A lot of us consider her a hypocrite because she's claiming that she can't issue same-sex marriage licenses because it's against the Bible--but at the same time she's been divorced multiple times and is on her fourth marriage, which is every bit as much against biblical teachings as same sex marriage.
Also, she doesn't seem to have ever felt compelled to abide by the biblical proscriptions against divorce (or any other biblical teachings concerning marriage) in deciding who to issue marriage license to; but now that teh gayz want to get married, she suddenly HAS to follow the Bible to the letter? Oh, really? what about all the other stuff the Bible says is sinful that she's been cheerfully ignoring? THAT stuff is obviously okay with her, and I'd bet money that the REAL reason is because that stuff doesn't creep her out like those icky gayz and their icky gay sex.
I'm not saying she's being CONSCIOUSLY hypocritical. But claiming she can't go against the Bible, while cherry picking which PARTS of the Bible she can't go against is nagl, at the very least, and looks an awful lot like hypocrisy to an awful lot of folks.
I don't know the duties of her position aside from marriage licenses, but does she have anything to do with divorce or firearms licensing as two examples
On the former, I don't think she issues divorce licenses.
No, but the hypocrisy point on divorce is that she marries people who have been divorced. Jesus prohibited that, with the only exception for sexual infidelity.
Matthew 19
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
You have a point; however, I think there is a case to be made for at least an undercurrent of hypocrisy being at work here, and I therefore still feel that the "hypocrisy" tag is appropriate.
It would appear, as a matter of fact, that Kentucky law requires specifying one's status as "divorced," as well as the number of previous marriages. So, in fact, Kim would have to know the circumstances and have gone along with it anyway.
You're stuck on a dilemma, Jeff. One horn - Kim is a hypocrite who issues licenses to people who've been divorced, despite doing so being as contrary to her beliefs as issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Or, she's a hypocrite who adheres rigidly to some portions of her chosen religious text while ignoring others - apparently in whatever way suits her and her desire for a high-profile martyrdom.
Yeah, I couldn't find forms, as such, either. I get the sense that each county might be responsible for its own forms, which they just keep in their offices in physical form (since "applying" requires doing so in person). But the law I linked specifies what elements the application form would have to include.
There's a fun meta-point here, too, insofar as the argument you're making is that Kim is potentially not guilty of hypocrisy in the case of divorce because, while her actions are as facilitative in re-marrying divorced individuals as they are in marrying same-sex couples, she might not be aware that that's what she's doing - thereby avoiding moral culpability under her chosen worldview. In that, her convenient ignorance is a little like yours - you purport not to actually know what the Kentucky form says, and relying on that ignorance you defend her, apparently rationally. But it turns out your ignorance shields you from being aware of her actual hypocrisy! How, then, are we to judge you? As ignorant of your own ignorance?
On the latter, I don't see what firearms licensing would have to do with this if she was involved at all.
Not surprised. It is an example of cherry picking. Jesus had a lot more to say about non-violence than gay marriage. Of course that is one of the most ignored parts of his message. So if her newly found deep seated Christian beliefs stop her from issuing licenses to same sex couples...
Of course not sure she does. Either way if she can't do the job she ran for and is paid for she should resign.
And she came to these beliefs later in life, after her divorces. It's not hypocritical in this case.
This is a distinction without a difference. God intended her to remain married to her first husband, regardless of when she converted, which means she is committing adultery every time she fornicates with her current hubby.
Also, she doesn't seem to have ever felt compelled to abide by the biblical proscriptions against divorce (or any other biblical teachings concerning marriage) in deciding who to issue marriage license to; but now that teh gayz want to get married, she suddenly HAS to follow the Bible to the letter? Oh, really? what about all the other stuff the Bible says is sinful that she's been cheerfully ignoring? THAT stuff is obviously okay with her, and I'd bet money that the REAL reason is because that stuff doesn't creep her out like those icky gayz and their icky gay sex.
I'm not saying she's being CONSCIOUSLY hypocritical. But claiming she can't go against the Bible, while cherry picking which PARTS of the Bible she can't go against is nagl, at the very least, and looks an awful lot like hypocrisy to an awful lot of folks.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
No, but the hypocrisy point on divorce is that she marries people who have been divorced.
Jesus prohibited that, with the only exception for sexual infidelity.
Matthew 19
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
You're stuck on a dilemma, Jeff. One horn - Kim is a hypocrite who issues licenses to people who've been divorced, despite doing so being as contrary to her beliefs as issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Or, she's a hypocrite who adheres rigidly to some portions of her chosen religious text while ignoring others - apparently in whatever way suits her and her desire for a high-profile martyrdom.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Not surprised. It is an example of cherry picking. Jesus had a lot more to say about non-violence than gay marriage. Of course that is one of the most ignored parts of his message. So if her newly found deep seated Christian beliefs stop her from issuing licenses to same sex couples...
Of course not sure she does. Either way if she can't do the job she ran for and is paid for she should resign.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
This is a distinction without a difference. God intended her to remain married to her first husband, regardless of when she converted, which means she is committing adultery every time she fornicates with her current hubby.
Reply
Leave a comment