|
Oops!
Sept 2, 2015 21:39:45 GMT -5
Post by Village Idiot on Sept 2, 2015 21:39:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 10:56:16 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 3, 2015 10:56:16 GMT -5
This story bothers me. It bothers me because I don't think it's really news.
Assuming the story is true, Kim Davis issued a marriage license to a couple she thought was a man and a woman. The central focus of this story seems to be that in that case she didn't follow her conscience. I don't get it. It's clear that because Davis thought she was issuing a marriage licence to a heterosexual couple she was following her conscience.
The fact that this incident occurred is news but I don't think it's worth any more than a line or two. It's an interesting sidebar but that's about all.
I'm not sure what to think about the the couple that now seems to regret getting the marriage license apparently because the fact that they are a same sex couple wasn't recognized when the licence was issued. What difference coud that possibly make. They wanted to get married. They got the license they sought and now they are married. Move on.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 11:14:47 GMT -5
Post by billhammond on Sept 3, 2015 11:14:47 GMT -5
This story bothers me. It bothers me because I don't think it's really news. Assuming the story is true, Kim Davis issued a marriage license to a couple she thought was a man and a woman. The central focus of this story seems to be that in that case she didn't follow her conscience. I don't get it. It's clear that because Davis thought she was issuing a marriage licence to a heterosexual couple she was following her conscience. The fact that this incident occurred is news but I don't think it's worth any more than a line or two. It's an interesting sidebar but that's about all. I'm not sure what to think about the the couple that now seems to regret getting the marriage license apparently because the fact that they are a same sex couple wasn't recognized when the licence was issued. What difference coud that possibly make. They wanted to get married. They got the license they sought and now they are married. Move on. Totally agree.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 12:21:48 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Sept 3, 2015 12:21:48 GMT -5
<MoveOn.org>
It's a crazy world we live in. Everything is NEWS, except real news. . . . , or more importantly, Everything is ENTERTAINMENT. Including (especially?) the NEWS.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Sept 3, 2015 12:56:52 GMT -5
BTW, Kim Davis has been ordered to jail, which I also agree with.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 13:48:39 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 3, 2015 13:48:39 GMT -5
I've been pretty swamped and have only glimpsed this story around the edges.
Is Davis' position elected, or is she a staffer? If she is a staffer, why don't they just fire/re-assign her?
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 13:54:13 GMT -5
Post by james on Sept 3, 2015 13:54:13 GMT -5
She was elected.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 14:07:50 GMT -5
Post by fauxmaha on Sept 3, 2015 14:07:50 GMT -5
So a Republican judge throws a Democratic office holder in jail...
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 16:22:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Sept 3, 2015 16:22:38 GMT -5
So a Republican judge throws a Democratic office holder in jail... Or a judge (party irrelevant) jails a lawbreaker (party irrelevant).
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 16:59:11 GMT -5
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 3, 2015 16:59:11 GMT -5
You don't understand. This woman is talking directly to God. Sort of a Joan of Arc with a southern accent. She is in full martyr mode, not helped by the fact she's become a celebrity and is being egged on by the likes of Mike Huckabee. She's passed the point where she could have gracefully backed down, bowed to the law of the entity she works for - the county. She's entirely wrapped up in her own story. I will say that by doubling-down after being carried off to the slammer she is following the venerable tradition of others who have accepted punishment as a price of sticking to their principles, like the civil-rights protesters of yore. But I'd bet she will tire of jail. It may happen quickly, or may take a while - maybe she'll try to get into the Supreme Court. But eventually she'll have to take the only course that seems open to her, short of growing old behind bars: resign her clerkship.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 18:24:37 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 3, 2015 18:24:37 GMT -5
<MoveOn.org> It's a crazy world we live in. Everything is NEWS, except real news. . . . , or more importantly, Everything is ENTERTAINMENT. Including (especially?) the NEWS. It often seems that the media isn't able to distinguish the difference between entertainment and news. The sad thing about the Kim Davis story is that there ought to be an important discussion about the whole issue of conscience. It's difficult to have a serious discussion when the story has become entertainment instead of news.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 18:34:56 GMT -5
Post by godotwaits on Sept 3, 2015 18:34:56 GMT -5
I find the fact that she was married 4 times to 3 different men speaks well to knowing about the value of the institution. The fact that she has a party line to God is totally dismaying!
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 19:40:24 GMT -5
Post by TKennedy on Sept 3, 2015 19:40:24 GMT -5
She is set for life. Evangelical lecture circuit, talk shows, book deal, TV and movie rights, the world is her oyster. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 20:02:37 GMT -5
Post by james on Sept 3, 2015 20:02:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 20:17:29 GMT -5
Post by Doug on Sept 3, 2015 20:17:29 GMT -5
She is set for life. Evangelical lecture circuit, talk shows, book deal, TV and movie rights, the world is her oyster. The Lord works in mysterious ways. I was going put up a tent revival picture. But most of the ones I saw on google images looked this way: I've grown up around tent revivals and stopped at a bunch through the years for the music and most of them had about this many people: I've seen a few with 100 people or so but never anything like that first picture.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 3, 2015 20:42:39 GMT -5
Post by Village Idiot on Sept 3, 2015 20:42:39 GMT -5
She is set for life. Evangelical lecture circuit, talk shows, book deal, TV and movie rights, the world is her oyster. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Can't disagree with you on that one.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 10:56:20 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 4, 2015 10:56:20 GMT -5
The controversy has gotten larger. A Tennessee judge has refused to grant a petition for divorce because he says that the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has changed State laws on marriage and even the State Constitution. He contends that since the Supreme Court has decided who can marry, he can't issue a divorce decree until the Supreme Court decides who can be granted a divorce. www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_p1mostIs is just me or does it seem that the entire world has taken complete leave of it's senses and that the ability to apply common sense in almost any situation has totally gone by the boards? I'm no legal scholar but it seems to me that there are some common sense issues here that have been ignored regardless of whether one agrees with the Supreme Court's decision or not. My understanding of the principle of separation of church and state it that neither side is supposed to step on the other's toes. I thought that the Supreme Court was wise to decide this issue in the first place if for no other reason than the legal ramifications of leaving it up to the state would effectively have barred same-sex couples from living in any state that barred same-sex marriage. That idea didn't seem fair to me. The other part of it is the issue under debate was a secular one and had nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. It's a contractual matter. I believe I'm right in saying that the Supreme Court decision applies only to the issuance of a marriage license and the legal rights of married people. As far as I know, that decision does not compel any church or member of the clergy to marry a couple if it would violate their religious beliefs. I also believe that everyone has the right to maintain whatever religious belief they have but that they don't have the right to interfere with the rights of others who have different beliefs. It's for the same reason I believe that workers have the right to strike but they don't have the right to prevent others from working. Kim Davis has every right to her own beliefs. But she's an elected official. I expect that she took an oath of office like other elected officials do. And I am willing to bet that her oath included a promise to uphold the laws of the state. By the same token I believe the oath did not include language saying that she could choose to uphold only the laws she agrees with. If Kim Davis doesn't agree with the law she has the right to resign from her office and find work elsewhere. In the divorce case I cited above I think the judge is way off base. If he was waiting for the Supreme Court to decide a case that was already under consideration I could see his point. But that's not the case. And there is no way of knowing if such a case might ever be filed with the Supreme Court. All the judge's decision does is to deprive the petitioners of their right to dissolve their marriage under the laws of the state. As things stand, the judge's whim and his dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's decision is getting in the way of his job performance. Oddly enough, I have some very recent experience with how one applies one's ethics in the workplace. Three weeks ago I resigned from the company I was working for. I had been there for two months. During my tenure I discovered that some of the company's accounting policies and procedures did not meet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). The result was that the company's financial condition was not accurately disclosed on their financial statements. As someone who considers himself to be an accounting profession I had an ethical problem with that. I also had a legal problem that was even more serious. As the company's accounting manager it was my job to provide monthly financial statements to the bank and to certify that those statements were in compliance with GAAP. That certification, given with knowledge that the statements did not meet GAAP standards, would have been a violation of federal law. It was within the realm of possibility that I might have been in the slammer come Ijam 2016. I resolved the situation in the same manner that Kim Davis should have. Once I was able to ascertain that the company was not willing to change it's accounting procedures, I resigned. That wasn't a good move for my bank account but at least I don't have to worry about going to jail. And I'm sleeping better.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 11:04:07 GMT -5
Post by dradtke on Sept 4, 2015 11:04:07 GMT -5
Lar, I know you've always considered yourself a fairly conservative guy. But opinions like those make you a stark raving liberal lefty. Welcome.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 11:49:25 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Sept 4, 2015 11:49:25 GMT -5
<MoveOn.org> It's a crazy world we live in. Everything is NEWS, except real news. . . . , or more importantly, Everything is ENTERTAINMENT. Including (especially?) the NEWS. It often seems that the media isn't able to distinguish the difference between entertainment and news. The sad thing about the Kim Davis story is that there ought to be an important discussion about the whole issue of conscience. It's difficult to have a serious discussion when the story has become entertainment instead of news. Doesn't hurt the ENTERTAINMENT factor any that she's been divorced 3 TIMES herself already. . . . , like she's a good judge of God's plan for marriage.
|
|
|
Oops!
Sept 4, 2015 13:25:26 GMT -5
Post by lar on Sept 4, 2015 13:25:26 GMT -5
Lar, I know you've always considered yourself a fairly conservative guy. But opinions like those make you a stark raving liberal lefty. Welcome. Ouch. The law of unintended consequences strikes again. I don't see what I wrote as being at odds with my conservative tendencies. I would agree that conservatives out there on the dull edge have largely abandoned their ability to reason through things. And, by the way, the ultra-liberals have their dull-edge too. Unfortunately, it's the zealots that get the press coverage. The general consensus seems to be that if one tends to be conservative there is an automatic assumption that one has also lost the ability to think and reason independent of a political philosophy. In this case I understand that for Kim Davis it's a matter of her religious convictions. What she doesn't seem to understand is that there are two elements to this issue. One is civil and one is religious. I like to think that the "silent majority" that the Republicans used to talk about is made up of people who are a lot like me. As a group we tend to decide elections but we're largely ignored when it comes to nominating the candidates. Just once, before I lose what's left of my mind, I'd like to have the opportunity to vote for someone I think would be a great president. So far all I've been able to do is to try to figure out which of the candidates is likely to be less of a screw-up than the other. I have very little confidence that I have ever succeeded in achieving even that modest goal.
|
|