|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 02 2015 11:25 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 08:57 Yoav wrote:
Blasphemy is insulting God, yes. Nobody's definition covers gay sex under blasphemy. I did not claim anyone believed gay sex was blasphemy. And nobody's saying that county clerks should be required to have gay sex. I claimed that many people would consider an official document certifying that two people of the same sex are married to be blasphemy.
Still not blasphemy. Even if you argue that God has a problem with gay sex for some reason, or gay marriage in particular, it's not an insult to God to issue a license. Maybe it's ideologically incompatible, or something (still probably no, but whatever), or maybe it's just morally wrong, but it's not blasphemy by any stretch.
|
On September 02 2015 13:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 02 2015 06:46 Buckyman wrote:On September 02 2015 06:41 Plansix wrote:Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever. If it ever gets to the point where literally nobody is issuing marriage licenses then we'd need to redesign the whole marriage process. But we aren't there, so the situation is only moderately messy. And I don't think we'll ever be there in any society where gay people want to marry. The situation shouldn't be messy at all. The situation is if you and another consenting adult want to get married you walk in and get a license. It should be the most cut and dry thing in the world. I want to get married, you give me my license and say have a good day, I walk out the door, done. Marriage as a license bequeathed by the State is a ludicrous idea to begin with, and has only been common in modern times. The situation ought to be, that if anyone and any parties wish to partake in the arrangement called Marriage, and all its attendant agreements (PoA, Next of Kin, property distributions, joint accounts, etc.) , all one should have to do is write up the contract and have a notary bear witness. Why do you define marriage arrangements as only between 2 people? This is why I always laugh at 'progressives' who proclaim themselves as patron saints of 'rights' or 'equality'. Still discriminating against the polyamorous.
I'm actually completely pro-polygamous marriage between entirely consenting parties, and was disappointed when Canada's Surpreme Court ruled against it in recent years.
Though, in context, the situation was not so much about polygamous marriage, so much as a huge cult using freedom of religion as a shield for abusive control, and the ruling was that freedom of religion did not outweigh the human rights violations.
|
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
lol what....
|
She's pulling a Gingrich. Classic.
|
On September 02 2015 15:10 Doraemon wrote:
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
lol what....
Is that really a surprise? Those hiding behind the front of religious freedom are rarely actually religious. They just need a justification for their racist/homophobic/whatever viewpoint.
|
On September 02 2015 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 15:10 Doraemon wrote:
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
lol what.... Is that really a surprise? Those hiding behind the front of religious freedom are rarely actually religious. They just need a justification for their racist/homophobic/whatever viewpoint.
Please. Don't spout bullshit without any logical connection. Just because one does not share your views, it does not mean that he is racist/homophobic/etc...
|
On September 02 2015 21:52 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 02 2015 15:10 Doraemon wrote:
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
lol what.... Is that really a surprise? Those hiding behind the front of religious freedom are rarely actually religious. They just need a justification for their racist/homophobic/whatever viewpoint. Please. Don't spout bullshit without any logical connection. Just because one does not share your views, it does not mean that he is racist/homophobic/etc...
I mean, his generalization aside, this is a clear cut case of homophobia/outright bigotry and discrimination.
|
On September 02 2015 21:52 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 02 2015 15:10 Doraemon wrote:
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
lol what.... Is that really a surprise? Those hiding behind the front of religious freedom are rarely actually religious. They just need a justification for their racist/homophobic/whatever viewpoint. Please. Don't spout bullshit without any logical connection. Just because one does not share your views, it does not mean that he is racist/homophobic/etc...
Gj completely misreading me.
No where did I say religious people are racist. I said racists often hide behind religion while not actually following said religion.
Note the not so subtle difference.
|
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism.
|
On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism.
Hiding it behind religion lets them say "But it is against my belief" instead of having to say "I hate gays".
They know their viewpoint is not socially acceptable anymore so they turn to other justifications to explain their behavior.
|
On September 02 2015 21:52 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 18:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 02 2015 15:10 Doraemon wrote:
The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
lol what.... Is that really a surprise? Those hiding behind the front of religious freedom are rarely actually religious. They just need a justification for their racist/homophobic/whatever viewpoint. Please. Don't spout bullshit without any logical connection. Just because one does not share your views, it does not mean that he is racist/homophobic/etc...
But she is homophobic. She cherry picked this part of her religion to deny them the right to marry. But for some reason adultery isn't a big deal for her, even though her religion prohibits that too.
On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism.
People cited the Bible to justify the morality and legality of slavery. That book can be used to justify anything.
Also, most bigots don't come out and say they are bigots. They all claim to have "valid reasons" for their bigotry. This is nothing new.
|
On September 02 2015 22:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism. Hiding it behind religion lets them say "But it is against my belief" instead of having to say "I hate gays". They know their viewpoint is not socially acceptable anymore so they turn to other justifications to explain their behavior.
It is clearer now, thanks.
To the other poster, I was talking about his generalization, not the specific case.
|
On September 02 2015 22:13 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 22:04 Gorsameth wrote:On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism. Hiding it behind religion lets them say "But it is against my belief" instead of having to say "I hate gays". They know their viewpoint is not socially acceptable anymore so they turn to other justifications to explain their behavior. It is clearer now, thanks. To the other poster, I was talking about his generalization, not the specific case.
And I was referring to the generalization that the right to religious freedom has been and still is used as an excuse for racism/homophobic/bigotry. Racists don’t wear signs and often make disingenuous about their motives.
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/
Justice Scalia explains why Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or find a new job
Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she believes same-sex marriage is immoral. According to Davis, her religious convictions prevent her from issuing the license: “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear ordered all county clerks in the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but Davis refused. A federal district court ordered her to comply and issue such licenses, and she still refused. She sought relief in federal court, and even sought relief from the Supreme Court, but to no avail. She now risks contempt.
No justice publicly dissented from the Supreme Court’s denial of Davis’s plea for relief, and this was not surprising. The law on this point is clear. Davis cites her religious conscience as the excuse for her intransigence, but she is wrong to do so. That’s not only my view, but the view of no less than Justice Antonin Scalia.
Davis has a right to observe and adhere to her religious beliefs, but she does not have a right to her job as county clerk. The latter obligates her to follow federal law, including the applicable judgments of federal courts, and it is now the law of the land that the Constitution bars state governments from refusing to recognize same-sex marriages on equal terms with opposite-sex marriages. If, as Davis claims, her religious convictions bar her from issuing such a marriage license, she should resign.
Now Scalia has not, to my knowledge, said anything directly about Davis’s actions, but he has addressed the question of what public officials should do when their official obligations conflict with their religious conscience. Writing in “First Things” in 2002, Scalia explained that if he were to conclude that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral, he should no longer serve on the bench.
While my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .
[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty”and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.
Davis is in a similar position. Her official position obligates her to take part in the state’s licensing and recognition of marriages. Insofar as the state’s definition of an acceptable marriage differs from her own, Davis is obligated to follow the state’s rule so long as she maintains her current office.
Think of it this way. Someone who objects to war due to his religious conscience has a right to be a conscientious objector and not serve in the military, even were there to be a draft. But he does not have the right to serve as a military officer, draw a paycheck from the military and then substitute his own personal views of when war is justified for that of the government. The same applies here.
If Davis believes the government’s definition of marriage is fundamentally immoral and contrary to her religious convictions, she should remove her self from the state’s machinery of marriage. That she has every right to do. What she does not have the right to do, however, is serve as a government official and fail to fulfill the obligations that come with that office.
|
United States41989 Posts
On September 02 2015 13:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 02 2015 06:46 Buckyman wrote:On September 02 2015 06:41 Plansix wrote:Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever. If it ever gets to the point where literally nobody is issuing marriage licenses then we'd need to redesign the whole marriage process. But we aren't there, so the situation is only moderately messy. And I don't think we'll ever be there in any society where gay people want to marry. The situation shouldn't be messy at all. The situation is if you and another consenting adult want to get married you walk in and get a license. It should be the most cut and dry thing in the world. I want to get married, you give me my license and say have a good day, I walk out the door, done. Marriage as a license bequeathed by the State is a ludicrous idea to begin with, and has only been common in modern times. The situation ought to be, that if anyone and any parties wish to partake in the arrangement called Marriage, and all its attendant agreements (PoA, Next of Kin, property distributions, joint accounts, etc.) , all one should have to do is write up the contract and have a notary bear witness. Why do you define marriage arrangements as only between 2 people? This is why I always laugh at 'progressives' who proclaim themselves as patron saints of 'rights' or 'equality'. Still discriminating against the polyamorous.
Pragmatism. I have no issues with bigamy as long as the people involved have a document that explains how they intend it to work with regard to inheritance etc but one thing at a time. It took about 200 years to convince conservatives that black people were human, and another 50 to get gays included too. One thing at a time.
|
On September 02 2015 23:07 Plansix wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/justice-scalia-explains-why-kim-davis-should-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-or-find-a-new-job/Show nested quote +Justice Scalia explains why Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or find a new job
Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she believes same-sex marriage is immoral. According to Davis, her religious convictions prevent her from issuing the license: “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear ordered all county clerks in the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but Davis refused. A federal district court ordered her to comply and issue such licenses, and she still refused. She sought relief in federal court, and even sought relief from the Supreme Court, but to no avail. She now risks contempt.
No justice publicly dissented from the Supreme Court’s denial of Davis’s plea for relief, and this was not surprising. The law on this point is clear. Davis cites her religious conscience as the excuse for her intransigence, but she is wrong to do so. That’s not only my view, but the view of no less than Justice Antonin Scalia.
Davis has a right to observe and adhere to her religious beliefs, but she does not have a right to her job as county clerk. The latter obligates her to follow federal law, including the applicable judgments of federal courts, and it is now the law of the land that the Constitution bars state governments from refusing to recognize same-sex marriages on equal terms with opposite-sex marriages. If, as Davis claims, her religious convictions bar her from issuing such a marriage license, she should resign.
Now Scalia has not, to my knowledge, said anything directly about Davis’s actions, but he has addressed the question of what public officials should do when their official obligations conflict with their religious conscience. Writing in “First Things” in 2002, Scalia explained that if he were to conclude that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral, he should no longer serve on the bench.
While my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .
[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty”and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.
Davis is in a similar position. Her official position obligates her to take part in the state’s licensing and recognition of marriages. Insofar as the state’s definition of an acceptable marriage differs from her own, Davis is obligated to follow the state’s rule so long as she maintains her current office.
Think of it this way. Someone who objects to war due to his religious conscience has a right to be a conscientious objector and not serve in the military, even were there to be a draft. But he does not have the right to serve as a military officer, draw a paycheck from the military and then substitute his own personal views of when war is justified for that of the government. The same applies here.
If Davis believes the government’s definition of marriage is fundamentally immoral and contrary to her religious convictions, she should remove her self from the state’s machinery of marriage. That she has every right to do. What she does not have the right to do, however, is serve as a government official and fail to fulfill the obligations that come with that office.
Amusing, but I suppose not unexpected from Scalia.
|
On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism. It's pretty common for leftists and others to disqualify people of faith by alleging their actions come from malice and not deeply held religious beliefs. Happened with Catholics and contraceptives, with this latest redefinition of marriage, even some with sex-ed. It's kinda an article of faith to go beyond criticizing the religion/religious sect to assaulting the motives of its practitioners.
For some additional reading, you can skim through to the pair of relevant sections in the DOMA decision in the opinion and first dissent.
I should add, as the other previously, that I'm discussing the generalization and not the specific case.
|
On September 02 2015 23:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism. It's pretty common for leftists and others to disqualify people of faith by alleging their actions come from malice and not deeply held religious beliefs. Happened with Catholics and contraceptives, with this latest redefinition of marriage, even some with sex-ed. It's kinda an article of faith to go beyond criticizing the religion/religious sect to assaulting the motives of its practitioners. For some additional reading, you can skim through to the pair of relevant sections in the DOMA decision in the opinion and first dissent.
Explain to me how someone following the bible in regards to gay marriage but then divorces and remarries 3 times is not a massive hypocrite and in fact take the "word of god" very seriously.
|
On September 02 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 23:19 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism. It's pretty common for leftists and others to disqualify people of faith by alleging their actions come from malice and not deeply held religious beliefs. Happened with Catholics and contraceptives, with this latest redefinition of marriage, even some with sex-ed. It's kinda an article of faith to go beyond criticizing the religion/religious sect to assaulting the motives of its practitioners. For some additional reading, you can skim through to the pair of relevant sections in the DOMA decision in the opinion and first dissent. Explain to me how someone following the bible in regards to gay marriage but then divorces and remarries 3 times is not a massive hypocrite and in fact take the "word of god" very seriously.
He isn't talking about this specific case. He is talking about some abstract, theoretical case that may or may not exist where faith is assaulted by leftist. Because if it is in the abstract, then there is no other motivation but religious freedom.
But of course at the end of the day, all these cases involve people. And the discussion of why they decided that birth control or gay marriage was the specific section of the bible they decided to care about is a totally valid discussion. There are a bunch of sections of that book most Christians ignore or just are not aware of.
|
On September 02 2015 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 23:19 Danglars wrote:On September 02 2015 22:00 SoSexy wrote:
I got your point but I fail to understand how religious freedom would help their racism. It's pretty common for leftists and others to disqualify people of faith by alleging their actions come from malice and not deeply held religious beliefs. Happened with Catholics and contraceptives, with this latest redefinition of marriage, even some with sex-ed. It's kinda an article of faith to go beyond criticizing the religion/religious sect to assaulting the motives of its practitioners. For some additional reading, you can skim through to the pair of relevant sections in the DOMA decision in the opinion and first dissent. Explain to me how someone following the bible in regards to gay marriage but then divorces and remarries 3 times is not a massive hypocrite and in fact take the "word of god" very seriously. I wasn't addressing specifically her dilemma, but those who would call it just another instance of a malicious masquerade, but I'll bite. It might be common to attack a person's character, frequently we call it an ad hominem attack. Humans are complex creatures and we're used to accepting advice, leadership, what-have-you from people with personal failings that might not always practice what they preach.
I don't want to get far afield with this. I'm just noting that the accusation of personal hypocrisy (particularly if she isn't issuing gay marriage licenses while publicly refusing to issue gay marriage licenses, you're just saying she's a shitty example of a believer in near areas) stands apart from arguments on limitations to exercise sincerely held beliefs (How can she hold any beliefs now that we know she violated others? Are public ruptures with mainstream belief systems the critical criteria for forever religious disenfranchisement on every aspect of that belief system?) The hypocrisy angle for me is a non-starter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
