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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

But the Governor's EO is only removing the printed name of the County Clerks.

Nothing else changes.





posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: rnaa

But the Governor's EO is only removing the printed name of the County Clerks.

Nothing else changes.



I'd say, although another ckerk can sign it, that signature would be a proxy for the officially elected clerk.

Therefore, requiring the official elected clerks name printed on the certificate.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Where is the law clear on that?

The EO mentions the printed form.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

Where is the law clear on that?

The EO mentions the printed form.





Could you not tell that was my opinion?

"I'd say" - kinda sounds like an opinion to me.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It is the County Clerk's specific job to attest to the correctness of the Certificate.

It the County Clerk's specific complaint that it is against her religious morals to attest to the correctness of the Certificate. Attestation includes a signature - that is how we do things in our culture - we sign stuff, with our signature.

You say the Governor says the form doesn't have to have her name printed on it but she still has to sign it? How is that a solution to her problem?

The only point of printing the name on the document is to ensure that the signature can be deciphered.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

The Deputy Clerks sign if the elected Clerk doesn't want to.

The Supreme Court didn't address the "reasonable accommodation" laws.



Here's the EO in Question



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: rnaa

The Deputy Clerks sign if the elected Clerk doesn't want to.

The Supreme Court didn't address the "reasonable accommodation" laws.



Here's the EO in Question



Actually, they did.


The Supreme Court case involved two Oregon men, Galen W. Black and Alfred C. Smith, who were denied unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. They were fired because they ingested peyote at a ceremony of the Native American Church, of which they were members.

In rejecting the men's claim that Oregon's law barring peyote use under all circumstances violates their religious freedom, Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, said that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals t o break the law: "We have never held that an individual's beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate." He said it would be "courting anarchy" to create exceptions every time a reli gious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.
www.publiceye.org...


Because of the SCOTUS rejection of religious exemption from established law, Congress enacted The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. Later, SCOTUS would rule on the unconstitutionality of that ACT as well.


Although Congress could enact "remedial" or "prophylactic" legislation to guarantee rights not exactly congruent with those defined by the Court, it could only do so in order to more effectively prevent, deter, or correct violations of those rights actually guaranteed by the Court. RFRA was seen disproportionate in its effects compared to its objective. Justice Kennedy wrote:
Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described this power as "remedial." The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]." (citations omitted)
Moreover, remedial or prophylactic legislation still had to show "congruence and proportionality" between the end it aimed to reach (that is, the violations it aimed to correct), and the means it chose to reach those ends—that is, the penalties or prohibitions it enacted to prevent or correct those violations. Because RFRA was not reasonably remedial or prophylactic, it was unconstitutional.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: rnaa

The Deputy Clerks sign if the elected Clerk doesn't want to.

The Supreme Court didn't address the "reasonable accommodation" laws.



Here's the EO in Question



Federal doesn't accomodate her.

She has to use the state RFRA, as I understand it.




But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.


www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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.


Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.


You are just as entitled to your opinion as we all are... Marriage between gay people is already very normal to many people. It's all just opinion, though.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

You know jack and squat about nature. Plus the very concept of things being unnatural is laughable anyway.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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.


Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.


Your opinion doesn't really matter.

It's about Equal Legal Rights.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans


Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.


I think I'm going to wait for Santa to weigh in on this. You can never have too much information

ETA: I don't see how it can be a perversion of nature. Nature is what it is. Anything a person does is natural - its only people that decide what's perverse


edit on 1/4/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: phone...



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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.


Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.


A) Your opinion is irrelevant. B) You have a highly selective view of the concept of love. C) It's legal, so tough patooties.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans



Gay "marriage" will never be normal. It's morally and ethically wrong, as well as a perversion of both nature and Christianity.


You are entitled to you opinion, however it is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

The County Clerks 'job' is to verify that the documents (marriage licenses and marriage certificates) have been completed according to law and to issue certified copies of those documents.

There is no room in that job description to make moral decisions of any kind about the law that those documents satisfy.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join