a man and a woman that the courts turned into an abomination.
For a Christian to be forced into helping a same sex couple to get married is violating every moral principle they have. The word abomination isn't used very often in the Bible, but it IS used to describe homosexual acts. That should tell you something about the magnitude of the offense in Biblical terms.
Strangely enough, the Amish are exempt from paying Social Security Tax and they are exempt from the Obamacare penalty. Please tell me they didn't get a religious exemption from following the law.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
We The People hire elected officials by ELECTING them. An election win puts them on the payroll. THEY are sworn in as public servants and as such answer to their electorate and that includes everyone in their district or state, not just those that voted for them. At least that's the way it's supposed to work... At the State and Local level, Recall of a public official is how you fire them. If the public sentiment is strong enough against that person and if enough people petition, an elected official can be recalled and another election held to replace them. In a perfect, non-politically correct world, that's how it's supposed to work. The State of Kentucky doesn't have recall so the process for removing elected officials there is Impeachment. Impeachment differs from recall in that it requires a judicial process.
I guess we need to know whether the law was in place when she ran for office, and I suspect it wasn't. And so we have a Kentucky Clerk in jail for choosing to not follow a law because it violates her conscience, and the same folks up in DC claiming that officials are not above the law, have broken numerous laws, none of which violated their consciouses. What gives? Perhaps they have no conscience, which would go a long way toward explaining how it is they can point fingers at others when in fact they've done FAR worse.
Obama committed election fraud. His campaign staff took the fall for it. He still hasn't been charged for producing false documentation establishing his eligibility for office. Obama decided he doesn't have to follow the laws he doesn't agree with and doesn't enforce Federal Immigration law. As a consequence, numerous American citizens have been raped and murdered by illegals who scoff at our laws and violate our national sovereignty. As our Chief Executive, Obama's duties include Executing the laws passed by Congress. He doesn't get to pick and choose to enforce only those he agrees with. Hypocrisy much?
Obama willfully broke the law when he neglected to inform Congress about the prisoner swap and committed treason when he traded 5 Taliban (and other cats and dogs) plus ransom for 1 POS Army Deserter. If elected officials aren't above the law, the Obama by his own admission should be sitting in jail and answering for his fraud and treason.
Eric Holder was found guilty of Contempt of Congress (i.e., he lied under oath and committed perjury) yet managed to keep his job. How does that work? And Al Sharpton, who isn't even an elected official should be sitting in jail for tax evasion.
Hilllary intentionally violated Information Security procedures with her private server and as if damaging our national security wasn't enough insult, she destroyed evidence of her wrongdoing, which she lied to the courts about and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that also fit the definition of perjury? And let's not forget Benghazi. Hillary's negligence as Secretary of State got our Ambassador killed. [I believe there's more to it that we may never know because Hillary has been very busy scrubbing her server of evidence of her wrongdoing.] Three years later and Hillary has NOT been forthcoming with producing the evidence requested by Congressional investigators. All the evidence she has turned over to investigators has been picked through and selectively edited, so that investigators have only seen what she wants them to see. Hillary seems to have a very hard time understanding that SHE doesn't get to pick and choose which emails Congress gets to see. and YES, it matters! It's pretty obvious that the entire purpose for her setting up a private email server was so that she could fly under the radar and not have to answer for her shady/illegal conduct while in office. Why is she not in jail and how is it that she is STILL running for President?!!
I guess we need to know whether the law was in place when she ran for office, and I suspect it wasn't. And so we have a Kentucky Clerk in jail for choosing to not follow a law because it violates her conscience, and the same folks up in DC claiming that officials are not above the law, have broken numerous laws, none of which violated their consciouses. What gives? Perhaps they have no conscience, which would go a long way toward explaining how it is they can point fingers at others when in fact they've done FAR worse.
Obama committed election fraud. His campaign staff took the fall for it. He still hasn't been charged for producing false documentation establishing his eligibility for office. Obama decided he doesn't have to follow the laws he doesn't agree with and doesn't enforce Federal Immigration law. As a consequence, numerous American citizens have been raped and murdered by illegals who scoff at our laws and violate our national sovereignty. As our Chief Executive, Obama's duties include Executing the laws passed by Congress. He doesn't get to pick and choose to enforce only those he agrees with. Hypocrisy much?
Obama willfully broke the law when he neglected to inform Congress about the prisoner swap and committed treason when he traded 5 Taliban (and other cats and dogs) plus ransom for 1 POS Army Deserter. If elected officials aren't above the law, the Obama by his own admission should be sitting in jail and answering for his fraud and treason.
Eric Holder was found guilty of Contempt of Congress (i.e., he lied under oath and committed perjury) yet managed to keep his job. How does that work? And Al Sharpton, who isn't even an elected official should be sitting in jail for tax evasion.
Hilllary intentionally violated Information Security procedures with her private server and as if damaging our national security wasn't enough insult, she destroyed evidence of her wrongdoing, which she lied to the courts about and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that also fit the definition of perjury? And let's not forget Benghazi. Hillary's negligence as Secretary of State got our Ambassador killed. [I believe there's more to it that we may never know because Hillary has been very busy scrubbing her server of evidence of her wrongdoing.] Three years later and Hillary has NOT been forthcoming with producing the evidence requested by Congressional investigators. All the evidence she has turned over to investigators has been picked through and selectively edited, so that investigators have only seen what she wants them to see. Hillary seems to have a very hard time understanding that SHE doesn't get to pick and choose which emails Congress gets to see. and YES, it matters! It's pretty obvious that the entire purpose for her setting up a private email server was so that she could fly under the radar and not have to answer for her shady/illegal conduct while in office. Why is she not in jail and how is it that she is STILL running for President?!!
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Chapter 1 Legislative Research Commission
Duties Of Elected County Officials
Prohibitions Against Wrongdoing And Removal From Office
County judges/executive, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors, jailers, property valuation administrators, county attorneys, and constables are subject to indictment or prosecution for misfeasance, malfeasance, or willful neglect of duty during their terms in office (Ky. Const., sec. 227). The manner of indictment and prosecution is prescribed by law (KRS 61.170 and 132.370; see also KRS 63.020 to 63.180). Upon conviction of an officeholder, the office becomes vacant, but the actual time of vacancy may be determined by whether the official appeals the decision of the court (Hazelrigg v. Douglass, 104 S.W. 755 (1907)). The property valuation administrator may be removed from office by the county’s Circuit Court upon petition of any taxpayer, or by the commissioner of revenue for willful disobedience of any just or legal order of the Department of Revenue, for misfeasance or malfeasance in office or willful neglect in the discharge of official duties, including but not limited to intentional underassessment or overassessment of properties and chronic underassessment of properties (KRS 132.370).
The General Assembly is specifically authorized to provide other methods for the vacation of office or the removal from office of any sheriff, jailer, constable, or peace officer for neglect of duty. The legislature may also provide for the method of reinstatement of such
officials (Ky. Const., sec. 227).
Other constitutional provisions deal with the wrongdoing of county officials. Section 150
disqualifies any person from holding an office of trust or profit for the elected term after being convicted of procuring election by buying votes. Section 151 requires the General Assembly to provide a suitable means for depriving any person of elective office who has procured nomination or election by the unlawful use of money. An officeholder is also deprived of office if it was obtained by fraud, intimidation, bribery, or other corrupt practice. The officeholder is also responsible for acts done by others with the holder’s knowledge or instruction.
All county officials are susceptible to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office (Ky. Const., sec. 68). All persons who have participated in a duel are disqualified from holding county offices (Ky. Const., secs. 228 and 239). It is a felony for county officials to directly or indirectly receive an interest, profit, or perquisite through the use or loan of public funds raised by their office (Ky. Const., sec. 173).
Officials can be disqualified from holding public office or lose their office as a result of their conduct. Public servants are subject to disqualification from office if convicted of abuse of public trust under KRS 522.050. If an officer is convicted of selling or letting an office, or prospective office, that officer is prohibited from holding the office (KRS 61.010). In addition to the constitutional prohibitions, a conviction of dueling disqualifies a person from holding office (KRS 61.100). Local officials taking bribes also forfeit their offices (KRS 432.350).
Duties Of Elected County Officials
Prohibitions Against Wrongdoing And Removal From Office
County judges/executive, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors, jailers, property valuation administrators, county attorneys, and constables are subject to indictment or prosecution for misfeasance, malfeasance, or willful neglect of duty during their terms in office (Ky. Const., sec. 227). The manner of indictment and prosecution is prescribed by law (KRS 61.170 and 132.370; see also KRS 63.020 to 63.180). Upon conviction of an officeholder, the office becomes vacant, but the actual time of vacancy may be determined by whether the official appeals the decision of the court (Hazelrigg v. Douglass, 104 S.W. 755 (1907)). The property valuation administrator may be removed from office by the county’s Circuit Court upon petition of any taxpayer, or by the commissioner of revenue for willful disobedience of any just or legal order of the Department of Revenue, for misfeasance or malfeasance in office or willful neglect in the discharge of official duties, including but not limited to intentional underassessment or overassessment of properties and chronic underassessment of properties (KRS 132.370).
The General Assembly is specifically authorized to provide other methods for the vacation of office or the removal from office of any sheriff, jailer, constable, or peace officer for neglect of duty. The legislature may also provide for the method of reinstatement of such
officials (Ky. Const., sec. 227).
Other constitutional provisions deal with the wrongdoing of county officials. Section 150
disqualifies any person from holding an office of trust or profit for the elected term after being convicted of procuring election by buying votes. Section 151 requires the General Assembly to provide a suitable means for depriving any person of elective office who has procured nomination or election by the unlawful use of money. An officeholder is also deprived of office if it was obtained by fraud, intimidation, bribery, or other corrupt practice. The officeholder is also responsible for acts done by others with the holder’s knowledge or instruction.
All county officials are susceptible to impeachment for any misdemeanors in office (Ky. Const., sec. 68). All persons who have participated in a duel are disqualified from holding county offices (Ky. Const., secs. 228 and 239). It is a felony for county officials to directly or indirectly receive an interest, profit, or perquisite through the use or loan of public funds raised by their office (Ky. Const., sec. 173).
Officials can be disqualified from holding public office or lose their office as a result of their conduct. Public servants are subject to disqualification from office if convicted of abuse of public trust under KRS 522.050. If an officer is convicted of selling or letting an office, or prospective office, that officer is prohibited from holding the office (KRS 61.010). In addition to the constitutional prohibitions, a conviction of dueling disqualifies a person from holding office (KRS 61.100). Local officials taking bribes also forfeit their offices (KRS 432.350).
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
Any of you ever get a order that you did not agree with?
Did you then refuse to obey it because of (you insert the reason) Wait, i suspect you did obey it.
Did you then refuse to obey it because of (you insert the reason) Wait, i suspect you did obey it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Jesus never taught civil disobedience. "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's....." This one passage exemplifies his lesson that we may not agree with civil authority, but we should follow it. That is a lesson in leadership and integrity. Do you disagree with any of GOD's laws? If so, you still must follow them to be obedient to HIS word. Remember we are talking about man's world versus GOD's world. She is right to disagree with the law, but she should remove herself from that position if it compromises her version of her faith.
(1)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Jesus practiced civil disobedience by stating He is God. This was a capital crime in the Roman Empire
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
SFC Mario Rodriquez Jesus violated the law when he stated that he is God. This was a capital offense in the Riman empire. His disciples also broke the law by preaching the Gospel and were jailed and killed for it as were many more over the next 300 years. Were it not for civil disobedience, Moses would have been killed as a child and Israel would still be in Egypt. Daniel defied the law by praying to God and not worshipping Darius or Nebudchanezzar as gods. Same goes for Shadrack, Meshack, Abednego and Esther.
(0)
(0)
SFC Mario Rodriquez
You are speaking of laws written by men. Christ was obeying the will of His Father. Christians should obey the civil authorities, the laws written by men, but MUST obey the laws of God. Don't confuse the two. If she has an issue with the law of men, resign and stay true to the laws of God.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why is a 10 year old POST appearing in my my email? I scrolled to the bottom. Last comment was 10 years ago. It was a non-issue to the military and to Veterans back then. Still is a non-issue today. I don't care one way or the other. Marry who you want.
Isn't there anything more current or more interesting?
RP staff, editors, anyone????
Isn't there anything more current or more interesting?
RP staff, editors, anyone????
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
As an employee of a Country, State, County, City, town.... you get the idea... your duty is to the citizens of the community... not just the ones you agree with.. but all citizens. If she is unable to this becuase of her "beliefs" then I would first determine if there was a job for her that could "accomodate" her challenge. If there was none, I'd counsel her and offer her the options... execute or resign.
A few years ago their was a soldier who refused to wear a "UN Beret". Using brevity... he stated he did not enlist in the UN Army but in the US Army... things did not go well for him... as he forgot that he "Swore and Oath" to obey all orders... his unit was supporting an approved mission to support the UN efforts... he was chaptered.
Personally, "Much Ado about Nothing".... to quote Shakespeare
A few years ago their was a soldier who refused to wear a "UN Beret". Using brevity... he stated he did not enlist in the UN Army but in the US Army... things did not go well for him... as he forgot that he "Swore and Oath" to obey all orders... his unit was supporting an approved mission to support the UN efforts... he was chaptered.
Personally, "Much Ado about Nothing".... to quote Shakespeare
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Sir, what is this sign of times (and I am talking more about the Soldier here than Kim D) that people believe that they can pick and choose what sits right with them or not? If you swore and oath, that should be enough. If you are given an order you do obey, or you cannot be trusted with anything. At least Kim D has the liberty to quit - something that is harder for a Soldier.
(0)
(0)
MSG Richard Raubenstine
This is no different then the moslum impossing their religous belief on us. The refuse to compromise on our beliefs but we must bend to theirs. Why is it right for one group but not another?
(0)
(0)
1SG Cameron M. Wesson
SGT (Join to see) Brother... here is a truth that you will see play out "over and over", people always believe... this includes soldiers... that they have a "Choice". More times than not they "do not"... even in the privvate sector. You are spot on WRT to a soldier not being able to quit... that is simply not an option... but a soldier does have an advantage that most "civilains" don't have... that being regulations that cover most DOs and NONOTs. That has protected me more times than a few because we are trained to "error on the side of the soldier"... "sir... the regulation says..." most civilians don't normal abide by that premiss nor even their own policy.
Just my persepective
Have a great weekend
Just my persepective
Have a great weekend
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Regarding Biblical guidance on divorce: http://www.openbible.info/topics/divorce
Regarding her duties as an elected official: In addition to Section 228, U.S. Constitution...as follows:
"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
Regarding rulings of SCOTUS: http://www.supremecourt.gov/ Marbury v. Madison 1803- "In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is."
That's law...here' my opinion:
George Washington himself was the first person to add "So help me God" to the Oath of Office for elected officials. Kim Davis has expressed her belief that in doing such during her own oath, she was affirming and attaching her commitment to faith to that oath. This was done prior to the ruling of the SCOTUS, and has precedence in establishing a "conditional" acceptance of her position. Her prior marital history does not factor in from a religious perspective as Christian doctrine espouses the principle of repentance and forgiveness...not to mention the intricacies of the Judeo-legal basis for divorce that would require substantive review of any and all divorce papers filed under her cognizance. More to the point, the provenance of religious practice within Christianity is one of continual discipline, which logically implies that an adherent's failure to comply with doctrine in one instance does not preclude (and in fact, adds weight) to one's decision to comply in another occurrence of the same, or other choice.
As far as arguing whether or not it is "legal" to refuse to comply with the rulings of the SCOTUS, the case of Marbury vs. Madison clearly establishes the Supreme Court as the body entrusted with preserving the spirit of the Constitution against shifting legislation. In it's own day, the case was a pivotal aspect of the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debate, and a leading cause of future conflict between federal and state decisions on a host of issues.
More to the point, this is the same context within which magistrates and appointed officials of the colonial government faced hard choices in 1776, and that officials in individual states and officers of the U.S. military faced in 1861. What does an official do when personal convictions conflict with the legal governance of law?
To my mind, to resign one's position under this condition would be neither obedience to law, nor opposition to it. To comply with law that contravenes one's own principles would be to reject the authority of principle in favor of law. To retain one's position while refusing to reject one's principles is to challenge the law itself in favor of principle.
This has been the decision of numerous Americans, regardless of ideology, since our inception, including such people as Washington, Revere, Lee, Jackson, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, etc.
I will not attempt to argue that Kim Davis is acting within her "Constitutional rights" because the established relationship of the SCOTUS as interpreting authority makes that a hollow debate. However, I will admit that I consider her choice to be one of the highest moral courage, and can only hope and pray that the elected and appointed officials of our nation are granted wisdom from God towards avoiding further such controversies. These arguments serve nothing but division, and illustrate the slippery slope of involving taxation and the resulting civil governance of an institution whose inception was historically and remains, deeply spiritual.
Regarding her duties as an elected official: In addition to Section 228, U.S. Constitution...as follows:
"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
Regarding rulings of SCOTUS: http://www.supremecourt.gov/ Marbury v. Madison 1803- "In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is."
That's law...here' my opinion:
George Washington himself was the first person to add "So help me God" to the Oath of Office for elected officials. Kim Davis has expressed her belief that in doing such during her own oath, she was affirming and attaching her commitment to faith to that oath. This was done prior to the ruling of the SCOTUS, and has precedence in establishing a "conditional" acceptance of her position. Her prior marital history does not factor in from a religious perspective as Christian doctrine espouses the principle of repentance and forgiveness...not to mention the intricacies of the Judeo-legal basis for divorce that would require substantive review of any and all divorce papers filed under her cognizance. More to the point, the provenance of religious practice within Christianity is one of continual discipline, which logically implies that an adherent's failure to comply with doctrine in one instance does not preclude (and in fact, adds weight) to one's decision to comply in another occurrence of the same, or other choice.
As far as arguing whether or not it is "legal" to refuse to comply with the rulings of the SCOTUS, the case of Marbury vs. Madison clearly establishes the Supreme Court as the body entrusted with preserving the spirit of the Constitution against shifting legislation. In it's own day, the case was a pivotal aspect of the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debate, and a leading cause of future conflict between federal and state decisions on a host of issues.
More to the point, this is the same context within which magistrates and appointed officials of the colonial government faced hard choices in 1776, and that officials in individual states and officers of the U.S. military faced in 1861. What does an official do when personal convictions conflict with the legal governance of law?
To my mind, to resign one's position under this condition would be neither obedience to law, nor opposition to it. To comply with law that contravenes one's own principles would be to reject the authority of principle in favor of law. To retain one's position while refusing to reject one's principles is to challenge the law itself in favor of principle.
This has been the decision of numerous Americans, regardless of ideology, since our inception, including such people as Washington, Revere, Lee, Jackson, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, etc.
I will not attempt to argue that Kim Davis is acting within her "Constitutional rights" because the established relationship of the SCOTUS as interpreting authority makes that a hollow debate. However, I will admit that I consider her choice to be one of the highest moral courage, and can only hope and pray that the elected and appointed officials of our nation are granted wisdom from God towards avoiding further such controversies. These arguments serve nothing but division, and illustrate the slippery slope of involving taxation and the resulting civil governance of an institution whose inception was historically and remains, deeply spiritual.
(0)
(0)
SFC Mario Rodriquez
Remember, Jesus told the Jews that Moses granted them the right of divorce to appease them. Jesus then went on to say that all divorce is wrong. I agree with Jesus. Marriage should not be taken lightly and once you are married you should stay married. Christians must set the example or be labeled as hypocrites, which is a problem for those who choose which biblical doctrines to obey. It just seems funny to me that none of this came out until the Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage. She might have thought of some different courses of action when it was being considered, not one she was jailed. This is not an attack on her faith. She was jailed for her civil disobedience by not doing her job. Do not confuse the two.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SFC Rodriquez-I hope I'm not being presumptive to state that as a Brother in Christ, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding hypocrisy. However, I (respectfully) submit that without knowing the status of her personal 'walk' at the time in question, I have to assume she is living under grace as we all hope to do, having repented of past wrongs...to include adultery and divorce. That said, I too agree that it is unfortunate the guidance on positions of authority according to scripture are difficult to apply in this case. To my mind, it is clear that when one's religious beliefs are in conflict with the oath taken to serve in public office, we may not be able to call it an 'attack' on faith...but we can certainly say that being a person of faith creates potential conflict as a public servant; and to my mind...that is serious enough to warrant consideration in a representative republic.
(0)
(0)
SFC Mario Rodriquez
You are right and your point if very well presented. Often our "jobs" expose us to issues and situations that compromise our faith. It is up to us to maintain that faith, but our actions say more than our words. I am divorced and in God's eyes I am wrong, but the gift of salvation by Christ sacrificing Himself for our sins assures me that while I still must answer for my sins, I do not have to pay for my sins. Thank you for your eloquent words.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Why she cares......???
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google