The Kentucky Licence discussion II

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Civil Disobedience actually does include fully accepting legal consequences. So even supporters of her refusal to comply must accept being held in contempt as part and parcel to that civil disobedience. That is the distinction between civil disobedience and mere lawbreaking

 

You aren't morally obligated to obey unjust laws, regardless of whether or not you're willing to submit to the legal consequences of not following them.

 

I really don't think it's worth fighting over the precise definition of "civil disobedience" because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If you think that civil disobedience requires, by definition,  that you submit to the consequences for violating an unjust law, then civil disobedience is not the only morally justifiable way to break the law. 

 

In any case, Kim Davis surrendered herself into police custody when found in contempt of Court, so she certainly qualifies as a civil disobedient so far. Of course, it's also true that civil disobedience is not always morally justified. 

[Hayyoth]

 

In case my prior post, the Congressional Report I linked to in my prior post, and then law review article I linked to in my prior post were not clear - sanctuary cities are not illegal. They do not violate federal law. They are perfectly constitutional. Federal law does not require that state and local governments to actively seek out information related to the legal status of people in their physical jurisdictions.

 

Marriage, in contrast, is a recognized constitutional right. Gay marriage is now recognized as a constitutional right. Kim Davis was actively denying people their constitutional rights.

 

Police in sanctuary cities are not violating anybody's constitutional rights. 

 

Ironically, conservatives often complain about living in a "police state" whenever they perceive the police to overstep their boundaries. Unless, of course, you're a brown person being stopped and asked for your papers. 

Yeah I read the link. A hair splitting justification dependent on jurisdictional responsibility. None of that has anything to do with enabling and encouraging, sorry what's the term..., undocumented immigration? From providing them with driving licenses, refusing to enact E-verify to offering in state tuition to undocumented aliens. It's not just the refusal to enforce black letter laws, as in the case of Davis, it's actually protecting and pandering to law breakers. So yeah spare me the faux outrage.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Yeah I read the link. A hair splitting justification dependent on jurisdictional responsibility. None of that has anything to do with enabling and encouraging, sorry what's the term..., undocumented immigration? From providing them with driving licenses, refusing to enact E-verify to offering in state tuition to undocumented aliens. It's not just the refusal to enforce black letter laws, as in the case of Davis, it's actually protecting and pandering to law breakers. So yeah spare me the faux outrage.

 

Unsurprisingly, there is a pretty big legal distinction between "a violation of a constitutional right" and "something that Hayyoth dislikes but is not illegal and does not violate the constitution." 

 

I appreciate that you think the distinction between these two categories of things is so small as to be non-existent, but as you are objectively wrong on this issue, all I can extend to you is my sincere appreciation of your wrongness. 

[Hayyoth]

 

Unsurprisingly, there is a pretty big legal distinction between "a violation of a constitutional right" and "something that Hayyoth dislikes but is not illegal and does not violate the constitution." 

 

I appreciate that you think the distinction between these two categories of things is so small as to be non-existent, but as you are objectively wrong on this issue, all I can extend to you is my sincere appreciation of your wrongness.

Condescending much?

 

You have no problem with a myriad of government officials encouraging and covering for law breakers in one instance but advocate  the collective punishment of taxpayers in another, where one solitary individual refuses to carry out her duties. Forget the lawyering how can that make sense to you? We either live in a nation of laws or we don't, enforce them all equally and without favor or shut up with the moral outrage crap.

[The guy from the Vale]

Condescending much?

 

You have no problem with a myriad of government officials encouraging and covering for law breakers in one instance but advocate  the collective punishment of taxpayers in another, where one solitary individual refuses to carry out her duties. Forget the lawyering how can that make sense to you? We either live in a nation of laws or we don't, enforce them all equally and without favor or shut up with the moral outrage crap.

 

So you don't think enforcing the constitution is more important than enforcing local laws, or laws that aren't directly derived from the constitution? Interesting position, to say the least.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Condescending much?

 

You have no problem with a myriad of government officials encouraging and covering for law breakers in one instance but advocate  the collective punishment of taxpayers in another, where one solitary individual refuses to carry out her duties. Forget the lawyering how can that make sense to you? We either live in a nation of laws or we don't, enforce them all equally and without favor or shut up with the moral outrage crap.

 

I am happy to stipulate that I am incredibly condescending. 

 

Here's the thing you don't seem to grasp - different people have different legal obligations in society based upon who they are and what they do. There are Constitutional protections that apply only to government actors (like Kim Davis). There are obviously laws of general applicability that apply to everyone. And there are laws which apply to people based upon their employment status with particular US federal government agencies. And there are laws which apply to people based upon their employment status with particular state government agencies. 

 

In the United States, we have parallel systems of government. We have the federal government. We have state government. Sometimes federal laws require the compliance of state actors. Sometimes federal laws only apply to the federal government. 

 

Take four "government employees" for example: An Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Agent, a local police officer, a city sanitation worker, and a county librarian.

 

Do all four of these government employees have the same obligation to enforce federal immigration law? The answer is no. Only one of them does. The rest are not obligated to do so. 

 

Do all four of these government employees have an obligation to avoid violation the constitutional rights of American citizens? Yes they do. 

 

It's really not that hard. Different jobs. Different areas of government. Different legal obligations. Constitution applies to everyone. Federal law does not always apply to everyone. State law does not always apply to everyone. 

 

Any questions? 

[Hayyoth]

 

So you don't think enforcing the constitution is more important than enforcing local laws, or laws that aren't directly derived from the constitution? Interesting position, to say the least.

No I didn't say that at all. If you consider something I neither said or alluded to interesting then good for you.

 

 

 

I am happy to stipulate that I am incredibly condescending. 

 

Here's the thing you don't seem to grasp - different people have different legal obligations in society based upon who they are and what they do. There are Constitutional protections that apply only to government actors (like Kim Davis). There are obviously laws of general applicability that apply to everyone. And there are laws which apply to people based upon their employment status with particular US federal government agencies. And there are laws which apply to people based upon their employment status with particular state government agencies. 

 

In the United States, we have parallel systems of government. We have the federal government. We have state government. Sometimes federal laws require the compliance of state actors. Sometimes federal laws only apply to the federal government. 

 

Take four "government employees" for example: An Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Agent, a local police officer, a city sanitation worker, and a county librarian.

 

Do all four of these government employees have the same obligation to enforce federal immigration law? The answer is no. Only one of them does. The rest are not obligated to do so. 

 

Do all four of these government employees have an obligation to avoid violation the constitutional rights of American citizens? Yes they do. 

 

It's really not that hard. Different jobs. Different areas of government. Different legal obligations. Constitution applies to everyone. Federal law does not always apply to everyone. State law does not always apply to everyone. 

 

Any questions? 

Yes I might have mentioned that I understood your jurisdictional argument, I'm not actually an idiot but thanks for the lawyersplanation.

 

It's an interesting way to justify state and local jurisdictions deliberately stymying and obstructing the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, but I guess that's what you're going with.

[The guy from the Vale]

No I didn't say that at all. If you consider something I neither said or alluded to interesting then good for you.

 

 

Yes I might have mentioned that I understood your jurisdictional argument, I'm not actually an idiot but thanks for the lawyersplanation.

 

It's an interesting way to justify state and local jurisdictions deliberately stymying and obstructing the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, but I guess that's what you're going with.

 

 

Well, would you prefer undocumented immigrants to not cooperate with police at all, ever? Because that's the alternative.

[Wise Fool]

There is so much unemployment in this country, but some people would rather not work because ew, gays are icky, or whatever.

 

Civil disobedience is a tactic that's as much about gaining sympathy and support as it is about simple refusals. How much sympathy does anyone feel about this cause?

 

 

But that does not mean I have to clap and cheer when Kim Davis is thrown in jail for refusing to issue a document containing an implied-but-deliberate ideological statement of approval of gayness that Justice Kennedy thinks that gay dignity requires that public officials make.

Could you please clarify what you are referring to here that this document contains. What statement exactly?

[TerraPrime]

It is ludicrous at face value, as Mormont and I discussed earlier. When Kim Davis issues a marriage license to a convicted felon, is she also endorsing the felony? When she issues a marriage license to a Muslim, is she endorsing the Islamic faith? When she issues a marriage license to adulterors, liars, and all manners of sinners, is she also endorsing their sinful activities? 

[serdog]

It is ludicrous at face value, as Mormont and I discussed earlier. When Kim Davis issues a marriage license to a convicted felon, is she also endorsing the felony? When she issues a marriage license to a Muslim, is she endorsing the Islamic faith? When she issues a marriage license to adulterors, liars, and all manners of sinners, is she also endorsing their sinful activities? 

Just give the Huckbee reason "it legal for those people to marry notwithstanding what the Supreme Court said it illegal for the gay to marry"

[TrackerNeil]

It is ludicrous at face value, as Mormont and I discussed earlier. When Kim Davis issues a marriage license to a convicted felon, is she also endorsing the felony? When she issues a marriage license to a Muslim, is she endorsing the Islamic faith? When she issues a marriage license to adulterors, liars, and all manners of sinners, is she also endorsing their sinful activities? 

 

Yes. So Kim Davis is a liar, an adulterer, a cheater, and a felon, but she is not a sodomite, thank you very much.

[ChillyPolly]

Could you please clarify what you are referring to here that this document contains. What statement exactly?

As I am sure I made clear, I was referring to the word "marry" or "marriage" itself. OBERGEFELL is not merely about the right to receive the same substantive privileges as heterosexual couples. It is about the right to have a specific word applied to them by State actors. As Justice Kennedy explains in his ruling, thousands of years of history have endowed heterosexual "marriage" with heaps of positive connotations, and gay "dignity" endows them with a constitutional right to those positive connotations, by having that word applied to them by State actors.

It is the reasoning of OBERGEFELL that gay people deserve that their relationships be given a pat on the head and other signs of official government approval, by applying the positive term "marriage" to them, and giving them other privileges and benefits not available to celibates and singles and persons in platonic partnerships, or in non-committed partnerships, or in 3-way partnerships, etc. etc. etc.

[ChillyPolly]

It is ludicrous at face value, as Mormont and I discussed earlier. When Kim Davis issues a marriage license to a convicted felon, is she also endorsing the felony? When she issues a marriage license to a Muslim, is she endorsing the Islamic faith? When she issues a marriage license to adulterors, liars, and all manners of sinners, is she also endorsing their sinful activities?

I agree that the LOVING decision and other decisions are not about government approval. Hence, I agree that Justice Kennedy's reasoning in OBERGEFELL is ludicrous.

In LOVING, marriage is a fundamental right because reproduction is a fundamental right, and because of the nexus between heterosexual activity and reproduction that exists in opposite-sex marriages, and because of the many child-friendly functions that the marriage institution serves. Government recognition of heterosexual marriage (which governments did not invent) actually serves as a BARRIER to government intrusion into child rearing. For instance, it establishes the rights and duties of fathers the instant a child is born, without the need for a trip to family court and/or paternity proceedings. Thus is the government kept at bay.

LOVING was about the right to be let alone by the government, perhaps also with an associated right to avoid invidious discrimination. OBERGEFELL is about the right to a pat on the head from the Daddy State ... plus cookies. The first is a liberal notion. The second is a highly ILLIBERAL notion, however "progressive" it may be.

(But even if LOVING did require the government to "approve" the marriage itself, that would not require approval of felonies, adultery, or Islam, or any of the other things you mention. But that is already beside the case as LOVING does not require approval of the marriage itself).

[Wise Fool]

As I am sure I made clear, I was referring to the word "marry" or "marriage" itself. OBERGEFELL is not merely about the right to receive the same substantive privileges as heterosexual couples. It is about the right to have a specific word applied to them by State actors. As Justice Kennedy explains in his ruling, thousands of years of history have endowed heterosexual "marriage" with heaps of positive connotations, and gay "dignity" endows them with a constitutional right to those positive connotations, by having that word applied to them by State actors.

It is the reasoning of OBERGEFELL that gay people deserve that their relationships be given a pat on the head and other signs of official government approval, by applying the positive term "marriage" to them, and giving them other privileges and benefits not available to celibates and singles and persons in platonic partnerships, or in non-committed partnerships, or in 3-way partnerships, etc. etc. etc.

That gay marriage is legal does not make every marriage license document an "ideological statement of approval of gayness" merely because the word "marriage" is used. Your argument is pretty hard to take seriously. 

[TerraPrime]

 

Yes. So Kim Davis is a liar, an adulterer, a cheater, and a felon, but she is not a sodomite, thank you very much.

 

Not so fast, Robin.

 

It's statistically impossible for Davis to NOT have issued a marriage license to a heterosexual couple who practices anal sex where the female is the penetrator. So, Davis has already approved of sodomy, using her own logic. 

[ChillyPolly]

That gay marriage is legal does not make every marriage license document an "ideological statement of approval of gayness" merely because the word "marriage" is used. Your argument is pretty hard to take seriously.

I actually agree with the first sentence, as it might be applied in other contexts. I am just pointing out that the first sentence does not take into account THIS context, or the reasoning behind OBERGEFELL. Ms Davis is being directly ordered by Federal Courts to issue a marriage license, for the specific reasons outlined by Justice Kennedy. I am merely taking that context into account.

Yeah, sure, if Kentucky were to legalize civil unions, that would not necessarily imply approval of gay marriage. Even if, as a matter of semantics, Kentucky were to call such unions "marriages" in their associated statutes, licenses and certificates, that would not necessarily imply approval of gay marriage. It would only be semantics. I suppose even if they granted such gay unions most or all of the same rights and privileges as heterosextual married couples, even then it might not necessarily signal approval. There might be other policy reasons. And even if it did signal approval, it would only signal approval on the part of the legislature and government of Kentucky (who are after all entitled to their opinions), and not on the part of County Clerks, whose functions, in that context, would indeed be purely ministerial.

But in this case Ms. Davis, whose job functions, as defined by her boss the Kentucky government, do NOT normally involve issueing "marriage" licenses to gays, is being directly ordered by Federal Courts to issue this document, precisely BECAUSE Justice Kennedy sees this document as a token of approval from state officials -- precisely BECAUSE Justice Kennedy believes that gay "dignity" requires that gays receive a pat on the head (plus cookies) from the Daddy state.

[Jace, Extat]

 

Not so fast, Robin.

 

It's statistically impossible for Davis to NOT have issued a marriage license to a heterosexual couple who practices anal sex where the female is the penetrator. So, Davis has already approved of sodomy, using her own logic. 

 

This thread has become so ludicrous that I think Ludacris would be unable to formulate a rap-based summary of this argument. How did we get to Pegging? I clicked on the thread and started scrolling up to find where I last left off, but then I found the quoted post and I'm scared.

[Seli]

...

But in this case Ms. Davis, whose job functions, as defined by her boss the Kentucky government, do NOT normally involve issueing "marriage" licenses to gays, is being directly ordered by Federal Courts to issue this document, precisely BECAUSE Justice Kennedy sees this document as a token of approval from state officials -- precisely BECAUSE Justice Kennedy believes that gay "dignity" requires that gays receive a pat on the head (plus cookies) from the Daddy state.

Human dignity means that no (adhering to all the other rules) couple can be denied marriage. Which has fuck all to do with any pats on the head and only with equality under the law.

[TrackerNeil]

 

Not so fast, Robin.

 

It's statistically impossible for Davis to NOT have issued a marriage license to a heterosexual couple who practices anal sex where the female is the penetrator. So, Davis has already approved of sodomy, using her own logic. 

 

I think we need some data here.