Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/go...-marriage-licenses-pope/ar-AAeStMg?li=AAa0dzB

Well it looks like the Pope isn't so liberal after all. It looks like he is pandering as much as dems do for votes and then showing his real colors later. I don't agree with him. Government workers should not simply enforce laws they agree with.

 

Pope says "global warming is real"
libs say "See, told you"

Pope says "1% are wrong"
libs say "see, told ya"

Pope says "let illegal immigrants come over"
libs say "see told ya"

Pope supports Kim Davis' right to say no to gay marraige
libs say "Christianity is a hate filled religion that supports pedophilia"


funny how quickly people will get quiet over one topic in particular.

 

Of course Kim Davis has first amendment rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Every American has those rights. There's nothing controversial about the Pope saying that she has that right, because she does. What she does not have is freedom from responsibility for exercising those rights to violate others' rights according to the same Constitution.

There was a simple fix to the entire situation, but she chose not to take that path. That's where the controversy lies.

 

I guess its time for the same folks that were patting themselves over the back for the Pope now will go back to attacking him and religion in general....

 

eh. Not really. He is a Pope, and as much as I have loved his progressive approach, he is still limited by the Religion he represents. But if we are gauging him in a point-value system, the his is far enough ahead to withstand a step back

 

Pope says "global warming is real"
cons say "Damn socialist"

Pope says "1% are wrong"
cons say "Damn socialist"

Pope says "let illegal immigrants come over"
cons say "Damn socialist"

Pope supports Kim Davis' right to say no to gay marraige
cons say "See the pope is right, we should allow this"

 

Turns out the pope is Catholic, how shocking.

 

Funny, but the President himself, down through all government, can and do act according to their beliefs. Little Davis, who simply doesn't want her name on Homosexual Marriage Licenses, is being told by an organized movement....SHE must affix her name. Would someone please tell me when common sense, rebounds in the American system of governance.....

 

Actually, that is not the controversy, but I think you know that. Of course, everyone "can and do act according to their beliefs." That's what America is all about. What you cannot do is deny others' their rights according to the Constitution.

The judge was fine with her not signing her name, just as long as someone from the office did sign them. She could have done that in the first place, but she didn't. The judge made sure that someone else would be available to sign off on the licenses, and then he let her out of jail. When she went back to work, she changed the license in 4 different places and removed the name of the office charged with issuing licenses by the state of Kentucky, the name of the county, and the official title of the deputy clerk, so that the licenses were being issued based on his notary public instead. AFAIK and as far as the deputy clerk's lawyer knows, licenses issued by a notary public may not be valid. No ruling on that license has been made yet. I doubt anyone cares about her particular name, but rather just want the valid licenses they are legally entitled to have. Those that sued her originally, both hetero and gay, have valid licenses issued while she was in jail. The issue now is the validity of the altered licenses, and that is yet to be determined.

 

Yes, but does he poop in the woods?

 

The Pope said she does not have to discharge her duty which is issuing marriage licenses. You are splitting hairs in order to change what he said.

 

So you actually take notice of an old guy who dresses up in a costume, talks to an invisible man and is the leader of a cult of pedophiles?
Truly disturbing.

 

Davis, has never prevented any Homosexual Couple from obtaining a State License. They simply could go elsewhere, but wanted to make another statement, trying to get their movement media coverage.

Last I heard, not worth checking it out, the movement is insisting her name must be on their licenses, to make a point.....

 

Uhm… no. She hasn't discharged her duty of issuing marriage licenses since the Oberfell decision was made, to any couples. That is her right. What is not her right is to force those that work under her authority to not issue them as well, according to HER beliefs.

I think you are splitting hairs to try to make what the Pope said about her rights apply to the legal case she lost. They are two different issues.

 

I believe you are either misinformed or uninformed about the details of the legal case. They are discussed to exhaustion in other threads and I'm not going to repeat them in this one. Feel free to Google, if you like.

 

It is her office. Her name is on the licenses. You are trying to split hairs. What part of "discharge of duty" do you not understand?

 

The OP is no Liberal so who is that you claim is saying any such thing about the Pope? Popes by their nature are not Liberals even a more Liberal one such as this one.

 

The USSC overstepped their authority. The constitution is silent on marriage, and the constitution states matters not covered by the constitution are reserved for the states. That's why Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with the ruling. We have a new right invented by five activists in black robes.

 

First, it's not HER office. It is the Office of the Rowan County Clerk. She just happens to be the elected clerk at the moment. She's not the owner, it's a governmental office owned by the taxpayers. The next county clerk would have the same duties to discharge, under the same office's authority. Until the judge rules whether the licenses are valid or not, your point is moot. He hasn't ruled on their validity and the Pope has no authority over any of it. If the judge rules they are not valid, she has choices to make. If they are valid, then things rock on now, like they have been since she was released from jail, and those seeking licenses are assured of their validity.

This thread is about the Pope saying that religious people have the right to not do things that are in opposition to their religious beliefs. I said she had the right not to sign them. She does have that right. She does not have the right to forbid her clerks from issuing them, nor was she allowed the authority to change the licenses. She was specifically told not to interfere. What about those things do you not understand? Do you just expect me to agree with you that I am splitting hairs? If so, don't hold your breath.

 

That's because they support the opinions of the Pope that mirror their beliefs and oppose the one's that do not. Are they supposed to agree with everything the Pope says just because they agree with a few?

 

It's not a new right, it's simply the prevention of limiting the right of marriage to only those you think deserve it. Since marriage laws already exist that govern a marriage contract, and it is no longer legal to limit who can get one based on gender combination, same-sex marriage is legal too, only it's also just marriage now. There is no more same-sex marriage as far as the law goes, there's just marriage.

 

Whatever. The five activists changed the definition of marriage. That's why it had nothing to do with the Constitution. I still agree with the Chief Justice Roberts. The constitution had nothing to do with the ruling.

 

Actually, she does have the right to direct her staff not to issue them as she has the right to set policy. It is depending on her responsibility per Rowan County laws and State laws that dictates is any were violated or not. As she did not issue ANY licences, she was technically in accordance with the SCOTUS ruling.

The judge's order to not interfere was not necessarily directed towards her to not change the form. It was basically not to interfere with her staff issuing the marriage licences. Changing the form actually appeared to be a compromise on her part where her name is not on a marriage licence she feels is morally wrong.

I don't know what Kentucky law is, but I looked at my Oregon marriage licence this weekend and it was signed by the deputy. Unless Kentucky law states they must be signed by the clerk, they should be legal.

For the record, I do not agree with her stance. She was elected to do a job and she should do that job or resign.

 

I also think workers have the right to refuse gay marriage licenses. I also think they have the right to lose their jobs if someone else can't be found to issue those licenses.

 

I agree with you that she should resign, since her beliefs make it impossible for her to do her job. I have my own thoughts about why she never considered that possibility though.

As to the bold above, she doesn't have that right. The judge said so. So did the Supreme Court. That is exactly why she went to jail- so the judge could insure they would be issued and peoples' rights weren't violated.

Frankly, I hope the licenses are found to be valid, and this 15, turned 20, minutes of fame are over. I'm just not sure they will be found valid.