- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
This is force, judicial force, federal force...and a woman has lost her rights indefinitely for keeping with State law - challenging federal authority.
This subject has little to do with faith or religion and more to do with States bowing to federal authority EVEN when its opposite what the people of that State wanted in their laws.
Get rid of marriage licenses and the whole issue disappears into smoke. Get government out of the marriage business.
As I have said before...the left, the slave holders, the progressives are 'AntiLectual; that's why they do not get the meaning of words.
"Staver [her lawyer] said that Davis stands by her Christian faith, will not issue gay marriage licenses and has 'no remorse,' commending her 'incredible resilience and faith.'” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/...
She has not "lost her rights". She has no right to rewrite law in her accordance with arbitrary religious faith. She is defiantly maintaining an irrational position in attempting to elevate her arbitrary religious beliefs to a privileged position. If she doesn't want to perform the duties of her job she should resign. She can engage in civil disobedience if she wants to, but that requires taking responsibility for breaking the law, which is exactly what is happening. Religion is not an exemption.
Is she a "prisoner of conscience"? She is a prisoner of her own irrational beliefs.
And if religious beliefs become the Get Out Of Jail Free Card for anyone and everyone who decides they don't want to Obey a Law, we, as a society are totally fucked.
Just watch.
One of the basic principles of proper government is that government officials do not act by right. The citizens act by right, limited only in what they cannot do, in accordance with objective law. Government officials are limited in what they can and must do. When a citizen breaks the law it is an ordinary crime. When a bureaucrat breaks laws he is enforcing his own laws, which is a fundamental corruption of government itself, and that is what these activists want. We are already suffering under discretionary bureaucracy in powerful agencies such as the viro and tax agencies trampling property rights, Obama's pen with immigration and the EPA, etc. They have paved the way for more open religious zealots who want to do the same on behalf of the whims of religious faith.
This is why the Davis case is fundamentally worse than someone committing a crime while claiming the right to do it on principle. That kind of anarchy moved inside government is tyranny.
"adults at age of majority (regardless of biological genitalia assignment) should not need a state license or permission to enter into a legally binding Domestic Contract "
Agreed. I don't know what authority the State claims to be able to interfere. There certainly is nothing in the Constitution.
No adult should have to obtain permission for a contract, but a marriage contract must be acknowledged as meeting the criteria necessary for its legal and financial implications, including tax rules.
"No adult should have to obtain permission for a contract, but a marriage contract must be acknowledged as meeting the criteria necessary for its legal and financial implications, including tax rules."
I agree. However, the enforcement of the contract is what is at issue here. I can enter into a contract with a mob hitman to knock off my nosy neighbor, but if the hitman turns out to be an FBI informant, I can't enjoin the fulfillment (or specific performance) of that contract since it is an unrecognized and therefore unenforceable contract.
There is also nothing stopping the legislatures from separately identifying an awarding privileges to same-sex couples without declaring them marriages. That the court system decided to take on and issue via judicial fiat what the people had repeatedly and emphatically voted against in referendum after referendum says much about the current state of our legal system.
What further concerns me about this whole brouhaha is that we will see a day in the near future when religious organizations are taken to court for refusing to perform and recognize homosexual unions as "marriages". And when that happens, we will see an undeniable abridgement of First Amendment rights by the minority over the majority. This land will cease to be a free nation, and tyranny will ensue. And when we lose the right to associate with similar thinkers, our entire nation - and by extension the whole world - will lose its best source of free thought.
This shows up in strange places. State Farm refused to insure us as a couple without our having that piece of paper - who would have thought they cared?
+1
If you live in a society you are subject to that society's rules. Also, there was no FEDERAL LAW passed by Congress to allow (funny) gay marriage.
Any other claim is fallacious.
Hey, I never said individual rights are valid only if allowed by federal law...that mentality, the one you apparently support, is what put that woman in jail.
The coveted Randian Right to Travel is voluntarily restricted to societies private property laws. Do you not see this?
#1 - Placing individual rights below the "need for the social structure of society".
#2 - Backhanded attempt to support this unreasonable argument via another unreasonable, failed argument that was thoroughly defeated in another post.
Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to make this clear.
I'm done here.
This lady claims to be standing upon her religious principles. Now this is key...you don't get to pick and choose...if you by into one, there are others that come with it. The New Testament makes it clear that we are to obey civil authority, whether we think they're right or wrong. So her options, by Biblical standards are 1) stay and obey. 2) stay and disobey and suffer the consequences, or 3) get out of Dodge. The Bible clearly states that law does not have to change because you don't like it. Consider that the Romans were VERY creative when the subject was coercion and/or punishment, so this should be an easy one for this lady today. Now all of this is to say if you want to keep you job, do what you agreed to (that is, sign whatever documents need to be signed when they're in compliance with the law). If not, quit. It's as simple as that.
No, this is federal, judicial coercion.
They only person following the law in all of this is the clerk!
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"
There is nothing in the federal Constitution giving the feds authority in this matter. It is one of the worst fomented myths that federal law always "trumps" state and local laws.
It is therefore imperative that our Constitution and its jurisdictional definitions be understood before remedies can be applied. One of the repetitive mistakes being made is to challenge the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation and find that it is upheld. But what is not asked is where does it apply? No powers not enumerated in Article I and any amendments are just not applicable within any of the States. An Act may be considered constitutional but applies only to a territorial possession.
It is the maintenance of the myth that is allowing this to happen. Like any problem, if the root cause is not addressed it won't get fixed.
I'll tune in for THAT debate... any time, any channel...
The Supreme Court may have original jurisdiction such as cases involving ambassadors and original or appellate jurisdiction to cases in which a State is a party. It is this latter situation that appears to open the way for the SC to set law for States. But that is even limited. In this case of same sex marriage a suit brought forth challenging a State Law regarding the matter can be heard by the SC. But they would be only looking at whether it is the States purview to make law regarding the topic, either outlawing same sex marriage or legalizing. They cannot overturn a law that is indeed within the power of the State to legislate. And as we know by the Xth Amendment, the power remaining with the States are many and the power enumerated to the federal government are few and defined. The power of the SC to overturn State Law is limited to where the example State is usurping these few powers given the federal government. Sanctuary City would be an example.
But this is where the federal judiciary has way overstepped their authority. And it is nothing new. Ever expanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Property Clause, the Enclave Clause, etc, just keeps chugging along to the evisceration of State's Rights and sovereignty.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Equal protection of the laws" being the applicable phrase here, it doesn't seem like this is one of those cases of the Supreme Court overstepping their authority. Although there are plenty.
Some of that 'argument' sounds like he-said-she-said, doesn't it? Makes it sound or look like the Supremes dug themselves into a hole, whether consciously or unconsciously... and it looks like a difficult-to-resolve conundrum for exactly those reasons!
Oh, well, put them in another ring of the Election Circus for all to enjoy!
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State
In case you needed an even more clearer understanding of your confusion. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaught...
The debate there is that the 14th was now construed to apply the Bill of Rights to apply to the States sovereign powers and not just to the federal government. Prior to Slaughterhouse it was understood that the federal Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.
As mentioned in the article Slaughterhouse extended this purview to citizens of States versus the Rights recognized to citizens with the Bill of Rights as a United States citizen. The argument is that this renders meaningless the Bill of Rights in each States Constitution for the respective states citizens. Many see this as a huge overreach based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Civil War Amendments. In similar fashion that the Supreme Court declared themselves the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in the Marbury case. And these expansions have just been built upon well into the 20th Century - and now the 21st.
Therefore I think Jefferson's use of the term "creator" is very well chosen and goes as far as he could of avoiding too much out and out religion, and then perhaps the establishment of an official religion, while maintaining the essential concept that it is not government granting rights that can therefore be also taken away. Good call.
Oh, wait... she's got the right to not be offended by any Supremes' decisions?
LOL.
http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/noright...
Which might be a Good Thing, too... :)
If anyone wants to see in action that this about evangelical religious faith then watch these short videos to see the frenzied religious emotions in the religious rhetoric:
- Rally of the faithful before Davis' appearance after prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruvWb...
Supporters singing hymns and waving crosses, signs and flags "Appeal to Heaven", "We Stand with God" "Supreme Court the new ISIS of America incarcerating Christians"
- Kim Davis speaking to the faithful after release from prison under the condition that she not interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggsZQ...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politic...
"Thank you all so much. I love you all so very much. I just want to give God the glory. His people have rallied, and [shouting] you are a strong people. [hand in air] We serve a living God who knows exactly where each and every one of us is at. Just keep on pressin. Don't let down. Because He is here. He's worthy. He's worthy. I love you guys. Thank you so much."
Supporter waving Bible and yelling: "The Bible trumps man's law every day. The Bible is the Word of God and it is greater than the law. Signs: "Obey God rather than men. Act 5:29" "We stand for the Bible" "Jesus Loves You"
Signs: "Supreme Screw-Ups: Outlaw Prayer 1962 Outlaw Bible 1963 Murder Unborn Babies 1973 Legalize Pervert Marriages 2015" "Gay Agenda: Destroy Bible Christianity"
- Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's anti-intellectual religious account of a mystical founding of the country, claiming that Davis is the 'second coming':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeYE2...
"I don't think it is possible to explain America apart from the Providence of Almighty God. There is no other explanation for how this country could have come into being. There is no other explanation for how this country could have been sustained. The only explanation is that God intervened. And I believe this week, once again, as Forest Gump so wonderfully said, 'God showed up'. And he showed up in the form, of an elected Democrat, named Kim Davis."
The hypocrisy displayed by most of her supporters is deafening and sickening. They might not cut off your head or burn you to death; but they would probably tell you they 'love you' and hope you get 'better' while turning the key to your cell because you violated one of "God's laws".
Religion in government does not make or maintain a free society; it results in a creeping tyranny that constantly erodes an individual's rights.
Matthew 12:30 KJV
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad .
Acts 4:19
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
Acts 5:29 KJV
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said , We ought to obey God rather than men.
John 12:43 KJV
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
I think that there is a difference between using authority to make something happen and using authority to not prohibit something from happening. I wonder if the clerk considered that she was 'marrying' these people, when actually she was just allowing the couples to decide whether or not they wanted to get married. (Granted, they probably would have.) Her activity was a link in the chain, not the whole chain.
My opinion: And no government should be able to prevent people from getting married. That is not anyone's business but their own.
Jan
On the other side, can someone's Christian beliefs trump me under the law. That is most definitely using governmental power to deny me what the law has recognized for me.
I don't care for the double standard. Meanwhile she will remain in prison indefinitely. Now a martyr. The couple could have gone to a nearby country.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/p...
Still laughing.
Inappropriate and sometime retributive sentencing for non-violent civil contempt of court has been going on for too long and desperately needs to be challenged at the Supreme Court level on Constitutional grounds:
People jailed in civil contempt of court are not entitled to trials or juries. There is no prosecutor or defense lawyer involved in contempt of court rulings; there are not even any charges levied. People can be held under civil contempt of court for a LIFE SENTENCE; they are held without charge indefinitely.
Even terrorists held in Guantamano Bay are afforded a tribunal, a luxury denied to US citizens held under civil contempt of court. Being jailed in contempt of court is similar to being jailed by a junta, the victim is indefinitely held without charge for a period of time arbitrarily determined by the dictator/judge.
BAH!
They did file a complaint against her. That is why she went to jail for defying the court order after months of this nonsense.
The president doesn't make law, the Supreme Court doesn't make law, and no law has been passed by Congress. Yes, KY State law says marriage is between a man and a woman. The federal judge had this clerk imprisoned for obeying the only valid law.
I don't have any care one way or another when it comes to homosexuals getting married where they can (not in Churches that don't want them) but this is about federal enforcement of its will (not law) on a person who is obeying State law, the only legitimate law.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex AND (emphasis mine) to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"
From the 14th amendment;
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The state law was not legitimate after this ruling and was never moral and therefore never legitimate prior to the ruling.
And it's hardly "manipulating society" to require a public official to either perform the duties of her office or resign.
If your conscience is that corrupt, maybe it is not a lawyer you need to be talking to.
Weren't the Clintons lawyers?
Only individuals have rights. Government cannot and does not operate by "right". There is no such entity as a "society". It is an abstraction referring to a group of people. Subordinating the group to the rights of the individual is not a "club", it prevents a mob's clubs from trampling the individual. Conservative "states rights" is tribalist tyranny.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Should the officials of Sanctuary Cities not be held in contempt of court for defying Federal Immigration laws? Does SCOTUS have the delegated power by the Constitution to actually change the provisions of Obamacare? Complex and confusing to say the least.
Therefore, I stand by my Ferris quote about the arbitrary creation of criminals to further various special interest agendas through conflicting, confusing non-objective laws and regulations. Or as my brilliant old country boy of a Dad used to say, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored, which is why the best government is the most limited government."
What law has been made to sanction and permit homosexual marriage that trumps State law?
Be honest.
As to your question, there is no federal law sanctioning and permitting homosexual marriage. So what? Equality before the law and individual rights are not limited to whatever the federal government "sanctions" or "permits". Discriminatory state and local laws that confer privileges to some citizens and deny them to others are prohibited by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This applies to any state laws, not just those that conflict with rights that the federal government "sanctions" or "permits".
I really like how you keep going to the 14th amendment. Does that mean, although slaves were freed by War and the emancipation proclamation, they had no INALIENABLE RIGHTS under the Constitution until the fed gov (men) awarded them their rights?
My understanding was that the 13,14, and 15th Amendment were put in place to FORCE the Southern people to accept freed slaves fully.
Supposition: Perhaps thats why black society is as messed up as it is today. Equal except that their rights came from the government (can be restricted and even taken away) and not God.
What is your position on individual rights? Are such rights absolute or are they dependent upon whatever the voters in a particular geographical area decide?
Additionally, it is the enforcement of the contract that is really in question. The only legal leg the Federal government has to stand on is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.
"If a government requires a "license" as a precondition of recognizing a contract..."
I agree that the governmental control of the licensing process for marriage is absurd. It has no authority in the matter. Similarly, a person should have the ability to designate heirs, etc., using power of attorney. That spouses were automatically granted that power has always been a result of the historical culture of the world. If you want to feel offended by that, it's your choice.
How is defining a class of people's rights on paper not awarding rights?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Not sure why any of the 3 of you took a point, unless, of course, it had nothing to do with lack of comprehension and everything to do with who dared to say it here (me). If the FF's, Jefferson-Franklin-Adams-Sherman-Livingston, did not mean God (cap C) or at the very least a higher power than men, when what did they mean?
One of the point takers I expected, the other two...just embarrassing.
Like a kidney stone, I can't wait for something concrete to happen to ewv which allows actual contemplative conversation based in reality, using generally accepted and recognizable terms used by our Founding Fathers, to occur.
What is important to note, however, is that there is no Constitutional foundation for the Federal government interfering in marriage.
You'll need to explain that to me.
Dr. Paul, in this instance, to me, is correct, as I've said all along, the fed gov (even state gov's) should have no business regulating or sanctioning marriage. Dr. Paul is also right in saying that this is judicial coercion.
I wonder what would have happened were she muslim?
Otherwise, the Constitution stands moot on the subject of marriage.
This is judicial tyranny plain and simple.
Marriage is not a constitutional right. Government should have no say whatsoever if two consenting adults want to consider themselves married.
I suspect that the original reason for a marriage 'license' was to be able to register a marriage in the interest property rights; inheritance, power of attorney, etc and NOT a permission slip as it were. But as usual someone sees a chance for a power grab and additional license fees.
Exactly!
and I agree. . they are crushing the 1st amendment. -- j
.
It's been said here KY did not change the law. The offended couple were not married in any location end of story then fine the ladies lawyer for trying to make a Supreme Court case out of a mole hill.
Marijuana? ha ha here's your answer. Murphy, Oregon about a week or so ago deer raided a 500 acre pot field and ate all but five acres. Let's here for the real native population.
Deer getting stoned? Eight antlers high and when you leap down.....you'll find that it's easy... to crash into the ground....Sic'em Bambi!
The 10th is what matters here. Yes, I re-read 14 and it in no way applies.
Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
14th is from the reparation age and relates to freed slaves (as do 13 and 15).
Why didn't Kentucky officials bring articles of impeachment against her? Possibly because they knew they would embarrass themselves when the case came before the Senate of Kentucky.
One more thing I wanted to mention about the Slaughterhouse decision that I noticed; It was the dissenting opinion that had the more lasting effects and caused the effect that you mentioned above. This is the second case that I've heard of to have that effect. (Admittedly limited knowledge of supreme court cases) I'm fuzzy on the details but the other was an early 1900's case where the dissenting opinion created the "living document" crap that has become common in reference to our constitution in justification of all the wild interpretations of it. Is that the norm, or just a fluke occurrence?
That observation supports the long suspected theory that there is more going on in our behind the scenes culture pushing this type of agenda.
Why the hell there is so much absolutely contradictory contrary cognitive dissonance out there cannot be by mistake. Reality just does not support that.
Correct, meaning that the contract is unenforceable. That's the definition of null and void.
Hey, how did you get in here in the first place?! :))))))
I like it.
ARTICLE I SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives.
Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court does not legislate law. Has Congress passed a law making same-sex marriage legal? What she has done is not unconstitutional. She should not be in jail.
. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The real issue is that of contract enforcement.
The other problem is that in order to claim discrimination, you also have to show that the two cases are identical. They are not. The physiology alone dictates pretty substantial differences that entirely warrant the two (or three or four) situations being treated differently both in name and in substance. That was the purpose of the miscegenation laws which were and remain on the books in many states. If you want to argue that there should be no restraints placed by government on contractual negotiations that is one thing (but really doesn't work if you expect the government to enforce such). But to argue that the two situations are identical is false.
One more thing I would point out - the Supreme Court has no legal authority to make law. All they have the authority to do is to declare certain laws unConstitutional. Their rulings, however, do not equate to new laws. Until the Kentucky Legislature takes up the issue, there is still no law instructing the County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This is not the Clerk's fault. That many Clerks chose to consider the Supreme Court ruling the new law of the land is an errant interpretation of legal authority. What should have happened was that the State should have stopped issuing all marriage licenses until a new law was put in place - which ironically is exactly what this Clerk did (she was sued not only by two homosexual couples, but by a heterosexual couple as well).
"What does sexual orientation (or gender, for that matter) have to do with whether one should or should not be eligible for this particular government "benefit"?"
So change the laws about who is entitled to receive the benefits. There is nothing preventing that from happening but some effort! Could the gay rights movement have petitioned to have gays and lesbians given equal status under the law while recognizing that they were a different composition of couple? Absolutely. So ask yourself why they didn't? Note that Vermont passed laws recognizing homosexual couples and giving them equivalent privileges - without redefining marriage. Why not merely do the same in the other states?
Answer: because this was never about equal "rights". That's a side-show at best and many gay "rights" activists willingly admitted it as such. The goal was to destroy marriage and religious institutions.
"As for changing the law, it is up to your side to change the law"
Why? It is and always has been up to the petitioning body to propose new legislation. Your statement is simply false and you know it. -1 for that statement alone
"Such changes would have the added advantages of being fair and constitutional."
And have I once said that it could not be done? NO. In fact, that is precisely what I have been arguing should have been the route taken from the beginning! Could changes granting similar legal standing to homosexual unions as heterosexual unions have been actuated by Legislative action? Assuredly. So why didn't they do that? Ask yourself that question.
That being said, however, the notion of fairness again relies on the comparable nature of the two situations, which are not materially equal in reality. And the Constitution specifically reserved all powers not specifically ceded to the Federal Government to the States. The States overwhelmingly passed referendums, Constitutional Amendments, and propositions by the established, legislative process that marriage was between a man and a woman in recognition of reality. That Federal Courts took upon themselves powers to rule on this matter despite zero Constitutional authority to do so is self-evident - unless you can point me to the specific part of the Constitution which gives the Federal Government the power to define marriage - or the terms of any contract for that matter.
Regarding “It is and always has been up to the petitioning body to propose new legislation”: Victims of discriminatory legislation also have the right to petition the courts to set aside such legislation, as they did earlier regarding racial segregation in public schools and laws against interracial marriage.
Regarding “the Constitution specifically reserved all powers not specifically ceded to the Federal Government to the States”: No it didn’t. The 10th Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, clearly prohibits any state from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So the Supreme Court decision is fully consistent with both the 14th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Gay couples did not create the laws that defined marriage and then extended special privileges to the subset of citizens who legally qualified for that status. The federal and state governments were responsible for passing and implementing these laws. The role of the courts is simply to insure that any “benefits” of marriage conferred by the federal government or the states are available to all couples equally. Since governments have mandated that these benefits are tied to the “institution of marriage”, the Supreme Court has logically ruled that the institution of marriage itself be made available to all couples equally. If the Court has “redefined” marriage to justify this ruling, it is because lawmakers chose to define it in the first place, and then sought to exclude certain people from its benefits.
Now having thoroughly p-ssed off people. You may take the bully pulpit and opine in any direction you want except the right one. I already did that.
Ayn Rand quote said in any dispute there is the right side which is right, the wrong side which is wrong and the middle which is also wrong. Not quoted exactly.
Arf Arf
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.”
— Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission
Should the Clerk fulfill her duties? Absolutely. However, I would point out that to this point there is no law on the books in Kentucky which recognizes same-sex marriage nor which instructs the Clerk to recognize such. So she is being true to the laws of her State to which she was elected. That the State and the Supreme Court are at odds is a problem that the Legislature of Kentucky needs to take up - either through nullification of the ruling or by changing their law. Remember, the Supreme Court can not make law - they can only rule laws unConstitutional.
I agree about his choice of phrase.
Another quote (paraphrase) I attribute to Ayn Rand but don't really know; "Using an incorrect method to come to the correct conclusion does not prove the method." You could argue all day long over the reasoning the Supreme Court used for their conclusion, (both sides) and the same for this Judge but, continuing the quote, "Proving the method incorrect does not necessarily disprove the conclusion".
Yes, the Supreme Court invented a new right out of whole cloth (see Justice Scalia's dissent). And they in essence ignored reality and asserted that there is no difference between the sexes. All that aside, however, the Supreme Court does not make law. Only a Legislature is empowered to do that. So until the Kentucky Legislature takes up the matter, there is nothing to be done. The only thing the Supreme Court could legally do was declare the existing law unConstitutional, but it can not replace law.
The Supreme Court did not have to make a law. And the right existed long before this or any other supreme court did and Scalia, who is usually fairly rational, would put that right up for a democratic vote, merely on the basis of "we've always done it that way". (paraphrasing, of course)
The Kentucky law requiring people to ask permission, and the County Clerk to issue, licenses for marriage already existed. The Supreme Court, in accordance with the 14th amendment, invalidated the part where the state of Kentucky allowed itself and its angry mob of citizens to violate, repeat, violate those rights that already existed on the basis of sexual orientation.
You have your legal terminology confused. Rights are individual and apply to either gender individually and equally. But there is no "right" to marriage. Marriage is a contract - just like ANY action requiring two parties of free will. What is at issue is who has to recognize a given contract as being legal! And governments "discriminate" all the time on what kinds of contracts are deemed enforceable and by whom.
Read Justice Scalia's dissent on Obergefell. It is scathing and spot on.
I always figured that pesky little Right to "the pursuit of happiness" included my relationships with others.
Marriage has always been the recognized union of a man and a woman. It recognizes that the two sexes are inherently different. The marriage contract as recognized by government also recognized that that difference was key to the formation of a valid and recognizable marriage contract under which both religious organizations and government could adhere. The Supreme Court in its ruling has now created an environment where the religious are necessarily put at odds with the government. As a result, the First Amendment will be the next casualty as we will now see lawsuits - just like the ones where the Federal Government is mandating contraception coverage under the ACA in violation of religious beliefs - only now you will see these same homosexual activists attacking the rights of religions to recognize or not homosexual unions.
There is nothing precluding you or anyone else from pursuing happiness. Obtaining is another matter entirely and that is not guaranteed. There is also the small matter that one can not demand that another change the way they do things just to conform to the first's notions of happiness. This is coercion of will and a violation of natural law. It is also the basis for every entitlement program invented.
You said what is "at issue is who has to recognize a given contract as being legal!" One implication of that is anyone working in government can selectively withhold government services based on whatever offends their sensibilities and demand to keep their position. Government shouldn't operate capriciously.
Yes, the government should be out of the 'marriage business' or create groups with 'special' rights . However, it's part of their duty to record a marriage contract. It doesn't matter a blind rat's butt anyone else's opinion of a particular marriage between consenting adults. Selectively recognizing contracts between adults by the government was a problem in the first place. Conflating other issues to camouflage the simple principles in play isn't necessary. Legal equality is a different concept than physical equality—that should be obvious.
You mean like the reality that men and women are not the same? I challenge you to deny this truth. Before ANY other argument, I challenge you to deny this reality. It is fundamental to the entire argument, yet you seek to dance around and obfuscate without ever confronting the issue. Time to pony up. Either it is or it isn't. Which side do you choose?
"killed a few 'windmills' and ripped up a couple of 'straw men'"
Glad to be of service. Although which specific arguments you want to label as straw men I'd be interested to hear about. (If you're going to make accusations, you'd better be prepared to stand by them and back them up. Otherwise they're just ad hominem attacks and expose a sever lack of support in a logical debate.)
"but you didn't answer the question."
The answer I have been giving is the reality you don't want to hear or acknowledge because it defeats your arguments.
"You said what is "at issue is who has to recognize a given contract as being legal!" One implication of that is anyone working in government can selectively withhold government services based on whatever offends their sensibilities and demand to keep their position."
That's simply not true and you know it. -1 The LEGISLATURE is responsible for passing the laws, the EXECUTIVE is responsible for enforcing the laws, and the JUDICIAL is responsible for adjudicating the laws, ie declaring applicability. But neither the judicial nor the executive branches have the power to create law. Only the Legislative has that power and authority under both State and Federal Constitution. But until such time as the Legislature passes a law to be executed, there is no responsibility of the Executive (of which a Clerk is a member) to act.
"Government shouldn't operate capriciously."
I completely agree. The Executive should carry out the laws duly passed by the Legislative - but no others. It can not assume powers it was not explicitly granted without engaging in tyranny and usurpation. Or do you disagree?
"Yes, the government should be out of the 'marriage business' or create groups with 'special' rights . However, it's part of their duty to record a marriage contract."
Now you're trying to argue both sides. If you want government out of marriage licensing - then stick to that argument. It's one I happen to support. If you are going to side with the government, however, you must also allow that in so doing the government has a responsibility to determine what types of contracts are legal and binding (ie which ones it must adjudicate and enforce when disputes arise) and which ones are not. And it can not conflate two inherently different things to be the same or it loses all justice, fairness, and equity. As you correctly identified: it cannot operate capriciously.
" It doesn't matter a blind rat's butt anyone else's opinion of a particular marriage between consenting adults."
Curious wording, but that aside... You are welcome to hold whatever ceremony you want. You can crown yourself Emperor of the Moon if you want. You can marry your dog, your turtle, the pond in your backyard, or anything or anyone else you desire. But what you have no power over is whether or not others - and most especially the government - recognize that ceremony. And that is where others' opinions absolutely DO matter.
What is most fascinating about this statement is that if it were true, homosexuals wouldn't have bothered taking their case to the courts at all! They would have just hooked up and gone about their business while totally ignoring the opinions of others. But the reality is that they need others to validate their unions - not just legally but socially.
"Selectively recognizing contracts between adults by the government was a problem in the first place."
No. The problem is people like you trying to deny the reality that a man is not a woman. The issue is not about adults. The issue is about the inherent differences between men and women. As I continue to say (and you continue to ignore), at its heart marriage was always the union of a man and a woman - not just two adults. You continue to attempt to reframe the issue by abstraction and it is fallacy.
"Legal equality is a different concept than physical equality—that should be obvious."
I'm not the one denying the obvious/reality here. I'm not the one trying to claim that gender is meaningless or that the definition of marriage was never the union of a man and a woman, but of two consenting adults.
What seems clear is that you're upset over the use of the term 'marriage' in the context of a "marriage license" as the means which our government, currently, recognizes the "civil union" of adults.
The issue, as stated many times before, is whether this county clerk has an obligation in the course of her governmental duties to uphold legal individual rights for all, or just those she deems worthy. Because, if she gets to discriminate against legal individual rights, while performing her governmental job, then none of us can expect protection of our rights. The next government bureaucrat that doesn't perform the duties of their position may not look or believe as Kim Davis, and their 'exception' might be akin to Lois Lerner's gang or worse.
However, DOMA is settled law, has not been repealed, and therefore, the subject of this post should not be in jail for her refusal to sign an approval for a same sex couple to marry. If we are no longer a nation of laws, then further conversations concerning the constitution are useless.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex AND (emphasis mine) to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"
From the 14th amendment;
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I guess she is out now but she was right where she belongs until she resigns, is removed or does her job.
It's amazing. Where was all this concern when the Patriot Act took over your precious Constitution. Now you do the deer in the headlights act and say huh?
Pathetic.
That being said, if I were the Rowan County Clerk, I would tell the court she is ready to comply with the court's demands. After getting out of jail, create a sign at the county clerk's office, saying that the court's new definition of marriage is now in force and the following relationships will now receive "licenses" at the office:
1) Man/woman
2) Man/man
3) Woman/woman
4) 1 Woman / 2 or more men
5) 1 Man / 2 or more women
6) 2 or more men / 2 or more women
7) Man/cousin
8) Woman/cousin
9) Man/mother
10) Woman/father
11) Man/granny
12) Woman/grandpa
13) Man/sister
14) Man/computer
15) Woman/smartphone
16) Man/game console
17) Woman/horse
18) Woman/dog
19) Man/dog
20) Man/goat
21) Woman/cat
Per the court's new, wider definition of marriage, the only requirements for a marriage license in Rowan County are:
1) At least 1 adult human 18 years old or older
2) At least 1 legal resident of Rowan County
3) Non-humans can be of any age
4) All humans must express their love for each other
5) Non-humans are not required to express love
WAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. -- j
.
and an oak. . root ball about 30 feet in diameter. . can't quite
carry her in. . WAAAaaaaaaaa. -- j
.
we have so many acorns that the squirrels throw parties
under her. . we're wild and wonderful, here in the woods!!! -- j
.
and older and more expansive. . these are probably "virgin" timber
here in the hinterlands. . old. . we cut one down to build this house
which was (I counted the rings) 115 years old. . in 2004. -- j
.
Get government out of the welfare business and make everyone responsible for their own money management. Then wills (contract law again) become the vehicle of wealth transfers, end-of-life care decisions, etc. Health insurance would benefit the same way - by making the applicants list the beneficiaries of the policies. Currently, government control over the health insurance industry complicates what should be a process as simple as getting auto insurance.
Please note that I am not siding with this particular Clerk. What concerns me is that we are going to see in very short order the rights of individuals to believe in what they choose challenged by these very advocates. They seek to force everyone to acknowledge their contractual arrangements regardless of their religious or other beliefs. Once government asserts that religious organizations no longer have the right to refuse to acknowledge these types of unions, the First Amendment will be dead and with it the Constitution of the United States. We will have fallen into a state of tyranny.
As for the legal rights, power-of-attorney solves the majority of those issues. All the others could be addressed through standard legislative processes.
"gay couples should not be treated differently from non-gay couples by any level of government, local, state or federal."
Why? Is not the anatomy different? Of course! That alone means that the pairing is inherently different from a heterosexual couple. That there are numerous other differences and very few similarities is ignored in this case for some reason I can not fathom. That these differences exist and are indisputable give plenty of reason to treat them separately. Can they still be given the same legal footing for purposes of government benefits (barring the fact that such shouldn't exist at all)? Absolutely. All that would be needed is for the appropriate laws to be passed.
Instead, these agitators demanded that 1.8% of the population be able to dictate to the rest of society what constitutes marriage in spite of reality. State after State rejected the redefinition of marriage (but Vermont's motion to treat it equally passed) when put to popular vote (even in California), and yet somehow a few activist Federal judges get to override the will of the people and redefine a term which has recognized reality for millennia? Sounds like tyranny to me.
Your emphasis is on equating two things that are not equivalent! It is a denial of reality! Could homosexual couples be treated the same under the law as heterosexual couples? Yes, they could and I have never said otherwise. All that would be needed is for appropriate laws to be passed. But the activists weren't satisfied with that. They instead decided to invent their own little world where there is no male and female, no distinctions between the sexes. And they persuaded several District Court judges and five Supreme Court Justices to join them.
You can choose to live in that world if you choose. I choose to acknowledge reality: that there most definitely are differences between a man and a woman and they are not interchangeable. I support the rule of law: where laws must be passed by Legislatures - not judges. Law instigated either by judicial fiat OR executive fiat is tyranny under the Constitution. Those branches were not given law-making powers. At least in the reality of the Founding Fathers.
elected position not being "fireable". I do think the
law can recognize some things as being "natural"
or not, even if not declaring them "moral" or "im-
moral". It recognizes that servicemen on active
duty will, according to the laws of nature, die
if they do not have some kind of food, so there
are chow (or mess) halls established. It recog-
nizes that fear of death is natural, so a police
officer can use a gun to intimidate a suspect to
get into the prisoners' wagon.
I know that heterosexual families can be a-
busive. But my point there was that a homosex-
ual union will not bring any children into exis-
tence at all, so there was no need for the law
to establish marriage for such a union in the
first place; whereas, it is better for children not
to be brought into existence without parents to
care for them.--As I said, I think there should be
some provision for designating someone, (even
of the same sex), as next of kin, for such issues
as hospital visits and insurance policies; per-
haps come kind of "civil unions".
What I can't stand is the closed minded intolerance here when any mentions anything related to faith or religion even in passing. I don't proselytize, never have and have no desire to start, but the reality is a great many things relate ideas put forth by people with faith/religion or at least used faith/religion to craft their documents. In discussion those things are worth mentioning, particularly when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should not be ridiculed.Further, the deconstructive notion by friends here who insist on mans right to travel as I endure the onslaught of illegal aliens in my state that have harmed many people I know, and my sister most severely. As-if the individual right to travel trumps private property. If it does, there is no private ownership, no borders, and no country - this is loathsome.
That's my take. I'm a Constitutional Conservative who respects Ayn Rand as a visionary (as it says in my profile). This has never been a secret and I openly say this whenever a perceived conflict arises.
Regarding immigration, I don’t think it would become a major issue in an Objectivist nation. Anyone coming into such a country could do so only with permission of the owner of the property that he or she landed on. Thereafter, the immigrant could only travel on or otherwise use this property in a manner that was acceptable to the property owner. The same would apply to any other private property accessed by the immigrant. Under such circumstances, mass immigration would likely not exist and thus would not become a huge political and social issue.
Regarding religion, I don’t make that big a deal out of it, although I am not religious.
Where I disagree with you is on the issue of society vs. individual rights, which is a core concept among Objectivists. Specifically I disagree with your statement that “A State can do whatever its people want it to provided the people of that State voted for it.” To me this means that the federal government has no legal or moral right to intervene to protect the rights of citizens from abuses by elected state or local governments. A central element of Ayn Rand's political philosophy is that the primary purpose of government is to protect individual rights. This includes all levels of government, federal, state and local.
That is verbatim from two lawyers I've known for many years. Referendums and laws can be passed at the state an local level and they can be thoroughly unconstitutional. Those laws/referendums can be overturned, repealed, or upheld. I never said I cared for it, but that is reality AND a right of the people of that State or Town.
Kentucky's law. Because I believe it is not part of
the government's function to put its stamp of ap-
proval on unnatural practices. In the first place, the
reason for the State's being involved in marriage in the first place is that children can result from
such a union, and children need to be raised in
some sort of structured environment, cared for,
and not running the streets committing crimes
or being themselves the victims of crime. (Of
course, not all heterosexual couples will be fer-
tile, especially those of advanced age, but that
at least establishes what is natural). Of course,
consenting adults should be able to do what they
want in their own homes, without the State
breaking in on them, but that does not mean the
State is obligated to give them a stamp of ap-
proval.--As a matter of being humane, perhaps
there should be a provision in law for someone
to be able to designate anyone he wishes as his
next-of-kin, provided no third party's right is vio-
lated (such as a spouse's, or minor child's)--
for insurance purposes, or hospital visitation,
or inheritance. But the law should not call it
marriage.--
That said, I do not understand why Kim Da-
vis was put in jail instead of fired. And, the
Court having ruled, I think she was very foolish
to imagine she could get away with it. What if
a black man and a white woman had gone for a
marriage license, and some bigot behind the
counter had said, "I believe God never meant
for white to mix with colored, and I'm not going
to give you a license."? (By the way, I am total-
ly in favor of the Court's overturning the anti-
miscegnation statute in Loving vs. Virginia,
1967). Why didn't she simply resign?
Nobody can "fire" a person in an Elected Position.
Impeached, yes; Recalled, maybe; but firing is not part of the laws. Jailed for disobeying a court's order... certainly.
And "unnatural practices" is a moral/ethical judgment on your part or anyone else who uses the term. As such, in an enlightened society or culture, the term should never appear in any law or government regulation. But we're nowhere near there, yet.
And hetero- as well as homosexual families, kids can be mistreated. To generalize that it occurs more often in either one begs for some statistical proof; otherwise it's a label or an opinion or even agreement or consensus, but is not Data or Fact.
1) The government has way too much power over much too much including licensing (!?) marriage;
2) She was working in official capacity in a government function;
3) The Constitution does require equal treatment of all from government under law;
4) The government ordered the parameters of her government job to include giving out marriage licenses to gay couples;
5) She disobeyed the government, her employer in this and the type of disobedience is punishable by government in this case.
She is not a "prisoner of conscience". Yes in a correct society you would not need a government license to get married or do much else. Yes a private organization or party is free to discriminate on any basis they choose in a free country. But to pick this out of context of where we are now and the capacity she acted under is absurd.
https://youtu.be/CW8LwE_DqH0
Load more comments...