Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:48 pm

Jesus Raves wrote:KtR, do you have any evidence that the very people who are now Tea Partiers were once hippies? That claim smells specious to me, if not outright blaringly incorrect.


It's the right generation but of course that generation had plenty of intolerant bigots as well as liberal hippies. It's always been my assumption the tea-baggers are the same people who threw rocks at blacks in the 60's, or at least they watched and did nothing while blacks were being beaten. I worked with a guy for several years who grew up in Alabama in the 60's. He's not overtly racist but he always claimed that blacks were the aggressors during the march to Selma. And he was certainly never a hippie.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Jesus Raves » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:12 pm

Exactly right. I hear so many people act as if every person who was a young adult during the late 60s was a hippie. That's obviously absurd.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:35 am

Yeah, besides losing lots of friends to it and me being one of them, it was called the the Jesus Movement and it had a lasting impact:

Jesus Movement

Although the Jesus movement lasted no more than a decade (except for the Jesus People USA which continues to exist in Chicago), its influence on Christian culture can still be seen. Thousands of converts moved into leadership positions in churches and parachurch organisations. The informality of the Jesus movement's music and worship affected almost all evangelical churches. Some of the fastest growing US denominations of the late 20th century, such as Calvary Chapel, Hope Chapel Churches, and the Vineyard Churches, trace their roots directly back to the Jesus movement, as do parachurch organisations like Jews for Jesus and the multimillion-dollar contemporary Christian music industry.[citation needed] Perhaps the most significant and lasting influence, however, was the growth of an emerging strand within evangelical Christianity that appealed to the contemporary youth culture.[7]
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10386
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:00 am

spongebob wrote:
Rian wrote:Well, here's where we feel differently, I guess. I think a person needs to do what they think is right, even if I disagree with them or their cause. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change their minds, and if they break laws I think it's OK to lock them up, but I admire people for standing up for what they believe in no matter what their cause is. I was wondering if others felt the same way, or if they only supported civil disobedience for causes that they think are right.


OK, this is exactly the same conversation I had with Aaron and I'll ask you the same question. If you really feel this way about it (and I'm asking not just for a religious position that you tend to agree with, but just people refuting the law in general because they believe it is immoral), then how would you feel if Davis denied a black/white couple a marriage license for the same religious reasons? If there's a difference, please explain it to me because I see no Constitutional difference at all. Both issues were Supreme Court rulings; neither are specifically called out in the Constitution.

I think her position would be wrong, but I would support her acting on what she thinks is right. I'm pretty much a freedom-to-act-how-your-conscious-calls-you-to kind of person, because there are so many things that really, no one can come out and claim that they are right and others are wrong. I tend to think that recently, the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and gone beyond what the FFs envisioned, and that it's safer for things to auto-correct by society. It may be slower, but I think it's surer. It troubles me that ONE PERSON (i.e., a judge) has the ability to radically change such major things in our country.

And I'm pretty philosophical about whatever direction our country moves to. I think God's bigger than the voters in the US, and I don't get my knickers in a knot if the country moves away from "laws" in "The Bible", because IMO, the laws, as Jesus said, are summed up in: love God and love others, and those laws are only for Christians. I vote to support things that I feel are good for society as a whole, and are enforceable, and are important enough to use resources to enforce, and I don't think everything "religious" automatically meets these criteria. I'm not a religious fundy.

I think in her situation, I would have resigned. However, I support her doing what she thought was right to do. And I think it's hypocritical if people on one side of an issue will promote civil disobedience in support of it, and then decry civil disobedience used against it.


(N.B. - my former hippie brother-in-law is about as opposite from a Tea Partier as you can get.)
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6204
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Simplyme » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:25 am

What if your conscious calls you to behead people who disagree with you? I wonder how laid back and supportive you would be about that?

Overstepped? Yeah I hate how they overstepped in giving right to women to vote, or how they overstepped freedom for the blacks to be considered equal. It troubles me also that so few(judges) can have that much power.

Seems to me like your knickers are in a knot! It's funny you can't feel it, because, I for one, can see it. It makes me sleep better at night knowing that they're people like you out there.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Patrick Star » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:36 am

Simplyme wrote:Overstepped? Yeah I hate how they overstepped in giving right to women to vote


That was a Constitutional Amendment, not a Supreme Court decision.

or how they overstepped freedom for the blacks to be considered equal.


Also amendment(s), although there have been numerous SC decisions that have affected the rights of blacks and others (including Loving vs. Virginia)

It troubles me also that so few(judges) can have that much power.


This is a much better scenario because the selection process is tightly controlled. But we essentially have the same thing at the state level, which means we have many supreme court justices that are supposed to behave the same way but often they don't.
Last edited by Patrick Star on Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Patrick Star
resident
resident
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 pm
Affiliation: undisclosed

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Simplyme » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:36 am

Someone always comes by and reasonably states in a more articulate way what I meant. Mr. Star, I thought that was what I said? :-)
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:34 am

Rian wrote:I think her position would be wrong, but I would support her acting on what she thinks is right. I'm pretty much a freedom-to-act-how-your-conscious-calls-you-to kind of person, because there are so many things that really, no one can come out and claim that they are right and others are wrong. I tend to think that recently, the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and gone beyond what the FFs envisioned, and that it's safer for things to auto-correct by society. It may be slower, but I think it's surer. It troubles me that ONE PERSON (i.e., a judge) has the ability to radically change such major things in our country.


The SCOTUS's job is to interpret the Constitutionality of our laws. That's their job. The Legislature makes laws, the Executive branch implements, the judicial decides if a law is adhering to our principles of rights. It is decidedly NOT meant to be a "majority rules" scenario because the majority is generally not inclined to care about the minority. That is why our government works, the minority position is DEFENDED by our core principles.

The FF's were also very much cognizant that this process would indeed allow the country to progress towards more rights. For instance, many of them wanted to deal with slavery at the time but it was not possible to do so and have a nation (thanks to the south). But they specifically said it would be dealt with in the future.

Here's the problem with Kim Davis.

As a private citizen she has the right to not like SSM. But she is NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN as county clerk, she is a GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE.

Right there, all her claims to "having her rights protected" are null and void. The entire weight of the Constitution is NOT in her defense. OIur Constitution does not "grant rights" -- rights are innate. Our constitution SHACKLES GOVERNMENT FROM TRAMPLING OUR RIGHTS.

So right there, Kim's done. If she wants her religious freedom, she needs to no longer be an arm of government. By being an arm of government, she agrees to be limited in her rights because she now functions under the aegis of a government purposely shackled by the constitution.

Second, the key here is this: Our rights are INNATE. We do NOT need any constitutional amendments to define our rights -- they are innate. In other words, any and all two consenting adults are innately free to engage in any contract they want. Given that the majority often digs in and refuses to grant rights to minorities, there are times when constitutional amendments are necessary (freeing salves, women's right to vote, etc.) But in principle, all gays ALWAYS had the right -- innately -- to marry. All women ALWAYS had the right -- innately -- to vote. All slaves ALWAYS had the right -- innately -- to be free. The fact that government stood in the way of these things? THAT'S what the SCOTUS is tasked with defining.

Tradition, religious views, etc? Irrelevant. The right of any adults to marry anyone of their choice be it race, color, creed? Innate. We're free. The question is not our rights, it's the government's liberty to block our rights, and the SCOTUS decided -- rightly -- that the government has NO COMPELLING INTEREST in blocking an INNATE RIGHT.

Since the government is not a "thing" -- but instead is made up of people who are to enforce or execute the governmental role, anyone who enters into government service LOSES THEIR INNATE RIGHTS. No longer is Kim Davis a "free citizen" -- she is a duly elected representative of the government and thus obligated and REQUIRED to never block anyone's INNATE RIGHTS.

Her own rights are voluntarily suspended if she chooses governmental service. No one is forcing her to do this job and she is not constitutionally guaranteed this job. And the w
Last edited by Keep The Reason on Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10386
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Simplyme » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:26 pm

And again someone does it again!!!! KTR, wasn't that what I said? :-)




On a serious note. Well said to both of you.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby tirtlegrrl » Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:10 pm

I'm going to jump into the fire here and state that I don't understand how rights can be innate. To my mind a right is an abstract thing created by contract and only continues to exist if it is enforced by some guarantor.
"I think it was, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'" -Monty Python's Life of Brian
User avatar
tirtlegrrl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1816
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Oxford, UK (US citizen)
Affiliation: Whatever is both true AND good

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Particles » Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:26 pm

I agree TG. Rights are a social construct.

Also, it's not civil disobedience when you're acting as an agent of government defying a law in a way that denies citizens their rights. That's just being an oppressor. It would be civil disobedience if she defied a law that told her to stamp all marriage licenses for gay couples with "Godhatesfags.com."
Last edited by Particles on Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2089
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:27 pm

tirtlegrrl wrote:I'm going to jump into the fire here and state that I don't understand how rights can be innate. To my mind a right is an abstract thing created by contract and only continues to exist if it is enforced by some guarantor.


I will not engage until the other issue is resolved, tirtlegrrl.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10386
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Particles » Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:53 pm

On judges having power to decide laws, that's in the Constitution. It's a power we the people gave to the Supreme Court, and it's good thing. Somebody has to be the final interpreter or it would be chaos. I don't like it when it goes against my views, but it's pointless to complain that they have the power. There's recourse if you don't like the ruling. Depending on the ruling, you can change the law or amend the Constitution. You could also vote in people who will appoint judges you like.
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2089
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:35 pm

I realize that, Particles, and I like the checks and balances system. However, I think each branch can overstep their boundaries in the many areas where all the details weren't set down in black and white (e.g., Presidential pardons of "cronies" can be problematic) and I think the judiciary (and I'm not only talking SCOTUS) has trended that way.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6204
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Particles » Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:59 pm

Rian wrote:I realize that, Particles, and I like the checks and balances system. However, I think each branch can overstep their boundaries in the many areas where all the details weren't set down in black and white (e.g., Presidential pardons of "cronies" can be problematic) and I think the judiciary (and I'm not only talking SCOTUS) has trended that way.


Well, how did the Obergfell decision overstep any so-called boundaries?
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2089
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

PreviousNext

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest