Assuming homosexual families raising children is decided to be the best course for society. And this is something that needs to be decided by legislators with support of scientists and studies, not judges.




You'll probably need to look at other countries where it's been legal for longer.




"More" does not mean "a significant number". Adoption is difficult and expensive. Very few sterile heterosexual couples adopt because of that. If only 5% of homosexual couples adopt, it isn't clear that they are providing the same benefit to society. Therefore, the benefits should not necessarily be the same either.



That's empty rhetoric and you know it.

Not quite true; marriage law allowed religious-recognized unions to have inheritance priority over others, which is wht it was needed.  Because religious and civil marriage were identical back then, the distinction wasn't really needed.


There's actually no evidence for that position.  I haven't seen a single study indicating that kids of homosexual parents/partners are any less well off then those from hetero unions, and a fair amount of evidence that they're much better off than a single-parent family.

Work in this area has already been done and from what I've seen gay parents do just as well as non-gay.  More work needed, but no massive red flags yet that should set off alarm bells as far as I am aware.



A lot of ifs there to try ad create a narrative that maybe, if, perhaps, gay parents are not capable of establishing cohesive families that will produce future tax-payers





Your words, not mine. You said "Except that the marriage tax benefits were established for a very specific public good; establishing cohesive families to produce future tax-payers."  I am challenging whether that does not apply to gay couples as well.  I don't see it being different whether a couple is gay or straight.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:05, Tue 30 June 2015.

So, what do people think about the whole Kim Davis thing?  I'm pretty firmly in the "if doing your job conflicts with your religious views, you should probably look for a different job" camp.  Anyone here feel she's the victim/hero/martyr/whatever?

I agree.

However, the narrative that comes across my wife's facebook feed from her fundy friends is that she doesn't have to follow the law because it's not really a law and even if it was then she wouldn't have to obey it since it goes against God's own wishes.

Same old story.

Looking forward to the day (likely by the time my kids are adults) that % of people who think that way are so low as to be mostly a non-issue.

The part that causes me to pause is the fact that she is elected. She isn't a government clerk who submitted her resume and did an interview. The people in her county specifically chose her to run that office. As such, I don't know if she should resign, or if she should instead work to support her constituents beliefs on the matter however she feels is most appropriate (and that if she has a moral complication with this particular task, she might appoint a different individual to fill that role). At the same time, she's either personally violating a court order, in which case jail is correct, or she's doing so in an official capacity, which would be... what, rebellion?

She doesn't have a leg to stand on.

First, the Bible makes it clear that God raises powers and principalities, so they're part of the divine plan.  On top of which, Jesus was clear that his followers could "Render unto Ceasar" and still be righteous, so that's not an exemption either.

The Bible also makes it clear that oaths are sacred, and that if you make an oath (regardless of what it is) you are expected to keep it.  By a coincidence, the oath Davis took upon taking office was to "uphold the Constitution".  Since the Supreme Court has very clearly said that homosexual marriage is a part of that Constitution, she's breaking her oath-- to not just the government, but to the people, and to God.

You're not even speaking the same language as the people who are defending her though.

Internet troll Matt Walsh said this:

Assuming people are trolls is a way of shutting down dialog. It's better to assume people are honest until proven otherwise.

Forgot to add: this *is* exactly like the Civil Rights movement.

Back then, when Equal Rights were clarified to be the law, there were plenty of elected officials who got in on a platform of racism.  For the most part, they decided they had to follow the law, and move on.  There were a couple of hold outs, but getting arrested eventually took the wind out of their sails.  Plus, some of the ones who moved with the times became very successful: Strom Thurmond fought against equal rights for a long time, but eventally came along, and started getting more support for it.

But even so... Strom Thurmond fought within the system, he might have argued bitterly against the law, but he obeyed it.  So, we have a very strong historical precedent that even if the law goes against the politics you were voted in with, effective leaders still follow the law.

If you're familiar with Matt Walsh and his "work" then you would know that I am not assuming anything.

A friend posted this recently, which I thought was interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/...be-militant-atheists

Specifically, this: "Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature—just as it’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not citizens are obligated to follow the law."

I think this is a broader question; is Ms. Davis justified in saying she does not care to participate in an activity she finds immoral? Is this changed because it's founded on religious beliefs, rather than personal morality? Is it changed because she's elected vs. employed vs. a business owner (since we've seen all three examples)?

If she were the state comptroller and decided redlining was unethical, and she would stop signing off on banks that planned to do that, would we feel the same way? I imagine in that case we'd support her "standing up against the banks". But that's just because her views happen to align with ours, doesn't it?

In reply to katisara (msg # 307):

Yeah, I'd largely agree with what that article says (though the title is a bit over the top, presumably on purpose).

To answer your questions:

1.  Yes, Ms. Davis is absolutely entitled to not participate in activities she finds immoral.  However, if that prevents her from doing her job, she needs to resign.  I saw an article today that summed it up like something like this "you're free to be a conscientious objector, but if you exercise that right, you can't turn around and demand a career in the military".

2.  I think it currently *is* treated differently because its a religious belief, but I think it *shouldn't* be treated differently from any belief based on personal morality.

3.  I don't think the issue is so much whether she's a boss, official, or employee, so much as whether what she's doing infringes upon other people's rights or not.  She's free to practice her religion, but she's not free to force other people to live as though they practice it too.  Others who don't agree with her religious views have just as much right to follow their beliefs as she does, but she's using her position to prevent them from doing so.

4.  Definitely people's reactions will be heavily influenced by whether they agree with the view being pushed.  The point has been raised by many people that if Kim Davis were a muslim denying marriage certificates to women without head coverings, she wouldn't be getting all the support she's getting now.  And many people who we now view as heroes violated the law by participating in civil disobedience in the past.

Let's try an easier example.

Say you're a vegan, or just converted to being a vegan.  You have a deep seated belief that all animal products are immoral.  Now, that belief is fine, and how you practice that in your own life is up to you.

But.. let's say you want to get a job at a butcher, or work at one when you convert.  Vegans cannot handle meat products like that.  So, they have a very moral reason why they shouldn't do their job anymore.  Now: does the employer have a duty to accomodate them?

The answer is, of course not.  You have every right to your beliefs, but you can't ask to ignore major job duties as part of your beliefs.  Your employer doesn't have to make an exception for you.

Let's get even sillier.  Let's say you're a staunch anti-birth control, anti-abortionist activist.  Again, that belief is fine; but then you apply for a job as a birth control counselor.  This really happened, and the lady was rightfully denied the job-- but she followed up with a long complaint about religious discrimination.

Basically: if your moral beliefs mean you're not suited to do a given job, you should not try and work that job.  Quit, and find something else.  And let's face it, with all this media attention, Kim Davis would have a long list of people willing to hire her for nearly anything.  She can find a new job easily enough, she's just using her current position for political attention and grandstanding.

Wouldn't it be slightly different in this case.

More like you were someone who applied (or ran to be elected) to work at a women's health facility in a country where abortions were illegal. You got hired/elected.

Then the law changed to make abortions legal, and you were required to sign off on that abortion should anyone come into your facility to perform one.

Again, I think that individual should step out of their position at this point, but it's somewhat different than asking to be hired on when abortions were already a part of that equation.

Again though, the fact that she's elected is very important. She didn't 'apply for a job'. She was elected to represent her constituents. If her constituents feel she is not representing them, it is up to them to remove her. If she is accurately representing them, why should she resign?

Because what she is doing is no longer allowed under the law.

That's reason for her to be arrested, yes. But 'following the law' isn't the end-all and be-all of what is moral behavior.

Your question didn't appear to be about morals, but rather about why she should resign from her elected position.

I'm not sure I really consider a county clerk to be someone "elected to represent" constituents.  She's not in a governing or legislating job, but a carry-out-some-duties job.


A few points here:
1.  She's never really made this argument, and its been pretty clear that she views this as a personal rights issue, not a "I'm just doing what my constituents want" issue.  I think she's made it pretty clear that she'd still refuse to marry gay couples, even if most people in the county want her too, which sort of undermines this whole line of argument.
2.  Remember that the people she's refusing to serve are also "her constituents," just as much as anyone else in the county.

Because even elected officials have to follow the law.

Look, back in the Civil Right's movement, when school desegregation became the law, there were a number of elected officals who held out-- they refused to follow the law, even going to far as to physically block black students from entering schools.  I think one guy ended up being confronted by a squad of soldiers, led by a General, and backed with a request from the President to let the black students in.

As I recall, that guy ran on a policy of segregation, and was elected on that policy.  So, he was definitely following the will of his electorate.  However... our country's laws were, in large part, built to protect a minority from the will of a majority.  That's why equal rights is so important, and why "majority rules" is not an excuse for breaking the law.

Another issue with the line of reasoning is that it seems to lead directly to "elected officials don't need to follow any laws they don't like."  Should everyone from the president to small-town county clerks consider themselves an elected dictator, who needn't follow any laws as long as they win elections?

One of the things I find frustrating about the Kim Davis situation is that the people who seem to be praising her seem to be the same folks who complain about Obama's executive order, and freak out about Sharia law.  They're all for ignoring the law of the land as long as it's them that's ignoring it, and they're all for the government imposing religious laws, as long as it's their religion.

My read of what happened included an article where it listed the items that the conservitave judge offered to allow so that she would be able to be considered NOT In Contempt, a big one was if she just stepped back and allowed the five of six subordinates who told the Judge they would, to carry out the marriages.  She might as the elected boss she may already have her name on the marriage certificates I Don't Know.  So that might have been her issue when she refused to allow her subordinates to carry out the marrages.
   My understanding is that currently and for sometime before this marriage issue, precedent is that the court supports religous taboos of individuals as long as a work around is not overly inconvenant to the employer, or office [as in the county clerks office] if it is either the religous person must find a new job or rethink their leanings.
There was apperently a court case Where a muslim flight attendent requested to not be required to serve alcohol due to her beliefs, it turns out her request was to be allowed to Go Back to not serving alchol.  As she had been doing before with her catching up other items while another served the drinks.  It was never a question of drinks not getting served,

     The big problem is one as she is elected she very truely does represent her governance subdivision. But; when the Civil War ended and the 14th & 15th ammendments were passed, my understandind of supreme court thoughts on the matter, may have included such thoughts as "idiots", "nit-wits", "what do they think we can Do With THIS", if it had been a law it could have been ruled "Unconstitutionaly Vague".  What they decided to do was use the only Establested yard stick for good governance the Bill of Rights & All it's Precedents as Hold.

     The question of a governmental santion of marriage has no religious dimension, even religious oaths under Gods name didn't take place until two-hundred years afther the birth of Christ.  Under the 14th ammendment unlike before the civil war items of only State intrest are now subject to not only the Bill of Right be the precedent created for those ammendments.  BUT; only as soon as the courts rule on them, as courts usual pace is glacial we are still getting new rulings based on the "new" precedents.

This does not mean Church is helpless, that Legal Courts, Have called on Religious Tribunals to rule on questions of Membership, and Church Property, so that the legal court could take the tribunals ruling to complete their own.  In the Union a Sharia Court like a tribunal may only rule on those two items; no head or hand chopping, no stoning, Only is this person a member? or not? on probation?  If a mosque splits, either due to "steeplejacking", or over question of dogma, or personality conflict who does the property go with.

   If you church does not see their dogma as allowing married gays, and or their children, that is covered under religious freedom.  This will not stop them from joining those churches who are that inclusive, and marrying their.  And if some current Religious Hardliners get their way, it won't stop want-to-be polygamists from joining a supportive religion and marrying.

    If She doesn't want her name on Gay marriage licences I see that as a valid issue.  But if the law currently allows only Her name on the licence, was his offer to allow others to act, ignoring that, setting precedent that in such a case excusive name requiremnt was a violation of her religious rights and her subordinates could lawfully act in her place in case of religous taboo?  Though I could see a Seal of office acting in place of a name, under the precedent "give to Ceasor what is Ceasar's" as this Gay marriage is Ceasar's act.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:46, Tue 15 Sept 2015.

I didn't say she shouldn't have to follow the law or that she shouldn't go to jail--just that she shouldn't resign.

If you won't do your job, you should resign.