|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 8, 2015 23:41:22 GMT
The Kentucky clerk, who refused to issue marriage licenses, has been ordered released.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 9, 2015 0:26:03 GMT
Far from over.... I suspect she's back in jail in a few days.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 9, 2015 11:04:31 GMT
Far from over.... I suspect she's back in jail in a few days. Agree, but Al Gayda doesn't want her in jail where she can be a martyr, they originally just wanted her fined - much quieter....
This is the governor's fault.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 9, 2015 15:47:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 9, 2015 17:49:17 GMT
People have lost sight of the real issue here - too much emotion from both side "religious freedom" vs. discrimination against gays".
The issue here is the Supreme Court's obvious overreach and inappropriately applying 14A in this case.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 10, 2015 0:06:28 GMT
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This is interpreted way too loosely, well beyond the intent of the founders.
Has congress passed a law prohibiting her from exercising her religion?
No, she can still freely exercise her religion.
Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 10, 2015 2:29:33 GMT
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is interpreted way too loosely, well beyond the intent of the founders. Has congress passed a law prohibiting her from exercising her religion? No, she can still freely exercise her religion. Case closed. Congress didn't, but she can argue that the Supreme Court did. Federal courts routinely write laws, thereby undermining the constitutional role of Congress.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 10, 2015 13:18:17 GMT
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is interpreted way too loosely, well beyond the intent of the founders. Has congress passed a law prohibiting her from exercising her religion? No, she can still freely exercise her religion. Case closed. Congress didn't, but she can argue that the Supreme Court did. Federal courts routinely write laws, thereby undermining the constitutional role of Congress.
Too true.
She was simply following Kentucky law. The Governor, in an extra-constitutional demand, ordered all clerks essentially to violate Kentucky law, which is a felony. Had he done things the right way and legislated the change, this could have been avoided. Had the governor told SCOTUS to shove its opinion in its pie holes....
The root cause; however, goes back to SCOTUS and its incorrect application of the 14th Amendment.
In the Loving v. Virginia, the 14th was applied correctly, but not in the current case, it was a clear overreach.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 10, 2015 13:25:01 GMT
No, she can still freely exercise her religion. Case closed.
Being forced, by your government to affix your personal name to a document certifying a perversion that is opposed by your religion, is NOT "free exercise".
Yes... it's her job. But, she was elected. And, the rules were changed AFTER she was elected. There are ways to accommodate her deeply held religious beliefs. The fixes don't place any great burden on the state, or any affected party. It should be fixed ASAP.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 10, 2015 14:41:58 GMT
I was going to jump into this topic and criticize tigercpa for his position. The Supreme Court is the final decision maker as far as the law goes. You might disagree with their decision, but they have the authority to interpret the Constitution. They decide what is an "overreach" of the 14th Amendment.
However, I realized that I was looking at it as a lawyer, and not a citizen. So I have changed my mind as of late. Not about the Supreme Court's authority, but about our criticism of it. I think being critical of their decisions is a healthy thing for our republic.
I still disagree with tigercpa -- I think the federal judge's order was perfectly lawful. Kentucky law was found to be unconstitutional. Those unconstitutional laws do not just remain in effect until the state legislature gets around to changing them. Anything about "oh you are supposed to get a license in the woman's county" is struck down by necessity. You don't have to wait on the legislature. Because what happens if the next legislative session comes along and they just decide not to fix it? No, the law changed immediately.
It is also disingenuous to argue that Kim Davis was worried about those technical aspects of Kentucky law. She was clear that she stopped issuing licenses because she disagreed with gay marriage. You can't retroactively interpret her to be saying something else. She was talking about Jesus being on her side and homosexuality being a sin. There is no question on why she acted the way she did. The technical argument arose later, after they'd argued their case and lost, when one of her lawyers thought about it much later.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 10, 2015 14:50:29 GMT
No, she can still freely exercise her religion. Case closed.
Being forced, by your government to affix your personal name to a document certifying a perversion that is opposed by your religion, is NOT "free exercise".
Yes... it's her job. But, she was elected. And, the rules were changed AFTER she was elected. There are ways to accommodate her deeply held religious beliefs. The fixes don't place any great burden on the state, or any affected party. It should be fixed ASAP.
I agree it should be fixed. I expect a lot of states are going to amend their laws in the next legislative session to remove the requirement of someone's signature from marriage licenses. I don't want this woman to have to compromise her religious beliefs -- that's not what this country is supposed to be about. On the other hand I don't think a government official can pick and choose who they serve. If the fire department gets a call that the local gay sports bar "The Tight End" is on fire, they can't refuse to go out and save it because "they're just a bunch of homos". A compromise could likely have been reached in this case, but Kim Davis was all full of righteous indignation. She and her lawyers weren't looking for a compromise. Her deputy clerks are signing the licenses right now, they could have done that before.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 10, 2015 14:57:33 GMT
The Supreme Court is the final decision maker as far as the law goes. I think being critical of their decisions is a healthy thing for our republic.
There are some things that even the Supreme Court cannot dictate to people of faith.
In this country, we have always tried to allow a happy medium between State and Religious edicts. This one, is EASY to fix, and I'm sure it will be.
That said, from a legal standpoint. I don't really understand: What happens when a law is struck down as unconstitutional? Is the entire law not invalid? How do they pick one clause or another out of a larger body of piece of legislation. From the beginning, Davis refused to issues ANY marriage licenses... not just licenses to gay couples. What Ky statute gave her the legal authority to issue ANY, if the law giving her the authority was declared invalid? It does seem to be unclear... at least, to the non-lawyer lay person.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 10, 2015 15:46:26 GMT
Being forced, by your government to affix your personal name to a document certifying a perversion that is opposed by your religion, is NOT "free exercise".
Yes... it's her job. But, she was elected. And, the rules were changed AFTER she was elected. There are ways to accommodate her deeply held religious beliefs. The fixes don't place any great burden on the state, or any affected party. It should be fixed ASAP.
I agree it should be fixed. I expect a lot of states are going to amend their laws in the next legislative session to remove the requirement of someone's signature from marriage licenses. I don't want this woman to have to compromise her religious beliefs -- that's not what this country is supposed to be about. On the other hand I don't think a government official can pick and choose who they serve. If the fire department gets a call that the local gay sports bar "The Tight End" is on fire, they can't refuse to go out and save it because "they're just a bunch of homos". A compromise could likely have been reached in this case, but Kim Davis was all full of righteous indignation. She and her lawyers weren't looking for a compromise. Her deputy clerks are signing the licenses right now, they could have done that before.
14A was one of 3 post-war Amendments designed and limited to providing former slaves with equal protection and due process, which is why it's application in Loving v. Virginia was correct, because it addressed a segregation issue. This was clearly explained by Justice Miller in the Sluaghterhouse cases.
Applying 14A in the recent ruling is not appropriate, as it exceeds the legislative intent of 14A (no segregation present). In a rush to make people "feel good" and be politically correct, SCOTUS incorrectly used 14A to weasel around necessary legislative due process. The Feds have no constitutional authority to interfere in state marriage laws.
Judge Bunning was feeling the heat and rescinded his contempt order.
Now, licenses are being issued in the name of "Rowan County" and Davis' name has been removed.
"Rowan County" is not the name of the Rowan County County Clerk. Listing "Rowan County" as the name of the County Clerk is a violation KRS 402.100(1)(c), 402.110 Persons issuing these licenses have committed multiple misdemeanors. KRS 402.990
www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475
www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36477
www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36498
What happens when one fo these couples decide to divorce and one side argues they were never really married?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 10, 2015 17:26:04 GMT
Of course not. But then, Christianity doesn't teach hatred for gays, or a belief that they and their property should be allowed to burn. In that instance, the state has a compelling interest. That's not even in the same league as having to put a DIFFERENT name on a certificate.
As I understand it, Davis was only opposed to having deputies use HER NAME on the certificates. Righteousness aside, that seems like a reasonable request to me.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 10, 2015 17:29:46 GMT
The Supreme Court is the final decision maker as far as the law goes. I think being critical of their decisions is a healthy thing for our republic.
There are some things that even the Supreme Court cannot dictate to people of faith.
In this country, we have always tried to allow a happy medium between State and Religious edicts. This one, is EASY to fix, and I'm sure it will be.
That said, from a legal standpoint. I don't really understand: What happens when a law is struck down as unconstitutional? Is the entire law not invalid? How do they pick one clause or another out of a larger body of piece of legislation. From the beginning, Davis refused to issues ANY marriage licenses... not just licenses to gay couples. What Ky statute gave her the legal authority to issue ANY, if the law giving her the authority was declared invalid? It does seem to be unclear... at least, to the non-lawyer lay person.
True, she refused to issue ANY marriage license.
The key phrase, under Kentucky law, is "legally entitled couple"...
The Founders would already be shooting at this point...
|
|