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

ETA: Judge orders Kim Davis released, bars her from withholding marriage licenses, (updated 1:17 p.m. ET 9/8/2015)

Let me preface this by saying that, as a Christian woman who has always supported gay marriage rights, I am completely and totally disgusted with all sides of this huge shameful circle jerk. If you support gay marriage rights but do not support religious freedom rights... and vice versa, if you support religious freedom rights but do not support gay marriage rights... then you are not supporting anyone's "rights," only privileges and entitlements for the few. Likewise, you are not supporting the law of the land, but tyranny under color of law.

To the point: Everyone -- including Kim Davis -- has a legal codified right to reasonable accommodations to protection of religious freedoms and freedom of conscience under the law; specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 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. 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. Much the same way this judge refused to perform any marriages unless and until she could apply the law equally and perform gay marriage ceremonies as well. It was then the responsibility and duty of others to implement reasonable accommodations which would allow the issuance of marriage licenses without violating Ms. Davis' religious freedom rights.

Per the Department of Justice, 'Combating Religious Discrimination And Protecting Religious Freedom":

People should be hired or not hired because of their skills and merit, not because of their faith. And people should not be forced to choose between their faiths and their jobs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public and private employment. It also requires employers to make reasonable accommodation of employees' religious observances and practices, unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship.

Kim Davis did not refuse to issue marriage licenses under any and all circumstances; Kim Davis refused to issue such licenses under her name, as is currently the practice -- though not statutorily mandated -- in her state. The reasonable accommodation Ms. Davis requested was that her name be removed from the license. As the judge has already ruled, and I'm sure we can all agree, it is not Ms. Davis' responsibility to decide who can and cannot be married; therefore, there should be no issue regarding the removal of her name from the marriage license. This is a very reasonable and inexpensive accommodation, which is apparently in process now. As soon as new marriage license forms are issued, Kim Davis will be happy to re-issue marriage licenses. The judge refused to allow such a reasonable accommodation and threw her in jail.

It should also be noted that when Ms. Davis campaigned for -- and won -- this position, issuing marriage licenses was not a condition of the position. The rules were changed mid-stream. As with any Supreme Court decision, it takes time and deliberation to bring state laws and statutes into compliance with the new ruling. The judge knows this. The judge also knows that Kim Davis does not have either the power or authority to make such changes. The judge also knows that the state legislature, which does have the power and authority to make such changes, was denied that opportunity to do so in a timely manner by the governor of the state, who refused to call the legislature into a special session to address the law. Instead, like a coward and a bully, he threw an elected official to the wolves.

One final note: The judge also knows damn well that obeying his order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples would in fact be a violation of state law -- the state law Ms. Davis swore an oath to uphold -- and would in fact put her in jeopardy of further legal action against her by the state. Ms. Davis is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Likewise for the employees under Ms. Davis. And, of course, any same-sex marriages performed under such circumstances would likely not even be legal:

UPDATE: even if deputy clerks begin issuing marriage licenses, they may not be legal.

"Attorneys also called into question whether any licenses issued in Davis' absence would be legal. Bunning said couples would have to judge that risk on their own.

He indicated that he would lift the contempt charge against Davis if deputies began issuing forms, but he said he was reluctant to release her too quickly."

Source

Nice, eh? "Yeah, I know if you do what I order that you'll be breaking the law... but hey! I SAID SO!!!"

This isn't about rights or freedom, obviously. This is about exploiting and manipulating a legitimate Constitutional issue by making an example of one woman, carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders, to establish legal precedence for federal tyranny. It's a gross abuse of power. Shame on the judge... shame on all the responsible authorities who have refused to facilitate and establish reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis' faith... and shame on all of us for letting it come to this.

Next time you think about the police state, police brutality, and abuse of powers, remember this. We demanded it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Further reading:

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis jailed, refuses to let deputy clerks issue gay marriage licenses
We Don’t Need Kim Davis to Be in Jail
When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
Combating Religious Discrimination And Protecting Religious Freedom
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
Federal judge: Moral objections enough to override HHS contraception mandate

a reply to: Boadicea

I think you really need to understand the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It really doesn't protect religious freedom, it defines when and why the government can violate those those religious freedoms. It's really very Orwellian.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government MAY burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

www.congress.gov...

In the case of Kim Davis, the Judge has determined that the state's interest in providing marriages licenses is more compelling than Mrs. Davis' religious right to refuse.

Religious freedom has not been eroded; hence, no reason for an act to "restore" what was never eroded to begin with.
People have the *perception* that their religious freedom is being eroded because their own self-perceived "right" to publicly discriminate and act with bigotry is being shot down by law.

originally posted by: Boadicea

One final note: The judge also knows damn well that obeying his order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples would in fact be a violation of state law -- the state law Ms. Davis swore an oath to uphold -- and would in fact put her in jeopardy of further legal action against her by the state. Ms. Davis is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Likewise for the employees under Ms. Davis. And, of course, any same-sex marriages performed under such circumstances would likely not even be legal:

Federal law trumps state law, period. While the state might need to "update" their legislature to conform to the federal statute or law, that state law is essentially void *because* is has been overwritten by the FEDERAL law.

This is a tough issue for me any way you spin it because I can see both sides. I always prefer to ere on the side of freedom so my solution is that of course gay folks need to be able to get married and most folks now agree with them.

A reasonable accommodation should be made for the conscientious objector to not be involved in tasks they find objectionable. It is easy to do and already done for other things less controversial, but for some reason every one on both sides needs to complicate it without giving compromise a chance.

I will make it simple.

Gays need to be able to get married and there is no argument from most folks here, but religious folks should also be free from coercion and forced compliance to participate in something they find against their God and religion. Why can't BOTH people win here and someone without the conscientious objection simply handle the gay wedding, certificate issuance etc and the problem is solved.

What you have is a bunch of ratchet headed morons that don't like compromise.

Stop being mean and let both sides WIN. Life is better that way.

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.

Note: I do not agree with the ground that Kim Davis is standing on, but she has exposed something very useful if people would open their eyes and see.

To me, the contract you get at the court house is not your marriage. It's a license the state issues in an attempt to co-opt your marriage. Marriage is something that takes place with God presiding. He doesn't preside over a piece of paper.

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? In China, women who become pregnant outside the state's policy can be forcibly dragged off and beaten and forced to abort right up until birth. These are the sorts of the things that begin to happen when the state starts to assume that IT will be the arbiter of principle and moral for everyone.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't think you really under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It really doesn't protect religious freedom, it defines when and why the government can violate those those religious freedoms. It's really very Orwellian.

I pretty much agree... The Constitution guarantees and protects our religious freedom; therefore any law which violates our religious freedom must be justified.

In the case of Kim Davis, the Judge has determined that the state's interest in providing marriages licenses is more compelling than Mrs. Davis' religious right to refuse.

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. The only compelling interest is to apply the law equally. Second, if the compelling interest of the court were to ensure the issuance of marriage licenses, then the recourse would have been for the state laws to be brought into compliance with the federal requirements following proper legal procedure. Ms. Davis does not have the power or authority to do so. The judge knows that. The judge also knows that he is ordering Ms. Davis to violate the laws of the state and the oath she took. Nor did the judge make any effort to allow reasonable accommodations addressing the foundation of Ms. Davis' refusal: Her name on the marriage licenses. Demanding she "allow" her deputies to issue the licenses does nothing to address Ms. Davis core objection.

The judge did nothing to further the legal issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples... the judge did everything to force Ms. Davis to act against her conscience and faith (and possibly place her in further legal jeopardy).

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh please great slippery slope fallacy you have there...
The judge didn't break the law he only followed it, the law that is about equality not just what you define as marriage.
Atheists can get married so you are wrong.
Also which God? what right has Kim Davis got to decide what God wants for others?.

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.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Atheists can get married in the eyes of the state. They get the license. The "married" atheists I know only got the license and called that their marriage. They did not go into a place of spiritual worship and get married in the eyes of a diety. They only wanted the contract.

Try again.

I am telling you what I call a marriage - man and woman taking vows before God. The license doesn't enter into it for me. I'd give that up in a heartbeat. It has nothing to do with marriage which is about taking vows before God.

See, when the state decided to define marriage for everyone, they did us a great disservice. Now people like you presume to tell me what I have to decide a marriage is, and guess what? You're wrong.

I'm not telling you what you have to call a marriage. You can call it three pigs, two mice, a man and a woman and their four adult children + a monkey if you want to and have the state draw up a contract to legitimize it and call it your marriage. Whatever, but it's not may definition of marriage. I'm not going to presume to tell you YOU can't call it your marriage though like you just got done telling me.

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. Kim Davis was elected to an office which has, as long as its inception, issued marriage licenses. She was elected by taxpayers to fulfill that duty.

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.

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?.
(Note I'm not a member of the church of Liberace If it even exists just making a point).


So Ket would you agree?.

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.

Obama isn't in jail and he has defied upholding existing laws! Eric Holder is not in jail and as head of the DOJ he did not uphold existing laws.

I don't support this woman for her actions, but if she is thrown in jail for not obeying Federal law then why do politicians not go to prison for the same offense?

Where is equality when applied to obeying laws?

originally posted by: 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?.
(Note I'm not a member of the church of Liberace If it even exists just making a point).


So Ket would you agree?.

If those were the laws on the books when you were sworn in, then those were the laws on the books.

I did say quite clearly I disagreed with the ground she chose to stand on.

But it is useful to see quite how far the state will go to force people to compromise their morals. However, the SCOTUS did not write new law. And there was no new law passed in Kentucky. Can you find me the provision in in the COTUS that grants the Supremes the power to actually write law? All they do is make something unconstitutional, so until new laws are passed, we are more or less in a limbo.

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.

originally posted by: Liquesence

Religious freedom has not been eroded, hence, no reason for an act to "restore" what was never eroded to begin with.

That's a matter of opinion I guess and we'll have to agree to disagree. And, in any event, that's the name of the Congressional Act -- not my opinion about it.

...
People have the *perception* that their religious freedom is being eroded because their own self-perceived "right" to publicly discriminate and act with bigotry is being shot down by law.

Self-perceived? Or self-evident and self-fulfilling? If I can do it for myself and by myself, without hurting others, it is self-evident, and my natural and Constitutional right. If I can say "no" and then not act, it is self-evident. If you have to use the color of law and the force of a gun to coerce me into acting against my will, then my rights are violated.

Federal law trumps state law, period.

According to who? Oh, that's right.... the Feds! Making a law does not make it right or even lawful. Obviously, or DOMA could not and would not have been overturned. (And rightfully so.)

While the state might need to "update" their legislature to conform to the federal statute or law, that state law is essentially void *because* is has been overwritten by the FEDERAL law.

Technically not -- and I'm really not trying to be difficult or obtuse here. This is a huge part of the whole fustercluck. Too many contradictory laws and regulations issued by too many agencies. There is no federal law requiring states to issue marriage licenses to anyone, and not to gay couple specifically. Rather, a void has been created by a federal agency declaring state laws unconstitutional, with no federal laws to replace the state laws. Just the federal requirement of equal application of the law -- whatever it is.

The state's laws regarding gay marriage and the issuance of licenses must be brought into conformance with federal law. I totally get that and I totally support that. Jailing the County Clerk does nothing to further that compelling interest, and is in direct violation of Ms. Davis' religious freedoms and freedom of conscience, and her federal right to reasonable accommodations.

a reply to: Boadicea

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

If gays want to get married, they should imo, but why is this news?

It's not like this is sweeping the country.

One lady out of 320 million.

a reply to: ketsuko

Gay Christians get married in their place of worship under God. what else do you cherry pick from the book eh?.
It doesn't matter what you or Kim Davis calls marriage you are right it matters that she broke the Law she made herself a Martyr to attempt to force her religious views on others from a branch of Government.
Lobby for Marriage out of government If you feel strongly about it but leave other peoples definition alone.
It really is this simple don't push your religious views on others and especially into Government.

Also OP the only reasonable thing that should have been done is Kim to just resign or get her assistants to give out the licences.

Well, the fact remains that all of the other industrialized democracies of the world recognize marriage through their governments.

If the government did not recognize marriage in the USA, and my spouse and I got injured in a foreign country -- I would not be legally recognized as the husband of my wife. I may not be able to make decisions about her care. I may have problems with travel arrangements and security check points.

By removing the government from marriage you're essentially telling people to stay home and never travel outside of America.

The whole "removing the government from marriage" is simply an argument that was born when the government decided to sanction marriages that religious people didn't like. Sorry, it doesn't work that way -- no religion can claim to own marriage.

It's not unlike taking your football home when you don't like the rules of the game. So instead of playing by the new rules, you'd rather no one play.

a reply to: Metallicus

This is a tough issue for me any way you spin it because I can see both sides.

I have to respectfully disagree... like me, you see one side: Freedom for all

Gays need to be able to get married and there is no argument from most folks here, but religious folks should also be free from coercion and forced compliance to participate in something they find against their God and religion. Why can't BOTH people win here and someone without the conscientious objection simply handle the gay wedding, certificate issuance etc and the problem is solved.

You're right. This doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. The law provides for everyone to have their way with equal application of the law and reasonable accommodations.

What you have is a bunch of ratchet headed morons that don't like compromise.

Yes. But we also have certain powerful parties using this issue to establish the legal precedence and grounds for trampling rights while imposing their will on others. Today it's gay marriage... tomorrow -- if we allow this -- it will be whatever they want. If they have the power to do it for you, they have the power to do it to you.