Home | About | Donate

Overruling 'God's Authority,' Supreme Court Affirms Gay Marriage Ruling


Overruling 'God's Authority,' Supreme Court Affirms Gay Marriage Ruling

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Backing up this year's landmark equality ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a Kentucky county clerk's request to deny issuing same-sex marriage certificates on the grounds of religious preference.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis could not 'opt out' of her duties as a public official because of her personal objections.


Failure to do to the work assigned is cause for termination whether it be in the private or public sphere. Period. How this even got to the supreme court I'll never understand. Why this person is even still employed I'll never understand. What is that old and valued saying?...Let Freedom Ring!!!


Why do these Christians hate America so much?

This is a nation of law, and the rule of law is supreme.


And Ms Davis was expecting to get 'God' into the court room how, precisely?


As an atheist and humanist, I pray ( wink) that more "Christians" like Kim Davis will attempt to do the wrong thing in the name of their religion. The more these bigots try to force their fundamentalist agenda on the rest of us, the more people will see the need to limit the influence of religion on public life. This can only be a good thing, when so much religion leads to irrationalism and intolerance. Kim Davis tells us that her God commands her to resist same-sex marriage as an "abomination." But Ms Davis, and other right wing Christians, have no ears for the God who commands us to love our neighbor, to practice charity and mercy, and to seek justice. According to Ms Davis, God cannot abide a loving couple of the same-sex, but God is perfectly happy with a militaristic society running around causing havoc and mayhem everywhere it goes. If Ms Davis was a true Christian of the sort we rarely see, she would oppose the American Empire as the contemporary version of godless Rome. But Ms Davis is one of those all too typical "Christians," who make Christianity easy by choosing the parts that dovetail with everything that is bad in this profane, benighted world. It was these kind of "Christians" who Kierkegaard had in mind when he said there are no Christians in Christendom. Ms Davis should either start issuing licenses or quit her job. If she wants to remain "pure" let her find a retreat somewhere on the mountainside. Early Christians often renounced the world by rejecting human society. If Ms Davis wants to follow the example of the so-called "true Christians," she should immediately give up on our sinful society. It's pretty obvious that we are beyond redemption and are headed for hell. Does Ms Davis intend to go with us?


Was this really a Court "Ruling", as in A vs B? In other words, did the Court just refer the issue back to the Circuit Court? I'm not an attorney, but I believe there is a difference. I think that the Supreme Court rejected her appeal on the basis that there was no evidence that her First Amendment rights had been violated. I would rather see a Court ruling on the issue of First Amendments rights in regard to religious freedom and setting meaningful guidelines on its exercise - other than the current idea that if following the law violates someone's "sincerely held religious beliefs" (think Hobby Lobby and the Affordable Care Act), that in itself is a violation of First Amendment rights. (Which I think comes from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, itself found to be unconstitutional, although many states have passed similar laws.) Like I said, I'm not an attorney and confused by all of this.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I understand that this clerk cannot be fired because she was elected to office, but didn't she have to take an oath that requires her to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States? If so, the only ethical thing she can do is resign.


All three of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions of the Book have fought holy wars. ISIS is now fighting a holy war in the Middle East because it is the will of Allah that they kill infidels. The 31st Chapter of Numbers states that Yahweh (the god of the ancient Israelites) commanded them to slaughter the Midianites (men, women, children, even the livestock) because the Midianites did not worship Yahweh. Pope Urban II told the Crusaders it was God's will that they march to the Holy Land and kill infidel Muslims. We would all be better off if everybody converted to Buddhism because Buddhists don't have gods who tell them to kill infidels.

The Roman Empire was not godless. The Romans were pagans until the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. The pagan (they were polytheistic) Romans did not expect conquered people to convert to paganism (they were tolerant except when people rebelled against Caesar; then they crucified people).

Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empirre, the Christian Romans started persecuting both pagans and Jews. European anti-semitism can be traced all the way back to the Christian Roman Empire.


The issue of religious freedom was decided in Reynolds v. the US. Reynolds, a Mormon, argued that secular laws against bigamy violated his religious freedom to practice plural marriage. The court ruled that only freedom of religious belief is absolute. You have the freedom to believe anything, no matter how nonsensical. Freedom of religious action is not absolute, for if it were than Aztecs could practice human sacrifice because their gods demand blood and the Roman Catholic Church could burn heretics at the stake because they reject church dogma.

A county clerk has the freedom to believe gays should not be able to marry, but she still must obey the law and give marriage licenses to gays.


The notion that marriage is based on romantic love is an invention of humans. Before people thought they were in love and should get married, marriages were arranged for practical reasons; e.g., a king married his daughter to the son of another king to cement a political alliance.

Some religious people are opposed to gays marrying because the Bible condemns sodomy. This is not different than preventing brothers and sisters from marrying because the Bible also condemns incest.

The problem is that sodomy is no longer illegal (anti-sodomy laws were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas), so there is no reason to prevent gays from marrying.


If enough voters signed a petition to recall the clerk a new election would have to be held. Unfortunately, a majority of the people in her county probably agree with her that gay marriage is a sin and should be prevented.


Yes, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all sanction the use of violence in Holy Wars. But I don't believe "we would be better off if everybody converted to Buddhism." Buddhists may not have Gods but they still have dogmas, and Buddhists have been responsible for their own share of religious violence. See Michael Parenti's discussion of Buddhist intolerance in his book, "God and His Demons." Personally, I think we would all be better off if we all renounced religion for the superstitious nonsense it generally is, but I recognize that universal enlightenment is never going to happen. I will settle for the religious keeping their religions to themselves, leaving the rest of us to get on with life on earth. Of course the Romans were not "Godless"; I was referring to the Christian mindset that pagan deities are not true Gods. And yes, Christianity has been the major carrier of the virus of anti Semitism. But it's worth noting that Christianity picked up on the tribalistic supremacism of Judaism and turned it against the Jews. In other words, Christians claimed that they, and not the Jews, were the "chosen people." Humanity has intellectually outgrown religion, but we are not yet emotionally or spiritually balanced to let go of religious illusion. Pascal said that people are necessarily mad and I believe that the continuing hold of religion on the human mind is proof of Pascal's thesis.


Aren't these people the ones who are afraid of Sharia Law?