Kentucky Clerk Found In Contempt For Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

[decocker 7,198]

the real problem as i see it is religious extremists who think they're above the law. davis doesn't agree with gay marraige and now she (and huckabee) are letting everyone know what has long been taught in evangelical churches..god's law is above all else, and god's law is all they're accountable to.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Which law do you follow when there are conflicts? Is the constitution the law of the land, or a law hastily written by five people in robes? From what I understand, this clerk stopped issuing all marriage licenses to avoid discriminating, and has requested a means to take her name off the licenses, or other methods to allow her to have her religious freedom as well as allowing for the new law to be followed.

"Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs make it impossible for her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, Davis said, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice."

From http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3923157/some-kentucky-county-clerks-refusing.html

I realize that this is not enough for extremists. Anyone not agreeing with their position must be squashed with predjudice. The real problem is that SCOTUS or other federal judges are never held accountable for the Pandora's box they open when they legislate from the bench. In this case, SCOTUS should have defined the entire marriage and non-marriage derfinitions in the law taking the entire issue away from the states and created a new federal department to handle marriage licenses and divorces decrees. An interesting item on the divorce side is occurring in Tennessee where a judge is refusing to issue a divorce to a heterosexual couple due to the way that SCOTUS handled the writing of the new law.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee, Atherton began. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.

The majority s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land, accurately described by Justice Scalia as a naked judicial claim to legislative indeed, super-legislative power,' Atherton continued.

The Supreme Courts decision was troubling because it amounted to a judicial fiat, Atherton argued. What actually appears to be the intent and (more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/divorce litigation altogether.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/

As usual, the Federal Government has created a big issue that most likely can only be repaired by spending a lot of our money.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3923157/some-kentucky-county-clerks-refusing.html#storylink=cpy

The offer to take her name off the licences was made by her lawyer as a last resort. I doubt it was her idea, nor her ignorant husband's.

Wow . My autocorrect is hillbilly.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Jacque67

[Dashinka 23,421]

the real problem as i see it is religious extremists who think they're above the law. davis doesn't agree with gay marraige and now she (and huckabee) are letting everyone know what has long been taught in evangelical churches..god's law is above all else, and god's law is all they're accountable to.

It is not just Evangelical's that are in that boat. What happens if a Muslim is elected county clerk, what do they do (just like serving alcohol on a plane)? My point is there are a lot of religions (extreme or not) that don't agree with same sex marriages. The question is, does the new law trump the First Ammendment?

[Dashinka 23,421]

The offer to take her name off the licences was made by her lawyer as a last resort. I doubt it was her idea, nor her ignorant husband's.

Wow . My autocorrect is hillbilly.

It had to be a last resort as no one is sure if it is legal in the current framework from the state (i.e. It may take some form of legislation to even do this). Based on my earlier post, SCOTUS needs to come back and fix this. When they make new laws they have to do it completely.

As to her "ignorant" husband, I am assuming your judgement has some basis in personal knowledge of him.

[decocker 7,198]

It is not just Evangelical's that are in that boat. What happens if a Muslim is elected county clerk, what do they do (just like serving alcohol on a plane)? My point is there are a lot of religions (extreme or not) that don't agree with same sex marriages. The question is, does the new law trump the First Ammendment?

if the question is that ridiculous the answer is pretty clear - of course the new law doesn't trump the first admendment. has davis been jailed for speaking her mind or disobeying the court?

someone who's religion prohibits them from serving or touching alcohol should not maintain employment where serving/touching alcohol is required. plain and simple.

When they make new laws they have to do it completely.

i don't understand how it wasn't done 'completely'..

[JohnR! 5,495]

The new law has nothing to do with the First Amendment. People are trying to tie them up together just to grandstand.

If this person were really concerned with her christian values, she would not only not have taken the job she has but would also have moved out of KY to another state. After all, she works for a state that still executes people. Instead of being worried about who is marrying whom she should be campaigning to put an end to the death penalty in her own state.

I also believe she has no problem issuing marriage licenses to divorced individuals, a clear violation of her religious laws.

I will defend her right to her own religion to the bitter end - that is what the First Amendment affords her in her free private time. As an employee of the government of KY and as a citizen of this country she is expected to do her job, or step down.

It is not just Evangelical's that are in that boat. What happens if a Muslim is elected county clerk, what do they do (just like serving alcohol on a plane)? My point is there are a lot of religions (extreme or not) that don't agree with same sex marriages. The question is, does the new law trump the First Ammendment?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It is not just Evangelical's that are in that boat. What happens if a Muslim is elected county clerk, what do they do (just like serving alcohol on a plane)? My point is there are a lot of religions (extreme or not) that don't agree with same sex marriages. The question is, does the new law trump the First Ammendment?

While individuals are free to follow their own beliefs, imposing those beliefs on others is where the line gets crossed. Denial of same sex marriage was discrimination and that has been corrected by the Supreme Court, not an imposition denying rights to hypocritical religious dinosaurs such as the Kentucky clerk.

Sorry to burst the bubble here but she's not a Christian Martyr fighting for God's law. She's on the wrong side of history and an extremely poor example of a pious Christian demanding that others bow to her vision of God's will.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I feel like the laws are already in place to handle this. In terms of religious beliefs, government and private sector should make a reasonable attempt to accommodate the religious views of an employee. I realize she is a bit a different given she was elected and one could argue that she already made an oath to do her job.

I'm not sure why other assistants in her office can't do same sex licenses. If she is stopping them, then she needs to either stay in jail or resign.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

While I don't agree that Ms. Davis withheld marriage licenses, and while I personally think her marital history detracts to a large extent and renders her claims of "religious reasons" invalid - I don't see why she is in jail. Why not put her on administrative leave? Hillary is not in jail, nor are any of a large number of elected officials in higher and much more critical positions than Ms. Davis.

She could easily be given a job that doesn't conflict with her beliefs. Which I hold as valuable in essence as airline stewardesses who claim they can't serve alcohol.

[Jacque67 7,328]

It had to be a last resort as no one is sure if it is legal in the current framework from the state (i.e. It may take some form of legislation to even do this). Based on my earlier post, SCOTUS needs to come back and fix this. When they make new laws they have to do it completely.

As to her "ignorant" husband, I am assuming your judgement has some basis in personal knowledge of him.

My judgement is based on reading his statements to the press. His grammar is terrible , for starters...

[decocker 7,198]

She could easily be given a job that doesn't conflict with her beliefs. Which I hold as valuable in essence as airline stewardesses who claim they can't serve alcohol.

so you think that the muslim stewardess should be handled with the special snowflake gloves and given different job requirements because of her imaginary friend's rules?

just wait till all the rastafarians and satanists, etc.. start incorporating demands into their jobs...then we'll see how much of this is about 'religious freedom'

[Sousuke 1,214]

so you think that the muslim stewardess should be handled with the special snowflake gloves and given different job requirements because of her imaginary friend's rules?

just wait till all the rastafarians and satanists, etc.. start incorporating demands into their jobs...then we'll see how much of this is about 'religious freedom'

oooh does that mean I can order a Satan's Whiskers while flying?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

so you think that the muslim stewardess should be handled with the special snowflake gloves and given different job requirements because of her imaginary friend's rules?

just wait till all the rastafarians and satanists, etc.. start incorporating demands into their jobs...then we'll see how much of this is about 'religious freedom'

The question is, as Sousuke pointed out above, whether or not a reasonable accommodation can be made for one's sincerely held religious beliefs. If it is possible and can be done reasonably -- there's two flight attendants on board, and one of them can be in charge of the booze cart, for example -- then the employer must accommodate the beliefs. If it's not possible, or the lengths involved in making the accommodation are unreasonable and cause undue hardship to the employer, then the beliefs do not need to be accommodated. That's kind of an idiot's guide to the issue.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Killary

[decocker 7,198]

oooh does that mean I can order a Satan's Whiskers while flying?

guess airlines should start listing the scheduled flight attendents and their corresponding religious beliefs so customers will know what food/drink options will be permissable on their flight..

[decocker 7,198]

The question is, as Sousuke pointed out above, whether or not a reasonable accommodation can be made for one's sincerely held religious beliefs. If it is possible and can be done reasonably -- there's two flight attendants on board, and one of them can be in charge of the booze cart, for example -- then the employer must accommodate the beliefs. If it's not possible, or the lengths involved in making the accommodation are unreasonable and cause undue hardship to the employer, then the beliefs do not need to be accommodated. That's kind of an idiot's guide to the issue.

what happens if the heathen stewardess falls ill on the flight, can the muslim stewardess simply refuse to pick up the slack and still keep her job? because in my mind, that's possible hardship to the employer.

coming from a 'right to work' state, i have a real hard time accepting that someone can refuse to do the job they were specifically hired to do - and not lose their job.