Kim Davis... Gay Marriage... Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Reasonable Accommodations...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It really does amaze me and many over here in the Eu the resistance from some about marriage.
I mean Ireland voted for it and they are as religious as the states arn't they?.
It's like the sky is falling for some and it bewilders me how they cherry pick, I mean I bet they have eaten lobster and they don't picket divorce courts do they?.

a reply to: Boadicea

You do know no one is going to force you into a gay marriage don't you?.

originally posted by: Boadicea
There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to provide marriage licenses to anyone. The only Constitutional requirement is the equal application of the law. When Kim Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone and everyone, she fulfilled that Constitutional requirement: the equal application of the law.

But Kim Davis does not have the power to decide to stop issuing licenses. Kentucky has marriage laws. ONLY PART of Kentucky's marriage law has been made void. The part that bans same-sex marriage. The rest of the law is fine.

If the state of Kentucky wants to stop issuing licenses altogether, there is a PROCESS to do that. One county clerk can't just decide to change the fact that Kentucky offers marriage to its citizens.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Kim Davis is not in jail for breaking the law. Kim Davis is in jail for refusing to follow the arbitrary order of a judge. Period.

What makes you think the judge's court order is "arbitrary"? She was ordered to obey the Supreme Court ruling and she refused to do it AND prohibited her deputies from doing it... There is nothing arbitrary about a judge giving an order to follow the law.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
That's all fine and dandy...

But she cited God's authority, not the State Laws.

How long did it take for the defence to make up this BS.

Technically, yes, she has cited "God's authority," and this has been plastered all over the news... but those same media have refused to similarly plaster her suggested reasonable accommodation all over the news. Why?

According to her attorneys:

“She has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well,” Staver said. “That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done. “I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

And does it really matter when she came up with this reasonable accommodation? Or is it more important to find and implement ways for everyone to to live their conscience? Or is it more important to force the will of some onto others?

a reply to: Boadicea

Because then the Government would be pandering to one religion they can not do that.

a reply to: ketsuko

That being said, what Davis has done is expose the lengths the state will now go to to force you to comply with its will if all you have is a disagreement in principle or conscience.

Understand, it won't stop with marriage. If the state will go this far over this one issue, how long will it take before it comes around for you over something else that the state prefers to be one way and you deeply believe ought to be another?

This ^^^. This is exactly what the real danger here is. We all need to step outside our personal interests and see the big picture.

Thank you, Ketsuko. Perfectly said!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

Or Kim Davis has exposed what some people will do to try and enforce their religious beliefs on others.
Thing is I bet If ATS was around in 1967 we would be seeing the same arguments from the people against interracial marriage.
(Krazy is right)

a reply to: boymonkey74

The judge didn't break the law he only followed it, the law that is about equality not just what you define as marriage.

The only law the judge could apply is the equal application of the law. Specifically, if she issued licenses to heterosexual couples she was required to issue licenses to gay couples. Likewise, if she refused to issue licenses to gay couples, she must refuse to issue licenses to heterosexual couples. Ms. Davis was doing exactly that.

The judge had no power or authority to order Ms. Davis to issue licenses to anyone, gay or otherwise. This is why she is in jail on contempt charges, rather than violation of federal marriage law.

It may seem like a minor and petty point to you, but it is the very foundation of equality and natural rights.

Kim Davis is being released from jail.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What if someone believes in many Gods, like the Greeks or Romans did? Perhaps some days this person may wish to please one God over another? Some days they'll allow the marriages, other days they won't...?

The my God vs. your God stuff is petty and childish and has no place in our government. I want my Government sanitized of ALL religious affiliations.

I'm sorry... I'm not understanding how this pertains to the OP.

In practice and in theory, I agree. The government should have no religious affiliations, which is why I have always supported gay marriage rights. But neither should the government be making any laws which force people to act against their faith and/or conscience. Hence the allowance for reasonable accommodations. Ms. Davis' religious beliefs can be accommodated while still honoring and protecting gay marriage rights.

But the judge refused to respect or allow Ms. Davis the reasonable accommodations she requires and is entitled to by law.

You wrote:

originally posted by: Boadicea
There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to provide marriage licenses to anyone. The only Constitutional requirement is the equal application of the law. When Kim Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone and everyone, she fulfilled that Constitutional requirement: the equal application of the law.

While you're correct to a point, what you are forgetting is that, according to Kentucky Law 402.080:

Marriage License Required -- Who May Issue: No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

The italicized is my emphasis, and it's to show that the legal wording uses "shall" in lieu of "may" or "should" or "can if the clerk doesn't have religious objections." It's a point worth making because any of us who have spent any time as a paralegal and have had to help draft legal documents, the use of the word "shall" is not something that equates to a voluntary action, but it is a must-do, assuming all legal requirements for the action line up.

Also, I italicized the part that says "in which the female resides" because it becomes pertinent in the following KY laws.

Now, there's the kicker. Since the whole basis of the argument for her actions stems from state law, my congressman (Congressman Thomas Massie, with whom I generally agree, just not on this issue) was kind enough to post two other Kentucky laws that govern marriage (I'll only quote pertinent verbiage):

402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

And there's this one:

402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
...
(d) Between members of the same sex;

So, we have two state laws that, in essence (one directly, one by definition), prohibit homosexual marriage in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--yet we have a federal government whose interpretive body has ruled that these state laws are null and void because they discriminate against homosexuals while allowing heterosexual couples to participate in a state-sanctioned marriage.

Because of that ruling by the SCOTUS, the KY laws that prohibit homosexual marriage are now null and void laws that have no meaning--even if they still remain on the books.

And as for worrying about in which county the woman resides in order to get a marriage license, that becomes an impotent part of that law, because there is no requirement anymore for a woman to be a party in a marriage.

The biggest issue is that Gov. Beshear is pussyfooting around the issue and will not hold a special session of the state government in order to deal with these discrepancies in our laws (I live in Kentucky), and in doing so, he is allowing this issue to get out of control on a national scale. While they're in session, they also need to discuss impeachment of Kim Davis for not performing her job in accordance with the law.

People can whine and moan all that they want about Davis' arrest for contempt, but the fact of the matter is that she is ignoring the reality that what she is doing is discriminatory, and by refusing to issue any licenses, she's performing her job in an illegal manner. She can't have it both ways, anymore, regardless of what her personal beliefs tell her to do. She is there to perform a job, and if she is incapable or unwilling to do it in accordance with the law, she should be terminated, or, since she pretends to live on a moral high ground, have some self respect and decency and step down from her office.

originally posted by: Boadicea
But the judge refused to respect or allow Ms. Davis the reasonable accommodations she requires and is entitled to by law.

What is "reasonable" about disobeying the law and prohibiting your deputies from following it??? What reasonable accommodations does she require?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

I have to disagree. First, there is no Constitutional requirement to provide marriage licenses, therefore there is no compelling interest to force Ms. Davis (or anyone) to do so.

I disagree.

Okay. But you are not just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the law.

Kim Davis was elected to an office which has, as long as its inception, issued marriage licenses.

By the state. Not by the feds. There is absolutely no constitutional requirement for any state to issue marriage licenses to anyone. The only constitutional requirement is that whatever marriage laws the state adopts shall be applied and enforced equally.

She was elected by taxpayers to fulfill that duty.

She was elected to fulfill the duties and the laws at the time she was elected. The rules have changed. I understand that previous laws which denied equal application to gay couples cannot be "grandfathered in," so to speak, due to the compelling interests of equal application of the law. But reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis' faith are/were required and justified.

I would also add that those who elected her seem to overwhelmingly support her position.

The tax payers deserve to have the service, whether Kim Davis does the job or not. Deciding to do half her job or not do her job at all isn't the issue. The issue is that the office must continue to do what the tax payers pay for it do. Shutting down the whole of the services is not in the government's best interest.

I agree 100%. The issue is the law requiring reasonable accommodation for religious freedom, which the judge (and the governor) has refused to do. Instead they have abused their power and bullied an elected official under color of law.

originally posted by: Boadicea
According to her attorneys:

“She has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well,” Staver said. “That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done. “I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

And does it really matter when she came up with this reasonable accommodation? Or is it more important to find and implement ways for everyone to to live their conscience? Or is it more important to force the will of some onto others?

Maybe she should have better attorneys who could have proposed this from the start? Maybe they did, maybe not, but the court has a right to demand that she do her job in accordance with valid KY law, and the laws defining marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriage are now invalid laws that hold zero legal bearing on how she conducts her job.

The bottom line is that, as you discuss forcing the will of some onto others, she tried to force her will onto people trying to get legally married. She caused this issue "under the authority of God," and she is living with the legal consequences of that. You'll have to excuse me if I don't shed a tear for her self-induced stint in jail, or her ill-perceived persecution, or the fact that she got called out and punished for trying to run her little section of her small-town government like she wants to instead of how she is prescribed to by law.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Also should I get a county clerk job and change my Religion to the Book of Liberace and refuse man and woman marriages based on my religious convictions?.
Would you be cheering me on for standing up to law with my religious beliefs?

Speaking for me, myself and I only, I would cheer for you if those belonging to the Religion to the Book of Liberace were being unfairly denied equal application of the law, and you were refusing to issue any licenses until the law could be applied equally...

But if you were doing so only to force your faith on everyone else, then of course not.

originally posted by: Boadicea
She was elected to fulfill the duties and the laws at the time she was elected. The rules have changed.

No, she was elected to fulfill the duties and the laws as they are during her term(s) in office. If the laws change, she either adjusts, adapts, corrects, changes, or she must step down or be removed from office.

The governor isn't elected to do his job in accordance with the laws and directives of the previous administration.

A local sheriff doesn't just continue on with the laws of the administration at the time of his election--he changes with the laws.

Your argument is legally flawed and downright wrong. Yes, the rules have changed--since Davis refused to adapt, she is in the wrong.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you B for your nicely articulated 'take' on this issue. I must confess I had written if off differently for my own biases but your well thought out perspective gives me reason to consider her actions less judgmentally.

Thank YOU! I don't agree with Ms Davis, but I support her right to live her conscience. I also believe that she has been put in an impossible position through no fault of her own, abandoned and persecuted by the governing authorities, and that well-established legal remedies have been denied her. This doesn't serve anyone's best interests.

It can be you or me or anyone next, for any reason.

a reply to: Boadicea

"abandoned and persecuted by the governing authorities" lol.
She was the one persecuting others based on her own religious beliefs is that alright to you?.
She made others do the same she abused her position as a county clerk in doing so.

a reply to: Boadicea

and that well-established legal remedies have been denied her.

What well established legal remedies has she been denied? A remedy like, demanding that her name be removed from the certificate, leaving who's name in its place? Government documents are supposed to bear the signature of the person who heads the issuing office. Is she proposing changing signatory laws now?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

Hi. Is it okay to ask why this issue is so important to everyone?

Oh no... I obviously didn't make myself very clear in the OP!!!

I can only speak for myself of course, but my issue is not with gay marriage, my issue is with the violation of our natural, inalienable, and absolute right to freedom of religion of conscience, the refusal of the court to make the legally mandated necessary and reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis' religious objections, and using the color of law to force the will of some onto others.

In my opinion, the legitimate issue of gay marriage rights is being twisted and exploited to fulfill a much more dangerous agenda.