Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[Socrates]

You are referring to a civil union between two people of the same sex - correct? Sorry. I don't think a Catholic can sign on to that. That would be encouraging people to engage in homosexual activity. It would be giving people an incentive to sin.

Can't roll with that . . .

Exactly.  The Church has said as much in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, written by then-Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger.  

It should be noted that it opposes any legal "civil unions," not just "gay marriage."

It would be a civil union for whatever.  For instance, right now let's say that an 68 year old that had never got married (note SSI benefits for this one) had a mentally challenged niece, age 57 that lived with her--her deceased brother's stepchild.  This person is her responsibility but just capable enough that the state, in all it's wisdom, won't let her be a dependent.  However, she clearly is they interviewed many health professionals to that degree, she was declared disabled but not dependant, which worried many because she had the capacity of a 12yo.   With less than a 12 year difference she cannot adopt this person.  They are not legally related. The younger woman is not legally entitled to the retirement funds, health insurance or other benefits that an employeer or SSI can provide.  In the case I heard set forth the older woman became disabled and got some SSI and would soon die from her illness.  The woman wanted to put her "niece" as her beneficiary so she'd be cared for but it was in no way possible...except a homosexual "marriage".  I'm not sure what they did in the end, it was a sad story.  Legally, this woman's niece was a housemate at best.

Then there's the crazy way that health care operates in general.  Health insurance usually is person, person+spouse, person+dependents, person+spouse+dependents (with it doubling for each category).  This law would allow for a single parent with one child to greatly reduce their healthcare costs and ensure that they don't end up needing government funds unnecessarily.

Civil unions for everyone wouldn't be a part of marriage at all.  After gaining a civil union one could marry in the church if they wanted, or marry elsewhere but marriage would not be involved at all.  Civil unions would be strictly a tax and benefits situation with no religious meaning whatsoever.

I've heard most similar issues can be resolved legally by power of attorney.  It seems in this case, the real issue was the state refusing to allow the woman to be a legal dependent, when she should be.  In any case, there should be a legal solution besides instituting new marriage-like "civil unions."

The huge thrust of the push for homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions" was focused around publicly legitimizing homosexual behavior.  There was never any huge push or need for completely non-sexual "civil unions."

Edited September 7, 2015 by Socrates
edit

[Socrates]

 

The state of Kentucky, Rowan County clerk works for the government, not an established religion.  As I stated earlier she could resign due to her convictions and should have if she is truly sincere.   

 

The first amendment does apply in my opinion.

 

 

As no "establishment of religion" is involved, it's irrelevant (unless you want to argue that the law interferes with the free practice of religion").

It seems that in practical reality, anti-Christian atheism is becoming more and more our government's "establishment of religion."

[little2add]

As no "establishment of religion" is involved, it's irrelevant (unless you want to argue that the law interferes with the free practice of religion").

It seems that in practical reality, anti-Christian atheism is becoming more and more our government's "establishment of religion."

The Rowan County clerk’s authority has nothing to do with religion, that’s my point 

[Socrates]

 

But I don't think it really matters all that much since the public is by an large in favor of gay marriage. Even the Southern States will eventually flip and vote it in unless Christians somehow manage to change the public debate over it . . .

If the public is really so much in favor of "gay marriage" as is claimed, then why were federal courts required in most states to make it the law?  Why not leave it to popular vote?  The reality is that in most states where it was put to popular vote, same-sex "marriage" was rejected by the people.  "Gay marriage" is the product of heavy-handed activist judges, rather than of popular will.

In any case, I'm against the whole justification for the federal government acting tyrannically outside its constitutional limits on the grounds that "popular opinion is on their side," or that it's just the inevitable march of history.  The Founders instituted a constitutional republic with checks and balances of power (rather than a direct democracy) for a reason.

[Peace]

It may not be an argument, but it's perfectly legitimate to point out misplaced outrage.

Going on and on attacking that woman's personal character is not an argument either, and serves no actual positive purpose.

She got sent to the federal pen, so those who hate her should be happy and shut up.

The whole purpose of those idiotic "memes" whose postings started the thread is to avert attention from the unjustness of the decision by attacking the clerk.

Well. I never attacked her character or her motives, and I am certainly not outraged at her actions (but I assume you are referring to the OP and not me). I believe that the proper thing would have been for her to resign, and I think that is a good thing to discuss because it relates to the general question of the proper course of action when work conflicts with the obligations of one's faith (I believe I already indicated that in a previous post).

And, of course, (since you feel compelled to keep bringing it up), nobody ever actually said no one should discuss issues other than abortion.  Saying that abortion is more serious than other problems (whether you agree or not) is not the same as saying those other issues must never be discussed.

OK. Fair enough. I thought that was what you were implying but that appears to have been a misunderstanding.

Wrong.  

The clause of the first amendment you're misrepresenting actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

In other words, Congress can't establish an official national Church, subsidized by tax dollars (such as the Church of England across the pond).

In law, the term "establishment of religion" referred to such a state Church.

That has nothing to do with the current Kentucky clerk case, which involves neither Congress nor making  laws establishing a national church.

Hmm. So if Kim Davis or the majority of the KY house members convert to Islam and decide that she/they will only marry Muslims and reject all marriage applications from Christians - in your view is there anything in the Constitution that would prohibit her/them from doing so? I am not sure how that would be much different from Kim Davis rejecting gay couples the right to marry because it conflicts with her religious beliefs.

If the public is really so much in favor of "gay marriage" as is claimed, then why were federal courts required in most states to make it the law? 

I don't know the answer to that. Most reputable polls indicate that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. And I do not think that even you would deny that the numbers are moving more and more in their favor. It is much more acceptable today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The attitude change over time frame has been dramatic and I don't think that anyone who has been paying attention would deny that.

Why not leave it to popular vote?  The reality is that in most states where it was put to popular vote, same-sex "marriage" was rejected by the people.  "Gay marriage" is the product of heavy-handed activist judges, rather than of popular will.

I am not quite sure why you are asking me that. You are preaching to the choir to a certain extent. I think the decision was wrongly decided and I do not support gay marriage.

But I think you are missing the one of the main points of the constitution - which is to protect the individual against the will of the majority. The constitution provides that the government may not deny a person certain rights regardless of the majority opinion. In this particular case the Supreme Court held that homosexual marriages are one of those rights. I disagree with the court's decision, but I agree that the court has the right to decide the issue. If not then we may as well just eliminate the court all together and let each person decide for himself what the constitution requires and does not require. That sounds a bit Protestant, does it not?

In any case, I'm against the whole justification for the federal government acting tyrannically outside its constitutional limits on the grounds that "popular opinion is on their side," or that it's just the inevitable march of history.  The Founders instituted a constitutional republic with checks and balances of power (rather than a direct democracy) for a reason.

Are you referring to me or someone else? I do not advocate that the Supreme Court or any other government entity act outside of the constitution where public opinion is on their side. Quite the contrary. I think that the law should be applied according to its terms.

The point that I was attempting to make, and which I apparently did not make very well, was that Christians appear to be losing the public debate on the issue. When that happens, it is only a matter of time until we have gay marriage, regardless of what the court does.

Now whether Christians are losing the public debate is something that you might disagree with. That is fine. I think that you could at least agree that the state of the public debate on the propriety of gay marriage is a whole lot worse today than it was 50 years ago. Polls today indicate that a small majority of Americans support gay marriage. What percentage of Americans would have found it acceptable 50 or 100 years ago? Not too many. Christians need to do something about this trend. Because it if keeps trending in this direction we will have gay marriage even if that court decision is reversed.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Peace

[little2add]

 

[little2add]

 

 

[superblue]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-not-issuing-gay-marriage-licenses-causes-uproar-north-carolina-shows-better-way/

 

 

[StMichael]

Where to begin?

The first issue at hand is the absolute ignorance on how the US Constitution is the law of the land. Not case law. Not international law.

The US is a representative republic, not a democracy, set up with 3 branches of government. Congress (who makes the laws), Executive (which executes the laws) and the Judiciary (which is there to apply the law).

The House of Representatives represent the people’s business. The Senate was created to represent their particular state’s interest. The Senate was not a direct election by the people. They were selected by the state legislature to answer to them. The Senate has become a useless body since Woodrow and the passing of the 17th Amendment.

Only Congress can create a law. And the states have the final say over amending the Constitution.

What we now have is absolute lawlessness. The court cannot create law as they have from Roe v. Wade to Obamacare to marriage.

And this is the history of the Supreme Court grabbing power from Dred Scott in 1857 whereby they ruled that blacks were property and that slavery is allowable. Or Plessy v Ferguson whereby the court in 1896 said racial segregation in public facilities were constitutional. Or Korematsu v US, whereby FDR, seized the property of US Citizens of Japanese, Italian and German descent and imprisoned them. There are 100’s of other rulings from 9, unelected lawyers in robes that are absolutely lawless.

But I will stick to marriage. What powers not outlined in the Constitution to the Federal Government is left to the States. States decide what is best for them. And the Courts are not empowered to change law or write law. Have they been allowed to abuse their power grab? Yes. But this is unlawful.

In 2000, California had on the ballot whether or not to allow same-sex marriage. This would have amended the state constitution allowing for it. The people voted no. 

In 2004, Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, directed his clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Did he have a right to do so? Was he arrested? This was in direct opposition of Section 308.5 of the Family Code (from the vote of prop 22 in 2000), which reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

In 2005, the state senate attempts to eliminate gender requirements for marriage, it is vetoed.

In 2008, California again put on the ballot to amend the state constitution to allow for same-sex marriage, again the people voted no.

2010, Prop 8 having passed, the people have spoken, so off to the courts goes this group. The Attorney General (Brown) says he will not defend the law, even though the oath he took requires him to do so.  The people have no standing, so any lawsuit brought would be a forfeit win.

2011, Obama instructs AG Holder not to defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton). Once again, the people of the US cannot defend it (we have no standing).

Did Newsom, Brown, Holder or Obama go to jail? Did they uphold the law?

On to Kim Davis. Democrat, just seated into the position of county clerk this past January. In light of the tyrannical ruling by the Supreme Court, she did not only deny same-sex marriage licenses (1 “couple”), she also denied all marriage licenses (3 couples).  Is she a martyr? In many ways yes. When those defy God’s law, they are untouched by the court system. Those who bring to light God’s law are imprisoned. 

And to simply say, don’t do the job. Quit. Tell that to the bakers, the wedding photographers, the pizza places, etc. From public to the private sector, the 1st Amendment is being ignored.

Anthony Kennedy knew what he was doing and has been doing. 5 people in black robes do not dictate from the bench to 330 million people, not if we are a representative Republic.

[superblue]

ST.M 

 

The problem is, the democrat party does not care, and the republican party can't do anything to stop them.

Then to make it worse, as citizens more and more are becoming ignorant to those facts you posted.

that and i would add, those that do know and understand how our constitution, bill of rights and government are supposed to work, are laughed at for joining the tea party ( which is a poor name since it implies a political party ) are ignored because evidently this is 2015 and we are just supposed to get with the times and be progressive already. or there are just too few in any form of power to be able to put a real dent into the machine.

[StMichael]

Superblue, that is simply untrue. 

The so-called Republicans have huge numbers in both chambers of Congress, there are no limits to what they can do.

Firstly, when this ruling came down, they could have handcuffed the Administration from implementing the courts decision through the use of riders to appropriation bills that came to Congress this summer and will again this Fall. This was a tactic suggested by James Madison. This is completely constitutional and is the Appropriations power of Congress.

Additionally, with both chambers led by Republicans, they dictate the terms of how and what gets to the President's desk. Even with one chamber of Congress, they could have cut off funding to Obamacare, the EPA, etc. 

The real issue here is not what the Republicans can't do, it is what they won't do.

This government was designed with checks and balances. I have never seen a more unlawful President get away with so much without any resistance. Keep in mind that Republicans took over the House in 2010, 5 years of no leadership and now we have the same in the Senate. 

Much can be done. Nothing is.

Edited September 10, 2015 by StMichael

[superblue]

Superblue, that is simply untrue. 

The so-called Republicans have huge numbers in both chambers of Congress, there are no limits to what they can do.

Firstly, when this ruling came down, they could have handcuffed the Administration from implementing the courts decision through the use of riders to appropriation bills that came to Congress this summer and will again this Fall. This was a tactic suggested by James Madison. This is completely constitutional and is the Appropriations power of Congress.

Additionally, with both chambers led by Republicans, they dictate the terms of how and what gets to the President's desk. Even with one chamber of Congress, they could have cut off funding to Obamacare, the EPA, etc. 

The real issue here is not what the Republicans can't do, it is what they won't do.

This government was designed with checks and balances. I have never seen a more unlawful President get away with so much without any resistance. Keep in mind that Republicans took over the House in 2010, 5 years of no leadership and now we have the same in the Senate. 

Much can be done. Nothing is.

can't and won't is the debate then ?

I know how the tables are stacked now, but it obviously does not matter at all. could you imagine IF the republicants actually  did what they were supposed to do, let alone did anything you mentioned.

1st, the democrats would cry bloody murder, 2nd the president would wave his magical do anything he wants wand ( executive orders ), and then someone on the democrat side would demand justice, and have the supreme court brought in and ipsofacto here we are back at the starting lines.

you want to debate can't and won't ? at this point in time that is like comparing two different caliber bullets and claiming that shot in the head at point blank range, one is going to do more damage than the other, point being either way one ends up dead; who cares which is worse.  (  or if bullets are not a good enough example, and someone wants to claim a .22 vs a .50 and start debating the actual odds of survival, make the analogy anything you prefer to suit your needs, a grand piano dropped on ones head vs an anvil. i really don't care, either way dead is dead )

nothing short of an armed revolt or a military coup is really going to change anything any more; but that is such a far fetched notion because even if this country desperately needed either to bring our system back into balance, there are still too far few and in allies , citizens, or military leaders willing to lead the way or want to put themselves and their loved ones in danger; it isn't a dirty bomb, or terrorists we have to worry about hitting America it is our own government eating away at the inside. Voting  as a real option has just become a choice of which poison you want to die from.  An the outside bad guys, terrorists etc, are really nothing more than political excuses at this point in time even though they are a real threat.

It isn't that i am disagreeing with you, just seeing it in a different light.

[StMichael]

can't and won't is the debate then ?

I know how the tables are stacked now, but it obviously does not matter at all. could you imagine IF the republicants actually  did what they were supposed to do, let alone did anything you mentioned.

1st, the democrats would cry bloody murder, 2nd the president would wave his magical do anything he wants wand ( executive orders ), and then someone on the democrat side would demand justice, and have the supreme court brought in and ipsofacto here we are back at the starting lines.

you want to debate can't and won't ? at this point in time that is like comparing two different caliber bullets and claiming that shot in the head at point blank range, one is going to do more damage than the other, point being either way one ends up dead; who cares which is worse.  (  or if bullets are not a good enough example, and someone wants to claim a .22 vs a .50 and start debating the actual odds of survival, make the analogy anything you prefer to suit your needs, a grand piano dropped on ones head vs an anvil. i really don't care, either way dead is dead )

nothing short of an armed revolt or a military coup is really going to change anything any more; but that is such a far fetched notion because even if this country desperately needed either to bring our system back into balance, there are still too far few and in allies , citizens, or military leaders willing to lead the way or want to put themselves and their loved ones in danger; it isn't a dirty bomb, or terrorists we have to worry about hitting America it is our own government eating away at the inside. Voting  as a real option has just become a choice of which poison you want to die from.  An the outside bad guys, terrorists etc, are really nothing more than political excuses at this point in time even though they are a real threat.

It isn't that i am disagreeing with you, just seeing it in a different light.

Sounds like you have given up. Violence is not the answer.

Those who won't need to be called out and replaced. 

It is has been a 100 year march for the progressive/ socialists to implement things to where we are today, but they never gave up, they never backed down.  Now it is time to respond in kind. And it may take 200 years to reverse the ill effects, but to expect it to happen overnight, no.

[Benedictus]

The Republicans know how the political trends are going. Apparently 40% of Republcians support same sex marriage and that increases to 50% or more for Republicans of the millennial generation. I would think it's higher for the generation coming after that too. That's why they won't do anything as drastic as some may call for, even if they could, before an election. I would imagine they'd think it better to let people who are frustrated remain frustrated and then capitalize on that at the election by mopping up votes from them. That way they get all ends of the party, including the moderates and swing voters. Fringe factions don't win elections, but they come in handy.

[superblue]

Sounds like you have given up. Violence is not the answer.

Those who won't need to be called out and replaced. 

It is has been a 100 year march for the progressive/ socialists to implement things to where we are today, but they never gave up, they never backed down.  Now it is time to respond in kind. And it may take 200 years to reverse the ill effects, but to expect it to happen overnight, no.

you really want to wait another 200 years for things to get better,

given up ? 

Violence isn't always a negative, plenty of just wars have been fought and won to make the world better, freedom isn't free and it comes always at a price.  Our leaders have become complacent , lax, what ever you want to call it but no one on either side any more fears any repercussions for their decisions every act they make is done with the utmost sense of they are always right. No just war has ever brought about positive outcomes over night, so i am not suggesting a desire for instant gratification either with some victory flag to be waved at the end.

I have given up if anything, it is on our government being fixed by two parties who are working together all the time to keep themselves in power, destroying our constitution and bill of rights at every chance possible or flat out undermining it. 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

 

There is a heavy truth to what Thomas Jefferson stated, an it isn't said with a simple minded thought of glory and marching onto a battle field. If people are not willing to fight and die for their freedom here in this country against a government that is obtaining power against the people of this country left and right, then we are left with no other option to concede to taking what ever they deem good for our lives be it in faith or not.   One can not realistically expect to just do the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome every time and that one of those outcomes will be the one they want.