KY - Rowan County clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt, 2015

[Nova]

Can anyone here point me to the specific Bible verses she's referencing in which Jesus teaches against gay marriage?

There are none. We have no record that Jesus ever mentioned homosexuality at all, which makes sense since the concept was little understood in his day. But the behaviors were commonly known and He apparently didn't find them important enough to mention either.

But I do hear a lot of fundamentalists talk about the Bible as if the whole thing were "written by Jesus", even though the first five books are specifically attributed to Moses and the entire OT was written before Jesus' birth. So maybe Davis is referring to the few prohibitions against gay sex in the OT and wrongly claiming Jesus wrote them.

 

[Nova]

IMO, part of the problem we have now is the use of the word "marriage" in government and civil affairs.

IMO, the word "marriage" should be left up to churches to define and decide who they will bless or "marry" in their membership populations.

If we inserted the word "civil" before the word marriage in State, federal, and local rules, regulations, and laws, or substituted some other phrase that omits the word marriage, a lot of these religious issues would be moved back into religious institutions where they belong, IMO. Government agencies should not be in the business of licensing "marriage". They should be in the business of determining if the civil domestic union is a lawful contract, and issuing a permit.

All citizens would then be free to "marry", or not marry in the church/ faith/ philosophy of their choice, or not. Free to have a civil domestic union contract, or not. Free to have both. The only one that would "count" legally would be the civil union. It would be the ultimate way to "level the playing field" for everyone.

And it would more clearly define for everyone that this kind of workplace disobedience is grounds for termination for not doing your job under the law, and not some kind of religious civil rights stand.

I personally think we need to pass many more laws strengthening the separation between church and state-- our growing religious and cultural diversity as a nation will demand it, IMO.

I also think there should be many more clearly defined limits as to what kind of accommodations a civil workplace should have to make for an employee's personal religious beliefs or expressions of those beliefs. JMO.

In general I agree with your post (as usual), but why should the word "marriage" be owned by those who take tantrums and hold their breaths until they turn blue?

Civil/social marriage in various forms predates any of today's major religions, and contrary to the insistence of the ignorant, even included same-sex unions in some cultures.

Now while I profoundly disapprove of marriages in which the wife is considered subservient to the husband, I'm not trying to stop such people from calling their relationship a "marriage". Why should they be given such semantic power over my household?

I think we already cater more than enough to the Kim Davises of this world by politely pretending we don't know they are dimwitted, if not crazy. (This is not a reference to all people of faith, just those who are so lacking in humility that they think their own, unproveable theology should be imposed on everyone else.)

Let Kim Davis call her sacrament something else.

 

[Hez]

Interesting that Kim Davis' mother is the one who signed this document, as she held that position for 37 years before her daughter was elected in 2014. I wonder if Mama Davis also issued the license for her daughter's 3 previous marriages. :facepalm:

Davis served as Rowan County chief deputy clerk, reporting to her mother, Jean W. Bailey, for 24 years.[SUP][12][/SUP] Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ their family members and to determine their compensation; it is common practice in the state.[SUP][12][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

Hopefully it will force Kentucky to reexamine it's laws. I just can't believe she makes $80,000 just to do that job!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Quoted my own post to show why the laws need to be changed re: bolded part. :facepalm:

 

[LaborDayRN]

In general I agree with your post (as usual), but why should the word "marriage" be owned by those who take tantrums and hold their breaths until they turn blue?

Civil/social marriage in various forms predates any of today's major religions, and contrary to the insistence of the ignorant, even included same-sex unions in some cultures.

Now while I profoundly disapprove of marriages in which the wife is considered subservient to the husband, I'm not trying to stop such people from calling their relationship a "marriage". Why should they be given such semantic power over my household?

I think we already cater more than enough to the Kim Davises of this world by politely pretending we don't know they are dimwitted, if not crazy. (This is not a reference to all people of faith, just those who are so lacking in humility that they think their own, unproveable theology should be imposed on everyone else.)

Let Kim Davis call her sacrament something else.

Excellent post!

 

[arizona sunshine]

Looks like the lovely Kim needs to make room in her bunk for some co-workers…….the hypocritical piety of religion gets on my nerves…just MO

"Officials say they will follow Kim Davis to prison to oppose gay marriages"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Davis-to-prison-to-oppose-gay-marriages.html

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Good grief.

I don't get it, I really don't.

If your job requires you to perform legal duties that you refuse to perform because you find them personally repugnant, then your obvious course of action is to find another job.

Am I crazy?

SMH

 

[flourish]

Good grief.

I don't get it, I really don't.

If your job requires you to perform legal duties that you refuse to perform because you find them personally repugnant, then your obvious course of action is to find another job.

Am I crazy?

SMH

No, pretend-martyr-makers are the crazy ones, IMO.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

From the Reverend Bryan Fulwider:

Davis as a citizen of the United States is free to believe whatever she feels God is telling her about the acceptability of same-sex marriage — and about a long list of other government decisions with which she may disagree on religious grounds. She has religious freedom.

But Davis as a public servant is a different matter. She has to fulfill the obligations required by her employment. Her oath of office doesn't contain an "unless-I-just-happen-to-disagree" clause.

Religious liberty is one of our nation's most cherished values. But religious liberty gives no one — Davis, you or me — the right to stay on a payroll while, even for religious reasons, refusing to do the job for which we were hired.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opin...ous-liberty-myword-090615-20150904-story.html

 

[flourish]

Looks like the lovely Kim needs to make room in her bunk for some co-workers…….the hypocritical piety of religion gets on my nerves…just MO

"Officials say they will follow Kim Davis to prison to oppose gay marriages"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Davis-to-prison-to-oppose-gay-marriages.html

I certainly hope the county bills Davis and any people <self-snipped> enough to follow her! Get some revenue. They should be charged with hate crimes and/civil rights violations.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I wonder how much revenue she has deprived the county of by refusing to issue marriage licenses even to opposite sex couples.

While making $80K per year.

 

[flourish]

I wonder how much revenue she has deprived the county of by refusing to issue marriage licenses even to opposite sex couples.

While making $80K per year.

I hope they throw every possible book at her.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

O/T sort of

I just can't get over her salary. $80K a year?

Does that position require a college degree, and if so, why? What responsibilities does it entail that demand advanced learning?

Most important, where can I apply?

I graduated from college Phi Beta Kappa and have never even sniffed an $80K annual salary.

 

[Montjoy]

O/T sort of

I just can't get over her salary. $80K a year?

Does that position require a college degree, and if so, why? What responsibilities does it entail that demand advanced learning?

Most important, where can I apply?

I graduated from college Phi Beta Kappa and have never even sniffed an $80K annual salary.

I have the sneaking suspicion that they could pull pretty much anyone off the street and train them in an afternoon to do this job. The main qualification seems to be a family relationship to the person who hires you.

(eta - it appears she was elected, but would have been a sort of incumbent, in that she has the job her mother previously did, and she was her mother's deputy, just as her son is now her deputy.)

 

[Donjeta]

Maybe that's where this case comes from....

I'm imagining little pigtailed Kim at home where mom says she should do her homework and Kim goes, "moooooom, I don't waaaaaaant to! stupid mom! " and mom gives in.

Twenty years later, somewhat taller Kim is at job training and mom says she should do this, and Kim goes, "moooooom, I don't waaaaaaant to! stupid job!" and mom gives in.

Move forward another 20 years, somewhat better salaried Kim is faced with the cruel reality that having a job entails having duties, and Kim goes, "Judge I don't want to! stupid judge!" and judge throws her in the slammer.

 

[KaaBoom]

Can anyone here point me to the specific Bible verses she's referencing in which Jesus teaches against gay marriage?

I think her problem with gay marriage is that it is not one of the eight types of marriage specifically approved in the Bible. Examples:

Man + Woman (Genesis 2:24)
Man + Wives + Concubines (various verses)
Man + Woman + Woman's Slaves (Genesis 16)
Man + Multiple Women (various verses)
Man + Brother's Widow (Genesis 38:6-10)
Rapist + Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:28:29)
Soldier + Virgin Girl Prisoners of War (Deuteronomy 21:11:14)
Man Slave + Woman Slave (Exodus 21:4)

 

[Nikon]

Right? 80k a year to be a bigot. That's just great meanwhile I can't find a job to make a livable wage.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

[video=youtube;VU_8q9MGXeg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU_8q9MGXeg[/video]

 

[BeginnersLuck]

This woman and others like here are abusing our freedoms. When people take things to extremes it threatens all of us. Kim Davis is in no way any more "special" than anyone else and if we make exceptions in the laws for her, then we also have to make exceptions for everyone else that cherry picks whatever the want from "their"' bible.

We live in a country where there are many different religions and among those there are many different beliefs and interpretations. Business would cease to exist if everyone demanded special treatment based on a interpretation in a book of religion. We don't give criminals a free pass when they commit crimes and cite "their" bible as justification for doing so.

If a person has a job in a clinic that provides free birth control to low income individuals and that persons religious beliefs are against the use of birth control, should they still get a pay check and not have to work?

Should a Muslim chef, working in a business that serves pork be able to draw a paycheck and refuse to perform their job duties based on religious beliefs?

Example:

There once was a corporation that had 300 hundred employees that all held different religious beliefs or interpretations of those different beliefs. Business came to a standstill because the company could not possibly make exceptions for each individuals religious based "beliefs". (many of which contradicted each other)

The company facing bankruptcy, due to lack of production and excessive legal fees from frivolous lawsuits, shut the doors and moved to another country. This left thousands unemployed in the US.

The company now pays pennies on the dollar to their new workforce and the employees are extremely grateful that they are just able to put food on the table for their families.

 

[Donjeta]

To me it seems like a complete no-brainer. If I get a job and they pay me to do tasks A, B and C, but I think that doing A is morally repugnant, B is against my personal religion and I will go to hell if I do C, I'll just have to get another job.

If I think medications are an abomination because God sent the diseases and only God can cure, I'm not going to do well as a pharmacist. If I think abortion is wrong, I'm not going to apply for jobs where doing abortions is part of the job description. If I don't approve of revealing clothing and public nudity, I'll just have to kiss goodbye to my career as a star and not go to the shoot and start demanding exceptions to accommodate my beliefs.

 

[sonjay]

This is interesting commentary on the status of religious exemption cases:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
It's by Eugene Volokh, a lawyer who written extensively about these types of cases in the past.

Part of the article is about when and to what extent employers have an obligation to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees. There's a great deal of case law already in existence. Employers have an obligation to exempt you from specific tasks based on religious objections if it's possible to do so without "undue cost."

Then the article addresses Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

Then it turns specifically to this case and the monkey wrench that it has thrown into the works. It appears that KD doesn't have much of a case under federal law:

denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an &#8220;undue hardship&#8221; imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens&#8217; constitutional rights.

But she might have a pretty strong claim under state law:

Modifying the Kentucky marriage license to remove her name from them would be a "cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide."

But, here's the monkey wrench: this is a federal case, and a federal judge generally can&#8217;t issue an injunction against state officials under state law (to change the KY marriage license).

It's the author's opinion that "if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA &#8212; simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them &#8212; she might indeed prevail. Rightly or wrongly, under the logic of Title VII&#8217;s religious accommodation regime and the RFRA religious accommodation regime, she probably should prevail."

My opinion, now: I think that if this objection really is based on her religious belief, she's going about it all wrong. She needs to request from the state an exemption to allow her office to issue licenses without her name on them.

I'm not suddenly changing my mind about the whole issue and saying it's fine for her to refuse to issue same-sex marriage license. But I think I'm changing my mind about her right to a limited religious exemption related to the job duty of issuing marriage licenses. And I think it's in the wrong court, and I think all parties involved have turned it into a showdown rather than engaging in a productive discussion about how to accommodate her religious beliefs without interfering with the obligations and duties of her office.

Anyway, the article is an interesting and astute analysis of the legal issues, whether or not it changes your mind about any of it.