Depends on the definition of defies.

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Submission to Civil Authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.


Romans 13:1-7New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Some would say that yes she is stomping her feet and pouting. Refusing to issue any marriage licenses because of you're religious beliefs seems pretty self-centered to me. Nobody is forcing her to go against her beliefs, that would be against her 1st amendment rights. But the alternative she has is to step down. Whether you support her or not, that's the law.

And yes I did understand her objections she actually lobbied the KY lawmakers to change the laws well before the first gay couple came into her office but they apparently weren't swayed into action by her pleas and they're the only ones with the power to make that change. The Federal judge can only use what means he has to compel her to comply with the law or step aside.

Bottom line she's involved in political activism as much as the gay couples who deliberately went to her for a license knowing she would refuse. If you call one a whiner you got to call the other the same. And frankly I do. Too much political theatre in this country IMO.

(09-04-2015 10:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Some would say that yes she is stomping her feet and pouting. Refusing to issue any marriage licenses because of you're religious beliefs seems pretty self-centered to me. Nobody is forcing her to go against her beliefs, that would be against her 1st amendment rights. But the alternative she has is to step down. Whether you support her or not, that's the law.

Incorrect on multiple counts.

1. it is NOT THE LAW. Laws are passed by congress, and signed by the president.

2. A law can not be passed that violates someones CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Whenever #2 is in question, as it is here, the person has a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A judge just cant come in and violate her due process rights.

The person in question is accountable to the people in an elected office. The remedy here is that the people can vote her out, or she can be impeached.

And just as a final point, if you believe this woman should be in jail, THEN YOU ALSO BELIEVE OBAMA SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

(09-04-2015 10:20 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Submission to Civil Authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

So civil disobedience by a Christian is never allowed?

Ask Tebow about being treated as a Christian !

(09-04-2015 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Some would say that yes she is stomping her feet and pouting. Refusing to issue any marriage licenses because of you're religious beliefs seems pretty self-centered to me. Nobody is forcing her to go against her beliefs, that would be against her 1st amendment rights. But the alternative she has is to step down. Whether you support her or not, that's the law.

Incorrect on multiple counts.

1. it is NOT THE LAW. Laws are passed by congress, and signed by the president.

2. A law can not be passed that violates someones CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Whenever #2 is in question, as it is here, the person has a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A judge just cant come in and violate her due process rights.

The person in question is accountable to the people in an elected office. The remedy here is that the people can vote her out, or she can be impeached.

And just as a final point, if you believe this woman should be in jail, THEN YOU ALSO BELIEVE OBAMA SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

She had due process & still refused, hence the contempt of court charge that got her in jail.

(09-04-2015 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the LGBT people are extremely intolerant... Why the hell are gays coming from miles away to get married in a little rural 96% white county with a population of 23K?

They must be coming in from Ohio, not to raise their girly voices and point their limp wrists at Kim Davis, but to visit the Carrington Rock or the Folk Art Center while they're in town to get hitched...

How freaking ironic. On top of that, they make sure there are blood thirsty media gays surrounding them while they do all this.

Dude, that's why people say gays have a chemical imbalance or mental illness, because a normal couple would have gone one town over if getting out to a wide open country county was that important. Quite typical of the attitude you get when you tell a gay no.

The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Some would say that yes she is stomping her feet and pouting. Refusing to issue any marriage licenses because of you're religious beliefs seems pretty self-centered to me. Nobody is forcing her to go against her beliefs, that would be against her 1st amendment rights. But the alternative she has is to step down. Whether you support her or not, that's the law.

Incorrect on multiple counts.

1. it is NOT THE LAW. Laws are passed by congress, and signed by the president.

I'm confused, what are you saying is not a law? Gay marriage in KY? Requiring her to issue licenses?


2. A law can not be passed that violates someones CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Her right to religious liberty doesn't extend to denying the people of the county their right to marry


Whenever #2 is in question, as it is here, the person has a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A judge just cant come in and violate her due process rights.

She's exhausted her appeals.


The person in question is accountable to the people in an elected office. The remedy here is that the people can vote her out, or she can be impeached.

That's the remedy to get her out of office but she was sued for her refusals, she lost, now she can spend the rest of her term in jail if she likes.


And just as a final point, if you believe this woman should be in jail, THEN YOU ALSO BELIEVE OBAMA SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

Obama hasn't been held in contempt of court which is what she's been jailed for and unfortunately for her executive privilege doesn't extend to county clerks.

(09-04-2015 10:40 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

Ask Tebow about being treated as a Christian !

Has he admitted to getting laid yet?

(09-03-2015 06:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Except she's not being arrested for being a christian, do you really not grasp this painfully simple concept?

Then why is she being arrested?

For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

And why is she refusing a court order?

Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

(09-04-2015 10:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  The original couple were residence of the county. I don't know about others. I think there were 4 couples in the lawsuit, 2 gay & 2 straight.

Regardless I don't think anybody is saying they're sole purpose is to get married (not that I doubt they do) because like you said they could go to a different county. They're obviously fighting for what they think is right & just, you and many more obviously don't see it that way but they do. I mean what kind of person goes to jail instead of stamping a piece of paper? Is the clerk chemically unbalanced?

The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Some would say that yes she is stomping her feet and pouting. Refusing to issue any marriage licenses because of you're religious beliefs seems pretty self-centered to me. Nobody is forcing her to go against her beliefs, that would be against her 1st amendment rights. But the alternative she has is to step down. Whether you support her or not, that's the law.

Incorrect on multiple counts.

1. it is NOT THE LAW. Laws are passed by congress, and signed by the president.

2. A law can not be passed that violates someones CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Whenever #2 is in question, as it is here, the person has a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A judge just cant come in and violate her due process rights.

The person in question is accountable to the people in an elected office. The remedy here is that the people can vote her out, or she can be impeached.

And just as a final point, if you believe this woman should be in jail, THEN YOU ALSO BELIEVE OBAMA SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

She had due process & still refused, hence the contempt of court charge that got her in jail.

The judge has to rule that her constitutional rights arent violated. He didnt do that.

So you agree Obama should be in jail?

(09-04-2015 11:29 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:26 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:11 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  The clerk isn't stomping her feet and pouting because someone told her no. She hasn't issued ANY licenses, and said she wouldn't until her name was removed from them. Heard about that yet?

Some would say that yes she is stomping her feet and pouting. Refusing to issue any marriage licenses because of you're religious beliefs seems pretty self-centered to me. Nobody is forcing her to go against her beliefs, that would be against her 1st amendment rights. But the alternative she has is to step down. Whether you support her or not, that's the law.

Incorrect on multiple counts.

1. it is NOT THE LAW. Laws are passed by congress, and signed by the president.

2. A law can not be passed that violates someones CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Whenever #2 is in question, as it is here, the person has a RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A judge just cant come in and violate her due process rights.

The person in question is accountable to the people in an elected office. The remedy here is that the people can vote her out, or she can be impeached.

And just as a final point, if you believe this woman should be in jail, THEN YOU ALSO BELIEVE OBAMA SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

She had due process & still refused, hence the contempt of court charge that got her in jail.

The judge has to rule that her constitutional rights arent violated. He didnt do that.

So you agree Obama should be in jail?

There are schitload of officials that need jailing along side this creature.

(09-04-2015 10:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:20 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Submission to Civil Authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

So civil disobedience by a Christian is never allowed?

Oh so now we get to cherry pick which scriptures we follow? Typical. Convenient.

(09-04-2015 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:20 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 05:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Why is this even a debate? The bible doesn't support her action. The law doesn't support her action. Liberals shouldn't. Conservatives shouldn't.


She sucks in every which way.

Explain...

Submission to Civil Authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

So civil disobedience by a Christian is never allowed?

Oh so now we get to cherry pick which scriptures we follow? Typical. Convenient.

Esther.

(09-04-2015 11:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then why is she being arrested?

For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

And why is she refusing a court order?

Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

She's not on a religious high horse. She just doesn't want her name on their certificate because she thinks its wrong.

(09-04-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

And why is she refusing a court order?

Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

She's not on a religious high horse. She just doesn't want her name on their certificate because she thinks its wrong.

Per The Washington Post

Quote:After one couple was rebuffed, Davis emerged from a back office to explain that she would not be issuing any licenses.

“Under whose authority?” someone demanded.

“Under God’s authority,” Davis said.

You people really need to stop defending this woman, because the mental gymnastics it is forcing you to do are absurd.

(09-04-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

And why is she refusing a court order?

Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

She's not on a religious high horse. She just doesn't want her name on their certificate because she thinks its wrong.

This argument is completely off the rails. I'm a Christian. There is no way in the world that God would hold an ounce of disdain for me if I opposed gay marriage but still had my name on a piece of paper that allowed a gay couple to be considered married by a government.

I'm not endorsing sinful behavior...I'm not condoning it...and I'm not participating in it.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

(09-04-2015 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  And why is she refusing a court order?

Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

She's not on a religious high horse. She just doesn't want her name on their certificate because she thinks its wrong.

This argument is completely off the rails. I'm a Christian. There is no way in the world that God would hold an ounce of disdain for me if I opposed gay marriage but still had my name on a piece of paper that allowed a gay couple to be considered married by a government.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

More importantly, he would certainly not look kindly on her breaking her oath she took.

Either she does the job, as the oath states or she resigns, those are the only options she has to prevent her from breaking a commandment. She wasn't interested in that though and willingly broke that commandment, because she isn't really concerned with her religious beliefs, she simply wants attention.

(09-03-2015 04:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yes, how dare those people being denied their rights at all stand up for themselves. Dramaqueens, right? I'm sure if you were denied the right to get married that you would just go elsewhere, right?

Absolutely. If you don't want to service me, I'll go elsewhere no matter what it's in regards to. It wouldn't be the first time and I highly doubt it'd be the last. You act like you've never been turned down or told no and I know that's a lie.

This is a government office, not a Dairy Queen. Regardless of your feelings about the infamous bakery issue, this is totally different.

So is going 10 miles the other direction to get a marriage license. Face it, most gays are intolerant and live their lives trying to find people like this that don't support them. I know it and you know it. They'd rather raise a stink (no pun intended) and be hateful than go get what they're supposedly looking for.

(09-03-2015 04:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 04:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Is it not a requirement for her name to be on marriage licenses? And does that not go against her oath she took when she took this job>

She wanted it off due to her beliefs. I don't find that anymore shocking than wanting to totally redefine a traditional term that's been interpreted only one way for thousands of years. Can her job not be redefined too, or is her wheel just not squeaky enough for grease?

Two completely different issues, and conflating them together is in no way a defense of her actions. She agreed to follow the law in an oath she swore under god, she refuses to do that. She had every right to resign and make her point, instead she chose to go to jail. Her decision isn't admirable, it's objectively idiotic and hypocritical.

She promised, so help her god, to follow the laws and judicial rulings as part of her job. If she were truly worried about sin, she would look inward and resign.

Do you believe in God?

Furthermore, when she took those oaths, special privilege marriage was nonexistent in her area.