10

Jailed Clerk Kim Davis Just Presented A 'Remedy' That Could Fix The Situation For Everyone

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 years, 9 months ago to Culture
285 comments | Share | Flag

Judge Bunning in ordering the imprisonment of Davis stated that: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He further explained that the clerk’s good-faith belief is “simply not a viable defense,” dismissing her appeal to God’s moral law and freedom of conscience. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.  
SOURCE URL: http://www.westernjournalism.com/jailed-clerk-kim-davis-just-presented-a-remedy-that-could-fix-the-situation-for-everyone/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 14
    Posted by  $  Susanne 3 years, 9 months ago
    Here's the real solution...

    If you have a job that doesn't fall in with your religious belief structure, then get another job where there is no such conflict. You have that freedom, and doing so doesn't infrnge on the rights of others.

    It also goes to the "render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's" - if you're talking Religious Marriage, then that is indeded the purveyance of your religion and of your faith, but when you're talking Civil Marriage, then that is within the purveyance not of the church, but of the judges who perform marriages not of a religious nature.

    While I appreciate her personal convictions and her freedom of religion, others who exercising THEIR freedom of religion or their personal convictions are being denied their rights - in essence, rights only belong to those who believe exactly as she does... much like in England where in the 18th century rights belonged only to those who believed as the King did.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 21
      Posted by KCLiberty 3 years, 9 months ago
      Actually....THIS is the real solution:

      Get government out of marriage altogether. It is a civil contract, marriage licenses are three-party contracts with the state. Government can, and should via the Constitution, be involved in disputes within that contract as an arbiter. Other than that, it should be a contract between two consenting individuals. That would fix everything.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        KCLiberty: "That would fix everything."

        A rational approach to government in general would "fix everything" but isn't possible with competing dominant pressure groups demanding to exploit government power to impose their own dictates. In this case it wouldn't fix or satisfy their demands to use government to impose competing irrational versions of the concept 'marriage'.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
        Gave you a +1; but the trouble is, there is a fee involved.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          There is a fee to register a property deed, too. So what?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
            $o that'$ why the government i$ in the marriage busine$$, that'$ what.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
              ... because many 'rights' "married couples" enjoy are defined by laws enacted by 'the government'.

              There's a linkage there, so "the solution" could be 'as simple' as enacting or modifying "the law" to say that Everything Associated With "Marriage" is also associated with "civil union" or whatever other term y'all agree on...

              And will that happen? Ever? Don't bet large sums on that happening.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              People are married all the time with nothing but a fee to the person who officiates, provides the certificate, and registers the legal status. What is wrong with that?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                Nada.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Then what's the problem? It's normally all you have to do.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Government in the marriage business telling that said person to sin before God.
                    But ya know, maybe Big Brother can make even more bucks off legalized polygamy or letting Fred marry Fido.
                    Legalized is such an interesting word.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                      The government is registering civil marriages between consenting adults as a record for legal and financial status. It isn't telling anyone to "sin before God", which is meaningless gibberish. Please take the religious injunctions somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                        Make me.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                          Your religious proselytizing is inappropriate and in arrogant, open defiance of the purpose and rules of the forum. Whether or not it is tolerated is up to the owners. Sometimes there is a relative benefit to the expose'.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
                            I've said all along I'm a Christian who discovered Ayn Rand four years ago thanks to the AS flicks.
                            I've also stated my doubt there is a person on this planet I 100% agree with as well as another about Ms. Rand ever expecting anyone to march lock step behind her.
                            I'm certain you have already read all that.
                            You've been dogging my trail here in the Gulch for weeks.
                            I know you want my freedom of thought here to go away.
                            If the owners do not want my old dino newbie Rand fan perspective on things, they can kick me off.
                            And I hope that makes you happy.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                              No one is "dogging your trail". When you publicly post a comment it is open for response from anyone who happens to see it where you post it. In this case you suddenly switched from a simple discussion about marriage fees to "sinning before God". You are openly promoting religion on a forum where you know it is inappropriate and not a basis for discussion. This has nothing to do with your imagined rejection of "freedom of thought" and demands for "lock step behind Ayn Rand". Promoting religion is not discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas, and neither are the snotty "make me" and "march lock step" comments and the rest of the snide sarcasm, which are not civilized discussion at all. If you decide you want to discuss the philosophy that made Atlas Shrugged possible and which you were attracted to, there many of us here who would gladly do so.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 9 months ago
      One of her problems is our government by whim. She'll need to start her own enterprise since there is no guarantee that there won't be a change that infringes on her belief somewhere down the line. Even then, there's no guarantee -- example the baker who won't bake for a gay wedding. The current reason she must resign is, of course, that she had the power to put her beliefs ahead of others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Susanne: "While I appreciate her personal convictions and her freedom of religion, others who [are] exercising THEIR freedom of religion or their personal convictions are being denied their rights - in essence, rights only belong to those who believe exactly as she does... much like in England where in the 18th century rights belonged only to those who believed as the King did."

      That mentality extended beyond the actions of the king in a more fundamental way: "Freedom of religion" typically turned out to be the "freedom" for different groups to oppress others with competing religions, e.g., the Puritans. This illustrates Ayn Rand's essay "Faith and Force" and shows what happens when religion is allowed to dictate politics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 3 years, 9 months ago
    All she has to do is resign because her religious views do not mesh with state law. She will be sticking by her beliefs, problem solved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      She is promoting a nonsensical version of 'problem solved': "Mat Staver, head of the Liberty Counsel told ABC News that Davis 'has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well.'”

      She is trying to have it both ways with both the law and her religion. Her name on the certificate is not a personal endorsement, it means she is responsible for certifying the license in accordance with the required criteria and her official duties to apply them. By insisting on removing her name she is trying to evade responsibility for her job while pretending for her religion that she isn't doing what she is doing, claimed to be forbidden by her religious dogmas. She makes no sense at all, but that is the consequence of abandoning reason for faith in dogma.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
        and her "solution" appears to me to be irrelevant to potential future actions on her behalf... it says nothing about whether she'd allow anyone she disapproves of to get a 'marriage license' in her office or by any of her subordinates!

        There are no good assurances or guarantees in her weasel-worded 'solution.' Come up with a few "well, what if's..." and it should be clear. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          It seems to mean that they could, even though she is in charge of the department, but who knows what it means she would personally do herself. She is not the clearest thinker, is she? Perhaps it isn't supposed to make sense, and is only a maneuver cooked up with her lawyer to advance the agenda in some small way while saving face. As Ellsworth Toohey put it in The Fountainhead, "Don't bother to exam a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 3 years, 9 months ago
    the court might find that natural law cannot be infringed
    by any court order, opinion or ruling. . just wait and see
    how this unfolds in the future -- government must get out
    of the marriage business. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
      and the 'natural law' that shall not be infringed upon is....? Remind me, ok?
      Thanks!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 3 years, 9 months ago
        well, we might start with life, liberty and pursuing happiness,
        and expand into freedom of speech, ownership of yourself and
        property, and the like. . sound familiar? . crossing mama nature
        can result in difficulties!!! -- j
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
          You could, but they're all 'rights' by societal agreement.
          Nice rights, desirable ones for sensible folks, but there ain't no power but 'agreement' that enables their existence long term...

          Actually 'rights' which, when defended, probably allow faster and higher development of societies and cultures... but still... only when the culture agrees to support and allow them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 3 years, 9 months ago
            and if the culture crosses mama nature, there will be difficulties.
            the natural state of humankind involves interpersonal respect
            which is more clearly identified in the u.s. than anywhere
            before, on earth, as I understand things. . didn't Rand
            make this clear in her writings? -- j
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 3 years, 9 months ago
    I find that last line about natural law being subservient to the court's authority frightening.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Religion is not natural law and she has no right to redefine law in accordance with her religious beliefs. A proper government codifies our 'natural rights' into civil procedures and rights under objective law, which is the only form in which law can be objectively enforced. Lack of objective law is anarchy and tyranny. In this case we have a government official trying to subjectively enforce her own law in accordance with her religion claimed to be a higher "authority". Government officials dictating in accordance what they want the law to be is tyrannical, not objective law. Government officials cannot be allowed to run around picking their own civil law in accordance with what they claim to be "natural law" just because they say so, under claims of religious privilege. That is the theocratic version of tyranny.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by SaltyDog 3 years, 9 months ago
        You're preachin' to the choir as the saying goes.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          It wasn't clear what your position was. The Constitution presupposes a proper conception of natural law, but the written Constitution is the explicit standard for the court. The judge seems to understand that standard, at least in this case (but who knows -- they often have no conception of principles of natural rights at all, or the requirement to directly follow the meaning of the Constitution). Here he is rejecting the religionists' inversion of the role of what they call "natural law", regarded as "God's law" and open to being whatever the religionists' revelations say it is as superseding the actual law. This is one of the aspects of this controversy that is much deeper than politics alone and which the traditional conservatives have thoroughly mangled in their emphasis on religion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by SaltyDog 3 years, 9 months ago
            My position is this: the founders of our republic used as a starting point that we were endowed by our Creator (out of deference to your sensibilities, let's just call it the governing dynamic of the universe and move along) with certain unalienable rights; among them (this phrase indicates that there are other rights as well) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My ears go up like a jack rabbit when I hear that some judge somewhere claims that his court can supersede this basic premise; in essence, he's clearly claiming that he will be the arbiter of what our rights are (and what is infinitely more important), what they are not.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 months ago
              The judge did not supersede the premise of a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and did not claim he "will be the arbiter of what our rights are". He decided the case based on written law, as he must. There is no right to impose religion in government. He rejected Davis' claim that in the name of "natural law" her religious beliefs exempt her from the law.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
    I totally disagree with her, but I am 'on her side' insofar as not obeying orders if you think they are wrong. I do not think that she should try to weasel out of the repercussions of a stance you take, though. If you are going to make a statement, have the balls to see it through.

    Let me tell you a story. It was in about 1989. I was working night shift in the lab of a hospital. I was called to the ER to draw a legal blood alcohol level on a person brought in by the police. I refused. I told the police and the doctors that I believe that this constitutes making a person 'testify against themselves' - even though it has been ruled in court that it does not.

    I was told by the lab chief and admin, the next day, that I was required to do this as a part of my job. I stated that I would not do so. I told the people from whom I was renting a room that about what was going on - they evicted me from my room on the grounds that 'I might loose my job and be unable to pay my rent'.

    My colleague, Curry, on evening shift, entered a strong statement that said that he objected to drawing legal blood alcohols too (for diff reasons). Ultimately, faced with objections from key people working two different shifts that no one likes to cover, the hospital backed down.

    I found another, and much better, place to live. I worked for that hospital for another 3 or so years (until this programmer fellow lured me into starting a company with him...Hi, Wm).

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BaritoneGary 3 years, 9 months ago
    It seems as if she actually upheld the law in Kentucky. Check the state's constitution. Does a federal court over ride state legislation? Since when do judges get the right to create law?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  23Skidoo 3 years, 9 months ago
    Remember, she isn't breaking any law by not issuing licenses. The SCOTUS created a right and a law where none exists. She has asked to be shown what written law she broke, and no authorities have been able to show her a codified law which she has transgressed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      The "codification" is the Supreme Court decision stating that she cannot discriminate against gays in issuing marriage licenses. Her discrimination in the function of her duties is the illegality. The demands to be shown a state law are sophistry.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  23Skidoo 3 years, 9 months ago
        A law still needs to be on the books. There is not one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          Every state has marriage laws.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Technocracy 3 years, 9 months ago
            And in many those laws define marriage as being between one man & one woman. Until the laws are rewritten, SCOTUS decision contradicts the written law.

            If Kentucky codifies marriage in that way, she is following the law....as currently written... SCOTUS are the deciders of constitutional validity under our constitution. But a decision from them requires implementation and compliance at federal, state, and local levels. Something that takes time to accomplish. Something that our professionally angry victim filled society no longer allows. SCOTUS could forestall a lot of problems if they put some implementation timeframes on these types of decisions. Expecting instant compliance is unreasonable. At least give the people trying to comply time to do so.

            This is one of those myriad consequences of any SCOTUS decision. Made orders of magnitude more problematic by activists deliberately picking places to push to get in the news cycle. There are 120 counties in KY, if the goal was getting married they could have gone to plenty of other places to accomplish that.

            This whole fight is not over whether or not gays can codify a relationship per se. It is over whether or not the word marriage is applied to that relationship.

            If legal relationships for tax and other purposes renamed something else, civil union for example, this whole "issue" could be legally resolved. Simply make the terms equivalent from a legal standpoint, and keep the government out of marriage completely.

            That would solve the problem legally. However it would not meet the goals of activists.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              Compliance is very simple. They can't exclude gays. That's why Davis is in jail for defying a court order.

              For rational people the broader issue is over government corruption of concepts on behalf of pandering to activists. For Davis none of that seems to matter -- she is one big religious emotion screaming for a privileged status. None of what she has said indicates that her actions would change regarding "civil union" instead of "marriage".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
            So?

            What decision by the supreme court are you referring to and if it's that recent same sex decision it said no such thing. Not even close. If it's another decision what is the cite? If it is the law in Kentucky what is the cite? Wishful thinking without factual evidence is insufficient and is exactly why we got to this point. Too many couch potatoes with fairy tales.

            Whoops I didn't intend it that way but it works so leave it.

            All the applicant had to do is go get married somewhere else where it is legal. THEN the clerk would have had to accept it under that latest decision.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
              So it is the applicant's responsibility to go somewhere else in order to get equal treatment under the law? A government official has the right to pick and choose who is granted permission by his/her whim? For that matter, you're ok with a law that allows some people to freely associate and be recognized by the government but not other people seeking the same recognition? It's ok just because it's a state law and not a federal law? States can violate individual rights but the federal government can't?

              Just trying to clarify your position here.

              The Supreme Court Of The United States
              "No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
              "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"

              The Kentucky law is invalidated, as well as immoral. But as an Objectivist, you already know that, right?

              Edit; Reference to the Supreme Court
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                That's your opinion and is not my opinion nor in reading the majority and minority opinions of The Court their opinion. The answer to your question is of course. That's why we have fifty choices. All this latest flack is a way for the ACLU and secular progressives to deepen and widen the breech they made in changing the Constitution without Amendment.

                Recognizing a marriage as a requirement under other state laws is not the same as making it legal in all states. That's the point. Works for me but as for Constitutional you will have to check the new version that replaced it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                  "requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and"
                  That is copied off the Supreme Court decision. That makes it legal in all states.

                  Just what part is only my "opinion"? That the Kentucky law is immoral? Careful, your subjective, religious views are showing. A law that allows or requires agents/representatives/employees of the government to treat one person differently, by law, because of gender, orientation, race, ford or chevy preference or whatever is immoral. Fifty dictators is not better than one dictator. Whatever group is taking their turn using the ruling to their advantage is irrelevant.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
        They can't show a federal law either or a Supreme Court Decision - only the opinion of one arrogant power mad Judge. the State law says don't, she didn't it's legal under federal guidelines so far. The mistake was bringing in the religious defense when it wasn't needed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
        Are you saying she can not be formally charged with breaking a particular law? You get that right for a speeding ticket or a parking violation. Somewhere she dis obeyed a written law that is charged with..or else we have started the descent into verbal government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 3 years, 9 months ago
    We do not elect officials to be robots, but on the basis of their convictions. If her job consists merely of operating a rubber stamp, it would be more sensible to replace her with a machine which would inherently follow orders and not worry about implications, consequences or mere local citizens.

    If this issue didn't come up before she was elected, it should have, but at this point she's the elected clerk and, short of a recall or judicial tyranny, will remain so until the next clerk is elected.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  dballing 3 years, 9 months ago
      I am told there are states that have automated marriage licenses in this fashion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jabuttrick 3 years, 9 months ago
        There really is no good reason for the Clerk of the Court or the County Recorder to be elected positions. They should be appointed and subject to firing if they do not do their jobs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
          Maybe this is one of the reasons...To protect duly elected officials from political reprisal. Just like there is no good and sane reason why a baker has to pay a fine of $130,000 for refusing to bake a cake for ANYONE. Teachers have tenure to protect them from political discrimination and they aren't elected but would quickly be fired if they made politically incorrect lesson plans .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
            and your examples have obvious downsides, too, including the virtual impossibility of firing a teacher who can be shown to be ineffective or non-productive in meeting the specifications of their Job Description, But They Have Tenure...

            Automating the "marriage license system" to simply provide a form which, when signed is scanned into a database and from that scan, becomes public record and all rights and privileges associated with that form/contract are then in force... well, why do we need her in that position at all?!

            In the long run, a form-printing machine and a form-scanning machine connected to a government database would be cheaper, too!

            No expensive salaries or pensions or sick pay ... or court proceedings... :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
              The bullet proof teacher retainer system is due to the union political power not the tenure. Teachers guarantee their votes to the dems who guarantee that the worst shall be first . This is the opposite of tenure but both sides are guilty of complicity to protect the guilty.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
                and THAT is a lot closer to describing root cause of 'the problem.'

                Funny how unions tend to fight for monopolistic powers while trying to deny those 'powers' to corporations .... the irony of it all... :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Add to that, the irony of the fact that there are very few corporations that have a monopoly on anything for long. If one invents a better widget, he faces tough competition soon. Unions defend their monopoly through threats, intimidation, walk outs and sometimes violence.

                  Many workers are seeing the light but the large cities and school systems are pawns forever. At one time in American history, unions provided a much needed service for the workers and enabled the spread of democracy because the government was crooked and bought by the corps....Now the situation has changed with the government being captive of the unions. When the referees are betting on the Super Bowl, there is no chance of seeing a good game.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
                    :)... check the graphs of union membership's erosion over the past decades... and the unions can't seem to understand their own part in the decline... Such is life...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You have to wonder how many of those trying to defend Kim Davis, acting in the position of County Clerk, on the mistaken basis of the 1st Amendment, religious beliefs, or respect for her defiance...you have to wonder what their reaction would be if she was doing this based on Muslim beliefs.

    Even though said defense would still be in error, would they be consistent in that defense? Obama and company are (justifiably) criticized for selectively following the rule of law around here all the time...what justifies a pass for Kim Davis?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
      Wouldn't that put the liberals in a tizzy? If Kim Davis had been a muslim? Conservatives would be after her head and there would be dead silence from the liberals because they would be caught on both sides of the issue.

      On this site? I'd have to guess that this is a subject that many have not thought through thoroughly. She's a christian and a lot of people are still trying to reconcile Objectivism with their faith. And it's just homosexuals wanting to get married. Their activism gets pretty outrageous which makes it easy to justify a little rights infringement in retribution. I never expected that many here though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
        That's the purpose of moral philosophy if used as a tool to validate one's basic belief system. The near part is it doesn't require a public confession it just requires self honesty and self respect.

        If Kim had been a muslim she would have been refusing to serve alcoholic drinks on airplanes and demanding the right to have an ID photo with her face covered by a burka.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
      If the Sharia basis were to be invoked in Pakistan, that would have been just fine. The fundamental difference here is that this country was in fact founded on Judaeo-Christian basis and morals. The Constitution is explicit of not having one religion rule over others or theocracy, but it is difficult for me to imagine that the Founding Fathers meant to reject all Judaeo-Christian morals.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago
        I don't understand how any of this justifies a County Clerk (elected to uphold the law without prejudice in the course of her duties) to selectively refuse to perform what is required by her office.

        As an elected official, her refusal is the same as and just as wrong as a Muslim, or Jew, or 'take your pick' refusing to perform the requirements of the office based on their beliefs. This isn't a private business. If she doesn't want to do the job, she can resign or pay the price any government employee should pay for subjectively applying the law. Otherwise, what's the fuss over Lerner, Clinton, or Obama?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
          I would be willing to bet she won that election before the recent change. Question now for me is what does the STATE law call for. DID they change it after that go round a few months ago and did the other states fall into line. Those judges didn't really state all states must allow that sort of marriage. They really only said one state must honor the contract when performed in another state that does allow it. Ergo Sum all they have to do is drive to Ohio, Massachusetts or one of the others. d

          This judge is clearly in error UNLESS Kentucky changed it's laws in the last sixty some days or prior.

          Wonder how much Soros is paying him?

          Clearly she is not allowed to interpret the law of the state so has anyone checked that point? Last I looked only Presidents can act in a lawless manner of that fashion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago
            State law aside, she invoked "God's authority" as the excuse for not performing her normal function of signing a certificate. It would be a little late for her to hide behind State law.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
              To clarify what the ruling said;

              The Supreme Court Of The United States
              "No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
              "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"

              I posted it here also - http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
        Instead or rather, as a far easier method, our government rejected the whole document. Considering the vote for Bush II the second time and Obeyme's two goes at it the majority of the public seems to agree.

        By the way did anyone stop to think Barry's new name of Barack means lightning and another name for that is the Destroyer?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Poplicola 3 years, 9 months ago
    What strikes me as curious here is how no one is discussing the fact that her 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion is at play here. That we effectively have a newly discovered right to gay marriage superseding an enumerated right. The Founders would be appalled that an official was being forced by the government to violate her deepest religious beliefs when any rational person would make the simple accommodation of authorizing other officials to sign the marriage certificates after taking her name off of said documents. Instead, we seem to see everyone rushing to embrace the proposition that the 1st Amendment only applies to acts by the government directed toward activities in private life and that any person of faith ought to be excluded from government employment with no attempt to make a reasonable accommodation.

    Likewise, no one mentions the 10th Amendment under which the entire issue of Marriage is reserved to the States or the Legislative History of the 14th Amendment as an action to insure that the newly freed slaves would be treated equally. No one talks about the systemic substitution of "discovered" rights for the clear language and intent of the framers and amenders of the Constitution. Nor do we see other officials punished for their refusal to follow the law from the local officials presiding over sanctuary cities to the supreme court justices acting as an ongoing Constitutional Convention.

    Ironically, if the Clerk said she had a mental disorder that compelled her to not sign the certificates because of fear of supernatural punishment she would be entitled to the reasonable accommodation she seeks under the American's With Disabilities Act.

    Clearly what is really at work here is an effort by an out of control judiciary to make an example of anyone who questions its extra Constitutional dogma of absolute judicial supremacy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
      Remember in that last Supreme Court ruling they stayed clear of the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments and went with Article IV of the Constitution. A marriage performed in another state must be given full faith and credit in all states. Nothing was said about anything else.

      Reading is a wonderful thing. More people ought to try it. The Righteous won't. The Debaters don't need to but might. To the rest of us its' a non issue except when it's over and goes to the next level which level is going over turn Judge Looney Toons.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Civil marriage for gays does not "supersede an enumerated right". It has nothing to do with her "freedom of religion". She has no right to impose her religion on others. She is a public official who may not personally redefine the law and her official duties to be whatever she wants them to be in accordance with her religion. Defiance of objective application of law by government officials is tyranny on principle, in this case theocratic tyranny by the head of a department responsible for its actions.

      If she is incapable of doing her job because of irrational fears of "supernatural punishment" and the rest of what such a mentality leads to, then she should be removed, by the court if necessary, for mental incompetence. It's not an excuse for rule by loon. There is no "reasonable accommodation" for psychosis and no "religious right" to the irrational.

      The 10th amendment does not negate the requirement for states to honor civil rights in accordance with the 14th amendment. The motive for the 14th amendment arose from racial injustice against former slaves; the amendment itself was stated, properly, as a general principle and applies for everyone. Otherwise it would have itself been racist.

      We can object to the recent Supreme Court decision pandering to an invalid concept of 'marriage' merged with the concept of 'civil unions', but requiring states to honor civil rights in marriage laws, whatever else they may be, is not the Court taking over state marriage laws. We can also object to politically motivated inconsistencies in enforcing laws, but none of this justifies using religion to define what the laws should be on behalf of "people of faith" attempting to dictate what they can do as public officials. That is a false alternative.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
        Specifically, what law is she charged with breaking. She does not have a right to inflict her religion on others, I agree. But she does have a right to be clearly and formally with a specific violation. If the fine for not baking a cake is $130,000.00, Maybe the fine for not issuing a license should be a Million. who decides?? Written laws or popular frenzy???
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
        But there is no right to marry. One may claim that they have the right to engage in contracts and I would agree. The question then becomes one of contract enforceability. That is what the Supreme Court's decision, however, completely overlooked: that the Federal Government has no authority over marriage one way or the other.

        Now if one wants to claim that a marriage in one State should be as legal as a marriage in another State, one is then arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and that I think is a legitimate claim because it deals with legal enforceability of contracts. But there is no substantiated Fourteenth Amendment claim here because no rights are being abridged.

        The Tenth Amendment simply states that all laws not subject to Federal Authority by virtue of specifically outlined duties in the Constitution are reserved to the individual States. In my opinion, the Tenth Amendment absolutely applies here.

        As an aside, it will be interesting now to see if this same reciprocity is now enforced with regards to the Second Amendment, which is a right and yet which individual States have their own policies and agreements regarding its interpretation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 9 months ago
    Freedom of 'Conscience' should be everyone's right. Natural laws SHOULD supersede Man Made Laws where applicable. Problem is we have allowed the kakistocracy to get away from 'Natural' law, which is simply an observation of the ways in which nature and creation operate and were created, [however one might imagine that happened] Has nothing to do with religions. Natural law has be recognized for thousands of years, by Abraham, Moses, Aristotle, the Anglo Saxons, John Lock, our Forefathers and others,.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
      Agreed. But she is a wuz. She wants to take a moral stance and dodge the bullet at the same time. She should resign, or ask for a transfer to a different department.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 9 months ago
        Agreed...since all this fuss; like a father to his children...I would say: No more licenses, cakes, videos or pictures...now go to bed and shut up! hahahahahahahahha....it's so sad, it's funny.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        She can't transfer, she holds an elective office.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
          she can resign and run for a different office...

          "but the children! the children!..." ?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
            With all these debts and liabilities politicians have accumulated in the name of statism, I really feel sorry for the children, and the yet to be born.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
              I was imagining what her lawyers' next 'defensive arguments' would be for her to keep her job despite her failure to do it... that's all...

              and yes, the debts 'politicians have accumulated' are going to screw us all, but keep in mind... they were elected by US voters, too. (as were moron politicians all around the world... Greece as an epitome.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
    First, the Progressives invalidated individual achievement by giving out awards to everyone simply for being present; then they invalidated heroism by calling the victims heroes and spreading out heroism over many who did not deserve it; then they invalidated individual entrepreneurship by saying that "you didn't build this"; now they are invalidating a nuclear family by destroying the marriage by spreading it out among anything that walks. It is hard not to see the association with Orwell's 1984: 2 + 2 is not 4; it is whatever the Party wants it to be.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JohnConnor352 3 years, 9 months ago
      What is destroying the family was government interference in the first place. This is one step closer to allowing the market to handle the answer, rather than using force to support your personal viewpoint. It's a freedom/liberty issue.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
      The progressives are not destroying the family. It is not the job of any political party to destroy or protect the family. The family is a personal concept. Politics should stay out of the way and let individuals protect the family in whatever way suits them.

      Jan, let them marry trees
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
        The word "marriage" has historically been associated with a religious union. If the progressives want to marry trees, or have sex with them (I'm not imagining; you may have seen pictures of that in Berkley recently), by all means, as far as I'm concerned. Just don't hijack the word "marriage." They can call it anything they want, "sixty nine," for example. The tax, health or any other benefits and responsibilities can very well be part of the sixty nine. But that is not enough for the progressives, because that would leave some people that are not part of their system, e.g., "counter-revolutionaries." And we all know what must be done with the counter-revolutionaries.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jlc 3 years, 9 months ago
          Without marrying trees (yes, I saw the pics!), there are still a ton of civil marriages per year. In the US, I have found estimates of 10% - 40%. In the UK, I found an analysis: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/m...

          So the use of the term 'marriage' to apply to a civil union is well established. I don't think I am using it out of context.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
            I do believe in equal rights. And I think that the government has no place in anyone's bedroom. The progressives, however, want to make sure that the government is everywhere, including the bedroom, the church and the soup line. There must not be any dissenters. The issue is not marriage, civil union or rights. The issue is conformance to the State and the Party.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Religious beliefs are not '2 + 2 = 4' and are not the basis of our legal system.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
        First - I am not religious in any way whatsoever. That said, religious beliefs are just as valid for some people as the Spaghetti Monster, Global Warming or for that matter, Objectivism. Everyone has a right to their moral code, as long as that code does not impose on others nor do they impose on others. When a law is introduced into a society that clearly conflicts with the moral code of a are portion of the citizens, the society is having a moral conflict, just as it has a constitutional conflict. If it cannot be amiably resolved, the seeds of the revolution are being laid.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          Objectivism is not an equivalent variety of "the Spaghetti Monster", "Global Warming", and "religion", and "religious beliefs" are not "just as valid" as anything else. Your sneering attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy do not belong here.

          "Everyone" does not have a "moral right" to change the law to whatever he wants as a public official with contrary "religious beliefs". Anarchy by public officials is statism. Nor is a civilized society possible based on an anti-philosophical libertarian anything goes notion of subjective eclectic "moral codes".

          The Supreme Court is not "invalidating a nuclear family by destroying the marriage by spreading it out among anything that walks". Your assertion is absurd. That some hysterical religionists have a "moral conflict" with public officials being required to follow the law for marriage licenses contrary to religious dogma is not "the seeds of revolution".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
            As a devout Objectivist, I am certainly not sneering at Objectivism. That also includes recognizing and respecting the rights of others, even if those are based on religion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              You wrote that "religious beliefs are just as valid for some people as the Spaghetti Monster, Global Warming or for that matter, Objectivism". Now you add that you are a "devout Objectivist". Whatever you think Objectivism means, it isn't any of that and the descriptions and comparisons were quite disparaging.

              Rights are not "based on religion". Individuals have rights, in accordance with their nature as human beings, regardless of their own understanding or beliefs, and whether or not they happen to be religious in some way, but rights aren't "religious" and there is no "right" to a special religious status above the law. In particular there is no right for a public official to redefine the laws he operates under in his official capacity to be whatever he wants them to be in accordance with his religion.

              Requiring Kim Davis to follow the law as a public official is not a violation of her rights. On the contrary, she was violating others' civil rights by arbitrarily refusing to grant them marriage licenses for which they were legally qualified . She is in jail now because she continued to deny their rights, in defiance of a specific court order to comply with the law.

              This doesn't happen often enough to the bureaucrats. As citizens we have rights, with the freedom (under a proper government) to do anything we that isn't legally prohibited; government officials do not operate by right, they are (in a proper government) limited in what they can and must do in their capacity as officials. When they don't, they violate our rights.

              The religious conservatives have completely inverted all of this, claiming a "right" for a government official to make her own rules and claiming a religious exemption from law with special supposed "rights" (entitlements) for those who believe dogma on faith. Such religious thinking is not the basis of our rights and our free society, and cannot be used to defend it. It is the opposite.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                Actually, religious thinking was in fact the basis for our society and our rights. Now, in full disclosure, I am not religious and never have been, but I am stating facts as I see them. I do not believe in re-inventing history. The Founding Fathers have very much based their thinking, opinions and, ultimately, the enumeration of our rights, on the morals derived through millennia of Judaeo-Christian thought. It is not an accident that the Bill of Rights was written in Christian America and not in Buddhist China or Moslem Algeria. I do not subscribe to the Judaeo-Christian dogma, but you cannot deny that it was and is the basis of our society.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Religion was not the basis of this country. America was founded explicitly on European Enlightenment principles of reason and individualism that threw off the intellectual and cultural dominance of the Church. China and north Africa did not have that, and neither did medieval Europe, which had also not developed a society of reason and individualism from its Dark Ages.

                  See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels and Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

                  Even if you don't know the history, you can see that the Christian focus on other worldliness, faith over reason, sacrifice and subservience could not possibly lead to the American ideal of the right to one's own life, liberty, property and happiness on earth and the spectacular success of this country in ways undreamed of for the previous millennia. See Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on The History of Western Philosophy.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  3 years, 9 months ago
    This is the exact mentality, the part I quoted, that the Founding Fathers protected against by placing man's Rights as assigned by God - above the ability of man to alter or infringe upon. If the rights aren't inalienable then people like this judge will use any excuse to assert their will, the federal governments will on the State and the Individual.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 9 months ago
      That said no one need believe in anything, even so using the benefit that there are certain things outside man's ability to screw up is a strong benefit even if it is a fallacy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      There is no "inalienable right" for a public official to not do his job, and Christianity is not the basis of the rights of the individual. Religion was the philosophy of the Dark Ages. The Enlightenment overturned that. "Natural rights" means our rights as identified in principle in accordance with our nature as human beings, and how we became what we are is a question for science. Neither is based on religious faith in dogma.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
        Nope... All "Rights" are defined by people getting together and agreeing that "this is a right and that is not a right."

        I just can not understand why humans can't seem to see that... :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago
          Some so-called "rights" may be defined by agreement. However, the "natural rights" 'ewv' mentions are derived from the requirements inherent in being human. They are not defined by consensus. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
            Ah, that 'argument' didn't convince me at all.
            Can you do better than that?

            "Requirements inherent in being human" to me is about as nebulous as using a term like "natural rights"...

            Please!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago
              Rights, as you defined them above, are indefensible and subject to any gang arbitrarily claiming their rights are better.

              Understanding that our natural rights must be derived from the essential characteristics that make us human objectively establishes a man's right to his own life. All other rights follow.

              Just keep in mind the Law of Identity also applies to Man. ;)

              http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
                Mobs claiming arbitrary rights is why we get all these collective servitude "rights." Like a right to be given healthcare (Obamacare.) Using this logic, sex is a right. So what's next...Obamasex?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
                If I could chat with Rand right now, I'd like to ask her if she could see that even her own arguments for 'rights' is circular...

                "Rights" are whatever enough people Agree Are "Rights" and if enough people Agree To Take some or all Rights Away, you may not get to exercise or enjoy those "Rights" any longer, even if you say you still "have" or "own" them.

                But as for the list in the link supplied by conscious1978, I support anyone and everyone willing to support and defend my 'right' and everyone else's 'right' to enjoy those "Rights."

                It's just that I don't agree that there is some Universal, Immutable, Foundational Source for those "Rights." They're privileges that, if granted to and supported by Everyone, DO lead to a maximization of "good" for the most individuals.

                .... imnsho... :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago
                  My right to my own life isn't by permission. People may act in a way to prevent the free exercise of that right, but it doesn't negate its origin in man's nature. Our Constitution recognizes this inalienable right and government employees should protect those and other defined rights in the course of their public duties.

                  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...

                  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ina...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Ok, you win... 'discussion over.'
                    Inalienable rights? Written down where? Enforced by whom?

                    I'm not a Collectivist like your second link refers, but if the Collective decides that Your Rights OR My Rights are Now Under Their Power and Control, the 'inalienability of my rights' is moot.

                    Fucking MOOT.

                    I oppose the "alienation" of those rights by Anyone, and particularly by Government or Thugs or The Collective.... but as a trivial example, those "inalienable rights" went out the window in WWII Germany or "modern" North Korea.

                    The Rights are wonderful, desirable and certainly worth fighting (and maybe dying) for, but to think they're Always Available No Matter What is a serious breach of observable reality, and I'd argue that to Rand's face if I could.

                    I don't deny they Exist or Should Exist or Are Wonderful Things for Everyone... I just assert that our capability of Enjoying Them and Practicing Them in Real Life DOES depend on a cultural or social consensus and support OF those rights, and without that support, yes, we become barbarians.

                    So, are those inalienable rights carved in stone somewhere? Which museum displays them?

                    Cheers!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                      you both lose. the quote is 'certain unalienable rights.' It was test question in high school civics. We then had to define the difference. Back then in the pre PC days

                      Unalienable meant could not be changed at all.

                      Inalienable meant could be changed under certain circumstances.

                      It helps to use the right word therefore plus
                      AF''s opinion is more nearly correct.

                      In another search the word popped up by noen other than one of the chief left wing socialist fascists in the nation and a hard corps opponent of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. along with his secular progressive friends. Note he and someone named Charles Rangel used the incorrect leftist spelling in order to support their position. here it is...

                      "I've been working with Pat Robertson on Africa debt-relief, and we disagree on virtually everything except certain very specific, inalienable rights, and the truth is that morality and patriotism come in all shapes and sizes.
                      George Clooney

                      Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/search_res...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
                        Thanks, Michael and conscious, but the point I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make was that, no matter what adjective is applied to the claimed "rights," you only get to enjoy them if the environment you're living in permits it.

                        There are no stone tablets or golden books that can make sure that those rights will actually accrue to you at any time or place... that depends totally on the ethics, morals and culture and society you're living in...

                        Clooney and Rangel have the power of the bully pulpits, but no more than any other politician or entertainment star do either one have the market cornered on Critical Thinking... Rangel, especially :)

                        And to define unalienable rights as those that "can't be taken away"... Where, over the rainbow is THAT world?! Those 'rights' can disappear at the drop of a dictator's hat. That's like telling today's Venezuelans that they have 'unalienable rights' to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...'

                        C'mon!
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                          That was the second part of the conversation and I'll blow it up again. With the Patriot Act in place no one except individual citizens who understand rights and responsibilities of citizenship are the defense. It is certainly not someone whose apparently poor record of achievement scholastically is kept sealed especially since his fellow Columbia law students can't remember him even being there.

                          Methinks we have a termite in the woodwork
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by plusaf 3 years, 9 months ago
                            Oh, YES, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of crap O can sling to keep his past "achievements"... scholastic and otherwise... State Secrets Forever... Such scum.
                            Of course, with just the right national crisis, solvable ONLY if he remains President For Life, could that happen, and, trusting him as much as I do, I wouldn't put it past him...
                            The future will be more interesting all the time.

                            As I've repeatedly told my wife's grandkids, Every Presidential Election since I could vote has been stranger and stranger than the previous one. Each one raises (or lowers) the bar for election insanity.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 9 months ago
                      No need for sarcasm, Alan. I didn't use the link to imply you are a collectivist. I'm glad you "oppose the 'alienation' of those rights".

                      You said, "The Rights are wonderful, desirable and certainly worth fighting (and maybe dying) for, but to think they're Always Available No Matter What is a serious breach of observable reality, and I'd argue that to Rand's face if I could." — I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I never implied that your rights couldn't be violated, or that one may live where they are being violated. Neither did Rand; so not much to argue about there.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
    If Kentucky Law did not allow for that type of marriage the Judge over reached him or herself. how much did Soros or the ACLU pay him or her is the real question. I don't even see this as a Federal issue just another act of left wing fascism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We are in agreement as to the issue of the government requiring a license to marry in the first place. But this is where we are and no one is raising this issue.
    But I do have a question for you - under what circumstances, if any, would you think that a person is justified in not following a law? Would the situation be different if a person were to be a private individual or a government employee, say, a police officer?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
      Now that's a good question. Who was it that said "if the law is immoral you not only have the right but a moral imperative to disobey it"? Or something like that. I agree wholeheartedly. This implies as well that we are capable of know what is moral. And there is a responsibility to know what is moral. You can't just make stuff up on a whim. And one must be prepared to defend their position and face the consequences. But a private individual, or even a private business, has the right to discriminate. To freely associate, or not. A government employee or a police officer, only when they are on the job and acting as a representative of the government, does not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
        Ah, but as more and more jobs become government jobs, and as more and more people are owned by the government, in one way or another, that difference (between a private individual and a government employee or official) becomes smaller. If a police officer is ordered, as part of a SWAT team, to break into someone's house and arrest them for an offense that the officer does not consider justifiable, should he refuse? Or should he quit and let a thug take his job and break into the house? Should he drive the tank into the Waco compound and .... because those weirdo's are irrational? Should the Jews be deported because everyone knows that they're subhuman? Where to we start and where do we stop?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
          You're going in circles. Every bit of that was answered in my previous comment. And in other prior comments. Following the law is not an excuse for a government employee, or a cop, to violate rights. We start and stop with right and wrong.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jnnrd54 3 years, 9 months ago
    Justice Roberts should be the one in jail for imposing his personal beliefs on the Country instead of following the Constitution. Liberal judges are the real problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
      Perhaps the reasoning behind the ruling may have been flawed but what you are implying is that the state laws that were overturned, laws that restricted a marriage to a man and a woman are legitimate. This implies that the state has the right to violate individuals rights. States don't have rights. Governments don't have rights. Only Individuals have rights. And we need to fully understand those rights and uphold those rights.

      That is what you learn from Objectivism. If that is what you are here for.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
        But there is no "right" to marriage one way or the other. Marriage is a contract and subject to contract law, where government's place is in invalidating or upholding the contract's provisions via recognition.

        Now if one wants to argue that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Federal Government has arbitrate which contracts are enforceable, one may have a case. Here's my question, however: if that premise holds, then why are States allowed to hold differing interpretations of Second Amendment privileges, which are enumerated and recognized rights?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
          There is a right to be treated equally under the law. Since asking permission to get married (as immoral as that is) is required by law, then everyone has the same right to get married, or not, regardless of race, orientation, gender, hair color or whatever.

          This absolutely applies to second amendment rights as well and if you want to take that case to the supreme court I will absolutely donate to that cause. States are allowed to hold these different interpretations because so many people, including on this site, have a poor understanding of rights and the realities that necessitate them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 9 months ago
            Not necessarily. Contract provisions vary from State to State as do their enforceability because most contract law is based on that State's common law provisions, which can vary widely. What is really at issue here is the Full Faith and Credit Clause which attempts to eliminate the need for each State to negotiate with each other State on the status of every type of contract out there. The problem is that this relies upon standard definitions for most common terminology and common practice. When some determine to alter the terminology and attempt to inflict this upon others, it becomes a serious Constitutional problem. This is further exacerbated when there is no power in the Constitution which vests authority on the Federal Government any privilege of authority over contract law.

            At issue is whether or not a marriage contract is enforceable regardless of whether or not it violates miscegenation laws. I would also note that anti-miscegenation laws have existed since before this nation began. Those laws refused to recognize the legal authority of various types of marriages based on the cultures of the time. Some prohibited inter-racial marriages, some prohibited near-family relations. At a national level, there was also a law passed prohibiting bigamy or polygamy. Nearly all states have anti-pedophilia and anti-necrophilia laws on the books as well. With this ruling, all of those statutes are similarly in question - as well as many others.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
              Where, in all of that, does the right of the individual come in? More importantly, where is your defense of the right of the individual?

              Every bit of that is an attempt at distraction from what is really at issue here. The state laws were violating individual rights. The Supreme Court overturned them. Then a state employee took it upon herself to continue to violate those rights because her gods law should supersede mans law. If she had been a muslim trying to enforce sharia you would have been after her head like any other christian.

              We still have the issue of having to ask permission to get married to deal with. This is immoral and makes all the other points moot because we are discussing the morality vs immorality of enforcing laws that are immoral in the first place. Once again, the only purpose for these laws is control, to divide the population and get them fighting amongst themselves. One would almost have to conclude that those who claim that this is about redefining the word marriage, or activist judges, or this is about religious freedom, or the first amendment rights of a delusional woman who happens to be a government official must just not want to take that control away from the government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 years, 9 months ago
    How about just firing her and getting another minion who will do what their law says?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
      term2 As I understand it, the clerk is elected. An elected official can not be "fired" but has to be inpeached to be removed. That's why the current emperor is still in America's White House.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        Impeachment is not the only remedy when the official defies a court order, as we are seeing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
          Correct. An elected official can be jailed but people were asking why she wasn't fired. Different question, different answer. We can't have elected people being "fired" over political reasons. Defying a court order can lead to impeachment but protocols are involved. Does anyone know what " Law" she broke.? I thought SCOTUS was to rule on laws that Congress passed as to their Constitutionality but not make laws. Probably the old , outmoded civics I learned in the 1950's..Way out of date now .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            The Supreme Court found the state marriage laws unconstitutionally restrictive when they exclude gays. Specifically, the 14th Amendment applies to state law. The Supreme Court has never been restricted to ruling on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Deciding the constitutionality of Congressional laws is not only not the sole role of the court, that function was added later (by the court itself).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
    If you care to send Kim a card like I did Friday--
    Ms. Kim Davis
    Carter County Detention Center
    13 Crossbar Rd.
    Grayson, KY, 41143
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Suggesting that she behave rationally and stop personally redefining law in accordance with her religious beliefs would have no effect on her.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
        That's not why I rationally sent her a card.
        It had to do with a freedom supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          That falsehood is why you sent her a card. It is not why anyone else here should rationally write to her. She has no First Amendment right to make her own laws based on her personal religion, denying the civil rights of others who legally qualified for marriage licenses. Her religious objections are irrelevant. Religion is not an intellectually and politically privileged position exempt from the law.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
            A first amendment right is supposed to BE the law and not irrelevant or exempt from it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              There is no First amendment right for a bureaucrat to impose his religion in defiance of law. Religious faith is not a privileged status to abuse others either in principle or in law.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
                She has a First Amendment right. She should not be forced to serve unbelievers or people her religion has damned, if her religion does not allow it. She also does not have a right to a job that she is not willing to do. If she wants to have her cake and eat it too, she is wrong.
                She should be able to quit and find a new job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs and she is willing to do.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 years, 9 months ago
                  "She should be able to quit and find a new job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs and she is willing to do." She already has that right. Case closed.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  She does not have a First Amendment right to what she is demanding. No one is forcing her to serve "unbelievers". She is not acting as a private individual, she is in a government position which she chose to take, with requirements to issue marriage licenses to those who legally qualify. She has no right to a government job or to change those public requirements to suit her religious faith.

                  Her religion is irrelevant to the responsibility to do her job, and her militant appeals to religion as an alleged source of superior privilege are offensively irrelevant. If she doesn't want to do the job she doesn't have to keep it. No one is forcing her to keep it. She is in jail for defying a court order to carry out the duties of a job she refused to leave and still refuses to leave.

                  She is trying to have her cake and eat it too. See http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... here on this same page.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Maybe you did not read what I actually wrote since you only cherry picked a couple of words then tried to argue your point from that. Are you saying that she must "serve unbelievers or people her religion has damned, if her religion does not allow it?" I'll even go farther. Must she serve anyone that she doesn't want to willingly serve for what ever reason?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                      You guys said just about the same thing in different ways. I think EW is just a little wound up (rightfully so), on this topic with all the, shall we say, non-Objectivist comments showing up.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                        I'm not sure what he was getting at, but am trying to be as clear as I can myself. Don't make assumptions about emotional states from typed statements!
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                          I have understood you very well but doing so has required me to make certain assumptions until your intentions were proven in further comments. I'm not sure everyone else here is giving you that leeway and maybe your words are not quite as clear as you think they are. I am also quite sure of what Solver was getting at and you have managed to start arguing with someone who's statement basically agreed with you but was phrased completely differently and required certain assumptions to be made until the intent was proven by reading through the WHOLE comment. You have taken offense where none is given and you have taken insult where none is intended. Is that a statement of your emotional state or is it just the way you are? Don't know, doesn't matter, but arguing with those who agree with you but don't write like you is probably a waste of your time and effort.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                      You wrote, fully, "She has a First Amendment right. She should not be forced to serve unbelievers or people her religion has damned, if her religion does not allow it." That is not what the First Amendment says, but no one is forcing her to do that. She does not have to take a government job that requires non-discrimination in dealing with the public (in issuing marriage licenses to all who legally qualify). If she does choose to work in that job then she must do the job as required. Her religion or any other objection is irrelevant to that. She has no right, First Amendment or otherwise, to redefine a government job serving the public equally to be something else. The context here is that it is a government job in a government that is supposed to be for everyone. Government officials do not act by right in the functions of their public position; they are limited in what they can do in that capacity, and must do it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 9 months ago
    I heard something about the story, but I don't get how she ended up in jail. Is that the normal remedy when someone in her position doesn't do her job? Don't they have a procedure to deal with someone who doesn't do her job for non-political reasons, i.e. comes in late, shows up hungover, uses foul language at work, reads Facebook all day instead of working, or whatever?

    I have known of several electronics people who risked their jobs because they refused to ship boards used in medical applications that had known flaws. One guy lost his job. They didn't go to jail.

    Objecting to something your boss wants you to do is normal. They should resign or be fired and go to work somewhere doing something they believe in.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by SaltyDog 3 years, 9 months ago
      She's in the pokey for contempt of court, CG. Federal judge ordered her to sign the certificate, she said, "NO", he said off to jail!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 9 months ago
        "Federal judge ordered her to sign the certificate, she said, "NO", he said off to jail!"
        That sounds bogus to me. They could fire her and run an ad just as you would in any case of employee insubordination. If this happened in private sector it would be resolved within 24 hours.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
          She was elected...needs a different process to remove. Elected officials can not just be :Fired" or we would have a new Congress every 2 weeks.

          She chose to take a stand against a government whim she disagreed with and was willing to take the consequences. Remember Ghandi, M L King? same peaceful resistance.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 9 months ago
            Exactly. The court's action is creating a martyr out of a bigot. The MLK thing is a stretch, but it's ironic to see bigots taking up the same non-violence direct action.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by roneida 3 years, 9 months ago
              Martyr for a cause are martyrs regardless of the hatred against them . When you stand alone, you stand alone..the popularity, or unpopularity of ones'cause does not negate the bravery of voluntarily accepting censure and punishment. Wrong laws are wrong laws weather they be race based or moral belief base. suffering in silence does not accomplish as much as suffering in public.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
          So where were her bosses all this time. All they had to do is great job enforcing state law and then assigned another clerk to suck up the judge. Instead it appears they hid and let her take the blame. Catch 22 the whole thing but it isn't rocket science. Go the next window!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by not-you 3 years, 9 months ago
            She is an elected official thus her bosses are the voters of that county. She IS the boss of that office.

            One news account of her hearing stated, "In court documents filed Wednesday, her attorneys argue that she shouldn't be held in contempt. Instead, they argued, there are alternatives that would allow couples to get marriage licenses in Rowan County without going against Davis' religious beliefs. Among the options they offered were allowing other officials to issue marriage licenses in the county, distributing marriage licenses at the state level or changing marriage license forms to remove Davis' name." http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politic...

            Despite the other legal options that could have satisfied the ultimate civil rights goals of both the Court Clerk and the gay petitioners, the Federal Judge jailed the clerk for civil contempt UNTIL she agreed to affix her signature on the documents.

            The highest ethical calling for any judge and best practice in the pursuit of civil justice in a case such as this one is served by making every endeavor to find a lawful and acceptable solution which protects the civil rights of all parties involved and not defaulting to Draconian measures. This Federal judge was throwing his weight around--just because he could. May not frighten some of you people but it frightens the hell out of me--especially the concept of indefinite imprisonment for non-violent civil contempt of court, contempt being determined solely by ONE individual.

            I think it was John Grisham who made the pithy joke that the Statue of Justice is blindfolded because she can't bear to look at what judges and lawyers actually do to The Law.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by TheRealBill 3 years, 9 months ago
              The judge doesn't have the power to change forms, alter the laws regarding what agency handles marriage licenses, etc, thus he doesnt have those options as presented.

              As it stands now, she is required by law to issue the marriage licenses suing the firms and processes lain out. Either she does it, or the court orders her to, or the court finds some way in which she isn't legally obligated to do her job.

              As the third option isn't actually available (or desireable!) ordering her to do her job is the only option the judge has available. Fines and jail time are the only recourse for contempt of court and as noted in the article fines would be entirely ineffective.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 3 years, 9 months ago
      Can't be fired because she is an elected official. Only remedy for not doing her job is impeachment or a Court order if it effects citizens rights. The later happened here but she refused to follow the order and thus the contempt ruling.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
    So this federal judge has just invalidated the entire Nuremberg trials. And has reaffirmed the old adage that the victors set the rules.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      The judge did no such thing. Whatever we think of government involvement in concepts of personal marriage this has nothing to do with "the entire Nuremberg trials". Your religious dogmas are not the standard. This is an Ayn Rand forum.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        Once again we have militant activists 'down voting' rejection of their dogma on an Ayn Rand forum, this time in the form of a preposterous claim that a judge requiring a public official to do her job despite her religious demands to change her job has "invalidated the entire Nuremberg trials". As a consequence of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason she rejected all forms of supernaturalism and anti-reason, including religious faith. This is not a place to promote religion in government in the name of the "Nuremberg trials" or any other way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
          You're doing a helluva job. I saw this thread earlier today with a lot of the nonsense comments on it and zero rebuttals but had no time to comment then. Now I come back to it and you have left very little room or need to. Thank you, somebody had to. Lots of +1's for you on this thread.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            Thanks Kevin. The case of this woman would not be particularly important by itself -- other than it's always good when a bureaucrat is held accountable; if only they would do that in the viro agencies, immigration, NSA, Hillary, etc. But this case illustrates a broader principle of the imprecise idea of "freedom of conscience" being misused by traditional religious conservatives in a typical manner which they themselves are widely promoting, beginning with prominent conservative spokesmen like Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Huckabee, etc. Their crude fallacies and sometimes demagoguery are being uncritically picked up and echoed, so it's important to answer it in all its aspects. This is, as usual, much deeper than politics alone.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
              Agreed. It amazed me to see so many on this site jumping on the religious freedom or the judicial activist bandwagon and so few discussing the immorality of laws requiring you to ask permission to get married in the first place.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                There is a legitimate question of the invalidity of changing the concept of "marriage" for gays, as opposed to "civil unions" accomplishing the same legal status without mangling the language by government fiat. But the court has combined them in a package deal, Davis' religious arguments make no such distinction, no bureaucrat has any right to make her own law denying the resulting civil marriage whatever it is called, and appeals to religion are no basis for a claimed privileged political statism in the name of, of all things, her "conscience". She is the aggressor and she has clearly deliberately turned this into a religious issue of what she calls "God's law" as an excuse for her illegal behavior directed against others.

                It illustrates the classic faith-leads-to-force progression, which snake can only be cut off at its head by ruling out faith as a substitute for reason in all forms on principle. Those religious conservatives supporting the fallacious Davis propaganda line are the opposite, militantly demanding that their faith be accepted as the premise for whatever they want because it is faith. It's not that they want freedom of thought regardless of the content and method of thinking, they demand acceptance of anti-reason because it is anti-reason, just as they base all "freedom of conscience" arguments not on freedom of the rational mind, but specifically on religion as such. Their entire approach is fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in particular.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                  The necessity for government to "define" marriage is caused by the immoral laws that require anyone to ask permission and get a government stamp of approval to get married in the first place. Without them there would be no debate over the legal status given by the word "marriage". The entire purpose of such laws is control, to divide people into smaller groups and pit them against each other. It is working remarkably well with this issue because neither side, as usual, is taking a rational approach to it. This is the religious conservatives turn at showing us what they really want.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
          I am not promoting religion. I am promoting a person's right to not being forced to action against their moral code, regardless whether that code originated from Objectivism or the Bible. I am also pointing out that when such conflicts occur, the stronger jailing the weaker is a recipe for a disaster.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
            Her moral code is wrong and respecting her for it is doing a disservice to a proper moral code.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
              Rand's construct of a moral society is based on the ultimate survival and thriving of the human species. Please tell me how a homosexual marriage helps in this regard? Since you know which moral code is valid and which is not and, apparently, are basing this on Objectivism, please make that connection for me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                "construct of a moral society is based on the ultimate survival and thriving of the human species". Where do you get that from? That has nothing to do with Rand or Objectivism. Only omnipotent beings and would be kings are concerned with the "ultimate survival and thriving of the human species". This is about individual rights and the violation of those rights by an officer of the government. She chose to violate those rights based on her irrational beliefs. That is how I know her moral code is wrong. Her moral code is based on those same irrational beliefs, A moral code that would protect those individual rights would be proper. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage in the eyes of a rights respecting government, be it straight, gay, interracial or otherwise. The government has no business pursuing, regulating, legislating or enforcing the "survival & thriving of the human species."

                If she had been working for or owned a private business then she would have been well within her rights but as an officer of the government, and the force implied by that, her actions were immoral.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                  I suggest that you read Ayn Rand in detail. Not just her novels, but other works, such as the "Virtue of Selfishness" and her writings For the New Intellectual and you will see that Rand justifies morality by the metric of ultimate, long term survival and advancement of the humans as a race. Where else would morals come from, and be universally justified?
                  BTW, I do agree with you that the government has no business to be in the survival and thriving of the human species business, and less of all in the marriage business.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                    I've read those and several more. Perhaps you could point me to something more specific? Rand never justified morality by any measure of survival of the human race. That would be to subject the individual to whatever is best for society, or the human race. Quite the opposite, morality is based on the requirements for the life of the individual. "a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good".

                    Maybe you should do some reading. This came from a quick search; http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Ayn Rand most certainly did not base her philosophy on the "race", which is a crude collectivist notion. For someone who claims to be a "devout" Objectivist you don't understand much about it, which is indicated beginning with the self-characterization of "devout".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              Respecting her irrational belief and actions claiming a privileged position based on religious faith is not only a disservice to a rational moral code, it is a rejection of a proper means of thinking and a proper form of government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
              I'm guessing that she would say that all those other moral codes are wrong? After all how could the truly faithful following The Word of three perfect infinite beings be wrong?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                Yes, I'm sure she would say that all those other moral codes are wrong. and how would she know? She has faith, of course. And her faith is the correct faith of course, as opposed to those "other" religions. She can FEEL it. Just like the book says.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                The "fun" begins when they pick different infinite beings with faith in different Words with no rational means to resolve the dispute. Faith and force. This is what she is doing trying to exploit the political power of her government job to defiantly impose her dogma.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            You are promoting the notion that religion is a valid basis for a government official to make up her own laws and deprive others of their civil rights. She has no right to do that and her religious faith does not give her such a right. No one is forcing her to keep a job with requirements she does not want.

            The "stronger" police always jail the "weaker" when the "weaker" violates the law. That is required for maintenance of lawfulness in a civilized society, not a "recipe for disaster". Anarchy is disaster. Faith and force are disaster -- religion is the primary cause, not an excuse.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
          I don't see this as an "Ayn Rand forum." I personally do not come here to talk exclusively about Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is dead. She's not coming back. But her writings on philosophy survive which can be applied or debated in living one,s life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            "Ayn Rand forum" does not mean Ayn Rand is still alive or that only Ayn Rand can be talked about. The purpose and terms of conditions for this forum on behalf of Ayn Rand's philosophy have been clearly stated and exclude promoting positions attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy, though the wording of the rules keeps changing. It is not a forum for proselytizing religious conservatism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 3 years, 9 months ago
      If a person does not want to sign their name on orders to evict Jewish people from their homes and businesses, they should NOT work for Nazis.
      (Assuming they have a choice)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
        The German people were bred to follow the law. The Nazis were very careful to legalize all their atrocities. They followed the law to the letter. Somehow, it was American judges that proclaimed that following the law to the letter, when contrary to morality, is no excuse. Are the New Amerikan judges now representing the other side?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by JohnConnor352 3 years, 9 months ago
          The problem with your analogy, even moreso than the fact that you used Nazis in a discussion about marriage, is that this woman's "morality" is wrong. She is the one advocating for more government control over people's daily lives.
          Morality is not a subjective concept. It is real and objective.
          While the law cannot force us to be moral, only punish us for immorality, if you are voluntarily in a position where your job is to enforce the law and you decide to make up your own more restrictive laws to follow instead, then you are not doing your job. The only moral choice is to resign. She is simply throwing herself on the figurative sword and attempting to make a martyr of herself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          Civil marriage for gays is not "Nazi atrocities".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
            No, it's not. But jailing a person because they refuse to follow a law that is in conflict with their morality is setting a path in that direction. Following the law was specifically the excuse that the Nazis used, so the comparison is not mine.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              Jailing someone for violation of the law is not a "path in that direction". It is done all the time. It has nothing to do with "Nazi excuses". She has no right to redefine the laws she must follow in her duties as a public official. Her subjective claims to religious morality are irrelevant. If she prefers her irrational religious duties her alternative is to resign. No one is forcing her to keep the job she volunteered for. It has nothing to do with "Nazi atrocities". That is your arbitrary and false association.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                Let's analyze your statement. Remove your inflammatory adjectives and what remains is your assertion that the law must be followed in all circumstances. That happens to have been the Nazi defense at the trial. As it happens, I do not share her religious beliefs, but I do respect them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  The "inflammatory adjectives" are yours. You called it "Nazi". Enforcing the law is not "Nazi". Laws in civilized countries are enforced all the time. There are very few Nazis. That Nazis also enforced their own atrocious laws does not make law enforcement "Nazi".

                  If Davis finds a law governing her state job requirements objectionable she does not have to enforce it -- she can resign her government position -- no one is forcing her to keep the government job, but she has no right to make her own laws as a government official. She violated others' civil rights in her capacity as a government bureaucrat. She is the one arbitrarily making up the laws she wants as a bureaucrat, denying the rights of others who legally qualified for marriage licenses. You have it backwards, defending the alleged "right" of a bureaucrat to defiantly do what she feels like, then preposterously accusing those who rein her in as "Nazis". Bureaucrats do not exercise government power by "right" and deserve no support for believing and acting as if they do.

                  Her religious dogmas are no excuse for her dictatorial actions. She can believe whatever she wants to, but I do not "respect" irrational beliefs and have no sympathy for her actions as a religious zealot exploiting and abusing her power as a bureaucrat. She has no right to impose her religion. Her demands to exploit government power to deny people their civil rights based on religious faith is appalling.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Do you deny that the Nazis used that same excuse - following the law, as the federal judge and, I take it, you too? And do you recall what the answer to that was?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                      Nazis did all kinds of atrocious things. It has nothing to do with enforcing the law in a civilized society and is not a defense of religionists claiming privileged status to impose their dogma by hijacking government force.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                        Why are you avoiding my direct and relevant question: Did the Nazis at Nuremberg use the excuse that they were simply "following the law" or not?
                        I am not saying that Davis is right in her decision to not marry gays; what I am saying is that in some circumstances morality takes precedence over legality. Ideally, the disconnect should not exist at all or be minimal. A significant difference between the two is a sign of a sick society and jailing one or the other does not resolve the problem.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                          This has nothing to do with Nazis. I have already answered your question. Stop pretending it's relevant. That Nazis once made excuses based on their own atrocious laws does not mean that enforcing civilized laws is "Nazism". It doesn't follow. It is a crude logical fallacy.

                          Morality always takes precedence over government. We always decide for ourselves what to do in accordance with relevant principle, including the nature of government and the necessity for it, our goals, and means, taking the consequences for our own choices and actions. That does not mean that Davis, a public official, has a right to make her own law and expect that everyone else accommodate her just because she invokes "religion". She is trying to make herself exempt from the law on principle, on grounds of religion. That is not what the First Amendment means and is not what civil disobedience means. She can either quit the government job she doesn't like or take the consequences for defying a court order to stop violating other peoples' rights. No one is violating her rights.

                          Her irrational religious morality does not take precedence over reality and the rights of everyone else. She has a right to believe what she wants and live her own life the way she wants to regardless of her irrational beliefs. Her irrational beliefs do not justify imposing them on others because they are defiantly irrational, i.e., "faith".

                          The "significant difference" with religionists demanding a privileged status for their faith in dogma is not a sign of a "sick society", it is a sign of a sick individual and her activist supporters, being stirred up by militant conservative demagoguery. It is properly addressed by routine law enforcement when her actions infringe on others' civil rights, which they have. That is the nature of law enforcement which resolves the problem for everyone except the irrational who suffer the consequences of their own dogmatic militancy, as it does for every criminal element. It is not a reason to run around hysterically screaming that "religious freedom" is being violated. It is not.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                            I did not say that this case has "something" to do with Nazism, except for the fact that the excuse of following the law regardless of it being morally right or wrong was not accepted as defense by the judges at Nuremberg. Regardless of the basis for her convictions, she is doing exactly what the Nuremberg judges prescribed.
                            Interestingly that you see Davis as trumping on others' rights, but because you disagree with the basis of her convictions, you are not only stripping her of rights, you don't even acknowledge that they exist. You see her faith as irrational, but see homosexuality as rational. Is your rationality superior to hers? What is the basis of your rationality that guarantees that homosexuality is a rational behavior? I don't think that you can quote Ayn Rand on that.
                            You keep on saying that Davis should simply quit. Why? She was elected, presumably based on her views and on her character. She is living up to what she was elected to represent. Many people, and I for one, believe that Obama needs to stop terrorizing America and quit. My wishes are still unanswered...
                            Remember, Rosa Parks had also defied the law.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                              I can see what you're getting at with the Nuremberg thing (admittedly not knowledgable on the subject) but you are reversing the roles. Davis is the government official forcing her will, via the force of her government position, on peaceful, law abiding citizens. The judge who put her in jail was serving justice.

                              Her faith is absolutely irrational and she has every right to be irrational but she has no right to use her position to enforce her irrational views on others. We could argue all night about whether or not homosexuality is rational or not but it is not relevant because it was not being forced on anyone via the force of government.

                              I, too, believe Davis should resign. Why? Because her values conflict with the job she is now required to do. But she was elected to the position, and her states laws are still aligned better with her values. And the people who elected her as well. so maybe she should stand her ground. Push it to the limits. States rights and all that, right? But states don't have rights. Society doesn't have rights. Government doesn't have rights. Only individuals have rights. And those rights are not subject to vote. They exist regardless of the law. We had better do our damn best to understand those rights properly because if this shit keeps hitting the fan, we may have to choose sides.

                              Also, Rosa Parks was not a government official imposing her will.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 9 months ago
                                Kevin, I see two issues here. One - the issue is not individual rights, for gays or anyone else - these could very well have been accomplished by civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage. That would not be sufficient for the Progressives/socialists. They need to rub it into the face of all others. Other people's rights, opinions or morals do not exist.
                                Second, there is the issue of the State reaffirming it's power. Don't be confused by Davis being a state employee. She is bucking the State itself (especially the Federal gov). That, the State cannot tolerate. Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco, the State will go to any extent to instill fear of itself onto us. That's the part that scares me most.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                                  Individual rights is absolutely the issue here. Civil unions via whatever the process is is not equal treatment under the law. What the progressives/socialists need or want here is irrelevant. The rights of two (at least) individuals were violated by a representative of the government. Just because she is bucking the state does not make her right. She is a shining example of why there is a separation of church and state. she bows down to a higher authority and wants to use the force of government to make those who disagree bow down with her before her flying spaghetti monster. This is no different than those who would try to enforce sharia law upon US citizens except that she is using the force of government do do it.

                                  If you want to be outraged, be outraged at the fact that so called free American citizens have to ask permission to get married in the first place. That is infuriating. But what is more infuriating is that this permission is not the issue. That a Deluded individual like Kim Davis can stand in the way of anybody exercising their right to marry who they wish and there isn't a nationwide call to put an end to the government intrusion. That most people are OK with the government having the power to dictate who gets married and who doesn't. And that even here in the Gulch we can't get past people defending a religious nut like Kim Davis.

                                  Also, again, the victims at Ruby Ridge and Waco were not government officials imposing their will upon others.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • conscious1978 replied 3 years, 9 months ago
                                  • strugatsky replied 3 years, 9 months ago
                                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                                  The distinction between Davis being a state employee versus a private individual is morally essential. She is trying to exploit her power as a state official to impose her religion on others.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                              You wrote the comments about Nazi atrocities yourself, likening them to "New Amerikan [sic] judges". They were your own statements in your own words. When confronted with the absurdity of that you backed off to "setting a path in that direction", then returned to "Nazi excuses". The hyperbole of your logical fallacies are ridiculous. Holding people accountable to the law in a civilized society is not "Nazi" and not a "path to Nazis" or any other variation.

                              No one is stripping Davis of her rights and this has nothing to do with "Nuremburg" or anything like it. She is in jail for defying a court order to stop willfully continuing to violate other peoples' civil rights. She is not on trial and not claiming she was "under orders": She is appealing to her own religious dogma as an alleged basis to do whatever she wants as a government official simply because she is "religious". That is nonsense. There is no "right" for a bureaucrat to do that. There are no such rights to "strip" her of. Vague appeals to "conscience" are not an argument for a bureaucrat to arbitrarily assume power she does not and should not have as a public official.

                              This has nothing to do with anyone's idea's of the rationality of homosexuality or "Obama terrorizing America". A government bureaucrat has no right to make her own laws and demand that everyone else accommodate her. Her claimed "convictions" of her religious faith are irrelevant, not a basis for a privileged position as a bureaucrat imposing her own theocracy. She has no right to do that and does not acquire such a "right" to violate other peoples' civil rights with a mob of local voters behind her, which is another conservative collectivist fallacy based on the same notion as conservative notorious "states rights" statism.

                              One doesn't need Ayn Rand quotes to understand that neither Davis nor you have any right to control homosexuals you regard as "irrational". No, her faith is not "rational". This is fundamental. Faith is the opposite of reason, not a get out of jail free card for whatever she wants to do. But the claims of irrationality are irrelevant to other people's personal freedom. As Ayn Rand put it, "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free." (Ford Hall Forum, 1968)
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 9 months ago
                                She's been released on condition of not interfering with her clerks but states she will not issue any license with her name on it.

                                Somehow you got to get through your head my beef is NOT with anything you've mentioned. It's irrelevant to the central issue.

                                The objections are people who don't do their own research, mis state the situation and divert attention from the real problem.

                                READ the same sex marriage ruling from the Supreme Court. They did NOT approve same sex for all states. They did uphold full faith and credit if one state had done so for other purposes in other states.

                                This go round is a way of taking the initial nose under the tent ruling going back to Massachusetts and making it deeper, wider, and more inclusive. The reason is it's a tactic of secular progressives to amend without amending. The rest of it is a side show and a diversion.

                                Each time something related comes up we get same irrelevant uninformed dog and pony show.

                                Five minutes effort is all it took back in what was it May to uncover that.

                                Framing the Debate didn't work this time. it's getting to be too obvious.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by kevinw 3 years, 9 months ago
                                  They did approve same sex marriage for all states.

                                  From the supreme court ruling;

                                  The Supreme Court Of The United States
                                  "No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
                                  "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"


                                  Maybe TEN minutes would have been better
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo