CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
"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."
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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 <
I would thank you kindly not to take the Lords name in vain.
But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female ............ > But from the beginning of creation <
So what? Did Adam and Eve go to the town hall to ask a civil servant for a marriage licence to enjoy, amongst other things, tax breaks? No. It is nothing to do with marriage.
They have gone reprobate...most of these people have been given over to reprobate minds and will die in their perversion as rebels against God and end up in Hell. Casting pearls at swine is a waste, they will only trample the pearls and attack you.
since you're calling me swine and are throwing "pearls" at myself and others I'd like to tell you to stop throwing that pointless shiit at me. It's not slop, its not food, its a damned rock. Damn right im going to attack you.
Hey, if the truth fits, wear it. If you don't want to be saved from Hell, then don't be. If I cast pearls to you, you'll just trample them under foot and turn on me and try to tear me to pieces...that's exactly how you have responded to me always, you are indeed a swine. That's your choice. I'm not going to be reading your stuff any more....I'm pretty much done with all of the regular responders. I've given you the gospel, you trample the blood of Christ under your feet as you spit in God's face, and you try to attack me like stinking rabid pigs.
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.
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)!
I'm not sure why you disputed me. I agree with everything you said. I think maybe you misunderstood the intention of my post or meant to dispute dadman. In my post I was trying to point out to dadman that if he is going to try to force the teachings of his Bible on the rest of the world, then he can't just pick and choose the rules he likes, and that his attempt to make is sound like Biblical marriage is just between one man and one woman isn't always the case.
This country now belongs to homosexuals (not really, God is still on the throne and in control) and you will be bending over for them soon if you are not already doing it....coward.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
That is legally irrelevant, however. It most likely will not be removed simply because it's legal irrelevance makes it an unnecessary hassle that doesn't really need to be dealt with. State bans on same-sex marriage, both implicit and explicit, have already been ruled unconstitutional on the state and federal level.
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.
Legally speaking it most certainly is the case, which is why multiple courts have told her that she has to register their application.
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.
Again, the regulation isn't standing. The regulation has been nullified by Supreme Court precedent.
That is legally irrelevant, however. It most likely will not be removed simply because it's legal irrelevance makes it an unnecessary hassle that doesn't really need to be dealt with.
No, the reason it won't be removed is actually quite different from just "it being an unnecessary hassle". The sex rights agenda does not want to change the laws directly via their Congress lobby.
The main reason they don't want do do it in Congress, is that such a course of action would require legal definitions of relevant terms to be adopted on federal level. But any legal definition would give other, more radical sex rights groups, to raise a legit question: "why stop here?". And that would be like a bucket of cold water for those poor sensitive activists. Because, for one thing, their lackeys in the media would have no immediate politically correct answer, and the whole victim Olympics narrative tactic would be put at risk.
So instead, they prefer the murky and legally dubious method, whereas standing regulations are declared "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.
But, the legal problem with this method, is that Supreme Court decisions can only set precedence for other court, and cannot themselves change any standing regulations, even those which are directly being challenged in the court hearing (like the Ohio state rules in the relevant SCOTUS decision).
So, the actual status of the standing regulation remains intact, but it can be overruled by local courts in each particular case, using precedence.
Legally speaking it most certainly is the case, which is why multiple courts have told her that she has to register their application.
Legally speaking, these regulations were overruled by the Kentucky court in the particular case relevant to the complaint issued by the gay couples whom Kim Davis had refused to register. Though it was very stupid of her to refuse services to straight couples.
Again, the regulation isn't standing. The regulation has been nullified by Supreme Court precedent.
Once again, that's outside of Supreme Court credentials. The court decided that Ohio state laws were unconstitutional, and had to be overruled in the particular case of gay couples which had filed the initial complaint.
Technically, the best strategy for Kim would be to comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications of the particular gays which had filed the complaint, and then refuse do this for any other gays. Which would not be in contempt of court.
No, the reason it won't be removed is actually quite different from just "it being an unnecessary hassle". The sex rights agenda does not want to change the laws directly via their Congress lobby.
They have absolutely no reason to, as it is unnecessary.
The main reason they don't want do do it in Congress, is that such a course of action would require legal definitions of relevant terms to be adopted on federal level. But any legal definition would give other, more radical sex rights groups, to raise a legit question: "why stop here?".
Not really. The nature of the contract of marriage is such that the only way it really works is between two consenting adults. Any change along the slippery slope you are talking about would require a complete reworking of the contract itself.
And that would be like a bucket of cold water for those poor sensitive activists. Because, for one thing, their lackeys in the media would have no immediate politically correct answer, and the whole victim Olympics narrative tactic would be put at risk.
Being utterly callous does not do you a service.
So instead, they prefer the murky and legally dubious method, whereas standing regulations are declared "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.
No aspect of it was murky or legally dubious. In fact the rulings have all been very clear cut and straight forward. I challenge you to provide rulings from courts that cause you to think otherwise.
But, the legal problem with this method, is that Supreme Court decisions can only set precedence for other court, and cannot themselves change any standing regulations, even those which are directly being challenged in the court hearing (like the Ohio state rules in the relevant SCOTUS decision).
By setting the precedents, they are in fact changing such regulations. When the SCTOUS rules something unconstitutional, in effectively negates that from being enforced, as any challenge of such a regulation would be held up based on set precedent.
So, the actual status of the standing regulation remains intact, but it can be overruled by local courts in each particular case, using precedence.
Which makes it legally irrelevant. That means that it may still exist, but the second somebody challenges it the court will rule against it. Semantics serve no purpose here.
Legally speaking, these regulations were overruled by the Kentucky court in the particular case relevant to the complaint issued by the gay couples whom Kim Davis had refused to register. Though it was very stupid of her to refuse services to straight couples.
When you say "those regulations", are you referring to the ones pertaining to marriage, or are you pertaining to her being in cntempt of a court injunction?
Once again, that's outside of Supreme Court credentials.
I have already explained to you how it isn't. The court isn't explicitly doing it, but it is implicit in their role within our legal system. They are not outright nullifying it, but their ruling effectively nullifies it because of the reasons I have previously stated.
Technically, the best strategy for Kim would be to comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications of the particular gays which had filed the complaint, and then refuse do this for any other gays. Which would not be in contempt of court.
She is in contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses for far more than just one group. If she simply issued the licenses for said couples, then refused others, she would find herself in this exact same situation all over again with different groups.
The best strategy for her would be to find a different job.
Whether there is or isn't a course to defend here, is a matter of political views and not "explanation". You pointed out to some details, which prove that she was acting in a very stupid way. Her actions did not help the cause of resisting pro gay legislation. What she should have done if she was not stupid is:
1. Mention compliance to standing regulations as the main reason for her not servicing gay couples. But also state that it contradicts her religious views.
2. Comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications for those particular gays that had filed the complaint.
3. Refuse register marriage applications of other gays, without direct court orders.
4. Never refuse to register marriage applications for straight couples.
Whether there is or isn't a course to defend here, is a matter of political views and not "explanation".
Wrong.
You explained, or rather provided some details, which proved that she was being very stupid.
No, I provided details as to how she should be put in jail.
Her actions did not help the cause of resisting pro gay legislation.
You might be surprised actually. Time will tell.
1. Mention compliance to standing regulations as the main reason for her not servicing gay couples. But also state that it contradicts her religious views.
She doesn't give a fuck about actual regulations.
2. Comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications for those particular gays that had filed the complaint.
The court didn't make a decision for a few gays. It made them for all gays.
3. Refuse register marriage applications of other gays, without direct court orders.
She was given 2 direct court orders.
4. Never refuse to register marriage applications for straight couples.
That's the only smart thing she did. The Supreme Court ruled that gays should get marriage licenses just like straight people. If she refuses straight people she is following the Supreme Court, sort of.
You seem to have this terrible opinion of regressives, but you constantly call yourself one. If you consider yourself a regressive, why do you speak so poorly of them?
The gay community has tried to force churches to change for them, and eventually they will try to get mosques to do the same. The courts haven't allowed it against churches, and won't allow it against mosques. Why did you forget what you asked after an hour?
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.
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.
I know that, for multiple times. If the government is forcing someone do to something under penalty of the law than they are a police state. She needs to be fired instead.
I know but they CANNOT force her to sign any licenses.
That depends on what you mean by force.
If she fails to do so she needs to quit or be fired.
She should also have to give back her pay from this time period. I don't think it is right that she gets to mess with other people and not be punished at all.
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."
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.
So is this provision of Kentucky state law still in force:
"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."?
Or was the definition (semantics) also rendered null and void by the Supreme Court?