Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Anti-Gay Kentucky County Clerk Jailed for Refusing to Issue Marriage Licences


TOMapleLaughs

Recommended Posts

Huckabee's full statement was incredibly disturbing, and continued a distrubing trend of the Republicans trying to undermine the Supreme Court.

Not that our Supreme Court is perfect, it certainly now is showing some of the far right doctrine of the men Bush Jr. put in place, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. For Huckabee to try to invalidate their power by saying that they're "un-elected lawyers" is troubling. Furthermore citing that they aren't the "supreme power" in the land when it comes to our laws is a clear defiance of the seperation of church and state.

It is incredibly hypocritical of the Republican party to talk about electing people to public office when they recently redrew the voting lines to make it nearly impossible to win many voting districts by any other party but their own. A good chunk of our Republican elected officials wouldn't be the populace choice in a proper election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a vote in the USA, but if I did, I'd be leery of supporting anyone who feels his own personal views are more important than the laws of the land.

I agree:

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/337362-27-dead-in-connecticut-elementary-school-shooting/?p=11017544

You mean "the 2nd amendment and a bunch of brain-dead, paranoid rednecks who can't figure out that a 200 year-old document doesn't have the same relevance that it had when it was written", say otherwise.

So much for that. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love all the Christian hate. I am a Christian, but I'm not gonna debate about if God is real, etc..

I will say this though, we all aren't like this lady. While I respect her for standing up for what we believe to be wrong, its her job. There are lots of aspects to my job that I hate doing, and that I don't approve of, but if my boss tells me to do something (work related and safe of course), I have to do it. As does she. No one is telling her that she has to approve of it morally, but just do it.

But I do agree with a couple past comments, do atheists ever try anything on people of other religions? Not saying this was a targeted atheist attack, but some things are. Do people go to Muslims and ask them to support gay marriages with cakes and flowers? Doubt it.

Heck, even with atheists, I constantly hear people badgering our belief system, and as someone said earlier, "archaeic" beliefs. But do these same people criticize Muslim beliefs? Definitely not as often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your job is going to make you do something against your convictions, get another job!

If she really has nothing against marrying homosexuals and just doesn't want to be involved in the process, then move aside and let someone else take over who can provide the service the law allows them.

Many years ago I applied to be a Customs officer. Passed the test with flying colours (I think something like 2/3 fail it), and was close to an interview when it became official that the officers were going to be armed. Carrying a gun was against my convictions, so I withdrew. Seems like a simple equation.

Right on m8. I'm not fully opposed to public workers breaking the law in every case, if it's for the benefit of the public (whistleblowers like Ed Snowden for example, where you could say the government was breaking the law [the Constitution] and he was merely upholding it). This woman's actions do not benefit the public good, these are her personal beliefs which she is imposing on other, and her actions are not backed by any just law. It's her right to believe what she wants, but if she doesn't want to issue marriage licenses for gay people, she needs to step down so others are not affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love all the Christian hate. I am a Christian, but I'm not gonna debate about if God is real, etc..

I will say this though, we all aren't like this lady. While I respect her for standing up for what we believe to be wrong, its her job. There are lots of aspects to my job that I hate doing, and that I don't approve of, but if my boss tells me to do something (work related and safe of course), I have to do it. As does she. No one is telling her that she has to approve of it morally, but just do it.

But I do agree with a couple past comments, do atheists ever try anything on people of other religions? Not saying this was a targeted atheist attack, but some things are. Do people go to Muslims and ask them to support gay marriages with cakes and flowers? Doubt it.

Heck, even with atheists, I constantly hear people badgering our belief system, and as someone said earlier, "archaeic" beliefs. But do these same people criticize Muslim beliefs? Definitely not as often.

People speak out most against Christians, because Christianity remains the dominant religion in North America and therefore Christians have the most power in this part of the world. Muslims don't control the government here, the people making laws that discriminate against homosexuals are doing so based on Christian beliefs (for the most part). Therefore it makes more sense to go after Christianity because it's the main obstacle to change.

In the Middle East for example gay people are stoned to death which is much much worse than what happens here, but people are understandably more concerned about their own country where they can effect the most change and make a difference to the people around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funniest part is that she is a registered Democrat. Not all crazies are Republican.

They've probably still got Blue Dog Democrats in that part of the country, they are conservative in comparison to most Dems. (Or she could be registered so she can vote in the primaries and take down strong candidates)

On the other side there are people like the somewhat marginalized Log Cabin Republicans and they are gay conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you drag a bale of straw into the discussion. I'm not for overturning the 2nd Amendment. I'm for enacting common sense laws that fall outside of the scope of it's intended purpose when it was written.

I'm going to guess that gay marriage was looked at much differently in the late 1700's as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you drag a bale of straw into the discussion. I'm not for overturning the 2nd Amendment. I'm for enacting common sense laws that fall outside of the scope of it's intended purpose when it was written.

I'm going to guess that gay marriage was looked at much differently in the late 1700's as well.

Bull$&!# alert.

No one on these forums has shown more disdain for the second amendment and people exercising their right to bear arms than you. Here you show your disdain for the Constitution itself.. interesting given its the supreme law of the land.

I'm just making you eat your own words as you apparently suggest the law of the land matters. If I wasn't lazy I'm sure I could find something on immigration from you as well.. another law of the land issue you'd find yourself eating your own words on. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I feel so strongly that I'd resort to really pretending to know what God is thinking (not that I think he's real anyway) but I laughed at this:

11987017_1537527403001624_29025644414849

Seriously though, on the premise that if God is real and there is a heaven and hell and all that, does she just think there's going to be a sign or she'll get a message from a burning bush or something to tell her she's wrong? Otherwise, if she's just going to wait until she's dead to find that out then what was the point - she can't go back and change her life to be more tolerant, and she can't pass the message on to others.

Why not just be a lot smarter now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, just to clear up some points on this.

Curious why the judge couldn't adjust the fines accordingly, like starting with a base amount and doubling it every day she refuses to comply. I feel like that might work quicker than if she decides to become a martyr for her cause and fight from jail.

The judge noted that religious conservatives donate vast swaths of money to these people so fines would be rather meaningless since they'd likely get crowdfunded.

She should be fired immediately for a plethora of reasons, however incarcerating her is a step too far.

She's an elected official and can't be fired.

While most of what you say here is correct, it has nothing to do with the constant misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state". It actually refers to the 1st Amendment, protecting the church from the government, not the other way around.

Wrong. The supreme court ruled almost a century ago that it applies both ways. Religious values are not supposed to influence the government either, since we all don't share the same religious values.

While most of what you say here is correct, it has nothing to do with the constant misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state". It actually refers to the 1st Amendment, protecting the church from the government, not the other way around.

The other clerks are her deputies and she has to sign every document for it to be legal(as long as she's there of course, when she's in jail her deputies are legally empowered to sign the documents).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. The supreme court ruled almost a century ago that it applies both ways. Religious values are not supposed to influence the government either, since we all don't share the same religious values.

You are confusing secularism with.. whatever you're trying to imply here. What you're showing is not a two way street because it's wrong.

The notion of the first amendment and secularism is that the government makes no law establishing religion. Broadly interpreted, it means government doesn't even favour a religion. It doesn't mean religion doesn't influence government. Religion is a personal choice, and persons (deliberately typed this way) affect the government because persons are the government. Their religious values, just like their political values, will undoubtedly influence not only laws but judicial rulings. Society itself changes to the whims of "values".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing secularism with.. whatever you're trying to imply here. What you're showing is not a two way street because it's wrong.

The notion of the first amendment and secularism is that the government makes no law establishing religion. Broadly interpreted, it means government doesn't even favour a religion. It doesn't mean religion doesn't influence government. Religion is a personal choice, and persons (deliberately typed this way) affect the government because persons are the government. Their religious values, just like their political values, will undoubtedly influence not only laws but judicial rulings. Society itself changes to the whims of "values".

According to the constitution, the supreme court are the arbiters who interpret the bill of rights.

And they said differently than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the constitution, the supreme court are the arbiters who interpret the bill of rights.

And they said differently than you do.

Really? So.. religion and politics aren't influencing the rulings of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and a rather large myriad of federal and state judges?

The fact that religion still gets tax exempt status shows you're incorrect. Then there's clergy in Congress.. the House Chaplain ring a bell? Another key point -- religious PACs. Their job is to influence the government, and it's perfectly legal. There's so many examples of this you basically have to actually work to convince yourself of this lie to suggest it.

It's nice and all to believe what you want, but what you believe about no religious influence upon the US government is fantasy. There's also no Constitutional authority for a lack of religious influence over the government. You have this wrong. 100%. Removing influence of religious people from the government is enforcing non-religion upon the populace, which would likewise be a violation of the first amendment. Non-religious people seem to fail to grasp that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? So.. religion and politics aren't influencing the rulings of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and a rather large myriad of federal and state judges?

Has no bearing on whether that is legal or not. People breaking the law doesn't change the law. The supreme court interpreted that clause to mean that religion is not to be used as a basis for laws. Religion is not supposed to influence government. That is the law of the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has no bearing on whether that is legal or not. People breaking the law doesn't change the law. The supreme court interpreted that clause to mean that religion is not to be used as a basis for laws. Religion is not supposed to influence government. That is the law of the land.

Protip: Just repeating yourself and not even addressing the examples I gave (that show it's legality) doesn't make what you said true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protip: Just repeating yourself and not even addressing the examples I gave (that show it's legality) doesn't make what you said true.

Giving examples of bias and corruption in powerful positions doesn't negate the law as interpreted by the supreme court.

Shocker, politicians and partisan hacks don't always follow the rules and that totally proves those rules are fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving examples of bias and corruption in powerful positions doesn't negate the law as interpreted by the supreme court.

Shocker, politicians and partisan hacks don't always follow the rules and that totally proves those rules are fiction.

lol

Shocker.. you don't even know the rules yet claim they are bias and corruption, even though such "biases" continue to be affirmed by SCOTUS as perfectly lawful. So I guess you're just stuck having to bs yourself until you wish to finally accept reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...