News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

Crimson1967 said:

She was elected to her post as a Democrat. So the party of Obama, Clinton and Sanders happily harbors homophobes within their borders.

Click to expand...

It's quite amazing. This is the first Democrat to actually show some "diversity" on the gay marriage issue.

Jon said:

I bring up her past only to show what kind a person she is. Anyone who cheats on their spouse, can never be trusted so why should I believe her about her "faith" that she suddenly claims to have? How do we know that she isn't just a bigoted redneck using this as an excuse to treat people badly? How do we know she isn't doing this just for the celebrity status she will get from the hard right for doing it?

To me anyone who would dishonor their marriage commitment would lie about anything, including being saved

Click to expand...

Applying this line of reasoning, of course, I'm guessing if a President said something like, you know, that you can keep your doctor under his health care bill despite knowing he was lying at the time then, well, I guess he'd lie about anything too, right?

So it's certainly not unreasonable for any Christian to conclude Obama IS, in fact, a closet Muslim - right?

Now, I don't believe that - in point of fact, I think Obama is a phony top to bottom who in reality is an ATHEIST but just won't be honest about it. The late Christopher Hitchens mused the same thing more than once (that "Barak Obama is not really a believer"), so I'm hardly "right-wing Christian who hates Obama and thinks he's a Muslim."

But the more ridiculous thing - and you don't usually do this - is you go from lie A to extrapolating that to lying about everything. I hate to break it to you but EVERYONE lies at least on occasion, Jon. You do, I do, even the most honorable members of this board do. Jimmy Carter did (for Pete's sake, he even lusted in his heart a time or ten or ten thousand).

No matter how hard, we do it - even by omission. You don't tell your wife when the new hairdo is hideous now, do you? Not if you know what's best for you.

In terms of this woman, she needs to resign if she's not going to uphold the office. I would note, however, that I sure don't recall you saying a word when Obama refused to actually enforce marriage laws because "we think the Supreme Court is going to overturn DOMA anyway." Yes, they eventually did - but where was this same attitude when it was the President NOT doing HIS particular job? (That's more rhetorical than anything, but since Obama is a professing Christian.....)

Three things:

1. I think she will lose her argument and her job. I appreciate why she SAYS she is doing it. I have no idea what is in her heart. I am not looking forward to the day that people who are trying to live up to the principles of the Bible are replaced in these roles by those that are not.

2. Jon, I do not think you are a hateful person. I do question why you even try to be a good moral person. When I had your beliefs I was a wild and crazy guy. One statement I do take exception to is this:

Jon said:

I just wish y'all would actually follow your bible, Mathew 6:5 comes to mind rather immediately. Would have been nice to see one player write that on their eye black when up against Tebow or Wuerful

Click to expand...

I think you want us to follow specific verses in the Bible turned to suit your purposes, but when it can't be turned to suit your purposes you don't. Even if you could find someone who obeys every word I doubt that would satisfy you. I do wish to be held up to the standard the Bible teaches, but as others have pointed out, the standard itself proves we are incapable. Thus the necessity for a savior.

All that said, I agree with you. I wish we could too. Especially the one you referenced. We fail a lot.

3. When you have a past it is impossible to live down, and I don't think one should even try. I don't blame people for remembering me the way I was and holding me accountable for it. It takes a LONG time for people to take you seriously. IMO If one is trying to live something down they will fail. If someone is trying to prove they have changed, it can happen in time, but not with everyone. She is obviously going to have to deal with that to be proven honest in her motives.

Jon said:

I am a good moral person without fear of punishment or reward.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to be suspicious of those who behave out of fear of punishment, as opposed to those who simply believe it is the right way to behave.

First and foremost, I applaud her for standing up for her principles and convictions. It is very seldom indeed that someone is so dedicated to what they think is right that they are willing to bear the consequences of their decisions.

Otoh, I can't help but think of the movie "Sergeant York" (Gary Cooper -1941) wherein during his days of reflection he found the bible passage "Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and unto God, those things which are God's." (Matthew 22: 21)

The clerk in this case only issued marriage licenses. She didn't perform the ceremonies. Which to me means that she actually did little more than collect the taxes required by the State. There is nothing in the Bible that says it is sinful for the duties that she and her deputies performed.

Therefore imo she should have simply issued the licenses while on the job, and prayed to God for guidance and forgiveness while in church or at home.

Jon said:

but you are also correct that I have a specific animosity towards christians in general as they are always trying to limit my rights,for instance I just gained the right to buy alcohol on sunday and I still can't buy it before 12:30 which is arbitrary, inconvenient and stupid and only because my fellow georgians feel your god wants this. They also felt that my sister shouldn't be able to marry her partner, not for any reason other than your god. So yeah that bothers me

Click to expand...

So you have animosity towards me because of some law that people whine about, including Christians, but never challenge it because at the end of the day it's not worth the fight. So how is that exactly every Christian's fault.

Also in the countless threads you turn a conversation to this angle, you pretty much infer all Christians stereotype people, but yet here you are stereotyping Christians. I know you probably have gotten rag from people around you being total jerks, but 5 out of 6 atheists I've met that were open about were some of the biggest condescending Know it alls I've ever met, but you don't see me saying that all atheists are that way.

If you ask me my beliefs in religion I'll give them to you but I don't impose them on people. The law is the law and my beliefs are my beliefs, and sometimes they don't see eye to eye and I'm fine with that as long as I'm not oppressed. Not all Christians are ultra imposing or WBC.

i'm guessing those who have been worried about creeping shariah law in the u.s. are breathing a big sigh of relief now.

BamainBoston said:

So if you were a judge, post Dredd Scott, asked to return a slave to the South, would you A) do it because that's your job and what the law requires B) make a point of how you disagree, knowing that the person who will take your place would send them back, or C) hold your ground no matter what?

If you really believe that what you are doing is just, stepping aside so someone else can do it to keep your conscience clean is just as bad. There's a guy who washed his hands of a controversy in Christian history, and he's not too fondly remembered, despite his initial stand.

Click to expand...

Good illustration

My only problem of this whole ordeal is that the real motive is lost because the activists. Her problem is not signing off on gay couples its the issue that Kentucky has her name on marriage licenses. I think that is a decent issue, but then again why pick a fight instead of trying to change it civilly.

BamainBoston said:

So if you were a judge, post Dredd Scott, asked to return a slave to the South, would you A) do it because that's your job and what the law requires B) make a point of how you disagree, knowing that the person who will take your place would send them back, or C) hold your ground no matter what?

Click to expand...

Dura lex, sed lex.

I see a lot of people (not specifically here) attacking this clerk's character and cheering her jail sentence. I guess it is just easier or maybe more satisfying to destroy the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Tidewater said:

Sam (no kin) Davis: Breaking the law is only okay when progressives do it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, TW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

crimsonaudio said:

Interesting point, thank you.

Click to expand...

not even remotely related to the issue at hand

92tide said:

not even remotely related to the issue at hand

Click to expand...

I'll give you that it is on the rather extreme end of an example, but I think the principle of the comparison is more or less the same. Doing something against your religious beliefs because the law demands it is the same in both cases if you take the clerk at her word that she really believes that way.

Again I think it's hard to tell whether this is just to get pr or a true incident that violates her beliefs. I still think she should've tried to get the law changed where her name wasn't on the license instead of making a media spectacle out of it.

BamainBoston said:

Rock solid argument, there.

Click to expand...

thank you

BamainBoston said:

And so concise, too.

Click to expand...

i think there is a d-baguette in jail in kentucky who would love to have access to some of your unique legal perspective.

hell, who knows, maybe she is even in the market for beau #5

BamainBoston said:

At this rate, we'll have to dub you the board's Daniel Webster.

Click to expand...

i'm sure i have been dubbed worse