CreateDebate


Debate Info

47
56
Yes, because... No, because...
Debate Score:103
Arguments:100
Total Votes:111
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because... (42)
 
 No, because... (47)

Debate Creator

GenericName(3430) pic



"Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"

"

A Kentucky county clerk petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday for an emergency order allowing her to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move coming two days after a federal appeals court rejected her request.

In a related move, a federal judge refused to extend a stay of his own ruling requiring the clerk to furnish marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples while she appealed on the grounds that her religious faith overrides her duties as a public servant."

[source](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/29/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0QY02V20150829)

So this woman, a Kentucky county clerk, believes that her religious freedom is violated by being required to personally sign same-sex marriage licenses, which go against her beliefs.  Do you believe that she should be forced to sign the licenses or be removed for her position, or not, and why?


Yes, because...

Side Score: 47
VS.

No, because...

Side Score: 56
2 points

Workplace accommodations are mandated only when those accommodations do not interfere with fulfilling the basic requirements of the job in question. Processing legal marriage licenses pursuant to government law is an basic and inherent part of the job. Therefore the claimant does not have a valid case and must either fulfill their basic job requirements or face termination at the discretion of their employer. That is how it is for everyone and there is no reason to create a special exception for them.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

better to obey God than man .... http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2214#p2214 ............ Jesus: .. But from the beginning of creation .. God made them male and female .. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother .. and the two shall become one flesh .. so they are no longer two .. but one flesh .. what therefore God has joined together .. let no man separate ---- Mark 10:6-9

Side: Yes, because...
3 points

The Bible really holds no legal authority in this case, so can you please respond to the actual topic instead of quoting scripture?

Side: No, because...
dadman(1703) Disputed
1 point

Oh I'm sure she'll be fired .... the world (at this time) lies in the lap of the wicked one .... however Her reward in Heaven is great ..... Luke 18:28-30 .. Peter said . . . behold .. we have left our own homes and followed you .. and he said to them . . . truly I say to you .. there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children .. for the sake of the kingdom of God .. who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come . . . eternal life

Side: Yes, because...
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

We are talking about marriages that are not christian ceremonies so a Biblical description of what marriage was in the time of Christ is not useful to this.

Side: No, because...
dadman(1703) Disputed
1 point

obviously these people can't read ..... Jesus: .. But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female ............ > But from the beginning of creation <

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

So you're okay with men having multiple wives and concubines then, right?

2 Samuel 2:7-8 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Abraham had at least 3 wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16:1, Genesis 16:3, Genesis 25:1)

He also had concubines (Gen 25:6)

Moses had 2 wives, Zipporah and the Ethiopian Woman. (Exodus 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1)

In Exodus 21:7-10 god says if you sell your daughter to someone as their wife, and the person who buys her decides he wants another wife, he can't diminish the benefits of his first wife.

Side: No, because...
AlofRI(3294) Disputed
1 point

The problem is, this country does not belong to Christianity. If Christians do not want to accept gay or inter-racial marriages, that is their RIGHT....within their own church. They have NO right to bother anyone of any other belief or to force their belief onto theirs. This is a freedom of religion country, by Constitutional decree .... which DOES override Biblical OR Islamic OR any other religious law Just like the SCOTUS has ruled that certain religious items should not be placed in public places, religious rules that do not follow the Constitution should not be forced on the non-Christian public (or even the non-radical Christian public). God, Jesus, Allah, etc. are NOT members of the lawmaking branches of this country.. thank god! (If you must)!

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Yes. A man once said: "Senator, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, you did NOT place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible!"

Since: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...etc." We can not "Constitutionally" live by Biblical rules, without also living by Qur'an rules or the rules of any other "god". The Constitution is America's law! There are so many different interpretations of "Gods Law" that we would all live in anarchy trying to satisfy religions, kind of like....Shia, Sunni, ISIS, Catholicism, Mormonism, Baptists, etc.,etc.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Man, this stupid bitch still won't issue marriage licenses.

Supporting Evidence: Still fighting (www.huffingtonpost.com)
Side: Yes, because...
1 point

The truth is that God gave man the free will. Therefore men will be judged by their actions and not everybody will go to Heaven nor is everybody required by Gods Word to act in any certain way without any other option. So if God has given man choice and free will to choose what he does, who is man to attempt to restrict that free will which was given by the Supreme Creator in the name of God? I personally am convinced that the Almighty has permitted gays to exercise the free will he has given to them and He will judge them. But I think that it is not permissible by God to allow men to attempt to pass judgement on their fellow men; to attempt to restrict what He has permitted. I think such behavior is impermissible in the eyes of the Almighty. The Word of God exhorts us extensively not to Judge others! The right to Judge belongs to GOD and GOD alone and is reserved for him on that day. So as far as I am concerned, we have no right to discriminate or treat Gays unfairly. It is an abuse of Human rights to deny them any of the rights that their fellow Human beings enjoy. Therefore surely the constitution does not support the clerks behavior, and I do not think God supports it either as I have earlier argued. I do not think it is a Christian behavior for her to conduct her dealings with fellow human beings in the way she is currently going about it. Let her do her job without bias.

Side: Yes, because...

I don't think so. The woman should be allowed to deny couples. I don't think a church should be forced to allow gay marriage licenses. It should be optional for churches. Public establishments sure, but not churches.

Side: No, because...
Jace(5222) Clarified
2 points

She is working for the government which is a public establishment, therefore following your own reasoning she should either be forced to sign the licenses or to leave her position as a public employee.

Side: Yes, because...

Sorry I misread the debate description. I rushed reading the description. Forgive me for that. Yes, i she works in a public establishment she must give gay couples their marriage license.

Side: No, because...
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

How is the Kentucky county clerk not part of the public establishment? Since she is a public servant, what should happen?

Side: Yes, because...

Sorry I completely misread the debate description. Forgive me for the confusion.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Because there is no Federal law and there is no state law obliging her to issue gay marriage licenses. SCOTUS does not make laws.

Side: No, because...
1 point

The thing is, part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. Due to the recent Supreme Court decision, state laws forbidding same-sex marriage are null and void, effectively legalizing them across the country. This means that by denying same-sex couples a marriage license, she is standing on personal opinion, not legality, and failing to perform the duties of her job as a public employ. This is why multiple courts have ordered her to fulfill her duties as a state clerk (a member of the judicial branch), and why the Supreme Court refused her application of a stay.

Side: Yes, because...
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Due to the recent Supreme Court decision, state laws forbidding same-sex marriage are null and void

The Kentucky State law which explicitly prohibits gay marriage may have been rendered null and void by the Supreme Court.

However, Kentucky Marriage Law contains a definition of marriage:

"402.005 Definition of marriage.

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Effective: July 15, 1998

History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."

Link: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464

According to procedural regulations of Kentucky marriage law, a court clerk can only register a marriage application if the participants are eligible to enter into marriage. Which is clearly not the case when two men or two women are applying.

Basically, this is a semantics issue. The Supreme Court did not overrule State's definitions of marriage.

If Kentucky ever changes it's definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, them yes, the local clerks will be obliged to accept such marriage applications.

Otherwise, the clerks are just fulfilling their duties as described by standing regulation.

Side: No, because...
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Hey Regressive will mosques perform gay marriages ? Why is it you Regressives refuse to attack Mooslime ?

Side: No, because...
1 point

Will the radical gay agenda take their issues to a mosque and demand they perform gay marriages ?

Side: No, because...
1 point

No one is doing that. No one is even forcing churches to perform gay marriages. If you wish to make a point, be educated on the opponents argument.

Side: No, because...
2 points

Education and his argument don't go together.

Side: No, because...
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

No one is doing what there Regressive ? Clear that up if you can

Side: Yes, because...
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

They will, eventually. And, just like for churches they will be shot down.

Side: Yes, because...
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

They will do what Regressive ? Clear this up if that is possible

Side: No, because...
1 point

Please respond to the actual issue at hand, or move on to a different topic.

Side: Yes, because...
0 points

She should absolutely not be forced to sign those forms. She should be deported or put in jail. Those are the only 2 options for people who don't like American laws.

Side: No, because...
1 point

That would make our country a police state though.

Side: Yes, because...
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

If you don't like the freedom of the country you are yourself trying to create a police state. If you have power to create a police state you should be put in jail before it gets out of hand. Putting people in jail for violating the law is not creating a police state.

Side: No, because...
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Weird to hear that from you specifically.

1. You can't deport a USA citizen from USA.

2. Which law did she disobey? SCOUTUS is not Congress and does not make laws.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

It isn't that she is breaking a law necessarily, it is she is guilty of misconduct as a public employee. That is why there is a petition within Kentucky to have her fired.

Actually I was wrong, it is a misdemeanor: "KRS 522.020 and KRS 522.030 deal with official misconduct in the first and second degree, respectively. “A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office,” according to KRS 522.020."

Side: No, because...
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Weird to hear that from you specifically.

You were gone so long, someone had to lay down the crazy bullshit.

1. You can't deport a USA citizen from USA.

It's ok, she doesn't want to be a USA citizen.

2. Which law did she disobey? SCOUTUS is not Congress and does not make laws.

Contempt of court. She works for the courts. If she doesn't obey the courts she has broken the law which she swore to uphold.

Side: No, because...