| 1 person 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.
Although your statement may be POPULAR on a LIBERAL site like Paizo...I believe you are actually addressing a different issue. You are addressing what I already noted was clear cut, whether she could utilize her religion as something to direct government action, which she cannot.
However, there are other issues which are very connected to the decisions of the Judge and the ability to enact his decisions.
The difficulty comes into effect with Federal Law, which is where the enforcement articles are also coming from.
With in that accommodation MUST be given for an individuals religious beliefs, along with disability and other facets.
This is one reason you cannot simply fire someone for religious beliefs, disabilities, age, or other arenas.
This is a tricky legal item. As I said, the actual legal question is clear cut, what is going to be an legal ethical question and could be grounds for debate is whether this religious accommodation took place.
A similar thing is seen in the military (and in some ways is directly connected) where if someone comes out as a conscientious objector, they can be discharged, but there also is (most of the time it's just an admission that they tried but couldn't find...hence a discharge) an accommodation where that person can still serve in the military without being involved in any way with the combat (so if they have the skills for another position, they may actually find out...they are still in the military despite their objector status).
The question that arises then, is whether she desired this, would have taken this, and if this was actually taken up in regards to the situation.
Further, the attempt to actually MAKE the accommodation as per some legal requirements, through the Kentucky Congress, was blocked as it was out of session, and the decision on whether to open a special session was not taken.
This, among other items, makes the legal question of the decision clear cut, but the ethical decisions much more murky, and possibly opens up the court and the judge for a nullification of the ideas if the lawyers decide to challenge it in court on these grounds.
I don't expect that to happen, as there is no indication they are going to follow this course, but it still does not negate the legal debates on this matter in regards to the decision and the situation.
PS: Just to be clear, these two items are separate items, so whilst you are trying to attribute the legal ethical situation (which actually does not deal with her actual religious beliefs, but ability to practice those beliefs) to the legal question of marriage licenses, they are two separate, if connected, issues. You seem to confuse the issue where there is a clear legal judgement (which I thought I made abundantly clear) with the connected, but equally positioned article dealing with the rights guaranteed to an individual on the basis of religion, race, age, gender, and other aspects that the law has been broadened to apply towards in regards to jobs being held and accomodations that need to be made prior to firings or other legal decisions.
Though she did not apply for it, I cannot see that such an attempt at accommodation was actually made...which is where it has a legally ethical and moral debate. Right now it doesn't look like they are or will pursue it in this matter, she'd rather sit in jail as a martyr...BUT...I expect it still will be something debated and could be used to torment future law students who think the entire case is purely clear cut.
| 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.
Actually, from what I understand (if memory serves right) it is mandated in Kentucky Law.
In that law, the application MUST be applied for by the Bride of the Marriage (Defined as between a Man/Groom and Woman/Bride as per Kentucky Law).
This is why the couple had to apply in their county and couldn't simply go to anther county several miles away.
This does NOT preclude them from going to another state, but in Kentucky they need to apply in the county where the Bride of the Union (so not the groom) resides. They can go to another county with exception which includes a 10 day period...but this is not the usual legality that is pursued and is harder then simply going to your local county clerk.
In a nutshell, the couple did as required by Kentucky Law which required them to apply in the county where the bride of the marriage resides. They COULD go to another county, but it would be an exception (though not unusual) and an inconvenience in regards to wait time and paperwork.
If we go by the precedence set by other Kentucky counties in the same situation (precedence actually CAN be a big thing in law sometimes, especially in matters like this), then they should not be punished by following Kentucky regulations and hence the same rights should apply universally throughout Kentucky.
It can go deeper then this (one reason a special session was proposed was because basically with the Supreme court decision, the entirety of Kentucky marriage regulation needs an overhaul to catch up)...but in essence, they followed as closely as they could to the laws of the state of Kentucky which requires them to apply in the county of residence.
| 3 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.
The difficulty comes into effect with Federal Law, which is where the enforcement articles are also coming from.
With in that accommodation MUST be given for an individuals religious beliefs, along with disability and other facets.
I'm afraid you're laboring under some rather serious misapprehensions, which makes you see imaginary difficulties.
First of all,... there is no general right to religious accommodation. Religious accommodation is given only on a case by case basis and only with regard to a specific dispute. If I give one Orthodox Jewish employee Saturdays off, that doesn't mean that I automatically give all my Orthodox Jewish employees Saturdays off. Similarly, if an Orthodox Jew asks for Saturdays off, not to wear the approved company uniform, and not to work with females, I can say "yes," "no," and "no" to the three requests.
Secondly,... no, there is no requirement that accommodation MUST be given. Only "reasonable" accommodation must be given. If the job we're talking about is a college football announcer, where 90% of the games are played on Saturdays, then I can say that working on Saturdays is a job requirement and it's not reasonable to ask for the time off, and the courts will probably agree with me. Similarly, if enough employees ask for Saturdays off that it leaves me short-handed, then I can refuse to allow Saturdays off, or allow only every other Saturday off, or something else "reasonable."
Thirdly, there is no need for religious accommodation in contempt proceedings.
In the instant dispute, her request is unreasonable and no accommodation is necessary.
Despite this, the court offered her what it considered to be a reasonable accommodation -- allow your staff to issue licenses. She declined. At that point, her beliefs have, in fact received more deference than the Constitution demands, as the judge was within his authority simply to say "Shut the f--- up, b----, and do your job." (As was agreed by the 6th Ct., and not denied by the SCOTUS).
This is a tricky legal item. As I said, the actual legal question is clear cut, what is going to be an legal ethical question and could be grounds for debate is whether this religious accommodation took place.
The debate already happened (at the 6th Ct.) She lost.
Further, the attempt to actually MAKE the accommodation as per some legal requirements, through the Kentucky Congress, was blocked as it was out of session, and the decision on whether to open a special session was not taken.
This is nonsense, legally speaking. The Kentucky legislature is not party to the dispute, and therefore can't be ordered to make accommodations. If she wanted to sue KY to change the terms of her employment, that's a separate case that would be heard separately.
Though she did not apply for it, I cannot see that such an attempt at accommodation was actually made...which is where it has a legally ethical and moral debate.
The courts did offer her (unnecessarily so, in my mind) an accommodation, which she refused. At that point, the forms have been obeyed.
Actually, from what I understand (if memory serves right) it is mandated in Kentucky Law.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.
No, this is incorrect. The relevant couples were told that they could go elsewhere, they said, "no, we have A RIGHT to get our license here," and the judge agreed.
| 1 person 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.
Further to previous. Let me outline a different way things could have played out, one where "religious accommodation" might have played a role.
Obergefell decision happens, and the Governor issues an order that all County Clerks must issue same-sex marriage licenses. [Well, yes, this bit actually happened.]
Davis contacts the governor, citing a religious obligation not to support same-sex marriage, and asks to be relieved of the necessity to do so. The governor is, in fact, obliged to find a "reasonable accommodation" if possible, one that respects both the authority of the various offices involved, the rights of third parties, and Ms. Davis' expressed beliefs and obligations.
If they can come up with something, great. Of course, one or both parties could still get sued (if the governor had said "sure, just close your office," then he could be the one sitting in jail right now), but at least the two of them are happy.
If they can't come up with something, then she can (if needful) sue the governor (in his official capacity) and ask the court to impose a reasonable accommodation. The court at that point could resolve the dispute as it sees fit, including ordering the governor to make accommodations that it (the court) sees as reasonable, or simply order her to sit down and shut up. I doubt the judge would have the authority to order the Kentucky legislature to do anything, as they're not party to the dispute.
None of that happened. She didn't make any requests for accommodations, so there's no need to make any. She refused the accommodations that the court found reasonable, and there's no reason to offer her unreasonable ones. She openly defied the authority of a Federal Court, and there is no legal justification for that. There's literally nothing that should have been done differently at all in the present dispute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not surprising... she does not want accomodation, she wants to prevent LGBT marriages in Rowan County, period, end of story... there's no room for compromise there.
Despite this, the court offered her what it considered to be a reasonable accommodation -- allow your staff to issue licenses....
Agreed. But my point is that the government is only obliged to offer reasonable compromises (and in the present case, not even that, although it chose to do so). It is not only not obliged, but not allowed, to surrender the constitutional rights of its citizens in the interests of appeasement.
And the office itself needs to be changed to include mandatory compliance with the law.
Er,... no, it doesn't.
More accurately, the office already includes mandatory compliance with the law, as does everything in the United States. The problem is that she's choosing to disregard this "little" part of the office, and due process requires that certain machinery be put into motion to before she can be appropriately disciplined.
But changing the law doesn't alter anything once someone has made up their mind to disregard the law.
A similar thing is seen in the military (and in some ways is directly connected) where if someone comes out as a conscientious objector, they can be discharged, but there also is (most of the time it's just an admission that they tried but couldn't find...hence a discharge) an accommodation where that person can still serve in the military without being involved in any way with the combat (so if they have the skills for another position, they may actually find out...they are still in the military despite their objector status).
By the way, I have to comment on this as well. I don't think you want to use "conscientious objector" laws as models to be followed.
First of all, once a person comes out as a CO, the decision about how to handle it rests almost entirely with the government. You do not have a "right" to serve as a CO; if the DoD likes, it can simply discharge you. Similarly, you do not have a "right" to a discharge; if the DoD likes, it can simply reassign you to whatever position it considers to be reasonable, and while you can sue to have the reassignment examined by a court, you will typically still be required to perform the duties reassigned to you while the case is going on.
For example, you are a combat rifleman and you decided that, as a life-long Quaker, you are a conscientious objector. If they decide to turn you into a combat medic (which is one of the typical CO slots), you get sent to one of the hospitals, even if you want out -- refuse that order and you go to the stockade instead, for willful disobedience, insubordination, mutiny, or something in that general prison-orange color scheme. If they decide you're out, you're out -- even if you want to become a combat medic. And if they decide to make you a truck driver, you don't get to say "make me a medic instead."
They can even say "stuff that, you're still a combat rifleman until we can get back to Division HQ and the General has his say." ("[P]ersons who have submitted applications ... will be retained in their unit and assigned duties providing minimum practicable conflict with their asserted beliefs, pending a final decision on their applications.")
You don't get a chance to suggest what's "reasonable" to them and you certainly don't get to negotiate conditions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not terribly accurate.
When you enlist, you are specifically asked three times if you are a CO, and depending on the time (needs) that is enough to disqualify you from service, which is voluntary. But, it's not something that even comes up as why would a CO even attempt to enlist? Attempting to pull the CO card after joining is then admitting that you lied during your initial examinations, or would need a heck of a lot of proof that you became one later, which would be very, very difficult.
It's a little bit different in Draft, in which males do not have a choice. And that's also the key, because so many people did not want to be forced into service against their will, being a CO was a semi valid way to get out of the draft, and to avoid people claiming to be CO for just that reason, it was decided that in order to be a CO, one had to have an actual establish legit reason, such as having proof they part of a religion BEFORE the draft.
That's not terribly accurate.
When you enlist, you are specifically asked three times if you are a CO, and depending on the time (needs) that is enough to disqualify you from service, which is voluntary. But, it's not something that even comes up as why would a CO even attempt to enlist?
Well, if you're going for 1-A-O noncombatant service categorization, you might want to serve your country as a combat medic.
You're right that the recruiter will probably still tell you to go away, since there are lots of other people who want to enlist that don't require special dispensations.
Attempting to pull the CO card after joining is then admitting that you lied during your initial examinations,
Yeah. "Fraudulent enlistment" is bad.
or would need a heck of a lot of proof that you became one later, which would be very, very difficult.
.... but happens. That's why there's an official procedure to handle these things. There's an official form (DA 4817) that covers it, and then you typically get an interview with the chaplain who recommends whether or not he believes you (hint: he doesn't), and then there's an investigation by the "investigation officer" including a hearing if you want it, and the investigating officer makes his recommendation (hint: he doesn't believe you, either). I think there's also an interview with a psychiatrist, and then finally the General flips a coin with two tails and tells you "no."
My point is that you have very little control of the outcome of this process, and while this process is going on, you are still a soldier, still subject to military discipline, and still have to carry (and fire) that rifle if the sergeant says so. The idea that "reasonable accommodation" means that everyone else has to stop and dance around what you say based only on your say-so is completely wrong, as this process illustrates.
it was decided that in order to be a CO, one had to have an actual establish legit reason, such as having proof they part of a religion BEFORE the draft.
This is not true. I think I cited Seeger upthread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a current Combat Medic, you are a soldier first, medic second. There is no exception like "I can't carry a weapon because I'm a medic". According to the Geneva Convention, Medics (and Medical Vehicles) are in no way disallowed from using any weapon. However, if the do use anything crew serve or higher, they are not protected as non-combatants. That's it, you are considered a combatant, not a protected non-combatant, and that only applies when at war with another country that follows the Geneva Conventions.
Likewise, they are required to fire back in protection of a casualty. In the past, this generally meant that Medics where the only ones authorized to use a shotgun, or tended to be issues pistols rather than rifles, but that's not true any more.
Being a "Combat Medic" has nothing to do with being a CO. Now, what could happen is that a CO might be assigned to a hospital setting, but it's not mandatory, and also isn't a Combat Medic, which is a MOS, (job) of itself that they would have needed to start out as.
However, what you are describing is not accurate. The military, particularly now with the drawdown, has no interest in keeping someone that doesn't want to be there. It's a time consuming and expensive process, (one that would really only apply during a draft), when it's much easier to instead do a waiver for early release, (likely also giving the person either an honorable discharge, a medical discharge, or a "not honorable, not dishonorable Discharge).
But again, it's unrealistic, outside of the Draft, but after they have joined, for someone to go CO. If they are or are not is irrelevant. Unless they want it on their public record, it would be better for everyone concerned to simply push for an early release waiver for Failure to Adapt.
When you say "recommendation", that does not mean what you think it does. When a soldier goes to the doctor and has a surgery, they are given a Profile which stipulates what they can an can not do based on their injury, recovery time, etc. . . This is just a "recommendation" from the medical expert to the non-medical expert Chain of Command. That Chain of Command can go against the Profile, but, by doing so they are also accepting personal responsibility for anything and everything that might happen. So if I have surgery on my foot and am told I can't run, (obviously), but I'm then instructed to run 3 miles and they decide to disregard the Profile, (they legally can), and I get hurt, or it screws up the surgery, they are 100% responsible for it.
Being how high suicide is in the military, any officer that ignored that recommendation is taking a huge, career ending risk by doing so, and doing so as a NON-expert on the matter. How they feel about the individual is not really relevant, generally. But, from their perspective, are they going to want to keep someone that is not interested in doing their job or get someone new that does ASAP?
As a current Combat Medic, you are a soldier first, medic second. There is no exception like "I can't carry a weapon because I'm a medic". According to the Geneva Convention, Medics (and Medical Vehicles) are in no way disallowed from using any weapon. However, if the do use anything crew serve or higher, they are not protected as non-combatants.
I'm sorry, I'm using "combat medic" in a less-than-technical sense. I think the specific MOS that I have in mind is "health care specialist (68W)," which is not officially a "combat" job and therefore is a spot where they can park a 1-A-O noncombatant if for some reason they want to keep him. It's actually a traditional one, although I think it was called 91-something back in the Vietnam era.
And, yes, if your former MOS were "cannon crewmember," you'd need retraining, which is one reason that it might not be practicable to reassign you right away....
Nothing you said is wrong, mind you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Health Care Specialist IS a Combat Medic. They are both 68W, one is just the technical name.
68W (or really any "68 Series" which are just the Medical MOS's) are a combat job. They are not classified as such specifically because we are one of the few MOS's that can go nearly anywhere without specific training. I've deployed twice already to Afghanistan and I have a 3rd one coming up in under 90 days. Unlike most MOS's, a Medic can be assigned to a Ranger Unit WITHOUT actually being "Ranger Qualified", or to an Infantry Unit without being an Infantry MOS, etc. . . Because the 68 series is also one of the MOS's that tends to draw a lot of females, it's also a sort of grey area because it does in fact mean that women can go to direct combat, even if they normally could not otherwise, as again, a medic can be assigned almost anywhere.
It did used to be a 91 series, but they changed it to incorporate all of the medical MOS's together (such as Behavior Health, Dental, X-Ray, Nurse). They also included more as actual MOS's (jobs) that used to be Skill Identifiers (specialties with separate extra training) to help cut down on costs (that is make the medical budge pay for the medical training rather than the budget they where coming from). So if you watch the old Rambo movie, he is identified as being a qualified Combat Medic and CLS, special forces, ranger, etc. . . Now it's a specific job you have to join to get into, and they are not really allowing people to retrain into it, (drawdown).
Apparently the clerk just realized she's in trouble. She is seeking an injunction against the governor and his order that all county clerks must obey federal court rulings.
It's not exactly clear to me (from the news media reports) what her request is. Some of the things she's reported as asking are simply ludicrous and would result in the disbarring of any lawyer fool enough to submit those claims to a court, while some are superficially reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specifically, I think she's asking to no longer need to issue marriage licenses? In which case she would no longer be failing to do the job she swore an oath to do.
Specifically, I think she's asking to no longer need to issue marriage licenses? In which case she would no longer be failing to do the job she swore an oath to do.
Well, yes. More generally yet, she wants "out," (thank you, Captain Obvious). The problem is that I'm not sure exactly what she's asking for and how she [or her lawyer] thinks it will get her out.
AFAIK, she has stated three fundamental beliefs in court:
* She has a religious objection to issuing same-sex licenses
* She has a religious objection to allowing same-sex licenses be issued on her responsibility
* Only an act of the legislature can relieve her of the responsibility for marriage licenses in her county.
She was offered (on Thursday) the opportunity to allow her staff to issue licenses, without her needing to sully her precious special-snowflake soul, and she turned it down. So I'm not sure what she wants/expects the governor to do.
If she wants the governor to say "there, there, the Constitution doesn't really apply to you," the courts won't let him say it even if he wanted to.
If she wants the governor to say "there, there, you can let someone else issue the licenses for you," that's the same deal she was offered and was turned down.
If she wants the governor to change the laws without recourse to the legislature, I don't think he has that authority, and the courts aren't going to require it of him.
Because I'm a cynic, I expect that she just wants an injunction to get her "out" so she can continue in her contumacy while the court case plays on, possibly for months. If 6th Ct. sees it that way, there's no way she's getting the injunction against the governor.
But even if she gets the appellate court to order the governor to do something (something she could have asked the district judge for, so that's another questionable point), that still doesn't resolve the fact that she's in contempt of a Federal court order that the 6th Ct. itself upheld on appeal. So none of those choices actually resolve the outstanding dispute, which is that a Federal judge has ordered her to do something, or to stay in jail until she does.
From what I see...
This goes hand in hand with the accommodation idea that I presented above. This is probably the exact course I'd probably have attempted from the start.
It appears she (or her lawyers) may actually be targeting that option.
Some of those appear that they would have to be made at the Legislative level...not so sure that will happen.
If this doesn't work, I expect the next one will deal with KY law. There has been precedent set with the issuing of licenses, however there are several aspects in the law that still are problematic.
The first is the requirement of the Bride applying in the county where she resides (which is normally applicable to those under the age of 18, and I believe is normally exempted by presenting a Birth Certificate typically, where you can then get a license in any KY county from my understanding). The groom would get it if they are under 18 however, even if the Bride proves she is over 18...though he also could show a birth certificate (or possibly other evidence?), or could...this one goes hand in hand with the next item...
The next would be the KY definition of Marriage which still has not changed.
Finally, the other bear in the room that designates who or who cannot get married. The Executive order over rides the law against two people of the same gender being married (though I think that law may actually still be on the books still...and I think she already has a suite in regards to this order and law). This order is backed up by the Supreme Court ruling.
That would probably be the next tactic I'd look at if the accommodation does not work.
However, I'm not certain how the appeal to the contempt ruling will go as the contempt ruling itself was not dependent upon accommodation, but on not complying with court orders. The accommodations are necessary, and connected (which I mentioned previously), but might not be viewed as the same depending on the court.
We'll see how it turns out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specifically, I think she's asking to no longer need to issue marriage licenses? In which case she would no longer be failing to do the job she swore an oath to do.Well, yes. More generally yet, she wants "out," (thank you, Captain Obvious). The problem is that I'm not sure exactly what she's asking for and how she [or her lawyer] thinks it will get her out.
AFAIK, she has stated three fundamental beliefs in court:
* She has a religious objection to issuing same-sex licenses
* She has a religious objection to allowing same-sex licenses be issued on her responsibility
* Only an act of the legislature can relieve her of the responsibility for marriage licenses in her county.She was offered (on Thursday) the opportunity to allow her staff to issue licenses, without her needing to sully her precious special-snowflake soul, and she turned it down. So I'm not sure what she wants/expects the governor to do.
If she wants the governor to say "there, there, the Constitution doesn't really apply to you," the courts won't let him say it even if he wanted to.
If she wants the governor to say "there, there, you can let someone else issue the licenses for you," that's the same deal she was offered and was turned down.
If she wants the governor to change the laws without recourse to the legislature, I don't think he has that authority, and the courts aren't going to require it of him.Because I'm a cynic, I expect that she just wants an injunction to get her "out" so she can continue in her contumacy while the court case plays on, possibly for months. If 6th Ct. sees it that way, there's no way she's getting the injunction against the governor.
But even if she gets the appellate court to order the governor to do something (something she could have asked the district judge for, so that's another questionable point), that still doesn't resolve the fact that she's in contempt of a Federal court order that the 6th Ct. itself upheld on appeal. So none of those...
She wants her name off the licenses. She does not want it to appear she agreed in any way, shape, or form, that she approved of things that don't agree with her conscience.
At least that's what it appears from the latest item posted.
It's also what some of her supporters are stating may make the current licenses being issued invalid. They say that they still have her name on them instead of some other, but without her approval.
It appears the central item in her accommodation is her needing to be the approving authority on these licenses, whether she wishes to be or not...
This was already mentioned by the Republicans in congress as one reason to try to create a special session (that's the KY congress, not US congress) in order to deal with this issue. The rest of the Congress did not see this as a reason for a special session.
Some of the thoughts and ideas on accommodation may not be able to be done without a Congressional level of decision making...from what I see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I see...
This goes hand in hand with the accommodation idea that I presented above. This is probably the exact course I'd probably have attempted from the start.
If she'd actually attempted it from the start, it might have worked, too.
The first is the requirement of the Bride applying in the county where she resides (which is normally applicable to those under the age of 18, and I believe is normally exempted by presenting a Birth Certificate typically, where you can then get a license in any KY county from my understanding).
That requirement does not exist. No problem.
The next would be the KY definition of Marriage which still has not changed.
Overridden by Obergefell and no longer relevant. (There are lots of unenforceable laws on the books. Hell, there were anti-miscegenation laws still on the books in the US until the year 2000.)
Finally, the other bear in the room that designates who or who cannot get married. The Executive order over rides the law against two people of the same gender being married (though I think that law may actually still be on the books still...and I think she already has a suite in regards to this order and law). This order is backed up by the Supreme Court ruling.
Not quite. The Supreme Court decision overrides that law; the governor of Kentucky does not have the authority to set aside statute via executive order.
And that's the real "bear in the room." If the authority of the County Clerk is set by statute (as I believe it is), then the Governor doesn't have the authority to issue an order changing it.
However, I'm not certain how the appeal to the contempt ruling will go as the contempt ruling itself was not dependent upon accommodation, but on not complying with court orders.
Yup. And that's the problem as I see it. If she had played nicely earlier, she might have been able to find some solution that would be pleasing to all parties, but at this point she's lost any goodwill the judge might have had for her, and she's pretty well pissed away the goodwill of the 6th Ct. Once you've been found in contempt, you can essentially write off any legal plan that includes the words "and if the judge is agreeable."
We'll see how it turns out.
We will, indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the thoughts and ideas on accommodation may not be able to be done without a Congressional level of decision making...from what I see.
Yea. And that's a BIG problem. It basically makes any proposed "accommodation" unreasonable if one of the requirements for that accommodation is that the KY legislature sign off on it. There's no one -- not even a Federal Judge -- that has the authority to tell a state legislature to pass a law.
Remember that religious beliefs only require "reasonable accommodation."
No accommodations can be here.
This isn't true. Hell, one accommodation was already proposed (and rejected), which is that she could let her staff handle same-sex licenses. She doesn't have to do her job, she just has to not stop her subordinates from doing her job for her.
She rejected it for reasons described above, but that option is probably still on the table.
Another option would be to pay someone from, say, Carter County to come and set up a marriage license bureau under the authority of the Carter County Clerk, possibly under the fig-leaf of a "document delivery service." (The idea is that you appear before a Carter deputy clerk, and the paperwork is processed in Carter County, but someone else takes the forms and delivers them appropriately as a convenience to the customer.) Since there's no requirement that you go to any particular county for your marriage license, this might work, at least until common sense prevailed. Who pays for that service, of course, would be an issue. Rowan County doesn't want to waste that money and no one else will want to subsidize her frankly-illegal conduct.
Apparently there is a plan under discussion that would put marriage licenses on-line under the direct control of the State. If that could be accelerated, that might solve the issue (but it's not clear whether the Legislature would need to act, in that case).
But there are lots of options assuming reason and good faith on both sides. Neither of which are in evidence on Ms. Davis' part, unfortunately. Which is why she's in jail right now, despite having the key to the jail metaphorically in her pocket.
She is an elected official.
She has two choices.
She can hold her nose and do her job and ask God's forgiveness.
She can resign from her cushy $80k a year job that requires very little actual work on her part (the actual work is done by her deputies).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That requirement does not exist. No problem.
Err...I'm going off KY law...not what's in other state laws. I'm not sure why you keep saying this when it's actually a pretty clear requirement and referenced on almost any KY county site that issues these licenses...at a minimum pointing out why those who don't have evidence of being over the age of 18 will need to comply to it.
That's okay, but it's on the books. This is why if you don't present a certificate, you need to apply as per that law...it's actually on the KY state government sites (and on the books) in regards to that regulation. Do many people simply show evidence that they are over 18 (birth certificate normally), sure...but if you don't...you're subject to that regulation.
anyways, it's not worth arguing about, but this regulation has been SPECIFICALLY mentioned by both Republicans and Democrats in regards to starting a special session in regards to this specific case...I'm pretty sure some of them (those that are lawyers at the least) are more aware of the law then even you or I.
Some of the thoughts and ideas on accommodation may not be able to be done without a Congressional level of decision making...from what I see.Yea. And that's a BIG problem. It basically makes any proposed "accommodation" unreasonable if one of the requirements for that accommodation is that the KY legislature sign off on it. There's no one -- not even a Federal Judge -- that has the authority to tell a state legislature to pass a law.
Remember that religious beliefs only require "reasonable accommodation."
That's absolutely correct.
I have nothing that can counter that...and unsure if her lawyers will be able to either.
It could turn nasty in the next congressional session if some of the Republicans continue to support her agenda though.
Actually it is.No accommodations can be here.This isn't true.
Actually, it isn't. The Federal judge outlined one potential accommodation and I outlined two more. Please don't try to tell me elephants don't exist when you're riding on the back of one and and facing another.
It could turn nasty in the next congressional session if some of the Republicans continue to support her agenda though.
I don't think it will be that nasty, or maybe a better way to put it is that the nastiness, if any, will be self-inflicted. The KY legislature can't set aside a Federal court ruling, and they can't grant anyone the authority to ignore the law or immunity from prosecution.
The newly celebrating potheads in Colorado know -- or should know -- that they can still get busted if they blaze up in front of a DEA agent. The DEA still raids dispensaries and head shops.
Anyone who relies on the State of Kentucky to protect them from the wrath of the Fed is at best misguided....
One thing I found interesting to learn is that she is actually an elected democrat. This might put some republicans in the state assembly in a dilemma, support a position your party generally supports or get the chance to knock down a member of the other party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Westboro baptist church is now protesting HER... for being divorced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a responsible person, I don't think I should laugh at that... so I'm going to be irresponsible and laugh anyway. XD