Anonymous wrote:What I love is the judge in TN who is refusing to grant divorces, all in the name of gay marriage. And why not? If 5 people on the bench can decide what a marriage is, despite thousands of years of human history to the contrary, why can't one decide when a divorce is valid?

Marriage is a legal relationship as is defined by state statute. Divorce is the legal process by which this relationship is terminated pursuant to a judgment of a court. If you want to go back to the concept of marriage as it existed in Biblical times, then have it. Where can I sign up for a child bride and public stonings?

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

What I love is the judge in TN who is refusing to grant divorces, all in the name of gay marriage. And why not? If 5 people on the bench can decide what a marriage is, despite thousands of years of human history to the contrary, why can't one decide when a divorce is valid?

Judges aren't too keen about individuals who feel that they are above the law and then thumb their nose at the Court by continuing to disobey an unambiguous order long after exhausting all avenues of appeal -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The judge also gave her an out which she rejected, presumably on the advice of her counsel, and she opted to try and play the martyr card by not resigning. A nominal fine would only encourage others to continue deny a constitutional right to gay couples seeking to marry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should not keep a job which obligates her to violate her religious beliefs. That's on her, .

It's not a "job." She was elected to this position. And the rules were different when she assumed office. Why is this on her?

The law is always subject to change. Nobody can decide that they prefer to stick to the law as it stood before some Supreme Court decision. Those who are sworn to uphold the law must uphold it as it stands, not some prior version.

I don't quite understand why the judge did not content himself with telling her subordinates that her order to them was in contempt and that they should give out licenses or be subject to contempt themselves. With all but her son doing so, my personal view is that a nominal fine for each of those two would have been sufficient to assert the law while not martyring them for their version of freedom of religion.

I am FWIW a liberal who thinks she is totally wrong, but I think that as long as people are protected in their equal right to marriage, it would be best if it could be accomplished without making enemies of those who are not yet able to adjust to new ideas. It may feel good to say that she's a bigot and should be punished, but I would take a page from their book and hate the sin but not the sinner.

I sort of agree with your feelings about this being overkill, but it sounds like she did not take the compromise that the judge offered, which was to allow her employees to issue the licenses. So she is still in contempt of the court order and he's punishing her for that. We certainly don't want to set the precedent that it's okay to interpret the law however you want, grind the state's business to a halt, and the judge will make it work for you and let you off with a small fine.

Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

Religious accommodation is a thing. For example, many business accommodate religious Jews taking off early on Fridays to prepare for Shabbat. As long as the employee's work gets done and it isn't essential for him or her to work on a Friday night or a Saturday, they do it. Many businesses allow Muslim women to wear the hijab even if it isn't a part of their "uniform" if they have one. I think where the line gets crossed is that the accommodation does not affect the essential work that the employee is hired to do.

Kim Davis is different because an essential part of her job is issuing marriage licenses. Also when she was sworn in, I believe she had to take an oath that she would uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of Kentucky and the United States. Her exercising her religious beliefs impacts others in a fundamental manner. She isn't being forced to "marry" these people. She is not the officiant. Her job is to make sure that the couples meet the legal requirements to be married in the State of Kentucky. (e.g. the members of the couple are unrelated and are of age)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should not keep a job which obligates her to violate her religious beliefs. That's on her.

It's not a "job." She was elected to this position. And the rules were different when she assumed office. Why is this on her?

Well, because she swore an oath "under God" to uphold the law when she was sworn in. The "law" as confirmed by the SC and as required by the judge in her case requires her to issue the license. If she cannot fulfill her sworn duty without violating her religous beliefs and her faith is THAT strong, she should resign.

Are you suggesting she was unaware that the Supreme Court had overturned Proposition 8 and DOMA in 2013 and was about to decide the fundamental issue of whether same sex couples have the constitutional right to marry? I'm fairly certain segregationists used this same argument after the Loving decision. Imagine an elected sheriff deciding he didn't ever have to follow new "rules" relating to illegal searches and seizures because it's not a job and not what he signed up for. Doesn't the rule of law count for anything anymore?

Anonymous wrote:She is a clerk. Her job is to give a marriage license to people who meet the legal requirements. She has no authority to Chang or ignore the legal requirements. She is only a clerk.

This is where I get confused. I agree with you. But then I wonder why the heck this is an elected position. Is this the norm?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should not keep a job which obligates her to violate her religious beliefs. That's on her, .

It's not a "job." She was elected to this position. And the rules were different when she assumed office. Why is this on her?

The law is always subject to change. Nobody can decide that they prefer to stick to the law as it stood before some Supreme Court decision. Those who are sworn to uphold the law must uphold it as it stands, not some prior version.

I don't quite understand why the judge did not content himself with telling her subordinates that her order to them was in contempt and that they should give out licenses or be subject to contempt themselves. With all but her son doing so, my personal view is that a nominal fine for each of those two would have been sufficient to assert the law while not martyring them for their version of freedom of religion.

I am FWIW a liberal who thinks she is totally wrong, but I think that as long as people are protected in their equal right to marriage, it would be best if it could be accomplished without making enemies of those who are not yet able to adjust to new ideas. It may feel good to say that she's a bigot and should be punished, but I would take a page from their book and hate the sin but not the sinner.

She is a clerk. Her job is to give a marriage license to people who meet the legal requirements. She has no authority to Chang or ignore the legal requirements. She is only a clerk.

Anonymous wrote:She should not keep a job which obligates her to violate her religious beliefs. That's on her.

It's not a "job." She was elected to this position. And the rules were different when she assumed office. Why is this on her?

She should not keep a job which obligates her to violate her religious beliefs. That's on her.