Pope Francis sides with county clerks who refuse to issue gay marriage licenses - Polidicks

Imagine if there was a black person being beaten in the middle of the street, and the only police officer in the proximity said "I don't believe in helping niggers".

Hello, I am a judge who gives harsher sentences to Atheists because it is my religious belief that, without god, they will never have a true moral compass. Hello, I am an Emergency Medical Technician who refuses to give life-saving medical attention to gay couples when I arrive on scene, because homosexuality is a sin and that goes against my religious beliefs. Hello, I am a city clerk who won't give residency permits to Muslims, because Muslims worship a false idol, which is against my Christian beliefs. Simply bowing to Kim Davis and letting her use her religious beliefs as a shield to justify official oppression and bigotry would set a dangerous precedence. It must be made clear that your personal beliefs do not excuse you from the duties of your post, [B]especially[/B] if you are a public servant.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48794798]It must be made clear that your personal beliefs do not excuse you from the duties of your post, [B]especially[/B] if you are a public servant.[/QUOTE] Do you believe that the federal government should go stop all legalization of marijuana since it's still illegal on the federal level, and therefore illegal on the state level?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48794798]Simply bowing to Kim Davis and letting her use her religious beliefs as a shield to justify official oppression and bigotry would set a dangerous precedence. It must be made clear that your personal beliefs do not excuse you from the duties of your post, [B]especially[/B] if you are a public servant.[/QUOTE] Except that's not what the pope said.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48795097]Do you believe that the federal government should go stop all legalization of marijuana since it's still illegal on the federal level, and therefore illegal on the state level?[/QUOTE] No, but I don't see what that has to do with what I just said. What is the point you're trying to make? [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Luni;48795177]Except that's not what the pope said.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to interpret the pope's endorsement of Davis, I'm merely trying to highlight the importance of this case from a legal perspective.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48795627]No, but I don't see what that has to do with what I just said. What is the point you're trying to make?[/QUOTE] Well, you seemed to be making an overarching statement about public servants doing their duty, even if it goes against your personal beliefs. One of the duties of the federal law is to ensure that states are enforcing federal law, one of which is the criminalization of marijuana. It just seems to me that many of those who are making these huge moral claims of outrage about how dare a public servant not do their duty are actually just mad because they disagree with what she, specifically, did and not the fact that she's disobeying law. If we were talking about a law that they disagreed with, like marijuana being illegal, then they don't really care. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] After re-reading that I can see that it might be confusing. To put it simply: it seems like people are against her beliefs about gay marriage, but are pretending that it's about her disobeying the law.

[QUOTE=Levelog;48786400]They deserve [I]equal[/I] privilege. Not special. I think that's a pretty fucking basic request.[/QUOTE] Pfft, we all know they're getting special privileges. This goes for any quote-on-quote "protected" group. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;48794211]Are you for real?[/QUOTE] Real or not, it's true. It's the same thing in the legal system. Women get lighter sentences for similar crimes to men. And in custody cases, the woman is often favored.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48795886]Pfft, we all know they're getting special privileges. This goes for any quote-on-quote "protected" group.[/QUOTE] Can you name a special privilege that gay people receive? [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48795858]After re-reading that I can see that it might be confusing. To put it simply: it seems like people are against her beliefs about gay marriage, but are pretending that it's about her disobeying the law.[/QUOTE] It is because people believe that the law is moral and just. If there was a scenario of a clerk issuing marriage licenses to gay couples [B][/B][I]before[/I] the Supreme Court ruling somehow, I don't think that people would have a huge issue with it because they saw the law is immoral.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48795858]Well, you seemed to be making an overarching statement about public servants doing their duty, even if it goes against your personal beliefs. One of the duties of the federal law is to ensure that states are enforcing federal law, one of which is the criminalization of marijuana. It just seems to me that many of those who are making these huge moral claims of outrage about how dare a public servant not do their duty are actually just mad because they disagree with what she, specifically, did and not the fact that she's disobeying law. If we were talking about a law that they disagreed with, like marijuana being illegal, then they don't really care. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] After re-reading that I can see that it might be confusing. To put it simply: it seems like people are against her beliefs about gay marriage, but are pretending that it's about her disobeying the law.[/QUOTE] The primary difference is that the democratic processes of state versus federal powers is the conflict in the marijuana case, whereas David's situation is a matter of a singular individual using her office as a political podium. These two issues aren't comparable in the same scopes. On the one hand we are dealing with the historic legal oppression and persecution of a minority group, essentially an abuse of human rights, and on the other we're discussing the decision to legalize a recreational intoxicant. While I support the legalization of marijuana and applaud the democratic process that is slowly resulting in the realization of that goal, it exists in an entirely different category of idealogy than the fight for equality for homosexuals. Still, I'll freely admit that I find Davis's actions and personal belief systems gross, selfish, hypocritical, and deeply misinformed, and that this bias certainly influences my desire to crack down on her particular display of belligerence and ignorance. Yet, I stand by my justifications for that call to action: it is not her position or right to abuse her office in this manner, regardless of whatever points she might be protesting. She is a public servant, so if she refuses to serve the public then she ought to be forced to step down.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48796041]The primary difference is that the democratic processes of state versus federal powers is the conflict in the marijuana case, whereas David's situation is a matter of a singular individual using her office as a political podium. These two issues aren't comparable in the same scopes. On the one hand we are dealing with the historic legal oppression and persecution of a minority group, essentially an abuse of human rights, and on the other we're discussing the decision to legalize a recreational intoxicant. While I support the legalization of marijuana and applaud the democratic process that is slowly resulting in the realization of that goal, it exists in an entirely different category of idealogy than the fight for equality for homosexuals. Still, I'll freely admit that I find Davis's actions and personal belief systems gross, selfish, hypocritical, and deeply misinformed, and that this bias certainly influences my desire to crack down on her particular display of belligerence and ignorance. Yet, I stand by my justifications for that call to action: it is not her position or right to abuse her office in this manner, regardless of whatever points she might be protesting. She is a public servant, so if she refuses to serve the public then she ought to be forced to step down.[/QUOTE] To be clear, I agree that she is in the wrong. The appropriate way to abstain from going against your religious beliefs is to either get someone else to do it in a legal way or resigning your office. It just seems like this: [QUOTE]On the one hand we are dealing with the historic legal oppression and persecution of a minority group, essentially an abuse of human rights, and on the other we're discussing the decision to legalize a recreational intoxicant.[/QUOTE] Is the real issue that you, and most everyone else, has with her as opposed to her going against the law. It doesn't seem like you disagree that they are both going against federal law, but that you think one is right and one is wrong. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] It's an important distinction to make because it's fairly disingenuous to argue that all public servants MUST obey the law when you're perfectly fine with SOME public servants not obeying the law when you agree with their cause.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796092]To be clear, I agree that she is in the wrong. The appropriate way to abstain from going against your religious beliefs is to either get someone else to do it in a legal way or resigning your office. It just seems like this: Is the real issue that you, and most everyone else, has with her as opposed to her going against the law. It doesn't seem like you disagree that they are both going against federal law, but that you think one is right and one is wrong. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] It's an important distinction to make because it's fairly disingenuous to argue that all public servants MUST obey the law when you're perfectly fine with SOME public servants not obeying the law when you agree with their cause.[/QUOTE] Also keep in mind that in lieu of passing legislation decriminalizing marijuana, the executive branch issued orders reprioritizing federal involvement dealing with marijuana.

He shouldn't have met with her, I lost a huge chunk of any goodwill I might have felt towards him(the Pope). Mentioning the overall issue in his speeches would be one thing, meeting with a specific person changes the nature of his statements. He's personally endorsing a crackpot.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796092]To be clear, I agree that she is in the wrong. The appropriate way to abstain from going against your religious beliefs is to either get someone else to do it in a legal way or resigning your office. It just seems like this: Is the real issue that you, and most everyone else, has with her as opposed to her going against the law. It doesn't seem like you disagree that they are both going against federal law, but that you think one is right and one is wrong. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] It's an important distinction to make because it's fairly disingenuous to argue that all public servants MUST obey the law when you're perfectly fine with SOME public servants not obeying the law when you agree with their cause.[/QUOTE] "Disingenuous" is continuing to imply that these two examples are somehow similar.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48796222]"Disingenuous" is continuing to imply that these two examples are somehow similar.[/QUOTE] Are they not both ways in which a public servant is not doing their assign duty? If so, then that's the similarity I'm talking about. If not, please explain why not. Remember, you're the one that said: [QUOTE] It must be made clear that your personal beliefs do not excuse you from the duties of your post, especially if you are a public servant.[/QUOTE] I'm just holding you to it.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48796217]He shouldn't have met with her, I lost a huge chunk of any goodwill I might have felt towards him(the Pope). Mentioning the overall issue in his speeches would be one thing, meeting with a specific person changes the nature of his statements. He's personally endorsing a crackpot.[/QUOTE] Except he never "endorsed" her. He made a broad statement about conscientious objection -- meaning that, like a pacifist taken by the draft, she shouldn't be fined, imprisoned or executed for refusing. He never said "...and she should be allowed to keep her job." The thread's title is grossly misleading.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796092]To be clear, I agree that she is in the wrong. The appropriate way to abstain from going against your religious beliefs is to either get someone else to do it in a legal way or resigning your office. It just seems like this: Is the real issue that you, and most everyone else, has with her as opposed to her going against the law. It doesn't seem like you disagree that they are both going against federal law, but that you think one is right and one is wrong. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] It's an important distinction to make because it's fairly disingenuous to argue that all public servants MUST obey the law when you're perfectly fine with SOME public servants not obeying the law when you agree with their cause.[/QUOTE] One is the peoples legal right to be involved with the democratic process and shape the laws of the land through protests and other methods. The other is a civil servant insisting she's the law, and not a servitor of the law. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48796243]Are they not both ways in which a public servant is not doing their assign duty? If so, then that's the similarity I'm talking about. If not, please explain why not. Remember, you're the one that said: I'm just holding you to it.[/QUOTE] If a police officer doesn't do his job of arresting a drug user, or makes a decision to prioritize something else, then maybe you're right, they're similar cases. However, if we're talking about the movement for legalization, it's largely, almost entirely led, as a voters advocacy front rather than as a group of civil servants refusing to do their jobs. Ms Davis is refusing to do her job and she is not part of the democratic process by refusing to do so

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48795886] Real or not, it's true. It's the same thing in the legal system. Women get lighter sentences for similar crimes to men. And in custody cases, the woman is often favored.[/QUOTE] This right here is what I have been trying to say! Thank you!

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48795886]Pfft, we all know they're getting special privileges. This goes for any quote-on-quote "protected" group. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] Real or not, it's true. It's the same thing in the legal system. Women get lighter sentences for similar crimes to men. And in custody cases, the woman is often favored.[/QUOTE] Okay so can you tell me in detail 1) what privledges gay people are being given that no one else has? 2) when they got those privledges? Was it 2008? or 2009? Because you realize the culture of "Gay acceptance" is pretty new, right? and 3) though that is true, it is a shifting line. Women are no longer getting off easy and men are no longer being passed over for custody as readily. Those things take time to change. [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=vrej;48796433]This right here is what I have been trying to say! Thank you![/QUOTE] I don't think you really know what you want to say

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48786369]Because he's supposed to be a religious leader, not a politician.[/QUOTE] The Pope is a strange mix of theocratic arbiter and pseudo-political figure.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48796338]One is the peoples legal right to be involved with the democratic process and shape the laws of the land through protests and other methods.[/QUOTE] Generally, you don't have the legal right, as a state, to infringe on federal law. This is the accepted norm. You can advocate all you want, but actually doing the act is not a right. Marijuana is allowed only because the people in question within the federal government don't want to enforce the law. [QUOTE]The other is a civil servant insisting she's the law, and not a servitor of the law.[/QUOTE] Just like Obama when he sent a memo to federal prosecutors telling them to not prosecute medical marijuana distributors based on his own feelings about the topic.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48796041]She is a public servant, so if she refuses to serve the public then she ought to be forced to step down.[/QUOTE] I have to agree with sgman91 here, people seem to be very inconsistent about the expectations they place on public servants. When it's a clerk refusing to issue a gay marriage license, then people say she's a public official and has to follow the law against her own conscience. When it's a police or FBI chief enforcing drug laws, an NSA officer performing Congressionally-authorized surveillance, or a judge going by the book and following an unpopular law, then people say they shouldn't be enforcing an unjust law and are complicit by enforcing it. Nobody's saying these are 1:1 equivalent situations, but they are all fundamentally questions of whether a public official should follow their conscience or the law. You can't invoke absolutist principles for a particular case when they clearly won't apply to all cases, and the principle that 'a public official must obey the law' is obviously not always true. Clearly in some cases a public official should bow to the will of the people against their own beliefs, and clearly in some cases a public official should contest injustice rather than blindly enforce it. It's going to come down to a matter of personal opinion. The reason this happens, I think, is that if someone says 'she should be forced to do her job or get fired because I personally agree with gay marriage', then it sounds a lot weaker than 'she should be forced to do her job or get fired because she has an obligation to obey the law as an elected official', so people use the latter argument even though they don't [I]actually[/I] believe it because it shifts the issue from a matter of personal beliefs to a matter of governmental principle. Can't we just say that she ought to accept the will of the American people and either do her job or resign if she cannot carry out her legal duties, without trying to invoke legalistic principles to justify it?

Well said, in the end it comes down to whether law is the moral standard or whether law is attempting to accurately reflect the moral standard. If the former, then all people are obligated to always follow the law, no matter what. If the latter, then people are morally obligated to obey the moral standard, even if it goes against the law.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796243]Are they not both ways in which a public servant is not doing their assign duty? If so, then that's the similarity I'm talking about. If not, please explain why not. Remember, you're the one that said: I'm just holding you to it.[/QUOTE] No, they're not. These two concepts do not exist in the same ideological, social, or legal arenas. marijuana is an instance of state law cocnflicting with federal law, essentially a return to the debate of where state powers end and federal powers begin. It is a debate over whether states have the legal authority to regulate controlled substances within their own borders, or if that power belongs solely to the federal government. It is a conflict that may ultimately have to be resolved in the supreme Court, but which hasn't yet. If or when this does end up in Supreme Court, it will not be on the basis of whether it is unconstitutional to prevent the purchase of marijuana, but whether controlled substances are in the realm of state or federal powers. Homosexual marriage is an entirely different scenario. The debate was not over which bodies got choose whether homosexual marriage was legal, but whether denying it was in itself unconstitutional on the grounds that such bans violated the principles of civil and legal liberties, and were a form of minority oppression/persecution. The supreme Court, highest judicial body in the land, ruled that it is unconstitutional to prevent gay men and women from enjoying those legal rights, and that is the final word on the subject unless the supreme Court decides to overrule that decision at a later date. Basically, Kim Davis is a public servant abusing her position to make political points about a legal matter that has been officially decided by the highest body in the land. There is no legal confuaion or justification for her actions. She is contempt of the Supreme Vourt and indereliction of her duties. Public servants in states with legalized marijuana are still performing their civic duties in issuing business licenses, and things of that nature, as per state code. They will not be in dereliction of their duties unless or until the state or federal government orders them to stop, and they refuse to do so, or unless they refuse to issue licenses despite the state law (however, in this case the federal statutes give them fair defense to argue their position). This scenario will ultimately be a matter for the higher courts to decide, not individual fucking clerks.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48796613]No, they're not. These two concepts do not exist in the same ideological, social, or legal arenas. marijuana is an instance of state law cocnflicting with federal law, essentially a return to the debate of where state powers end and federal powers begin. It is a debate over whether states have the legal authority to regulate controlled substances within their own borders, or if that power belongs solely to the federal government. It is a conflict that may ultimately have to be resolved in the supreme Court, but which hasn't yet. If or when this does end up in Supreme Court, it will not be on the basis of whether it is unconstitutional to prevent the purchase of marijuana, but whether controlled substances are in the realm of state or federal powers.[/QUOTE] So why isn't it ending up in the supreme court....... because the federal government refuses to prosecute them. In effect, they are playing favorites based on what policies they like and what policies they don't like. They are not doing their duty to uphold federal law.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796670]So why isn't it ending up in the supreme court....... because the federal government refuses to prosecute them. In effect, they are playing favorites based on what policies they like and what policies they don't like. They are not doing their duty to uphold federal law.[/QUOTE] I thought republicans gave a shit about "states rights"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48796690]I thought republicans gave a shit about "states rights"[/QUOTE] You're confusing arguments. I'm not saying that they should do that, but that if BDA is consistent, then he should also be arguing for them to do that. He's the one that said public officials should do their duty even if it goes against their personal beliefs. Personally, I don't think that's true at all.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796703]You're confusing arguments. I'm not saying that they should do that, but that if BDA is consistent, then he should also be arguing for them to do that.[/QUOTE] Oh okay. Sorry I misunderstood.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48796670]So why isn't it ending up in the supreme court....... because the federal government refuses to prosecute them. In effect, they are playing favorites based on what policies they like and what policies they don't like. They are not doing their duty to uphold federal law.[/QUOTE] Let's just aide aside this ridiculous marijuana sidebar. It was a bad example based on false equivalencies that has no bearing in this particular conversation. It was brought up to assert that I am a hypocrite who bends the interpretation of civic duty to my own moral standards, but all it's doing is confusing the matter. Let's be honest about what it is you're trying to prove, so that we can move past that. This is the question you actually wanted to ask: if we lived in an alternate timeline where the Supreme Court had ruled that homosexual marriage itself was unconstitutional, And Kim Davis of Earth 2 had again decided to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely, this time in protest in favor of gay marriage, would I still think she was abusing her position and acting in dereliction of her duties? My answer to that is yes, in a legal sense. She is a public servant and the highest court in the country had made their ruling. She has no right to refuse to do her job based on personal moral misgivings, and thus should be forced to step down. However, I would support her morally in her protest, and also argue that it was the Supreme Court who had truly failed to uphold the duties of their office, as it would be my firmly held belief that such a ruling would be in complete opposition to the spirit and intentions of the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court ultimately exists to uphold and protect. Is this a satisfactory answer for you? If not, then is there a reason why it matters? Would delegitimizing ME delegitimize my argument?

[QUOTE=Luni;48796334]Except he never "endorsed" her. He made a broad statement about conscientious objection -- meaning that, like a pacifist taken by the draft, she shouldn't be fined, imprisoned or executed for refusing. He never said "...and she should be allowed to keep her job." The thread's title is grossly misleading.[/QUOTE] He met with her, that's an endorsement, considering her position. She's not even Catholic! So it's not like he's meeting one of his flock. Remember, he's an international figure, she's no one. In those circumstances his meeting with her can't be said to be anything but supportive.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48794798]Hello, I am a judge who gives harsher sentences to Atheists because it is my religious belief that, without god, they will never have a true moral compass. Hello, I am an Emergency Medical Technician who refuses to give life-saving medical attention to gay couples when I arrive on scene, because homosexuality is a sin and that goes against my religious beliefs. Hello, I am a city clerk who won't give residency permits to Muslims, because Muslims worship a false idol, which is against my Christian beliefs. Simply bowing to Kim Davis and letting her use her religious beliefs as a shield to justify official oppression and bigotry would set a dangerous precedence. It must be made clear that your personal beliefs do not excuse you from the duties of your post, [B]especially[/B] if you are a public servant.[/QUOTE] does this legalist philosophy of yours apply to enforcing federal immigration law in sanctuary cities or [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48796881]lso argue that it was the Supreme Court who had truly failed to uphold the duties of their office, as it would be my firmly held belief that such a ruling would be in complete opposition to the spirit and intentions of the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court ultimately exists to uphold and protect.[/QUOTE] what