Ed Brayton, recently famous for his racial slur against Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, demands his pound of flesh from Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. Davis is a devout Christian who refuses to obey the Supreme Court's unconstitutional imposition of gay marriage on our country. Davis will not issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
Brayton relishes the civil and criminal penalties she faces:
Heck, entire cities flout federal immigration law and allow illegal alien felons to walk free and commit murder--not a peep out of libtards like Brayton.
Question for Ed: if a lowly Christian county clerk should be hounded off to jail for disobeying a court order, why shouldn't California city and state officials be jailed for disobeying state law banning gay marriage (in the past) and state and federal immigration law (today)?
Somebody call Anthony Kennedy! Seems like a violation of Equal Protection, huh, Ed?
Brayton relishes the civil and criminal penalties she faces:
...these people are too dumb to understand that the state legislature passing ... a law [protecting religious freedom] would be absolutely meaningless. This is not a matter controlled by state law and state legislatures do not get to negate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because they don’t like it. And the Supreme Court has already denied her request for an additional stay.
I think they’re right, she isn’t going to back down. I think she’s absolutely intent on becoming the next Christian martyr du jour...
Here’s what is going to happen here, I think. She’ll continue to refuse to do her job and at some point, the state will find a way to remove her from her position. Whether that happens before Judge Bunning gets fed up and puts her in jail (that’s a ways down the road; it would start with fines for civil contempt and would need to escalate to criminal contempt in order to get jail time) is an open question.I am unable to find any criticism by Brayton of California governor Jerry Brown's flouting of the California Proposition 8 law banning gay 'marriage' and San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome's defiance of state law by issuing illegal marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
Heck, entire cities flout federal immigration law and allow illegal alien felons to walk free and commit murder--not a peep out of libtards like Brayton.
Question for Ed: if a lowly Christian county clerk should be hounded off to jail for disobeying a court order, why shouldn't California city and state officials be jailed for disobeying state law banning gay marriage (in the past) and state and federal immigration law (today)?
Somebody call Anthony Kennedy! Seems like a violation of Equal Protection, huh, Ed?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can't comment on Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 or Gavin Newsome as I am not familiar with them. However, this county clerk has decided to refuse to perform her job. Religious freedom is not an excuse for not performing the tasks of your job. A Jehova's Witness emergency room doctor can't refuse to provide blood transfusions because it is against his religion. A muslim surgeon can't refuse to implant pig valves in a patient because it is against his religion. A white spremacist clerk can't refuse to issue marriage licences to inter-racial couples.
ReplyDeleteSame sex marriage is now the law. She either performs the tasks that her job requires or she finds another job. I don't believe in fining her or sending her to jail. But if she continues to refuse to issue marriage licences to same sex couples then she should be fired.
Same sex marriage has been the law in Canada for over ten years now. And I haven't seen any of the dire consequences that the christian right were predicting. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your irrational bigotry.
I am new to your blog so I would be interested to hear your arguments against same-sex marriage. I have never heard any arguments that did not boil down to a religious argument. But you do not have a right to impose your religious belief on others. Homosexuals do not harm anyone. Same-sex marriage does not harm anyone. Neither do any harm to society. So what grounds would you use to prohibit same sex marriage?
Billy:
ReplyDelete[I can't comment on Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 or Gavin Newsome as I am not familiar with them.]
Follow the links. There is no legal difference between Davis and Brown and Newsome. All are public officials who have refused to obey the law based on their conscience. Davis has a stronger case, because she has a Free Exercise constitutional right, which Davis and Brown did not invoke.
You need to explain why officials in Sanctuary Cities should not be prosecuted, but Davis should.
Regarding my view on gay 'marriage', I've posted a lot on it. Maybe I'll post more when I feel like it.
[So what grounds would you use to prohibit same sex marriage?]
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a sacrament, and is between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as gay 'marriage".
You will reply that I don't have any right to impose my religious view on others, and I reply that I damn sure do. I vote according to my conscience, and I'm Catholic.
"Marriage is a sacrament..."
ReplyDeleteOnly when performed as a religious ceremony. At least you admit that your opposition to SSM is purely religious. I commend you on at least being honest about this.
"You will reply that I don't have any right to impose my religious view on others, and I reply that I damn sure do. I vote according to my conscience, and I'm Catholic."
Everybody votes according to their conscience. Why do you think that you are special in this respect? This does not give you a right to impose your religious views on others. There is that pesky little thing called the constitution that prevents this.
[This does not give you a right to impose your religious views on others.]
DeleteI believe murder is wrong because it is a violation of God's Moral Law. Am I therefore not entitled legally to vote for candidates who oppose murder, because to do so would impose my religious viewpoint on others?
[There is that pesky little thing called the constitution that prevents this.]
The Constitution prohibits establishment of a federal religion. My voting for my favorite candidate does not establish a federal religion.
ME
"I believe murder is wrong because it is a violation of God's Moral Law. Am I therefore not entitled legally to vote for candidates who oppose murder, because to do so would impose my religious viewpoint on others? "
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe that murder is wrong because society, and my peaceful existence within it, is threatened by murder. No God required. It just happens that we both arrived at the same conclusion, but from different directions.
But as a Catholic, you are required to be opposed to the use of artificial birth control. As a way to lead your life, I have no problems with you deciding not to use these forms of birth control. But this is not a prohibition that other religions have. Do you feel that it is right to pass laws that would prevent everybody from having access to artificial birth control?
[Do you feel that it is right to pass laws that would prevent everybody from having access to artificial birth control?]
DeleteYou ask two questions.
1) Do we have a right to pass laws against contraception? Answer: yes, obviously.
2) Is it right to pass laws against contraception? Answer: that's a matter of prudential judgement. Contraception is evil, but not all evil is best opposed by making it illegal. I don't support making it illegal, because I don't like the government interfering with things that private, and because it is unenforceable and would just lead to contempt for the law.
"I don't support making it illegal, because I don't like the government interfering with things that private,"
DeleteLike same sex marriage. You seem to be selective on what you want to make illegal.
"and because it is unenforceable and would just lead to contempt for the law."
Like legally prohibiting abortion at all stages of pregnancy. You really have to think through your statements.
"Contraception is evil,"
If the Catholic Church excommunicated all parishioners who used contraceptives, the pews would be sparsely populated. Oh wait, they are.
[Like same sex marriage. You seem to be selective on what you want to make illegal.]
DeleteOf course I'm selective, genius. I neither want to make everything illegal nor nothing illegal.
SSM is not a matter of privacy. Marriage is a public contract affirmed by the government. It is the opposite of private. If you want privacy, don't ask the government for a license.
[Like legally prohibiting abortion at all stages of pregnancy. You really have to think through your statements.]
Outlawing abortion would cause quite a bit of disrespect for the law and would be hard to enforce. But abortion is murder, so it's worth the trouble.
[If the Catholic Church excommunicated all parishioners who used contraceptives, the pews would be sparsely populated. Oh wait, they are.] The Church doesn't excommunicate contraceptors, so you don't have to worry.
Regarding empty pews--my small parish has a couple of thousand of us who attend masses each weekend. That's more people in my town than attend atheist national meetings each year.
Michael,
DeleteIt's easier to attend a church service in your local community than it is to attend a national meeting which may be thousands of kilometres distant from your home.
I'm a sort-of member of a local atheist group, but I don't bother attending its meetings (usually social meals at a restaurant) because they're usually held 20 kilometres away. If they were local, then perhaps... But they're not worth the time or effort getting there.
I've attended Australian national atheist meetings, but only because they're an excuse, not a good one, to get away for a weekend once every few years or so.
You're comparing apples with oranges...
I thought you said that contraception was evil. If someone intentionally, willfully and repeatedly conducts an evil act, the church is OK with this? Or is it the tithe that they are comfortable with. After all, some forms of birth control (eg, the pill and IUD) do not always prevent fertilization, but also act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus after fertilization. In short, an abortion, a murder.
DeleteGiven this fact, why does the church turn a blind eye to women who use these forms of birth control? I am pretty sure that if I was an unrepentive serial killer the church doors would not be open for me.