KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[TranquilMind]

Sigh.

 

This was such a good thread, about a new and rather interesting legal issue.

 

Now it's turning into a boring rerun.

 

:( :(

Then check out.  I think I probably will.

I did find it an interesting clash of rights, but apparently, that isn't politically correct enough for some. 

[SproutMamaK]

Could we try not to let ourselves get baited down the path of debating the legitimacy of gay marriage? That's about the most effective way for people to get this thread shut down when they're not actually interested in listening to any real discussion, and up until we got sucked into the vortex it was a very interesting discussion on the role and limitations of government. (Especially in my case, since I'm Canadian and never studied the various roles of the branches of US government. You guys sure like to make things complicated. ;) )

[justasque]

...

 

It is best for kids if Mom and Dad raise them inside a good marriage.  Are you really attempting to argue it isn't best for them?  That they should be shuffled around in various living configurations for the convenience and happiness of the adults involved? 

 

Similarly, it is best if kids are breastfed.  That is simply what is objectively best for them.  However, sometimes, an alternative feeding method has to suffice for various reasons.  It does not follow that this now means breast is not best. 

 

As did Mrs. Davis.  

[idnib]

Sigh.

 

This was such a good thread, about a new and rather interesting legal issue.

 

Now it's turning into a boring rerun.

 

:( :(

 

Yes. I'll stop now. Sorry.

 

Could we try not to let ourselves get baited down the path of debating the legitimacy of gay marriage? That's about the most effective way for people to get this thread shut down when they're not actually interested in listening to any real discussion, and up until we got sucked into the vortex it was a very interesting discussion on the role and limitations of government. (Especially in my case, since I'm Canadian and never studied the various roles of the branches of US government. You guys sure like to make things complicated. ;) )

 

Ditto. Apologies again.

 

:blush:

 

Back on topic, is the son going to be left alone as others are doing his job for him?

[LucyStoner]

.

[Renthead Mommy]

Then check out.  I think I probably will.

I did find it an interesting clash of rights, but apparently, that isn't politically correct enough for some. 

 

 

Please god do! 

 

You are tiring to listen to argue your same point again and agian trying to prove everyone else wrong as you are supreme ruler or all things god related. 

[elegantlion]

They didn't have children as a couple.

In most cases, they brought them in from failed relationships.  

 

Can you cite statistics on "most?" 

 

Are you insinuating that people "mostly" turn to gay marriage after a failed hetero one? Just curious on this line of thinking. 

 

Actually, never mind. I don't want to further derail this thread either. 

[goldberry]

I also read somewhere that she wanted the whole marraige license thing shifted to another office.  That would take the burden off her, but what about the other office?  How would that solve anything?

[zoobie]

I also read somewhere that she wanted the whole marraige license thing shifted to another office. That would take the burden off her, but what about the other office? How would that solve anything?

Because she is a Special Snowflake and the whole of Kentucky governance should readjust itself to suit her deeply held religious convictions that she's had for at least a couple of years!

[*Lulu*]

Just to summarize, and make sure I haven't missed something-

 

Kim Davis refused to issue ANY licenses, was offered the option of just allowing the clerks who were willing to issue, refused, was given the option of jail or allowing the other WILLING clerks to issue liscenses, and chose jail.

[idnib]

I also read somewhere that she wanted the whole marraige license thing shifted to another office.  That would take the burden off her, but what about the other office?  How would that solve anything?

 

Yeah, I didn't understand that either. Was she at all worried that she would burden someone else who has the same beliefs she holds? 

[mommaduck]

Correct.

[idnib]

Just to summarize, and make sure I haven't missed something-

 

Kim Davis refused to issue ANY licenses, was offered the option of just allowing the clerks who were willing to issue, refused, was given the option of jail or allowing the other WILLING clerks to issue liscenses, and chose jail.

 

I think that's it in a nutshell.

 

I find it interesting that she was unwilling to have anyone under her do the licenses, but was willing to pass it off to another department. I'm not sure how passing it on to some ones makes her less culpable in the sin than passing it off to another clerk, even if that clerk is under her. In order to be consistent, you'd think she would not suggest a different department at all, lest those folks lose their souls as well.

[zoobie]

I think that's it in a nutshell.

 

I find it interesting that she was unwilling to have anyone under her do the licenses, but was willing to pass it off to another department. I'm not sure how passing it on to some ones makes her less culpable in the sin than passing it off to another clerk, even if that clerk is under her. In order to be consistent, you'd think she would not suggest a different department at all, lest those folks lose their souls as well.

Because then that department head's signature would be on the certificate and not hers. Even if her deputies do it, it's under her seal as Clerk.

[justasque]

An interesting idea from my Twitter feed:

""The governor could have resolved this very easily" by issuing an executive order to alter marriage licenses, says attorney for Kim Davis." --Bluegrass Politics

[Sukale]

Why is this Kim Davis so against her name being anywhere on papers for gays getting married but she is OK with her name being on the papers of someone getting re married without knowing if it was due to the other partner committing adultery? I would love a real answer to this???

[LucyStoner]

I also read somewhere that she wanted the whole marraige license thing shifted to another office. That would take the burden off her, but what about the other office? How would that solve anything?

It wouldn't. It's a political strategy we call "kick the can" or "pass the hot potato". Unfortunately, no matter how common it is, it is never really what anyone would call effective.

 

"I'm sorry, in this county, none of the present staff at any government office will do that. You need to go to THAT county."

 

"Well, the only office willing to do that here is the head of the public utilities office. You'll have to leave the courthouse and find him at xyz location."

 

All present Information subject to change in November. Call back then for updates! ;)

[mommaduck]

An interesting idea from my Twitter feed:

 

""The governor could have resolved this very easily" by issuing an executive order to alter marriage licenses, says attorney for Kim Davis." --Bluegrass Politics

Then this is specifically about her name being on the license and NOT about her actually issuing them. She just lost her case.

[albeto.]

Why is this Kim Davis so against her name being anywhere on papers for gays getting married but she is OK with her name being on the papers of someone getting re married without knowing if it was due to the other partner committing adultery? I would love a real answer to this???

 

Because people who sin with adultery (or gluttony, or gossip, etc) can be contrite and try and stop. Those insolent gay folk refuse to be contrite, they refuse to apologize, and they refuse to "do better."

 

 

 

And more power to 'em. 

[poppy]

An interesting idea from my Twitter feed:

 

""The governor could have resolved this very easily" by issuing an executive order to alter marriage licenses, says attorney for Kim Davis." --Bluegrass Politics

 

Kim Davis could have resolved this issue way more easily!!

[zoobie]

An interesting idea from my Twitter feed:

 

""The governor could have resolved this very easily" by issuing an executive order to alter marriage licenses, says attorney for Kim Davis." --Bluegrass Politics

Or maybe all those gay people could just go somewhere else. You know, for Kim Davis. Because we all must rearrange our lives and state governance for Kim Davis. Because Kim Davis.

[Haiku]

""The governor could have resolved this very easily" by issuing an executive order to alter marriage licenses, says attorney for Kim Davis." --Bluegrass Politics

But he shouldn't have to. She is not special. The government should not have to bend to her beliefs.

[chiguirre]

Or maybe all those gay people could just go somewhere else. You know, for Kim Davis. Because we all must rearrange our lives and state governance for Kim Davis. Because Kim Davis.

But it's not just gay people, it's everyone. She wouldn't issue ANY marriage licenses at all so everyone had to drive to the next county to get one. That's why half the couples that sued are straight.

[poppy]

Inapposite comparison. Already addressed. 

 

Could you point me to the post, then?  Because I haven't actually heard any argument against what I said (that historically, the legal and Biblical justifications against interracial marriage are being echoed strongly today.) I've heard you say you think it isn't relevant, but, that's not actually an argument at all.

[FaithManor]

Oh bummer, I tramped out my likes yet again. I am a bad, bad girl!

[zoobie]

But it's not just gay people, it's everyone. She wouldn't issue ANY marriage licenses at all so everyone had to drive to the next county to get one. That's why half the couples that sued are straight.

But The Gays ;) messed it up for all the nice straight people who need their third and fourth and fifth marriage licenses!

[zoobie]

Oh bummer, I tramped out my likes yet again. I am a bad, bad girl!

Did you have a baby with your third like while married to your first like? I think you're okay.

[FaithManor]

Zoobie, you can not post a comment like that when I am completely out of likes.NO FAIR!!!

[Rivka]

Rivka, you have my deep respect. That is it in a nutshell.

 

It's been resoundingly unanswered, though. Maybe Tranquil has me on ignore?

 

[Halftime Hope]

It's really not. There were clerks and judges who refused to issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples under "religious beliefs" as well. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now.

 

This Clerk is using her personal beliefs to withhold government services from citizens. Not based on law, based on her beliefs. She simply cannot do that. Do you want elected officials to start going off the rails and doing whatever the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells them to do no matter what our laws say? Or is it okay because you agree with her?

 

And yet that is exactly what has happened over and over again when government officials have ignored or refused to enforce actual laws, officials all the way up to the highest levels of the DOJ.  Those officials are applauded and held up as heroic in the mainstream media when what they are doing falls within a progressive ideology. 

 

I call hypocrisy.

[zoobie]

And yet that is exactly what has happened over and over again when government officials have ignored or refused to enforce actual laws, officials all the way up to the highest levels of the DOJ. Those officials are applauded and held up as heroic in the mainstream media when what they are doing falls within a progressive ideology.

 

I call hypocrisy.

Are you talking about the San Franciscan mayor? We've discussed that in this thread. I'm not sure to what you're alluding with the DOJ, but prosecutors and Attorneys General have wide prosecutorial discretion. This is not the same as a member of the executive branch refusing access to a group of citizens in defiance of the laws of the land. I know there are prosecutors who abuse their discretion, particularly to suit their own prejudices or as a result of systemic racism. I don't think that's your meaning though.

[Slojo]

I think that's it in a nutshell.

 

I find it interesting that she was unwilling to have anyone under her do the licenses, but was willing to pass it off to another department. I'm not sure how passing it on to some ones makes her less culpable in the sin than passing it off to another clerk, even if that clerk is under her. In order to be consistent, you'd think she would not suggest a different department at all, lest those folks lose their souls as well.

 

It's easier to consign folks you don't know "to hell" -- let the heaping coals be burned upon the heads of the clerks over in the next county, I guess. 

Just to summarize, and make sure I haven't missed something-

 

Kim Davis refused to issue ANY licenses, was offered the option of just allowing the clerks who were willing to issue, refused, was given the option of jail or allowing the other WILLING clerks to issue liscenses, and chose jail.

 

See that's where this gets in WAY TO DEEP... let the other clerks issue licenses. It might actually be one thing if she removed herself from issuing licenses, but to disallow other clerks from doing so -- I'm sorry, where does she get off?  In a world where there are Christians who have been executed simply for being Christian, now we have to go through the "poor persecuted Christian" thing (and I say this as a Christian -- you're embarassing the faith -- to the point where I'm not sure that we actually share the same faith. It is unrecognizable to me.) Sigh...  In all seriousness, I think she's received p*ss-poor guidance and discipleship from wherever she's attending church, and needs a class in exegesis or something. Otherwise, "faith" becomes a shill for ruining people's lives based on a bible verse and "sincerely held beliefs".

 

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

 

Then what is the Supreme Court for - American Idol votes? SCOTUS did not "make" a new law, they struck down an existing law that was deemed unconstitutional. Do you make the same argument for legal desegregation of schools or interracial marriages -- other things that kept happening over and over... 

[Halftime Hope]

 

The Constitution of the US does not guarantee a religious person do act according to his or her conscience without consideration for the effects it may have on others. Religion does not give a person a free pass to break the law. It guarantees Congress will make no law that prohibits the free expression of religion, and it will make no law that supports a religion. Free expression of religion refers to choosing a place of worship, and participating in the style adopted by the community. No one has locked the doors of Davis' church or prevented her or her congregation from worshiping in the way they choose. 

 

 

^^^This is a really important point, and if nothing else happens, I hope you can at least learn to recognize this. It is basic civil literacy to know your rights. You should know your own rights for your own protection, as well as the protection of those you love, and your community in general. The US has a remarkably open door policy when it comes to knowing and discussing and working to ensure these rights. If you think Davis' rights are being infringed upon, you're being tricked just as she is. You're being deceived by someone for some reason that isn't in your best interest, but in theirs. The thing is, you don't have to take my word for it. You can look at the law yourself. 

 

Since you are so interested in the poster's education, this seems like a great place to insert the exact wording of the applicable part of the First Amendment:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

 

Albeto, as intelligent and as thorough as you are, your explanation of the constraints and encumbrances to one's "expression of religion" is very disingenuous. Although, from the likes on your post, apparently some folks bought it. 

 

(Hat tip for taking a cue from Justice Kennedy on the diversionary wording, though.)

 

No, the protection we are afforded in the Constitution is for free exercise of religion, and historically that has encompassed elements of both belief and action.   There is a very good treatment of the subject (free exercise of religion) and of the seminal case law which informs its application at http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/139/free-exercise-of-religion.

 

If people really want to know our country's legal tradition on the subject, they would be better served starting with the article.

[Slojo]

Albeto, as intelligent and as thorough as you are, your explanation of the constraints and encumbrances to one's "expression of religion" is very disingenuous. Although, from the likes on your post, apparently some folks bought it. 

 

No, the protection we are afforded in the Constitution is for free exercise of religion, and historically that has encompassed elements of both belief and action.   

Okay, that may explain her individual actions, but refusing to let other clerks under her issue marriage licenses, if nothing in their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs prohibits them from issuing licenses -- what about their freedom of expression? Or does only hers count?  Your explanation of how she is justified in her "expression of religion" is disingenuous. Do we really want to go down the slippery slope of being at the mercy of whatever religious conviction your boss happens to have, irrespective of your own convictions?  Okaaay.... but, as I say in real life, "If you buy a ticket on that train, don't start complaining if the trip takes you through terrain you don't like. Still sure you want to go?"

[Halftime Hope]

For anyone wondering, I'm not expressing an opinion on the clerk nor on her actions. 

 

I have a pet theory that pivot points in history are rarely as clear-cut, horrible or heroic, as the sanitized version that becomes legend within 20 or 30 years.  People are complex, their motives and emotions are mixed, and most of us are far from visionary; rather, we muddle through and make choices to the best of our understanding and ability.

 

I suspect that most Christians, like me, would rather have had a nail pulled than to have seen this confrontation take place.

 

 

ETA:  I changed my wording at "horrible or heroic".  I was thinking of the Civil Rights movement when I said heroic, but this also applies to pivot points which are bad ones.

[Halftime Hope]

Okay, that may explain her individual actions, but refusing to let other clerks under her issue marriage licenses, if nothing in their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs prohibits them from issuing licenses -- what about their freedom of expression? Or does only hers count?  Your explanation of how she is justified in her "expression of religion" is disingenuous. Do we really want to go down the slippery slope of being at the mercy of whatever religious conviction your boss happens to have, irrespective of your own convictions?  Okaaay.... but, as I say in real life, "If you buy a ticket on that train, don't start complaining if the trip takes you through terrain you don't like. Still sure you want to go?"

 

See post below, which I was writing at the same time. 

[Amy in NH]

Albeto, as intelligent and as thorough as you are, your explanation of the constraints and encumbrances to one's "expression of religion" is very disingenuous. Although, from the likes on your post, apparently some folks bought it. 

 

(Hat tip for taking a cue from Justice Kennedy on the diversionary wording, though.)

 

No, the protection we are afforded in the Constitution is for free exercise of religion, and historically that has encompassed elements of both belief and action.   There is a very good treatment of the subject (free exercise of religion) and of the seminal case law which informs its application at http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/139/free-exercise-of-religion.

 

If people really want to know our country's legal tradition on the subject, they would be better served starting with the article.

 

 

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the right to practice a religion and propagate it without government interference. This right is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without Due Process of Law. Although the government cannot restrict a person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Free+Exercise+Clause

[LucyStoner]

For anyone wondering, I'm not expressing an opinion on the clerk nor on her actions.

 

I have a pet theory that pivot points in history are rarely as clear-cut, horrible or heroic, as the sanitized version that becomes legend within 20 or 30 years. People are complex, their motives and emotions are mixed, and most of us are far from visionary; rather, we muddle through and make choices to the best of our understanding and ability.

 

I suspect that most Christians, like me, would rather have had a nail pulled than to have seen this confrontation take place.

 

 

ETA: I changed my wording at "horrible or heroic". I was thinking of the Civil Rights movement when I said heroic, but this also applies to pivot points which are bad ones.

I agree with your theory. I think most any keen political observer or politically focused historian would take it for granted that it's rarely as clear cut, clean and noble as gets written up decades later.

 

I don't think most Christians are in favor of what Kim Davis is doing. Perhaps most of a certain type of Christianity are, but not Christians as a whole. As a great many Christians on this thread have pointed out- she doesn't speak for all Christians.

[KungFuPanda]

Either Kentucky needs to change it's abbreviation, or the lubricant needs to change it's name. I'm tired of misreading things.

[albeto.]

Albeto, as intelligent and as thorough as you are, your explanation of the constraints and encumbrances to one's "expression of religion" is very disingenuous. Although, from the likes on your post, apparently some folks bought it. 

 

(Hat tip for taking a cue from Justice Kennedy on the diversionary wording, though.)

 

No, the protection we are afforded in the Constitution is for free exercise of religion, and historically that has encompassed elements of both belief and action.   There is a very good treatment of the subject (free exercise of religion) and of the seminal case law which informs its application at http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/139/free-exercise-of-religion.

 

If people really want to know our country's legal tradition on the subject, they would be better served starting with the article.

 

The paragraph to which you refer is posted for convenience:

 

The Constitution of the US does not guarantee a religious person do act according to his or her conscience without consideration for the effects it may have on others. Religion does not give a person a free pass to break the law. It guarantees Congress will make no law that prohibits the free expression of religion, and it will make no law that supports a religion. Free expression of religion refers to choosing a place of worship, and participating in the style adopted by the community. No one has locked the doors of Davis' church or prevented her or her congregation from worshiping in the way they choose. 

 

As far as my first two sentences, there is no support for the idea that one may be exempt from laws because they sincerely hold a religious belief. I suspect the part you disagree with is the bold. Perhaps you think I'm suggesting the freedom only exists within the walls of a place of worship? Participating in the style adopted by the community does include both belief and action, so in this we are agreed. A muslim woman is allowed to wear a hijab. A xian woman is allowed to wear a necklace with a cross. These actions, both of which may exist in the public sphere, are protected. Arguably, refusing to perform a responsibility as a publicly elected official without justification is not a act of worship or justified expression of religion. Not every choice inspired by belief is protected under the law, and in any case, what Davis did is clearly illegal. 

[FaithManor]

Either Kentucky needs to change it's abbreviation, or the lubricant needs to change it's name. I'm tired of misreading things.

I am still without likes; I hate the probation period after tramping them out. Sigh.... But I approve of this message! :hurray:

[FaithManor]

 Not every choice inspired by belief is protected under the law, and in any case, what Davis did is clearly illegal. 

Exactly this! To give unfettered protection to all religious beliefs would be very dangerous and cause utter chaos.

 

In order to live in a republic or a democracy one has to understand that some freedoms are curtailed in order to live harmoniously with others.

[DawnM]

Considering she has been married to four different men, she has no moral  high ground to stand on if she argues the sanctity of marriage.

[poppy]

I agree with your theory. I think most any keen political observer or politically focused historian would take it for granted that it's rarely as clear cut, clean and noble as gets written up decades later.

 

I don't think most Christians are in favor of what Kim Davis is doing. Perhaps most of a certain type of Christianity are, but not Christians as a whole. As a great many Christians on this thread have pointed out- she doesn't speak for all Christians.

 

I saw an article headlined "Kim Davis is a gift to gay rights", and I agree with that. I think there are a whole lot of people who wish we could go back to 'the baker who didn't want to make a cake' discussion, which had some nuance. And no video.

[Ravin]

You are conveniently very narrowly defining freedom of expression to suit your case.

This is just wrong.

 

Religious expression is the principle that grants an individual the ability to express one's beliefs publicly or privately through practice, speaking, teaching, and worship. It does not stop at the church (or synagogue or mosque, etc) doors.

It does stop at the doors of the courthouse or other government building. That is where the "government shall make no establishment of religion" clause comes in. She has no right to, while acting in her capacity as a government official, foist her religious beliefs on the public. Would you want to see the county clerk's office change its hours and never be open after noon on Friday because the clerk is Muslim and wants to close down for Friday prayers?

 

People with religious convictions which disagree with the law can, in their private capacity, choose not to participate in the workings of the law. A pacifist can opt to refrain from entering military service as a concientious objector. A general cannot convert on the battlefield and order the troops to lay down arms and stop fighting.

[KarenNC]

Why is this Kim Davis so against her name being anywhere on papers for gays getting married but she is OK with her name being on the papers of someone getting re married without knowing if it was due to the other partner committing adultery? I would love a real answer to this???

 

IMO, because she is judging based solely on appearance. It only seems to matter if they are visibly different enough to trigger her investigating to see if they are "worthy" of her services (see the story about the couple to whom she issued a license in February http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-marriage-license-transgender-couple/71634646/where the husband is transgender). 

 

 

It's the same reason that a local church was glad to allow our inclusive homeschool group to rent space for activities for years, knowing we were not an exclusively Christian group, until we had a member who wore a hijab. Then, suddenly, they had a problem (and said that was the reason, btw).

[Joules]

 Would you want to see the county clerk's office change its hours and never be open after noon on Friday because the clerk is Muslim and wants to close down for Friday prayers?

 

 

 

I like this example.  There may be some way to accommodate his religious practice (e.g. four ten hour days, if there are others in the office to work Friday), but to make the example comparable to Davis, he would have to insist that not only "he" be off, but the entire office be closed (even if the others don't share his faith), because it is offensive to his faith to even leave the office opened at a holy time.

[MSNative]

Considering she has been married to four different men, she has no moral high ground to stand on if she argues the sanctity of marriage.

I just read that she didn't become a Christian until 4 years ago- after all of her marriages. I think a lot of newer converts to any religions or way of thinking can be very passionate and dogmatic. Didn't we have a discussion about a new athiest who was being sort of aggressive in fb posts? Or essential oil converts. :) Not excusing her. Just clarifying that one point and starting to understand a bit more why she is doing this. Perhaps she feels so strongly because this had been a "sin area" in her life. (quotes because she views them as a sin area not judging divorce or divorced people). Again not excusing just musing.

[poppy]

TranquilMind, on 04 Sept 2015 - 5:28 PM, said:

You are conveniently very narrowly defining freedom of expression to suit your case.
This is just wrong.

Religious expression is the principle that grants an individual the ability to express one's beliefs publicly or privately through practice, speaking, teaching, and worship. It does not stop at the church (or synagogue or mosque, etc) doors.

Ah, that may be the missing link. Perhaps you would be OK with someone refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple based on religious belief.

  See this for some of the Scriptural justifications

That is a sermon by Bob Jones from 1960..... rest assured, Bob Jones University did eventually lift their ban on interracial dating and marriage. 40 years after that sermon.

[Word Nerd]

You are conveniently very narrowly defining freedom of expression to suit your case.

This is just wrong.

 

Religious expression is the principle that grants an individual the ability to express one's beliefs publicly or privately through practice, speaking, teaching, and worship. It does not stop at the church (or synagogue or mosque, etc) doors.

She is not just acting as an individual. She is acting as the state. A vegan can eat however she likes and believe whatever she wants about meat eating, but a vegan official would have no right to refuse granting business licenses to butcher shops or steak houses, no matter how strongly she believed they were wrong.