Jump to content

Kentucky Clerk refuses to issue same-sex marriage license


Dr. Pepper

Recommended Posts

 

That would be a different situation.  Certainly, the equal protection issue would be the same, since Kentucky would be applying its laws equally.  But you might have a stronger "fundamental right to marry" argument; if a single licensing office effectively prevented people in Kentucky from marrying.  

 

Your logic is unsound. 

 

By this way of thinking, one city refusing to license black drivers is ok, because the black residents of that city can go to the 1,201 other cities in the state to get a driver's license. So how many cities in a state can do this before it becomes a problem? How many counties in KY can refuse to issue marriage license to X group before it becomes a problem? You threw out the term "meaingful barrier" - is there a legal definition of this, or is this just whatever you think is reasonable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TerraPrime, on 02 Sept 2015 - 7:09 PM, said:snapback.png

 

Your logic is unsound. 

 

By this way of thinking, one city refusing to license black drivers is ok, because the black residents of that city can go to the 1,201 other cities in the state to get a driver's license.

 

Not at all.  You are not following my thinking at all.  If the city discriminates on the basis of race, there is a problem.  However, one city refusing to issue ANY drivers' licenses is not discriminatory, because it applies to everyone.    There is no rule that a State must provide 1202 offices issuing licenses instead of 1201 offices issuing licenses.  It's just that those it provides must not discriminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

TerraPrime, on 02 Sept 2015 - 7:09 PM, said:snapback.png

 

Not at all.  You are not following my thinking at all.  If the city discriminates on the basis of race, there is a problem.  However, one city refusing to issue ANY drivers' licenses is not discriminatory, because it applies to everyone.    There is no rule that a State must provide 1202 offices issuing licenses instead of 1201 offices issuing licenses.  It's just that those it provides must not discriminate.

 

 

 What if the citizens of that state are paying for 1202 of those offices, but one "Civil Servant" is preventing the 1202nd office from issuing any licenses because they feel they are being persecuted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm almost impressed. Usually when someone drops 20+ posts about a topic that they don't know anything at all about, they just double down and refuse to admit error or ignorance. I'm glad that you've taken the time to elevate yourself from "completely ignorant about the topic at hand" to "potentially capable of meaningful contribution."

Hey I learned that Clerks of the Court are elected officials, which sort of seems odd to me, you figure its position that you would want a non partisan technocrat in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 What if the citizens of that state are paying for 1202 of those offices, but one "Civil Servant" is preventing the 1202nd office from issuing any licenses because they feel they are being persecuted?

 

If a State of County employee chooses not to do his job, or only part of his job, then that is a matter between the employee, the State and the citizens/taxpayers of that State or County.  It has nothing to do with the Feds. or the U.S. Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How many counties in KY can refuse to issue marriage license to X group before it becomes a problem?

 

Who cares?  It's obviously not a problem now.  And if it ever becomes a problem, I would imagine the State will do something about it because its heterosexual citizens want to get married too.  If it ever becomes a problem in a discriminatory way, you will have a much stronger case.  If it ever becomes a problem forming a meaningful barrier to all people (including heteros) who want to get married actually getting married, you will have a much stronger case, but I really doubt the state will let that happen.. 

 

This woman is a symbol.  She must be crushed like a bug because of what she stands for, not because she is actually discriminating, or actually preventing anyone from getting married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Who cares?  It's obviously not a problem now.  And if it ever becomes a problem, I would imagine the State will do something about it because its heterosexual citizens want to get married too.  If it ever becomes a problem in a discriminatory way, you will have a much stronger case.  If it ever becomes a problem forming a meaningful barrier to all people (including heteros) who want to get married actually getting married, you will have a much stronger case, but I really doubt the state will let that happen.. 

 

This woman is a symbol.  She must be crushed like a bug because of what she stands for, not because she is actually discriminating, or actually preventing anyone from getting married.

What is the standard of scrutiny for marriage under the Due Process Clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chilly,

The State can only act through its agents. If an agent of the State, like Mrs. Davis, refuses to do her job it is The State refusing to do what it is obligated to do. That is what you don't seem to grasp.

OGE,

I believe "strict scrutiny" is applied to any fundamental due process issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chilly,

The State can only act through its agents. If an agent of the State, like Mrs. Davis, refuses to do her job it is The State refusing to do what it is obligated to do. That is what you don't seem to grasp.

Here is the thing. If I recall correctly marriage is a fundamental right under substantive Due Process. Accordingly, that means, if I recall correctly, interference with that right would be subject to a strict scrutiny level of review. And the clerk's justification for her actions is what again? And would that justification even survive the more lenient rational basis test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OGE,

I believe she is claiming her personal free exercise of religious faith trumps her minsterial duty to issue marriage licenses. I think she's dead wrong. If her faith will not let her do her job she needs to resign.

So accordingly her denial of those licenses would be subjected to the strict scrunity test. And if her rationale fails that test, then she is in violation of that clause.

 

Now, anyone remember that Peyote case back in the 1990s? You know the one that Scalia approving cited Felix Frankfurter? What did old Scalia have to say in that case? I think that case is still good law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The appropriate act of protest is to resign. But spare us the appeal to legal arguments. This is purely about the political outcome.

 

Most here would be cheering her on if she were refusing to ask for ID to vote. 

 


I don't see the problem here. She is a multiple divorcee, which makes her a multiple adulteress, by the religious laws under which which she desires to live and be judged. Stone her to death and move on.
 
I'm confused, what's the rule about when slut-shaming is permissible?
 
One might think the rule is it's ok if they aren't a member of the tribe, but Davis is a Democrat. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm confused, what's the rule about when slut-shaming is permissible?
 
One might think the rule is it's ok if they aren't a member of the tribe, but Davis is a Democrat. 

 

 

It's not slut shaming, it's pointing out hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go temporarily crazy and admit that I agree with Commodore, at least as far as the stuff being said about Davis. I personally don't care how many times she's been married, how many kids she had and with whom, and anything else related to her personal affairs. I don't care about her faith or how well she embodies it in her life. I find this focus on her a little disturbing, if truth be told. Yes, she's either a sanctimonious jackass or a cynical attention-seeker (maybe both!), but at the end of the day the only thing that concerns me is if she issues marriage licenses the way she's supposed to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go temporarily crazy and admit that I agree with Commodore, at least as far as the stuff being said about Davis. I personally don't care how many times she's been married, how many kids she had and with whom, and anything else related to her personal affairs. I don't care about her faith or how well she embodies it in her life. I find this focus on her a little disturbing, if truth be told. Yes, she's either a sanctimonious jackass or a cynical attention-seeker (maybe both!), but at the end of the day the only thing that concerns me is if she issues marriage licenses the way she's supposed to. 

Bottom line yes. The only issue is whether she has a credible reason to deny those licenses. And, I'd say, under the last case I mentioned, the answer would be "no". The gist of that case was that "a law of general applicability" does not violate the free exercise clause. The holder of that office, no matter her religion, must execute those licenses, and if she does not, then she must give sufficient reason for not doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chilly,

The State can only act through its agents. If an agent of the State, like Mrs. Davis, refuses to do her job it is The State refusing to do what it is obligated to do. That is what you don't seem to grasp.

 

I'm familiar with the doctrine of respondeat superior, but the way you are applying it here is ridiculous.  Yes, if she were discriminating (giving marriage licenses  to some but not others), you could hold the State accountable for her descrimination.  But she's not discriminating.  

 

But if employee A at counter A (or office A) refuses to give you a marriage license, and sends you instead to employee B at counter B (or office B ), who gives you a marriage license, then the State has given you a marriage license; and to say they have refused to do so is just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm familiar with the doctrine of respondeat superior, but the way you are applying it here is ridiculous.  Yes, if she were discriminating (giving marriage licenses  to some but not others), you could hold the State accountable for her descrimination.  But she's not discriminating.  

 

No she is only refusing to issue marriage licenses, implicating the Due Process Clause, for a discriminatory purpose.

 

See the problem here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No she is only refusing to issue marriage licenses, implicating the Due Process Clause, for a discriminatory purpose.

 

See the problem here?

 

No, because I don't see any discriminatory behavior OR denial of due process.  Her motives are therefore irrelevant.  You just want to punish her for the views she has expressed.

 

But you know, things will probably go your way.  This woman will probably be crushed like a bug.  The media will drag out every unsavory detail of her private life, and use them to hurt her, and if she reacts badly to this treatment, or otherwise show signs of mental instability or vulnerability, they will use it to hurt her more.  She will probably lose her job.  Maybe she'll lose her husband too.  And the members of this board will cheer and cheer and cheer and cheer and cheer.

 

And will the inquisition be satisfied?  No.  The inquisition is never satisfied.  it will just move on to the next target.  

 

I hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...