Kim Davis... Gay Marriage... Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Reasonable Accommodations...

a reply to: diggindirt

All this mess could have been avoided but there are lawyers out there who saw the $$$$s and couldn't resist and politicians who thought they saw an advantage in some way. Petty spitefulness and greed are at the root of this problem.

Thank you. This is pretty much what I've been thinking... and maybe sometimes just a little more sinister... but I knew by how this is all playing out that it wasn't about good people doing the right thing for the right reason.

I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Good luck.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Boadicea

That's why I said a while back that I liked your post. I understood what you were saying even though you were catching a bunch of crap for it. But you weren't being unfair from what I read. You were in fact being very unbiased toward it.

Thank you for seeing and understanding what I'm trying to say... even if it could probably be said better. I get frustrated with "the crap" only because I don't know how to better explain myself. But I also recognize that there is so much crap spewed all over that folks need to be cautious and even suspicious. It's just all part of the process I guess.

Probably even more than me actually which is why I liked it. You made me think about my position again to make sure I wasn't over stepping the line.

That made me smile. I admire your willingness to reconsider your position when new information (or just a new perspective) presents itself. That's just smart!

It's a difficult topic though because it's very easy to be hypocritical in what you say with a topic like this.

You're right, and I'm very much aware of this as I write. Sometimes I re-write a sentence a few times, knowing it can be taken the wrong way... then I realize that it can always be taken the wrong way by someone and there is no perfect way to say anything. So I just do my best to speak plainly and hope the heart comes thru the words.

But, I agree that I think you and I are very much in agreement. However, we just may word it differently sometimes but I've thought from the start that we both saw this the same way.

Heads are exploding somewhere -- and I say good!!! If you and I can find our common ground, then we all can... well, at least most of us!

a reply to: diggindirt

I also know that there is a legally enacted statute that says that Mrs. Davis, as an individual, has the right to ask for reasonable accommodations. Whether or not I agree with that law is of no consequence whatsoever. Whether or not the governor and the AG agree with that law should have no impact on their behavior since they took an oath just like she did. They are compelled by that oath and statutes to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and they did not do so in a timely manner.

Thank you! This is what I've been trying to say. The law is the law, and Ms. Davis had every right under the law to request reasonable accommodations, and to have those reasonable accommodations considered by the proper authorities. (I just wasn't sure who that would be!)

However, I also blame the federal judge who could well have ordered a stay in this case and directed the governor and AG to come up with a solution under state law. He also could have ordered the couples to go to the clerk nearest to the courtroom in which the hearings were being held and obtain a license there. He also had a lot of options that didn't include jail for the clerk.

Thank you again. I was pretty sure the judge had that authority.... and many options besides jail. That was unacceptable and unconscionable.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: diggindirt

unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.

Why do you keep ignoring this part?

I'm not speaking for diggindirt, only myself, but there were obviously reasonable accommodations available which would serve both the compelling interest of providing marriage licenses without forcing anyone to act against their conscience. That would be the "least restrictive means" to further that interest. Think about it: Change a few forms? Or throw a woman in jail???

This does not have to be an either/or situation. You and I should not have to sit here fighting about it. Everyone's needs and conscience could have -- and should have -- been met without all this drama.

a reply to: Boadicea

Again. It's not that cut and dry. Ms. Davis doesn't have the right to impose her definition of "reasonable accommodation" and her demands on the Governor, the legislators, the courts or through her office. Those decisions are made by these entities, the Governor, the legislators and the courts. Not you, not Digindirt, not me and certainly not Ms. Davis!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

Again. It's not that cut and dry. Ms. Davis doesn't have the right to impose her definition of "reasonable accommodation" and her demands on the Governor, the legislators, the courts or through her office. Those decisions are made by these entities, the Governor, the legislators and the courts. Not you, not Digindirt, not me and certainly not Ms. Davis!

I understand that. She has the legal right to REQUEST reasonable accommodations, the legal right to SUGGEST reasonable accommodations, and the legal right for CONSIDERATION of reasonable accommodations by the appropriate authorities.

Her reasonable accommodations were in fact implemented. No good reason for the judge to hold her in contempt and send her to jail. Ms. Davis did nothing wrong. It was the judge and the responsible state authorities who violated HER rights under the law.

a reply to: Boadicea

Her reasonable accommodations were in fact implemented.

While she was in jail! Before that, she lost the case brought against her.

No good reason for the judge to hold her in contempt and send her to jail. Ms. Davis did nothing wrong.

Upon her arrest for Contempt, she was in violation of the circuit court judges order, had lost her SCOTUS application for a "stay" and interfered with her deputies by refusing to allow them to issue marriage licenses.

a reply to: windword

Let me try this from another angle...

IF the state authorities had duly considered and rejected Ms. Davis's legal right to reasonable accommodations... and IF the judge had ruled on that basis... then I would agree that the judge acted appropriately and that Ms. Davis' legal rights were given due consideration and therefore protected. But that didn't happen.

I agree totally that Ms. Davis does not have the right to demand anything. But she had a right to consideration, and that was denied her.

The fact that in the end the reasonable accommodations she requested were in fact implemented, but never applied or credited (I don't know what the right word is -- sorry!) to her personal legal case, makes it clear she was not out of line in her request. Therefore, it is the judge and other responsible parties who are out of line.

a reply to: Boadicea

The fact that in the end the reasonable accommodations she requested were in fact implemented

See, this is a questionable fact to me. I don't think Davis is content with the what has been implemented in her absence, in her office. But, we'll know for sure Monday, when she goes back to work!

My money is on another spectacle.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

The fact that in the end the reasonable accommodations she requested were in fact implemented

See, this is a questionable fact to me. I don't think Davis is content with the what has been implemented in absence, in her office. But, we'll know for sure Monday, when she goes back to work!

My money is on another spectacle.

Well, I sure wouldn't bet against you!!! But I really hope not. This could be an example of how people with diverse opinions and beliefs can respect each other's rights and we can all live and co-exist peacefully...

I know... I'm an idealist...

We'll find out soon enough.

a reply to: diggindirt

Because the Sates were going against the Constitution by creating Laws that banned Same-Sex marriage, since the 14th amendment was created there has been equality it's just the States and people refused to recognize that. all the supreme court did was rule that states had to follow the Constitution

a reply to: diggindirt
a reply to: Darth_Prime

I hope you two don't mind if I throw my two cents in... I think you're both right.

Darth -- You're right in that if something is unconstitutional today it was unconstitutional yesterday and a year ago and 100 years ago. So the Supreme Court didn't make it legal; they simply declared it legal.

Dig -- You're also right in that the laws on the books say different, and a Supreme Court decision doesn't just make those laws go away. Therefore, there is much legal footwork to be done to bring the laws on the books into accordance with the Supreme Court decision.

I guess I'd say that Darth is right in theory and Dig is right in practice

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

Did you ever answer my question and i missed it? or did you not see it? about Separation of Church and State

The only reply I saw, and responded to was:

" Are you saying this isn't an important issue?"

a reply to: windword
Agreed that she can't make the decision. But she had the right to make the request and have her request addressed in a timely manner.

Neither the governor nor the Attorney General did anything except ignore her plea until she was in jail. She requested relief under statutory law that entitles her as it entitles any citizen for relief from being forced to violate her religious belief. Her request included the very option that was ultimately enacted but that request was ignored by the governor and attorney general until she was in jail. She attempted to follow the law by making that request and suspending the issuance of licenses until the ramifications of the SCOTUS decision could be worked out in a legal manner. The remedy could have been reached the day the governor got her request. He has a pen and the power of executive orders. Instead of granting her request for relief he ignored her request and told her to begin issuing licenses, thus violating her rights by not recognizing them.
The forms were going to have to be redesigned so her request to have her name removed would have solved the problem in a legal manner since there is no statutory requirement that the clerk's name be printed on the forms. Again, please understand that it isn't Kim Davis that is issuing the license, it is the Commonwealth.
Do you know why the governor refused to take the clerk's names off the license form? I wasn't there in the meeting but I'm told by those close to the matter that he got "lots" of calls from clerks protesting taking their names off because in their view that is free advertising for their next campaign. Since he wants their votes for his son's campaign he did what they asked instead of following the law that he has sworn to uphold. How on earth Kim Davis got to be the bad person in this mess is beyond me when she attempted to follow the law and the governor and attorney general ignored the law.

a reply to: Darth_Prime
And our governor went against equal rights law when he violated Kim Davis' right to relief under statutory law by ignoring her request for a reasonable accommodation.
She made a good faith attempt to address the issue in a legal manner, the governor and attorney general ignored a law with which they disagreed. How is it her fault that the governor and the attorney general were too busy campaigning to address her request in a timely manner?

a reply to: diggindirt

Neither the governor nor the Attorney General did anything except ignore her plea until she was in jail.

I'm not aware of them taking any action during or after she was jailed either. The new forms reflected the exact same signatory and certification requirement that were required on the last forms. The only difference was the absence of any gender qualification.

The action taken to alter the forms in Kim Davis' officer was taken by the county attorney.

Do you know why the governor refused to take the clerk's names off the license form?

Because he had already made his decision and sent out his decree, along with the new forms. The Governor doesn't have to answer to those who complain. I don't believe that Davis did go through proper channels with her grievance. She took her protest into her own hands.

Davis has named Governor Beshear in her lawsuit. I have no doubt that the Governor, and his attorneys, will do everything they can to defend the Governor's position.

a reply to: windword

Yes, the entire form had to be re-designed. Part of that re-design was the removal of the clerk's name from the form. Again, it isn't the clerk who is issuing the license. It is the Commonwealth so there is no requirement for the name of the clerk on the form.
My information is that the Attorney General and Governor got busy after she'd been in jail for a few days and an internal poll showed Jack's actions had lost him a few points in the governor's race. When he came out with his mumblings about not prosecuting her and yet offering her no legal relief, he saw his numbers slipping. So he and the the governor had a huddle and had the forms changed to comply with the law and her reasonable accommodation. That comes from a staff member in the building. I don't know if it was covered in the local media or not. I haven't really followed the local media on the issue. One of the bigger papers or tv stations might have covered it. I simply don't have a link.
You are mistaken when you say that the governor doesn't have to respond to her complaint. His disagreement with the legally enacted statute (That has NOT been overturned by any court.) does not free him from the obligation to see the law enforced. He swore the same oath that Kim Davis swore. Refusing to address her plea was a violation of her rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth. I'd be suing him too.

a reply to: diggindirt

Yes, the entire form had to be re-designed.

No, you misunderstand me. The form was redesigned before the SCOTUS ruling even came out. Governor Beshear's office, in anticipation of the ruling, already had the new form prepared, and sent them out the same day as his Same Sex Marriage decree. Those forms still had Kim Davis' name and required signatures, the same as the previous forms, they just edited out anything on the form that reflected gender.

Kim Davis wrote a letter to Gov. Beshear, protesting the changes. However, the State never redesigned the form on Ms Davis request. The Rowan County attorney made that call after Ms Davis refused to comply with Circuit Court Judge Bunning's order, as a remedy. Ms Davis lawyer mocked the effort, saying that the licenses were "null and void."

The State of Kentucky has not relented to Ms Davis demands and altered marriage licenses, removing county clerks' names.

You are mistaken when you say that the governor doesn't have to respond to her complaint.

Ms Davis didn't go through proper channels, exhausting all her options before writing a protest letter to the Governor. The Governor had no duty to answer her letter. There are proper channels for these kinds of things, as Kim Davis is learning. She'll have her day in court when her legally filed case against Governor Beshear is heard in court.

a reply to: Boadicea

The Law is also Marriage Equality and not religious Tyranny

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Boadicea

The Law is also Marriage Equality and not religious Tyranny

Well, of course it is. I'm not sure what I said that would make you believe I think otherwise. Tyranny of any kind is unacceptable, unconscionable and unconstitutional. But respect for religious beliefs and conscience, as well as self-determination, is not tyranny. The two are not mutually exclusive unless we insist on making it so.