It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky governor orders clerks' names removed from marriage licenses

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The Kentucky Governor has produced an Executive Order that "removes" names of County Clerks on marriage licenses.

New Governor Matt Bevin just took office a few days ago, and had promised to take action to address the wild controversy sparked by Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis a few months ago.

Now we wait to see if this gets turned around in the Courts.

Apparently this is "legal" ??

Kentucky governor orders clerks' names removed from marriage licenses


Kentucky's new governor on Tuesday ordered county clerks' names removed from state marriage license forms at the center of a controversy involving Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed after refusing to issue licenses to gay couples.


Governor Matt Bevin had said shortly after his election in November, as only the second Republican governor of Kentucky since 1971, that he would change the forms that had drawn objections from Davis and some other clerks.


"To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, I took action to revise the clerk marriage license form," Bevin said in a statement.


2nd article with different points....
Kentucky governor orders clerks' names off marriage licenses





posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
hello slippery slope, so how long will it be before all public servants and public employees are allowed to keep their names off of public documents?
Imagine laws being passed without the public being allowed to know who passed those laws because their are no names on the bill that was passed into law.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The marriage license legally marries the couple to the state, thus allowing the state to control marital assets.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
hello slippery slope, so how long will it be before all public servants and public employees are allowed to keep their names off of public documents?
Imagine laws being passed without the public being allowed to know who passed those laws because their are no names on the bill that was passed into law.


Clerks dont pass laws. I think you need to read up on how things work. Laws are passed by the elected representatives.

This is an extremely reasonable measure that doea not interfere with anyone getting marriage licenses,. To oppose this just shows a measure of disrespect and need to force your ideas on other people,



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't see a problem. If that's within his powers as governor, then he should be allowed to freely exercise them. Yeah, there will be a few other states that will pick up the banner with it and change their forms (to protect their religious liberty, of course). But the whole brouhaha about marriage equality will settle down eventually, and married gay couples will be totally normal, as it should be.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Wouldn't need to be done if people did the job that they were hired to do .
If you know that a job that has aspects that you might not like for whatever reason, then don't take the job. ....
I wonder if she did things on the job that also went against her religion, but since she personally was ok with that made it ok?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna

originally posted by: Tardacus
hello slippery slope, so how long will it be before all public servants and public employees are allowed to keep their names off of public documents?
Imagine laws being passed without the public being allowed to know who passed those laws because their are no names on the bill that was passed into law.


Clerks dont pass laws. I think you need to read up on how things work. Laws are passed by the elected representatives.

This is an extremely reasonable measure that doea not interfere with anyone getting marriage licenses,. To oppose this just shows a measure of disrespect and need to force your ideas on other people,

Re-read his post, and try again.

On Topic: I'm with BH on this one. As long as the documents are legal, I don't see a major issue, if it makes them feel better. Though I can see a possibility of this snowballing to become a problem down the road if it's allowed to. As in "conscience creep".
edit on 12/23/2015 by Klassified because: edit



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
As long as they can do there job and dont try to add more stuff god said they cant do, i dont see any issues here.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It's about friggin time. This could have and should have been done long ago, and the only reason it wasn't was for certain parties to use the issue as a political football. Divide-and-conquer. And the most pathetic part? Some peeps will fall for it every time.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
Wouldn't need to be done if people did the job that they were hired to do .


She was elected, not hired, and had a moral and civil duty to act according to the will of those who elected her, and a legal right to act according to her own conscience, as well as to request a reasonable accommodation for her beliefs...


If you know that a job that has aspects that you might not like for whatever reason, then don't take the job. ....


Except when she took the job, this aspect was not part of the job. The requirements of the position changed AFTER she was elected... and those responsible for respecting and protecting HER legal rights failed to do the job they were elected to do... This removal of her name on the certificate is exactly the reasonable accommodation she requested in full accordance with her rights under the law, and those with the responsibility and the power to do so refused to do that aspect of their job for political reasons.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Except when she took the job, this aspect was not part of the job. The requirements of the position changed AFTER she was elected...


That's not true. Her job always entailed the administrative duty of issuing marriage licenses to those who were legally qualified to marry. The requirements of her position did not change.
edit on 12/23/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

clerks are public servants just like elected representatives are, what`s good for one public servant is good for all public servant`s,right?
if he can sign an executive order allowing clerks not put their name on documents then he can sign an order allowing all public servants to keep their names off of documents.

imagine if judges were allowed to keep their names off of court documents, we would never know which judges are easy on criminals.
If judges are allowed to remain anonymous just think of how much temptation there will be to take bribes and do other corrupt things.


edit on 23-12-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
So over it.

Elections coming up. See if she has a job after that.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

and that`s the most important point of this whole charade, if she is unable to perform her duties as a public servant due to her religious beliefs then she should resign.
if we allow every individual public servant to only abide by the public policies and laws that agree with their particular beliefs,then we would have anarchy.
Imagine if each individual police officer was allowed to only enforce the laws that agreed with their individual personal beliefs.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
So does this mean county clerks are no longer needed??? Did Kim Davis just prove to the world that her position and the job she does is in fact no longer needed???



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
What is the purpose of removing the Clerk's name from these documents anyways?? Does the Clerk wish not to be known for marrying gay couples??

The only consequence to gay marriage is gay divorce. The divorce attorneys are salivating as we speak at the new potential revenue streams, and probably devising clever marketing to encourage it. Nothing makes money like misery right??



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


That's not true. Her job always entailed the administrative duty of issuing marriage licenses to those who were legally qualified to marry. The requirements of her position did not change.


Yes, it is true. When she ran for the office and was elected, those "legally qualified to marry" did not include same-sex couples. In fact, at the time she was elected and when she took office, the law specifically forbade the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. So yes, the requirements of her position did change.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



She was elected, not hired, and had a moral and civil duty to act according to the will of those who elected her,


Correct, she was elected to do a particular job and had taken an oath of office to perform that job according to the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky and had a moral and civil duty to act according to that oath.



and a legal right to act according to her own conscience, as well as to request a reasonable accommodation for her beliefs...


She does NOT have a legal right to ignore the law. She does NOT have a legal right to violate her oath of office. She has a legal right to campaign to get the laws that violate her own conscience changed, she has the legal right to step aside if her conscience does not allow her to fulfill her oath of office. She absolutely does not have the right to ignore the law or her oath of office.



Except when she took the job, this aspect was not part of the job. The requirements of the position changed AFTER she was elected...


It most certainly was part of the job when she was elected.

Probably the single most important part of the office is the recording of vital statistics - always has been and always will be. Absolutely nothing changed about the duties of the office - when she was sworn in she knew beyond doubt that one of her duties was to issue Marriage Licenses, and the controversy was about her refusal to honor her oath of office and issue Marriage Licenses.



This removal of her name on the certificate is exactly the reasonable accommodation she requested in full accordance with her rights under the law, and those with the responsibility and the power to do so refused to do that aspect of their job for political reasons.


What this removal does is throw the legitimacy of ALL marriage licenses in the State of Kentucky into doubt. For example, Federal Law governs the requirements for documents to be recognized between states (as the Constitution specifies). Birth, Marriage, Divorce, and Death documents have specific features that must be in the Certification including the Seal of the issuing jurisdiction (usually the State) and the signature of the authorized person issuing the Certificate. There is a huge question whether or not a Marriage 'Certificate' is actually a certificate if it does not have the signature of the authority.

It is reasonable, I suppose, that they won't have a problem in Kentucky, but other states may choose to deny the validity of an uncertified document.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa


Correct, she was elected to do a particular job and had taken an oath of office to perform that job according to the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky and had a moral and civil duty to act according to that oath.


And we both know that the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky were in fact and in deed CHANGED by the United States Supreme Court.

We also both know that the laws of the State of Kentucky grant her the legal right to request reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs, which she did.


She does NOT have a legal right to ignore the law. She does NOT have a legal right to violate her oath of office. She has a legal right to campaign to get the laws that violate her own conscience changed, she has the legal right to step aside if her conscience does not allow her to fulfill her oath of office. She absolutely does not have the right to ignore the law or her oath of office.


She did NOT ignore the law. She obeyed and respected the law which grants her the right to request reasonable accommodations for her beliefs, and it was IGNORED by her superiors and those elected officials in the state who had both the authority AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to address her request, and to respect her rights under the law, and to honor THEIR oath. But I'm sure you knew that, and you just chose to ignore the WHOLE truth for your selective truth.


What this removal does is throw the legitimacy of ALL marriage licenses in the State of Kentucky into doubt.


I've read a few legal opinions to both effects. The new governor sure doesn't have a problem with it. But if that's the problem, then change that law too.... Unfortunately, more and more, exactly because of this refusal to acknowledge and respect Kim Davis' right to freedom of conscience under the law, I suspect the real end game is to force the issue... and by that I mean establishing the precedent of using color of law and pseudo-moral arguments to force people to act according to the will of some.

I will continue to support Kim Davis' right to freedom of conscience for the same exact reasons I support gay marriage and EVERYONE's right to freedom of conscience.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



And we both know that the laws of the United States and the State of Kentucky were in fact and in deed CHANGED by the United States Supreme Court.


Yes we do.

What we also both know is that her responsibilities of her office DID NOT CHANGE.
We also both know that she took an Oath of Office to faithfully execute the law to the best of her ability.
We also know that that oath of office DID NOT CHANGE.

Are you suggesting that the law is frozen during any particular office holder's term or that if the Legislators (or courts) change a law it negates office holders oath of office? Shall we have an election to replace the County Clerk every time the Legislature decides change the law or the Courts mandate a change to right some wrong? Are you serious?

She was elected to be the authority with the responsibility to issue Marriage Licenses (and other stuff) according to the laws of the State of Kentucky. Period. She was not elected to be the judge of those laws or the moral qualities of her fellow Kentuckians.

Nothing changed about her responsibilities just because the civil rights of an additional class of Kentuckians was recognized.

Nothing changed about the lawful procedures to be followed just because the civil rights of an additional class of Kentuckians was recognized.

I repeat: the responsibility of her position DID NOT CHANGE. She was elected to issue Marriage Licenses and Marriage Certificates according to Kentucky law not to make moral judgments about her fellow Kentuckians.

I have absolutely no problem with her being allowed to request 'reasonable accommodation' for her beliefs. I can understand and support her not wanting to work on the Sabbath, or getting time during the day to pray to Mecca or to go outside and get her nicotine fix if she needs to. Those things are indeed 'reasonable' and do not prevent her from doing her job that she was elected to do and swore to do to the best of her ability.

Should it also be her right to object, on religious moral grounds, to issuing Marriage Licenses to (heterosexual) Catholics? or Jews? or Wiccans? or soldiers? or persons under the age of 21? Where exactly does this 'reasonable' accommodation stop?
Refusing to do a major function of that job is not "reasonable" - it is a violation of the oath of office.
edit on 1/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join