Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk
Score one for common sense It's about time they throw this woman in jail. All she is looking for is her 15 min. of fame and for people to start a go fund me for her. You are a public employee your religious rights stop when you enter a public building to work. What's next postal workers refusing to deliver mail to people who are gay or maybe firemen police refusing to respond to a gay caller
oldred
Clyde Potts I have no problem whatsoever with what she was doing. If I were governor of Kentucky, I would pardon her. She was following her religion. We all know that if a judge was telling a muslim woman she couldn't wear her head towel, Obama and the other democrats would be losing their top. I say good for her. Much like Mandela, she is going to prison for no reason simply because she is standing for what she believes in.
1988LJ She is paid $80,000 a year to hand out licenses and not to marry anyone. If she cannot do her job as outlined as by law then quit. I hope they fine her more than she makes so she sees the light but I feel she will continue to use her faith in a hateful way. Not what Jesus would have wanted.
MK FYI: She is doing her job. When the justices rendered their opinion, it is only an opinion. It is not, I repeat not the law of the land. Only congress can pass a law. So again, she is doing her job.
Bean uh what religion does this idiot follow?? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kentucky-clerk-gay-marriage-fracas-married-4-times-article-1.2345036?cid=bitly
5catmom Jail is a bit much. Simply fire her for refusal to do her job and get on with it. She's allowed to believe what ever she wants, including only applying her faith to others and not her own multi-divorce life. But her employer also has a simple right to let her go.
The rest is a bunch of useless posturing for their own politics. Hers and others.
GC There is actually a Twitter page that's supposedly from a clerk in that office that sits next to her. Warning, foul language ahead:
https://twitter.com/nexttokimdavis
1988LJ Don't forget the idea of "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but give to God what is God's". I may have the quote reversed, but the sentiment is the same. She's not doing the marrying and her job contract states that she has to abide by the rule of the law for that job. If her conscience bothers her that much she should have resigned after issuing the first one and filed suit in court that she was being made to go against her religious beliefs and then let it play out in court. That would perhaps end the subject for a while.
She also is refusing to even let her deputies issue them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1
Phil D. She cannot be fired she is a elected official she can only be impeached which she should be. Your elected to follow the law despite what someone else says the Supreme Court can make constitutional law and in their wisdom they decided that same-sex couples may marry you may not agree with it but it is the law or maybe we can have DMV officials refuse to give drivers licenses or renew registrations to gay couples this judge should be commended for his decision our forefathers in their infinite wisdom made sure that government and religion do not mix I hope she sits in jail until her term is up her mother held this same position for 27 years now the daughter hold it and somehow her son also works in the office talk about nepotism funny how she found Jesus after her fourth marriage
Bean you are wrong. She is not doing her job. There is no law saying that gays can't marry and that was the court decision knocking down discriminatory local rules outlawing that. Her job is to issue a license to ANYONE who applies. By not issuing one for a gay couple she is not doing her job and the judge agrees.
My religion says I'm not allowed to work on Mondays, Tuesdays, or Fridays. I told my boss this and he fired me. You should fell sorry for me too.
Justintime + 1 GC.
Altho, I must say, if this clerk were a MUSLIM refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals, I'd bet my ass this would be a WHOLE DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.
JeffersonRepub JR- Absolutely. People don't seem to care about not infringing religions, unless it's muslims.
Challah “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:6-8 ESV
Why is it that the most hypocritical are also the most vocal about their religious viewpoints?
Bonv There is a lot of smelly stuff in this whole story. I believe as a Christian, she would give more witness to the Lord by quitting. Now this is a civil service job. There are rules. If they make a hasty mistake, there's a lot of money to be made.
Old Gent Wow, when I posted I didn't know that she was actually sentenced to jail. What was the crime, besides not doing her job? Serious question, what was the crime besides hurting someones feelings?
So the rule of law is what public servants should abide by yes? So the officials who refuse to enforce immigration laws or create sanctuary cities should also be fired or jailed? And go
Oh f'king please. You idiots can't come up with a reasonable argument for why she shouldn't be held in contempt so you drag Muslims into this. Muslims had nothing to do with this. This is all about a holier than thou hypocrite abusing her power and imposing her bigotry on others.
Show me one instance where a Muslim US govt. official was allowed to NOT do their job due to religious reasons. I'll wait.
As far her religious freedoms go, she has none in her role as a member of government. The government, as dictated in the Constitution, you know, that thing people like JR likes to quote all the time, has no right to impose or deny religion. In her role as clerk, she is acting as the government. She is not acting as an individual.
If you feel otherwise, then you have to accept that it's impossible for the government to restrict any rights because each government employee is acting as an individual exercising their own beliefs.
emaxxman emaxx, should she go to jail, and if so, for what crime? Being an idiot doesn't count.
She should be fired, period, for not performing the duties of her job. But put in jail? Sorry, no way. If people were put in jail for being an idiot not one of us would have escaped incarceration at one point or another in our lives.
JIT - The crime was that the court ordered her to issue the certificates and she didn't obey. That's contempt. That's a crime.
As far as her doing her job or not, MK is correct. Gay marriage was always legal under the law. The religious right was trying to make it illegal through their bogus definition of marriage. They lost.
Here are other crimes that you can go to jail for:
- Not paying court-ordered child support
- Not obeying a court-ordered restraining order
- Not completing court-mandated community service
Gee, no one ever says, oh no, that's so harsh. Here, we suddenly have someone use religion as an excuse and it's suddenly government overreach.
Why is a court needed to tell her to do her job? She has a boss, and it's their responsibility to make sure she's doing it. Where are her superiors in this matter?
The courts have no jurisdiction in the performance of job duties. IMO that's a cop out, plain and simple, and all they are doing is playing on peoples emotions. If she's not doing her job then fire her. That's it. The rest is just emotional mumbo jumbo.
Her crime is disobeying a court order. That is what she was jailed for.
Emotional mumbo jumbo? On the part of court? I think not.
Aquarius JIT, she is an elected official. She has no "boss". She could have chosen to resign her position but that would have meant giving up her $80k salary, which I have to imagine is quite a bit more than the average person in rural KY is making...
ianimal JIT...as stated above, she's an elected official. She actually has no boss. She can't be fired. She can only be impeached and removed from office.
The clerks office was taken to court to force them to comply with the law, eg gays should be given certificates. She lost her appeal and was ordered. She disobeyed that order. She was given chances to comply and refused.
JIT, clearly you haven't been following if you don't understand that she was ordered by the courts to issue the licenses. Repeatedly.
On a side note, from a purely analytical point of view. It's very interesting to me, this Mr. Spock stance you take . . . you cultivate this image of the Man of Reason. Yet time and time again, despite evidence, this "rational" viewpoint comes down on the side of the conservative. Does not compute, in my estimation. The rational world is simply not that black and white.
From http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-orders-ky-clerk-taken-into-custody/35081648
Quote: "Davis testified for about 20 minutes and was very emotional. She described how she became a Christian and said she is unable to believe anything else.
"You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," she told Bunning."
Yet the courts are playing some sort of emotional card? Please.
Thank you Ian, I can understand the distinction.
I still think jail time is absolutely ridiculous, and that the outrage by most is pure emotional crappola. Like I mentioned earlier, if being a jerk were a crime most of us would have done time at one point in our lives.
Aquarius, absolutely. Knowing how the news will play out to the reality-watching, celebrity-obsessed, always-judgemental society we live in? You betcha they put her in jail to satiate the emotional citizenry. Of that I have zero doubt.
Obergefell v. Hodges is the law of the land and she is required to stop discriminating and simply issue the licenses. She is being held in contempt because she refuses to follow the law. The Court gave her an opportunity to leave jail if she could provide her assurances that she would not block her clerks from issuing licenses. She is not able to do so; therefore, in jail she stays. BTW her clerks have taken an oath that they do not have any problems issuing the licenses but she would still block them.
Hmm too bad no one was blocking her when she was too busy going through spouses.
"I still think jail time is absolutely ridiculous, and that the outrage by most is pure emotional crappola. Like I mentioned earlier, if being a jerk were a crime most of us would have done time at one point in our lives."
+1000
Right. And Kim Davis' position is based on pure logic and law. Of that I have zero doubt.
It's a contempt charge. She goes to jail until she agrees to comply with the order. From what I hear, her office will be issuing licenses tomorrow morning. She won't be in long.
Tomorrow, run a stop sign in front of a cop and go to court and tell the judge that you refuse to pay the fine. You'll wind up in jail, too. It's pretty harsh for running a stop sign, if you look at it that way... but it isn't the initial offense, it's the deliberate disregard of a judge's order that lands you in the pokey.
BTW, to acknowledge my own ignorance here, what is the normal process for removing an elected official? The courts can only rule on the law, so who can actually have her removed?
Aquarius, since you seem to be informed do you know where she is on the government 'ladder'? Surely she must have someone to oversee her position?
From what I read, she can only be impeached and that would not be likely given the like minded views of the people in rural KY. They also are not scheduled to meet until January 2016. So if she was not willing to comply or resign, the only options were to fine and/or jail her.
Joe M Exactly,, inanimal. She has defied the court repeatedly. She's elected, can't be fired, but yet didn't step down. She defied the court. She chose to do this. Actions have consequences and all that.
She's not going to jail for being a jerk. Stop acting like all she did was make fun of someone's hair color. She has an obligation under the law to carry out a task and she's not doing it.
As far as emotional crappola, it's easy to take that stance when you're not being discriminated against.
Thanks Joe, the bigger picture is coming into focus.
So this is playing out in the only possible manner, given her position. Ok, mea culpa for not fully understanding her job.
Can I at least get a couple of bonus points for pointing out the obvious emotional crappola that always accompanies these types of events? ;-)
And Aquarius, logic is only as sound as the information it's based on. Others were kind enough to help correct my misunderstandings. My thanks to them.
emaxx, why is the *reason* for her not doing her job more the focus here than the fact that she was simply not doing her job?
I've told you why I think that is (too much emotion). If it's her lack of action in her job duties, why the emphasis on the reason she's not doing her job? An emotional reason, perhaps? ;-)
JIT, I was taught something about fallacies when I studied logic. So it's hard for me to ignore them when they appear.
I'm glad the reasons for the current situation have become clear to you. I also thank those who were kind enough to educate you.
Your position is that focusing on the reason she's not doing her job is emotional on the part of those who object. I don't agree but I'll concede that for purposes of the discussion.
So tell me this. How is Kim Davis' reason for not doing her job anything but emotional? What logical position is she taking?
BTW emaxx, other people have been discriminated against, even yours truly. It may not have been to the extreme that others have been, but still discrimination is discrimination.
And when I say emotional crappola, I hope you are understanding it from the perspective of using emotion to dole out punishment based not on a crime but on the thought behind a crime. Once upon a time laws were written to punish actions - not so any more. When we began heavily legislating based on emotion (hate crime laws, for instance) that kinda changed things, and as you've probably guessed I don't necessarily think that's a good thing as it gives reason for people to justify their blood lust using emotional excuses. Which is why I reiterate it often, because IMO it needs to be said.
'Once upon a time laws were written to punish actions - not so any more. When we began heavily legislating based on emotion (hate crime laws, for instance) that kinda changed things, and as you've probably guessed I don't necessarily think that's a good thing as it gives reason for people to justify their blood lust using emotional excuses. Which is why I reiterate it often, because IMO it needs to be said."
+1 "hate crimes" legislation is COMPLETE BS and COMPLETELY emotion- and politics-driven.
Aquarius, I never said Davis wasn't being emotional. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly that she is, and I even used an emotional word myself and called her an idiot. But there's no law against being like that - that's what I've said.
What I did say is that the LAW shouldn't be emotional. If the scenario had been like I thought when I first posted here, that she was an employee and could have been simply fired, would you still dismiss my position? What fallacies would you have to point out, except where my conclusions where based on incorrect information?
I most certainly would not dismiss your position under those circumstances. Why would you surmise that I would?
Kim Davis holds an office of the law. How is she not held to the same standard as the courts of law? Why would you automatically be more outraged by the action of the courts than by her actions?
And since you asked, your arguments are often based on the appeal to probability fallacy. I think you definitely invoked that here. The government has overstepped before :: it must be overstepping now.
"The government has overstepped before :: it must be overstepping now."
In 2015, I find that quite.... probable. (not necessarily in this case, but in general, yes.)
"I most certainly would not dismiss your position under those circumstances. Why would you surmise that I would?"
Because you referred to a fallacy in reasoning that was clearly based on incorrect information. Incorrect information doesn't constitute a fallacy, but intentionally being misleading does. Is that what you thought, that I was being misleading? If so, can you ever think of a time that has been the case?
"The government has overstepped before :: it must be overstepping now."
lol. I'll give you that one. The government is *always* overstepping! ;-)
Her reason is a focus because she made it the focus. She has constantly stated her devotion to god as the reason for not doing her job. When asked under what authority did she have the right to deny gays the certificates, she stated, and I quote,"under God's authority. "
With said, she was not jailed because of the reason. She was jailed for her lack of compliance. The judge didn't care why she wasn't complying.
@5catmom - I just read the article you linked to and Davis' hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
"The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw
JIT, I clarified what I meant by the fallacy in your argument. It had nothing to do with incorrect information.
And no, I don't believe you were intentionally misleading. I have never seen evidence of that on this forum. Logical fallacies are often used unwittingly because they seem like logic. Especially when one has an - dare I say it? - emotional reaction to a subject. ;-)
Wait - whaaaa? Who, me? I have NO IDEA what you are talking about Aquarius! ;-)
Still, I think it's pretty easy to understand what I'm saying about the emotional stuff - all you have to do is a) watch TV, b) listen to news outlets, or c) read any internet blog/post/forum and I think what I've been saying is readily apparent...
Oh absolutely. This nation is like a raw nerve. It's just that no one side has a corner on that market.
And I always liked to see Mr. Spock acknowledge his human side. ;-)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/
http://etherealmind.com/rules-design-documentation-etherealmind/
apparently she is in jail
Skippy So, here's my take - they had to put her in jail, fines would have no impact. I'm certain that there's a long line of zealots ready to open up their wallets to take care of her financial burden. So, the judge really had no choice. My guess too, is that she still gets paid, even while in jail. I'm sure she has a bunch of vacation time banked so she can retire early on full salary.
The KY legislature is on break until January so they would only be able to impeach her by special session which from what I've read, they are not willing to do.
In my view it would be a huge mistake to not impeach her. Think about the long-term precedent that it sets. The states simply cannot afford to go through all of this because someone doesn't do the job they were elected to do.
trekster3- She has an overpaid public position and she better follow the new legislation. Plus she has no legs to stand on with her 4 marriages. Clearly "clown- time" material...
iJay Just to be clear my only reason for saying jail seems a bit much is the actual jail experience, not that it isn't necessary to hold her in contempt. That's just basic law and has nothing to do with emotional responses that she keeps giving every time she gets her way and has an on camera shot. In stead I was figuring they can have her out of the way just as well if released to her own recognizance and stay home. They only need her out of the way to let someone else do the job they agreed to in the first place.
She's a bigot who didn't follow a court order and therefore was held in contempt. It doesn't matter what you do, if the court holds you in contempt, they have the right to hand out jail time. It's a simple as that. There shouldn't be an argument here.
Jazzykatt She can believe whatever she wants but she cannot legally enforce those beliefs on others.
Her awful hypocrisy is what makes this so pathetic. She is certainly in no position to cast stones. Is she friends with the Duggars?
Suze "They only need her out of the way to let someone else do the job they agreed to in the first place."
But that exposes a glaring hole in government policy, doesn't it? How to fire elected officials for not doing their job? It sounds like the courts are neutered to do anything other than apply force. Was it reported what law the courts used to force her to do her job (surely the court just can't say "because we said so")? And why couldn't the courts just fire her, because that's what needs to happen? What's tying their hands? If there's no method to take the appropriate action then that is really the crux of the problem, isn't it?
Sorry, but putting guns against peoples heads for the wrong reasons isn't something I can agree with.
This is getting better every day. Just get out of the marriage business.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/
please don't judge all Christians on this poor example. she makes us all look bad, and now i gots lots of explaining to do with certain folks,
misled Christians like this wear me out, it's hard removing the road blocks they throw into the way of others who are starting their walk in faith.
oh man, gimme a break already . . . . .. . . . .
in the early church, she would have been thrown out of the congregation.
BrotherDog It will give back more freedom and less Government control. No more buying votes by giving special tax deductions and make a flat tax more acceptable and fair.
So when the clerk is on vacation who dose the job in her place or appoint some other worker to do the job she is sitting in jail at the peoples expence the people should have appointment recalled and she should be replaced
Caged Animal GC - The gay couples who were suing the clerk's office actually asked the judge to suspend the jail sentence if she agreed to not interfere with her deputy clerks. She refused that option. She has been given every opportunity to avoid jail and she chose poorly every single time.
County Clerks can be elected or appointed. If they break the law, they should be punished just like normal folk. If there's some offense, they can be removed (appointment) or impeached (elected). I think.
JITs, so who's holding the gun: the judge or the clerk?
All I can say in this case: darned liberal Democrats :>)
The innocent victims are the folks just trying to get married.
strangerdanger Ms. Davis, as an elected official, can only be removed from office by impeachment. It is unlikely the county commissioners will take that course of action.
But, something else comes up. As a God fearing woman, she is a hypocrite. She refuses to enforce the decision rendered by SCOTUS, which is law, and she took an oath, invoking God, to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
This is the Kentucky oath of office she swore she would uphold and abide by:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ______________________, according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State, nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Lone Star The scary thing here is the selective justice. We have a government employee who is not following the opinion of the court and has been jailed because of her Christian beliefs.
At the very same time we have the city of San Francisco that is publicly espousing their intentions to completely disregard federal immigration laws, yet that is fine. No one is in jail or being investigated, as American citizens are gunned down on the street by people that were deported five previous times.
Mark I am so tired of people trying to enforce their beliefs on others. She can believe anything she wants to in her personal life. To hold all the people of the state up to her beliefs is wrong. If she didn't want to sign the license then she is using her bigotry (masked as religious dogma) to apply her beliefs to people she is supposed to serve. There are people who claim that this is religious persecution of her for her following her faith when the opposite is true. She is using a religious cudgel to browbeat her beliefs into people who are just living their lives. If she did not hold a public office this would not be a major issue. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in this country but try telling that to people who keep wanting to legislate their personal beliefs.
She is the kind of person who turns people off to religion I wonder how many people she has turned down for a marriage license because they eat shellfish or wore two different kinds of cloth how many people did she turn down who were being married for the second time this woman cherry picks her way through the Bible
emaxxman she knew the possible repercussions of her decisions, but stuck to her decision. That's not choosing poorly, that's being true to your convictions.
Denis Yet ,none of the left leaning comment on the selective justice we see so often. I actually agree that if she takes a government position she is compelled to follow the dictates of the government or work to change them. The real issue here is we now selectively enforce laws. Thank you HH for mentioning Kate Steinle, a victim of the lefts selective enforcement.
Five of Davis' deputies said under oath they would comply with the court's order to issue the licenses. A sixth clerk, Kim Davis' son, remains a holdout but has not been jailed - maybe they will let him be cellies with mom - meanwhile they are democrats of all things lol
http://time.com/4023465/kentucky-clerk-lawyer-kim-davis/
1. Davis is a public official doing the work of government.
2. Government is required to treat all citizens equitably.
3. Davis was not acting on her own behalf; She has no authority to issue marriage licenses; the county does. She merely facilitated the paperwork and ensured compliance with statutes - on behalf of the County and State Government.
4. Since she was acting on behalf of the County and State,her own religious views are utterly immaterial pursuant to the US Constitution.
5. If Davis' religious views forbid her from doing the job, she has the legal obligation to step down. Once a conflict which prevented her from acting equitably in a position of public trust arose - Davis was immediately conflicted out.
6. Davis took this to court by her own actions. She lost.
7. She appealed. She lost again.
8. She appealed again. She lost again - and now is in Jail.
Yay Appalachia!
So federal judge jails clerk for not following the law yet immigration laws can be ignored. Gotta love cherry picking the laws that are to be enforced. So I ask all those cheering for this idiot who was jailed. Why is one law enforced and another blatantly not. And for the record I am neither republican or democrat. I just see how one sided enforcement is wrong. This idiot did not do her job. But other elected officials are doing no less and are heroes. Rule of law is diminished when only selected laws are followed. Look to the past and see the future.
I agree there is disparity at every level / but it's a fact that Davis inherited the job from her mom a few months ago and worked in the office for a number of years - I'm sure she was well aware of the potential of the recent Scotus ruling when she was elected - this was a staged incident and the court complied with her attorneys wishes to martyr herself.
No you provided a good summary skippy. She's not even worth additional comments - she's a classic "do as I say not as I do" zealot.
I think you summarized it well Skippy!
My experience with people of true religious convictions, is they are quiet about it. If their job conflicted with their strongly held beliefs, they would resign.
I have lost friends to this kind of religious, sorry, "holier than thou" attitude. It was always women who had a bit of a wild past, and now were "reborn". My feeling is it's kind of like when people quit smoking, or drinking, or lose a lot of weight, and now they feel some kind of entitlement to impose their "wisdom" on the rest of us.
MAN Since I am Gay I would like to chime in.
This woman is in jail because she did not follow the rule of law. She was elected to follow the rule of law. Just like any elected official.
Now, if I lived in that part of Kentucky I would not have given her the 15 minutes she obviously seeks. I would think I could go to another county unless I am wrong.
Obviously this woman thinks she is the leader of the Moral Brigade. Let's see. She has been married FOUR times. She was pregnant with a child from husband #3 while married to husband #1. Husband #2 ended up adopting this child.
I truly could careless how many times a person is married or how many children they have with different partners. Just don't throw stones in a glass house.
BTW, her churches web site says divorce is totally the last resort. I guess this clerk did not get the memo. The web site also states that woman should not work while the children are growing up. How many of you Mom's had to work or are working while your children are growing up to help make ends meet?
Take care
Singlemaleinnj MAN, It's not quiet the same as your other examples. The Bibles tells them to tell others about Jesus and his love for you. Some don't do it in smartest ways, such as the way Kim chose.
Singlemaleinnj. My Mother was a home maker. My wife was a home maker, She did work as a lunchroom aid but, was always home when the children were home. My daughter quit her job when her children came along. She took in a child care for a family and later did nursey school teacher work but, again was always home when her children were home. It's where you put your priorities.
Yeah priorities. I work with a successful corporate woman who said that even if it is only 15- 20 minutes at the end of the day she Always gives that time to her 2 small boys. Is that all it takes?
Old Gent, you are from a time that is a million years ago. In this day and age it has to be a two career household. I know it was different in 1910 when you grew up, but its 2015 and times are different.
A good day. I agree its terrible that this woman has little time for her two boys. But if the husband does not earn enough money to support the family so the wife can stay home, the wife has to work.
You don't want the family home to go into foreclosure so you and Old Gent have your way and the wife stays at home. You don't want the family to go into bankruptcy so you and Old Gent have your way and the wife stays at home.
Think about it. You two are wrong! I'm done with this topic. I should have listened to the others who say this forum has been taken over by such negativity and back words thinking.
Jeez single male take it easy. This is not backwards thinking. But whatever , I have better things to do than debate with you on a forum. Have a good Labor Day .
Singlemaleinnj FYI , My grandaughter is in just the second year of collage now . Her .Mom and Dad bought a house and traveled and skied all over. Went to Scottland and Hawaii and started a family after 11 years of marraige. My Point is we make our own choices.
Old Gent,
I think the point was that not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to buy a home, travel, "ski all over", and send their kids to college on a single income. That's great that your daughter's family could do that. However, many people these days need two incomes to live even half so well.
Gadfly I think you are missing the main part of the decison. If things did not go Ok, then no children. They are both working now. I know I am different but, one thing my family has always been taught was be responsible. To each his own.
So, only families wealthy enough to live on one income should have children? To each his own indeed, and thank god for that.
Singlemale, I understand exactly what you have articulated. Not sure why a few are twisting it around and steering away from the point that you have eloquently made...
positive I picked up a copy of yesterday's "Daily Record" and in it was this article about the Morris County Clerk's opinion of this situation:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/2015/09/09/morris-clerk-kentucky-clerk-wrong-violate-law/71899842/
At the end of it, she mentions the same quote from the Bible that I did in the last paragraph of the article: "“There were people who obviously don’t want me to be performing these ceremonies,” Grossi said. “They ask me, as a Roman Catholic, how I square that. I tell them if you read the Bible, Jesus told the people to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. If you read the Bible and you believe in Jesus’ word, this is what Jesus said to do. So I’m actually following what Jesus said, right out of the Bible.” ".
Kim Davis has now also said that any of her deputies that issued any licenses while she was in prison would be fired and the licenses considered invalid.
She's had her 20 minutes of fame like the Westboro Baptist Church. Can we have a bolt of lightning for each of them please?
Commenting is no longer available.