Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

she is violating federal law, so a federal judge has jurisdiction even if she is a state employee. She isn't issuing any licenses because she doesn't want to issue licenses for homosexuals - so it is still discriminatory because she stopped doing it in order to avoid giving licenses to homosexuals.

A judge can't impeach her, he can only order her to comply, and jail her for non compliance. The state government can impeach her, but the legislature currently isn't in session. Also due to elections coming up, are trying to avoid the mess.

[ September 08, 2015, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly she could likely have criminal charges brought against her,

quote:
If Davis continues to refuse to perform her official duties based on her private religious beliefs, he should file criminal charges against Davis for deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 18 USC § 242-- which states, in the relevant part:

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/03/1417956/-Criminally-prosecuting-Kim-Davis-under-Fed-law-may-disqualify-her-from-public-office-under-KY-law
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
isn't the limit of the federal remedy to order her to cease and desist the discriminatory conduct?
My understanding is that this is actually what happened; specifically, she was ordered to not prevent her deputies from issuing licenses, on the grounds that this voided an essential function of state government. Since she did not comply, she was found guilty of contempt of court and jailed for that offense.

It should be noted that her main objection is that even the deputy-issued licenses still show her name on them, and she believes this constitutes an assertion that she validates the marriage in question. There are proposals to remove clerks' names from licenses, but these will have to work their way through the legislature.

To be honest, I feel very sorry for Davis. She has made herself into someone ill-equipped to be a public servant in a secular society, and has been getting bad advice from both celebrity pundits and her legal team. I have no doubt that she's going to emerge from this considerably richer than she was, but she doesn't strike me as someone particularly suited to be a symbol.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
PYR
quote:
Maybe a Jewish Health Department inspector could invoke their religious freedom and close any business in their jurisdiction that serves pork, shellfish, or meat and cheese in the same dish.
Or even better make this individual Muslim. He is the head of the local DMV. No drivers licenses for women.
Indeed- but we've already seen nods toward Islamophobia being stirred on this issue here, better to pick examples that don't feed it further.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seriati,

she is violating federal law, so a federal judge has jurisdiction even if she is a state employee.

Please cite the federal law you believe would be violated by a state official that refuses to perform their job in issuing marriage licenses (which is a state law status). What federal court can marry you? What federal law says a state has to have a marriage law?
quote:
She isn't issuing any licenses because she doesn't want to issue licenses for homosexuals - so it is still discriminatory because she stopped doing it in order to avoid giving licenses to homosexuals.
Except it's literally not discriminatory if she is refusing to issue licenses to straight couples at well. I don't disagree on your reasoning as to her intent, but that doesn't change the fact of what is occurring. She's not perform her duties at all, she should be impeached by the state, or a state judge should be ordering her to perform her duties.

Just because a federal court is more likely to agree with someone shouldn't transform an issue into a federal issue.
quote:
A judge can't impeach her, he can only order her to comply, and jail her for non compliance. The state government can impeach her, but the legislature currently isn't in session. Also due to elections coming up, are trying to avoid the mess.
I agree with what you said, but you haven't clarified why a state court judge - who is in session - is not the appropriate forum for a state official who is refusing to perform her functions under state law. You really don't see a distinction?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
isn't the limit of the federal remedy to order her to cease and desist the discriminatory conduct?
My understanding is that this is actually what happened; specifically, she was ordered to not prevent her deputies from issuing licenses, on the grounds that this voided an essential function of state government. Since she did not comply, she was found guilty of contempt of court and jailed for that offense.
Which again by the way, unless she does it in a discriminatory manner is a state law, not federal law, violation.
quote:
It should be noted that her main objection is that even the deputy-issued licenses still show her name on them, and she believes this constitutes an assertion that she validates the marriage in question. There are proposals to remove clerks' names from licenses, but these will have to work their way through the legislature
Which "dodges" the issue. A government official that won't execute their duties should be removed, not permitted a work around.
quote:
To be honest, I feel very sorry for Davis. She has made herself into someone ill-equipped to be a public servant in a secular society, and has been getting bad advice from both celebrity pundits and her legal team. I have no doubt that she's going to emerge from this considerably richer than she was, but she doesn't strike me as someone particularly suited to be a symbol.
She has received crummy advice, but I don't feel that sorry for her. Part of her religious consideration should have been to determine if she could faithfully execute a role in government. She should have resigned if she was unable to meet her duties.

By the way, I feel very differently about the situation where someone is acting in a private capacity.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My problem with court ordered marriage equality stems from the crafting of inappropriate remedies. The courts from the beginning should have struck down the discriminatory marriage laws, not recrafted them. If they had, this controversy would have ended in the next following legislative session.
I don't follow. If they had to rule against every state's laws against same-sex marriage, religious conservative legislatures would have waged the same game of whack-a-mole they have pursued against abortion. Every law in every state is slightly different, and each one that is knocked down is replaced with another as close as possible to the old one.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I don't follow. If they had to rule against every state's laws against same-sex marriage, religious conservative legislatures would have waged the same game of whack-a-mole they have pursued against abortion. Every law in every state is slightly different, and each one that is knocked down is replaced with another as close as possible to the old one.

There is a risk that a state legislature would try that, though I doubt most would have. But there's a big risk in doing so, as each state law is invalidated you create a period of time where all marriages are suspended (including periods of injunction), that's potentially a lot of pressure on state legislatures to quit playing games and put in place a valid law.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is a risk that a state legislature would try that, though I doubt most would have. But there's a big risk in doing so, as each state law is invalidated you create a period of time where all marriages are suspended (including periods of injunction), that's potentially a lot of pressure on state legislatures to quit playing games and put in place a valid law.
I wonder how much that really matters. Remember, this is a religious battle...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For politicians is it's a re-election battle, religious groups have a lot of pull, but this issue isn't consistently one sided as a religious matter. Is it really enough pull to risk alienating everyone who wants to get married, their parents and their families for potentially years? If state is barred from authorizing any marriage for half a year, you really think that the politicians won't be sweating it?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

see the link I provided in my earlier response, it lists federal laws she is violating.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on how well gerrymandered their districts are. If their base is sufficiently religious and buys into the religious liberty story, the politicians might get away with it.

There's a reason religion is princeps inter pares of the protected statuses. ETA: I mean suspect and quasi-suspect classes. Bloody legal dialect.

[ September 08, 2015, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Except it's literally not discriminatory if she is refusing to issue licenses to straight couples at well.
That makes it not only discriminatory, but encouraging of discriminatory attitudes in others by trying to shift the blame of the couples that she's also including toward the direct targets of her bais. It's only "not discriminatory" by the same spurious reasoning a middle schooler would claim that they're not sicking up their middle finger at someone, they were just counting to 3 on their fingers, one at a time or any other similar disingenuous claim.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally, courts threw out objections to miscegenation laws because by banning both whites and blacks from intermarrying, both groups were equally penalized. Therefore, the 14A prohibition against unequal protection was not violated.

FWIW, there are plenty of groups that still believe that their religion bans inter-racial marriage. One of the more clever ways that is stated is not by citing chapter and verse of the bible, but to say that God put different races on each continent for a reason. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't want them to be kept separate.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It's only "not discriminatory" by the same spurious reasoning a middle schooler would claim that they're not sicking up their middle finger at someone, they were just counting to 3 on their fingers, one at a time or any other similar disingenuous claim.

The comparable analogy would be a middle schooler sticking up all of the fingers, which in fact may express the same intent, but is not sticking up the middle finger.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So LR, from you link the charge is for contempt. That's not a charge that's based on the validity of the original order, it presumes it.

The argument they make after that is speculative, and honestly a bit strained. It's absolutely true that a state cannot deny a fundamental right, like the right to marry based on an impermissible grounds. However, there's no requirement that a state sanction marriage either. If a state repealed its marriage laws the federal government couldn't order them to pass new ones.

The remedy of the federal court would be to order the state to comply with the law, and its the state's responsibility to ensure that it does. You have to skip some important steps to get to a federal judge directing a state official on how they have to perform their duties.

Let's walk down that further, can a federal court tell a state they can't require a written application for marriage because some people can't read, and thereby they're denying a fundamental right?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seriati,

she is violating federal law, so a federal judge has jurisdiction even if she is a state employee. She isn't issuing any licenses because she doesn't want to issue licenses for homosexuals - so it is still discriminatory because she stopped doing it in order to avoid giving licenses to homosexuals.

A judge can't impeach her, he can only order her to comply, and jail her for non compliance. The state government can impeach her, but the legislature currently isn't in session. Also due to elections coming up, are trying to avoid the mess.

Except Davis offered to allow the licenses to be issued to same sex couples, without Ms. Davis' signature on the license. Everyone's evading that point.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
On TV yesterday, Huckabee distinguished between the SC ruling against miscegenation laws in Loving v Virginia and the ruling against same-sex marriage laws by arguing that the Loving ruling overturned legislation and the SS ruling was a blanket ruling that defined a new right. His reasoning was hard to follow, but was essentially that because marriage is not defined in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment supports inter-racial marriage, but that the same-sex ruling was invalid because it redefined what marriage is.

I haven't read Huckabee's statement, but what you describe sounds like what I've argued here for years, and what is described in Chief Justice Roberts' dissent. The majority completely dodges the issue that the "right to marry" as described in the caselaw, including loving v virginia, explicitly relied on a definition of marriage that involved a man and a woman. Same sex "marriage" is at best analogous to actual marriage. The Court has defined a new right while pretending to follow an old one.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seriati,

she is violating federal law, so a federal judge has jurisdiction even if she is a state employee. She isn't issuing any licenses because she doesn't want to issue licenses for homosexuals - so it is still discriminatory because she stopped doing it in order to avoid giving licenses to homosexuals.

A judge can't impeach her, he can only order her to comply, and jail her for non compliance. The state government can impeach her, but the legislature currently isn't in session. Also due to elections coming up, are trying to avoid the mess.

Except Davis offered to allow the licenses to be issued to same sex couples, without Ms. Davis' signature on the license. Everyone's evading that point.
I responded to that point on the previous page - did you check out the Volokh article or consider the timing/venue of this suggestion from Davis's team?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I misspoke. Scifi did address the point:

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Pete, have you read Eugene Volokh's analysis?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?tid=trending_strip_1

According to this, Kim Davis only raised the compromise of removing her name from the licenses in her petition to the federal court to stay the order of the lower court. She hasn't pressed this in a KY court which would, according to Volokh, be in a position to use the state's RFRA to order an accommodation such as this. The federal court may not be authorized to adjudicate a KY RFRA based claim.

So it does look like a potential solution, but one her attorneys haven't pressed in the right venue yet.

quote:
Indeed, Kim Davis has filed a federal complaint against state officials under, among other things, the Kentucky RFRA. And, as I noted, one of the proposed accommodations that she herself has suggested, albeit in the federal stay application, is the simple removal of her name. But that sort of accommodation based on the Kentucky state RFRA is not a remedy that’s likely to be available in federal court.

But if Davis sues in state court, seeking a declaration that she can issue licenses and certificates without her name — as a Kentucky RFRA-based exemption from the Kentucky statutory requirements for what must go on her license — I think she’d have a good case.

I still view it like this: elected officials shouldn't be religiously exempt from executing their duty under the law, full stop. But I would only grumble about this kind of accommodation, not be outraged.
I strongly disagree that such an excemption constitutes an exemption from "executing her duty." Indeed, given the coercive and disingenous manner that SSM has been enforced on Kentucky, I suspect she better serves the will of the electorate, while not contradicting the will of SCOTUS, when she takes the RFRA exception to putting her name on the SSM licenses.

Remember what I predicted if neutered marriage became law? An orgy of vindictive litigation. In this case, imprisoning a Christian lady for not wanting her signature and implied personal approval on a same sex marriage license.

Beats being thrown to the lions, but the purpose is the same: A people's republic of China attitude to religion, treating them as a threat if they don't bow down spiritually to the state

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good article so far; sf; thank you:

"The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials."

quote:
The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials.
quote:
However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk.
Not exactly. When she took that oath, marriage in Kentucky still only meant union of man and woman. And the laws of kentucky regarding the need for her signature, were also written with the presumption that marriage meant actual marriage.

quote:
But though I agree that her religious convictions can’t excuse her from issuing marriage licenses altogether, I think the judge erred in the rest of the analysis in this paragraph. If Davis believes that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky RFRA. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA. (The federal district court’s conclusion about the inapplicability of the Kentucky RFRA won’t be binding on state courts, because that conclusion came in a preliminary injunction hearing; such conclusions on preliminary injunction generally lack so-called “collateral estoppel” effect on future hearings.)

[UPDATE: Some commenters argue that the clerk’s name can only be removed if the Kentucky Legislature amends the relevant law. But with RFRA, the Kentucky Legislature has already enacted a state law that provides for religious exemptions from existing state laws — there doesn’t have to be any follow-up statute implementing any such exemption; a court can simply issue an order saying that an exemption from one state statute (the signature requirement) is available because of another state statute (the RFRA).

Great stuff. Thank you.

[ September 08, 2015, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again, she's not in jail for being a Christian. She's in jail for not performing the duties of her job, and defying a judge's order to either serve the people of her county or resign.

She could have just resigned, but instead she wants to be a martyr for the cause of gay marriage is icky. Well, great. Let her be a martyr then.

The government is not required to give a damn what anyone's superstitions inform them is "real" marriage. It's a secular, state issued license, and has about as much to do with religion as a driving license does.

The laws have changed. Her state now issues marriage licenses to same sex couples. If she doesn't like it, she needs to quit. Although I can see one reason why she might not want to. She makes 80 grand a year serving this position for 23k people. That's some nice government cheese, I can't blame her for nor wantING to give it up.

like others have said, I won't be happy if they let her not have her name on the certificates. I don't personally think that religious exemptions have much validity. But it's not something so huge that I'll think it's an outrage.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Once again, she's not in jail for being a Christian. She's in jail for not performing the duties of her job, and defying a judge's order to either serve the people of her county or resign.

Well, she was jailed for exercising her Christian beliefs. Just like she would have been in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country. The law conflicted with those beliefs just as it does in more totalitarian states. Splitting the hair of being Christian with acting Christian is a little far.

I get what you're saying, but what if a law was passed prohibiting Christian proselytizing? How about Christian gatherings? Would you say those that violated were arrested for being Christian or merely breaking speech and public assembly laws, that their being Christian had nothing to do with it?

If we pass laws that explicitly violate the religious beliefs of one of the foundational religions of this country, what's the actual goal you think?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, she was jailed for exercising her Christian beliefs. Just like she would have been in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country.
Let's break down some of these assumptions.

First off, practicing any Christian beliefs in any Muslim country, or even in the countries specifically listed, will not necessarily result in jail time. In fact, being a practicing Christian isn't even technically illegal in North Korea, which of the three countries you named is the most hostile to Christianity. (Recruiting for Christianity (or several other religions, depending) is illegal in many more countries, but unless you consider proselytizing to be a core practice of Christianity, that's not automatically the same thing. The assertion that you can't legally be a Christian in any Muslim country is provably untrue.

quote:
I get what you're saying, but what if a law was passed prohibiting Christian proselytizing? How about Christian gatherings?
*laugh* You're asking, "Yeah, I know this law doesn't actually criminalize Christianity or Christian belief in any way, but what if we passed one that did?" I know waffles aren't illegal now, but what if we passed a law making waffles illegal?

quote:
If we pass laws that explicitly violate the religious beliefs of one of the foundational religions of this country, what's the actual goal you think?
I would say that it depended on the law. If we were to pass a law that required people to wear seat belts, for example, despite the fact that our hypothetical religion banned the use of seat belts, it MIGHT be that we're striking a blow against religion -- or it might be that we're trying to save lives. Which do you think would be a more likely rationale?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I get what you're saying, but what if a law was passed prohibiting Christian proselytizing? How about Christian gatherings?
Do you think those are remotely plausible scenarios? Is this how you talk about this issue with your friends?
quote:
If we pass laws that explicitly violate the religious beliefs of one of the foundational religions of this country, what's the actual goal you think?
Can you give any concrete examples to show that this is happening? OTOH, do you think it would be the same abrogation of the Constitution if laws were passed explicitly violating Muslim beliefs?

Would you like to try answering a few of the many more serious questions that have been posed to you?

[ September 09, 2015, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE
like others have said, I won't be happy if they let her not have her name on the certificates. [/QB][/QUOTE]

and like I have asked others, WHY the hell do you see that as any sort of injustice? Who the hell is harmed by not having ms davis personal approval on ssm licenses?

As for the 80k job, you arent paying a dime of that salary. if her taxpayers and constituents think that putting her name on the marriage licenses of some new fad imposed by the courts, then they can vote her out. It's not your business to say she should quit. Even the judge that jailed her admits that is not his business to say.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only concern I can see about leaving her name off is that it could lead to some questions about the validity. Ten or twenty years from now, this kerfuffle will be forgotten and a blank space on the form could cause confusion.

What gets me is that, as I understand it, all Davis' name on the certificate meant is that the appropriate inputs have been received and a legal status conferred. There's no moral or religious statement involved. While it would appeal to me for the court to tell Davis such a thing explicitly, I suspect that sort of precedent will not end well.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, Davis was pretty lucky, considering the stances her attorneys, the Liberty Councel, took on previous, similar cases.

quote:
Mandamus relief is appropriate “to enforce an established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law. A duty or act is ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.”
quote:
The duties of a Florida clerk of court are ministerial, which means they have no discretion to pick and choose which laws to follow. Until a court with proper jurisdiction rules otherwise, Florida clerks are bound by Florida’s marriage laws...
quote:
A decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court succinctly explains the interplay between a petition for writ of mandamus and the lack of standing of public officials to raise constitutional claims as a defense in a writ proceeding.

quote:
These decisions involved mandamus actions brought against public officials to compel the official to perform a purely ministerial duty which the challenged statute required him or her to perform as a public office holder. The rationale of these decisions was that a public official could not refuse to perform a purely ministerial duty required of him or her by the challenged statute on the basis that the statute was unconstitutional. Under this rationale, the public official had no discretion to choose whether to perform or not to perform a purely ministerial duty required of his or her office, and the public official could not interpose, as a defense to the mandamus action, an allegation of unconstitutionality of the statute which mandated the performance. In effect, the decisions compelled the public official to perform the purely ministerial duties required of his or her office until the statute is declared unconstitutional. These decisions, however, did not address whether the public official (if he or she otherwise had standing) can challenge the constitutionality of a statute by means of a declaratory judgment action and, if successful, can thereby eventually relieve himself or herself of being compelled to perform the ministerial duty. Thus, the cited decisions do not govern the situation presented in this case, which is an action by a public official (who is presently performing the ministerial duties required by the statute) for a declaratory judgment to declare the statute unconstitutional, rather than a defense asserted in a mandamus action seeking to require the public official to perform the purely ministerial duties required by the statute.

Wooden v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 650 So.2d 1157, 1159-60 (La. 1995).

Respondents are obligated to follow the marriage laws as currently written. They cannot disobey those laws simply because they do not like the laws and believe they unconstitutionally infringe someone else’s rights.
With lawyer like that defending her, she's lucky she didn't get life! [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Well, she was jailed for exercising her Christian beliefs.

Why is it on this site, when referencing acts or beliefs of Muslims people are so carefull to point out that it's radical or extremist Muslims and not all Muslims, but when we refer to Christians this precision seems to disappear? There are entire Christian denominations that are pro-gay marriage, not to mention the enormous overlap between the large Christian majority of the country and the majority in favor of gay rights.
quote:
If we pass laws that explicitly violate the religious beliefs of one of the foundational religions of this country, what's the actual goal you think?
Which "one" foundational religion had its religious beliefs violated?
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
(Recruiting for Christianity (or several other religions, depending) is illegal in many more countries, but unless you consider proselytizing to be a core practice of Christianity, that's not automatically the same thing. The assertion that you can't legally be a Christian in any Muslim country is provably untrue.

Proselytizing is a core practice of Christianity (or if it isn't I'm not really aware of the sect that disagrees). So while you're not required to get yourself killed, and many ignore the obligation to spread the good news. So it's not true that it's "provably untrue" that you can't legally be a Christian in a Muslim country, you can only act as the Muslim majority says you can act.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure I'd call proselytizing a core practice. According to the gospels, it certainly should be but it seems like a peripheral concern for Catholics and Anglicans, at least. I know Dutch Calvanists rejected the concept back in the day but I don't know what the current practice is.

That the Evangelicals are such notable proselytizers seems to imply to me that it isn't a core practice. There isn't a denomination that has a reputation for particularly fervent communion, for instance (leaving aside the whole transubstantiation thing).

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:

like others have said, I won't be happy if they let her not have her name on the certificates.

and like I have asked others, WHY the hell do you see that as any sort of injustice? Who the hell is harmed by not having ms davis personal approval on ssm licenses?

As for the 80k job, you arent paying a dime of that salary. if her taxpayers and constituents think that putting her name on the marriage licenses of some new fad imposed by the courts, then they can vote her out. It's not your business to say she should quit. Even the judge that jailed her admits that is not his business to say. [/QB]

Not attempting to speak for others, but I would grumble because it's like an asterisk on the certificate that says WE DISAPPROVE. This is less so if all the certificates in the county end up the same, of course, but it's still a slap in the face of people who applied for a marriage license - which the law says they are entitled to - and couldn't obtain one until the county clerk's distaste is sufficiently mitigated.

Is it an outrageous slap in the face? Probably not. But it's a clear reason why it's a distasteful solution.

(I should admit that I don't really attach much credibility to this phenomenon of religious belief against doing business - whether commercial or official - having to do with gay marriage. I don't feel too bad saying that, because I'm not in a position to do anything about it. But really, it seems to be a sour grapes thing to me. Otherwise we'd have a much more established pattern of believers objecting to providing services to sinners.)

[ September 09, 2015, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, just in case this clarifies things: the "injustice" isn't in "not having Ms. Davis's personal approval". Because NOBODY thinks the county clerk personally approves of the marriages for which she issues licenses. Including county clerks!

Until now. Up to this point, I don't think Ms. Davis prayed over a single marriage license, or worried that someone might think she approves of a methhead marrying her drug dealer, or a 19 year old high school dropout marrying a rich elderly widower.

I think she thinks she's being sincere, but I think that's because she's stupid.

The injustice is in only being able to get a marriage license after the county clerk makes sure that everyone knows that she considers your marriage worse than every other ****ty marriage she signed off on without a second thought.

Does this mean it's not the best available solution...maybe not. But it's worth noting as less than ideal (if your ideals don't include the stupid belief that county clerks approve of the marriages they license).

[ September 09, 2015, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is it on this site, when referencing acts or beliefs of Muslims people are so carefull to point out that it's radical or extremist Muslims and not all Muslims, but when we refer to Christians this precision seems to disappear?
Because Muslims are the other, the xenophobic boogieman of some people's fears. It's one of many social Rorschach tests that can be applied on other issues like abortion, welfare, being a Democrat, contraception, or the Iran deal. I heard recently that when Democrats and Republicans were surveyed about the Iran deal and told that it was actually a Republican proposal, self-identifying Republicans switched to be in favor of it and Democrats still were (but by a smaller margin). I'll try to find the story, but not today...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also because we are still tired from the last time we tilted at that windmill and hoped that at least people here got that already.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"She could have just resigned, but instead she wants to be a martyr for the cause of gay marriage is icky"

Pulling misattributions out of your ass to create a straw man is "icky." To a Christian or to most anyone that follows a marriage tradition more than a geeration old, a same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, though not necessarily "icky."

If you have to make up straw man arguments, that's a sign you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To a Christian or to most anyone that follows a marriage tradition more than a geeration old, a same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, though not necessarily "icky."
Well, no. I know many Christians for whom this is not the case. The descriptor you're looking for is "elderly bigot."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:

like others have said, I won't be happy if they let her not have her name on the certificates.

and like I have asked others, WHY the hell do you see that as any sort of injustice? Who the hell is harmed by not having ms davis personal approval on ssm licenses?

As for the 80k job, you arent paying a dime of that salary. if her taxpayers and constituents think that putting her name on the marriage licenses of some new fad imposed by the courts, then they can vote her out. It's not your business to say she should quit. Even the judge that jailed her admits that is not his business to say.

Not attempting to speak for others, but I would grumble because it's like an asterisk on the certificate that says WE DISAPPROVE. This is less so if all the certificates in the county end up the same, of course, but it's still a slap in the face of people who applied for a marriage license - which the law says they are entitled to - and couldn't obtain one until the county clerk's distaste is sufficiently mitigated.

Is it an outrageous slap in the face? Probably not. But it's a clear reason why it's a distasteful solution.

(I should admit that I don't really attach much credibility to this phenomenon of religious belief against doing business - whether commercial or official - having to do with gay marriage. I don't feel too bad saying that, because I'm not in a position to do anything about it. But really, it seems to be a sour grapes thing to me. Otherwise we'd have a much more established pattern of believers objecting to providing services to sinners.) [/QB]

Again, that assumes that the issue is "providing services to sinners. Rather that being obliged to blaspheme against one's faith, or bow down to a false idols.

Would you force s christian cakemaker who routinely makes a "God bless this marriage" cake to prepare a frosted "Satan bless this marriage"?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
To a Christian or to most anyone that follows a marriage tradition more than a geeration old, a same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, though not necessarily "icky."
Well, no. I know many Christians for whom this is not the case. The descriptor you're looking for is "elderly bigot."
So what? If you Cannot show anything davis said to show that is her view and motive, then putting that into her mouth is a lowbrow straw man. Hell, I provided more evidence from your quotes to show that you were a nihilist, and I ended up being wrong about that.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Well, she was jailed for exercising her Christian beliefs.

Why is it on this site, when referencing acts or beliefs of Muslims people are so carefull to point out that it's radical or extremist Muslims and not all Muslims, but when we refer to Christians this precision seems to disappear? There are entire Christian denominations that are pro-gay marriage, not to mention the enormous overlap between the large Christian majority of the country and the majority in favor of gay rights.

It's A combination of liberal forum and the old enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Again, that assumes that the issue is "providing services to sinners. Rather that being obliged to blaspheme against one's faith, or bow down to a false idols.
The people who are raising objections seem to equate these things, and I doubt they would do so if they hadn't been primed to by people who are pushing the narrative that the left's motivation is to destroy traditional values (as opposed to expressing their own values).
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1