Kentucky Clerk refuses to issue same-sex marriage license

[Jace, Extat]

 

This is just the MIGHT MAKES RIGHT argument.  I'm sorry, I don't agree that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.   I don't have to agree with what the courts are doing merely because they are doing it, and merely because they have the might of the Federal Government behind them.

 

I'd rather stand up for the little guy who is being bullied.  And right now, from where I stand, it seems to me that Ms Davis is being bullied by bullies, who could choose to leave her alone, but choose not to.  And it is just pathetic that, while bullying her, they insist on feeling OH SO SORRY FOR THEMSELVES, even after they have succeeded in throwing her in a Federal Jail.

 

Ms Davis is not hurting anybody.  To claim that she is (especially after she is in jail and her "victims" are free as birds) requires breathtaking levels of self-absorption and self-pity.

 

The little guy who's being bullied!?! Davis has every right to her beliefs, and you're absolutely right that people have crossed the line in their persecution of her (especially about her marriages). But Davis does not deserve a shred of pity. She openly refused to serve the people who elected her to office in an effort to discriminate against citizens who are merely attempting to take advantage of their legally protected rights. On her way to doing that, she made a mistake in picking a fight with a group of people who have been victims of far worse treatment than she can ever imagine but are now enjoying the freedom of discrimination that her and her ilk have used to attack those different from themselves for decades in this country.

 

Davis made a choice, it turns out it was a pretty poor one. That does not make her the victim here. If she wanted to make a statement, she could have resigned her position or sought an arrangement that freed her from her obligation. Instead, she chose to hold her county hostage for a bit of publicity. At this point there is no moral high ground here, but Davis put these events into motion of her own free will and now she'll bear the consequences.

[ChillyPolly]

See, though, she isn't being put into jail for her religious beliefs. She is being put into jail for failing to comply with a court order.

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.  Obviously.

[Inigima]

The establishment clause exists specifically to prevent agents of the government (e.g., the office of the county clerk) from imposing their religious beliefs on citizens (e.g., Rowan County residents). It is supposed to do exactly what it's doing here. Please explain why it should not apply here, and please do so without the elaborate fiction of a government office having religious beliefs merely because its employee does.

If I were gay and a Rowan County resident, I would be incensed by the suggestion that I should have to go somewhere else to claim that which is mine by right, because it wouldn't be my problem.

[OldGimletEye]

The two are not mutually exclusive.  Obviously.

Also what you seem to forget is that the Free Exercise Clause isn't the only part of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is there too. And, arguably, Ms. Davis' actions have brought in Establishment Clause issues as well, since evidently she is pushing a particular religious viewpoint while holding a public office.

ETA:
ninja-ed

[Stubby]

 

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.  Whenever has a police officer gone to jail for failing to give a Miranda warning?

 

I'm sure I can think of a host of other important differences, but why waste my time?

 

This is your argument:

• Davis has strong personal beliefs
• The US Supreme Court made a decision that says she cannot act (by omission) on the grounds of those personal beliefs
• She ignored the Court's ruling
• Her act (by omission) has had a legal consequence - both for her and the people she is denying a marriage licence
• You say that she should be entitled to act (by omission) on the basis of her strong personal beliefs

This is the Miranda position:

• The US Supreme Court made a decision that says police officers cannot act (by omission) by refusing to tell a person their rights on arrest
• If a police officer ignores that ruling, there is a legal consequence - both for the validity of the arrest and the justice system in general
• By your logic, a police officer should be allowed to ignore the rights of others by not advising of rights if he or she has a conscience-based reason or due to strong personal beliefs

Your logic supports suborning the authority of the Court by ignoring the requirements the Court has said will satisfy the law.  If your logic is accepted, every person arrested since Miranda would not need to be read their rights.  This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of the position.

 

Someone who ignores the Court's instructions for the administration of justice is treating the Court with contempt.

[ChillyPolly]

Also what you seem to forget is that the Free Exercise Clause isn't the only part of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause is there too. And, arguably, Ms. Davis' actions have brought in Establishment Clause issues as well, since evidently she is pushing a particular religious viewpoint while holding a public office.

ETA:
ninja-ed

 

Well, we could debate the applicability of the Establishment clause as well.  But that is pointless as long as you take the recent Supreme Court decisions and orders and actions as the be-all and end-all of all that is right and just.

[ChillyPolly]

• By your logic, a police officer should be allowed to ignore the rights of others by not advising of rights if he or she has a conscience-based reason or due to strong personal beliefs

 

That is not my logic at all.  Whoever's logic it is, I cannot follow it.  I believe strongly in protecting the rights of accused criminals as a barrier against the abuse of government power.

 

And please stop telling me what my argument or position is.   That applies to your entire post.

[Stubby]

 

That is not my logic at all.  Whoever's logic it is, I cannot follow it.  I believe strongly in protecting the rights of accused criminals as a barrier against the abuse of government power.

 

And please stop telling me what my argument or position is.

 

What part of my summary of your argument was incorrect?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

CP,

What is preventing Mrs. Davis from resigning her position and releaving herself of this whole problem?

[ChillyPolly]

What is preventing Mrs. Davis from resigning her position and releaving herself of this whole problem?

 

Gee.  Dunno.  Maybe she's got bills to pay?  Maybe she feels she has a responsibility towards - you know - the people who elected her?

 

You seem so eager for her to lose her job.  As though that does not matter.  But it is SUCH A HUGE BURDEN to go to another clerk for a marriage license.

[ChillyPolly]

 

What part of my summary of your argument was incorrect?

 

The entire thing.  I'm asking you to let me speak for myself, and not try to speak for me.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

Well, we could debate the applicability of the Establishment clause as well.  But that is pointless as long as you take the recent Supreme Court decisions and orders and actions as the be-all and end-all of all that is right and just.

 

Please! Don't be coy. Tell us how you really feel. Think Obergfell was wrongly decided? Feel free to explain. Think substantive due process is a joke? Tell us why. Think West Coast Hotel v. Parrish marks the start of the USSC going off the rails? You wouldn't be the first. Are you a conservative? A libertarian? A faint-hearted originalist? Are you trying to restore the lost constitution? 

 

Just put your cards on the table and let everyone know what they're dealing with. 

[TrueMetis]

 

Gee.  Dunno.  Maybe she's got bills to pay?  Maybe she feels she has a responsibility towards - you know - the people who elected her?

 

You seem so eager for her to lose her job.  As though that does not matter.  But it is SUCH A HUGE BURDEN to go to another clerk for a marriage license.

 

Obviously not, since she's not doing the job she was elected to do.

[ChillyPolly]

 

Obviously not, since she's not doing the job she was elected to do.

 

Actually, she is.  Or more precisely, the Supreme Court and District Court has made it impossible for her to do the job that she was elected to do and has unilaterally revised her job description.

 

She is, at least, obeying the order not to discriminate.

[TrueMetis]

 

Actually, she is.

 

She's issuing marriage licenses? Kind of odd that they threw her into jail for not following a court order to issue marriage licenses then.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

CP,

 
Gee.  Dunno.  Maybe she's got bills to pay?  Maybe she feels she has a responsibility towards - you know - the people who elected her?
 
You seem so eager for her to lose her job.  As though that does not matter.  But it is SUCH A HUGE BURDEN to go to another clerk for a marriage license.

You mean a responsibility like refusing to issue any marriage licenses despite the fact that she is charged with the duty to issue such licences? When was she granted the discretion to choose whether marriage licenses will issue?

My point is Mrs. Davis has the keys to her jail cell in her own pocket. She seems happy to stay where she has placed herself. Self-martyrdom for the win.

[ChillyPolly]

 

Please! Don't be coy. Tell us how you really feel. Think Obergfell was wrongly decided? Feel free to explain. Think substantive due process is a joke? Tell us why. Think West Coast Hotel v. Parrish marks the start of the USSC going off the rails? You wouldn't be the first. Are you a conservative? A libertarian? A faint-hearted originalist? Are you trying to restore the lost constitution? 

 

Just put your cards on the table and let everyone know what they're dealing with. 

 

Sounds vaguely inquisitorial.  What is wrong with addressing the opinions I actually express?

[OldGimletEye]

Well, we could debate the applicability of the Establishment clause as well.  But that is pointless as long as you take the recent Supreme Court decisions and orders and actions as the be-all and end-all of all that is right and just.

The thing is though is that the Establishment Clause weakens the case of a public official claiming the protection of the Free Exercise clause. Because, in the case of a public official, the clauses are often going to be in direct tension with each other.

The situation is probably as not as prevalent as when a private actor refuses to obey the law based on the Free Exercise Clause. I'd suspect the court to, perhaps in the future, go down the road of being more lenient with private individuals, refusing to obey a law, based on religious reasons than it will ever be with public officials and probably for good reason, since the establishment clause will often be in play.

Finally, in order, to claim that the courts are doing something shockingly unjust here, I think you need to make a solid argument about why gay marriage is so patently immoral. In my view, there is no such case to be made. The fact that it is banned in some religions is not persuasive. Because that gets into the old philosophical question of "Do the gods prohibit something because it's immoral, or is something immoral because the gods prohibit it?" If the answer to that question is that the gods prohibit something because it's immoral, then the immorality of an act must clearly have an independent basis from religion. And that basis must be clearly explained and articulated. If, however, something is immoral just because the gods say don't do it, then it seems that is rather arbitrary and is no basis for allowing a public official to refuse to do an act.

[The Fallen]

To be honest, if he wasn't hurting me or anyone else, I'd probably leave him alone.
 
If he was granting marriage licenses in a discriminatory manner based on race, I would have a stronger argument that he was doing real harm.  
 
But if he wasn't granting marriage licenses AT ALL (analogous to the Kim Davis situation), and I were to find out that this was because he was a racist, I would simply go to those clerks who are actually issuing marriage licenses.  I would leave it to his employers to decide if they wanted to fire him or vote him out of office or whatever, for "not doing their jobs".
 
Note however that I do not agree that moral disapproval of homosexual conduct (including same-sex marriage), or any other kind of sexual conduct, is equivalent to racism.

I'd love to work for you. You'd be so understanding of my objections. "Boss, I couldn't, under good conscience, assist any of the customers. I just had Bobby and Billy do it."

[Stubby]

 

The entire thing.  I'm asking you to let me speak for myself, and not try to speak for me.

 

Well, if you are going to accuse me of misrepresenting you, how about you say exactly how I misrepresented you?

 

So far, none of your critiques of my Miranda comparison have produced anything cogent.  You have done nothing more than dodge the issue.