Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage

[MOON Ki]

We tend to look down on the intelligence of the people from the colonial period in the new world.  But the guy who came up with separation of state and church, in a country that was at the time more or less 100% Christian, had some pretty serious foresight.

A quick look at European history and the nasty excesses that took place when religion and state power overlapped would have been more than enough evidence of the need for change.   

The origin of that foresight was Christ himself: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's".   

One of the "amusing things" in this case is that this lady some people are complaining in terms of her "rights"---1st Amendment rights and whatever---while forgetting that those rights are  set in place and guaranteed by the state, which has now extended such rights to others.   They would like to choose which rights should apply, when, and to whom; they believe that the exercise of what they claim are their rights.

Even more incredible here is a "little" matter that this lady's supporters overlook and which the judge had serious problems with: she apparently considered that her office is a mini-theocracy, with herself as some sort of pope, and that her "conscience" and "religious beliefs" extend to all who serve under her.   From the judge's order releasing her:

On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt and jailed her for her refusal to issue marriage licenses, directly or through her deputy clerks

This is about the public office, not the lady:

And all she has to do is not impose her beliefs on others; otherwise it's back to jail:

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith. Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.

But wait!   Now that her supporters are running out of wet gunpowder, they are instead calling for her to fire the deputies who have been issuing licenses!    So much for  "her conscience" and "her religious beliefs" and personal whatever ..... if it really had anything to do with those to start with.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R91RC20150909

[Real P]

RP, thanks for bringing this up. This case shows why the SCOTUS should have carefully weighed the matter of gay marriage and only made a ruling on matters pertinent (e.g. equality) and not intruded into personal liberties. Those who do not subscribe to the gay agenda have been boxed into a corner and now have to act against conscience. Knowing thesocial background of the US and having accepted to intrude into matters not pertinent, SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience. It's not like there are no alternatives for gay couples. This may up new dilemmas on how to effect the equality principle, and the question of whether courts interpret or make laws but that would solve some problems. Dissenting justices hinted on this (I think Clarence Thomas).

MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair. The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights? Can Kim Davis sue for unfair treatment and succeed in this atmosphere? From a spiritual angle, believers know a battle is going on between good and evil. In this matter, evil powers have summoned state power to deny believers like Kim Davis their individual liberties in the name of defending "public office". It is not extraordinary.

Thanks Daily Bread.

[Real P]

SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience.

My example earlier was black and civil rights.  And remember that especially in the South some of those who meted out the worst treatment to blacks claimed that they had Biblical support.   When courts enacted laws against discrimination should they also have enacted laws to "satisfy" those whose "conscience" told them it was fine (and demanded by the Bible) to discriminate?

MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair.

That wasn't my argument; please read it again.   Let me put it in two parts:

* People are free to take their personal beliefs to public office.  Many do, and it's not always just religious beliefs.   

* What they are not free to do is to use such personal beliefs to unlawfully infringe on others' rights.

Which part of that do you find problematic?

The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights?

The lady doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.   If you insist otherwise, please state:

(a) What First Amendment right of hers has been violated.
(b) Exactly how that has been done.

Anyways it appears that a few days in jail have clarified her mind: as long as her office issues licenses, then all is well; nobody cares whether or not she is personally involved.   

Please note the underlined word: the key issue here is one of people going to a public office to get what they are entitled to as a legal right.   

Breh, arap Kiprotich (MOON Ki). I am going straight to your jugular.

Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges. Or what the Canadian French say comparer des pommes avec des oranges

[MOON Ki]

Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges.
...
<additional blah blah blah deleted>

Once again, you have missed the point.   Quite badly too.

I was not comparing "black civil rights" to "gay rights", except in the secondary sense that all "rights" are about equality.  The similarity that I noted, and which is rather obvious, is in the use of religion as a tool to justify unlawful discrimination.  It appears that you did not notice that  my comments were intended to be specific to some things that were said about inter-racial marriages and some things which are now being said about gay marriages.   

Religion was for many years used to justify laws against inter-racial marriage, and when those laws were finally chucked out by the Supreme Court, the reaction was not very different from what we have today.   And what do we have today?   Our Pokot brother happily announcing in public that he is diddling what he refers to as a "white/latino".   Smack in the middle of America, where thet sais both Law and God would never permit that!  Surely, the 21st is a great place .... mostly.  Back  then they would have said a lot of nasty stuff and then lynched him.   And they have would held bibles aloft while they did it---"conscience", "religious rights", and "this is what God demands", blah blah  blah.     

Just in case that wasn't clear, here it is again: an observation to the effect that something (religion here)  is used in similar (or even the same) ways in both X and Y is not the same as equating X and Y.   Logic 101.   Or maybe you have some understanding of elementary mathematics, in which case I would put it thus:

f(X)= f(Y) 

is not necessarily equivalent to

X = Y

(In fact, "off the top of my head", I'd say it generally doesn't hold for non-trivial functions.)

The other point I was trying to comment on was your opening statement that

She is exercising her first amendment law.

(I take it that you meant "right" rather than "law",  but Nipate is Nipate.)    I have read and heard endless comments to that end.    The lady actually did file all sorts of paperwork, claiming all sorts of rights (not laws) to behave as she did.    Judge Bunning carefully went through all that---"right by right", as it were---and explained why none of it would fly.    I have yet to see or hear of any of her supporters go through that decision and point out why (and where) the judge was wrong. 

The legal paperwork that has been filed in this case---by the plaintiffs, by the lady, and including the judge's decisions---are now public.  (The exception would be for the Supreme Court, which simply tossed out the lady's request without even "a single word".)    I encourage people to go through it before they get too excited about laws, or rights, or whatever it is they think it is.

[veritas]

MK has made it pretty clear. f(x) = f(y) is not the same as x = y.

Let me expound on that for the literary types:

rights (civil) = rights (gay) is not the same as civil = gay

Henry Thoreau in Civil Disobedience quote "That government is best which governs least" civil disobedience is a necessary precursor for change. His writings are the reason why protests are systematically written into law today, numerous Bills have been passed to recognise the universal right to protest.

There are avenues Christians can take to voice their concerns- just like gays and blacks have done for decades. There are sufficient systematic checks put in place today for social activism. Like registering for a social mobilisation event.

Merely abstaining from doing your job without worker's union, checks and balances, approvals if you may from provisions set aside to cater for just that is illegal. Depending on the nature of the work you do, it can carry penalties to jail time.

Imagine if that lady was gay and black like that judge. It wouldn't have made the news and she would've been fired from her job. Christians perhaps think they are the status quo and are oblivious to the law. How does it feel like to be on the outside ? It's time to wear that thorny crown.

There's the right way to protest, and the wrong way to protest. What she did by today's standard, given the amount of liberties and provisions set aside for activism, is criminal, it's malicious and vindictive, most normal people just quit their job, what she did was no different to the hate crimes perpetrated towards the blacks back in the day.

I emphasise again, normal people don't sabotage other people's happy unions because of their personal belief system. If she can't do her job, then she should've told her boss so the boss can allocate that work to someone else. Simple as that. You don't go psycho and judge people. Characteristically she comes off as an entitled NAZI and should go see a therapist. In my opinion she's a menace to society and should be locked up.

[Bella]

SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience.

My example earlier was black and civil rights.  And remember that especially in the South some of those who meted out the worst treatment to blacks claimed that they had Biblical support.   When courts enacted laws against discrimination should they also have enacted laws to "satisfy" those whose "conscience" told them it was fine (and demanded by the Bible) to discriminate?

MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair.

That wasn't my argument; please read it again.   Let me put it in two parts:

* People are free to take their personal beliefs to public office.  Many do, and it's not always just religious beliefs.   

* What they are not free to do is to use such personal beliefs to unlawfully infringe on others' rights.

Which part of that do you find problematic?

The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights?

The lady doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.   If you insist otherwise, please state:

(a) What First Amendment right of hers has been violated.
(b) Exactly how that has been done.

Anyways it appears that a few days in jail have clarified her mind: as long as her office issues licenses, then all is well; nobody cares whether or not she is personally involved.   

Please note the underlined word: the key issue here is one of people going to a public office to get what they are entitled to as a legal right.   

Breh, arap Kiprotich (MOON Ki). I am going straight to your jugular.

Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges. Or what the Canadian French say comparer des pommes avec des oranges

RP,  dont know why you're going for my jugular as I mostly agree with you..... The comparison between a physical trait you cannot hide and that you cannot dissociate from in any way and how people prefer to have sex is preposterous in the extreme. But no one should be killing hurting or otherwise going after either of those groups of course. I think everyone agrees on that. With this woman,  the issue for me is really how much people are allowed to refuse personal participation in activities they believe celebrate sin. For her,  being in a public office complicates things but jailing her was not the only option here for the judge. But like I said before,  the same crowd orgasming over seeing a Christian go to jail for refusing to support the agenda in public office totally support the same kind of attacks on private business people running their businesses for years because they simply won't be part of gay weddings. So forgive me if I don't take seriously the "public office" pretense;  What they really want is for the whole world to pretend that they believe gay sex is normal.

[MOON Ki]

The comparison between a physical trait you cannot hide and that you cannot dissociate from in any way and how people prefer to have sex is preposterous in the extreme.

The comparison was not about that; it was about the manner in which religion has been used.  I can see that some people---the "religious" types---might find it "helpful" to avoid dealing with the issue of how religion has been and is used to victimize people, but there it is.   

For her,  being in a public office complicates things but jailing her was not the only option here for the judge.

If you are aware of other options that he had but did not consider, let's "hear" them.

So forgive me if I don't take seriously the "public office" pretense.

The judge carefully explained the matter in his decision.   What would be helpful would be for you to point out the flaws in his reasoning.   Simply calling it a "pretense" won't do, especially when higher courts appear to support him.

What they really want is for the whole world to pretend that they believe gay sex is normal.

As far as I can tell, what the courts really want is for people to follow the law.

[Bella]

I was not talking to you Moonki,  get some reading glasses please. Neither was I referring to the judge with the pretense comment,  it's pretty obvious I am referring to those orgasming over the woman's jailing using the public office argument when they will turn around and forget this argument the very moment it becomes a baker,  photographer or florist being fined for refusing to cater for a gay wedding.  I have zero interest in those non-arguments  about what religion has been used to do,  when I know religion was used far more to fight those very segregations you mention on behalf of the victims,  just as atheism has been used in the past to wreak havoc,  so give me a break if i dont simply swallow your favourite regurgitations as gospel. That ideas have been used to harm society in the past is saying absolutely nothing about this issue,  but nice attempt at a side-track.  Just an excuse to repeat the same "Christianity is evil" nonsense I've grown accustomed to seeing from you.  A judge offered to issue those licences so that they wouldn't have to have Davis' name/ signature,  which was really her objectiob,  not that rhey were going to be issued at all.  That combined with fines would have sufficed both to accommodate her conscientious objections at least until her local legislative body met and to give the citizens of her county the licences they required immediately.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

RP,  dont know why you're going for my jugular as I mostly agree with you..... The comparison between a physical trait you cannot hide and that you cannot dissociate from in any way and how people prefer to have sex is preposterous in the extreme. But no one should be killing hurting or otherwise going after either of those groups of course. I think everyone agrees on that. With this woman,  the issue for me is really how much people are allowed to refuse personal participation in activities they believe celebrate sin. For her,  being in a public office complicates things but jailing her was not the only option here for the judge. But like I said before,  the same crowd orgasming over seeing a Christian go to jail for refusing to support the agenda in public office totally support the same kind of attacks on private business people running their businesses for years because they simply won't be part of gay weddings. So forgive me if I don't take seriously the "public office" pretense;  What they really want is for the whole world to pretend that they believe gay sex is normal.

Bella,

I didn't think RP he "went after your jugular" but rather MOON Ki's.  Something I think MOON Ki clarified effectively. 

But I am responding mainly to say that I do not hate religious people, Christians or Catholics merely for their religious beliefs.  I find that the overall impact of Christianity has been good, both in the US and Africa.  Islam I judge at best to have mixed results, but generally not a positive view.  I think Christianity as practiced today is for the better, as far as I can tell.  I think you mistake my disagreement with their underlying beliefs to be disagreement with Christian ideals.  That's not the case.

If I feel satisfied that she should go to jail, it is because I think she was breaking a good law.

[Bella]

Terminator,  you may not hate Christians but Moonki certainly does. I believe the right thing to do would be to resign like st Thomas Moore resigned when he had to choose between recognizing the acts of his King (Henry VIII) and his conscience. But she is not Catholic so may see things differently. Still,  jail? That strikes me as very harsh.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator,  you may not hate Christians but Moonki certainly does. I believe the right thing to do would be to resign like st Thomas Moore resigned when he had to choose between recognizing the acts of his King (Henry VIII) and his conscience. But she is not Catholic so may see things differently. Still,  jail? That strikes me as very harsh.

MOON Ki is a Christian from the little I have gathered.  I think he hates how it can be used to perpetrate something unfair; I know you don't see it as unfair to gays; but my point is to explain his beef with Christianity.  As a minority, I like to think I have learned to be a little more sensitive to issues that I may otherwise easily choose to ignore.

[Bella]

Moonki certainly calls himself a Christian sure. I agree with that absolutely. I also think as a minority just as you are trying to understand the gays,  you should also try to understand the minority believing religious who truly believe doing such things contradicts their faith. Don't just assume they are being disingenuous,  people generally don't stick their neck outs for something unless it cuts deep. Most Christians who go by the name will be just fine with the new state of affairs because they agree,  but a minority truly will be violating their deeply held beliefs. A just society accommodates both,  it doesn't just substitute the rights of one minority for another. Gays can get married and have all thatthe laws give them, but this shouldnt necessarily mean the very few Christians or Muslims or Jews who will not take part in that should now be targeted for punishment. A fairer balance should be met here. Fair not just for gays but for religious too.

[Bella]

Oops!  RealP, apologies for my first post to you. For some reason I quickly read "Breh,  Moonki" as Bella and Moonki and thought you were talking to us both. I would not have posted otherwise.

[MOON Ki]

That ideas have been used to harm society in the past is saying absolutely nothing about this issue. 

The lady made her cause around religion, and her supporters have jumped onto that bandwagon, to  the extent of trying to turn a few days in "remand" into a Daniel-in-the-lion's-den story.  So religion is very much at the heart of it.   If people don't like the pointers about religion, then we should all stick to the simple matter of what the law says, which is what the judge tried to enforce.

A judge offered to issue those licences so that they wouldn't have to have Davis' name/ signature,  which was really her objectiob,  not that rhey were going to be issued at all.  That combined with fines would have sufficed both to accommodate her conscientious objections at least until her local legislative body met and to give the citizens of her county the licences they required immediately.

Once again, I would actually urge you actually read Judge Bunning's decision and consider all the matters that he went into.   He considered the matter of this other judge issuing the licenses, the plaintiffs going elsewhere for their marriage licenses etc.    (Basically the judge in question would have exceeded his authority: the relevant law allows him to issues licenses when the county clerk is unable to do so, not when he/she is unwilling to do so.) Elsewhere, Bunning also explained why he skipped the issue of fines. 

The other thing Bunning pointed out is that Davis misunderstands her role.    She repeatedly claimed that her name appearing on anything would indicate that she approves of the marriage.   As the judge pointed out, she does not get to "approve" anything: the job of that office is actually to merely check that certain information on the relevant form are accurate.   

The idea that some legislative body is going to meet in order to tinker with things so as to help someone break the law is a non-starter and a bizarre one at that.   Here is what the governor of that state had to say a few months ago:

Dear Kentucky County Clerks:

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision regarding the constitutionality of states' bans on same-sex marriage. The Court struck down those laws, finding that they were invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky -- and all states -- must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.

Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.

and

You also state that:

Just an excuse to repeat the same "Christianity is evil" nonsense I've grown accustomed to seeing from you.
...
Terminator,  you may not hate Christians but Moonki certainly does.

I don't believe Christianity is evil, nor do I hate Christians.   But I feel strongly about is the use of "Christianity" in ways that are harmful.    As an example, I have not made up the history of the "Catholic Church", which involved the "church" and popes leading the way in committing numerous crimes against humanity, mostly in the name of God.   

Also: I consider myself a Christian in so far as I try to live my life according to what I see as the essence of Christ's teachings.   (I just don't go for everything that has been done or  is done in the name of "Christianity.)

[MOON Ki]

but this shouldnt necessarily mean the very few Christians or Muslims or Jews who will not take part in that should now be targeted for punishment. A fairer balance should be met here. Fair not just for gays but for religious too.

The lady has been out of jail since she agreed to stop interfering with her deputy clerks issuing licenses.   That was a key point that her supporters wish to overlook.   As long as her office issues licenses, she does not have to get personally involved and also gets to stay out of jail.   What "fairer balance" do people want?   I think the judge has been very accommodating.

[MOON Ki]

But I am responding mainly to say that I do not hate religious people, Christians or Catholics merely for their religious beliefs.  I find that the overall impact of Christianity has been good, both in the US and Africa.  Islam I judge at best to have mixed results, but generally not a positive view. 

Most religions probably do more harm that good: man/woman is generally a dangerous animal who should not be left to his/her own devices, and both law and religion---"jail for years" or "burn in eternal flames"---appear to be have good taming effects.

Nevertheless, those who have carefully looked at the history of what happens when state power coincides with religious power have come to the conclusion that it is better to separate the two.  That needs to be understood and respected.

[Bella]

Moonki,  The county legislature's meeting would allow others besides the county clerk herself to issue the licences validly without the clerk's name necessaroly on the certificates. That you think this the same as helping people disobey the law only shows the kind of dictatorship you relish to see inflicted on those Christians who see gay marriage as wrong. And i would have to be a fool to believe anything you say about history,  my foot. You know less than 10% and thats being truly generous,  bits selectively chosen to paint as totally evil the object of your contempt.  You've proven that very well, on this very board.  What you know are talking points regurgitated from some anti Christian manifesto,  calling it history is truly insulting. A bit like referring to 9-11 to paint Islam as terrorist in its entirety and then calling this "history".

[MOON Ki]

The county legislature's meeting would allow others besides the county clerk herself to issue the licences validly without the clerk's name necessaroly on the certificates.

The deputy clerks in that office are already  issuing certificates.   

And i would have to be a fool to believe anything you say about history,  my foot.

Oh, you don't have to believe it; in fact, you being a "true believer", I'd be surprised if you did.   But the history of the Catholic Church is widely available, and I leave it people to find and read it for themselves.   

You know less than 10% ...

I won't  argue about that; you could well be right.   I am simply noting some historical facts, and I haven't stopped to consider whether they make up 0.00000001% or 101%.

What you know are talking points regurgitated from some anti Christian manifesto.

No, no; that won't do.   We have some fairly accurate historical texts.       In fact, I note that your earlier comments about the worst of the worst of the popes was not to deny anything; instead you wanted to argue that they were some sort of "exception".

[Bella]

And i would have to be a fool to believe anything you say about history,  my foot.

Oh, you don't have to believe it; in fact, you being a "true believer", I'd be surprised if you did.   But the history of the Catholic Church is widely available, and I leave it people to find and read it for themselves.   

You know less than 10% ...

I won't  argue about that; you could well be right.   I am simply noting some historical facts, and I haven't stopped to consider whether they make up 0.00000001% or 101%.

of course you didn't consider whether you were looking at the whole truth,  for that you would have to be fundamentally fair and not driven by animus. And of course I did not and will not deny here what some Christians, popes or bishops or laymen did that were bad,  any more than I think a Muslim would deny 9-11. When you care about truth it is not hard to admit it. It's when you have an agenda such as painting the group you hate as evil as a whole,  that you suddenly manage to miss large chunks of history if they don't fit the beloved narrative. Demonizers always use truth,  they just make sure to skew it by totally ignoring the rest of it.

[MOON Ki]

But I am responding mainly to say that I do not hate religious people, Christians or Catholics merely for their religious beliefs.  I find that the overall impact of Christianity has been good, both in the US and Africa.  Islam I judge at best to have mixed results, but generally not a positive view. 

Most religions probably do more harm that good: man/woman is generally a dangerous animal who should not be left to his/her own devices, and both law and religion---"jail for years" or "burn in eternal flames"---appear to be have good taming effects.

Nevertheless, those who have carefully looked at the history of what happens when state power coincides with religious power have come to the conclusion that it is better to separate the two.  That needs to be understood and respected.

That should read:

Most religions probably do more good than harm.

"Islam" is probably no different.   They are (relatively) late starters and are only now getting into what "Christianity" already covered and moved on.