Your views on the clerk Ms Kim Davis, who purportedly claims to be a christian, and is a bad role model, who denied marriage licenses to gays...

Apparently, you have already presented your own opinion of her.

I consider her a criminal. She is breaking the law of the land.

If you have a moral imparities that preclude you from doing a job then you have enough courage and commitment in your beliefs that you find another job.

If you do not change jobs then you are lying to put yourself in the position to break the law which is just breaking another commandment. People who apply their religion selectively are frauds.

I personally believe there are products that should not me sold and I have resigned from jobs where that was and issue. Was it easy? No but you do not get to rewrite laws that you do not agree with.

I view her with my eyes. How do you view her?

Edited for off-topic.

soufie
Site Moderator

She's awesome!

Not only that, she's HOT!

Well said. Personally the judge was lax in letting her out of Jail for contempt as he told her she would be int here until she agreed to obey the law and only held her for what, a week? Maybe thirty days for each license she denied or caused to be denied would have been a good sentence ;-)

I feel she is commendable for standing by her religious values


its hard in a world where we are told we must leave them at home when we walk out our door and 'conform' to the worlds rules


perhaps its a step towards a minor change that would not demand Christians sign their name to a legal document supporting a sinful lifestyle

much like drivers licenses have had changes to their format and requirements,, the same can be done with marriage licenses,,,

Sorry Msharmony but no it can not due to the very clearly written separation of church and state. By that constitutional law, the government (all levels) can not put in place any law that promotes or denies a single religion, which means any government employee can not refuse to do something based on religious belief, because they are acting on behalf of the government when performing their duties. Thus the ONLY option the government has is to require all clerks to issue marriage licenses, or remove the law requiring marriage licenses in the first place. Me personally, I would rather they went with option B and stopped requiring licenses to get married as the only reason for that process to be in effect is to bring in revenue for the government.

No, very simply, if a persons religious beliefs prevent them from doing something that a job would require them to do, then they need to find a different job. T here is no harm in doing so and they are not being denied the job to begin with.

which religion is being promoted? several religions oppose the lifestyle as well as people who have NO religion


church and state clause is that CONGRESS can pass no law respecting or PROHIBITING exercise of religion

modifying a document would not be doing either, it would be making its purpose and wording practical ,


there is a lot of undue hardship on someone who has done their job faithfully to provide for their family to start back at zero,,





I too would like government out of marriage and have it be a personal and intimate vow between two people performed by whichever entities agree to perform it,,




,,,

and it would hurt no one in any way shape or form

The judicial branch has already deemed many times over that"Congress" means NO branch of government or government employee when it comes to separation of church and state. This is why so many people tried to have the government change the wording of it to Civil Union instead of marriage and leave the term marriage to the church. So basically, a government employee, (judge, clerk, justice of the peace, etc) would be authorized to sign off on a Civil Union but not a marriage, and clergy could sign off on marriages but not Civil Unions. They are the same identical thing, just two different names.

Now in the case of Mrs. Davis, this still would not help her as she would still be required to provide the signature for the Civil Union (which would violate her religious beliefs). In her specific situation, the best thing would be to create a different job or position equivalant to what she already does that would not conflict with religious issues, such as marriage. Or to state that the head clerk (Mr.s Davis) was not authorized to sign off on any marriage licenses, only regular clerks could.

But int he end, an individual has to accept that laws may change and if they do and your religion prevents you from performing it, you no longer qualify for the job and have to find a different one. Same as you or I would have to if we worked as a fireman and lost one of our legs. It sucks that we are no longer capable of doing the job, but life sucks sometimes lol

on a side note, something most people seem not to realize and individual states try to deny is the fact that a clergy member does not need a marriage license to marry two people. I myself am ordained; I do not have to have you and your fiance get a marriage license before I can marry you, nor am I legally required to sign a marriage license. The catch though is the state will try and not recognize your marriage without the license (there are ways around that but I can not remember them off the top of my head; something to do with the government being required to recognize certain religious ceremonies as valid).

Why do it simple,if you can complicate it?

the problem in this case is as head clerk Davis was not allowing any of the other clerks to sign a certificate because it required her to stamp it afterward.

As far as I am concerned there should have been a special session that removed her from her office when she went to jail for refusing to do her job (and she should not have been released until she agreed to do her job or quit). but htat's just me

again, this presumes that the only objection to same sex is religious, which is not true,,,

and providing a signature for a civil union would not violate anything as a CIVIL union would only be for purposes of LEGAL amenities that same sex couples claim to want and would not in any way be predicated upon SEXUAL relations,,,

and there is something called being 'grandfathered' which should be used to allow those who signed on with CERTAIN expectations from their job to remain in their position with those same expectations,,

and yet the state did allow them to issue the certificates and her lawyer did offer that she would continue with STAMPING but not applying her name,,,

I am not saying there isn't but I have yet to find any objection to same sex marriage that is not in fact religious based. However with that said, in the point of this article it IS religious based because Mrs. Davis specifically states that she will not do it because it would violate God's commandments.

I agree that in regards to a civil union, it would not violate anything, however Ms. Davis would still stand up and refuse, claiming that by signing the civil union papers, she wuuld be endorsing sexual relations between two men or two women and thus she would be violating God's commandments.

As far as the grandfather clause is concerned, no that can not be used in this case, because Mrs. Davis is required to have her name stamped to all marriage (or civil union) documents, thus bringing up her dissent. And furthermore, I personally do not agree with a grandfather clause when it comes to changes in the administration of the law. By running for office and accepting the popular vote, Mrs. Davis agreed by oath to obey all laws both present AND FUTURE; It's the "and future" that she doesn't like, because she does not want to do something she considers to be wrong. And very simply, she always has the option to step down. Nobody would bat an eye if she had, even if she did so while spouting off about it being due tot he abomination of the united states and what it has become.

Not true. At least not in the beginning when she was first arrested for contempt. She was offered the opportunity to not sign them herself, but to just have the office stamp them official. She refused to allow that to happen because the "stamp" was a stamp of her name, thus giving indication that SHE authorized it. When the judge arrested her for contempt, he ordered all clerks to start issuing license to ANYONE that legally applied. Her son continued to refuse to do this, and as far as I have seen he was allowed to do so, so long as he did not block others from doing so. When the judge released her, it was on condition that she do nothing to prevent the certificates from being issues or stamped. She agreed to comply, but within days of her release she filed another appeal, as well, I believe, as claims of discrimination, etc. I have not heard anything since then though, so dont know what has happened after that.