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: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



She did NOT ignore the law.


Yes she did. It is her legal responsibility to issue Marriage Licenses according to the Laws of Kentucky. A responsibility she took an oath to perform. She refused to perform that responsibility and violated her oath.



She obeyed and respected the law which grants her the right to request reasonable accommodations for her beliefs,


A 'right to request' is not the same thing as 'imposing a requirement to grant that request'. I have a legal right to make a lot of requests; that doesn't mean anyone has the legal compulsion to grant that request.

When her request was refused (because it was, in fact, unreasonable), she refused to honor her oath and to carry out the duties she was elected to perform.



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.


Denial of a request is not the same thing as ignoring a request. The request was manifestly not ignored, and proof of that is the efforts that her 'superiors' took to get her to act on her elected mandate.

But I'm sure you knew that, and you just chose to ignore the actual reality of the events in order to push whatever the agenda is that you are trying to push.

It is really quite simple, she was elected to do a job. It isn't a particularly difficult job, but it is a fairly important job. If she finds that her conscience prevents her from doing that job, then she should step down. Period. That is nothing to be ashamed of, lots of people have done it in the past. Some athletes will not compete on the Sabbath, Kosher butchers won't work at a non-Kosher slaughterhouse.

But I'm sure you knew that, it is not rocket science.




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Boadicea



She did NOT ignore the law.


Yes she did. It is her legal responsibility to issue Marriage Licenses according to the Laws of Kentucky. A responsibility she took an oath to perform. She refused to perform that responsibility and violated her oath.


Parse words and laws all you want, doesn't make it true. As you and I both well know, when she took office and swore her oath the laws of the state expressly forbade same-sex marriage. Period. If she had issued a same-sex marriage license BEFORE the Supreme Court decision, she would have been in violation of both her oath and the laws of the state of Kentucky.

She also, in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision and in accordance with her sworn duties, made every effort to have reasonable accommodations made BEFORE the Supreme Court decision was handed down, in order to prevent exactly what happened. Kim Davis made every effort to both respect and fulfill the law. It was those with the RESPONSIBILITY to address her reasonable accommodations who IGNORED the law. Just as you are now doing.



She obeyed and respected the law which grants her the right to request reasonable accommodations for her beliefs,


A 'right to request' is not the same thing as 'imposing a requirement to grant that request'. I have a legal right to make a lot of requests; that doesn't mean anyone has the legal compulsion to grant that request.

Under the law, yes, you do have the right to request reasonable accommodations in accordance with your right to freedom of conscience, and yes, under the law the responsible parties must accommodate you in any ways they can.


When her request was refused (because it was, in fact, unreasonable), she refused to honor her oath and to carry out the duties she was elected to perform.


Apparently only unreasonable to those who pick and choose which laws they wish to respect... and to those who wish to force their will on others, because her requested reasonable accommodations are EXACTLY the reasonable accommodation made by the proper authority.



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.



Denial of a request is not the same thing as ignoring a request. The request was manifestly not ignored, and proof of that is the efforts that her 'superiors' took to get her to act on her elected mandate.


Then by YOUR definition and by the same principle, neither did Kim Davis IGNORE the law, given that she was in fact the one who made the request under the law.

And yes, her requests prior to the filing of the lawsuit were ignored -- i.e., no action, no communication, no response whatsoever. Action was only taken after a lawsuit was filed and it blew up in the media. All of which I have no doubt was planned and deliberate.


But I'm sure you knew that, and you just chose to ignore the actual reality of the events in order to push whatever the agenda is that you are trying to push.


Hahaha!!! That's just funny! I'm looking reality in its ugly face... My only "agenda" in this discussion is the fair and equal application of ALL laws, and to protect us all from those who use color of law and the barrel of a gun to force their will on others. In other words, bullies and tyrants.


It is really quite simple, she was elected to do a job. It isn't a particularly difficult job, but it is a fairly important job. If she finds that her conscience prevents her from doing that job, then she should step down. Period.


No, not period. It is really quite simple in that she was elected to do a job, and the job requirements CHANGED during the course of her term in office. PERIOD. It isn't particularly difficult to understand, but it is a fairly important fact. If she finds that her conscience prevents her from performing those NEW job requirements, then she has a right to reasonable accommodations -- she can request, suggest, whatever -- and the responsibilities powers must find a way to accommodate her. Not necessarily exactly what she requests or suggests, but if not, then it is up to them to offer other reasonable accommodations. Period.


That is nothing to be ashamed of, lots of people have done it in the past. Some athletes will not compete on the Sabbath, Kosher butchers won't work at a non-Kosher slaughterhouse.[/quote

Apples and oranges.


But I'm sure you knew that, it is not rocket science.


Nope! Can't know what's NOT TRUE.










posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
If I lived in KY, I would rather not have Kim Davis' name on my marriage certificate. What a nasty memory that would conjure every time I looked at it.

That said, why is no one concerned that the Governor of KY abused his Constitutional powers to enforce special religious rights for folks like Ms. Davis? How about the cost to the State? Throwing those "tax dollars" away is just fine, eh?

LOL ... more double-standards, aka, hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Great and thorough explanation.

A further query, WHY is a Clerk's NAME needed to appear on the document? What difference does it make towards the legality, filing, or registry.

Why does the Marriage License have to say "issued by Kim Davis"'as opposed to "issued by the duly sworn Clerk of xxxxx County, Kentucky."

What am I missing here EXCEPT Ms. Davis (and others who believe as she does) were given a partial win as was those who can now be married (regardless of gender). It appears to be a reasonable solution for all. Same sex couples get their Marriage License and Ms Davis name doesn't appear to condone/or support it. She is anonymously "doing her job."

I believe those who disagree with the Executive Order of Gov Bevin are trying to force their views for a political "win" (groupthink only accepted) as opposed to accepting a compromise (which denies no right to either side).



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Glinda

I really don't care whose name is on the certificate, as long as same-sex couples get the exact same benefits and have to go through no more inconvenience than any other couple to get the license.

I'm just personally annoyed at the hypocrisy of someone who signed off on many licenses where people have committed the sin of divorce, or for couples who were clearly marrying for non-Christian reasons (money). But on those licenses, I'm sure she rationalized it by telling herself she wasn't personally approving of the spiritual and religious correctness of the marriages - she was just signing off on the legality of the marriages. But for some unknown reason, she just couldn't do the same thing with same-sex marriages. Hmmm.

Whatever. Get her name off of all of 'em. Works for me.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I am most concerned about

a) Executive overreach by the Governor on the basis of nothing more than personal whim and individual religious interpretation;

b) The cost to the taxpayers of KY in making this arbitrary, meaningless and legally baseless change;

c) The fact that such special rights can be bestowed only encourages others to attempt to ignore the law based on their own personal ideations and desires.

There's no "political win" in being concerned about government overreach, pointless waste of government funds, and the executive creation of special rights.
edit on 1-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Glinda
a reply to: Boadicea

Great and thorough explanation.


Thank you.


A further query, WHY is a Clerk's NAME needed to appear on the document? What difference does it make towards the legality, filing, or registry.


Speaking to this case specifically, I would say it's because Kentucky law required the clerk's name, hence the unnecessary brouhaha.

Speaking generally, I'm disturbed by the insistence of some that the law cannot be changed, that her name must be kept on the licenses, and that she must issue those licenses with her name. No good can come from forcing anyone to violate their conscience. There are better ways to ensure everyone gets what they want and need.


It appears to be a reasonable solution for all. Same sex couples get their Marriage License and Ms Davis name doesn't appear to condone/or support it. She is anonymously "doing her job."


Exactly -- win-win for everyone. It is a reasonable accommodation under the law and according to the law, and should have been instituted to begin with.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I am most concerned about

a) Executive overreach by the Governor on the basis of nothing more than personal whim and individual religious interpretation;


Me too... but which one's??? The previous governor refused to grant any reasonable accommodation to Kim Davis, knowing full well that she had a right to such under Kentucky law... and yet the new governor had no problem doing exactly that. Who was really acting on personal whim and individual religious interpretation?


b) The cost to the taxpayers of KY in making this arbitrary, meaningless and legally baseless change;


I don't believe you really believe that. You and I may not think Kim Davis' eternal soul is in danger if she issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples with her name on it, but it doesn't matter. The purpose of the law is to protect our freedom of conscience -- including freedom of religion -- for everyone.

As far as the monetary expense, as it is, they're printing new forms every time a new clerk is elected. When I was married, all we got was a simple white paper printed with black ink and stamped with the county clerk's sig... with today's technology, each license could be printed out as needed. No doubt someone already on salary could take a few moments to change the form... once and done! I'm sure the legal wrangling cost far more...


c) The fact that such special rights can be bestowed only encourages others to attempt to ignore the law based on their own personal ideations and desires.


I'm more disturbed that such special power can be bestowed on any one person... why is it necessary for any one person to "approve" or "authorize" a marriage license? (But this gets back to my small "L" libertarian tendencies and wondering why government needs to be involved in anyone's marriage anyway!)


There's no "political win" in being concerned about government overreach, pointless waste of government funds, and the executive creation of special rights.


Me too... but probably not in the same way


No law should create "special rights" for anyone... and if we have to allow "special rights" for religious exemptions then it probably isn't a good law to begin with. Why should a person of faith have a special exemption, but not the Atheist or Agnostic? Why are we making any law that would force a person to violate their religious conscience.

That's why I actually like taking the clerk's name off the license. She (nor anyone) should be given that power or authority to begin with. We've made a fine mess of things, I know, with laws that forbade same-sex marriage (and other laws), and we've got alot of cleaning up to do, but I think this could be for the better.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
So over it.

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


I'm not sure if she is even running for re-election. I applaud her for standing up for her beliefs. I'm not so sure I could be as strong.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: maybee

originally posted by: Annee
So over it.

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


I'm not sure if she is even running for re-election. I applaud her for standing up for her beliefs. I'm not so sure I could be as strong.


She broke the law.

Do you stand up for all lawbreakers?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



Parse words and laws all you want, doesn't make it true.




Parse words and laws all you want, doesn't make it true. As you and I both well know, when she took office and swore her oath the laws of the state expressly forbade same-sex marriage.


There is no word parsing going on, there is only statements of fact.

It is totally irrelevant that the Marriage eligibility rules changed. The responsibilities of the County Clerk did NOT change.

The responsibilities of her position includes issuing Marriage Certificates according to Kentucky Law. She didn't take an oath to perform her duties unless the Marriage eligibility requirements changed, she took an oath to perform her duties. Period.

By refusing to perform those duties, she broke the law.

The fact that more people are eligible for marriage is irrelevant to the task of issuing them a Marriage Certificate. If they meet the requirements as set out by Kentucky Law, then they are entitled to a Marriage Certificate.

That she asked for some sort of 'accommodation' and was denied is irrelevant. SHE is not the arbitrator of what Kentucky Law requires or allows - HER sworn duty is to issue Marriage Licenses to eligible applicants.

The Clerks do not get to say WHO is eligible, never have and never will - the LAW defines that. The Clerks must satisfy themselves that the couple meets the LEGAL eligibility rules, that is all. If they do, then they MUST issue the certificate. There is no room for personal judgment in the carrying out of that duty.

If she can no longer in good faith perform her sworn duties, then her only recourse is resignation. a 'Resonable Request for Accommodation' is not a 'Demand that must be met'. And how can relief from carrying out the duties of your elected position be a reasonable request under any circumstances.

Here is a simile. Suppose the law REQUIRES the death penalty for some particular crime and an accused is found guilty. Suppose further that the Judge finds the death penalty religiously and morally repugnant. The Judge has two choices: issue the legally required sentence or resign. He can't just say, 'nah, I'll just not issue the sentence until the legislature changes the requirement.

This is not a strawman argument; Judges face conflicts like that all the time - probably not at the capital punishment level, but certainly at the level of jailing people for stupidly minor crimes.



Under the law, yes, you do have the right to request reasonable accommodations in accordance with your right to freedom of conscience, and yes, under the law the responsible parties must accommodate you in any ways they can.


Do you actually read back to yourself the stuff you write? More importantly do you think about it?

One of the major responsibilities of the offices SHE SOUGHT AND WAS ELECTED TO DO was to issue Marriage Certificates. Exactly how do you think the 'responsible parties must accommodate' an elected officials 'reasonable request' to be relieved of the major responsibilities of that office?

How can she be accommodated by being relieved of a responsibility of an elected official? Does your assertion that "under the law the responsible parties must accommodate you in any ways they can" mean that they 'must' amend the Kentucky State Constitution to do it? And who then should take up those duties - the local Dog Catcher? And what then would be the purpose of the County Clerk?



Then by YOUR definition and by the same principle, neither did Kim Davis IGNORE the law, given that she was in fact the one who made the request under the law.


No, by anyone's definition Kim Davis absolutely broke the law. Perhaps she did "request an accommodation"- I would never argue that that is not her right or that she didn't follow the law on that - but when she could not be "accommodated", she then refused to do her job. That is against the law, a violation of her oath, and a middle finger to the voters who elected her to the position.

She did not take an oath to ask that her duties as an elected official be altered or that the Kentucky Constitution be changed. She took an oath to issue Marriages Licenses (and other duties) as specified under Kentucky Law.

What part of "it is the responsibility under law for County Clerks in Kentucky to issue Marriage Certificates and Kim Davis took an oath of office to perform the duties - all duties - of a County Clerk" do you not understand?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



Speaking generally, I'm disturbed by the insistence of some that the law cannot be changed, that her name must be kept on the licenses, and that she must issue those licenses with her name. No good can come from forcing anyone to violate their conscience. There are better ways to ensure everyone gets what they want and need.


Somebody has to issue Marriage Licenses - agreed?

In Kentucky, as in most States that responsibility is given to an Officer called the "County Clerk".

Kim Davis sought election to the office of County Clerk. She was not drafted, appointed, or locked in the office against her will.

Kim Davis won that election and took the required Oath of Office, which I don't have in front of me, but I am sure we can assume it includes words to the effect that she will faithfully uphold the duties of her office and follow the laws of the State of Kentucky and the United States, and I am pretty darn sure nobody held a gun to her head when she took the oath.

OK, lets shift focus.

The United States Constitution Article IV Section 1 says:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Pursuant to its Constitutional duty, Congress has enacted a law titled: 28 U.S. Code § 1739 - State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit which reads in part:


All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed...


OK, we are not talking about the seal here, but we are talking about the attestation. Exactly what is an attestation?

From the Free Dictionary (Legal):

Attestation

The act of attending the execution of a document and bearing witness to its authenticity, by signing one's name to it to affirm that it is genuine. The certification by a custodian of records that a copy of an original document is a true copy that is demonstrated by his or her signature on a certificate.

An attestation is a declaration by a witness that an instrument has been executed in his or her presence according to the formalities required by law. It is not the same as an Acknowledgment, a statement by the maker of a document that verifies its authenticity.

An attestation clause is frequently found in legal documents that must be witnessed if they are to be valid, for example, a will or a deed. It states that the instrument has been completed in the manner required by law in the presence of the witness who places his or her signature in the designated space.


THAT is why the County Clerk's signature is required.

Unless the Federal rules for the 'full faith and credit' for a document are met, the document does not have to be accepted in other states (that does not mean that it will not be, only that it doesn't have to be).

Federal rules require a attestation as to the validity of document by the legal custodian of the original record. That legal custodian is the County Clerk. Legal attestation includes a signature.

It is as simple as that.


edit on 1/1/2016 by rnaa because: spelling and grammar



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa


There is no word parsing going on, there is only statements of fact.

It is totally irrelevant that the Marriage eligibility rules changed. The responsibilities of the County Clerk did NOT change.


My apologies... you're not parsing words, you're completely twisting and contorting the letter and spirit of the law.

No, it's not totally irrelevant that the rules changed. Ask any same-sex couple who has now enjoyed -- or is planning to -- the NEW marriage rules, which were the result of many people's hard work and effort throughout the legal process. Nothing irrelevant about that Supreme Court Decisions that overturn standing state laws.

Nor is there anything irrelevant about a LAW that GUARANTEES one's freedom of conscience, both federal and state, to address EXACTLY this type of situation.

YOU obviously find it irrelevant and are quite ready, willing and able to trash and ignore the rights of others, just like the previous governor did. The people of Kentucky obviously find it relevant, because they voted their previous governor's sorry butt out of office for a new governor who found Kim Davis' requested accommodations both relevant and reasonable and implemented the same.

Now, finally, everyone's rights are being respected. The change to the forms has been made. Kim Davis can issue the licenses without violating her conscience. Gay couples can get married and reap all the benefits of government sanctioned marriage. It seems your only problem is that you can't force your will on Kim Davis. Gotcha.

And I'm done.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa


Pursuant to its Constitutional duty, Congress has enacted a law titled: 28 U.S. Code § 1739 - State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit which reads in part:


Congress made the rules... which may have served its purpose at one time, but no longer does now... so Congress needs to change the rules. Easy peasy.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



YOU obviously find it irrelevant and are quite ready, willing and able to trash and ignore the rights of others

Kim Davis was willing and able to trash and ignore gay couples' rights, no?

Her duty has not changed and it is not like she was being asked to marry them. It's a piece of paper for freak's sake.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No. Kim Davis is the one person in this mess who actually tried to respect both her rights and marriage rights for same-sex couples, and if her preliminary attempts to reconcile the situation had not been ignored by the previous governor, there would never have been any delay or impediment to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Kim Davis is not the villain. The previous governor is. It was his political games that created the problem.

And yes, it is just a piece of paper... until we use the force of law and the barrel of a gun to force someone to issue that piece of paper. Even the couple who brought the original suit against Kim Davis said they never wanted her to go to jail, because it never ever should have gone that far. It's a piece of paper.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

It doesn't matter. She had the duty period. The 14th Amendment hasn't changed. My Christians friends have agreed that she should have resigned.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The couple have no regrets actually, but do think that Davis shouldn't be a martyr because of her own bigotry. She could have recused herself, she could have asked someone else int he office to handle it, but no. She wanted to make a big deal out if it.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


It doesn't matter. She had the duty period. The 14th Amendment hasn't changed. My Christians friends have agreed that she should have resigned.


And my gay friends/family have apologized to me for the bully tactics... big whoop.

That and a fiver will get us a cup of coffee.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

?

What are you rambling on about?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join