Kentucky Clerk refuses to issue same-sex marriage license

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The response from religious conservatives has been almost frightening.   Mostly because these people seem to truly believe that Kim Davis was jailed for being a Christian rather than for refusing to do her job. 

 

 

 

Nope. Actually, Huckabee in an attempt to outcrazy Cruz goes way further than that.

 

"When people of conviction fight for what's right they often pay a price, but if they don't and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false god of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man - and certainly no unelected lawyer - has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God," Huckabee said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/02/mike-huckabee-offers-support-to-kentucky-clerk-who-refuses-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/

 

So in other words. Screw the laws of the land, just follow the bible. So he proposing the Christian equivalent to Islamist Sharia law. I am curious how far Huckabee would be willing to walk down that road. Back to slavery and forced marriages?  

 

I am somewhat surprised that from the GOP establishment Graham was the one to call out Davis and simply say. Rule of law. She accepted the job, if she can't make it work with her [Christian] conscience she should simply resign. (honorable Mention Fiorina shares that position).

 

While Christie, Paul and Rubio somehow try to play on both sides, and suggest a bizarre third way, that does not exist. 

 

Trump and Bush have thus far remained silent on the issue. Which was probably the smartest thing they could do. This way they don't upset the Christian crazies in the primaries and do not alienate other voters for the general election.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LA,

Why is it that this woman's "freedom of religion" can't be protected?
 
She has deeply held religious beliefs. Shouldn't she be allowed to do her job and not do something that she thinks is a sin?
 
And the fact that she is going to prison just for what she believes.... it almost reminds me of Roman times.

She will not allow her subordinates to execute Marriage Licenses while she holds office. Her remedy if conscious will not give her peace with that is to resign. She has refused to do so, as such she truly holds the keys to her own cell.

[OldGimletEye]

Why is it that this woman's "freedom of religion" can't be protected?
 
She has deeply held religious beliefs. Shouldn't she be allowed to do her job and not do something that she thinks is a sin?
 
And the fact that she is going to prison just for what she believes.... it almost reminds me of Roman times.

Ms. Davis is entitled to believe whatever she wants. However, her beliefs don't give her the right to interfere with the rights of others.

The people of Rowan County have a right to marriage licenses, so long as they meet Kentucky's marriage requirements and those marriage requirements don't violate the due process clause.

Just imagine a public official that happen to be Muslim and refused to do an act because he claimed it violated Sharia law. Just imagine the outrage by the right.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Why is it that this woman's "freedom of religion" can't be protected?

 

She has deeply held religious beliefs. Shouldn't she be allowed to do her job and not do something that she thinks is a sin?

 

And the fact that she is going to prison just for what she believes.... it almost reminds me of Roman times.

 

It can be and it is, when she is a private person.

 

But in her role as county clerk she operating as the government, not a private person. The government cannot refuse based on religion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

Just imagine a public official that happen to be Muslim and refused to do an act because he claimed it violated Sharia law. Just imagine the outrage by the right.

There would be blood in the streets.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Ms. Davis is entitled to believe whatever she wants. However, her beliefs don't give her the right to interfere with the rights of others.

The people of Rowan County have a right to marriage licenses, so long as they meet Kentucky's marriage requirements and those marriage requirements don't violate the due process clause.

Just imagine a public official that happen to be Muslim and refused to do an act because he claimed it violated Sharia law. Just imagine the outrage by the right.

 

 

*Sigh*  I know. Issuing marriage lisences are an essential part of being a county clerk. If Ms. Davis had a "conscience" issue, she should have taken a page out of Thomas More's book and just resigned.

[Dr. Pepper]

Why is it that this woman's "freedom of religion" can't be protected?

 

She has deeply held religious beliefs. Shouldn't she be allowed to do her job and not do something that she thinks is a sin?

 

And the fact that she is going to prison just for what she believes.... it almost reminds me of Roman times.

I haven't seen any indication that she's being prevented from practicing her religion.  She's going to prison for refusing to do her job.  

 

Before you latch on to the Huckabee/Cruz mantra, maybe think a little more logically about this.  Where does it end?  What if I were a public servant and I decided that my deeply held religious beliefs prevent me from, say, serving Christians.  All Christian students must leave my classroom immediately.  Is this ok?  What about a mail carrier.  Can a mail carrier determine that his deeply held religious beliefs prevent him from delivering mail to idiots?  And trash collectors?  Do they get to pick and choose which trash they collect and cite their alleged religious beliefs?  

 

I'm sure even you probably don't want a country like that.  Kim Davis is free to be as big of a bigot as she wishes, but she isn't free to decline to do her job.  

[MerenthaClone]

 

 

*Sigh*  I know. Issuing marriage lisences are an essential part of being a county clerk. If Ms. Davis had a "conscience" issue, she should have taken a page out of Thomas More's book and just resigned.

Then why did you ask in the first place, and why is your picture a picture of her?  

[all swedes are racist]

Why is it that this woman's "freedom of religion" can't be protected?
 
She has deeply held religious beliefs. Shouldn't she be allowed to do her job and not do something that she thinks is a sin?
 
And the fact that she is going to prison just for what she believes.... it almost reminds me of Roman times.

maybe a lawyer or constitutional scholar can correct me, but I believe the basic idea is Kim Davis can practice her religion as she sees fit within the bounds of law (ie no human sacrifice etc) but per the establishment clause, the County Clerk cannot.

In essence:
She is free to disapprove of homosexuality
She is free to not enter into a homosexual relationship
She is even free to disagree with the courts decision
She is not free, as an agent of the State -- on the basis of her personal religious beliefs -- to disregard the courts ruling or law of the land, at least without facing penalty, including being held in contempt of court, for which she is going to jail

[sologdin]

my sincerely held religious belief is that all persons who work in the clerk of court should give gay marriages to everyone.  that they don't do so oppresses my religion.  ITS LIEK FEDING LIUNS AND GALDATOR FITES AND MARTURS BORKEN ON THE WEEHL!!

[Larry of the Lawn]

My religion tells me to kill until the population is below 144,000 souls, which will seal the world from the outside. Stop oppressing me, evil murder laws!

[OldGimletEye]

It can be and it is, when she is a private person.
 
But in her role as county clerk she operating as the government, not a private person. The government cannot refuse based on religion.

Yep. And her actions arguably have establishment clause implications as well.

[all swedes are racist]

My religion tells me to kill until the population is below 144,000 souls, which will seal the world from the outside. Stop oppressing me, evil murder laws!

Don't blame me, I voted for Aurax

[DanteGabriel]

Although I get what you and DG are saying and can see how my first post might come across as a tone complaint. But its not, I'm just sick of seeing peoples bedroom activity used as a criticism.

 

Your critique of those making an issue of her personal life is quite valid and principled. I just like to take shots at Christianist morality police.

[Wise Fool]

Why is it that this woman's "freedom of religion" can't be protected?

 

She has deeply held religious beliefs. Shouldn't she be allowed to do her job and not do something that she thinks is a sin?

 

And the fact that she is going to prison just for what she believes.... it almost reminds me of Roman times.

 

 

She can believe what she wants. Incarceration is for what she does.

 

If she thinks what her job entails is a sin, she should either modify her understanding of sin (i.e, to be less stupid and hateful), or find a job she is more comfortable with. This isn't like making her work on a religious holiday. It's more like one day I were to suddenly develop a "religious belief" that talking nicely to customers is approving of all of their sins so therefore from now on I'm going to treat them like shit and if my boss wants to fire me it's like feeding me to the lions for my beliefs, maaaan.

 

 

It's like the new thing to do. Refuse to bake gay wedding cakes, and you have an instant "persecution;" refuse to give out gay marriage licenses and you've a manufactured "martyr." Only, the only "deeply held religious belief" that is of concern here is hatred of gay people. That's the only one. And frankly, if someone's "beliefs" are so specifically opposed to the law of the land and so specifically in such a way as to discriminate against the rights of other citizens, then it is not a belief worth respecting or defending.

 

So to answer your question, her freedom of religion isn't jeopardized, just her "freedom of religion." The "religion" of "politically motivated not-doing-your-fucking-job."

[SerHaHa]

 

So what you're saying is that no one should ever speak of their spouse at all, should never discuss any sort of significant other, there shouldn't be any sort of romantic relationships portrayed on screen, people shouldn't hold the hand of their lover when outside their house, nothing at all?  Or is it just LGBT people and their relationships you want invisible?

 

I'll clarify - I have no problem with LGBT situations and relationships being discussed in the media or used in pop culture/TV/Films/ETC, what I'm criticizing is the constant "victim" mentality presented by our community in the public eye, and those of us who are part of the LGBT community constantly framing ourselves as the oppressed.  Even if it IS the case with some of our detractors, it's self defeating and an ineffective way to bring about positive change, something I've been involved with trying to accomplish since I came out 15 years ago.  One thing I absolutely cannot STAND is members of the LGBT community constantly feeling the need to remind everyone of who and what we are.  Doing so makes it look as though we have something about ourselves we need to defend, an intrinsic self ascribed character flaw - you don't see straight people constantly reminding people they are straight, or creating TV programs centering around the fact they are straight.  This is my specific issue with LGBT in the public/entertainment eye.  IMO it's to the point that if we backed off the whole aggressive "get out there and claim your right to be gay/different/etc" posture, it would have a more positive effect than carrying on down the current path.

 

We're out.  It's ok now.  The majority of the people in free world accept us.  There is no need to keep applying the pressure to the point of annoying said people who have accepted us.  For the few who don't, nothing will change that, certainly not the blitz in recent years of overshare.

 

Just my opinion.

[IamMe90]

 

Doing so makes it look as though we have something about ourselves we need to defend, an intrinsic self ascribed character flaw - you don't see straight people constantly reminding people they are straight, or creating TV programs centering around the fact they are straight.

 

(full disclosure, I'm a gay man) Wow, straight people don't have to constantly remind people they're straight? Our culture isn't almost completely heteronormative? We don't see an astoundingly disproportionate rate of heterosexuality in mainstream media vs homosexuality (or any other kind of sexuality?) [b] I wonder why.[/b] And I wonder why you're okay with this. Your point of view must be steeped in an absurd amount of pragmatism, but even then, it crumbles to pieces, because it ignores all of the progress we've made, and the accompanying representation we've received in mainstream media, as a result of that representation. 

 

 

 

We're out.  It's ok now.  The majority of the people in free world accept us.  There is no need to keep applying the pressure to the point of annoying said people who have accepted us.  For the few who don't, nothing will change that, certainly not the blitz in recent years of overshare.

 

I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. LGBTQ people can still be fired from their jobs, legally, in most places in the US. There are a number of incredibly problematic legislative artifacts that exist in most Western societies. in many instances (our own US included!) they aren't even artifacts! People really believe in the morality of these laws!

 

I don't think you get it. People aren't dedicating their lives, effecting change, to change the minds of people who already think LGBTQ people should have equal rights. That's just a silly, and idiotic view. they're fighting against the still unacceptably common culture against LGBTQ people, that exists in America.

[Hayyoth]

Ms. Davis is entitled to believe whatever she wants. However, her beliefs don't give her the right to interfere with the rights of others.

The people of Rowan County have a right to marriage licenses, so long as they meet Kentucky's marriage requirements and those marriage requirements don't violate the due process clause.

Just imagine a public official that happen to be Muslim and refused to do an act because he claimed it violated Sharia law. Just imagine the outrage by the right.

Why should we need a license, a permission slip from the government, to exercise our fundamental rights?

 

 

 

maybe a lawyer or constitutional scholar can correct me, but I believe the basic idea is Kim Davis can practice her religion as she sees fit within the bounds of law (ie no human sacrifice etc) but per the establishment clause, the County Clerk cannot.

In essence:
She is free to disapprove of homosexuality
She is free to not enter into a homosexual relationship
She is even free to disagree with the courts decision
She is not free, as an agent of the State -- on the basis of her personal religious beliefs -- to disregard the courts ruling or law of the land, at least without facing penalty, including being held in contempt of court, for which she is going to jail

That's correct. If her religious sensibilities made her unable to carry on as a government functionary the only moral course open to her was to resign. In reality she's decided to  carry out a political act of disobedience and she's now gotten what she wanted.

 

Anyway I'd like to think all the folks screaming about officials doing their duties withour fear or favor would apply their outrage to all areas of public life and not just the ones they're emotionally invested in.

 

[mormont]

Why should we need a license, a permission slip from the government, to exercise our fundamental rights?

 
 Well, for one thing, the government needs a record of who has exercised this particular fundamental right, where, and when. (You may prefer that they shouldn't, but at present, they do.)

[IamMe90]

Why should we need a license, a permission slip from the government, to exercise our fundamental rights?

 

 

 

That's correct. If her religious sensibilities made her unable to carry on as a government functionary the only moral course open to her was to resign. In reality she's decided to  carry out a political act of disobedience and she's now gotten what she wanted.

 

Anyway I'd like to think all the folks screaming about officials doing their duties withour fear or favor would apply their outrage to all areas of public life and not just the ones they're emotionally invested in.

 

 

If we had a case in which the legal facts were exactly the same, but the central issue was vastly different -and more aligned- with my viewpoint, well yes, I'd certainly feel different about it. Depending on the issue, I'd feel VERY differently about it. But, while I might be personally upset, if someone refused to perform their public, sworn duties, due to a personal motive, I would still accept that said person would have to go through the same ordeal, until they complied with the law. so, for instance, if someone refused to enforce voter ID laws - something I would strongly agree with - if that person was sentenced to jail time for being in contempt of court, I would accept it (grudgingly in my case - although my god, I would never raise such a stink about it as people have for KD), even though I wouldn't agree with the law under which that person was imprisoned.