Fairly straightforward, Kim Davis was supposed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex marriage couples, as is “the law”, but refused to, due to her personal beliefs being in opposition … now she’s in jail, and refuses to comply …
(Thanks to Fr. Marcus Halley for photo, and an interesting read )
Some are pro Kim’s decision to stand up for what she believes in, slogans like “Kim Davis for president”. Others are very anti in that – she, an elected government official, feels she’s “above the law” and refuses to “do her job”. And obviously the bigotry angle – why shouldn’t same-sex couples enjoy the same rights as everyone else ?
Personally, I’m in the anti Kim camp – on the basis that the rest of us have to obey the law, regardless of whether we “agree” with it or not. That’s life.
Kim Davis – Bigot Or Hero ?
Cheers
Resources & Sources
Photos courtesy of Pixabay CC0/Public Domain and Fr. Marcus Halley
Unless otherwise stated everything here is (c) DonCharisma.org, all rights are reserved.
Notes for commenters:
Comments are invited. BUT you are reminded that this is a public blog and you are also reminded to think before you press the “post comment” button.
Good manners are a mark of a charismatic person – so please keep comments civil, non-argumentative, constructive and related, or they will be moderated. If you feel you can’t comply, press the “unfollow” button and/or refrain from commenting.
I read ALL comments but can’t always reply. I will comment if I think there’s something that I can add to what you’ve said. I do delete without notice comments that don’t follow rules above. For persistent offenders I will ignore you permanently and/or report you.
Most decent people already know how to behave respectfully. Thank you for your co-operation on the above.
THANKYOU
The Don Charisma Team
Don Charisma 
I have to agree with you: I consider Kim to have violated the law. Religion is not above the law so if you can’t uphold the law, quit your job and go sit at home. I am a Christian and I believe that all human beings have the right to be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. We must learn to see the human being in people and not judge them by their actions. God loves everyone.
Nicely said … religion and law have tended to get intermingled, which only adds to the confusion here … at the end of the day LGBTQ people EXIST and will continue to do so, and don’t they deserve the same rights (and responsibilities) as everyone else …
The trouble with her actions, is obvious. She is a government official. The trouble with the ‘law’ she disobeyed, is that it was a diktat from a cabal in black robes. It was not legislation which passed by way of vote and then a signature by the President. The state laws being passed against same-sex marriage were such, and/or put to the people of the respective states for a vote in order to become law.
That’s why her supporters had such a strong belief she was in the right. The only worse ruling to come out of SCOTUS, was illegally re-writing the Obamacare Law to make it legal…lol That’s what Chief Justice Roberts literally did to make it ‘legal’, which he does not have the Constitutional authority to do.
The one comical punchline to this saga, is that Davis is of the Democrat Party, which of course is the one in support of gay marriage. Democrats in Washington all thought she was a ‘wascally wepublican’.
As for gay marriage, my brother was openly gay and he used to say it was the most ridiculous idea he’d ever heard of. He never explained why. I really don’t care either way. I only wonder why it is that some gays feel the need to participate in a decidedly ‘straight’ ritual and have it on display to everyone when the vast majority are perfectly comfortable being gay, couldn’t care less who accepts it or doesn’t, and feel their intimacy as gays is just as private a matter as that of any straight couple.
Thanks for the comment Kevin, made my day actually amongst a sea of people taking themselves too seriously … ‘wascally wepublican’, love it !
Everyone has the right to stand up for what they believe in. But once you do, everyone else has the right to stand up and call you out when your beliefs happen to trample the rights (in this case personal and legal rights) of others.
Well said averagebob !
Short and sweet. It’s easy for me to agree. Let’s hope that everyone continues to obey the simple red light at intersections without too many exceptions.
🙂 The law often benefits us …
She’s not a bigot. Obama does not follow the law either. Sanctuary cities are thoroughly illegal. He does nothing. One example of hundreds. But who is doing anything about his crimes against his office? No one.
To compare her to Nazis (one commenter) is ignorant at best as so many of them were homosexual.
She should have had those under her sign. She misunderstands that she holds an office & it does not mean she personally approves of anything. Those under her could have issued the liscences while preserving her conscience.
Also just because the culture or a unconstitutional court says some action is right does not make it so. Beware of letting our baser natures rule us. We will not like how it ends up.
The real bigotry is the hatred of all things religious. Notice how baser natures are rooting it out completely. Outlawing it. That’s what Nazis did as well as Marxists.
A bigot is defined as – “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”. Refusing to issue marriage (civil partnership) licenses to couple who hold different beliefs to one’s own, personally I would regard as “intolerant towards those holding different opinions” … hence bigot …
I read around on the net, it seems that the marriage licenses which have been issued by her subordinates in her absence (due to jail) may not be legal, so I’m not sure that they could have been issued by her subordinates with her in office …
As for constitution, that’s a conversation for another day. From what I understand it’s LEGAL for same sex couples to get a legal union in her state, presumably it’s a civil ceremony not a religious one, the same as we have registry office for civil marriages in UK. So religion actually shouldn’t have anything to do with it. If one doesn’t like the term “marriage” then call it a “civil-partership” or whatever else.
As for Nazis and Marxists, a conversation for another day. Same for Obama.
Personally, I can’t see a reason why same sex couples should be treated differently from MF couples, that just strikes me as inequality … however everyone’s entitled to their opinion …
I agree it should be called something else.
But in this country there is a 1st Amendment (The Bill of Rights) that gives freedom of religion. No religion has to agree with the culture. A person has the right to believe what they want and should not be called a bigot for it. This country even gives Satanists the same right. The Constitution was not ruled on when they gave this ruling, it was ignored. 2nd, the Supreme Court has NO LEGISLATIVE abilities. It was an activist ruling that had no legal basis and so it will cause great disarray. The courts many years ago ruled Blacks were not full people and had no right. That was reversed because it was so perverse to the Constitution and to humanity. By the way no Democrat voted for the 13th, 14th Amendments and few voted for the 15th Amendment.
However none of the topics you said were for another day are absent the present argument. It’s highly nuanced.
Bigotry was seen writ large when the gay groups went after the photographer and baker issues. The gays were not discriminated against. The Christians were. Gays could shopped next door, no one prevented them. But they insist all must agree with them. The Christians were fined. That’s intolerant & bigoted.
This case is different since she ran for elective office, not private business. The best option short of resigning would be those under her to issue the licenses. Since the judge ordered it, it would be legal at least at this time since we have activist judges.
There’s plenty of injustice in the world, we all know this. And do people always behave like saints … no of course they don’t !
I think a person has the right to stand up for what they believe in. I think it’s the way she went about it that causes people problems.
And obviously “gays”/LGBTQ are people same as anyone else, so can be bigots themselves …
I’m not a lawyer so tend to stay out of matters relating to the mechanics and details of the law, other than to say I generally follow them, laws not lawyers that is, at least in my layman’s understanding …
Bottom line – “gays”/LGBTQ have been getting married, will continue to get married and resisting this fact is largely a waste of effort … and with this in mind, then one does wonder about Kim’s potential hidden agendas, perhaps in financial gain over this “stunt” … or perhaps she’s just a dumb redneck … I couldn’t say, I don’t know … mostly I find it interesting to hear people’s opinions …
I agree completely with the first half. But I don’t know about the second. We’ll have to wait and see how it all goes. But it is good to talk and sort through all the nuances as we’ve done. There’s probably a zillion things we don’t know about it. Best wishes to you!
Interesting to get a pro-Kim point of view … all the others were anti …
Actually I’m not. I think she imposed her beliefs on those under her. They could have done it. She did the same thing she’s fighting against. But it’s still an unconstitutional ruling. This really is a mess.
So you’re against same-sex “marriage” or a homophobe ?
Marriage is for a man and a woman. I am not afraid of homosexuality but do believe in Christ our Creator and He did make men and women to be married. By the way, adultery in heterosexuality is also sin and against God’s Word. That is what Christianity teaches. Calling someone a homophobe is a cultural distraction, and it does seek to outlaw Christianity, Judaism, Islam and religion in general. It could never be called tolerance.
Well what word would you use for someone who “fears or hates” gay/LGBTQ people if homophobe is a “cultural distraction” ?
And perhaps you should also define what term you find acceptable for “gay”/LGBTQ for a legal partnership, with the same societal rights and responsibilities as a married MF couple ?
Otherwise we’re having a conversation about what you and I believe words mean, rather than discussing the topic … which becomes a very short conversation for me …
If someone disagrees with some behavior or “lifestyle” it does not mean they fear them. It does mean it’s part of their faith. We have freedom of religion, or at least used to. Do you wish to brand all that disagree with you with a pejorative name? Wouldn’t that be intolerant?
I don’t have a term for a gay legal partnership. We’ve entered into new territory. But that should not mean that all of a sudden the Christian faith is to be condemned.
The problem with this whole thing is that it was not legislated. In our system of government the Congress writes the laws not the Supreme Court. Regardless that you may like their ruling it was unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all. But there is in the Constitution Freedom of religion.
We all want a lot of things. But we are a nation of laws. The Supreme Court acted outside of the law. So this will continue to present problems in the coming days.
Nope, was simply trying to establish where you stand in your opinions towards “gay”/LGBTQ people, pejorative didn’t come into it, it’s the word I understand that is used for people who are “anti-gay/LGBTQ” … if you can provide a better word, then please do so …
“civil partnership” – “(in some countries) a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to those of marriage.” (from Google)
If there’s nothing in the constitution about marriage/civil partnerships, then how can a same sex marriage/civil partnership be “unconstitutional” ? And presumably the constitution is for every religion, not just Christians ?
Oh yes that’s right, every religion. Gay is not a religion. Marriage is not in the Constitution at all. But it in religion. If the congress legislated civil partnership, or any other name, and it passed, it would be law. But they didn’t because the majority of the people were against it. Much the same thing happened with Roe v Wade. It could not pass the congress. So activists got it through an activist court. That’s why it is still a problem today.
As I understand it the UK has had civil partnerships since 2004 :
“Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, allow same-sex couples to obtain essentially the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage” (source wikipedia)
Add to that :
“The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legalised full same-sex marriage in England and Wales starting from March 2014, although civil partnership also remains available.” (source wikipedia)
So it surprises me that after more than 10 years, a country that’s supposed to be progressive and a “world leader” hasn’t followed suit … bit backwards really …
Ironically, I think Kim may actually be helping those who want same-sex marriage FULLY legal and accepted, insofar as she’s brought the attention right into the public eye. Perhaps there’s a wealthy LGBTQ benefactor behind the scenes ?
Hmmm…now that’s a thought. We’ll see.
We will … good to chat !
Cheers
Don
It was great. You wore me out. Now get some sleep. There’s always tomorrow. Best wishes Don!
LOL, alls well then, get some sleep !
A similar case in the Netherlands took place. In the end the civil cervant had to work somewhere else or face bad PR due to not doing his or her job.
I understand people who have strong beliefs. Thing is, as a civil cervant you work for the people first. The state employs you to serve the citizens not your holy book and temple. When you live in a secular state and society is more secular than religious you adapt as a civil servant or you do something else.
When I was a Christian I could not comprehend homosexuality. It was and is sinful from that perspective, full stop. For me though religion made less sense as I started to think about life and well, when two adult people want to be partners for life they are a couple, regardless of holy books and temples.
Sounds like you’ve moved to a more enlightened perspective of live and let live … Homosexuality isn’t right for me personally, but I accept that others feel differently and it’s what they want, so I have no issue
When it comes to your personal beliefs & your job you have to know how to keep the two separate! You can believe anything you want but once you set foot into that office building you have to remember that you are working for the government & that whatever the government says you HAVE to comply! No-one is beneath you, you are not the “perfect Christian”, you are HUMAN just like everyone else.
Same for most jobs, your paid to do what you’re told by your employer … and yes, we’re all equals at the end of the day …
Wrote something about that on my blog as well. Like her, I am both a Christian and a government worker. Unlike her, I know the differences and roles that I must take on in each of those positions.
I know that, when I have my government role on, the things I have to do are not my personal actions but the actions of the government with me doing the execution. The government has no religious beliefs or even emotion. It’s just follow the law.
In my personal life, then I follow my beliefs. Even then, I don’t treat people as though they are less than me or anything else. My parents went through being treated as less than a person in their youth in America. They marched in the 1960s so that I could be seen and treated as equal today. Why would I seek to treat someone like trash knowing what my parents went through?
I agree, why would any of us want to deny someone their right to equality ?
My only guess is an over inflated opinion of self importance.
Humility cures many ills …
Shes a government official she cantm push her personal beliefs on others through her job shes blurring the lIneb between church and state which is unconstitutional yet seems to be popular when people want the right to take away other peoples rights
🙂
It bothers me when people use Jesus as a shield for their own bigotries and prejudices, and to deal with societal issues. Every problem that we have today – abortion, alcoholism, war, prostitution, everything except racism – existed in Jesus’ time. Yet Jesus did not stand in front of the Praetorium and protest in front of Pilot. Jesus spent his time in front of the Temple telling people to love one another, even those with whom they disagreed. That the neighbor you are to love may well be the person with whom you have issues, and not those who agree with your beliefs.
Kim was elected to her position, and took an oath to uphold the duties of her office as presented by the government. If she finds her job no longer suits her tastes then she can resign her position. It’s nice to say that no one is above the law in America, but our current president has shown that such is not the case, even when told so by SCOTUS.
It bothers me too … perhaps why I err to not being fixed to a particular religion …
And yes, she didn’t do her job … and yes there are people who are “above the law”, doesn’t make us ordinary folks very happy …
No, it does not. Leaders never realize how unhappy people are until it is too late for the leaders. History has proven that time and again, yet we never learn.
🙂
Well the law is what it is…no one is above the law.
True that …
She was hired to do a job. If she is incapable or unwilling of doing every aspect of her job, no matter what the task or her reason, she should resign or be fired. End of question. Her conscience is her business, it is not part of her job. If she truly had a moral conscience, she would do every part of her job exceptionally well. What separates her behavior and that of the nazis who refused to recognize the citizenship of German Jews? Of Gypsies? Of those who were mentally ill or physically handicapped? Nothing, nothing at all.
Thank you, Don, for giving a world platform to this issue.
You’re welcome Sharon, and you’ve pretty much summed it up there …
I wonder if any pro-Kim’s will speak up ?
D
Although we all have a constitutional right to have an opinion or firmly held religious belief, we don’t have a constitutional right to disrupt a business. The dignified thing to do would have been to resign and then speak openly or start a blog on your feelings. Whether we agree or not with the law, it is the law. What if everyone wanted to run a government office (besides the politicians, of course! :-)) according to their individual feelings?
“The dignified thing to do would have been to resign and then speak openly” – Totally what I was thinking … and yes most of us have to obey laws we don’t always totally wholeheartedly agree with … most learn this as children …
Within that you can’t fault her for standing up in what she believes in … provided that’s all she’s up to – there’s some sites suggesting it’s a disguised financial play …
Cheers
Don
“Within that you can’t fault her for standing up in what she believes in”
I’m sure she believes that same sex unions are sinful, but what do the Ten Commandments say about them? What did Jesus say about them? Ummmm? Nothing!
The Ten Commandments clearly state “Thou shalt not Kill” (not until number six or seven, though, I grant you), and Jesus clearly said that the poor, the hungry and the dispossessed should be taken care of, and he kept on saying this. the only thing that Jesus said about sexual morality was when he rescued the adulterous woman from the pharisees and told her to go and sin no more. Jesus, and his main man Paul, also spoke out against loud and showy displays of religion, something a lot of the brethren (and sisterhood) conveniently ignore as they loudly show off how Christian they are.
,
(For ‘adulterous’, read ‘divorced’ as that was the only grounds a man could divorce a woman – a woman could never divorce a man in Jesus’ world). enough has been said about Ms Davis’ divorces and adultery, so I shan’t go into that here.
It would be a wonderful thing if the followers of Jesus who like to get all up in other people’s faces, would get up in our faces about homelessness, child poverty, hunger and executions. But they don’t. I expect it’s more difficult to get your ‘more-righteous-than-you feelgood groove on by actually doing good, rather than condemning people you don’t like.
Wait! What’s that sound? Oh, just the clashing and clanging of empty cymbals.
Nicely put, and yes my god aren’t some people are hypocrites …
She was perfectly within her right to stand up for her beliefs but not to include her staff and to disrupt the order of business, that’s for sure. I don’t know if she is in it for the financial but to go down in history as a ‘martyr’. She is going about it the wrong way, however.
Pretty much 🙂