Jailed Clerk Kim Davis Just Presented A 'Remedy' That Could Fix The Situation For Everyone
Judge Bunning in ordering the imprisonment of Davis stated that: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He further explained that the clerk’s good-faith belief is “simply not a viable defense,” dismissing her appeal to God’s moral law and freedom of conscience. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.
If you have a job that doesn't fall in with your religious belief structure, then get another job where there is no such conflict. You have that freedom, and doing so doesn't infrnge on the rights of others.
It also goes to the "render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's" - if you're talking Religious Marriage, then that is indeded the purveyance of your religion and of your faith, but when you're talking Civil Marriage, then that is within the purveyance not of the church, but of the judges who perform marriages not of a religious nature.
While I appreciate her personal convictions and her freedom of religion, others who exercising THEIR freedom of religion or their personal convictions are being denied their rights - in essence, rights only belong to those who believe exactly as she does... much like in England where in the 18th century rights belonged only to those who believed as the King did.
Get government out of marriage altogether. It is a civil contract, marriage licenses are three-party contracts with the state. Government can, and should via the Constitution, be involved in disputes within that contract as an arbiter. Other than that, it should be a contract between two consenting individuals. That would fix everything.
A rational approach to government in general would "fix everything" but isn't possible with competing dominant pressure groups demanding to exploit government power to impose their own dictates. In this case it wouldn't fix or satisfy their demands to use government to impose competing irrational versions of the concept 'marriage'.
There's a linkage there, so "the solution" could be 'as simple' as enacting or modifying "the law" to say that Everything Associated With "Marriage" is also associated with "civil union" or whatever other term y'all agree on...
And will that happen? Ever? Don't bet large sums on that happening.
But ya know, maybe Big Brother can make even more bucks off legalized polygamy or letting Fred marry Fido.
Legalized is such an interesting word.
I've also stated my doubt there is a person on this planet I 100% agree with as well as another about Ms. Rand ever expecting anyone to march lock step behind her.
I'm certain you have already read all that.
You've been dogging my trail here in the Gulch for weeks.
I know you want my freedom of thought here to go away.
If the owners do not want my old dino newbie Rand fan perspective on things, they can kick me off.
And I hope that makes you happy.
One of my favorite quotes...
http://www.plusaf.com/_troll-pix/trol...
That mentality extended beyond the actions of the king in a more fundamental way: "Freedom of religion" typically turned out to be the "freedom" for different groups to oppress others with competing religions, e.g., the Puritans. This illustrates Ayn Rand's essay "Faith and Force" and shows what happens when religion is allowed to dictate politics.
She is trying to have it both ways with both the law and her religion. Her name on the certificate is not a personal endorsement, it means she is responsible for certifying the license in accordance with the required criteria and her official duties to apply them. By insisting on removing her name she is trying to evade responsibility for her job while pretending for her religion that she isn't doing what she is doing, claimed to be forbidden by her religious dogmas. She makes no sense at all, but that is the consequence of abandoning reason for faith in dogma.
There are no good assurances or guarantees in her weasel-worded 'solution.' Come up with a few "well, what if's..." and it should be clear. :)
by any court order, opinion or ruling. . just wait and see
how this unfolds in the future -- government must get out
of the marriage business. -- j
.
Jan
Thanks!
and expand into freedom of speech, ownership of yourself and
property, and the like. . sound familiar? . crossing mama nature
can result in difficulties!!! -- j
.
Nice rights, desirable ones for sensible folks, but there ain't no power but 'agreement' that enables their existence long term...
Actually 'rights' which, when defended, probably allow faster and higher development of societies and cultures... but still... only when the culture agrees to support and allow them.
the natural state of humankind involves interpersonal respect
which is more clearly identified in the u.s. than anywhere
before, on earth, as I understand things. . didn't Rand
make this clear in her writings? -- j
.
Let me tell you a story. It was in about 1989. I was working night shift in the lab of a hospital. I was called to the ER to draw a legal blood alcohol level on a person brought in by the police. I refused. I told the police and the doctors that I believe that this constitutes making a person 'testify against themselves' - even though it has been ruled in court that it does not.
I was told by the lab chief and admin, the next day, that I was required to do this as a part of my job. I stated that I would not do so. I told the people from whom I was renting a room that about what was going on - they evicted me from my room on the grounds that 'I might loose my job and be unable to pay my rent'.
My colleague, Curry, on evening shift, entered a strong statement that said that he objected to drawing legal blood alcohols too (for diff reasons). Ultimately, faced with objections from key people working two different shifts that no one likes to cover, the hospital backed down.
I found another, and much better, place to live. I worked for that hospital for another 3 or so years (until this programmer fellow lured me into starting a company with him...Hi, Wm).
Jan
Jan
If Kentucky codifies marriage in that way, she is following the law....as currently written... SCOTUS are the deciders of constitutional validity under our constitution. But a decision from them requires implementation and compliance at federal, state, and local levels. Something that takes time to accomplish. Something that our professionally angry victim filled society no longer allows. SCOTUS could forestall a lot of problems if they put some implementation timeframes on these types of decisions. Expecting instant compliance is unreasonable. At least give the people trying to comply time to do so.
This is one of those myriad consequences of any SCOTUS decision. Made orders of magnitude more problematic by activists deliberately picking places to push to get in the news cycle. There are 120 counties in KY, if the goal was getting married they could have gone to plenty of other places to accomplish that.
This whole fight is not over whether or not gays can codify a relationship per se. It is over whether or not the word marriage is applied to that relationship.
If legal relationships for tax and other purposes renamed something else, civil union for example, this whole "issue" could be legally resolved. Simply make the terms equivalent from a legal standpoint, and keep the government out of marriage completely.
That would solve the problem legally. However it would not meet the goals of activists.
For rational people the broader issue is over government corruption of concepts on behalf of pandering to activists. For Davis none of that seems to matter -- she is one big religious emotion screaming for a privileged status. None of what she has said indicates that her actions would change regarding "civil union" instead of "marriage".
What decision by the supreme court are you referring to and if it's that recent same sex decision it said no such thing. Not even close. If it's another decision what is the cite? If it is the law in Kentucky what is the cite? Wishful thinking without factual evidence is insufficient and is exactly why we got to this point. Too many couch potatoes with fairy tales.
Whoops I didn't intend it that way but it works so leave it.
All the applicant had to do is go get married somewhere else where it is legal. THEN the clerk would have had to accept it under that latest decision.
Just trying to clarify your position here.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"
The Kentucky law is invalidated, as well as immoral. But as an Objectivist, you already know that, right?
Edit; Reference to the Supreme Court
Recognizing a marriage as a requirement under other state laws is not the same as making it legal in all states. That's the point. Works for me but as for Constitutional you will have to check the new version that replaced it.
That is copied off the Supreme Court decision. That makes it legal in all states.
Just what part is only my "opinion"? That the Kentucky law is immoral? Careful, your subjective, religious views are showing. A law that allows or requires agents/representatives/employees of the government to treat one person differently, by law, because of gender, orientation, race, ford or chevy preference or whatever is immoral. Fifty dictators is not better than one dictator. Whatever group is taking their turn using the ruling to their advantage is irrelevant.
If this issue didn't come up before she was elected, it should have, but at this point she's the elected clerk and, short of a recall or judicial tyranny, will remain so until the next clerk is elected.
Automating the "marriage license system" to simply provide a form which, when signed is scanned into a database and from that scan, becomes public record and all rights and privileges associated with that form/contract are then in force... well, why do we need her in that position at all?!
In the long run, a form-printing machine and a form-scanning machine connected to a government database would be cheaper, too!
No expensive salaries or pensions or sick pay ... or court proceedings... :)
Funny how unions tend to fight for monopolistic powers while trying to deny those 'powers' to corporations .... the irony of it all... :)
Many workers are seeing the light but the large cities and school systems are pawns forever. At one time in American history, unions provided a much needed service for the workers and enabled the spread of democracy because the government was crooked and bought by the corps....Now the situation has changed with the government being captive of the unions. When the referees are betting on the Super Bowl, there is no chance of seeing a good game.
Even though said defense would still be in error, would they be consistent in that defense? Obama and company are (justifiably) criticized for selectively following the rule of law around here all the time...what justifies a pass for Kim Davis?
On this site? I'd have to guess that this is a subject that many have not thought through thoroughly. She's a christian and a lot of people are still trying to reconcile Objectivism with their faith. And it's just homosexuals wanting to get married. Their activism gets pretty outrageous which makes it easy to justify a little rights infringement in retribution. I never expected that many here though.
Jokers to the right...
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you!"
If Kim had been a muslim she would have been refusing to serve alcoholic drinks on airplanes and demanding the right to have an ID photo with her face covered by a burka.
As an elected official, her refusal is the same as and just as wrong as a Muslim, or Jew, or 'take your pick' refusing to perform the requirements of the office based on their beliefs. This isn't a private business. If she doesn't want to do the job, she can resign or pay the price any government employee should pay for subjectively applying the law. Otherwise, what's the fuss over Lerner, Clinton, or Obama?
This judge is clearly in error UNLESS Kentucky changed it's laws in the last sixty some days or prior.
Wonder how much Soros is paying him?
Clearly she is not allowed to interpret the law of the state so has anyone checked that point? Last I looked only Presidents can act in a lawless manner of that fashion.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"
I posted it here also - http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
By the way did anyone stop to think Barry's new name of Barack means lightning and another name for that is the Destroyer?
Likewise, no one mentions the 10th Amendment under which the entire issue of Marriage is reserved to the States or the Legislative History of the 14th Amendment as an action to insure that the newly freed slaves would be treated equally. No one talks about the systemic substitution of "discovered" rights for the clear language and intent of the framers and amenders of the Constitution. Nor do we see other officials punished for their refusal to follow the law from the local officials presiding over sanctuary cities to the supreme court justices acting as an ongoing Constitutional Convention.
Ironically, if the Clerk said she had a mental disorder that compelled her to not sign the certificates because of fear of supernatural punishment she would be entitled to the reasonable accommodation she seeks under the American's With Disabilities Act.
Clearly what is really at work here is an effort by an out of control judiciary to make an example of anyone who questions its extra Constitutional dogma of absolute judicial supremacy.
Reading is a wonderful thing. More people ought to try it. The Righteous won't. The Debaters don't need to but might. To the rest of us its' a non issue except when it's over and goes to the next level which level is going over turn Judge Looney Toons.
If she is incapable of doing her job because of irrational fears of "supernatural punishment" and the rest of what such a mentality leads to, then she should be removed, by the court if necessary, for mental incompetence. It's not an excuse for rule by loon. There is no "reasonable accommodation" for psychosis and no "religious right" to the irrational.
The 10th amendment does not negate the requirement for states to honor civil rights in accordance with the 14th amendment. The motive for the 14th amendment arose from racial injustice against former slaves; the amendment itself was stated, properly, as a general principle and applies for everyone. Otherwise it would have itself been racist.
We can object to the recent Supreme Court decision pandering to an invalid concept of 'marriage' merged with the concept of 'civil unions', but requiring states to honor civil rights in marriage laws, whatever else they may be, is not the Court taking over state marriage laws. We can also object to politically motivated inconsistencies in enforcing laws, but none of this justifies using religion to define what the laws should be on behalf of "people of faith" attempting to dictate what they can do as public officials. That is a false alternative.
Now if one wants to claim that a marriage in one State should be as legal as a marriage in another State, one is then arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and that I think is a legitimate claim because it deals with legal enforceability of contracts. But there is no substantiated Fourteenth Amendment claim here because no rights are being abridged.
The Tenth Amendment simply states that all laws not subject to Federal Authority by virtue of specifically outlined duties in the Constitution are reserved to the individual States. In my opinion, the Tenth Amendment absolutely applies here.
As an aside, it will be interesting now to see if this same reciprocity is now enforced with regards to the Second Amendment, which is a right and yet which individual States have their own policies and agreements regarding its interpretation.
Jan
"but the children! the children!..." ?
and yes, the debts 'politicians have accumulated' are going to screw us all, but keep in mind... they were elected by US voters, too. (as were moron politicians all around the world... Greece as an epitome.)
I fancy the Prime Law as stated by Mark Hamilton's Twelve Visions Party, tvpnc.com
AND there's no mention of God or religion in it!
THAT has promise!
Jan, let them marry trees
So the use of the term 'marriage' to apply to a civil union is well established. I don't think I am using it out of context.
Jan
"Everyone" does not have a "moral right" to change the law to whatever he wants as a public official with contrary "religious beliefs". Anarchy by public officials is statism. Nor is a civilized society possible based on an anti-philosophical libertarian anything goes notion of subjective eclectic "moral codes".
The Supreme Court is not "invalidating a nuclear family by destroying the marriage by spreading it out among anything that walks". Your assertion is absurd. That some hysterical religionists have a "moral conflict" with public officials being required to follow the law for marriage licenses contrary to religious dogma is not "the seeds of revolution".
Rights are not "based on religion". Individuals have rights, in accordance with their nature as human beings, regardless of their own understanding or beliefs, and whether or not they happen to be religious in some way, but rights aren't "religious" and there is no "right" to a special religious status above the law. In particular there is no right for a public official to redefine the laws he operates under in his official capacity to be whatever he wants them to be in accordance with his religion.
Requiring Kim Davis to follow the law as a public official is not a violation of her rights. On the contrary, she was violating others' civil rights by arbitrarily refusing to grant them marriage licenses for which they were legally qualified . She is in jail now because she continued to deny their rights, in defiance of a specific court order to comply with the law.
This doesn't happen often enough to the bureaucrats. As citizens we have rights, with the freedom (under a proper government) to do anything we that isn't legally prohibited; government officials do not operate by right, they are (in a proper government) limited in what they can and must do in their capacity as officials. When they don't, they violate our rights.
The religious conservatives have completely inverted all of this, claiming a "right" for a government official to make her own rules and claiming a religious exemption from law with special supposed "rights" (entitlements) for those who believe dogma on faith. Such religious thinking is not the basis of our rights and our free society, and cannot be used to defend it. It is the opposite.
See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels and Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.
Even if you don't know the history, you can see that the Christian focus on other worldliness, faith over reason, sacrifice and subservience could not possibly lead to the American ideal of the right to one's own life, liberty, property and happiness on earth and the spectacular success of this country in ways undreamed of for the previous millennia. See Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on The History of Western Philosophy.
The cultural bases do include Judeo-Christian tenets, but that's where it ended.
What strikes me in particular is that though they all believed in God as the source of rights, they all agreed that people should be free to associate in any manner they chose - or not at all.
I just can not understand why humans can't seem to see that... :)
Can you do better than that?
"Requirements inherent in being human" to me is about as nebulous as using a term like "natural rights"...
Please!
Understanding that our natural rights must be derived from the essential characteristics that make us human objectively establishes a man's right to his own life. All other rights follow.
Just keep in mind the Law of Identity also applies to Man. ;)
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...
"Rights" are whatever enough people Agree Are "Rights" and if enough people Agree To Take some or all Rights Away, you may not get to exercise or enjoy those "Rights" any longer, even if you say you still "have" or "own" them.
But as for the list in the link supplied by conscious1978, I support anyone and everyone willing to support and defend my 'right' and everyone else's 'right' to enjoy those "Rights."
It's just that I don't agree that there is some Universal, Immutable, Foundational Source for those "Rights." They're privileges that, if granted to and supported by Everyone, DO lead to a maximization of "good" for the most individuals.
.... imnsho... :)
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ina...
Inalienable rights? Written down where? Enforced by whom?
I'm not a Collectivist like your second link refers, but if the Collective decides that Your Rights OR My Rights are Now Under Their Power and Control, the 'inalienability of my rights' is moot.
Fucking MOOT.
I oppose the "alienation" of those rights by Anyone, and particularly by Government or Thugs or The Collective.... but as a trivial example, those "inalienable rights" went out the window in WWII Germany or "modern" North Korea.
The Rights are wonderful, desirable and certainly worth fighting (and maybe dying) for, but to think they're Always Available No Matter What is a serious breach of observable reality, and I'd argue that to Rand's face if I could.
I don't deny they Exist or Should Exist or Are Wonderful Things for Everyone... I just assert that our capability of Enjoying Them and Practicing Them in Real Life DOES depend on a cultural or social consensus and support OF those rights, and without that support, yes, we become barbarians.
So, are those inalienable rights carved in stone somewhere? Which museum displays them?
Cheers!
Unalienable meant could not be changed at all.
Inalienable meant could be changed under certain circumstances.
It helps to use the right word therefore plus
AF''s opinion is more nearly correct.
In another search the word popped up by noen other than one of the chief left wing socialist fascists in the nation and a hard corps opponent of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. along with his secular progressive friends. Note he and someone named Charles Rangel used the incorrect leftist spelling in order to support their position. here it is...
"I've been working with Pat Robertson on Africa debt-relief, and we disagree on virtually everything except certain very specific, inalienable rights, and the truth is that morality and patriotism come in all shapes and sizes.
George Clooney
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/search_res...
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inal...
There are no stone tablets or golden books that can make sure that those rights will actually accrue to you at any time or place... that depends totally on the ethics, morals and culture and society you're living in...
Clooney and Rangel have the power of the bully pulpits, but no more than any other politician or entertainment star do either one have the market cornered on Critical Thinking... Rangel, especially :)
And to define unalienable rights as those that "can't be taken away"... Where, over the rainbow is THAT world?! Those 'rights' can disappear at the drop of a dictator's hat. That's like telling today's Venezuelans that they have 'unalienable rights' to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...'
C'mon!
Methinks we have a termite in the woodwork
Of course, with just the right national crisis, solvable ONLY if he remains President For Life, could that happen, and, trusting him as much as I do, I wouldn't put it past him...
The future will be more interesting all the time.
As I've repeatedly told my wife's grandkids, Every Presidential Election since I could vote has been stranger and stranger than the previous one. Each one raises (or lowers) the bar for election insanity.
:)
We'll find out soon enough what's really going on behind closed doors...
You said, "The Rights are wonderful, desirable and certainly worth fighting (and maybe dying) for, but to think they're Always Available No Matter What is a serious breach of observable reality, and I'd argue that to Rand's face if I could." — I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I never implied that your rights couldn't be violated, or that one may live where they are being violated. Neither did Rand; so not much to argue about there.
But I do have a question for you - under what circumstances, if any, would you think that a person is justified in not following a law? Would the situation be different if a person were to be a private individual or a government employee, say, a police officer?
It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. (Sadly, it's wrong most of the time any more.)
Not your average Joe.
That is what you learn from Objectivism. If that is what you are here for.
Now if one wants to argue that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Federal Government has arbitrate which contracts are enforceable, one may have a case. Here's my question, however: if that premise holds, then why are States allowed to hold differing interpretations of Second Amendment privileges, which are enumerated and recognized rights?
This absolutely applies to second amendment rights as well and if you want to take that case to the supreme court I will absolutely donate to that cause. States are allowed to hold these different interpretations because so many people, including on this site, have a poor understanding of rights and the realities that necessitate them.
At issue is whether or not a marriage contract is enforceable regardless of whether or not it violates miscegenation laws. I would also note that anti-miscegenation laws have existed since before this nation began. Those laws refused to recognize the legal authority of various types of marriages based on the cultures of the time. Some prohibited inter-racial marriages, some prohibited near-family relations. At a national level, there was also a law passed prohibiting bigamy or polygamy. Nearly all states have anti-pedophilia and anti-necrophilia laws on the books as well. With this ruling, all of those statutes are similarly in question - as well as many others.
Every bit of that is an attempt at distraction from what is really at issue here. The state laws were violating individual rights. The Supreme Court overturned them. Then a state employee took it upon herself to continue to violate those rights because her gods law should supersede mans law. If she had been a muslim trying to enforce sharia you would have been after her head like any other christian.
We still have the issue of having to ask permission to get married to deal with. This is immoral and makes all the other points moot because we are discussing the morality vs immorality of enforcing laws that are immoral in the first place. Once again, the only purpose for these laws is control, to divide the population and get them fighting amongst themselves. One would almost have to conclude that those who claim that this is about redefining the word marriage, or activist judges, or this is about religious freedom, or the first amendment rights of a delusional woman who happens to be a government official must just not want to take that control away from the government.
Ms. Kim Davis
Carter County Detention Center
13 Crossbar Rd.
Grayson, KY, 41143
It had to do with a freedom supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Amendment #1 includes freedom of religion.
She probably used some of that oo-ee mysticism put-down jive.
She should be able to quit and find a new job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs and she is willing to do.
Her religion is irrelevant to the responsibility to do her job, and her militant appeals to religion as an alleged source of superior privilege are offensively irrelevant. If she doesn't want to do the job she doesn't have to keep it. No one is forcing her to keep it. She is in jail for defying a court order to carry out the duties of a job she refused to leave and still refuses to leave.
She is trying to have her cake and eat it too. See http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... here on this same page.
Thanks for jogging my memory.
That lady better not go start a bakery not ever.
I have known of several electronics people who risked their jobs because they refused to ship boards used in medical applications that had known flaws. One guy lost his job. They didn't go to jail.
Objecting to something your boss wants you to do is normal. They should resign or be fired and go to work somewhere doing something they believe in.
That sounds bogus to me. They could fire her and run an ad just as you would in any case of employee insubordination. If this happened in private sector it would be resolved within 24 hours.
She chose to take a stand against a government whim she disagreed with and was willing to take the consequences. Remember Ghandi, M L King? same peaceful resistance.
One news account of her hearing stated, "In court documents filed Wednesday, her attorneys argue that she shouldn't be held in contempt. Instead, they argued, there are alternatives that would allow couples to get marriage licenses in Rowan County without going against Davis' religious beliefs. Among the options they offered were allowing other officials to issue marriage licenses in the county, distributing marriage licenses at the state level or changing marriage license forms to remove Davis' name." http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politic...
Despite the other legal options that could have satisfied the ultimate civil rights goals of both the Court Clerk and the gay petitioners, the Federal Judge jailed the clerk for civil contempt UNTIL she agreed to affix her signature on the documents.
The highest ethical calling for any judge and best practice in the pursuit of civil justice in a case such as this one is served by making every endeavor to find a lawful and acceptable solution which protects the civil rights of all parties involved and not defaulting to Draconian measures. This Federal judge was throwing his weight around--just because he could. May not frighten some of you people but it frightens the hell out of me--especially the concept of indefinite imprisonment for non-violent civil contempt of court, contempt being determined solely by ONE individual.
I think it was John Grisham who made the pithy joke that the Statue of Justice is blindfolded because she can't bear to look at what judges and lawyers actually do to The Law.
As it stands now, she is required by law to issue the marriage licenses suing the firms and processes lain out. Either she does it, or the court orders her to, or the court finds some way in which she isn't legally obligated to do her job.
As the third option isn't actually available (or desireable!) ordering her to do her job is the only option the judge has available. Fines and jail time are the only recourse for contempt of court and as noted in the article fines would be entirely ineffective.
It illustrates the classic faith-leads-to-force progression, which snake can only be cut off at its head by ruling out faith as a substitute for reason in all forms on principle. Those religious conservatives supporting the fallacious Davis propaganda line are the opposite, militantly demanding that their faith be accepted as the premise for whatever they want because it is faith. It's not that they want freedom of thought regardless of the content and method of thinking, they demand acceptance of anti-reason because it is anti-reason, just as they base all "freedom of conscience" arguments not on freedom of the rational mind, but specifically on religion as such. Their entire approach is fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in particular.
If she had been working for or owned a private business then she would have been well within her rights but as an officer of the government, and the force implied by that, her actions were immoral.
BTW, I do agree with you that the government has no business to be in the survival and thriving of the human species business, and less of all in the marriage business.
Maybe you should do some reading. This came from a quick search; http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...
The "stronger" police always jail the "weaker" when the "weaker" violates the law. That is required for maintenance of lawfulness in a civilized society, not a "recipe for disaster". Anarchy is disaster. Faith and force are disaster -- religion is the primary cause, not an excuse.
(Assuming they have a choice)
Morality is not a subjective concept. It is real and objective.
While the law cannot force us to be moral, only punish us for immorality, if you are voluntarily in a position where your job is to enforce the law and you decide to make up your own more restrictive laws to follow instead, then you are not doing your job. The only moral choice is to resign. She is simply throwing herself on the figurative sword and attempting to make a martyr of herself.
If Davis finds a law governing her state job requirements objectionable she does not have to enforce it -- she can resign her government position -- no one is forcing her to keep the government job, but she has no right to make her own laws as a government official. She violated others' civil rights in her capacity as a government bureaucrat. She is the one arbitrarily making up the laws she wants as a bureaucrat, denying the rights of others who legally qualified for marriage licenses. You have it backwards, defending the alleged "right" of a bureaucrat to defiantly do what she feels like, then preposterously accusing those who rein her in as "Nazis". Bureaucrats do not exercise government power by "right" and deserve no support for believing and acting as if they do.
Her religious dogmas are no excuse for her dictatorial actions. She can believe whatever she wants to, but I do not "respect" irrational beliefs and have no sympathy for her actions as a religious zealot exploiting and abusing her power as a bureaucrat. She has no right to impose her religion. Her demands to exploit government power to deny people their civil rights based on religious faith is appalling.
I am not saying that Davis is right in her decision to not marry gays; what I am saying is that in some circumstances morality takes precedence over legality. Ideally, the disconnect should not exist at all or be minimal. A significant difference between the two is a sign of a sick society and jailing one or the other does not resolve the problem.
Morality always takes precedence over government. We always decide for ourselves what to do in accordance with relevant principle, including the nature of government and the necessity for it, our goals, and means, taking the consequences for our own choices and actions. That does not mean that Davis, a public official, has a right to make her own law and expect that everyone else accommodate her just because she invokes "religion". She is trying to make herself exempt from the law on principle, on grounds of religion. That is not what the First Amendment means and is not what civil disobedience means. She can either quit the government job she doesn't like or take the consequences for defying a court order to stop violating other peoples' rights. No one is violating her rights.
Her irrational religious morality does not take precedence over reality and the rights of everyone else. She has a right to believe what she wants and live her own life the way she wants to regardless of her irrational beliefs. Her irrational beliefs do not justify imposing them on others because they are defiantly irrational, i.e., "faith".
The "significant difference" with religionists demanding a privileged status for their faith in dogma is not a sign of a "sick society", it is a sign of a sick individual and her activist supporters, being stirred up by militant conservative demagoguery. It is properly addressed by routine law enforcement when her actions infringe on others' civil rights, which they have. That is the nature of law enforcement which resolves the problem for everyone except the irrational who suffer the consequences of their own dogmatic militancy, as it does for every criminal element. It is not a reason to run around hysterically screaming that "religious freedom" is being violated. It is not.
Interestingly that you see Davis as trumping on others' rights, but because you disagree with the basis of her convictions, you are not only stripping her of rights, you don't even acknowledge that they exist. You see her faith as irrational, but see homosexuality as rational. Is your rationality superior to hers? What is the basis of your rationality that guarantees that homosexuality is a rational behavior? I don't think that you can quote Ayn Rand on that.
You keep on saying that Davis should simply quit. Why? She was elected, presumably based on her views and on her character. She is living up to what she was elected to represent. Many people, and I for one, believe that Obama needs to stop terrorizing America and quit. My wishes are still unanswered...
Remember, Rosa Parks had also defied the law.
Her faith is absolutely irrational and she has every right to be irrational but she has no right to use her position to enforce her irrational views on others. We could argue all night about whether or not homosexuality is rational or not but it is not relevant because it was not being forced on anyone via the force of government.
I, too, believe Davis should resign. Why? Because her values conflict with the job she is now required to do. But she was elected to the position, and her states laws are still aligned better with her values. And the people who elected her as well. so maybe she should stand her ground. Push it to the limits. States rights and all that, right? But states don't have rights. Society doesn't have rights. Government doesn't have rights. Only individuals have rights. And those rights are not subject to vote. They exist regardless of the law. We had better do our damn best to understand those rights properly because if this shit keeps hitting the fan, we may have to choose sides.
Also, Rosa Parks was not a government official imposing her will.
Second, there is the issue of the State reaffirming it's power. Don't be confused by Davis being a state employee. She is bucking the State itself (especially the Federal gov). That, the State cannot tolerate. Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco, the State will go to any extent to instill fear of itself onto us. That's the part that scares me most.
If you want to be outraged, be outraged at the fact that so called free American citizens have to ask permission to get married in the first place. That is infuriating. But what is more infuriating is that this permission is not the issue. That a Deluded individual like Kim Davis can stand in the way of anybody exercising their right to marry who they wish and there isn't a nationwide call to put an end to the government intrusion. That most people are OK with the government having the power to dictate who gets married and who doesn't. And that even here in the Gulch we can't get past people defending a religious nut like Kim Davis.
Also, again, the victims at Ruby Ridge and Waco were not government officials imposing their will upon others.
No one is stripping Davis of her rights and this has nothing to do with "Nuremburg" or anything like it. She is in jail for defying a court order to stop willfully continuing to violate other peoples' civil rights. She is not on trial and not claiming she was "under orders": She is appealing to her own religious dogma as an alleged basis to do whatever she wants as a government official simply because she is "religious". That is nonsense. There is no "right" for a bureaucrat to do that. There are no such rights to "strip" her of. Vague appeals to "conscience" are not an argument for a bureaucrat to arbitrarily assume power she does not and should not have as a public official.
This has nothing to do with anyone's idea's of the rationality of homosexuality or "Obama terrorizing America". A government bureaucrat has no right to make her own laws and demand that everyone else accommodate her. Her claimed "convictions" of her religious faith are irrelevant, not a basis for a privileged position as a bureaucrat imposing her own theocracy. She has no right to do that and does not acquire such a "right" to violate other peoples' civil rights with a mob of local voters behind her, which is another conservative collectivist fallacy based on the same notion as conservative notorious "states rights" statism.
One doesn't need Ayn Rand quotes to understand that neither Davis nor you have any right to control homosexuals you regard as "irrational". No, her faith is not "rational". This is fundamental. Faith is the opposite of reason, not a get out of jail free card for whatever she wants to do. But the claims of irrationality are irrelevant to other people's personal freedom. As Ayn Rand put it, "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free." (Ford Hall Forum, 1968)
Somehow you got to get through your head my beef is NOT with anything you've mentioned. It's irrelevant to the central issue.
The objections are people who don't do their own research, mis state the situation and divert attention from the real problem.
READ the same sex marriage ruling from the Supreme Court. They did NOT approve same sex for all states. They did uphold full faith and credit if one state had done so for other purposes in other states.
This go round is a way of taking the initial nose under the tent ruling going back to Massachusetts and making it deeper, wider, and more inclusive. The reason is it's a tactic of secular progressives to amend without amending. The rest of it is a side show and a diversion.
Each time something related comes up we get same irrelevant uninformed dog and pony show.
Five minutes effort is all it took back in what was it May to uncover that.
Framing the Debate didn't work this time. it's getting to be too obvious.
From the supreme court ruling;
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"
Maybe TEN minutes would have been better
Load more comments...