Holding out for a hero

[Leonard James]

She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws. So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.

She is a silly cow who knows that everybody must obey the law of the land or accept the consequences. The key to getting our of jail is in her own hand ... but it means resigning and losing money, and that is too hard for her.

[Outrider]

She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws. So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.

Laws change, that's hardly an unforeseeable circumstance - her job is to apply the law, not to decide if the law is 'right'. If she finds her personal subjective view of how the secular law interacts with her personal superstition causes her discomfort she is welcome to resign her position.

Her job is not to 'approve' of the marriages she licenses, only to decide if the applicants are legally in a position to do so.

O.

[OH MY WORLD!]

I don't like that she has to leave her elected position because Obama changes a law. Hold a recall vote, let the people decide.

[Udayana]

If it is a clerical position, why have an electoral process for it?

[jeremyp]

She was elected county clerk BEFORE Obama changed the laws.

Obama didn't change the law.  The state laws that banned same sex marriage were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

So it is a case of her being forced to compromise her faith because that is what Obama demands and Obama will let her rot in jail until she is crushed under his boot.

Nobody is forcing her to compromise her faith.  She has an option that does not involve compromising her faith, it's called resignation.

[Anchorman]

Obama made a law?
Obama passed a law?
Was this by executive order?
I think not.
I'm no expert on US legislature, but doesn't a law have to be approved by Congress before it is legal?
Or the Supreme Court challenges the legality?
As far as I'm aware, no such challenge has been made.
Therefore to 'blame' one man - even POTUS,  in this case, is simply wrong, whether one agrees or disagrees with the law itself.

[Shaker]

Mr Davis is using his wife's Twitter account while she is otherwise engaged*.

He wants to know why his wife is in jail when "Muslims gays nad [sic] baby killers walk the streets."

https://goo.gl/5aDlr4

Surely a couple who were made for each other.

* She's very keen on being engaged - while happy to deny marriage to others because of reasons, she's currently on her fourth marriage.

[Outrider]

I don't like that she has to leave her elected position because Obama changes a law. Hold a recall vote, let the people decide.

Her elected position is to apply the law, whatever that law might be. It's not a surprise that laws change, if she doesn't like the direction the job moves in she has the opportunity to leave.

The fact that a large number of bigots in her locale might, indeed, re-elect her to the position doesn't change the fact that she doesn't get to determine what the law is, that's not what she's been elected for.

I get that it hurts you that Obama's bringing the US into the modern era despite the best efforts of the fundamentalist idiots of the country, but that doesn't make you or her right.

O.

[Hope]

I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?

But that's the point, Vlad - she was elected to this position.  Even here in the UK, someone who has been elected to a position can't be sacked.

[Nearly Sane]

I would have thought if somebody doesn't do the job they should get the sack. What's all this bollocks about going to jail?

But that's the point, Vlad - she was elected to this position.  Even here in the UK, someone who has been elected to a position can't be sacked.

Untrue

[Hope]

Untrue

I think that you'll find that I am correct, NS.  If someone is elected to a post, the only ways they can be removed is by the electoate voting against them at the next opportunity or by judicial process (which is different to sacking).

[Shaker]

Apparently Mike Huckabee will be visiting her on Tuesday - what a treat for anyone.

While I'd love him to ask her what she thinks Jesus said about equal marriage (nothing) as opposed to divorce (a significantly longer conversation), I'm not holding my breath.

[Nearly Sane]

Untrue

I think that you'll find that I am correct, NS.  If someone is elected to a post, the only ways they can be removed is by the electoate voting against them at the next opportunity or by judicial process (which is different to sacking).

Except it isn't since 'sacking' as a term simply means being removed from employment, or position.

[Hope]

However having said that the women is inconsistent, as someone pointed out she seems to have no problem issuing marriage certificates to adulterers and divorced people.

She is selective in what offends her religion and it's all subjective.

Interestingly, Rose, there is nothing in Christianity that teaches that divorce is wrong.  I realise that the Churches have long treated it as wrong and taught that divorcees shouldn't remarry, but that appears nowhere in scripture.  Scripturally, the point of divorce was to protect a woman from simply being discarded by a man without recourse to social protection. 

[Shaker]

Interestingly, Rose, there is nothing in Christianity that teaches that divorce is wrong.  I realise that the Churches have long treated it as wrong and taught that divorcees shouldn't remarry, but that appears nowhere in scripture. 

Where does equal marriage appear in scripture?

[Hope]

Interestingly, Rose, there is nothing in Christianity that teaches that divorce is wrong.  I realise that the Churches have long treated it as wrong and taught that divorcees shouldn't remarry, but that appears nowhere in scripture. 

Where does equal marriage appear in scripture?

Before I answer that, what do you mean by 'equal marriage'?

[Shaker]

Before I answer that, what do you mean by 'equal marriage'?

Don't you know? It's a familiar enough term - you must have heard it before.

[jeremyp]

Untrue

I think that you'll find that I am correct, NS.  If someone is elected to a post, the only ways they can be removed is by the electoate voting against them at the next opportunity or by judicial process (which is different to sacking).

I don't know about here, but Ms Davis could be impeached, which could then lead to her removal from office.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Kim Davis will be back at work on Monday. Just so you all know, Davis is a DEMOCRAT and the judge that sent her to jail is a REPUBLICAN.

Yes, I consider the power and position of the presidency as having a lot of influence as to where things stand with the gay marriage thingy. No, of course Obama didn't sit down and write a gar marriage law. I shouldn't have stated it that way, of course I always shouldn't take for granted that people in the UK will get how things work behind the scenes in Washington.

Obama flip flopped on the gay marriage thingy and the Vice president kinda forced his hand. So on his second inaugural speech, Obama made clear that he now supports same sex marriage. Later he tossed in his support for the case in California, challenging that state's ban on same sex marriage. Believe it or not the pres and vice pres positions hold a lot of sway. Some judges sit there and think, now who appointed me here? Just like our senate and your Lords kinda.

[Shaker]

Kim Davis will be back at work on Monday.

I wonder how long she'll stay there. Not very long, if she tries to interfere with her deputies as they issue marriage licenses.

Just so you all know, Davis is a DEMOCRAT and the judge that sent her to jail is a REPUBLICAN.

How is this relevant? The judge has already demonstrated that he can do his job properly whatever his political affiliation may be, so I really don't see the relevance.

[jeremyp]

Yes, I consider the power and position of the presidency as having a lot of influence as to where things stand with the gay marriage thingy. No, of course Obama didn't sit down and write a gar marriage law. I shouldn't have stated it that way, of course I always shouldn't take for granted that people in the UK will get how things work behind the scenes in Washington.

Obama flip flopped on the gay marriage thingy and the Vice president kinda forced his hand. So on his second inaugural speech, Obama made clear that he now supports same sex marriage. Later he tossed in his support for the case in California, challenging that state's ban on same sex marriage. Believe it or not the pres and vice pres positions hold a lot of sway. Some judges sit there and think, now who appointed me here? Just like our senate and your Lords kinda.

You think the decision of the supreme court was a result of undue pressure by Obama?  This is a supreme court, the majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents and the majority of whom are Roman Catholic.

I think you are clutching at straws.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Only a fool would believe that the party doesn't have influence. Five liberal Judges and four conservative. Outcomes are usually forgone conclusions Jeremy. I would estimate 75% of the time one can guess how they are going to vote on an issue by the number of liberal vrs conservative judges, the pres position and party position. Why do you think Bernie and Donald are riding so high in each party? Because the people of the USA know how rotten all of Washington is and they have had enough.

[OH MY WORLD!]

For those that dismiss political influence in the Supreme Court in Washington, may I suggest you watch the next confirmation hearings for the next candidate for the S court put forward by the Pres. I've been watching S Court confirmation hearings and observing all the political crap from each party for many years. That politics doesn't have influence in that court is very naïve.

[jeremyp]

Or maybe they just interpreted the US  Constitution correctly.

[OH MY WORLD!]

They certainly did interpret it correctly when they gave G W Bush the presidency. I'm sure you will agree.