SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[Gin1984]

And I believe I am entitled to feel uncomfortable doing my civic duty in a building/institution that has, repeatedly and with heavy-handed tactics (in my opinion) overstepped the line between separation of church and state. 

The church can't overstep the line of separation, it's up to the state to keep the church in check.  The church is free to pursue as much influence as it can and the state is responsible for holding it back.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

You can disagree, but you'll be wrong.  It's like saying my kid has too much influence over my decisionson their bedtime.  It may be true, it may not be, but ultimately it's my responsibility to make the decision, not my kid's, so if I let my kid sway me that's 100% my fault.

From a legal perspective, of course you are right--churches are under no obligation to respect separation of church and state, and are certainly free to pursue their own interests.  However (and I know this makes me sound idealistic) from an ethical perspective, I think they have a responsibility to self-govern.  I don't expect you, or others, to agree with me, thus the "agree to disagree" thing.  I'm not much for "every man for himself" or "pursue your own interests until someone stops you" as an approach to life.  That doesn't make me a very good capitalist, I know, but it is still my opinion about how organizations ought to comport themselves, and as such, I can't be "wrong" (though you can think I am).

Also, the government is made up of adults, as is the church (those governing it, anyway), so your analogy is not compelling to me.  The relationship between churches and state is not that of parent/child, in my opinion.

And given that there has been at least one judge that said the government can't tell the church what to do, I'd hope the church would pretend to act like adults and respect the laws of the land.

[KodeBlue]

[sol]

Kim Davis is the county clerk from Kentucky who has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses because she believes God forbids gay people from getting married.  She believes she has a constitutionally protected right to refuse to do her job.

Which is sort of true, I guess.  If a firefighter decides that fighting fires is against his religion, no one is going to force him to pick up a hose.  Probably not going to keep him on staff as a firefighter, either.

So the only question I have is this:  why does Kim Davis still have a job?

[forummm]

Kim Davis is the county clerk from Kentucky who has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses because she believes God forbids gay people from getting married.  She believes she has a constitutionally protected right to refuse to do her job.

Which is sort of true, I guess.  If a firefighter decides that fighting fires is against his religion, no one is going to force him to pick up a hose.  Probably not going to keep him on staff as a firefighter, either.

So the only question I have is this:  why does Kim Davis still have a job?

I'm sure Kim Davis would support tax dollars paying the salaries of other people who refuse to do their jobs too. I'm looking forward to the garbage man refusing to pick up her trash. And the county payroll officer refusing to cut her paycheck. I'm sure Kim Davis would also support a law requiring grocery stores to pay Muslims who work at check-out counters but refuse to touch meat or alcohol. And requiring telecommunications firms to pay Amish people who refuse to use technology.

[Cathy]

So the only question I have is this:  why does Kim Davis still have a job?

The short answer is that she can only be removed in accordance with the law. The position of County Court Clerk is an elected office created by § 99 of the Constitution of Kentucky. The position appears to be commonly referred to as "county clerk".

In accordance with the Constitution, Kim Davis was duly elected through the democratic process for a term of 4 years by the people of Rowan County, Kentucky. The main way that she can be removed is through the process codified at §§ 66-68 of the Constitution, which requires an impeachment by the Kentucky House of Representatives followed by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present of the Senate of Kentucky.

This is not an "at-will employment" situation where she can just be summarily fired.

[MDM]

Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?

[forummm]

Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?

It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.

[MDM]

Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?

It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.

So you're saying southern Democrats are expected to be against same sex marriage? 

Or is it only that those people who are against same sex marriage are the ones against same sex marriage, thus we shouldn't try to stereotype any diverse group of people?  I could agree with that.

[forummm]

Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?

It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.

So you're saying southern Democrats are expected to be against same sex marriage? 

Or is it only that those people who are against same sex marriage are the ones against same sex marriage, thus we shouldn't try to stereotype any diverse group of people?  I could agree with that.

I was providing nuanced discussion of the issue. Local officials are less likely to be lined up with their policy opinions to the national party. Regional differences in opinions on issues are also a factor. And religious affiliation is the most strong on this issue. Same-sex marriage was definitely somewhat more favorable amongst Democrats than Republicans, but it was never an 80/20 D and 20/80 R split like many issues are. Even Obama was theoretically against it (secretly in favor, publicly pretending to be not in favor) until a few years ago. So I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a southern evangelical Democrat was against same-sex marriage. That's all.

If your point is that stereotypes don't apply to 100% of people in the stereotyped demographic, no one will disagree with that.

[Rural]

Yup, Kim Davis, another one of those stereotypical good ol' gal Democrats who...oh, wait...that doesn't fit the stereotype, does it?

It actually does, especially in KY. Gay rights issues tended to be more divided along party lines, but that's generally due to the evangelical religious affiliations and regional relationships with party ID (as discussed at length in this thread). So I would expect an evangelical in the South to be more likely to behave this way regardless of party. And local officials are not as tightly tied to the mainstream of the party--I don't even have any idea who my county clerk is, let alone their views on same-sex marriage. But I do know for my governor, congressional representatives, etc.

So you're saying southern Democrats are expected to be against same sex marriage? 

Or is it only that those people who are against same sex marriage are the ones against same sex marriage, thus we shouldn't try to stereotype any diverse group of people?  I could agree with that.

I was providing nuanced discussion of the issue. Local officials are less likely to be lined up with their policy opinions to the national party. Regional differences in opinions on issues are also a factor. And religious affiliation is the most strong on this issue. Same-sex marriage was definitely somewhat more favorable amongst Democrats than Republicans, but it was never an 80/20 D and 20/80 R split like many issues are. Even Obama was theoretically against it (secretly in favor, publicly pretending to be not in favor) until a few years ago. So I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a southern evangelical Democrat was against same-sex marriage. That's all.

If your point is that stereotypes don't apply to 100% of people in the stereotyped demographic, no one will disagree with that.

There's still a contingent of Yellow Dog Democrats in the Deep South, especially rural areas and especially in local elections. I do think that's fading, especially over the last 5-8 years, but it still exists. There's a strong objection to voting for the party of Lincoln in the historical roots of the Yellow Dogs, but that's mostly been forgotten except by historians. Mostly, though, I think the old diehards are just plain getting old and dying out.


This has been a publice service announcement factual footnote that in no way condones the bigotry of folks like Kim Davis regardless of what party they joined most recently.

[MDM]

If your point is that stereotypes don't apply to 100% of people in the stereotyped demographic, no one will disagree with that.

If only that were true.  Good to know you recognize that. 

Too many people, however, still lump all the "damn democrats", "rascally republicans", etc., together - and talk primarily with others who think likewise in their own echo chambers.