The Kentucky Licence discussion II

[ChillyPolly]

 

Uhh...Anthony Kennedy's beliefs are, by virtue of him being a Supreme Court justice, the law of the land. He does not "get away with it" because he happens to be on the right side of public opinion but because the Court has the legal authority to do exactly as it has done. You're acting like there's some higher standard of constitutionality than SCOTUS, and if you believe that you're wrong. What's constitutional is what the Court says is constitutional, like it or not. So Kennedy is "forcing" on David and the Commonwealth of Kentucky not his beliefs but the US Constitution. You know, the one that Kentucky ratified.

 

The Founding Fathers instituting a series of checks and balances, including a division of power between the State and Federal Governments, and a division of power among the three branches of Federal Government.  The 9 Justices on the Supreme Court are NOT the supreme power of the land.  If they overreach their authority, they can achieve little without the cooperation of the Legislature and/or the Executive Branch.  These checks and balances are intended to ensure that the power ultimately resides with THE PEOPLE, not with 9 old men and women in robes.

 

If the Supreme Court overreaches its power, there are a number of ways, most perfectly legal, in which their power can be checked.  All of these require that citizens retain the right to criticize the decisions of the Supreme Court, so they can decide what to do about it when the Supreme Court overreaches its power.  

 

In this case, even though this parrot thinks they overreached, their decision is politically popular.  So no correction is likely, or at least not for some time.  I can still talk about what I don't like about the decision. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, nobody has forbidden Mrs. Davis to criticize the Supreme Court. However, she's been tasked to fulfill her job in line with the Constitution. She has all the right in the world to campaign against the Supreme Court, to speak her mind on the issue, etc., as a private ciizen. The second she's clocking work time though, she has to comply with the 14th amendment and the consequences of it, including those established by the Obergfell case.

[ChillyPolly]

Well, nobody has forbidden Mrs. Davis to criticize the Supreme Court.

 

Is that the only aspect of a person's First Amendment rights?  The right to criticize those who impinge those rights?

[Wise Fool]

If infringing on other people's rights is a right, then we could also go further and say that infringing on the right to infringe on other people's rights is itself another right. So in that case nobody is wrong, neither Davis nor the supreme court, everyone's just exercising their right to infringe on other people's rights.

 

But then we could say that infringing on the infringing on the right to infringe on other people's rights is a right, which implies something else entirely.

 

I don't think it's a right though.

[ChillyPolly]

It is because a single financial unit of two people is more stable in all kinds of ways that save collective society money. As a single person I am more likely to have to use the emergency room as a primary care clinic, I am more likely to carry less or no insurance, I am more likely to draw assistance, I am more likely to neglect cheap easily treated illnesses into expensive difficult ones, I am more likely to enter the criminal justice system, I am more likely to cause civil court costs in event of my death. As a single person, I am simply more expensive, whether my spouse would be a man or a woman, pooling financial resources gives greater stability.

 

I may say more about this later.  But in the meantime, before I am accused of ignoring you, I'd like to congratulate you on being the only person to even attempt an answer to my question.

[TerraPrime]

 

I never claimed the First Amendment was an absolute that cannot be abridged in any circumstances.  However, the Establishment Clause cannot not implicated here, without extreme twisting of the principles and precedent behind it.  This has not yet been done, not even by Judge Bunning or Justice Kennedy.   None of the actions taken by Federal Courts against the States or against Ms Davis were done in the name of the Establishment Clause, as far as I know. The OBERGEFELL decision, which held Kentucky's marriage scheme unconstitutional, never even mentioned the Establishment Clause.

 

For instance, a senator's or a president's opposition to slavery does not become an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause merely because he opposes slavery on religious grounds (he might for instance, believe that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights"; which sounds like it might contain a religious idea or two).  The same applies to opposing gay marriage.  Your theory implies that if Ms Davis were an atheist lexicographer, constitutional scholar and evolutionary biologist (turned County Clerk) who defied Judge Bunning's order merely because she thought that Justice Kennedy's attempt to redefine "marriage" on a national level was an unconstitutional interference with the Free Speech rights of the States and of her own Free Speech rights as elected County official, and a violation of Federalist principles; and because her studies as an evolutionary biologist have convinced her that traditional marriage is indeed more important to the community and the nation than same-sex partnerships for important biological reasons and should not get the exact same privileges, then she might have a good case for her defiance and for her complaint that her First Amendment rights are being violated, even though her actions are exactly the same.  

 

Such prejudicial treatment of persons of religious background should not be tolerated.  The Establishment Clause does not forbid State Officials from expressing their views or honestly stating the reasons for them.  If the First Amendment allows atheists to oppose equal status for same-sex partnerships, and nationwide court-mandated semantic changes, it should permit Christians to do so as well.

 

My theory implies no such thing.

 

A President's religious conviction that rape is wrong does not prevent him from supporting laws that punish rapists. If a government official's moral convictions align with the current laws, then their beliefs do not render them unable to support the law. That much is clear to anyone who understands how laws work in this country. Otherwise, we would need to bar almost all the elected officials from endorsing punishment against murder and rape.

 

Where a government official's religious freedom is curtailed is when the expression thereof either establishes or gives the appearance of establishing one religious faith over another. This is why a U.S. Senator can continue to endorse punishing rapists but s/he cannot endorse punishing people who don't keep kosher laws. See, for instance, the ruling that the Judge in Alabama cannot erect a monument depicting the 10 Commandments in front of the court house without giving equal access to the Satanist church for the same consideration. The ruling didn't say that Judge must renounce his faith or step down, but it did forbid him to exercise his free speech right in that specific manner.

 

As for Davis, it actually doesn't matter what her faith is. Regardless of what it is, she herself declared that she would not issue marriage license as a result of conflict with her faith. That's all we need to know. If she's a Scientologist, or a Rastafarian, or a Coptic Jew, the outcome should be the same - which is that she cannot use her religious opposition to gay marriage to refuse to render the service she's deputized and assigned to provide to individuals who qualify for it.

 

Ms. Davis is free to think that the 5 Supreme Court Justices who all concurred on the decision are wrong, immoral, and stupid. That's her right. She just can't refuse to do her job in this way. I am okay with the compromise where her name is not printed on the certificate, as long as it's consistent for all couples and as long as that certificate is still seen as valid. But as it stands, without that compromise, her refusal is unlawful, and she should be punished for it.

 

I notice that you're no longer comparing Rabbis and Priests to elected officials in this regard. Are you conceding that point?

 

I also see that you're dropping the line of argument about how the fight for extending legal marriage to same-sex couples is not about equality?

[ChillyPolly]

 

I notice that you're no longer comparing Rabbis and Priests to elected officials in this regard. Are you conceding that point?

 

Not at all.  The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of Priests, Rabbis, elected officials, and indeed pretty much everyone.  At least, it always has, and I hope it always will.

 

And yes, the Establishment Clause (and some other considerations in other contexts) can conflict with and even override First Amendment rights in some contexts.  Which is why I addressed your Establishment Clause claim.   In my view it does not apply here.

[mormont]

Again, Polly is arguing a line that even Ms Davis herself agrees is simply not the facts of the case. Ms Davis has been utterly clear about the fact that she is attempting to impose her religious beliefs on gay couples and that this is why she is refusing to issue marriage licenses. This being so, the rest of Polly's argument is, not for the first time, bunk.

[Seli]

 

Not at all.  The First Amendment protects the free speech rights of Priests, Rabbis, elected officials, and indeed pretty much everyone.  At least, it always has, and I hope it always will.

...

Of course. But Davis is going beyond speech into action, and action which hurts the people she was elected to serve.

[TrackerNeil]

 

The Founding Fathers instituting a series of checks and balances, including a division of power between the State and Federal Governments, and a division of power among the three branches of Federal Government.  The 9 Justices on the Supreme Court are NOT the supreme power of the land.  If they overreach their authority, they can achieve little without the cooperation of the Legislature and/or the Executive Branch.  These checks and balances are intended to ensure that the power ultimately resides with THE PEOPLE, not with 9 old men and women in robes.

 

If the Supreme Court overreaches its power, there are a number of ways, most perfectly legal, in which their power can be checked.  All of these require that citizens retain the right to criticize the decisions of the Supreme Court, so they can decide what to do about it when the Supreme Court overreaches its power.  

 

SCOTUS gets to say what is constitutional, unless the states and Congress amend that constitution to say something else. Until such time as we see an anti-equality marriage amendment, what the Court said in Obergefell is the law of the land. 

[ChillyPolly]

Again, Polly is arguing a line that even Ms Davis herself agrees is simply not the facts of the case. Ms Davis has been utterly clear about the fact that she is attempting to impose her religious beliefs on gay couples and that this is why she is refusing to issue marriage licenses. This being so, the rest of Polly's argument is, not for the first time, bunk.

 

Do you have a specific quote in mind?  Or do you really think that if only 3 out of 120 County Clerks in Kentucky refuse to "recognize" gay marriages (with the other 117 duly issuing them), then that is an serious imposition on gays?  More serious than 5 days in jail?  She is the one being required to "recognize" gay marriages; so who is the one who having other people's beliefs imposed on them?  

 

And if Judge Bunning does not want this done on HER specific authority, then why is she involved at all?  He can issue the licenses himself, or order anyone in the County to do so.  I'm sure lots of people are more than willing.

[TerraPrime]

 

Do you have a specific quote in mind?  Or do you really think that if only 3 out of 120 County Clerks in Kentucky refuse to "recognize" gay marriages (with the other 117 duly issuing them), then that is an serious imposition on gays?  More serious than 5 days in jail?  She is the one being required to "recognize" gay marriages; so who is the one who having other people's beliefs imposed on them?  

 

And if Judge Bunning does not want this done on HER specific authority, then why is she involved at all?  He can issue the licenses himself, or order anyone in the County to do so.  I'm sure lots of people are more than willing.

 

 

You have yet to give us any definition of what "serious" means, other than what you feel it should be. We've asked for this sort of clarification repeatedly. I've asked you, for instance, how many county clerks will need to refuse and how far away does a gay couple will have to travel to get a license before you would consider it an imposition on them. I have heard nothing from you on that and I've since given up on following up since you only pick and choose arguments to respond to.

 

As for being in jail, for Davis, that's the consequence for being found to be in contempt of the court. I'd say violating the law of the land is pretty "serious," but you obviously have a different idea. The highest court in the land just ruled that same-sex couples should have the same rights for legal marriage as different-sex couples, so any infringement on that is a "serious" offense. If only one black driver were denied a driver's license on account of his race by one single DMV office, it is still a violation of civil rights and current law. How seriously we take these illegal activities to be ought not depend on the summative impact of the illicit act. Besides, Davis has shown that she found the punishment to be worth it for her religious convictions, and more power to her to be willing to take the consequence for civil disobedience. You, on the other hand, has spent pages of internet ink arguing, variously and inventively, that when a government representatives defy the articulated intent of the law on account of their personal faith that the transgression ought to be ignored.

[TrueMetis]

 

Do you have a specific quote in mind?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-supreme-court

 

 

“Under whose authority are you not issuing marriage licenses today?” he asked.

“Under God’s authority,” Davis said.

She then returned to her office, with the doors and blinds closed, and issued a statement refusing to resign:

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision,” her statement said. “I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience.”

 

 

You haven't even done the most basic of research have you?

[ChillyPolly]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-supreme-court

 

 

 

You haven't even done the most basic of research have you?

 

The article and the quote do not support your position, nor Mormont's.  "God's authority" is a perfectly honest and response for a religious person to make in this context.  She was SPECIFICALLY asked under whose authority she declined to do something that violated her conscience.  She could have said "under the authority of my own private personal conscience", but religious people don't think or talk that way.  That's not where they believe morality comes from.

 

Under whose authority do you refuse to worship state power?  Under God's authority.  Under whose authority to you refuse to lie cheat and steal?  Under God's authority.  Under whose authority do you refuse to line up the Jews and Homosexuals for the gas chambers and instead risk your life by hiding them in your basement?  Under God's authority.  That's how religious people think.  It's simply an honest answer to the question asked, and if the reporter did not want to hear that answer, he should not have asked that question.

 

Nowhere in this article is anything that states she is trying to stop anyone else (other than her deputies, who issue them under her authority) from issuing licenses.  She has specifically referred people to other clerks who are issuing the licenses.  She is merely explaining why SHE HERSELF is refusing to do something that violates her conscience.

[TrueMetis]

 

The article and the quote do not support your position, nor Mormont's.

 

:rofl:

 

So in your head "god authority" and citing "god's definition of marriage" is not her imposing her religious belief on someone else.

 

I don't know what the fuck the rest of your post is supposed to be a response to. Apparently we are having very different conversations.

[ChillyPolly]

 

So in your head "god authority" and citing "god's definition of marriage" is not her imposing her religious belief on someone else.

 

It is EXPRESSING her religious belief, in response to a direct question on the subject.  An honest answer to a direct question.

 

It is very creepy that you think such should be subject to penalties. 

 

Evidently you are no civil libertarian.  Whatever happened to those folks who used to say things like "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"?  Are they all gone?   

[TrueMetis]

 

It is EXPRESSING her religious belief, in response to a direct question on the subject.

 

Exactly. Which makes it clear "that she is attempting to impose her religious beliefs on gay couples and that this is why she is refusing to issue marriage licenses" you know, the thing that you where asking for a quote about?

 

 

It is very creepy that you think such should be subject to penalties.

 

We've gone over this, this is a basic violation of the establishment clause. It's why schools aren't allowed to sponsor prayers and the like.

[ChillyPolly]

 

Exactly. Which makes it clear "that she is attempting to impose her religious beliefs on gay couples and that this is why she is refusing to issue marriage licenses" you know, the thing that you where asking for a quote about?

 

She told applicants that other clerks were issuing licenses in neighboring counties.  She asked the governor to find another solution so that someone else could issue the licenses in her County.  She is not trying to stop anyone from issuing licenses, she is just refusing to authorize them on her own authority.

 

The only problem is that litigants and others want this done on HER authority.  Others are trying to impose their beliefs on her.

 

Per OBERGEFELL, the responsibility for making sure there are enough clerks rests with the State of Kentucky.  The Governor of Kentucky has taken the perfectly reasonable position that since 117 out of 120 county clerks are issuing the licenses, there is no need for to spend huge amounts of taxpayer money on a special session granting individual clerks exemptions and/or appointing replacements.  He's right.  There's no need.  There was also no need to throw Ms Davis in jail.  If the litigants did not feel there were enough clerks in the right places, they should have complained to the Governor, or sued him.  The Governor is reasonably articulate and has high-priced lawyers to represent his position.  OBERGEFELL declared that the State had to issue licenses, not that Ms Davis had to do so.  

[TrueMetis]

 

She told applicants that other clerks were issuing licenses in neighboring counties.  She asked the governor to find another solution so that someone else could issue the licenses in her County.  She is not trying to stop anyone from issuing licenses, she is just refusing to authorize them on her own authority.

 

Entirely irrelevant, you asked for a quote showing she was refusing to issue marriage licenses based on her religious beliefs. I provided one.

[ChillyPolly]

I've asked you, for instance, how many county clerks will need to refuse and how far away does a gay couple will have to travel to get a license before you would consider it an imposition on them.

 

And I have answered that should be a matter between the litigants and the Governor of Kentucky.