News1 min ago
Kentucky Clerk Jailed For Defying Court Orders On Gay Marriage
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ummmm. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sorry to throw a spanner in the works here BUT I think this shows a fault in the way laws are made & passed in a democratic society. I am neither for or against the law that now states that same sex humans may marry,what I am rather perplexed about are changes in the law which voters who have not been given the opportunity to vote on have to accept decisions made on their behalf whether they like it or not. It is probably a fact that in the so called Bible Belt of the US there are more people against the change in the law than there are for it, so what of their rights ?
Latest news from the BBC :::
http://
Freedom from discrimination ....1
Bigotry...................................0
Good result !
http://
Freedom from discrimination ....1
Bigotry...................................0
Good result !
Possibly, but the judge deliberately has let the son off because the other 5 can cover for him. Part of the issue with Kim Clark was that not only was she refusing to sign marriage licences, but she was also ordering her deputies not to either. (I think, in fairness, that most of them didn't want to anyway, and that they are signing now is out of compliance with the law rather than necessarily a desire to do so.)
Whiskeryron might be referring to the legality o gay marriage in the US being a decision by the US Supreme Court rather than a democratic decision passing through Congress -- or, better yet in the US, through individual State legislatures.
Whiskeryron might be referring to the legality o gay marriage in the US being a decision by the US Supreme Court rather than a democratic decision passing through Congress -- or, better yet in the US, through individual State legislatures.
ron, as i have said on here many times, those who do not agree with the prescribed "correct" belief on any given subject, have no rights, they must be bullied into line. The delight on here that this woman has been jailed is demonstration of the sheer nastiness of the self appointed "correct" thinkers.
It will no doubt eventually soon become illegal to even have "incorrect" thoughts
It will no doubt eventually soon become illegal to even have "incorrect" thoughts
TTT
That's not quite right.
The clerk has absolutely every right not to believe in same sex unions.
She has no right as an elected official to decide that in her county, gay people should be banned from getting married.
That's the nub of it.
She was basically saying, "Because of my religious beliefs, you cannot get a marriage licence in your own country, where your tax dollars pay my salary. You will have to go to another county".
Do you support that?
That's not quite right.
The clerk has absolutely every right not to believe in same sex unions.
She has no right as an elected official to decide that in her county, gay people should be banned from getting married.
That's the nub of it.
She was basically saying, "Because of my religious beliefs, you cannot get a marriage licence in your own country, where your tax dollars pay my salary. You will have to go to another county".
Do you support that?
TTT
You have said at least twice that this woman was bullied.
By whom?
Seriously - think about the situation. If there were five registrars in Rowan Country and this woman was targeted by these 'bullies' who would not accept licences from any other registrar and demanded that she grant them a marriage licence, then yes - you could say she was bullied.
But that was not the case.
Do you think that she had the right to refuse licences and advise gay couples to travel to the next county that would accommodate them?
In what way is that right?
You have said at least twice that this woman was bullied.
By whom?
Seriously - think about the situation. If there were five registrars in Rowan Country and this woman was targeted by these 'bullies' who would not accept licences from any other registrar and demanded that she grant them a marriage licence, then yes - you could say she was bullied.
But that was not the case.
Do you think that she had the right to refuse licences and advise gay couples to travel to the next county that would accommodate them?
In what way is that right?
There's a certain irony here, it seems, in that TTT almost looks like he's been "brainwashed" into thinking that this woman is the victim of an aggressive liberal gay lobby who forced her into jail just because she wanted to stand up for her beliefs. As I pointed out yesterday, nothing could be further from the truth, in a post that evidently TTT has paid no attention to whatsoever. All the gay couples in question (and, for that matter, the heterosexual couples she has also been denying marriage licences to) wanted was for her to comply with the law. If she did not, they expressed a wish that she not be sent to prison, instead receiving a fine. Failing that, rather than sending her to prison they asked the judge to offer a compromise: that she can continue refusing marriage licences so long as she allow her deputies to provide them. She refused that, too. And so, she has ended up in jail entirely because of her own choices.
Not to mention that one of the founding principles of the US is that the separation of religion and state is, essentially, absolute. Something that many Americans forget, or misinterpret, but my not-particularly-liberal friend pointed out, adding, "she was in the wrong", by letting her religious beliefs interfere with her state duties -- "God did not appoint her".
This is not about suppressing contrary opinions. It's about acknowledging that, in a position of responsibility, your duties to the job must come first over personal opinions. And, if you cannot manage that, then you are in the wrong job.
This is not about suppressing contrary opinions. It's about acknowledging that, in a position of responsibility, your duties to the job must come first over personal opinions. And, if you cannot manage that, then you are in the wrong job.
jim360
Thanks for that - I saw your post, and wondered why TTT didn't acknowledge it. Perhaps now that you've reiterated (in fairness, he might not have seen your previous post), TTT might reconsider whether this indeed evidence of bullying.
Doesn't seem so to me.
Actually - it' pretty shocking that she refused the compromise of allowing her deputies to issue the licence.
TTT - what do you have to say on this?
Thanks for that - I saw your post, and wondered why TTT didn't acknowledge it. Perhaps now that you've reiterated (in fairness, he might not have seen your previous post), TTT might reconsider whether this indeed evidence of bullying.
Doesn't seem so to me.
Actually - it' pretty shocking that she refused the compromise of allowing her deputies to issue the licence.
TTT - what do you have to say on this?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.