Jailed for Contempt (Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis)


RMGuy
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 
 
Glug, glug.
 

 

If you knew your Church history and the laws of the land, you would not make the outrageous claims you made.

 

Are you saying that every time Joseph Smith was arrested and every time he was convicted of a crime he was TOTALLY innocent or justified in his actions?

 

Grow Up. I get the hero worship I really do but sprinkle a little reality in you cool aid.

 

This does not make him less of a prophet  because he truly was/is the prophet of the restoration, but does show that he was also a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't when she got elected.

 

But, that's beside the point.

 

 

That is the point its part of the job  and she knows it laws change, it happens all the time.

 

 

 

Let me ask you something.  Say tomorrow the SCOTUS will declare that LDS Bishops will have to perform gay marriages.  Say you're a bishop.  Are you going to perform the marriage or would you rather go to jail?

The church will never allow that, again not a comparable comparison. They (the church) will soon be out of the marriage business, just like they are in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you saying that every time Joseph Smith was arrested and every time he was convicted of a crime he was TOTALLY innocent or justified in his actions?

 

No. I am saying that your assessment of the Nauvoo Expositor press destruction is naive and wrong.
 

Grow Up

 

Honestly, omega, coming from you, this is pretty funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's sad to me?

 

What's sad is that the Gay Marriage proponents have won the hearts of Mormons so much so that they (or at least those who joined in this conversation against somebody standing up for Christian principles) don't even recognize that as noble anymore.  There was a time in America not too long ago when going to jail for good moral principles was seen as a noble thing.

I simply wish to separte the legal from the moral. I don't think gay marriage as moral. Let the politicians pay the price for legalizing immorality. I think there are bigger issues than the behavior of a super majority. Fighting the fight against the legality is only giving them a greater voice than their status deserves.

 

I have much greater concern for the legalization and public acceptance of drug abuse than I do for people cohabitating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No. I am saying that your assessment of the Nauvoo Expositor press destruction is naive and wrong.
 

 

Joseph was wrong in ordering the destruction of the Expoxitor. History shows this to be true. Please feel free to deny this.

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deny it.

 

Now, please demonstrate your claim to be true.

Well for starters it's what ultimately got him killed. the destruction of that press provided the impetus to put him in jail....well you know what happened after that.

 

So yeah destroying that press was a mistake.

 

You denied that it was a mistake please demonstrate your claim to be true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omega, I wonder if you'd be willing to give us your definition of 'martyr'.  Also, could we have your opinion on Fox's book of Martyrs?  

 

Specifically, could we have your opinion on the martyr mentioned in Fox's book of Martyrs, who was martyred for destroying a public edict?

"The publication of this edict occasioned an immediate martyrdom, for a bold Christian not only tore it down from the place to which it was affixed, but execrated the name of the emperor for his injustice. A provocation like this was sufficient to call down pagan vengeance upon his head; he was accordingly seized, severely tortured, and then burned alive."

 

If Joseph Smith wasn't a martyr, how did this guy make it into the big book of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no love for the law that was passed and how it was passed. I would have much respect for this lady if she stood her ground stating that it wasn't passed legally or that the persons that created the law overreached their authority. From elected officials, I would have hoped for something like that. 

 

The fact that when she was elected this wasn't a law, has nothing to do with it. Laws change all the time; abortion, divorce, marriage, speed limits, talking and driving while on a cell phone.... Some could go against our beliefs and the rest do not. This was, in the eyes of law, and her job, another change that could happen. Her position is not to give the opinion that "I think you should be married or not",  it is a clerks position, to make sure qualifications are met and issue a piece of paper. The definition of a clerk in general is "a person employed in an office or bank to keep records and accounts and to undertake other routine administrative duties:"  Administrative duties

 

I am not pacified, I am simply just not convinced that her job to service gays and lesbians pieces of paper infringes on her belief. The paper doesn't say she morally supports gay marriage. She doesn't have to attend the wedding. This has as much to do with her beliefs as it does me selling a hammer to Joe and Steve as they hold hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is the reeking setup I was sensing...   The headline should read... "Woman had disagreement with her bosses about her new job duities...  They worked it out an came to an agreeable balance between them."

 

Except that doesn't sale or rally up the base does it?

 

Not like the idea of a christan martyer being held in jail on prinicaples does...  But hey if you can't find one let make one up.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  The "work it out" portion did not get presented until after she went to jail.  That's why she was in jail for a short time.

 

This wasn't pressed by any politician to rally up by the bases... this was an incident in Kentucky that was picked up by the press where protesters were already lined up on both sides of the clerk's office - one side for the gay couples, the other side for the clerk.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one got over on her, and its not like she didn't know this might happen. She ran as a democrat for cripes sake!!!

 

Gay Marriage, interestingly, is a minority opinion even for Democrats.  Obama got elected into office as anti-gay marriage.  A big majority of the black population are democrats and at the same time a big majority of the black population are anti-gay marriage.  A big majority of Hispanics are democrats and a big majority of the Hispanics are anti-gay, etc. etc.

 

That's why, even in very blue States like California, they can't get things like Prop 8 passed.  They had to go to judicial means to get it done.

 

Gay Marriage and Abortion Laws are two perfect examples about a government shoving something down people's throats that effectively changed the culture on the younger generation putting a drastic rift between the old and the new instead of gradual change.  Culture is supposed to shape government, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Her position is not to give the opinion that "I think you should be married or not",  it is a clerks position, to make sure qualifications are met and issue a piece of paper. The definition of a clerk in general is "a person employed in an office or bank to keep records and accounts and to undertake other routine administrative duties:"  Administrative duties

 

I am not pacified, I am simply just not convinced that her job to service gays and lesbians pieces of paper infringes on her belief. The paper doesn't say she morally supports gay marriage. She doesn't have to attend the wedding. This has as much to do with her beliefs as it does me selling a hammer to Joe and Steve as they hold hands. 

 

I agree with this, and I think it is the true crux of the matter.  

 

I have a problem with claims I'm reading that some Mormons' hearts have been won so much that they don't recognize this clerk is standing up for Christian principles.  Whether Christian principles are involved at all may be an issue worthy of a separate OP--I don't know, but the issue is worthy of discussion.  I'm not convinced that (Christian principles) *are* involved.  Comparisons are tricky and i don't think the comparison of the real [a government official being required by the government to perform government duties] is sufficiently similar to the hypothetical [a Mormon bishop being required by the government to perform an ecclesiastical duty in a government-mandated way] to be valid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

You know what's sad to me?

What's sad is that the Gay Marriage proponents have won the hearts of Mormons so much so that they (or at least those who joined in this conversation against somebody standing up for Christian principles) don't even recognize that as noble anymore. There was a time in America not too long ago when going to jail for good moral principles was seen as a noble thing.

I think she would have had much more support here if she had simply resigned. Resigning from an elected position for moral reasons is far more noble and commendable than breaking the law, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  The "work it out" portion did not get presented until after she went to jail.  That's why she was in jail for a short time.

 

This wasn't pressed by any politician to rally up by the bases... this was an incident in Kentucky that was picked up by the press where protesters were already lined up on both sides of the clerk's office - one side for the gay couples, the other side for the clerk.

 

If you are going to regurgitate a "resolved" issue the only reason I can see to do so is to get people worked up.  While the whole gay marriage/Christan rights is a big deal this is not a good or even halfway decent example of such.  You can detect this by the fact very key and important details have to be omitted to make it work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her actions are justified.  She didn't "not follow the law".  The law was - if you don't do it, you go to jail.  She peacefully went to jail. 

 

Tell me what you think about her duties as they pertain to the law.  When you used the words "if you don't do it" I'm wondering if that isn't just a non-specific way of saying the law is if she doesn't perform her duties she is subject to (jail)?  It seems clear that she committed an overt act in violation of the law, i.e. refusing to issue marriage licenses.  From what I've read it also appears that she went further.  She prevented deputy clerks from taking her place.  Certainly obstructing other civil servants from executing the duties of the office in which they serve is "not following the law" isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed that she was elected...  Of course the other side of that question then is way doesn't she quit/resign etc?

 

It seems more ethical to me that you quit a job that you have ethical concerns about doing rather then trying have it both ways by staying in the job but refusing to do the job

 

I'm 100% behind her on this. You don't make a statement by going quietly into the night. If she's willing to be jailed for her beliefs she is one of the very, very few in the country that is. Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller was jailed for his beliefs, King was jailed for his beliefs, and so was Gandhi.

 

In Helaman 10:4 it states:

 

Blessed art thou, Nephi, for those things which thou hast done; for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.

 

We are where we're at in this country because no one is willing to be accused of being "politically incorrect." So very, very few are willing to take a stand...everyone just says, "There's nothing I can do."

 

Love her or hate her, she has feared God and not man according to her understanding, and she has made a stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 100% behind her on this. You don't make a statement by going quietly into the night. If she's willing to be jailed for her beliefs she is one of the very, very few in the country that is. Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller was jailed for his beliefs, King was jailed for his beliefs, and so was Gandhi.

 

In Helaman 10:4 it states:

 

Blessed art thou, Nephi, for those things which thou hast done; for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.

 

We are where we're at in this country because no one is willing to be accused of being "politically incorrect." So very, very few are willing to take a stand...everyone just says, "There's nothing I can do."

 

Love her or hate her, she has feared God and not man according to her understanding, and she has made a stand.

 

And she could have made a more impressive 'stand' by resigning...  Resigning doesn't carry stigmata of being to worried about the things of the world (aka having a job)..  Or in other words we could just a easily say her 'worldly' concerns show that she was trying to serve two masters...  And that never ends well.  It make the stand she did take less effective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And she could have made a more impressive 'stand' by resigning...  Resigning doesn't carry stigmata of being to worried about the things of the world (aka having a job)..  Or in other words we could just a easily say her 'worldly' concerns show that she was trying to serve two masters...  And that never ends well.  It make the stand she did take less effective

 

The effectiveness of her stand in your eyes and mine isn't really what matters here, now is it? She did what she felt was right/best in this situation - it wasn't your call or mine.

 

I'm behind her use of her moral agency 100%

Edited by Average Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The effectiveness of her stand in your eyes and mine isn't really what matters here, now is it? She did what she felt was right/best in this situation - it wasn't your call or mine.

 

I'm behind her use of her moral agency 100%

 

Agreed...  However I wish people would also respect my right to use moral agency as much as they demand I respect theirs.  When I decide not to jump on whatever the latest hobby horse is that we are suppose to be all outraged about... that I am not therefore an evil sinner or a clueless dingbat who is permissively letting the evils of the world slip past me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed...  However I wish people would also respect my right to use moral agency as much as they demand I respect theirs.  When I decide not to jump on whatever the latest hobby horse is that we are suppose to be all outraged about... that I am not therefore an evil sinner or a clueless dingbat who is permissively letting the evils of the world slip past me.

 

umm...I think that happens AFTER the second coming ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no love for the law that was passed and how it was passed. I would have much respect for this lady if she stood her ground stating that it wasn't passed legally or that the persons that created the law overreached their authority. From elected officials, I would have hoped for something like that.

The fact that when she was elected this wasn't a law, has nothing to do with it. Laws change all the time; abortion, divorce, marriage, speed limits, talking and driving while on a cell phone.... Some could go against our beliefs and the rest do not. This was, in the eyes of law, and her job, another change that could happen. Her position is not to give the opinion that "I think you should be married or not", it is a clerks position, to make sure qualifications are met and issue a piece of paper. The definition of a clerk in general is "a person employed in an office or bank to keep records and accounts and to undertake other routine administrative duties:" Administrative duties.

I am not pacified, I am simply just not convinced that her job to service gays and lesbians pieces of paper infringes on her belief. The paper doesn't say she morally supports gay marriage. She doesn't have to attend the wedding. This has as much to do with her beliefs as it does me selling a hammer to Joe and Steve as they hold hands.

Actually, the Clerk of Courts approves or denies an application for marriage license. The Clerk's signature indicates that she approved the marriage. The Clerk also performs the marriage when asked to do so. This is way beyond selling Steve and Joe a hammer. It is giving Steve and Joe approval to use the hammer to bash someone's head in (let's say for the sake of theoreticals that bashing heads with hammers was made legal after she was elected) and selling them the hammer.

But this particular clerk is not stopping these people from getting marriage licenses. They can get licenses anywhere.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me what you think about her duties as they pertain to the law. When you used the words "if you don't do it" I'm wondering if that isn't just a non-specific way of saying the law is if she doesn't perform her duties she is subject to (jail)? It seems clear that she committed an overt act in violation of the law, i.e. refusing to issue marriage licenses. From what I've read it also appears that she went further. She prevented deputy clerks from taking her place. Certainly obstructing other civil servants from executing the duties of the office in which they serve is "not following the law" isn't it?

She's obstructing for 2 reasons: 1.). Her signature is still going to be on the paper even if the deputies issue the licenses. 2.) the deputies expressed that they didn't want to do it either, they are doing it to get her out of jail. Well, one of the deputies is her son, another is a preacher's daughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share