Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[hotpink]

Standing up for her faith is one thing. But I think she should also probably resign. THAT would be a bold move in faith -- to trust that the Lord will provide.

Yeah, like I said, resign and then sue the state for hostile workplace.  Or actually, you know, change the law.

Yeah, if I were in her shoes I would probably reach a point where I'd made a statement -- and then resign and look for work elsewhere. I understand her convictions but part of me also views it as activism that's a day late and a dollar short. 

Not only that, but as someone who's friend recently got married I cringe to think of the potential harm she's done to good Catholics, Christians, Jews and others who needed their marriage license but were either terribly inconvenienced or couldn't get married.   The number of people who will be turned off to religion because of her. I know people who get married...my cousin had a simple wedding and it took MONTHS to plan.  The wedding license is the last part, a very tiny part usually done weeks or days before the wedding depending on the law.  It requires both parties to be present which can be a hardship for normal working people.  She should of stepped aside.

Edited September 3, 2015 by hotpink

[Gabriela]

It seems to me people are just justifying their unchristian judgments of this woman at this point.

[hotpink]

It seems to me people are just justifying their unchristian judgments of this woman at this point.

here or on the rest of the net?  Because other than KOC's barking of fascist at anyone who disagrees most people on here have displayed a pretty consistent viewpoint.  It's not unchristian to want someone who dosn't want to do their job to quit, and it's certainly not unchristian to question the motives of someone who's supposedly standing as  a representative of a faith that we all practice.

[Ice_nine]

I'm sick of this "don't judge" baloney. We need to judge how people are handling situations, if they are doing the right or the wrong thing, what personal factors might be involved in there decision making.

We should never under any circumstances judge the state of  persons soul. And yes we should always admit that are judgments are not infallible, but hot dam, this "don't judge people" crowd gets on me!

Isn't it judgy to assume that a person is judging another person when they're just trying to analyze the situation with the information they have?

 

[Ash Wednesday]

I seem have an amazing track record of unintentionally ticking people off this week. 

[Ice_nine]

I seem have an amazing track record of unintentionally ticking people off this week. 

IDK is this was in response to me, but I wasn't replying to anyone in particular. We need to be reminded not to judge others harshly, but sometimes I feel it's all I hear

[Ash Wednesday]

It did feel a bit like a thinly veiled shot at my earlier post. Apologies if I took it the wrong way.

[Nihil Obstat]

Regardless of the law, regardless of her or anybody's conscience, issuing licences for homosexual unions is a grave moral evil. Frankly I think making this a conscience issue is detracting from the central point. It would be just as wrong, though perhaps she would not be fully culpable, even if her conscience has no pressing issue with issuing such licences. Evil is evil. If her job requires her to commit evil, her job is wrong. Whether it is more prudent or more effective to stay and fight or to resign is a separate issue, and immaterial for our purposes. Also irrelevant is her other failings as a person. It does not change our evaluation of the situation.

Beyond that it bears keeping in mind that state acceptance of homosexual unions is seriously disordered and, while the ship may well be sailed for the time being on that, as Catholics we absolutely cannot simply accept this current state of affairs simply because it is 'the law'. An unjust law has no force, and this law is as unjust as they come.

Regardless of the law, regardless of her or anybody's conscience, issuing licences for homosexual unions is a grave moral evil. Frankly I think making this a conscience issue is detracting from the central point. It would be just as wrong, though perhaps she would not be fully culpable, even if her conscience has no pressing issue with issuing such licences. Evil is evil. If her job requires her to commit evil, her job is wrong. Whether it is more prudent or more effective to stay and fight or to resign is a separate issue, and immaterial for our purposes. Also irrelevant is her other failings as a person. It does not change our evaluation of the situation.

Beyond that it bears keeping in mind that state acceptance of homosexual unions is seriously disordered and, while the ship may well be sailed for the time being on that, as Catholics we absolutely cannot simply accept this current state of affairs simply because it is 'the law'. An unjust law has no force, and this law is as unjust as they come.

[Gabriela]

Right. I applaud what she did, regardless of her (totally irrelevant) history.

[CatherineM]

As someone who engaged in serious public sin, it has made me painfully aware of how damaging those kinds of sins are. I understand exactly where she's coming from. I'd hope I'd have her bravery to go to jail for what's right.  

[Archaeology cat]

 

[Lilllabettt]

I respect this lady. I don't agree with her choice. But she has the nerve to go to prison for her political views. For her religious views. And she is not part of some movement either. She's not one of those prolife protesters or police brutality protesters who go out and do a mass demonstration and get arrested together.

She's out there one her own. That's rare courage. 

You all wish you had her guts. 

[Archaeology cat]

I liked Fr Longenecker's post on this. Here's just a snippet: "A resignation is not a compromise and it is not condoning something the religious person cannot condone. Neither is a resignation an escape. It is a clear public statement which requires considerable sacrifice. It is “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”"

[little2add]

Unfortunately this is clearly not a case of a violation of religious freedom.  It will not stand up in court and she will lose.  

 After all, this Woman works government office for a public municipality.

 This may even be an attempt by the Left to discredit religion...   Call me paranoid but it smells like a ploy to disparage legitimate lawsuits such as mandating employers to pay for drugs like “ru-486”

 Wait and see!

[veritasluxmea]

 

There's a principle in the Talmud that states that once a person has converted to Judaism, their previous life is not to be mentioned. It's never even to be brought up, much less held against them in any way. I think Christians would do well to observe this, too.

Agreed. I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of "we can analyze her motivations by looking at her past life." Why don't we simply stick to the topic of- is it ok for a Catholic (or Christian) to pass out gay marriage license if they are a county clerk. That's the real issue here.

I think she in within her rights- and it's the right thing for a Catholic/Christian to do- to refuse to pass out gay marriage licenses. However, it's also now a function of the government to oversee gay marriages, so they are within their rights to fire her and replace her with someone who can do that task for them. Yes, the government shouldn't be doing it- but they are. And if they want to find someone who will do it for them, they can. I don't see how holding a job that involves cooperating with gay marriage is justifiable with being a Catholics/Christian. It would be nice if they just let her handle other stuff and had someone else do it so she could keep her job... but I doubt they'd be that tolerant. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by veritasluxmea