Posted on 09/11/2015 10:19:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Gays should not expect to engage in immoral, deviant sexual acts without God's punishment.
If Townhall allowed one to comment without going thru Facebook, I would post,
“Davis and Christians should not expect that she can engage in civil disobedience without punishment.”
Rather, while by now we should not be surprised at what the state may do, everyone should not expect that the gov. can radically redefine something so basic and traditional as marriage, and expect employees which were hired under a constitution which explicitly outlawed that - and which thus newly defined her job description - to not engage in civil disobedience, because the gov. engaged in radical moral redefinition and refused to make provision for exemption on moral grounds.
The Muslim registry employee analogy would only be somewhat comparable if the gov, defined monkeys to be men, and granted them licenses if they vowed to marry cars, contrary to the state constitution and thus the job which the employees was hired under.
And to argue that all employees are to render obedience to such radical moral reforms is closer to Communism than the constitutional republic America was founded to be.
But 5 justices have demon-strated that they can compel the Founders to support something as a right which they would have seen as wrong.
Just don’t click on the Facebook comments plugin link at the bottom of the comments
On taking a position years ago in local government I had to take an oath to carry out the law(s) I would be promoting and acting on. The last phrase of that oath was ‘So help me God’. I don’t know if Kim Davis had the same expression in her oath of/for office but if she had I can see where she might have a moral crutch for her position as to God. Lacking such she was in no position to deny persons a right set by lawmakers.
Who is he defending here? Would he have told the abolitionists that they should not expect to try to free the slaves without facing punishment? Sure, they should EXPECT it, but it should be the job of those on the right side of the issue to denounce giving the punishment and try a little harder to simply make sure the authorities do not enforce that particular law.
Not clicking on "Also post on Facebook" does not matter- you still must sign into Facebook, even if i just hit Reply on a post. It may be useful to Towhall to gain more info in people (and send emails to) but I do not like Facebook.
Not really, Eric. There are two alternative views. Either Obergefell voided Kentucky marriage law, in which case not issuing marriage licenses to anyone is arguably the most logical response, or Obergefell purports to legislate a new definition of marriage, and has therefore acted outside its jurisdiction, in which case Kentuky law still stands as applying marriage strictly to heterosexual couples.
A typical counterpunch to this is to say the Due Process and Equal Protection clause do give SCOTUS jurisdiction to determine constitutional rights. But even if we assume that to be true, the argument still fails, because a determination of rights depends on a factual context. The facts cannot be reinvented to discover a new right. We cannot, for example, redefine pet rocks as humans and then declare they must receive due process or equal protection.
This is precisely what Kennedy and his cohorts in evil have done. They first rewrote the facts, then applied the law. Factually, marriage has always been about recognition and protection of the natural, heterosexual family, in which government has long had an interest because it is the locus of human reproduction. If Kim Davis rejects the revision of that definition as an invalid act of the Court, as a fact that is beyond their jurisdiction to alter, then she is justified in rejecting their conclusion in law.
The religious accommodation argument is actually more difficult. If, as Eric suggests, we were to make no distinction between an invalid religious principle (denying drivers licenses to women) versus one grounded in natural law (heterosexual marriage), then we would end up with no common cultural language. Our system could gradually devolve into a labyrinthine quilt work of conflicting religious accommodations that could become unbearable to navigate. One can argue that's the price of freedom. One could just as well that's the price of abandoning natural law, and folks will not long endure it, but will seek some new equilibrium.
Peace,
SR
She took her office ‘before’ the law changed...I should think that would affect the outcome as well....
Agree: It would kind of be like decreeing that water must be dry....
This certainly adds to the list of considerations. If they are not going to tell her what God is, then the only logical recourse even of one who disagrees about what God wants, or whether there is a God, is to fire her.
Value -free, the USSC failed to execute its job properly, no doubt because Kennedy wanted his renown and acclaim praised from shore to shore in the homosexual segment. As I recall, and confirmed in Wikipedia, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the lower court and voided the Massachusetts marriage law, they gave the Massachusetts legislature 180 days to do whatever they saw fit to fix the law. Anthony Kennedy could not afford to allow 6 months to pass before the first marriage licenses were to be issued, lest his starring role as the Moses ( no more than a semi-blasphemous, not fully, analogy) of the homosexual passage be diminished or forgotten. So Kim Davis is crushed like a maggot.
“It provided a definition of marriage that would meet the state constitution’s requirements: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” The court stayed its ruling for 180 days to allow the state legislature “take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
no problem, many don’t understand the difference
Davis didn’t change her position on the law she swore to, SCOTUS did.
Erickson is a tool.
Sauce for the goose...
bump
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.