Posted on 09/02/2015 9:42:55 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has sided against a Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples and received immediate pushback from conservative radio host Mark Levin.
Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show, Fiorina said that even though she disagrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same sex marriage, as a paid government employee the Rowan County clerk, Kim Davis — coincidentally an elected Democrat, must “execute the government’s will.”
“I think in this particular case this woman now needs to make a decision of conscience. Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government?” Fiorina asked. “Or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere?”
Levin argued that Fiorina and conservatives should rally around Davis and condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision like Democrats do when a decision goes against them.
“If she were of the left and it was a different circumstance they’d be rallying around her and so would the media,” Levin said.
“If the clerk were told you cannot issue a marriage certificate if there are different races,” he asked, would she “be told ‘do your job or quit?’”
Listen to both clips below and tell us who you agree with.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
As a intellectual argument, That statement is certainly true.
But in reality, to get enough people to essentially commit hari-kari or act like a WWII Japanese Kamikaze pilot or better said a martyr to effect any real change would be a foolish expectation today. It is basically a self destructive act and it's optional. Few would consider it in reality, but many would cheer it on.....(success has many fathers and failure only one)
IMO, all we can hope to do is successfully have a Constitutional Convention of the States. Failing this, there is but one option and that is revolution.
DUMP Carly Fiorina ... she’s just Mitch McConnell ... with ... with ... with ... longer eye lashes ...
I really like Mark, and listen to him nearly every day, but for this issue, if Mark wants to attack Carly for her statement (opinion), then he should use his resources, (his legal support foundation) to support the defendant in this case, because I don’t see many people, (if any) putting their money where their mouth is.
It was, until SCOTUS negated the whole network of marriage laws in KY.
Until the legislature replaces the existing text with text amenable to the SCOTUS ruling, she has no authority to issue any marriage licenses.
Godwin's law in action... A German soldier who refused to kill Jews WOULD have been punished. Your analogy is flawed in many respects, one of which is that the German soldier could not quit his job if he disagreed with the order. He could desert or disobey orders and risk being killed himself, but he could not just quit without any harm to himself.
In this case, Davis has options available to her. She can choose civil disobedience, and I respect and support her if that is what she chooses. But with civil disobedience comes a price. That price may be jail, it may be fines, it may be losing her job. She seems to believe it is worth that cost. Many people seem to think there should be no consequences to her for making her stand.
She is also an elected official. If her constituents want her out, let them recall her.
Hope some FR looks up Rowand county KY and county offices because it sounds like a lightly populated rural area. I can’t do it because of technical ptoblems. But her job according to the report I heard is unpaid and a honorary position which makes me wonder if her title is something other than what she’s being reported as; County Clerk.
After declaring she would not issue the couples licenses at one point, a guy screamed at her "she didn't work for God, she worked for the government," Martha McCallum asked Father Morris his thinking on the matter.
He responded that Kim Davis either needed to "follow the Supreme Court decision or quit her job."
I'll admit, I was astounded at his immediate statement, that he has thought this through and come to that conclusion.
I fear he and others really have NOT thought this out because at the end of the day, these activists are also going to go to his church and demand that he (or others presuming he has no real parish but is a media person) perform the ceremony - that "as fellow Catholics, they are entitled to have the ceremony performed by their church!"
That's where this is headed much quicker than the good Father has imagined. I'm just amazed that those speakers of the Church, they've not considered that possibility - that they also are no longer allowed to put God before the laws of man, according to the Left and their abetters.
The Left is headed to demanding that religion only rules inside recognized buildings - not anywhere else in society.
The First Amendment protects "them (the Left) from religious thought or actions."
“it didn’t work when southern states decided to shut down their public school systems altogether rather than desegregate, and it won’t work now”.
Apples and oranges. You’re born black; that was blatant discrimination. You’re not been homosexual. There is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”. Marriage is between one woman and one man, irregardless of what Anthony Kennedy said. Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott decision and the next president can ignore queer “marriage”. The recent decision was rank judicial tyranny and does not have to taken serious.
The first amendment is going to protect anyone from being forced to officiate a wedding.
This Scalia quote re: the death penalty seems to be equally applicable here:
“[W]hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .
[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.”
Nobody can force the clerk to marry gay couples, but if she refuses to do her job, she shouldn’t be collecting a paycheck. I assume she could have delegated to someone else in her department if she wanted to. This is about either (a) bolstering her reelection chances (she was a democrat elected with 53% of the vote) or (b) lining herself up for a book deal about how “oppressed” she is.
Lincoln actually said that he’d work to get Dred Scott overturned, not unlawfully ignore it:
“He believed the court’s opinion was “erroneous” and the Supreme Court had often overturned erroneous decisions. Lincoln noted, “and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.” - See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2015/03/abraham-lincoln-roger-taney-dred-scott/#sthash.LJdrtZVG.dpuf
I agree with that statement, 100%, but having been in that hot seat twice in my lifetime, I would not ever be so full of myself to encourage anyone else to attempt it because of the damages I incurred as a result of my "standing on principle".
I survived it, but nearly lost everything including my marriage and my family. The personal bankruptcy as a result of being arrested and charged, was due to the legal costs incurred, even though the DA decided not to prosecute some 18 months later. (not going to be specific about this as it is long over)
If I were still a young man, I might even do it again, but I no longer am and could not do it today. I also could never be critical of anyone who did, and by the same rationality I cannot criticize those who see the costs as far too high.
Principled stands necessary to society, and I support them wholeheartedly, but one has to be circumspect as to the total cost that you will eventually pay. If you can justify it, then do it.. but after it's over, you cannot have any regrets. None at all.
I wasn’t going to vote for her anyway, liberal hippie.
Mark is a obstacle between emotions and duty to the law..good or bad..its like saying I’m going to speed..pfff the law..Carly gets my vote
Ditto..exception of Carly.. she’s strong like trump...go Carly!!
I think that Ms Fiorina means the government’s constitutionally limited will.
I’m sure that Ms Davis, an elected official, swore to protect and defend the Constitution after she was elected.
But undoubtedly like many elected government officially, she probably needs to take some time to actually read the Constitution after swearing to protect and defend it. She would find the following in the 14th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As a side note, consider that Acts 22:25-29 indicates that Paul saved himself from being flogged by claiming his Roman citizenship.
Justices are not suppose to make law. Mark is 1000X a better person than Carly.
Supermarkets require underaged cashiers to step aside when alcoholic beverages are being purchased, an older employer scanning the beverage.
Likewise for Muslim cashiers when pork is being purchased, a non-Muslim scanning the purchase. Corrections welcome.
In the context of employers accommodating “special needs” cashiers, while I don’t support gay “marriage,” the states having never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such “marriage,” I agree in principal with Ms Florina that Ms Davis should “step aside.”
H O W E V E R …
Since Ms Davis is an elected official, I disagree with Ms Florina that Ms Davis should somehow step aside, resign or whatever. Most importantly, what do the voters who elected Ms Davis, and who have been wrongly denied their 10th Amendment-protected power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay “marriage” by the corrupt courts, think about this situation?
I wonder if anyone else around here heard that radio clip on FOX this morning when Carly announced that CNN said she would be in the upcoming debate.
She was on the radio with...get ready for it......Mizz McPiggy herself. Mizz McPiggy was positively ecstatic and sounded like such a freaking ditz head.
Just awful.
What differences does it make what party the clerk belongs to?
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.