From the New York Times, comes another rehashing of the gal who would rather go to jail, than issue a marriage license to a same sex couple:
A county clerk who, through her defiance of a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, became a national symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after a federal judge here declared her in contempt of court.
The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release.
Instead, on a day when Ms. Davis’s lawyer said she would not retreat from or modify her stand despite a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court secured commitments from five of Ms. Davis’s deputies to begin providing the licenses.
Here in South Dakota, our Attorney General has weighed in on the issue himself:
Attorney General Marty Jackley says if a county employee in South Dakota has religious objections to gay marriage they can have another employee issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Jackley said Thursday that the constitutional right to marry that’s now guaranteed to same-sex couples must coexist with the constitutional right of freedom of religion for county employees.
So, here’s the conundrum. Like the gal who found god amidst her multiple divorces, if someone has a religious objection, should they be able to say “nah” to a same sex couple?
The phrase from the bible that comes to mind is “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” – which gives rise to a wide disparity of opinion as to how we should submit to earthly authority versus that of the good book.
Should the rule of God’s law supersede the laws of men?
Yes, the rule of God’s law should supersede the laws of men. The “render to Caesar” instruction was given by Jesus Christ, who was later brutally executed for violating a law against claiming to be God.
Apply the law of universality to Jackley’s line of thinking and it fails (universally). A state employee has the right to believe what they want, but it does not allow for the imposition of the right on another. The idea that the law is in essence the most neutral application of rights for all citizens allows for one to hold his or her belief. Now, they can choose to no long work at the job they were hired to do (follow the law) or they can choose to seek employment in a place that allows them to not have to follow the law.
Supreme Court has said that people of the same sex must be allowed the same right of marriage. A person claims their faith prevents them from recognizing that right and therefore they do not have to act in accordance of the law. What is to prevent someone from saying that my faith doesn’t allow for a woman being abused to divorce her husband? What is to prevent someone from saying that they won’t issue a marriage license to a Muslim couple because they are seen as infidels? What is to prevent a person from using Sharia law because they happen to be Muslim? What is to prevent a person from denying access to a school based on the color of the skin? If you can’t apply the law on a universal basis (or even close to a universal basis) then you are practicing bad government.
If someone is there willing to issue the license, where is the harm?
Her name–Kim Davis -has to be on the application when some deputy clerk signs her name that could be claimed forgery and might invalidate the application Davis wants to be in that position but not have her name on the license….
I don’t think muslims have to sell pork in Target’s in Minneapolis because of their faith. Should they be told they have to handle pork in order to work there?
No. But they have to understand that it’s okay for Target customers to buy pork if they want to, and that its not their job to keep them from doing it.
Both are important–I love how the media has spent so much time talking about this DEMOCRAT clerk and tar and feathering her in the media whereas the DEMOCRAT frontrunner for President breaks both God’s law (Thou shall not bear false witness) and Man’s law with her numerous security breaches with national security secrets and that’s ok–nothing to see here, move along….
According to Wikipedia:
“As of 2014, [Rowan County] had 14,263 registered voters. Of these, 9,394 were Democrats, 3,929 were Republicans, and 626 listed themselves as members of other parties.”
She’s only a Democrat because she can’t win otherwise. Sound like a RINO problem here in SD to you?
Well, one would assume that ALL public officials that are willfully violating Federal law will now face charges.
The mayors and city councils of Sanctuary Cities must be quaking in their boots now.
Right?
Laws are for the little people, or political enemies.
The “Fundamental Transformation of America” from a nation dedicated to the rule of law to a nation of Balkanized special grievance groups continues as planned.
William the uninformed are being duped by selective news reporting and believing everything they see reinforcing bad behaviour without the rule of law equally applied against all law breakers. I don’t care what law or who breaks it; they should all be arrested and charged. From grand larceny at Solyndra to non-compliant civil servants to Federal election fraud by Black Panthers.
Who needs legitimacy when you have tanks?
Hope & Change!
Kudos to Presidential candidate Ted Cruz for standing strongly with her. KY state law should protect her. The USSC should NOT be making laws. This is just one more example of the Obama administration and his appointees’ war on Christians.
Hum…. the key Justice in this decision, which gave gay marriage a 5-4 victory was Anthony Kennedy a Reagan appointee….
As to your comment… “The USSC should NOT be making laws…” I am assuming you are referring to what is often called judicial activism. Assuming that, how do to you feel about the SCOTUS calling money “free speech?”
As far as Jackley’s comment and attempt at solvency on this issue, the AG is ignoring a fundamental ethic in the practice of civil disobedience, which the clerk in Kentucky is actually practicing, and that is that one who practices civil disobedience must be willing to accept the legal consequences, which is often jail time in practicing it.
The AG, the highest law enforcement officer in the state I might remind you, has legitimized civil disobedience without the just consequences. He is allowing such dissenters to have their cake and eat it too, while the AG’s position makes a mockery of our constitutional system and the oath which many in government take when they swear that they will up hold the law.
If a government employee does not like a government policy or law and how it effects their ability to do their job, then the answer is to quit or in the Kentucky example to accept the consequences of civil disobedience.
To have an AG promote the idea that government workers can ignore laws by passing the responsibility on to others in government because they do not like the law is to promote scoff law masted as religious freedoms; and this is not something the highest law enforcement officer in the state should be promoting.
I totally respect a person’s religious rights, but when you take a job in government it is your job to be tolerant and to obey the laws of the land. If you believe in God’s supremacy that’s fine, but perhaps you have no business in being in government if you think this democracy or republic is all of sudden a self-proclaimed theocracy…. Now that latter self proclaimed notion is an example of one or some “making laws” when they are not legislators.
well said
Did you have any objections when Gavin Newson of San Fran and scores of county clerks around the nation issued marriage license to gay couples a few years back, , clearly violating the law at that time?
In time and place, and if I was the CA or SD AG at the time, I would indeed. The law is the law.
Winston, I’d only add that all the licenses Mayor Newsom allowed were all subsequently annulled by the state, and Prop 8 was subsequently passed as well – the law is the law, as you say, and legal consequences followed appropriately. Newsom’s decision to issue licenses didn’t deny anyone their rights, and no one suffered a loss from Newsom’s directive, unlike the clerk situations in Kentucky and elsewhere. I agree completely with what you said about Jackley’s situation.
John, your points are well taken. In time and place, Newsom, like the Kentucky county clerk, was practicing civil disobedience, which in its own right is a legitimate practice so long as it is civil and the participant is willing to accept the potential consequences of punishment for it. I might also add that Per Curiam’s question also opens up the wonderful world of what is called “prosecutorial discretion.”
An AG has the legal right to decide if and what cases will be prosecuted. They have the ultimate sovereignty on this issue and unless you can prove their was a bribe involved their legal calls on potential cases are entirely in their laps.
A county clerk, however, has no such legal discretion except in the genuine interpretation of a state law for expediency absence the states’ or county attorney’s legal advice on a given legal issue.
What the county clerk in Kentucky did was done with an obvious awareness of what the law of the land truly was on gay marriage and her decision cannot be justified do to expediency over a potential harm to the state’s interest. It might have offended her religious beliefs, but that is merely her opinion and that does not empower her with a legal prerogative as a government officer and/or employee to make a unilateral act in response to her belief or beliefs.
Which law was passed, and which lawmakers passed it? I must have missed the news about this new law. What law has this local official violated?
Wow., you must live under a rock…
I believe the previous poster is making a point that the COURT wrote this law, not a legislative body.
The law violated was the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS ruled that state laws prohibiting gay marriage were in violation of the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS did not write a law it upheld a law or rather a constitutional amendment that was enacted through legislative means per constitutional guidelines.
SCOTUS has made the institution of marriage a civil institution and no longer a religious institution. I believe there will be serious consequences from this redefinition of marriage, but that is another point. I see no difference between this and a person going into a hardware store and purchasing a hunting license from a clerk who believes hunting is murder. As I see it, allow whoever wants to get married to do so regardless of number or gender and allow religious institutions decide whether they will sanctify it or if the couple or group needs to go to a judge. Question for Winston & MJL and anyone else who thinks like they do. Would you require a priest to perform a religious ceremony uniting a same sex couple?
dugger, I don’t the SCOTUS made this into a civil union. The very first governmental agency that required a marriage certificate did that. There are two forms of marriage – the spiritual kind and the civil kind. The spiritual kind fall under the religious leanings of those being united and the civil kind falls under the laws of the entity that regulates it – in many ways for inheritance, legal standing, government benefits and those types of issues.
So what we’re seeing here is two groups of people yelling at each other about two different things. The bottom line here is that Ms. Davis still has the right to observe her religious freedom. But at the same time, when she is acting as a public servant, a job she asked for and probably even swore to uphold, she is required to act under the law.
If the Supreme Court says people may not be denied marriage licenses based on their religion, race or sexual preference, then that is the law of the land. Period. Whether I or you or anyone else disagrees with it.
1. Of course, when Gavin Newson of San Fran and scores of county clerks around the nation issued marriage license to gay couples, clearly violating the law at that time, liberals cheered them on. There was NOTHING said in liberalland about “the law”.
2. Mohammed Ali & MLK are hailed as heros for standing against [immoral] laws.
Sounds like Heisenberg and other liberals are being rather selective about “the law”.
Wrong. Once again, in this part of the thread we are talking about Ms. Davis and her right to religious freedom, but her obligation when acting as a public servant to obey the law.
PC, you have a chronic habit of trying to interrupt the flow of discourse by interjecting something you have been steaming over for a long time. Go get in line, start a new thought and we’ll continue there. There are plenty of things we can talk about with Ali and MLK there. Just not here. Let us continue without your amateurish interruption.
“Just not here.”
Thanks for the advice, but you don’t run this blog.
“PC, you have a chronic habit of trying to interrupt the flow of discourse by interjecting something you have been steaming over for a long time. ”
I’m not “steaming” about anything. Are you?
The religious beliefs of county clerks and Ali and MLK are all protected by the same Constitution (LAW) that apparently offers a right for two gays to marry. Intelligent folks call that a “principle”.
So, I take it that when you agree with the law, everyone must follow “the law”; when you disagree with it, those who fight against it are freedom fighters, and as such, are entitled to disobey “the law”. That’s what intelligent folks call “unprincipled.”
I understand many people act and behave and think without principles–we’ll count you in that category.
PC, when Kim Davis took the oath of office for county clerk and if she placed her hand on the Bible, did she swear to defend the Constitution and the laws? Or did she swear to defend the Bible? Because I know of no such oath.
duggersd,
To answer the question you posed to me and others, my answer is no. So long as the ceremony was to take place within the sanctuary of the church grounds. But as a Christian myself, I think they should do it none the less.
If a member of the clergy was known to perform weddings on neutral grounds, like judges often do, then in order to maintain their legal standing as one who could marry couples the clergy member should be obligated to marry any couple, when requested. If they want to maintain their legal authority to marry couples in church, that is.
That said, if a church wants to hold a bakery sale on their church parking and discriminate against certain people because of their religious beliefs, they can, but it would also be very sad. But if a member of the church owns a bakery on main street, regardless of their religious beliefs, they should be required to do business with everyone like gay couples requesting a wedding cake or else close their business for good.
Now there would be some exemptions to my self-described “sanctuary” position. Like, if the church was practicing a ritual which was dangerous to them or others. The SCOTUS made a ruling on this about 50+ years ago involving, ironically, a church in Kentucky which used venomous snakes in their religious ceremonies.
There are not boundaries to religious freedom for anyone in this nation internally, but externally religious freedoms do not empower some or one to force their religious beliefs upon others or the whole. It is our judicial system which has established religious freedoms and we were the first nation to do that. Religious freedoms did not establish our judicial system.
(That said, religious freedoms are owed some legal identity or perimeter in order to be relevant, which is why I prescribe to the sanctuary concept.)
Now, some will sight the Ten Commandments as the precursor to modern law itself long before the Magna Carta or the US Constitution. However, they are ignoring not only that the Ten Commandments tell us what we cannot do as opposed to what we have the right to do, but that the Commandments are known today because of religious tolerance and not religious inevitability. This tolerance is prescribed and upheld within our constitution and when we begin to qualify this tolerance by allowing some to place limits on our legal tolerance, then the potential (assumed in some cases) inevitability of religious doctrines like the Ten Commandments are placed in check as well and religious freedoms as a whole become extremely vulnerable overtime.
As a Christian, I do believe God to be supreme. I also believe that God will some day judge man’s laws, but in the meantime it is imperative that all of us as sinners be tolerant and not judgmental, that is God’s work not ours. And only through tolerance can we continue to guarantee in our own time such cherished rights as freedom of religion.
Again, well said, Winston.
Thank you, John.
She should probably be more concerned with dealing with the tolerant Lee Flanagan wing of the Democratic Party. When they feel slighted, heaven help us all.
It’s time to do away with the obsolete notion of marriage licenses… If two people want to be married they can get married and then send a form into the courthouse stating such…..
Elected, appointed or employed public employees need to do their job. If they can’t, because of their religious belies, they need to get another job. If their religious convictions prevent them, then before you know it, county treasurers and registers of deeds would be able to refuse property taxes and deed recordings if their god tells them to. Islamic fundamentalist officials will be able to refuse service and behead the person too. Elected Rastafarians will be able to smoke their herb at work and not do their job because they’re high.
Is she issuing marriage licenses to divorced individuals and those having children out of wedlock? Is she issuing them to Muslims and Catholics? She may have religious objections to many things but public employees cannot be deciding for themselves which citizens deserve licenses.
I try to leave the judging to God. I do not believe it is right to judge her for her three divorces. But…. that hair style of hers has to be a sin in some religion.
Scouts didn’t write a new law – statute. It interpreted rights under existing law – case law. Marty thinks it’s ok to make the gays wait, kinda like separate but equal which was shot down years ago.
Someone point out where in the Constitution there is a guaranteed right to be a county clerk, or to have a job at all for that matter. What would happen if a vegan employee at Burger King refused to serve hamburgers?
“Someone point out where in the Constitution there is a guaranteed right to be a county clerk,”
An intelligent person would ask the same question about the “guaranteed right to gay marriage”!
An intelligent person would also know that there is no right to gay marriage, but there is a right to equal treatment under the law.
” there is a right to equal treatment under the law.”
Well no, there isn’t.
There are “due process” and “equal protection”, but no right to “equal treatment”.
I encourage you learn up on those two cocepts.
WTF? Are you seriously going to attempt to argue equal protection v. equal treatment? Dude. Pretty sure I’m not the one needing to “learn up on cocepts”.
Okay, then tell us what “equal protection” er “equal treatment” means.
You’re the one arguing there’s a difference in this context.
According to the KY clerk herself, she’s NOT objecting to issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, she’s objecting to her NAME being on those licenses. According to her, if her deputy clerks wish to issue them, they can.
Its the gay rights thugs who are demanding HER NAME on their certifcates in an “in yer face” confrontation.
As with most things, the media and liberals have blown this way outta proportion for their ugly poiltical purposes.
Er… I think you’re mistaken.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
“She could remain a free woman, the judge said, if she gave permission to her deputies to sign the certificates in her stead. The judge gave her time to consult with her attorneys.
But when the court reconvened after a short recess Thursday, Davis was not in her seat. An attorney explained that Davis, an Apostolic Christian, “does not grant her authority nor would allow any employee to issue those licenses.”
I could be mistaken, but that’s what SHE said either late last night or early this morning.
Maybe she changed her mind?
Or more likely, you’re talking out of your butt. The judge said she’d be out if she’d agree to that.
From CNN:
“Staver [Davis’ attorney] later told CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that Davis would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.”
From one butt to another.
Kinda need to have the name and title on there for it to be valid, ya know?
Well no.
Another clerk could sign it.
Instead of your butt, try thinking from the other end.
Dale Bartcher’s opinion on this would be very interesting. I wonder if her verbally backs up the Clerk or if he is as pragmatic as when he supported defining same sex relationships in the South Dakota Codified Laws? I know one thing for sure, no matter what he says about the clerk’s plight, he would never have her courage of convictions.
Point of clarification that I don’t think is being discussed and indeed seems to be missing from Mr. Powers’ post, Ms. Davis isn’t just refusing to issue licenses to same sex applicants, it’s my understanding that she is refusing to issue marrige licenses to ANY applicants.
That strikes me as a completely unreasonable position. She is, in essence violating the establishment clause by trying to impose her religious beliefs on her fellow citizens using her government position as a vehicle.
Seems like the only remedy is to remove her from office and let her department resume its duties to serve the citizenry. She’s violating her constituents’ civil rights otherwise, isn’t she?
“She is, in essence violating the establishment clause by trying to impose her religious beliefs on her fellow citizens using her government position as a vehicle.”
She’s said she wants the Kentucky legislature to change the law so valid licenses can be issued without the county clerk’s authority. Enough with the lies, already.
Lots of discussion about this today everywhere I go.
I thought Huckabee and others were a little bit overblown earlier today – Kim Davis can walk out jail at any point she chooses. She has a clear and immediate path to freedom. Her incarceration specifically is entirely her choice. That’s real religious freedom.
“Her incarceration specifically is entirely her choice. That’s real religious freedom.”
Is that supposed to be a joke? Real religious freedom is when all you have to do to get out of jail is violate your religion?
No, she does not have to violate her religion, but she might have to resign her position. When you take an oath or are the subordinate of one who does in government you are beholden to up hold the law of the land.
She can still practice her religion, but if she wants to force her religious beliefs on others in a governmental position with no legitimate authority or precedence then she has no business being a public servant.
She has to choose between her faith and her paycheck.
It is not unusual for people to find themselves in situations where religion and employment conflict.
All she has to do is decide which is most important to her.
Anne, you are absolutely right and that is why as a Christian I choose to not sell used cars…;-)
Well said. People who are opposed to the consumption of alcohol should not work in bars, if opposed to gambling they shouldn’t work in a casino. If you can’t work on Sunday find a job that doesn’t require it.
This is a problem many people have faced without going to jail or being featured on the national news.
Anne, you nailed. Nothing in the New Testemant that says the path for the practice of faith is an easy, wide road. Some are mistaking a claim to be guaranteed a government check, with practice of her faith. I agree with her religious position, but then, as you note, she needs to make a choice. Actually, she can make the choice she has, assuming she’s content to sit in jail as a display of her conviction.
WWKD. What would Kim do?
Let’s say that there is this divorcee who is a felon. This person has a previous conviction for manslaughter. She is also an unwed mother of two and her fiance’ is an atheist and male prostitute with a history of abuse. They just met yesterday.
Would Kim Davis grant them a license? We all know the answer to that.
Its about Kim’s religious “freedom” alright.
With a little tweaking, I think the previous post could be an LSAT question.