Discussion for article #240119
What he says here shouldnāt be controversial, and I would guess that even the couples turned away from the license bureau would agree with him, that there should be some option for those whose religious convictions conflict with this particular job criteria. BUT - and this is a big BUT - Davis instructed her entire office to turn gay couples away. She didnāt say, āLet me get someone who can help you.ā She clearly stated, even in court yesterday, that she was refusing to allow anyone in her office to issue licenses. That is, without question or controversy, completely unacceptable.
But kudos to Bush. He mustāve read some internet comments yesterday, which on just about every site were running 10-1 against Davis. As for Cruz and Huckabee and Paul, the less said about those losers the better.
ā¦there should be a way for people to stay true to their beliefs while still allowing same-sex couples to get marriedā¦
There is. People whose beliefs rule out same-sex marriage should not marry someone of the same sex. Those same people should not take jobs that require them to license marriages.
Whatās so hard about this?
If a devoutly Catholic county clerk refused to grant a license to a Catholic who wanted to marry a Protestant or Jew, there wouldnāt even be any discussion about this.
Bush Bush has to win an award for the least substantial thing said about all this. Take a damn position, dumbass!
as other people have started to point outā¦ suppose the clerk in your local fish and game office is a dedicated vegan and refuses to issue you a fishing or hunting licenseā¦ what then?
the signature is on the state document is to assure that its a valid legal documentā¦ its not a personal approval or disapproval of the act the document is forā¦
your job is as an agent of the state and it requires you to do certain thingsā¦ if you have a some deeply held āconvictionā that prevents you from doing your job then find another jobā¦
signing your name for $80K a year isnāt exactly skilled laborā¦
āIt seems to me that there ought to be common ground, there ought to be a big enough space for her to act on her conscience, and for now that the law is the law of the land, for a gay couple to be married in whatever jurisdiction that is,ā Bush told reporters after a town hall event in New Hampshire, according to Buzzfeed News. āIām a little confused about why that canāt be done.ā
āItās being done all across the country and itās a sign of leadership to be able to make that climate,ā he continued.
Bunning gave Davis the option, you incompetent fool. She refused the reasonable accommodation stating she would order the clerks willing to issue the licenses not to do so. She would fire them if they did.
āIām a little confusedā
Iām a little amazed at that, and as well how JEB can be possibly be credited for saying that while outlying what you yourself make abundantly clear is BESIDE the point, given how Davis, and ELECTED official, ran her office.
To me, this is JEB wanting, AGAIN, to be all things to all people, and just another tell that heās seeking to be SOTUS - Squish of the United States, Squish in chief, the nationās chief executive squish, whatever, itās soft and when you poke at it, it gurgles.
He ALWAYS seeks for the fuzzy squishy undefined part where no actual human lives or exists because thereās simply no air there. Sometimes he gets there by his now classic over-correction process of extreme to extreme opposite to back to inside to extreme to the other side of inside extreme until he gets, as always, to No Humans Land. All heās really done here is gone immediately to No Humans Land, presumably because by now his advisors groans and moans have brought about some semblance of reflection by him before he embarks on another of his 3 day 5 cycle pinball adventures to Squishville.
I hear thereās positions in the Sanitation Department.
Exonerate Richard Ramirez! The late Richard Ramirez was sentenced to death for exercising his Constitutional rights to practice his Satanic religion.
While I appreciate the straddling of both sides of the issue attempt, I have to still say F THAT. The GOP courting of these religious zealots is going to backfire in a major way soon.
There is a process for this. One takes the issue to court. She did and she lost. The KY lege can change the law if it wishes to accommodate her, but that has consequences.
KY law is clear, county clerks issue marriage licenses.
Letās be clear here: Jesus said nothing about gay people. Her āreligious convictionsā are thinly disguised homophobia. She has a right to be a homophobe, but letās not pretend thatās in the gospels.
Itās past time to quit pussyfooting around the real issue related to the womanās conscience. These notions of conscience and duty are basically meaningless when divorced from the specifics: what does she believe? What is she trying to achieve?
MLK and Nelson Mandela served jail time for their consciences too. The difference is simply that they were right and Kim Davis is wrong.
āā¦and that there should be a way for people to stay true to their beliefs while still allowing same-sex couples to get married.ā
There is a way. Davis could have allowed her staff to issue the licenses she found āoffensive to her Dog.ā Davis wouldnāt. A judge appointed to the bench by JEBās brother jailed her.
āIām a little confused about why that canāt be done.ā
How about some specifics there, Jeb!. How about you lay it out for us? How should this be done? You should be careful. Straddling that fence could cause serious damage when you fall.
The tendency for a GOP establishment figure to spout such have-it-both-ways drivel is why we have Trump. Jeb himself knows that he just spoke nonsense.
āIt seems to me that there ought to be common ground, there ought to be a big enough space for her to act on her conscienceā¦ā --Jeb
āHer conscienceā told her to terrorize her staff into disobeying the law. If she was another country, you probably would have invaded by now.
Jeb: āIt seems to me that there ought to be common ground, there ought to be a big enough space for her to act on her conscience, and for now that the law is the law of the land, for a gay couple to be married in whatever jurisdiction that is.ā
There already is a big enough space, and we call that space āthe separation of Church and Stateā.
As pretty much everyone else has pointed out with justifiable exasperation and contempt, the soothing compromise Bush offers here is exactly what Davis flatly refused to do. Itās the typical mealy-mouthed gutless verbiage weāve learned to expect from this empty-suit rich boy. But itās nice of him to mention her being sworn to uphold the law, because weāre getting to the point where the question is whether we are, in fact, governed by law or whether weāre going to be ruled by two very potent and increasingly restive powers: plutocrats and fundamentalist Christians. IMHO people who say ānoā to that and insist that weāre a nation of laws are the real patriots.
It would be controversial because it would generate arbitrary obeying of the law. If somebody has a religious belief they could excuse themselves from doing their job. The only way around that would be to make it very narrow and dilute the given authority. And that defeats the purpose of some jobs in the first place.
Somebody can publically and privately hold the beliefs they want to, but it needs to stay out of government.