KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[MSNative]

The other difference is that the mayor of San Francisco appealed to the California Constitution's equal protection clause as giving him authority to grant same-sex marriage licenses. People argued his appeal was erroneously applied and, while the courts settled the dispute, he suspended the activity. Davis appealed to a vague and amorphous divine revelation and refused to suppress the activity even though the courts had already settled the dispute.

The courts had settled the dispute before Newsom did what he did. (Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. Newsom acted in 2004) And Davis is appealing to freedom of religion, not a nebulous divine revelation. You may not like her religion but the right of people to practice their religion is still protected regardless of how poorly you view it.

I do not agree with Davis' argument that this is a freedom of religion issue. I just think both Davis and Newsom were wrong. However, I think they both felt there were larger moral issues at stake.

 

Edited to fix many grammar violations. Sheesh. My license to type should be revoked.

[Zydruna]

It concerns me that this latest update to the story states that the licenses being handed out today are simply being issued with no signature.  It says the county attorney and lawyers for the plaintiffs say they are still valid, but the judge's comment about it being "up to the gay couples to take that chance" makes me worry. Shouldn't the judge be able to say decisively whether or not they are considered valid? 

 

http://www.wave3.com/story/29959385/the-latest-3rd-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

 

[poppy]

I wonder if the protesters harassing the couples leaving that clerk office yell at everyone who they believe to be a sinner?

[TranquilMind]

The Supreme Court has decided and that is good enough for me.

The Supreme Court is not a legislative body and has no right to make new law.  However, it keeps happening, over and over. 

[mommaduck]

It concerns me that this latest update to the story states that the licenses being handed out today are simply being issued with no signature.  It says the county attorney and lawyers for the plaintiffs say they are still valid, but the judge's comment about it being "up to the gay couples to take that chance" makes me worry. Shouldn't the judge be able to say decisively whether or not they are considered valid? 

 

http://www.wave3.com/story/29959385/the-latest-3rd-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

 

From what the judge said on the phone to one couple and the fact that the judge IS able to sign in the absence of the clerk, that that judge is against signing also, but is not being called out on it. 

[albeto.]

The courts had settled the dispute before Newsom did what he did. (Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. Newsom acted in 2004) 

 

DOMA defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. The state of California was working on modifying its own, state-wide legal code with regard to marriage. The mayor was inspired, among other things, by the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which had issued an order for same-sex marriages to begin in that state the following spring.

 

And Davis is appealing to freedom of religion, not a nebulous divine revelation. 

 

She says she sought god himself: “It wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment decision,†Davis said. “It was thought out, and I sought God on it.†

 

That's precisely what seeking out god entails - obtaining divine (god is divine) revelation (he supposedly reveals "truth," through text, through prayers, through coincidences, whatever).

 

You may not like her religion but the right of people to practice their religion is still protected regardless of how poorly you view it.

 

Her religious practice was never jeopardized. She's been misled and duped into thinking her rights were being suppressed, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Hopefully it's a wake up call to other xians to know the law of their land and not be tricked into jeopardizing their own jobs and sacrificing their own liberties. Not to mention, hopefully avoid making a fool out of themselves on a national level. 

 

I do not agree with Davis' argument that this is a freedom of religion issue. 

 

Me neither, which is good I guess because it's patently not true. 

 

I just think they were Davis and Newsom were wrong. However, I think they both felt their was a larger moral issue at stake.

 

Newsom's moral issue was in denying a perceived civil right.

 

Davis' moral issue is in denying blaspheme. 

 

The perception of denied civil rights was later clarified. The perception of blaspheme can never be clarified. It's the nature of the beast - religion is vague and evasive because it is completely subjective. There is no possible way to hold a claim of divine revelation accountable to accuracy, or even reality. Appealing to a political system that by its very nature defies any reality check is detrimental to society. The two may be comparable in that each person was inspired by a moral code, but the source of those moral codes and the means by which they can be established and held in check are polar opposites. 

 

[mommaduck]

The Supreme Court is not a legislative body and has no right to make new law.  However, it keeps happening, over and over. 

 

So all the inter-racial marriages are actually invalid in places like South Carolina and the state law against inter-racial marriages still stands?

[LucyStoner]

It concerns me that this latest update to the story states that the licenses being handed out today are simply being issued with no signature. It says the county attorney and lawyers for the plaintiffs say they are still valid, but the judge's comment about it being "up to the gay couples to take that chance" makes me worry. Shouldn't the judge be able to say decisively whether or not they are considered valid?

 

http://www.wave3.com/story/29959385/the-latest-3rd-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

The state legislature has to make that call. In the courts it could go either way but in the end, scissors cut paper, rock crushes scissors and The Supreme Court of the United States trumps a county clerk.

 

ETA- If someone wants to challenge these licenses, they are going to need standing. It's hard to figure who might have standing unless it's one of the spouses trying to get a weird annulment. Seems unlikely at best.

[LucyStoner]

So all the inter-racial marriages are actually invalid in places like South Carolina and the state law against inter-racial marriages still stands?

Hold up. I thought Alabama was the last state to change their law to comply with Loving vs. Virginia. In 2000. Is it still on the books in South Carolina? Whoa.

[mommaduck]

Hold up. I thought Alabama was the last state to change their law to comply with Loving vs. Virginia. In 2000. Is it still on the books in South Carolina? Whoa.

 

According to my sister, yes. I would have to look, but it my understanding that they never actually changed the law nor removed it.

 

Correction below.

[LucyStoner]

The Supreme Court is not a legislative body and has no right to make new law. However, it keeps happening, over and over.

Yet the Supreme Court has the right to determine if the laws relevant to the cases they take are consitutional. This is basic civics. Three, equal branches. Checking and balancing each other.

[mommaduck]

Correction: it was changed in the 90's. Alabama waited until 2000.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

In November 1998, South Carolina finally removed its constitutional ban on interracial marriage, which was added to the state constitution in 1895. Although the prohibition had not been recently enforced, the clause prohibited "marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood." A Mason-Dixon poll conducted in August 1998 showed two-thirds of voters favored removing the ban, 22 percent opposed it and 11 percent remained undecided. The sample of 806 registered voters contained about twice as many whites as blacks.[6]

[justasque]

It concerns me that this latest update to the story states that the licenses being handed out today are simply being issued with no signature.  It says the county attorney and lawyers for the plaintiffs say they are still valid, but the judge's comment about it being "up to the gay couples to take that chance" makes me worry. Shouldn't the judge be able to say decisively whether or not they are considered valid? 

 

http://www.wave3.com/story/29959385/the-latest-3rd-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

 

It is similar to the Gavin Newsome case - everyone knew at the time that those marriages may or may not stand.

 

There are also some interesting angles that haven't yet been discussed here - the KY senate has raised some other issues around the details of KY law that will need to be addressed.  Specifically, this part:  

 

No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor.

The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides  at the time, unless

     the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her,

    in which case it may be issued by any county clerk

So, if the female of a couple is over 18, or is a widow, the couple can go to any county (I think?), but if under 18 and not a widow they must go to the female's home county to get the license.  Obviously, however, there may now be couples where there are two females or none.  Since most couples are both over 18 this probably hasn't come up yet, but it will eventually, so the legislature has to go back to the marriage law and amend it in light of the changes brought by the Obergefell decision.

[idnib]

If he ceased when told to cease breaking the law, then yes, that is a difference.  However, he still broke the law.  If I cease stealing or shooting or beating my spouse after a judge orders me to cease, does that mean I don't need to be sanctioned for the prior theft / shooting / beating?

 

My comment was toward the posters here who indicated that because they agreed with him morally, there was no parallel.  There was a clear parallel at least up to the point where he ceased his lawbreaking.

 

There are plenty of examples in which people are told to stop what they are doing and are not sanctioned for past acts. It sounds like the nullification of 4000 marriages was sanction enough. He wasn't physically beating anyone.

 

Anyway, she's not in jail for breaking the law and not giving the licenses, she's in jail for contempt for not following the ruling after the fact. He did follow the ruling. They are not parallel.

 

The other difference is that the mayor of San Francisco appealed to the California Constitution's equal protection clause as giving him authority to grant same-sex marriage licenses. People argued his appeal was erroneously applied and, while the courts settled the dispute, he suspended the activity. Davis appealed to a vague and amorphous divine revelation and refused to suppress the activity even though the courts had already settled the dispute. 

 

Yes, this. He believed he had legal standing and he went ahead and let the courts decide. They did. 

[albeto.]

Yes, this. He believed he had legal standing and he went ahead and let the courts decide. They did. 

 

That to me is the biggest difference. Davis doesn't care what the courts say. She's following her interpretation of the founding documents of the xian religion to assume what the xian god wants, and then holding that opinion as the legal standard for her county. Is it okay if we go ahead and call that delusional? 

[justasque]

The Supreme Court is not a legislative body and has no right to make new law.  However, it keeps happening, over and over. 

 

I keep hearing this talking point, and I am shocked by this basic misunderstanding of how these things work. (Not by you, TranquilMind, but by public officials and politicians, many of whom went to law school, who should know better.) Obergefell did not CREATE a law. Rather, it said that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, and are thus unconstitutional.  

 

Thus, the existing KY law that declared marriage was limited to one-man-one-woman was struck down.  No new law was passed.

[Zydruna]

The state legislature has to make that call. In the courts it could go either way but in the end, scissors cut paper, rock crushes scissors and The Supreme Court of the United States trumps a county clerk.

 

 

I just worry that these couples are going to end up with more hassles when they try to return these unsigned licenses to be filed after they have been solmenized or signed off on by the wedding officiant. I would hate for them to have to jump through more legal hoops to get them filed later.

 

 

 If just issuing them unsigned was a valid alternative, why wasn't Kim Davis willing to do that in the first place?  Supposedly her objection was to her name being used to "endorse" marriages she didn't agree with, and issuing the licenses with no signature avoids that.   Or are they only valid if they are issued with no signature during the times when she is incarcerated and therefore "absent?"

[justasque]

I just worry that these couples are going to end up with more hassles when they try to return these unsigned licenses to be filed after they have been solmenized or signed off on by the wedding officiant. I would hate for them to have to jump through more legal hoops to get them filed later.

 

 

 If just issuing them unsigned was a valid alternative, why wasn't Kim Davis willing to do that in the first place?  Supposedly her objection was to her name being used to "endorse" marriages she didn't agree with, and issuing the licenses with no signature avoids that.   Or are they only valid if they are issued with no signature during the times when she is incarcerated and therefore "absent?"

 

Presumably all this will be taken care of as part of the court case these couples are pursuing against Mrs. Davis.  The jailing of Mrs. Davis for contempt is a sidebar from that case - even if the licenses are issued now, the case regarding the prior violation of these couple's rights continues.

[TranquilMind]

Yet the Supreme Court has the right to determine if the laws relevant to the cases they take are consitutional. This is basic civics. Three, equal branches. Checking and balancing each other.

Yes, I kind of have an understanding how the branches work, thanks.

 

The Supreme Court has only the right to determine if a law that is passed is Constitutional or not.

 

What law was passed here?   No law was passed.  The definition of marriage was changed.  That's entirely different. 

 

The Supreme Court merely unilaterally decided that marriage now means any two people, and no longer just a husband and a wife, as has always been the case throughout all American history.  (And don't trot out the few aberrations in other cultures and times - not relevant here and will not discuss the aberrations, ad nauseum.  Have done that merry-go-round already).   The Justices inserted their subjective preferences into the law rather than applying the law as intended and building on prior case law and common law.  Justices rule on precedent, traditionally.  These Justices threw precedent to the wind, as well as historical and moral tradition. 

 

Of course the Supreme Court has been activist for awhile, and considered pre-eminent over the legislative and executive brances, i.e.  Roe,  ACA, etc.  This is not appropriate or right, nor the Framers' intent.  Read the Federalist Papers.  Alexander Hamilton has a few things to say about this.    The 4 Justices had the proper arguments, not the 5. 

 

This recent decision will actually be used to crush freedoms, not extend them, but you can't tell short-sighted people anything.  They just see that they got what they wanted today, and damn the consequences. 

 

That's ok with some, but don't be surprised when and if it bites you or someone you love. 

 

This case is merely an offshoot of recent judicial activism. 

[Pam in CT]

I keep hearing this talking point, and I am shocked by this basic misunderstanding of how these things work. Obergefell did not CREATE a law. Rather, it said that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, and are thus unconstitutional.  

 

Thus, the existing KY law that declared marriage was limited to one-man-one-woman was struck down.  No new law was passed.

 

Right.  The Supreme Court does not make laws.  It does adjudicate whether or not state (and other) laws are Constitutional.  In the Obergefell decision, the SC determined that state laws banning same sex marriage (or defining marriage as one man/one woman, etc) deprived some citizens of equal protection and were thus unconstitutional. 

 

Once a law has been struck down by the SC as unconstitutional, the law is no longer valid.  

 

 

(Even if it's popular.  Part of the idea is to protect minorities from Tyranny of the Majority.  Within our short history as a nation, there have been legislative majorities in various states in favor of slavery, in opposition to women's suffrage, in favor of separate-but-equal education systems, in favor of racially restricted voting procedures, in favor of miscegenation laws.  In opposition to homeschooling, for that matter.  That something is popular does not, in and of itself, make it pass Constitutional muster.)

[LucyStoner]

I just worry that these couples are going to end up with more hassles when they try to return these unsigned licenses to be filed after they have been solmenized or signed off on by the wedding officiant. I would hate for them to have to jump through more legal hoops to get them filed later.

 

 

If just issuing them unsigned was a valid alternative, why wasn't Kim Davis willing to do that in the first place? Supposedly her objection was to her name being used to "endorse" marriages she didn't agree with, and issuing the licenses with no signature avoids that. Or are they only valid if they are issued with no signature during the times when she is incarcerated and therefore "absent?"

I'm guessing the KY legislature will make it possible for marriage licenses to be issued without the name of the county clerk attached. On about January 4th or so.

 

So rarely is a couple asked to prove they are married that, for such a small group of couples, it seems unlikely that it will ever be called into question. I can't think of a single time I have been asked to produce ours. And truthfully, I don't rightly know where it is. I assume yellowing in a file folder in a crate somewhere.

[mommaduck]

 

 

That's ok with some, but don't be surprised when and if it bites you or someone you love.

 

 

Explain.

[Zydruna]

 

 

No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor.

The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides  at the time, unless

     the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her,

    in which case it may be issued by any county clerk

So, if the female of a couple is over 18, or is a widow, the couple can go to any county (I think?), but if under 18 and not a widow they must go to the female's home county to get the license.  

 

I have not looked up the actual statutes, but on the website for the county clerk in the KY county where I live, it does not include a requirement that the license be obtained in the female's county if she is under 18.  It says that a license can be obtained in one county and the marriage performed in another.  It also says anyone under 18 must present birth certificate and consent form signed by a parent or legal guardian, or permission from a judge.

[BrookValley.]

<snip>

 

This recent decision will actually be used to crush freedoms, not extend them, but you can't tell short-sighted people anything.  They just see that they got what they wanted today, and damn the consequences. 

 

That's ok with some, but don't be surprised when and if it bites you or someone you love. 

 

This case is merely an offshoot of recent judicial activism. 

 

Would love to hear how you arrived at the bolded (mine). I'm interested in any compelling arguments as to how not letting the religious beliefs of some make laws for all could somehow "crush freedoms."

[LucyStoner]

What law was passed here? No law was passed.

 

 

The various state laws which excluded same sex couples and their children from equal protection under the laws were found, by a majority, to violate the 14th amendment.

 

We don't have to like all close SCOTUS rulings (I can rattle off a number of 5 to 4 decisions I do not like or consider to be right by my compass) but we do have to respect that this is how our system works.

[TranquilMind]

The various state laws which excluded same sex couples and their children from equal protection under the laws were found, by a majority, to violate the 14th amendment.

 

We don't have to like all close SCOTUS rulings (I can rattle off a number of 5 to 4 decisions I do not like or consider to be right by my compass) but we do have to respect that this is how our system works.

Of course, I respect the system.  I'm in the system.

But this was a bad decision, like several other activist rulings. 

[TranquilMind]

Would love to hear how you arrived at the bolded (mine). I'm interested in any compelling arguments as to how not letting the religious beliefs of some make laws for all could somehow "crush freedoms."

Been there, done that, not riding that horse again. 

 

Just wait. 

 

The day will come where you will not be able to speak a politically-incorrect word without being turned in to the authorities, even by your own family, friends, or relatives, as a threat to stability.   Ethnic and religious persecution and eradication of "enemies" has happened over and over in the course of history.   

[LucyStoner]

Of course, I respect the system. I'm in the system.

But this was a bad decision, like several other activist rulings.

And for all our armchair quarterbacking, alas none of us sit on the Supreme Court.

 

It is a highly subjective opinion as to what SCOTUS rulings are "good" or "bad". For all the people saying it is "bad" there are plenty of others (and a clear majority) saying it is "good". This same court you are decrying as activist has made many close decisions that I don't agree with. In short, things don't always go our way. We all have to deal with that, preferably without disparaging and attacking Justices when we don't like what they do.

[BrookValley.]

Been there, done that, not riding that horse again. 

Just wait. 

 

The day will come where you will not be able to speak a politically-incorrect word without being turned in to the authorities, even by your own family, friends, or relatives, as a threat to stability.   Ethnic and religious persecution and eradication of "enemies" has happened over and over in the course of history.   

 

I said compelling, not conspiracy theory. 

 

Who is being persecuted? 

[justasque]

...

What law was passed here?   No law was passed.  The definition of marriage was changed.  That's entirely different. 

 

 

 

 

The law(s) in question were the Kentucky law(s) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.   The 1998 law would have been passed by the KY legislature; the KY Constitutional Amendment would have been passed by a vote of the people as per KY law.

 

According to wikipedia:

 

On November 9, 1973, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in Jones v. Hallahan that two women were properly denied a marriage license based on dictionary definitions of marriage, despite the fact that state statutes did not restrict marriage to a female-male couple. Its decision said that "in substance, the relationship proposed ... is not a marriage."[4][5]

 

Since July 15, 1998, Kentucky's statutes have defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, prohibited same-sex marriage and declared it contrary to public policy, and denied recognition to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[6]

 

In November 2004, Kentucky voters gave Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 75 percent of their votes. It reads:[7]

 

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

 

These two things have been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

[poppy]

Been there, done that, not riding that horse again. 

Just wait. 

 

The day will come where you will not be able to speak a politically-incorrect word without being turned in to the authorities, even by your own family, friends, or relatives, as a threat to stability.   Ethnic and religious persecution and eradication of "enemies" has happened over and over in the course of history.   

 

You think you that in theory, maybe someday, despite it never happening in this nation or any democratic nation that I am aware of, you might someday not be able to speak your mind in private..... and that is a bigger concern to you than the actual, right now persecution being perpetrated by this clerk and other petty bureaucrats all over our country?

[mommaduck]

Let's see, the laws past against Native American faith practices and languages, stealing of children, etc....those laws were created by....
 

 

Yeah, I don't think certain people are as persecuted as they think they are when they have been, and still are in many places, the majority. It's more fear that they will be removed from their high horses and expected to be decent to others.

[TranquilMind]

And for all our armchair quarterbacking, alas none of us sit on the Supreme Court.

 

It is a highly subjective opinion as to what SCOTUS rulings are "good" or "bad". For all the people saying it is "bad" there are plenty of others (and a clear majority) saying it is "good". This same court you are decrying as activist has made many close decisions that I don't agree with. In short, things don't always go our way. We all have to deal with that, preferably without disparaging and attacking Justices when we don't like what they do.

Who attacked or disparaged them?

 

Simply saying a decision was the wrong one and based on no precedent or tradition is not an "attack". 

[LucyStoner]

What I hear or read from many (not specifically TranquilMind) about the Supreme Court:

 

They are "activists" acting "unilaterally" to redefine marriage. They are making unconstitutional rulings and clearly don't undersand the law the right way. They are tyrants, fools, idiots etc. They are anti-American.

 

No, they are some of the best legal minds of our era doing their jobs. That goes for the ones I don't share many ideological stances with either. It's not an easy job but surely no one can argue that the justices aren't committed to their professions. A profession they chose, at least in part, out of a deep interest in maintaining a just and civil society. And with some very rare exceptions, Presidents don't usually nominate hacks to the court. And the last time someone not well qualified was nominated, the administration found a more highly skilled and experienced nominee fairly quickly IIRC. It's not like just anyone walks onto the Supreme Court.

[merry gardens]

What I hear or read from many (not specifically TranquilMind) about the Supreme Court:

 

They are "activists" acting "unilaterally" to redefine marriage. They are making unconstitutional rulings and clearly don't undersand the law the right way. They are tyrants, fools, idiots etc. They are anti-American.

 

No, they are some of the best legal minds of our era doing their jobs. That goes for the ones I don't share many ideological stances with either. It's not an easy job but surely no one can argue that the justices aren't committed to their professions. A profession they chose, at least in part, out of a deep interest in maintaining a just and civil society.

They made a decision 5-4, so clearly not all of what you consider the "best legal minds of our era" agree with you.

 

And not all are activist--only some. That puts people with conservative leanings at a disadvantage in the 'culture war" because conservative justices don't just re-interpret the meaning of the words used by our founders and the people who passed amendments to the constitution to wipe out laws they don't like and to re-write laws to make them say whatever it is they want them to say.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bill Clinton. The Supreme Court knocked DOMA down under the guise that states can define marriage however they want.  Fast forward---the court knocks down state's rights to defined marriage as the state's want. This recent decision was inconsistent with their prior decision, including prior decisions by the Supreme Court.

[TranquilMind]

What I hear or read from many (not specifically TranquilMind) about the Supreme Court:

 

They are "activists" acting "unilaterally" to redefine marriage. They are making unconstitutional rulings and clearly don't undersand the law the right way. They are tyrants, fools, idiots etc. They are anti-American.

 

No, they are some of the best legal minds of our era doing their jobs. That goes for the ones I don't share many ideological stances with either. It's not an easy job but surely no one can argue that the justices aren't committed to their professions. A profession they chose, at least in part, out of a deep interest in maintaining a just and civil society. And with some very rare exceptions, Presidents don't usually nominate hacks to the court. And the last time someone not well qualified was nominated, the administration found a more highly skilled and experienced nominee fairly quickly IIRC. It's not like just anyone walks onto the Supreme Court.

You also heard it from 4 of the 9 Justices, not just ordinary people. 

[TranquilMind]

They made a decision 5-4, so clearly not all of what you consider the "best legal minds of our era" agree with you.

 

And not all are activist--only some. That puts people with conservative leanings at a disadvantage in the 'culture war" because conservative justices don't just re-interpret the meaning of the words used by our founders and the people who passed amendments to the constitution to wipe out laws they don't like and to re-write laws to make them say whatever it is they want them to say.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bill Clinton. The Supreme Court knocked DOMA down under the guise that states can define marriage however they want.  Fast forward---the court knocks down state's rights to defined marriage as the state's want. This recent decision was inconsistent with their prior decision, including prior decisions by the Supreme Court.

Nearly half of the "best minds" disagreed completely with what the other 5 did. 

 

This is true; the issue was bumped back to the states.  And the states spoke. 

[TranquilMind]

You think you that in theory, maybe someday, despite it never happening in this nation or any democratic nation that I am aware of, you might someday not be able to speak your mind in private..... and that is a bigger concern to you than the actual, right now persecution being perpetrated by this clerk and other petty bureaucrats all over our country?

This is right now.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/are-we-becoming-a-police-state-five-things-that-have-civil-liberties-advocates-nervous/12563/

 

 

It isn't going to stop here.  What government ever stops encroaching on liberties over time, once that ball is rolling? 

[LucyStoner]

They made a decision 5-4, so clearly not all of what you consider the "best legal minds of our era" agree with you.

 

And not all are activist--only some. That puts people with conservative leanings at a disadvantage in the 'culture war" because conservative justices don't just re-interpret the meaning of the words used by our founders and the people who passed amendments to the constitution to wipe out laws they don't like and to re-write laws to make them say whatever it is they want them to say.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act passed under Bill Clinton. The Supreme Court knocked DOMA down under the guise that states can define marriage however they want. Fast forward---the court knocks down state's rights to defined marriage as the state's want. This recent decision was inconsistent with their prior decision, including prior decisions by the Supreme Court.

The validity of a 5-4 court ruling is not in question here. Lots of key issues are decided 5-4.

 

Is there consensus? No.

 

Has the system worked? Yes.

 

Even when we don't personally like it.

[TranquilMind]

 

The law(s) in question were the Kentucky law(s) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.   The 1998 law would have been passed by the KY legislature; the KY Constitutional Amendment would have been passed by a vote of the people as per KY law.

 

According to wikipedia:

 

On November 9, 1973, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled in Jones v. Hallahan that two women were properly denied a marriage license based on dictionary definitions of marriage, despite the fact that state statutes did not restrict marriage to a female-male couple. Its decision said that "in substance, the relationship proposed ... is not a marriage."[4][5]

 

Since July 15, 1998, Kentucky's statutes have defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, prohibited same-sex marriage and declared it contrary to public policy, and denied recognition to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[6]

 

In November 2004, Kentucky voters gave Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 75 percent of their votes. It reads:[7]

 

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

 

These two things have been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

 

Laws all over the nation have always defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  It was innately understood throughout history.  It didn't need to be even stated, it was so obvious.  The legislatures fell right into the trap being set. 

 

It doesn't matter.

What does matter is the government encroachment into what one can or cannot say. 

 

Our Constitution entitles anyone to have and say the most innocuous -or  vile - opinion they wish to hold, without government interference, except in a few narrow circumstances related to safety (Yelling "Fire" in a crowded place, for example).

 

This is what is slowly being eroded and should be worrisome.    We have governmental heft behind silencing people now for their opinions or offhand statements, such as the young lady who merely mentioned offhand that their pizza parlor didn't do gay weddings (which did not exist in the state at the time).  That should concern anyone.

 

Think what you want and say what you want; it is completely immaterial to me.  But let others do the same without legal threat. 

 

 

I wish I could see America 200 years from now. 

[Haiku]

I'm at the library, and I just opened yesterday's newspaper. Here is a quote in the story I read from Kim Davis immediately following her election.

 

"... I promise each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter."

[LucyStoner]

Kim Davis wasn't sued over what she said or thought. She was sued over what she did (or rather didn't do). She is not being persecuted by any thought police.

[merry gardens]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48

 

If I had a job that required I do something against my faith, I would quit.  What this woman is doing is not drawing people closer to Christ. 

 

Since this thread is continuing to go on and the moderator has deemed it to be non-political, I'll now write what I wanted to write several days ago...

 

Just because you would and many others would quit a job over something that requires you to do something that violates your faith shouldn't mean that this clerk must quit. She apparently doesn't want to resign.

 

People just want her to quietly go away. They want florists and bakers and pizza pie makers to just quietly go away and shut down their doors if they won't accept this new definition of marriage and participate in them.  People holding to the traditional definition of marriages are facing fines and job loss--and now jail for refusing to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs.

 

I don't have the courage to do what she's doing.  I probably wouldn't do it either, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be doing it. That used to be the beauty of religious liberty and freedom.

[TranquilMind]

Kim Davis wasn't sued over what she said or thought. She was sued over what she did (or rather didn't do). She is not being persecuted by any thought police.

BS.

If this were a year ago (or 5, 10, 20 years ago), and she were insisting on handing out marriage licenses to gay couples against state law, you'd be applauding her. 

 

Such hypocrisy. 

 

This is precisely because she adheres to the legal and moral standard that prevailed when she took the job.  The Supreme Court moved the goalposts and unilaterally changed those standards that have prevailed throughout American history and state history.  

 

That said, if it were me, I'd just step down if I felt I couldn't do the job, rather than go through all this because it will not matter.  She is going down. 

[BrookValley.]

Since this thread is continuing to go on and the moderator has deemed it to be non-political, I'll now write what I wanted to write several days ago...

 

Just because you would and many others would quit a job over something that requires you to do something that violates your faith shouldn't mean that this clerk must quit. She apparently doesn't want to resign.

 

People just want her to quietly go away. They want florists and bakers and pizza pie makers to just quietly go away and shut down their doors if they won't accept this new definition of marriage and participate in them. People holding to the traditional definition of marriages are facing fines and job loss--and now jail for refusing to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs.

 

I don't have the courage to do what she's doing. I probably wouldn't do it either, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be doing it. That used to be the beauty of religious liberty and freedom.

She's not in jail because of her religious beliefs.

 

Not being able to refuse to uphold the law based on religious belief = more freedom and protection of your religious belief.

 

So "beauty of religious liberty and freedom" equals allowing someone to deny others' rights, according to the law, based on that someone's religious belief? You don't see the problem there? You think you'd have more freedom if I could refuse to serve you based on my religious preferences?

[LucyStoner]

What does a court clerk representing the government have to do with a pizza parlor owner? Not much.

 

In Kentucky, no bakers or florists or pizza makers would be breaking the law to refuse service and public accomodation because someone is gay. There is no law in KY and many other states banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Nor is one likely to pass at the federal level or in Kentucky anytime soon.

 

If Kim Davis would like the latitude to insert her personal beliefs into her job, there are plenty of other jobs one could have in that state without legal problem.

 

She is also welcome to say whatever she wants. She is just not welcome to do everything she wants when what she wants to do violates the civil rights of others.

[TranquilMind]

Since this thread is continuing to go on and the moderator has deemed it to be non-political, I'll now write what I wanted to write several days ago...

 

Just because you would and many others would quit a job over something that requires you to do something that violates your faith shouldn't mean that this clerk must quit. She apparently doesn't want to resign.

 

People just want her to quietly go away. They want florists and bakers and pizza pie makers to just quietly go away and shut down their doors if they won't accept this new definition of marriage and participate in them.  People holding to the traditional definition of marriages are facing fines and job loss--and now jail for refusing to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs.

 

I don't have the courage to do what she's doing.  I probably wouldn't do it either, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be doing it. That used to be the beauty of religious liberty and freedom.

You are right about this.  The desire is for conservative Christians to just shut up and disappear instead of adhere to the legal and moral standards that have always prevailed, until now. 

 

It's unbelievable that people can't see this. 

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them?  Or remove that duty to another state office?  What difference could that possibly make?

 

Because it isn't about that.  It is about silencing this viewpoint. 

[BrookValley.]

BS.

If this were a year ago (or 5, 10, 20 years ago), and she were insisting on handing out marriage licenses to gay couples against state law, you'd be applauding her.

 

Such hypocrisy.

 

This is precisely because she adheres to the legal and moral standard that prevailed when she took the job. The Supreme Court moved the goalposts and unilaterally changed those standards that have prevailed throughout American history and state history.

 

That said, if it were me, I'd just step down if I felt I couldn't do the job, rather than go through all this because it will not matter. She is going down.

Like when they "moved the goalposts " and miscegenation laws were taken off the books?

 

Oh, the horror of equality! Hide your wife, hide your children!

[Leav97]

You are right about this.  The desire is for conservative Christians to just shut up and disappear instead of adhere to the legal and moral standards that have always prevailed, until now. 

 

It's unbelievable that people can't see this. 

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them?  Or remove that duty to another state office?  What difference could that possibly make?

 

Because it isn't about that.  It is about silencing this viewpoint. 

 

 

She could have someone else issue the licenses.  She refuses to let them.

[LucyStoner]

BS.

If this were a year ago (or 5, 10, 20 years ago), and she were insisting on handing out marriage licenses to gay couples against state law, you'd be applauding her.

 

 

Do not make assumptions. 20 years ago I didn't even see why equal marriage mattered much and argued that it didn't need to happen. On this very thread I liked a post that said that had Newsom not stopped per court order, he should have been jailed. Which is consistent with what I said at the time.

 

And if you want to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, just look at the thrice divorced adulterer you are defending. Unlike Ms. Davis, I've never gone back on my marriage vows, much less been impregnanted by one man while married to another. She's not any sort of example of good character. Perhaps she's sorry, perhaps she's changed. It doesn't change the fact that after being married in a church, she conducted herself in a manner entirely inconsistent with the religious values she wants to force on others.