Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license

[drbrumley]

A Clear Distinction

Butler Shaffer

Two recent cases illustrate the utter confusion people have in determining the propriety of some people discriminating against persons who are members of categories grounded in what civil rights attorneys call “suspect bases of classification.” When, and to whom, does the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment apply? When a privately owned bakery in Oregon refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, an administrative agency came down upon the business with heavy fines. That the bakery should have had its refusal legally respected is grounded in the simple fact that, being a private business, it is not engaged in the “state action” that is a prerequisite for an “equal protection” analysis. If private parties are not free to select those with whom to associate or share in their property, there is no substance to personal liberty.

By contrast, the county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds that to do so would violate her religious principles, is – by virtue of her acting as an official of the state – in violation of the First Amendment prohibition of establishing a state religion.

It is the essence of a society based on respect privately owned property that individuals may act – or refuse to act – with others on any basis they choose. No matter how intolerant a bakery owner may be in refusing to contract with any category of other persons, the property principle protects their right to so discriminate. This is not the case where the person claiming such a right of refusal is an agent of the state, discriminating on grounds prohibited to the state.

 

[annabenedetti]

KY County Clerk Jailed


By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

September 3, 2015

Under the totalitarian notion that you can be put in a cage indefinitely for having the appropriate attitude, contempt, towards a federal judge. How dare she not bow down before “The Law,” which is not the natural law, but whatever 5 government lawyers in a pagan temple in DC said last Thursday.

If she was only going to obey Natural Law, she shouldn't have sworn to uphold the law of the land while collecting a salary paid for by the taxpayers whose constitutional rights she's taken it upon herself to refuse them.



Here is the oath of office taken by court clerks and deputies in Kentucky:

Oath of clerk and deputies:
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court:
"I, —————, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ————— County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

 

[drbrumley]

Was this supposed to make sense?

:think: Town got it, I guess you didn't.

 

[drbrumley]

If she was only going to obey Natural Law, she shouldn't have sworn to uphold the law of the land while collecting a salary paid for by the taxpayers whose constitutional rights she's taken it upon herself to refuse them.



Here is the oath of office taken by court clerks and deputies in Kentucky:

Oath of clerk and deputies:
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court:
"I, —————, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of ————— County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

All true, I would have stepped down myself. I admire her courage, but she did have a job to do.

 

[fool]

:think: Town got it, I guess you didn't.

That happens alot.

 

[RevTestament]

If she'd resigned from her elected position saying she couldn't carry out her legal duties because of her religious beliefs, I would have respected her decision.

I think she may be thinking of filing a case, so she wouldn't have standing to do so if she resigned.
She's in jail because she defied the order of a judge and so was held in contempt.
To me it does seem she is imposing her own religious beliefs on others tho. Some states have capital punishment, and a government employee is bound to carry out their duties to kill the offender even if they feel it is wrong. And employees of govt health clinics can be bound to perform an abortion if a person so chooses to have it. So she shouldn't seek that type of job if she has religious convictions against those things.
It just so happens in this case the law changed while she was holding the office.
I think she is going to lose any case she files.
But I also still think that the SCOTUS decision impinges on the rights of the states on this issue to regulate marriage. Next will they force states to take the sodomy laws off the books?

 

[drbrumley]

She can have any attitude she wants. She's in jail for not doing her job and, as an extension of the Court, interfering with the execution of a legal order.

And, so what?

Oh go bow down and pay your taxes. Or bow down and mind the speed limit. lain:

:yawn:

 

[Town Heretic]

And, so what?

It's called rebuttal. You'd written:

Under the totalitarian notion that you can be put in a cage indefinitely for having the appropriate attitude, contempt, towards a federal judge.

And I responded that it wasn't her attitude but her violation of a court order that was at the heart of her difficulty. If you violate a Court order you take the consequences of the violation.

You also wrote,

How dare she not bow down before “The Law,” which is not the natural law, but whatever 5 government lawyers in a pagan temple in DC said last Thursday.

So I rebutted by noting that you're as guilty, if you want to take that ludicrous position. I illustrated your difficulty with a couple of examples that reduce to obeying the law.

Your scintillating response follows.

:yawn:

You might try that again in Latin. lain:

 

[patrick jane]

maybe it really is as simple as not putting ANY Clerk's name on it -

have a judge's name, court name, minister, and all other information. it can say witnessed and initialed by such and such county/town/city CLERK.

it's a decent paying secure job, but personally, i wouldn't want my name on it either, having nothing to do with the wedlock except stamping and signing off on the licence.

my driver's licence doesn't have the DMV clerk's name on it !

I wanted to post this again because i think it is a possible solution or something along the lines of a way to not have a clerk associated with the legal or holy matrimonial aspects of the couple. ANY couple. Any clerk. it should be a non-issue -

if a person won't do the job, get somebody that will. transfer, change positions or resign or be fired. jail wasn't necessary until the media, she could have been dismissed early on.

i thought i heard that her biggest issue was having HER NAME on the license/certificate - hence:


maybe it really is as simple as not putting ANY Clerk's name on it -

have a judge's name, court name, minister, and all other information. it can say witnessed and initialed by such and such county/town/city CLERK.

it's a decent paying secure job, but personally, i wouldn't want my name on it either, having nothing to do with the wedlock except stamping and signing off on the licence.

my driver's licence doesn't have the DMV clerk's name on it !

 

[drbrumley]

It's called rebuttal. You'd written:


And I responded that it wasn't her attitude but her violation of a court order that was at the heart of her difficulty. If you violate a Court order you take the consequences of the violation.

Hmm, why not just FIRE HER for not doing her job? Oh wait, it's the court. To set the example, they throw her in jail. Like the post said, "How dare she not bow down before “The Law,” which is not the natural law, but whatever 5 government lawyers in a pagan temple in DC said last Thursday." Your response, basically who cares.

You also wrote,

So I rebutted by noting that you're as guilty, if you want to take that ludicrous position. I illustrated your difficulty with a couple of examples that reduce to obeying the law.

Yeah we know, it's all ludicrious. :yawn: How dare her!

 

[republicanchick]

She can have any attitude she wants. She's in jail for not doing her job and, as an extension of the Court, interfering with the execution of a legal order.

in:

gee, i always thought if you didn't do your job you were merely fired...

but i guess it's criminal these days.. with those loony [redundancy alert] libs in charge...

you libs ought to be scared re what's going on in the world... but you are too busy.. rejecting Jesus... apparently... to be scared... too busy rejecting nature... rejecting reality... too busy and too complacent to think about what could become of YOU in the future with these crazy people in charge... you are too short sighted to see...


etc..


___

 

[fool]

Hmm, why not just FIRE HER for not doing her job? Oh wait, it's the court. To set the example, they throw her in jail. Like the post said, "How dare she not bow down before “The Law,” which is not the natural law, but whatever 5 government lawyers in a pagan temple in DC said last Thursday." Your response, basically who cares.



Yeah we know, it's all ludicrious. :yawn: How dare her!

gee, i always thought if you didn't do your job you were merely fired...

but i guess it's criminal these days.. with those loony [redundancy alert] libs in charge...

you libs ought to be scared re what's going on in the world... but you are too busy.. rejecting Jesus... apparently... to be scared... too busy rejecting nature... rejecting reality... too busy and too complacent to think about what could become of YOU in the future with these crazy people in charge... you are too short sighted to see...


etc..


___

For the umteenth time; She is an elected official she can't be fired, she has to be impeached by the legislature which doesn't come back for three months.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think she may be thinking of filing a case, so she wouldn't have standing to do so if she resigned.
She's in jail because she defied the order of a judge and so was held in contempt.
To me it does seem she is imposing her own religious beliefs on others tho. Some states have capital punishment, and a government employee is bound to carry out their duties to kill the offender even if they feel it is wrong. And employees of govt health clinics can be bound to perform an abortion if a person so chooses to have it. So she shouldn't seek that type of job if she has religious convictions against those things.
It just so happens in this case the law changed while she was holding the office.
I think she is going to lose any case she files.
But I also still think that the SCOTUS decision impinges on the rights of the states on this issue to regulate marriage. Next will they force states to take the sodomy laws off the books?

Something I thought was kind of interesting. Rowan County in 2010 had a little over 23,000 residents, so it's pretty small, population-wise. Davis was elected to the position after her mother held it for some 40 years, and one of the five clerk deputies under her is her son. I can't help but wonder if in such a small place as that, and with her family involved as much as it was, that she thought she could actually get away with her denial of her constituents' civil rights.

She knew this scenario was looming, she's quoted as acknowledging that she knew she could resign or retire - but if she did that, she'd "have no voice for God’s word."

Things are progressing in the direction she chose to go.

 

[Totton Linnet]

How does resignation from an elected office violate her religious beliefs?

If she did resign she would still be in contempt if that is the charge.

 

[fool]

If she did resign she would still be in contempt if that is the charge.

No, she is in contempt for not doing her job, if it's not her job anymore then she's not not doing her job, so not in contempt.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Praise the Lord for this woman, who is unafraid to stand on the truth, she is in good company being jailed for her faith. See the new testament.

I guess these "christians" who support her being jailed for her faith, forget that Christ was, Paul was as well as other disciples. I suppose you phonies thought they should have followed mans law over God too.

 

[rocketman]

No, she is in contempt for not doing her job, if it's not her job anymore then she's not not doing her job, so not in contempt.

She is not in contempt for "not doing her job" either, she is in contempt of federal law & violating a court order. She is in contempt for asserting her first amendment rights which is in opposition to the unconstitutional decision handed down by the supreme court. Please...before any of you come at me with the whole Supreme Court being noble, or the ultimate authority, or that their decision is somehow just, this woman is not the first to go against one of it's decisions, Lincoln did it also this is not a first, and as far as being just this same biased group of men also gave us Dred Scott, denied due process to blacks as well as Japanese during WWII, upheld segregation, etc. so, just because this court hands down a majority decision it does not make it just, right, or constitutional.

 

[Angel4Truth]

For the umteenth time; She is an elected official she can't be fired, she has to be impeached by the legislature which doesn't come back for three months.

She can also be recalled, but i dont see that happening.

 

[Angel4Truth]

She is not in contempt for "not doing her job" either, she is in contempt of federal law & violating a court order. She is in contempt for asserting her first amendment rights which is in opposition to the unconstitutional decision handed down by the supreme court. Please...before any of you come at with the whole Supreme Court being noble, or the ultimate authority, or that their decision is somehow just, this woman is not the first to go against one of it's decisions, Lincoln did it also this is not a first, and as far as being just this same biased group of men also gave us Dred Scott, denied due process to blacks as well as Japanese during WWII, upheld segregation, etc. so, just because this court hands down a majority decision it does not make it just, right, or constitutional.

Exactly!

 

[SamuelJ]

Praise the Lord for this woman, who is unafraid to stand on the truth, she is in good company being jailed for her faith. See the new testament.

I guess these "christians" who support her being jailed for her faith, forget that Christ was, Paul was as well as other disciples. I suppose you phonies thought they should have followed mans law over God too.

Ah yes. The same Christ who voiced his hatred of all people not exactly like him. Oh wait....