|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 14, 2015 15:41:09 GMT
I don't know about you guys... but, I find the QUOTE editing in this new forum more difficult to use... Even when I do get it, the difference in formatting (ie background color) is so small, it's really hard to read, and follow who said what?? I wonder if the color schemes are editable?? I tried - there is only one "theme" available, and it's the "default" theme.
I sent Todd a PM.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 14, 2015 15:47:53 GMT
That's the 64,000 question someone please cite what Kentucky law or statute she broke? She was jailed for contempt of court. the real question, what law did congress pass that prevented her free exercise of religion? To date, not a single one has actually been able to cite a law chapter-and-verse that she broke.
This is because Kim Davis broke no law, fed or state.
SCOTUS issued an opinion that state laws and constitutional provisions specifically forbidding gay "marriage" were unconstitutional does not mean that gay "marriage" suddenly became legal in all of these states.
In most states, including KY, the laws on the books still make no provision for giving marriage licenses to two people of the same sex, even if the specific forbidding of such was struck down. As such, it is actually still illegal to do so, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.
This remains true whether her reasoning is religious conscience or not. Same at the fed level. Congress has no power to enact laws related to marriage, as those are reserved tot he states, via the 10th amendment.
So, when someone says it's the "law of the land" or that SCOTUS made gay marriage "legal"...it's not, and they didn't, because they can't.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 14, 2015 19:03:38 GMT
Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses to ALL.. gay or straight.
AT MOST, she's guilty of not doing the job she was elected to do. There is a LEGAL recourse for this. It doesn't involve any Federal judge.
Good grief people... is that so hard to understand? Are we going to start having Federal judges jail clerks who are habitually tardy?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 15, 2015 1:29:56 GMT
She was jailed for contempt of court. the real question, what law did congress pass that prevented her free exercise of religion? To date, not a single one has actually been able to cite a law chapter-and-verse that she broke.
This is because Kim Davis broke no law, fed or state.
SCOTUS issued an opinion that state laws and constitutional provisions specifically forbidding gay "marriage" were unconstitutional does not mean that gay "marriage" suddenly became legal in all of these states.
In most states, including KY, the laws on the books still make no provision for giving marriage licenses to two people of the same sex, even if the specific forbidding of such was struck down. As such, it is actually still illegal to do so, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.
This remains true whether her reasoning is religious conscience or not. Same at the fed level. Congress has no power to enact laws related to marriage, as those are reserved tot he states, via the 10th amendment.
So, when someone says it's the "law of the land" or that SCOTUS made gay marriage "legal"...it's not, and they didn't, because they can't.
She was jailed for contempt of court. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 15, 2015 6:54:46 GMT
If the courts really want to go after people not doing their jobs correctly, I'd suggest they cite the SEC officials who were watching porn all day.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 15, 2015 12:25:44 GMT
And a question nobody is really asking...
How did these 2 guys from Ohio (where they could have gotten their license) end up in backwoods, rural Kentucky, with TV cameras, and asking this particular clerk for a marriage license?
Rowan County is not a border county of Ohio....they could have easily gone to Louisville...
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 15, 2015 12:34:19 GMT
To date, not a single one has actually been able to cite a law chapter-and-verse that she broke.
This is because Kim Davis broke no law, fed or state.
SCOTUS issued an opinion that state laws and constitutional provisions specifically forbidding gay "marriage" were unconstitutional does not mean that gay "marriage" suddenly became legal in all of these states.
In most states, including KY, the laws on the books still make no provision for giving marriage licenses to two people of the same sex, even if the specific forbidding of such was struck down. As such, it is actually still illegal to do so, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.
This remains true whether her reasoning is religious conscience or not. Same at the fed level. Congress has no power to enact laws related to marriage, as those are reserved tot he states, via the 10th amendment.
So, when someone says it's the "law of the land" or that SCOTUS made gay marriage "legal"...it's not, and they didn't, because they can't.
She was jailed for contempt of court. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401And there may be a problem as well. The order she was given by “Justice” Bunning was not lawful. The order was unlawful...in that it was a forced attempt for her to do something that is actually still illegal under the laws on the books in the state of Kentucky.
She was jailed because a gay activist judge overstepped his bounds, and he was determined to teach her a lesson, which he ultimately walked back.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 16, 2015 15:14:50 GMT
There was a LOT to respond to in this post, but I didn't want to attempt it on an ipad... given the formatting difficulty on this new forum.
First of all, I disagree with your supposition that, "we only talk about the intent of the founder's when it is a decision we disagree with".... That's completely untrue. Most conservatives consider the founder's intent on EVERY decision. It's liberals that NEVER consider the founder's intent. They don't care. The Supreme Court doesn't care about the "founder's intent" either. The Founders CLEARLY believed that the Establishment Clause did NOT apply to State governments. Several states actually HAD established State religions at the time the First Amendment was adopted. They didn't become invalid. Yet, more than 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that it DOES apply to States as well... and, no state may establish "State Religion"...
As for the "free exercise clause" , it's been limited by the SCOTUS almost from the very beginning.... with the ruling against polygamy. Religious beliefs are protected, but "actions" are not. I don't think that was the founder's intent.
Protection of religious practice has been a dicey issue for a long time. Largely because, as in the example you mentioned, it's an easy thing to abuse. Over time, the courts have defined the way this is to be dealt with. First, it needs to be a deeply held belief that is pertinent to some kind of well-established religion. When challenged, people who are claiming this exemption have to be able to show in court that their religious conviction was demonstrated, with their actions, before the legal issue was encountered. Second, the state needs to have a compelling public interest in demanding that an individual give up their religious exemption claim. Finally, the State is required to find the least restrictive means to accommodate the belief, if possible.
In your case, your sudden conversion to the "Church of Fast Driving" would be immediately thrown out... as it's evident on it's face that you're simply looking to abuse your rights. But, even if the new "church" were accepted, there is a compelling state interest in having you obey speed laws. So, you would lose.
In Davis's case... She is clearly following the beliefs of a well established religion. While her entire life has not demonstrated her belief in this religion, she can demonstrate a recent conversion, with actions.. in place before the license issue arose. The State DOES HAVE a compelling interest (so they claim) in having marriage licenses issued to gay couples (and to straight couples), so... they have the right to do something. But, is there really a compelling interest that a County Clerk be required to put his/her name on such a license? I don't think so. Clearly, there can be simple changes in the law to accommodate her religious convictions while maintaining the public interest.
It's really not that difficult a case...and it's one that's going to need to be fixed, in MANY ways, across the country. The courts may be able to make gay marriage legal, but they will NEVER be able to force religious people to sanction it, or accept it. Accommodations are going to be required, in many areas..... and, it's going to stay in dispute for decades to come.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 16, 2015 15:18:14 GMT
She was jailed because a gay activist judge overstepped his bounds, and he was determined to teach her a lesson, which he ultimately walked back.
Bunning is no "gay activist"... he's a strongly conservative curmudgeon. He might be a media whore. And, he's clearly drunk with the idea of his own power. Bunning has now established a principle that judges can jail ANY elected public official who doesn't do anything a Federal Judge tells them to do. Just ponder for a few minutes what THAT concept could lead to.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 16, 2015 23:44:51 GMT
There was a LOT to respond to in this post, but I didn't want to attempt it on an ipad... given the formatting difficulty on this new forum.
First of all, I disagree with your supposition that, "we only talk about the intent of the founder's when it is a decision we disagree with".... That's completely untrue. Most conservatives consider the founder's intent on EVERY decision. It's liberals that NEVER consider the founder's intent. They don't care. The Supreme Court doesn't care about the "founder's intent" either. The Founders CLEARLY believed that the Establishment Clause did NOT apply to State governments. Several states actually HAD established State religions at the time the First Amendment was adopted. They didn't become invalid. Yet, more than 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that it DOES apply to States as well... and, no state may establish "State Religion"...
As for the "free exercise clause" , it's been limited by the SCOTUS almost from the very beginning.... with the ruling against polygamy. Religious beliefs are protected, but "actions" are not. I don't think that was the founder's intent.
Protection of religious practice has been a dicey issue for a long time. Largely because, as in the example you mentioned, it's an easy thing to abuse. Over time, the courts have defined the way this is to be dealt with. First, it needs to be a deeply held belief that is pertinent to some kind of well-established religion. When challenged, people who are claiming this exemption have to be able to show in court that their religious conviction was demonstrated, with their actions, before the legal issue was encountered. Second, the state needs to have a compelling public interest in demanding that an individual give up their religious exemption claim. Finally, the State is required to find the least restrictive means to accommodate the belief, if possible.
In your case, your sudden conversion to the "Church of Fast Driving" would be immediately thrown out... as it's evident on it's face that you're simply looking to abuse your rights. But, even if the new "church" were accepted, there is a compelling state interest in having you obey speed laws. So, you would lose.
In Davis's case... She is clearly following the beliefs of a well established religion. While her entire life has not demonstrated her belief in this religion, she can demonstrate a recent conversion, with actions.. in place before the license issue arose. The State DOES HAVE a compelling interest (so they claim) in having marriage licenses issued to gay couples (and to straight couples), so... they have the right to do something. But, is there really a compelling interest that a County Clerk be required to put his/her name on such a license? I don't think so. Clearly, there can be simple changes in the law to accommodate her religious convictions while maintaining the public interest.
It's really not that difficult a case...and it's one that's going to need to be fixed, in MANY ways, across the country. The courts may be able to make gay marriage legal, but they will NEVER be able to force religious people to sanction it, or accept it. Accommodations are going to be required, in many areas..... and, it's going to stay in dispute for decades to come.
You didn't answer my question. I know how the courts handle it. But was this the intention of the first amendment? Did the founding fathers really intend that government should judge the sincerity of my belief before offering first amendment protections? Did the founding fathers really intend that government can judge whether your religion is legit or mainstream enough to be protected?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 17, 2015 3:40:41 GMT
You didn't answer my question. I know how the courts handle it. But was this the intention of the first amendment? Did the founding fathers really intend that government should judge the sincerity of my belief before offering first amendment protections? Did the founding fathers really intend that government can judge whether your religion is legit or mainstream enough to be protected? I think the founders expected that this would be an issue that would need further, practical definition. Maybe they couldn't have anticipated how.... But, they surely didn't think an absolute guarantee of "freedom" would be granted. That's why they gave us a court system.
|
|
|
Post by terpintime on Sept 17, 2015 11:55:22 GMT
In a pluralistic society governed by law, perhaps J.S. Mill's position applies best in this situation: one's entitlement to exercise their rights ends where another's rights begin. There is frequently a balance to be struck between competing interests, even in the matters that come before the Supreme Court. In this instance, her legitimate exercise of religion entails attending services, prayer, charitable acts, proselytizing, and presenting a related attitude towards the public but NOT refusing them services to which they are legally entitled in her role as the County Clerk, especially not when she took an oath to adhere to state law as it exists and will exist (and presumably change) throughout her term. If she chooses not to fulfill her legal duties of office due to her conscience, then perhaps it is best that she resign.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 17, 2015 13:14:35 GMT
If she chooses not to fulfill her legal duties of office due to her conscience, then perhaps it is best that she resign.
Perhaps.... but, if she chooses not to, then the options should be impeachment, or not being re-elected.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for any federal judge putting her in jail, or fining her for refusing to do her elective duties. Sometimes, it might be nice to have judges do that. Imagine the possibilities!
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 18, 2015 0:06:42 GMT
Bevo, you really think the intention of the first amendment was that government could judge your sincerity, and if government thought you weren't sincere, could deny you first amendment rights?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 18, 2015 1:22:48 GMT
Bevo, you really think the intention of the first amendment was that government could judge your sincerity, and if government thought you weren't sincere, could deny you first amendment rights? Do you know another way to do it? I don't.
|
|