Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, Why should the people of her county have to travel to get Marriage licenses? The people of other counties do not. As such her actions are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment by placing burdens upon the people of her county that are not placed upon others. It is discrimination to refuse to issue Marriage Licenses due to her religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 No. She is permitting them to obtain marriage licenses in other counties. Why do I have the feeling that during the civil rights era you would have argued "there's no problem, black people can just go to another town or county if they want to rent a motel room or go to a restaurant." Are we going to need a version of the Negro Motorist Green Book so homosexuals can find places that people will let them marry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Why should the people of her county have to travel to get Marriage licenses. The people of other counties do not. As such her actions are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment by placing burdens upon the people of her county that are not placed upon others. Is there a Constitutional right to receive marriage licenses in the mail or have them delivered to your door? Of course people in other counties may have to travel to receive marriage licenses, and it may be a long way or a short way depending on where they exactly they live within the County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, You have a Constitutional right to get married and to be treated equally at law. Forcing some to travel outside their home county but not others is a violation of equal protection as people in different counties are being treated differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 You have a Constitutional right to get married and to be treated equally at law. Forcing some to travel outside their home county but not others is a violation of equal protection as people in different counties are being treated differently. What about different villages? Do they have the same consitutional right? If a neighboring Village, which happens to be the county seat, has a marriage clerk, do I have a right to demand that my village has one too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly,What about different villages? Do they have the same consitutional right? If a neighboring Village, which happens to be the county seat, has a marriage clerk, do I have a right to demand that my village has one too? No. Kentucky law obligates Clerks for a County to issue marriage licences. There is nothing that requires "villages" or "towns" to do the same. The law is complied with equally so long a all county clerks do their jobs. Mrs. Davis' refusal to do her job is a violation of both the substantive due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 No. Kentucky law obligates Clerks for a County to issue marriage licences. Fine. So it's a matter of Kentucky law. Not Federal Constutional law. Which means it's none of my business if I am not a citizen of Kentucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Fine. So it's a matter of Kentucky law. Not Federal Constutional law. It can be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It can be both. It can be. But I was trying to discuss the Federal question, and he cheated by citing Kentucky law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, Fine. So it's a matter of Kentucky law. Not Federal Constutional law. Which means it's none of my business if I am not a citizen of Kentucky. No. Marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th amendment. States may set up their own processes for how marriages take place so long as the law is applied equally to all citizens of that State. When Mrs. Davis refuses to issue marriages licenses she violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment with her refusal (a Federal issue) by forcing people to travel to other counties to get marriage licenses she violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by placing burdens on the citizens of her county not shared by the citizens of other counties (also a Federal issue). This is properly in Federal Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It can be. But I was trying to discuss the Federal question, and he cheated by citing Kentucky law. Pointing out the fact that unequally applying state laws to residents of that state violates federal law isn't "cheating." It's a direct answer to what you're discussing. Also, I think most people in this thread care because they aren't twats who are okay with open, legal discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 No. Marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th amendment. States may set up their own processes for how marriages take place so long as the law is applied equally to all citizens of that State. When Mrs. Davis refuses to issue marriages licenses she violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment with her refusal (a Federal issue) by forcing people to travel to other counties to get marriage licenses she violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by placing burdens on the citizens of her county not shared by the citizens of other counties (also a Federal issue). Seems to me that the Kentucky has indeed set up its own processes and is applying them equally. Inevitably, however, some people live further away from available marriage clerks than others. It seems that currently, this marriage clerk is unavailable. Her unavailability violates Kentucky law, but not federal law. Is your argument that this is discrimination against gay people? Or invidious discrimination against the people of this particular county? Because if there is "discrimination", it is against the citizens of the county. Is it motivated by a particular animus toward the people of the county? If the county had an unusually large gay community, and this was the reason the State was being less-than-vigorous in enforcing its own laws, then perhaps you would have a better argument.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, How is forcing the people of one county to travel to other counties to get marriage licences not: 1). A vioation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment by denying the people of this county the right to legally marry; and 2). A violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by forcing the people of this county to travel to other counties to get marriage licenses while the people of those ofher counties do not have an obligation to travel to other counties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Chilly, How is forcing the people of one county to travel to other counties to get marriage licences not: 1). A vioation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment by denying the people of this county the right to legally marry; and 2). A violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by forcing the people of this county to travel to other counties to get marriage licenses while the people of those ofher counties do not have an obligation to travel to other counties? You're not explaining why it is a violation, so there's nothing for me to respond to. You seem to assume that every single case of unequal treatment is automatically a violation of the 14th amendment. This is not the case. For instance, just because one person lives closer to the State Courthouse than another, does not give him a Federal case against the State because of unequal access to State Courts. Suppose I live in a particularly large county, and on the opposite end from where the County Marriage Clerk is located. Suppose I have to travel even farther to reach the clerk than the people of Ms Davis' county do when they travel to neighboring counties? Do I also have a 14th amendment claim, according to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Where the State, through its agent, is engaging in actions that are a violation of fundamental due process (refusing to allow people to marry is such see, Loving v. Virginia) then, yes, their actions creating unequal application of State laws does rise to the level of a violation of equal protection. You are being deliberaely obstinate in refusing to answer my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Where the State, through its agent, is engaging in actions that are a violation of fundamental due process (refusing to allow people to marry is such see, Loving v. Virginia) then, yes, their actions creating unequal application of State laws does rise to the level of a violation of equal protection. The State of Kentucky is not refusing to permit gays to marry. The analogy to LOVING is so absurd, it's almost offensive. The couple in LOVING faced real, serious government opposition to their relationship itself, not the unavailable of some local clerk who was engaged in some silly protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 CP, No, a really big county doesn't create an equal protection violation at least not under current case law. If you want to attempt to make an equal protection argument out of "big counties" more power to you. That's simply not currently how that law works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 CP, The State of Kentucky is not refusing to permit gays to marry. The analogy to LOVING is so absurd, it's almost offensive. It's agent for that county is refusing to let anyone marry in that county. That is a violation of more than Loving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 No, a really big county doesn't create an equal protection violation at least not under current case law. Right. I'd love you to cite the case that shows how this is different, and explains the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 CP, I've explained the due process and equal protection implications of Mrs. Davis' refusal to do her job till I'm blue in the face. She's likely to be fined, possibly jailed for her defiance of a Federal Court order. She should be impeached and removed from office. She does not have discretion to determine who may marry and who may not so long as they arw of legal age to do so. Her refusal, as an agent of the State, is a violation of due process and equal protection. Now repeat yourself and continue with your evasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.