Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Foxfire
Well-known member
The job included issuing licenses to any "legally qualified" applicants.
PERIOD!
Personal beliefs or preferential selectivity was not part of the job description in any way whatsoever.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If the law decided that polygamists or father/daughter or father/son were qualified, should she turn a blind eye and just hand them out?
If the law decided - as it had in the past - that homosexuals were not qualified, was she correct in refusing them then?
How does that pick their pocket or break their leg?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So you would have no qualms congratulating her on a job well done fifty years ago when she refused interracial couples?
I hope that if I lived then I'd think it was awful and that I'd be voting, writing Congress and doing all I legally could to overturn it. But she isn't a lawmaker. Her job is to execute lawful directives aimed at her office. If she can't do that in good conscience then she should resign.
Lexington'96
New member
Interracial marriage actually has a basis in history, gay marriage was invented recently.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Wouldn't that have left, in the past, positions of government filled with people who were comfortable with supporting racism, in "good" conscience?
Won't that leave, today, positions of government filled with people who are comfortable with supporting perversion, in "good" conscience?
Last edited:
Foxfire
Well-known member
That's absurd! This ISN'T fifty years ago and she hasn't refused ANY licenses on racial grounds.
A swing and a miss..... try to stay up with the times. (and please limit your out of time frame speculations to yourself)
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My post was a direct response to yours.
If you don't understand the point I made, I can try again.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You appear to be arguing that Mrs. Davis, in fulfilling her duties, should have issued licenses to any applicants that the legal system considers "qualified"
HERE YOU APPEAR TO BE INJECTING EMOTION TO EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT!
And here you appear to be arguing that public servants should be unthinking robots.
Now, try to follow along skippy.
Fifty years ago, in Kentucky, if an interracial couple had attempted to get her to issue a marriage license, they would not have been legally qualified, and she, as a robotic public servant, would have been acting appropriately - BY YOUR ARGUMENT! - in denying them.
Foxfire
Well-known member
Now, try to follow along with this, skippy.
50 years ago I was actively fighting against discrimination and I still am.
The only thing that your comments serve is to illustrate the backwardness of a bygone era and is totally out of context with current affairs.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
many here already support same sex marriage
so
do you really care what they think?
the issue here is religious freedom
she was elected to do a job
her name is on the marriage license
all they have to do is take her name off
she is willing to go to jail because she does not want her name on the license for a same sex marriage
she has the courage of her convictions
she is a true hero for many of us
get ready for more of this
it is just the beginning
so
do you really care what they think?
the issue here is religious freedom
she was elected to do a job
her name is on the marriage license
all they have to do is take her name off
she is willing to go to jail because she does not want her name on the license for a same sex marriage
she has the courage of her convictions
she is a true hero for many of us
get ready for more of this
it is just the beginning
The motivation of people, so far as it fails to impinge on the exercise of their duty, is their own business. So whether a person is comfortable giving out speeding tickets or not isn't meaningful to anyone else unless they resist their duty under the law.
Beyond that, your parallel mostly follows form and not function. By that I mean racism in the law was by its nature a thing that excluded people from power, from equality under it and the free exercise of right. What we're talking about here, however any of us feel about it, is the undoing of laws that did that very thing. So we'd be talking about people who were comfortable with treating this group just the same as it would, say, a Klansman coming to the window for a permit to march or meet in a public space. Or the Rotary.
We are free to think homosexuality a perversion contrary to the moral good and God's will, which is our right, but that right no longer entitles anyone to deny them their right to exercise their own freedom of conscience and to live with the consequence, moral and other, as anyone in the heterosexual community might.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The motivation of people, so far as it fails to impinge on the exercise of their duty, is their own business. So whether a person is comfortable giving out speeding tickets or not isn't meaningful to anyone else unless they resist their duty under the law.
Beyond that, your parallel mostly follows form and not function. By that I mean racism in the law was by its nature a thing that excluded people from power, from equality under it and the free exercise of right. What we're talking about here, however any of us feel about it, is the undoing of laws that did that very thing. So we'd be talking about people who were comfortable with treating this group just the same as it would, say, a Klansman coming to the window for a permit to march or meet in a public space. Or the Rotary.
We are free to think homosexuality a perversion contrary to the moral good and God's will, which is our right, but that right no longer entitles anyone to deny them their right to exercise their own freedom of conscience and to live with the consequence, moral and other, as anyone in the heterosexual community might.
No, you just repeated yourself and dodged the answer, made a parallel that isn't much of one and rested on it. And if that's the limit for you it will have to do, I suppose.
:e4e:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Rather, I responded to my rhetorical question with the obvious answers it pointed to.
A helpful hint - you're not expected to respond to rhetorical questions.