Judge Sonia Sotomayor: "Court is Where Policy is Made"
Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
“But it doesn’t matter. If she did that, they and you would still pillory her. RESIGN! RESIGN! RESIGN! That’s the drumbeat! Get the Christians out of office, our of public life!”
You know damned well that isn’t what I said.
“Is your position that one should never take a job if there is a possibility that it may require you to violate your conscience, due to a change of job description?”
No.
My position is that if the conditions for continued service in that elected public-sector position become at variance with the officeholder’s faith, that officeholder should seek a workable solution to mitigate that conflict. Did she do everything she could’ve done — without compromising her beliefs— to avoid this situation? Was she elected to cite God’s authority in her position as county clerk? Is God’s authority a component in the law she took an oath as an elected official to uphold?
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: "Court is Where Policy is Made"
When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses, did she break a state law or a federal law? If you think it’s a federal law, who wrote it? If it’s a state law, who wrote it?
If Kentucky has laws that conflict with the Supreme Court ruling, shouldn’t the Kentucky legislature meet to re-write those laws before people go to jail?
I’ll include some Kentucky laws in this post for your review. If these laws aren’t valid in light of the Supreme Court ruling, what do you think the current law is?
Here’s the Kentucky Law regarding marriage licenses:
402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue.No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.Effective: July 13, 1984
And the Kentucky Law defining marriage:
402.005 Definition of marriage.As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.Effective: July 15, 1998
And the Kentucky Law prohibiting certain marriages:
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;(d) Between members of the same sex;(e) Between more than two (2) persons; and(f) 1.Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the time of the marriage, the person is under sixteen (16) years of age;2. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the time of marriage, the person is under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16)years of age, if the marriage is without the consent of:The father or the mother of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), if the parents are married, the parents are not legally separated, no legal guardian has been appointed for the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), and no court order has been issued granting custody of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) to a party other than the father or mother;Both the father and the mother, if both be living and the parents are divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) has been issued and is in effect;The surviving parent, if the parents were divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) was issued prior to the death of either the father or mother, which order remains in effect;The custodial parent, as established by a court order which has not been superseded, where the parents are divorced or legally separated and joint custody of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) has not been ordered; orAnother person having lawful custodial charge of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), but3. In subparagraph 1. or 2. of this paragraph, may apply to a District Judge for permission to marry, which application may be granted, in the form of a written court order, in the discretion of the judge. There shall be a fee of five dollars ($5) for hearing each such application.(2) For purposes of this section “parent,” “father,” or “mother” means the natural parent, father, or mother of a child under eighteen (18) unless an adoption takes place pursuant to legal process, in which case the adoptive parent, father, or mother shall be considered the parent, father, or mother to the exclusion of the natural parent, father, or mother, as applicable.
Effective: July 15, 1998
What is no unreasonable only asking that the Kentucky marriage license forms be changed so her name would not appear on them. And that she would record any license without her name affixed?
And she works in the wrong county (Rowan). For as of September 3, 2015, Appalachian Kentucky counties Casey and Whitley refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples: "Casey county has stopped issuing licenses to all couples rather than issue to same-sex couples, while Whitley refuses only same-sex couples. The clerks from both counties have demonstrated at the state capitol to demand a religious exemption from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. A third county, Knott, refuses to say whether they will issue licenses." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Kentucky
And it is likely (we pray) that Kentucky will do what NC did in which "a law allowing officials to refrain from conducting marriage-related duties has led to more than 30 magistrates refusing to perform same-sex unions, the Associated Press reported."
a law allowing officials to refrain from conducting marriage-related duties has led to more than 30 magistrates refusing to perform same-sex unions, the Associated Press reported. Utah has a similar law. - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/09/05/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-license-religious-freedom/71770124/
Was she elected to cite God’s authority in her position as county clerk?
And just where did she say she was, rather than giving her personal reasons for not subscribing to a radical redefinition of marriage?
Is God’s authority a component in the law she took an oath as an elected official to uphold?
Actually by extension, yes, unless you believe those of Kentucky’s Constitution which defines marriage as as exclusive union between a man and a woman did not significantly flow from religious beliefs, as well as its revised statues that prohibit same-sex marriage. Likewise did the beliefs of the Founders overall, and thus the moral laws of the US.
Kentucky Amendment 1 which banned Ban Same-Sex Marriage passed 75% to 25% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/), reflecting the religious beliefs of the voters overall (Kentucky is the 4th most evangelical state), and thus it would be absurd to think that belief in God’s authority was not largely behind the law Davis took an oath as an elected official to uphold, and thus it implicitly is part of it. Or do you think Kentucky’s Constitution and Amendment flowed from atheism or simply natural law?
The separation clause does not mean, and cannot mean, that there cannot be laws regarding behavior (not heart assent) that reflect beliefs of a particular religion, with secular ethos supplanting it.
Romans 1:21-32: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Trump, After Republican Pledge, Breaks From Pack on Iran, Gay Marriage
It is not simply restricted to a religious aspect, but any moral objections. That whenever the job description of someone radically changes, whether it be defining marriage as now including the union of two or more of the same gender, or btwn humans and animals, or a issuing licenses to cut hair is expanded to include the whole head, or simply to affirm support of company policy of LGBT support, then all who have moral objections must be justly forced into immediate unemployment, with no recourse to be excused from being a party to such.
And Davis is not alone. Thank God. The police who arrested here need to have her strength and convictions against a perverse judiciary.
Very well put!!
Jesus said to obey the laws of the land. Does anyone know what He said about those who make the laws, those who enforce the laws and those who elect the lawmakers?
Details...
Da debble B in ‘em!
Wasn't BREAKING the laws of His land what got Him killed?
Jeez.. it’s not his fault the SC and Congress are a bunch of pussies... why wade into this mess.. I wouldnt... if this chick felt that strongly she should have resigned from her job...
Frankly I’m sick of idiots like her being setup by the pink mafia and making the rest of us look stupid...
“Thus ends the Trump Train on FR. Another traitor. Let’s hate him now”
You need to re-direct your hate to the appropriate places. The SCOTUS for not ruling that gay marriage is a states rights issue and the Governors of the 50 supposedly sovereign states in the US. Not a single one of them has had the stones to stand up and invoke the 10th amendment which they have every right and I would argue responsibility to do.
How much do you hate Carly Fiorina and all the rest of the GOP candidates except for Cruz and Huck?
“I think most of these people are just Trump haters.
Trump is the only that can beat Hillary or Sanders.”
If this great country can’t find an actual conservative to run against either of those two moldy socialists, then we deserve to lose.
Fortunately, we don’t need to resort to a reality-TV phony just yet. Do some research on Ted Cruz first.
A Christian is to obey all civil law until obeying those laws cause us to violate God’s law; then civil disobedience becomes an absolute requirement of conscience. Scripture does not allow us to obey the State if that cause us to sin against God, so long as we can show we did so at the command of the State(I was just following orders). The general rule is: When Cesar requires what God forbids(gay marriage-Romans 1). or forbids what God requires; then we obey God. This is the reason That Christians have been martyred for centuries, and notably today in the Middle East. Our Constitution was informed by this principle. Thomas Paine wrote:”The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots”, and our own Constitution that:”We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”Rights do not come from man, but from God. This was the intent of the founders of our country when they accused England of governing Americans by unjust laws violating Gods laws of inalienable rights. This principle not only permitted required resistance, but made it a responsibility. This mandate give us the dignity and freedom to remain a strong and free civilization. Thank you for your post.
Except that the 10th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution are actually “The Law.” And that the Supreme Court is not empowered to create “The Law” from whole cloth.
Fag and Dyke marriage is not “The Law” except where it was implemented in accordance with the laws and constitutions of individual states. If the state of, say New York, wants to sanction faggots to marry each other, it is well within its rights to do so under “The Law” (U.S. Constitution).
But when the Supreme Court attempts to violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it isn’t creating “The Law” it is VIOLATING “The Law.”
Hank
3 very biased judges should have recused but didn’t have the ethics, conscience or honesty to do it. It’s hard to respect this “law”..
Go along to get along... yah, she’s an idiot, as are all patriots...
Do this sound like someone that does not care about social issues?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.