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.

 

The Reasonable Exercise of Rights: A Proposal

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The SCOTUS is the final legal arbiter.

Only on issues that have Federal jurisdiction. At the time, it was widely believed that marriage did not fall under Federal jurisdiction. It is not enumerated in the US Constitution as a Federal matter.


What right was removed? The right for the government to discriminate based on one's religious precepts?

Therein lies the issue: one cannot accurately look at a situation without looking at all sides. You seem interested in one side only.

One side of the issue believed that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right for two adults, with gender irrelevant. Another side believed that marriage was not enumerated and thus not a Federal issue and that the state Constitution should apply. Religion actually did not enter into the legal battle, although I do admit there were probably many people who chose their position based on religious views.

As for my statement, the fact that Probate Judges were suddenly forced into signing off on gay marriages, without regard to a legitimate religious tenet, was an attempted denial of their right to their religious views. According to the US Supreme Court, the practice of denying gay marriage was a violation of a person's right to marry. Which of those rights do you believe should be subservient to the other?

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: YouSir


Therefore...a clerk leaves their personal belief choices at the door...or in the privacy of their own places of worship or home...never in the performance of their public duties especially when working in a professional capacity for any level of government.

A right cannot be temporary, and certainly cannot be removed by the government except by due process of law. Our Constitution is clear on that point. Religion is, by definition, a deeply-held belief in a lifestyle which cannot be denied a person except under very specific circumstances (as in, it must not violate reasonable laws such as a prohibition against human sacrifice as I mentioned earlier). One cannot leave their morality and belief system "at the door" when moving from one capacity to another. If they do, their beliefs are not deeply seated enough to be defined as a religion.

It follows then that if a Probate Judge is elected to a position where they are required by their job description to grant marriage licenses, and the present laws concerning marriage do not interfere with their religious beliefs, they are able to effectively discharge their duties. If they accept a position which requires them to violate their own beliefs, they cannot make the claim that those duties violate their religious freedoms because they knowingly chose to apply for the position.

If, however, as has happened, the laws are changed during their tenure, then they still have their claim of religious freedom intact. Their right to religious freedom cannot be denied simply because any people, even a voting majority, decide they are "wrong." Their right to continue in the occupation they chose when it did not violate religious objections cannot be suddenly denied by even a majority; such would be a workaround to deny religious freedom. In that case, we have two parties that both hold rights, but which are at odds with each other. The only reasonable solution I see, and what happened in Alabama, was that those with a religious objection were allowed to pass their cases off to those who did not hold a religious objection. In some cases, the marriage license was signed by someone other than a Probate Judge. It still, by law, held the same power as if it had been signed by an objecting Probate Judge, but the name signed was that of an associate.

A Probate Judge in this case had the right to object to providing his/her personal approval to the marriage, but that did not prohibit their office, as a duly authorized department of the government, from doing so. The Probate Judge may run the Probate Office, but he/she is not the Probate Office. All rights were preserved: both the right of the Judge and the right of the couple to marry.

It's still early (I was up late and slept in) but I hope that made sense.

TheRedneck



Ummm...again...I disagree...a judge is hired to uphold the blind application of justice...to be impartial in the execution of their duties...

Now...obviously that seems to seldom be the case...much to our misfortune...

Personal beliefs simply have no place in the equal application of justice and in impartial rulings...
Personal beliefs in the court arena applied judicially will always equal miscarriage of justice...it's as simple as that...

Judges are elected and appointed to follow the law...not interpret it at the whim of personal belief systems...

Now then...as per character...an argument can be made that belief systems can and do mold character...either negatively or positively...yet character is not a prerequisite to impartiality...nor should it be...

Perhaps...rather than fallible beings with a penchant for miscarriage of justice through application of belief systems in rulings from the bench...an argument could be made for algorithm or AI judicial impartiality...at least in a guidance fashion...





YouSir



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

At the time, it was widely believed that marriage did not fall under Federal jurisdiction. It is not enumerated in the US Constitution as a Federal matter.
Huh. Loving v. Virginia didn't cover that? Seems to have involved marriage. Sort of.



As for my statement, the fact that Probate Judges were suddenly forced into signing off on gay marriages, without regard to a legitimate religious tenet, was an attempted denial of their right to their religious views. According to the US Supreme Court, the practice of denying gay marriage was a violation of a person's right to marry. Which of those rights do you believe should be subservient to the other?
Neither. A person has a right to their religious views. As long as they don't use them to impede the rights of others. How does same sex marriage impede the rights of anyone? There's that your rights end where mine start thing again.



edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

At the time, it was widely believed that marriage did not fall under Federal jurisdiction. It is not enumerated in the US Constitution as a Federal matter.
Huh. Loving v. Virginia didn't cover that? Seems to have involved marriage. Sort of.



As for my statement, the fact that Probate Judges were suddenly forced into signing off on gay marriages, without regard to a legitimate religious tenet, was an attempted denial of their right to their religious views. According to the US Supreme Court, the practice of denying gay marriage was a violation of a person's right to marry. Which of those rights do you believe should be subservient to the other?
Neither. A person has a right to their religious views. As long as they don't use them to impede the rights of others. How does same sex marriage impede the rights of anyone? There's that your rights end where mine start thing again.





Ummm...I agree...

One must merely practice mindfulness...Grasshopper...





YouSir



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir


Ummm...again...I disagree...a judge is hired to uphold the blind application of justice...to be impartial in the execution of their duties...

Now...obviously that seems to seldom be the case...much to our misfortune...

There I will agree with you. A judge holds a special position of authority as an impartial arbitrator. As such, they must make decisions without regard to personal feelings. I will also agree that such is often not the case.

I think you misinterpret my example of a Probate Judge. Here, they do not act as a judge except in the case of probate of an estate. The remainder of their duties is limited to overseeing the clerks who issue licenses, which normally the judges sign off on. In this case, the judges who felt their signing was endorsement of a specific practice that violated their religious views were allowed to have an assistant or high-level clerk in their office do the signature.

While it is impossible to completely eradicate personal bias from any decision, this only underscores that any judge should be someone capable of doing so. I have as much of a problem with a Christian judge that tries to make decisions based on his personal views as I do a atheist judge who does the same thing. Typically, a judge who tries to force a decision in favor of personal views will lead to conflicts such as what happened in Alabama, which lead to the attempted effort to force a person to act against their religious tenets... which negates the very purpose of the Constitution.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Huh. Loving v. Virginia didn't cover that? Seems to have involved marriage. Sort of.

Not familiar with that case that I know of.


Neither.

Correct. I agree.


A person has a right to their religious views. As long as they don't use them to impede the rights of others. How does same sex marriage impede the rights of anyone? There's that your rights end where mine start thing again.

At the time they took their positions, the duties of those particular Probate Judges did not interfere with their religious views. They were perfectly capable of performing their duties within the legal framework that was established without compromising their beliefs. The problem only came into play when the US Supreme Court sent down a ruling that completely changed the legal framework in the state. No Probate Judge went into office with intent to deny anyone of any rights... the change came not from them, but from the US Supreme Court.

Let me ask you this: if the US Supreme Court came out tomorrow with a decision that a depiction of Satan as a god was to be hung in every Probate office, would a refusal to do so be as heinous to you? Both are violations of religious beliefs and violate the Christian tenets.

I am not here to argue the pros and cons of gay marriage... it is only one recent decision that caused a conflict of rights. I am here to try and get people to at least attempt to see the issues from both sides. That generally leads to better, more practical decisions.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Your state's rights end where my state's rights begin.

Your state does not have the right to pollute my water.



But your water doesn't begin in your state.

It begins in someone else's.

So they are within their 'right' to dam it up.




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join