thejeff |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott Betts wrote:common human decency is just like common sense, its not so common anymoreNobodysHome wrote:I suppose that Option #4 - a sober reexamination of her personal faith through the lens of a shared understanding of common human decency - was too much to hope for, hm?Drejk wrote:As it was predicted, it seems that she was counting on this to make her "martyr".Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate (amusingly enough) on her behalf.
She believes in a God who will send her to Hell for endorsing gay marriage by issuing gay marriage licenses. The state has ordered her to do so anyway. She has 3 choices:
(1) Obey the state and issue the licenses. This is unacceptable as a fundamental violation of her faith.
(2) Avoid obeying the state by resigning. I can see her seeing this as a tacit acceptance of the state's orders. I can see her as thinking, "Why should *I* have to quit *MY* job when I'm in the right?" Either way (faith-based stance or selfishness), this was unacceptable as an option to her.
(3) Go to jail to stand up for her beliefs.
She chose (3), and as I said from the beginning, I don't want to discuss the morality of her decision, but I do feel she made the "right" choice for herself, not out of any sense of martyrdom, but out of a sense of, "This is the only option I have that allows me to uphold my faith."
Was it ever? (human decency or sense).
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:To be fair to her, she apparently converted/was born again/had the appropriate come to Jesus moment after all that. Her extreme religious convictions came after what I'm sure she now considers her sins.Mmmm.... okay, so let's look at a more recent example. No doubt, now that she has 'found God' (was he hiding?), she has also 'refused to participate' in the sin of adultery being committed by people seeking a marriage license after a previous divorce. Right?
I was thinking that too, but that's part of it.
Divorce isn't a new change. Interracial marriage isn't a new change. Women being equal partners in marriage isn't a new thing. Well, they're all relatively new, at least as common practice, but she's not so old as to have been raised without all of them around her. Her particular sect may or may not approve of any of them, but she's used to them, so they're no big deal.
Gay marriage is new and shocking. It's evil and it must be stupid.
This is of course stupid and hypocritical and not really religiously based - since she's not enforcing all of her doctrine, just bits of it.
But it's a good thing too. This is a test case. There'll be a few more. Then it will stop and same-sex marriage will continue and some people will grumble and a few will protest and by and large no one will really care. It's over. They've lost. These are the last stragglers.
Blackvial |
why watching the news this evening I can only think of one reason why the judge decided to put her in jaii instead of levying a fine like the aclu wanted and that is that he probably thought the fine wouldn't be a punishment to her because there has been talks of other people being ready to pay the fine for her. the money coming from a go fund me account or a rich donor.
Was it ever? (human decency or sense).
maybe years ago, before the last 2 generations
thejeff |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
why watching the news this evening I can only think of one reason why the judge decided to put her in jaii instead of levying a fine like the aclu wanted and that is that he probably thought the fine wouldn't be a punishment to her because there has been talks of other people being ready to pay the fine for her. the money coming from a go fund me account or a rich donor.
thejeff wrote:Was it ever? (human decency or sense).maybe years ago, before the last 2 generations
What? Back when gay bashing was cool?
Honestly, in many ways and despite my despair over humanity we really are improving. But it's damn slow and painful.
Samnell |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What? Back when gay bashing was cool?
Honestly, in many ways and despite my despair over humanity we really are improving. But it's damn slow and painful.
Someone simply must put in a good word for all the conscientious Christian enslavers too. Those guys get no credit. Why, some of them had such scruples that they had to hire men at considerable personal expense to torture their slaves into maximum productivity. (Bobby Lee did this at least once. At major slave labor camps it was standard.) Downright saintly. Some of the bleeding hearts even gave cash to the American Colonization Society to rid the continent of the scourge of free black Americans.
Scythia |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos wrote:It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.It's interesting to me that breaking her own oath/vow/word is not considered at all immoral, as long as it can be conveniently rationalized with a post-hoc interpretation of what "God's will" currently is. Maybe that's why I can never fathom the religious mindset.
So, bearing false witness by breaking her oath (most likely sworn on a bible), and theft by way of drawing a salary for a job she refuses to do.
Those who think themselves righteous are rarely so.
David knott 242 |
David knott 242 wrote:Any other approach would create more problems than it would solve.Actually, no. The problem at this point is not one of marriage license, but of the authority of an elected official to disregard a Federal injunction.
We agree that she does not have that authority -- that is why she is in jail for contempt and should remain there until she resigns or is removed from office.
On the other hand, no marriage license in a particular county in Kentucky is valid as long as refuses to sign off on it -- so anyone who accepts a marriage license signed by one of her deputies is depending on a (likely but not certain) legislative action to recognize these licenses as valid retroactively at some future date.
As a short term solution, bypassing this county (and thus that clerk) is the most practical approach.
In any case, there is no real reason to centralize the authority for issue marriage licenses to a single person, as the ultimate liability for a fraudulent marriage application lies with the people intending to get married and not the county officials who in good faith issue the license. The office in question actually has seven people handling the paperwork for marriage licenses -- and there would be no additional government expense if all of them and not just one had the full authority to issue licenses in that county.
That change would have the fringe benefit of averting future crises when there is some other marriage controversy that tempts some future county clerk to gum up the works in the same way.
LazarX |
Blackvial wrote:but now she is a martyr for the bigots because she went to jail for her beliefsThere is a long history of bigots going to jail for their beliefs. It happened with inter-racial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, slavery, et cetera. There have always been these oh so very 'moral' people who held firm in their 'religious' beliefs. Do you remember the names of ANY of those people? Me neither.
How about Rosa Parks? Harvey Milk? Susan B Anthony? Frederick Douglas?
Rosa Parks did not face jail because of her religious beliefs, but on the color of her skin, and the limitations society sought to enforce upon her based on that skin color.
Grey Lensman |
CBDunkerson wrote:Rosa Parks did not face jail because of her religious beliefs, but on the color of her skin, and the limitations society sought to enforce upon her based on that skin color.Blackvial wrote:but now she is a martyr for the bigots because she went to jail for her beliefsThere is a long history of bigots going to jail for their beliefs. It happened with inter-racial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, slavery, et cetera. There have always been these oh so very 'moral' people who held firm in their 'religious' beliefs. Do you remember the names of ANY of those people? Me neither.
How about Rosa Parks? Harvey Milk? Susan B Anthony? Frederick Douglas?
I think the point of that post is that the defenders of bigotry aren't remembered by history but the people who stand against it are.
the David |
Kirth Gersen wrote:Orthos wrote:It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.It's interesting to me that breaking her own oath/vow/word is not considered at all immoral, as long as it can be conveniently rationalized with a post-hoc interpretation of what "God's will" currently is. Maybe that's why I can never fathom the religious mindset.So, bearing false witness by breaking her oath (most likely sworn on a bible), and theft by way of drawing a salary for a job she refuses to do.
Those who think themselves righteous are rarely so.
That's one thing Americans do that has always baffled me. Not just in the first place because there's a seperation between church and state, but then you open your Bible to Matthew 5:33 and you read this:
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Samnell |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point of that post is that the defenders of bigotry aren't remembered by history but the people who stand against it are.
Bit of a shame, that. The ignorance means that people miss out on the intense similarities. And by "similarities" I mean "the same crap every damned time."
CBDunkerson |
Rosa Parks did not face jail because of her religious beliefs, but on the color of her skin, and the limitations society sought to enforce upon her based on that skin color.
See previous discussion about 'religious beliefs' now being 'whatever the heck I want'... ergo Rosa Parks could have asserted a 'religious belief' that all people should be treated equally. Voila, jailed for religious beliefs.
That being said, I was just pointing out that we remember the heroes of various civil rights movements. Not the villains. Not suggesting that the details of each case were parallels to Kim Davis.
thejeff |
LazarX wrote:Rosa Parks did not face jail because of her religious beliefs, but on the color of her skin, and the limitations society sought to enforce upon her based on that skin color.See previous discussion about 'religious beliefs' now being 'whatever the heck I want'... ergo Rosa Parks could have asserted a 'religious belief' that all people should be treated equally. Voila, jailed for religious beliefs.
That being said, I was just pointing out that we remember the heroes of various civil rights movements. Not the villains. Not suggesting that the details of each case were parallels to Kim Davis.
Well, it would be fair to say that MLK was jailed for his religious beliefs.
OTOH, we do remember "Bull" Connor. And George Wallace.
Orfamay Quest |
Orfamay Quest wrote:David knott 242 wrote:Any other approach would create more problems than it would solve.Actually, no. The problem at this point is not one of marriage license, but of the authority of an elected official to disregard a Federal injunction.We agree that she does not have that authority -- that is why she is in jail for contempt and should remain there until she resigns or is removed from office.
On the other hand, no marriage license in a particular county in Kentucky is valid as long as refuses to sign off on it -- so anyone who accepts a marriage license signed by one of her deputies is depending on a (likely but not certain) legislative action to recognize these licenses as valid retroactively at some future date.
As a short term solution, bypassing this county (and thus that clerk) is the most practical approach.
The thing is,.... that's not a solution, because it doesn't address the problem.
The problem is not that the people can't get marriage licenses. The couples involved could do that from the beginning.
Basically, the initial conversation with the judge went like this:
* "Well, why don't you just get the license in a neighboring county?"
* "Because we want to get married here, where our home is. Why should we have to do that? We want the clerk here to do the job that the law mandates she do!"
* "Oh. Good point."
So "allowing" them to go elsewhere is non-solving a non-problem.
Orfamay Quest |
In any case, there is no real reason to centralize the authority for issue marriage licenses to a single person, as the ultimate liability for a fraudulent marriage application lies with the people intending to get married and not the county officials who in good faith issue the license.
Actually, there is. It's the standard "someone to sue" issue. Policy issues on any point are almost always set by one person so that there is a consistent policy, a single person responsible for enforcing it, and a single person who can be compelled (if necessary) to carry out the policy, or to adjust it, or whatever. The areas where this doesn't happen are areas that are generally also specifically immune to suit because they want to make sure that the policy-setters in that area are above compulsion -- you can't sue the Supreme Court as a group for a whole bunch of reasons.
What seems (to me) unusual about the Kentucky setup is not the single-person chokepoint. What's unusual is that KY seems to have adopted an authority-without-accountability standard, in that there's no one in Kentucky who has the authority either either to do her job or to make sure she does it. If I remember correctly, the way California sets up the executive branch, ultimate authority for every state action derives from the governor (in a frankly rather feudal manner) and the governor ultimately has the authority to adjust anyone's work authority, to remove them from a position, or to do any job him/herself.
This issue would not have arisen in California. The county clerk would have refused, the plaintiffs would have sued and gotten the injunction, and (if necessary) the governor could be compelled to move someone into that office to issue licenses (or issue them her/himself). The problem isn't with having a single County Clerk. The problem is with having a single County Clerk who is accountable only to the voters, and in no way to the State whose policies she ostensibly enforces.
thejeff |
David knott 242 wrote:
In any case, there is no real reason to centralize the authority for issue marriage licenses to a single person, as the ultimate liability for a fraudulent marriage application lies with the people intending to get married and not the county officials who in good faith issue the license.Actually, there is. It's the standard "someone to sue" issue. Policy issues on any point are almost always set by one person so that there is a consistent policy, a single person responsible for enforcing it, and a single person who can be compelled (if necessary) to carry out the policy, or to adjust it, or whatever. The areas where this doesn't happen are areas that are generally also specifically immune to suit because they want to make sure that the policy-setters in that area are above compulsion -- you can't sue the Supreme Court as a group for a whole bunch of reasons.
What seems (to me) unusual about the Kentucky setup is not the single-person chokepoint. What's unusual is that KY seems to have adopted an authority-without-accountability standard, in that there's no one in Kentucky who has the authority either either to do her job or to make sure she does it. If I remember correctly, the way California sets up the executive branch, ultimate authority for every state action derives from the governor (in a frankly rather feudal manner) and the governor ultimately has the authority to adjust anyone's work authority, to remove them from a position, or to do any job him/herself.
This issue would not have arisen in California. The county clerk would have refused, the plaintiffs would have sued and gotten the injunction, and (if necessary) the governor could be compelled to move someone into that office to issue licenses (or issue them her/himself). The problem isn't with having a single County Clerk. The problem is with having a single County Clerk who is accountable only to the voters, and in no way to the State whose policies she ostensibly enforces.
Of course that's true of any elected position and is not necessarily a bad thing.
After all you wouldn't want a governor to order the refusal of same-sex marriage licenses and fire and replace any clerk who disagreed.It's not clear what the recourse is in pretty much any situation where the elected official just refuses to do their job. Other than not elect them again, which works, but takes time.
Orfamay Quest |
Of course that's true of any elected position and is not necessarily a bad thing.
After all you wouldn't want a governor to order the refusal of same-sex marriage licenses and fire and replace any clerk who disagreed.
Actually, my understanding is that in the California system, the governor can remove an elected official from office as well.
In the event that the California governor misused his authority ("order[ed] the refusal of same-sex marriage licenses and fire[d] and replace[d] any clerk who disagreed"), that's the point at which the courts could and would step in, issuing an injunction to reverse those decisions initially, then if necessary finding the governor in contempt and ordering the lieutenant governor to assume his role and follow the original injunction.
It's not clear what the recourse is in pretty much any situation where the elected official just refuses to do their job. Other than not elect them again, which works, but takes time.
Just because the person is elected does not mean that the authority of their office doesn't derive from elsewhere. For example, the authority of local magistrates is usually granted by the state constitution through the judicial hierarchy; the authority of the local police chief is granted through the municipal executive, which is granted under the authority the governor. That's why the police chief, even if elected, can be disciplined by the mayor.
Orfamay Quest |
Scythia wrote:Kirth Gersen wrote:Orthos wrote:It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.It's interesting to me that breaking her own oath/vow/word is not considered at all immoral, as long as it can be conveniently rationalized with a post-hoc interpretation of what "God's will" currently is. Maybe that's why I can never fathom the religious mindset.So, bearing false witness by breaking her oath (most likely sworn on a bible), and theft by way of drawing a salary for a job she refuses to do.
Those who think themselves righteous are rarely so.
That's one thing Americans do that has always baffled me. Not just in the first place because there's a seperation between church and state, but then you open your Bible to Matthew 5:33 and you read this:
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Anyone who likes can take an "affirmation" instead of an "oath." No biggie.
thejeff |
the David wrote:Anyone who likes can take an "affirmation" instead of an "oath." No biggie.Scythia wrote:Kirth Gersen wrote:Orthos wrote:It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.It's interesting to me that breaking her own oath/vow/word is not considered at all immoral, as long as it can be conveniently rationalized with a post-hoc interpretation of what "God's will" currently is. Maybe that's why I can never fathom the religious mindset.So, bearing false witness by breaking her oath (most likely sworn on a bible), and theft by way of drawing a salary for a job she refuses to do.
Those who think themselves righteous are rarely so.
That's one thing Americans do that has always baffled me. Not just in the first place because there's a seperation between church and state, but then you open your Bible to Matthew 5:33 and you read this:
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
It's also not just an American thing. Maybe the swearing on the Bible as a function of a supposedly secular government, but Christians have been swearing oaths for centuries. It's not something the US invented out of thin air.
Irontruth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bunning agreed and said fines for Kim Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters would pay any fine he levied, dampening its force.
I like that the judge circumvented GoFundMe's influence in these proceedings.
Kirth Gersen |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, bearing false witness by breaking her oath (most likely sworn on a bible), and theft by way of drawing a salary for a job she refuses to do.
Those who think themselves righteous are rarely so.
So, the exact people who claim to have a monopoly on "objective morality" are the ones who are most comfortable lying, stealing, etc. -- because they can just turn around and re-interpret scripture and/or claim to have a revelation or repentance or whatever. Fascinating.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scythia wrote:So, the exact people who claim to have a monopoly on "objective morality" are the ones who are most comfortable lying, stealing, etc. -- because they can just turn around and re-interpret scripture and/or claim to have a revelation or repentance or whatever. Fascinating.So, bearing false witness by breaking her oath (most likely sworn on a bible), and theft by way of drawing a salary for a job she refuses to do.
Those who think themselves righteous are rarely so.
Lying for the Lord has a long and distinguished history. :)
CBDunkerson |
Quote:Bunning agreed and said fines for Kim Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters would pay any fine he levied, dampening its force.I like that the judge circumvented GoFundMe's influence in these proceedings.
I don't know... I might have liked to see fines escalating daily up to the point that in a month these people would be funding the entire local government... and eventually she'd still be thrown in jail, for not paying her fines. :]
CBDunkerson |
Sounds good, but I'm not in favor of the government using the courts to pay their budgets. Creates a conflict of interest in administering justice.
Yes, I agree... but all the more reason to use injustice against injustice. Stops the ongoing discrimination and potentially turns more people against the practice of courts parasitically feeding on the population.
The Fox |
Quote:Bunning agreed and said fines for Kim Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters would pay any fine he levied, dampening its force.I like that the judge circumvented GoFundMe's influence in these proceedings.
GoFundMe has a new policy which prevents individuals from profiting via their system from illegal, discriminatory, or hateful activities.
GoFundMe will not allow campaigns that benefit individuals or groups facing formal charges or claims of serious violations of the law. The amended term can be found under the ‘What’s Not Allowed’ section of our terms, as well as below:
Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts
Orfamay Quest |
Irontruth wrote:I don't know... I might have liked to see fines escalating daily up to the point that in a month these people would be funding the entire local government... and eventually she'd still be thrown in jail, for not paying her fines. :]Quote:Bunning agreed and said fines for Kim Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters would pay any fine he levied, dampening its force.I like that the judge circumvented GoFundMe's influence in these proceedings.
That's definitely got amusement value, but it wouldn't be legal, I'm afraid.
First, the local government won't see a dime of the fines imposed by a Federal court.
Second, while the authority of the judge to impose sanctions isn't usually reviewable (especially in a case this blatant), the amount of the sanction certainly is. If he fines her more than she could reasonably be expected to pay, she could go crying to the 6th Ct. and almost certainly win.
thejeff |
CBDunkerson wrote:Irontruth wrote:I don't know... I might have liked to see fines escalating daily up to the point that in a month these people would be funding the entire local government... and eventually she'd still be thrown in jail, for not paying her fines. :]Quote:Bunning agreed and said fines for Kim Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters would pay any fine he levied, dampening its force.I like that the judge circumvented GoFundMe's influence in these proceedings.That's definitely got amusement value, but it wouldn't be legal, I'm afraid.
First, the local government won't see a dime of the fines imposed by a Federal court.
Second, while the authority of the judge to impose sanctions isn't usually reviewable (especially in a case this blatant), the amount of the sanction certainly is. If he fines her more than she could reasonably be expected to pay, she could go crying to the 6th Ct. and almost certainly win.
Does the amount she can be reasonably expected to pay change if she's got backers promising to pay it?
I mean, if I've got a $30K job, but a half million in donations to a defence fund, which do you base it on?Beyond that, in a case like this the fine is supposed to be an incentive, right? If you pay the fine and continue to defy the order, it's not just over then, is it? Much like you're not given a set jail term for contempt. You remain in prison until you comply.
Irontruth |
Irontruth wrote:Quote:Bunning agreed and said fines for Kim Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters would pay any fine he levied, dampening its force.I like that the judge circumvented GoFundMe's influence in these proceedings.GoFundMe has a new policy which prevents individuals from profiting via their system from illegal, discriminatory, or hateful activities.
GoFundMe wrote:GoFundMe will not allow campaigns that benefit individuals or groups facing formal charges or claims of serious violations of the law. The amended term can be found under the ‘What’s Not Allowed’ section of our terms, as well as below:
Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts
Even without GoFundMe specifically, fining an individual in a high profile case, particularly one as politically charged as this one, can still result in a net benefit for the fined individual. So, please just view the "GoFundMe" in my post as a generic reference, but using a specific example to make the reference easier to get and more succinct.
It's nice to learn that GoFundMe has removed themselves from these kinds of incidents.
Irontruth |
Beyond that, in a case like this the fine is supposed to be an incentive, right? If you pay the fine and continue to defy the order, it's not just over then, is it? Much like you're not given a set jail term for contempt. You remain in prison until you comply.
I'd imagine they'll let her out if she loses the next election and thereby no longer be able to disobey the court order.
The record for a civil contempt of court (being held for disobeying a court order) is 14 years.
archmagi1 |
thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, in a case like this the fine is supposed to be an incentive, right? If you pay the fine and continue to defy the order, it's not just over then, is it? Much like you're not given a set jail term for contempt. You remain in prison until you comply.I'd imagine they'll let her out if she loses the next election and thereby no longer be able to disobey the court order.
The record for a civil contempt of court (being held for disobeying a court order) is 14 years.
Wow. That's kind of crazy. Any chance that was in relation to a Jim Crow repeal or a Woman's Rights issue? Cause then that would be relevantly ironic.
GreyWolfLord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit I haven't read all the posts, but this IS sort of up my alley!
I used to work in Administrative Law, so the legal field, but it is a DIFFERENT speciality.
However, from what I understand, some of this is cut and dry.
Some of it is not.
For starters, it is clear that there is separation of church and state. Your religion can dictate your personal actions, but cannot dictate the actions of the state. This has a LONG precedence that goes back over a hundred years.
In this light, she cannot allow her personal beliefs or religion impact the dictates of the government. There is no need for the Supreme court to really resolve this issue, as it is a non-issue that has already been resolved LOOONG ago.
This I see as clear cut.
What IS NOT clear cut is Kentucky Law. The Supreme Court made a ruling (in regards to Homosexual marriage), however it did not address all the legalities of the rulings.
In the case of a marriage in KY, if I recall correctly, the soon to be bride of the Bride and groom (or the woman of the man and woman's marriage) needs to apply for the license in the county which she resides.
Hence, for any couple, they need to apply for the license in their county. There is an exception, and ways to get a license in another county, but the default is to get one in your county. There have been people who ask why the couple didn't simply go to another county to get a license...it's because they are trying to follow the rules.
HOWEVER...the arenas which the clerk stands on is the same policy. As there is either no groom, or no bride, as the definition seems to point in the marriages applied that are under lawsuit, the contention is she cannot issue the license (the legal standpoint, though she seems to have been standing on religious rights instead of legalities in this situation).
In this regards, the KY Congress has been trying to start a special session in order to make an exception for her. As it is the Republicans, I am unsure of whether that would be to make an exception where she does not have to issue licenses as per her beliefs (which I think would tend to violate the entire chuch/state precedence) or to invalidate the need for the groom/bride regulation. They DO point out that there are several points in the law that make the Supreme Court ruling conflict with current KY law, and that these need to be changed.
The democrats have not wanted to start a special session over this.
Part of the reason is there should not be a need. If I were arguing against her, I would state that a precedence has already been made in KY. Other counties have already issued many licenses to the same types of couples that she has been having problems issuing them too...at least legally speaking.
Hence, the precedence is that the licenses will be issued despite what the KY law states is required.
On the matter of her religious beliefs, I think this is where the courts can win and lose. I think the matter is clear cut legally speaking. She cannot use her religious rights to impede upon a government right. The judge has the right to fine her or punish her for contempt.
Currently, the electorate of her county seem to not take as much issue with her decisions as those OUTSIDE the county. This can be a problem, as what is happening is likely to create a county hero, vs. what those outside the local area may feel.
What's a bigger issue is that on the agenda of religious freedom...it is NOT as clear. In the military, you can be an objector due to religious belief, and they will still find a place for you that does not conflict with your beliefs if they feel the REALLY need you.
There does not seem to be such an out currently in her situation. As that is seen, this makes her a martyr for the far Christian Right. In their minds, she is literally being jailed for her beliefs and as such is fulfilling EVERYTHING they stated would start to happen in regards to the legal push that has occurred recently in regards to the issue.
I see that as an actual loss (many may not see it that way, but you just gave people their first real martyr that they can point to and say...the US is now jailing people for their beliefs).
Legally, I don't think she has a leg to stand on...ethically and in view of what the US is like right now...I'm not so sure this is a victory however.
Biblically, well...I don't care about that aspect that much. Who cares if she's been married 4 times or whatever, legally, that doesn't affect anything.
What could get down to the heart of the matter, is whether her religious rights have been trampled in the process. (As I said, whether she should or should not issue the licenses, I think is absolutely 100% clear and has a clear precedence set...on the topic of whether they need to find a way to accommodate religious beliefs like they do in other parts of the government...this could actually be the tip of the iceberg and I think on the ethical matters of that, this could have just been a less than stellar first step).
However, there are those much more qualified to comment on the legal aspects and contours of this case. That's just my take...and as one could say...one voice is definitely not the definitive voice in any legal matter...there's always different sides and aspects of every thing.
The other item in this case, which is FAR more foggy than anything I listed above is her actions prior to the judges decision to send her to jail. That is, she stopped issuing licenses period from what I understand. If this is true, then in theory she was no longer discriminating because it was being applied to all. However, it's tricky to see whether this would be applicable as she was ordered (as I understand it) to issue the licenses requested. If there was some reason OTHER than simple religion that she was using or (such as the inability to fulfill KY law as it is currently written)...then it could be seen as a subversion of the bench, which in the long run could turn out badly for the judge and the decisions made. More problematic is if she was using something UNRELATED to the prior judgment or orders that prevented her from signing ANY marriage license as this would not be discriminatory per se...as it is any license and not focused on any specific type of marriage or individual. It depends on what route her lawyers decide to take from here.
I expect that currently, the matter is resolved...for now. I think the legal battle is a victory and quite obvious from the start...the moral and ethical portion of it however could be entangling legal arguments for months if not years to come.
Orfamay Quest |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What could get down to the heart of the matter, is whether her religious rights have been trampled in the process.
Let me relieve your mind on that point. They haven't.
She has absolutely no right, religious or otherwise, to not to issue those licenses. The courts have made that determination. Therefore, her rights not to issue those licenses has not been violated.
Similarly, she has no right to violate a Federal court order, therefore her rights to do so have not been violated.
on the topic of whether they need to find a way to accommodate religious beliefs like they do in other parts of the government....
... they tried. The accommodations the court found "reasonable," she rejected. She has no right to "unreasonable" accommodations, so her rights have not been volated.
Grey Lensman |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord wrote:What could get down to the heart of the matter, is whether her religious rights have been trampled in the process.Let me relieve your mind on that point. They haven't.
She has absolutely no right, religious or otherwise, to not to issue those licenses. The courts have made that determination. Therefore, her rights not to issue those licenses has not been violated.
Similarly, she has no right to violate a Federal court order, therefore her rights to do so have not been violated.
Quote:on the topic of whether they need to find a way to accommodate religious beliefs like they do in other parts of the government....... they tried. The accommodations the court found "reasonable," she rejected. She has no right to "unreasonable" accommodations, so her rights have not been volated.
Exactly, by refusing to sign off on the licenses, she isn't so much exercising her freedom of religion as imposing her religion on others. And doing that in her capacity as a government official is a violation of the first amendment, not something protected by it.
Orfamay Quest |
Orfamay Quest wrote:[W]hile the authority of the judge to impose sanctions isn't usually reviewable (especially in a case this blatant), the amount of the sanction certainly is. If he fines her more than she could reasonably be expected to pay, she could go crying to the 6th Ct. and almost certainly win.Does the amount she can be reasonably expected to pay change if she's got backers promising to pay it?
I mean, if I've got a $30K job, but a half million in donations to a defence fund, which do you base it on?
My understanding is that it doesn't change, because a promise from a backer is worth what any other "promise" is worth. (Mary Poppins J, "Promises are piecrust: easily made, easily broken.") If she's actually got the assets in her hand and under her control, then they're her assets, but if she's just relying on largess,....
MeanDM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, there is no requirement that a license for marriage be issued in the county in which someone resides. It's certainly not required that the wife do so. People get married in different states and even different countries all the time.
That said, her counsel already attempted theargument that they could go to the next county with the federal judge. It was rejected. I believe the phrase he used was that there is no such thing as minor infringements on Constitutional rights.