Kentucky Clerk refuses to issue same-sex marriage license

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Not to toot my own horn or anything (toot toot) but I definitively rebutted CP's "it's not discrimination if she denies marriage licenses to everyone!" argument five pages ago here. He has chosen to ignore it for obvious reasons. 

 

The simple reality is that the clerk's actions are: (1) discriminatory by her own admission (2) recognized as discriminatory under the law (3) adjudicated as discriminatory by the federal judiciary (4) in direct violation of a federal court order for which she is about to be held in contempt.

 

The only "not discriminatory" argument that a person can plausibly make is "well, I disagree with the law, disagree with the court and think that a person's clear and direct admission that her actions have a discriminatory intent is irrelevant to the question of whether or not an action is discriminatory" - which is a response that should evoke, in the rest of enlightened society, an indifferent shrug. 

 

Game over. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

I'm sorry, but I can't say I'm equally impressed by your condescending ad-hominem remarks.

 

I have studied Constitutional Law.  That however, does not guarantee that Federal Courts will agree with my opinions.

 

I have now read the "Preliminary Injunction", and the reasons given for it by the District Judge.  I still have doubts as to whether the district court has authority to punish the clerk under these circumstances, for all the reasons I have stated.  I don't think that necessarily follows from the recent S.C. decision.

 

If the court does choose to punish the clerk, it is possible that the contempt order will be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  It is possible that the Circuit judge will agree with me.  Or maybe he/she will not.

 

To be clear - that's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is a species of logical fallacy where a proposition is attacked by way of some personal characteristic of the speaker. "Your argument is wrong because you smell like cat food" is an ad hominem attack.

 

"You are ignorant. by your own admission, of that which you speak" is just an observation. A true observation, by your own admission. 

 

If you stretch, you might even be able to characterize my comment as an insult. At the very least, it was condescending. But then I'm just being condescending and insulting you. Not making an ad hominem attack. 

[sologdin]

it wasn't discrimination in new orleans either when the city filled public pools with concrete when ordered to integrate them.

[Commodore]

The only "not discriminatory" argument that a person can plausibly make is "well, I disagree with the law, disagree with the court and think that a person's clear and direct admission that her actions have a discriminatory intent is irrelevant to the question of whether or not an action is discriminatory" - which is a response that should invoke, in the rest of enlightened society, an indifferent shrug. 

 

 

Disagreeing with the law and disagreeing with the court is not the same thing. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, who decides how to interpret the law, if not the courts?

[DanteGabriel]

Well, who decides how to interpret the law, if not the courts?

 

McJesusites getting direct updates from God Himself, who, strangely enough, always seems to back up their prejudices.

[The guy from the Vale]

The laws of most modern states were made by man, not by god. That's what 'secular society' means.

[sologdin]

 
Disagreeing with the law and disagreeing with the court is not the same thing. 

what is the distinction here? judicial rulings are law, after all.

[TrackerNeil]

Disagreeing with the law and disagreeing with the court is not the same thing. 

 

In this case, it pretty much is. The law means what the Supreme Court says it means, and that august body has spoken clearly. Davis' options are few.

[all swedes are racist]

 
Disagreeing with the law and disagreeing with the court is not the same thing. 

Did you mean to say disagreeing with the law and disregarding the courts rulings are not the same thing?

[IamMe90]

 
Disagreeing with the law and disagreeing with the court is not the same thing. 

For someone who has such a strong position on the second ammendment, you seem to have a pretty piss poor understanding of the Constitution.

[The Fallen]

I think Chilly Polly can't tell the difference between violating someone's rights and inconveniencing them.

[OldGimletEye]

For someone who has such a strong position on the second ammendment, you seem to have a pretty piss poor understanding of the Constitution.

Imagine what the reaction would be if a state official refused to give out gun permits because he didn't want to give them out to conservative Christians.

[maarsen]

We had a case upe here just recently with a Member of Parliament being convicted of electoral fraud. He said his conviction was only a judge's opinion. Said judge then sent him to jail. 

[Wise Fool]

 

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.

The good news is you're wrong!

 

The bad news is you're so much so that one might describe your wrongness more aptly as delusion. Things are happening that you refuse to see; and you're seeing things that are happening that aren't. Inquisitions, persecutions, martyrs for their beliefs; wrongdoers who've done no wrong. And so on. All very elaborate but I'm not sure it's worth as many pages as it's taking up.

[Lord Mord]

OGE,

Imagine what the reaction would be if a state official refused to give out gun permits because he didn't want to give them out to conservative Christians.

We've already seen a comparison made upthread to someone not enforcing voter ID laws, where the determination was that those who believe that Davis should be sanctioned would not feel the same way about a polling place attendant resisting enforcement of voter ID.

This strikes me as curious, because for this to work, one of two things must be true: either the poster in question, who presumably wants to give Davis a pass, would also give the hypothetical polling attendant a pass, or else, believing that the polling attendant should be punished, the poster also concurs with those who believe that Davis should be, in which case the comparison is superfluous.

Of course, it's also possible the comparison is simply bullshit.

[TrackerNeil]

Kim Davis is in the thug jug:

 

Judge Bunning found Davis in contempt of court and ordered Davis to jail. U.S. Marshals reportedly have her in custody.

[OldGimletEye]

OGE,


We've already seen a comparison made upthread to someone not enforcing voter ID laws, where the determination was that those who believe that Davis should be sanctioned would not feel the same way about a polling place attendant resisting enforcement of voter ID.

This strikes me as curious, because for this to work, one of two things must be true: either the poster in question, who presumably wants to give Davis a pass, would also give the hypothetical polling attendant a pass, or else, believing that the polling attendant should be punished, the poster also concurs with those who believe that Davis should be, in which case the comparison is superfluous.

Of course, it's also possible the comparison is simply bullshit.

I think the key analytical feature here is that both the right to marry and the right to bear arms are now considered fundamental rights under the Constitution. The right to marry has been considered a right under the 14th Amendment for quite awhile. I believe the right to bear arms as being incorporated through the 14th Amendment became acknowledged by the Court a few years back that case that came out of Chicago, if I recall correctly.

Also you have that the right to vote is considered a fundamental right too, I believe. As far as I know, there is no fundamental right to deny somebody the right to vote.

[Commodore]

Did you mean to say disagreeing with the law and disregarding the courts rulings are not the same thing?

 

Correct, so for example a clerk  might be perfectly willing to issue gay marriage licenses if they were sanctioned by the legislature or by referendum, even if they disagreed with the law. 

 

But they may disagree with Anthony Kennedy that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution (it's not in there, oddly enough), and may feel that issuing marriage licenses is therefore a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

Davis cited a religious exception, so she still might refuse to issue a license even if it was sanctioned democratically. And as I said, the correct form of protest is resignation. 

 

Some here seem to be saying that judges can't be lawless, because the law is whatever a judge says it is. If a law says x, and a judge rules y, the law becomes y. When you ask people to legitimize lawlessness, eventually you get revolutions and wars. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

I hate to say this but I think the Judge gave her exactly what she wanted. Those still opposed to homosexual marriage will try to spin this into something it is not, a religious rights issue.