Saturday, September 5, 2015
Another double standard
In 2004, when Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he violated the law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He was hailed as a hero! In 2015, when Kim Davis "violated the law" by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she was thrown in jail and called a bigot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
She's in jail for contempt of court. I will also note that when the court told Newsom to cut it out, he complied.
On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the City and County of San Francisco had exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couple. But who was charged with violating the law? Who went to jail for it? No one.
Again, she is in jail for contempt of court. SF was ordered to stop issuing those licenses and they complied. There is your difference. She is not in jail for not issuing licenses. She is in jail for not obeying a court order.
The mayor also felt he had a legal leg to stand on only to find out the California court felt different. This woman has no legal leg at all to stand on. As a government official she has no right to use her position to stop what is now deemed a legal right. Disagree with the ruling if you want, but be prepared to pay the consequences. Personal responsibility, big brother. She made her decision and now she has to live with it, unfortunately in a jail cell. Live by your God, live by your Bible, but don't use that in your government job to discriminate.
The court in California ruled that the state law had been violated, yet no one was charged with violating it. Selective enforcement. Also, just because a judge orders a person to do something doesn't mean the person should do it. A judge doesn't have absolute authority over the citizens. In this case, she chose Jesus over the judge and the consequence is jail. The judge will have to answer to God for that. But I haven't heard that Kim Davis is complaining. You and I have had this discussion many times. There is the law of man and the law of God. The Founders believed that the law of man ought to always reflect the law of God. In this case it doesn't. There is a sharp contradiction. Those who place the law of God above the law of man now must choose, just as Daniel did in Babylon. I'm not surprised it has come to this in America. We are on a trajectory that is destined to descend into a totalitarian state. It's only a matter of time.
Excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address (1796): Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
I am so glad you know what was in the minds of all our founders as some of them were busily chasing skirts. But aside from that, SF was sued in civil court and once the court told SF to stop, they stopped. One seldom goes to jail in civil suits unless you are in contempt with the final ruling. Spin it all you want David, this woman is in the wrong. Personally, I wished he had just fined her. Hit her where it hurts.
Unexpected comments as reported by the Hollywood Reporter: Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, is speaking out in defense of the county clerk in Kentucky who was recently jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Ciccone, who is openly gay, posted a message to Facebook on Friday in which he said that Kim Davis should be granted the right deny the licenses, with Ciccone citing her "religious freedom."
"The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man's approval," he wrote.
Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."
"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."
Oh, well if Madonna's brother thinks it's wrong, then it must be wrong. NOT!!! We all have opinions on the matter. The only opinion in the end that matters is that of the judge who jailed her. He gave her an out and she refused it by not even allowing her staff to issue the licenses. Therefore, she has to live with the consequences. Muslims are required to follow our laws just like the rest of us. They don't get away with covering their faces for a drivers license. They don't get away with discrimination. They don't get off for family killings. They go to jail and get fined just like the rest of us.
Alternative to jail.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html
This guy misrepresents the NC law. Gee, imagine that. The NC law says "Each register of deeds would be required to ensure that all qualified applicants for marriage licenses are issued a license, and each chief district court judge would be required to ensure that marriages performed by a magistrate are available to be performed during at least ten hours per week over at least three business days." I guess the fact that it took a veto override by the legislature is not at all pertinent. The conservative NC governor thinks no slack should be cut for these people to do their sworn job.
So in NC, if there is an objection that person must assure there is another person in that office who will issue those licenses. Furthermore, the person with the objection then cannot issue any licenses for 6 months thereafter.
http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/Dashboard/Chamber/Services/BillSummary.aspx?sSessionCode=2015&sBarcode=S2-SMST-102(sl)
This is exactly what the judge offered Ms. Davis. Allow her deputies to issue the licenses. She rejected the offer. She wants jail. Maybe she wants to be a martyr. So go for it and see what it gets her. By the way...in another opinion piece by this guy he thinks the woman is out of line with her claim.
Shame on the NY Times for once again not fact checking a guest opinion piece.
and do keep in mind, that her signature is not sanctioning a marriage. All she does is issue the license after the applicants have proven id, residency, age, and any other info Kentucky law might require.
Post a Comment