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

a reply to: diggindirt

Our governor could have avoided this whole mess. Like the president he has a pen and the power to write executive orders. A simple remedy would be his executive order to remove the name of the issuing clerk from the marriage license.

Your Governor issued a decree and new licensing forms, that Ms Davis refused to follow. From her Supreme Court Application for stay:

Almost immediately, Kentucky Governor Steven L.

Beshear (“Gov. Beshear”) issued his SSM Mandate commanding all county clerks that “[e]ffective

today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in

Kentucky,” and effectively commandeered full control of Kentucky marriage law and policy post-
Obergefell.

Gov. Beshear further ordered that Kentucky clerks “must license and recognize the

marriages of same-sex couples,” and further instructed that “[n]ow that same-sex couples are

entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives

will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.” VC, ¶ 25,

and Ex. C, Beshear Letter. Kentucky’s democratically-approved marriage licensing scheme

(enacted long before Obergefell) provides that “[e]ach county clerk shall use the form proscribed

by the [KDLA] when issuing a marriage license,” and states that the marriage form “shall be

uniform throughout this state.” KY. REV. STAT. §§ 402.100, 402.110. In response to Gov.

Beshear’s directive, the KDLA subsequently provided a new marriage form to county clerks,

including Davis. VC, ¶ 26. The form retained all of the references to “marriage,” as well as the

same name, signature and authorization requirements of the county clerk developed before

Obergefell. VC, ¶ 26, and Exs. A, D.

So, you think your governor should repeal his decree, or change the signatory requirements for Kim Davis?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Boadicea

What more accommodations does she need??? She has other clerks which can issue the licenses if she wants. But she's ordering them not to issue them either.

I have explained this and expounded on this ad nauseum. If you have not read the OP, please do so we can stay on track in discussing this.

Which brings to question, what about their rights to do what their conscious is telling them.

No one has a right to issue marriage licenses.

This dumb backwards country hick and her religious intolerance and contempt for the law is being applauded when it needs to be shamed out of existence. The fact that #abee is championing her cause as a presidential candidate is even worse. The idea that all these supporters are in favor of is the idea that our elected officials should be allowed to break the law and choose at will whether or not they'll do their job they were elected to do.

That is apparently all that you see. These issues are far bigger than any one person or candidate. Actually, if you could see farther, you could see that my support is to ensure that elected officials cannot break the law (starting with our expressed natural rights and our enumerated Constitutional rights) and choose at will whether or not they'll do the job they were elected to do.

Congrats to all you supporters of Kim Davis and her BS Religious Freedom.

First and foremost, religious freedom rights are never b.s. Second, you have only told me that you have no respect for anyone's rights... religious or otherwise... and therefore your interest is in empowering elected officials to force your will on others.

You're all cheering and encouraging more Gov. officials doing whatever they want regardless of what you elected them to do and to do it all in your name and with your blessing.

I speak for only myself. Have you noticed how few Davis supporters have posted in this thread? Do you think that's an accident? Nope. They don't like my stand for gay rights... you don't like my stand for religious rights. But in the final analysis, this is what I know: While I am standing up for everyone's natural and Constitutional rights, and therefore your rights, you are not standing up for anyone's rights, only privileges and entitlements under color of law and the force of a gun.

You deserve every boot that makes contact with your throat.

Thank you for making my point. Exactly what I would expect from someone who wants to use the color of law and the force of a gun to force their will on the rest of us.

a reply to: windword

Thank you for the link to the court docs. I am off to do some reading and catching up with the day's events...

I will respond after I've done so. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you!

a reply to: windword

Does the governor in Kentucky have the power to make law?

If not, then Davis still did not break any law and still has the right under the 1st Amendment to expect reasonable accommodation, same as a Muslim who wants to wear a headscarf.

a reply to: ketsuko

His decree was certainly lawful and within his powers.

She has also contradicted or just cherry not picked Deuteronomy 17:12.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
(I'm trying to get my post count up)

But what's the worst thing that could happen if gays are allowed to be married?

I'll help you out... in answer to your question:

Hell if I know! Given the absolutely reprehensible actions og heterosexuals in marriage (not all, but many), I don't know how gay couples could do any worse.

a reply to: Boadicea

No you're wrong, I actually liked your post. But I still think you're off course a bit.

You seem to be supporting "Rights" and that they are equal for us all but are you really???

First off, there aren't "Religious Rights or Gay Rights". There are Equal Rights and we all have them.

Nobody is stopping her from practicing her Religion. Nobody is taking anything away from her. But her job which she is choosing to stay at is a Gov. job which means that on the job she is representing the will of everyone, not just herself. If she cannot do her job because of her own bias then she shouldn't have it. That isn't what she was elected to do.

She can't elevate her Rights above everyone else. That is what she's doing.

Supporting her Right to pick and choose what law she is going to follow is not protecting Equal Rights. You're elevating Religious Authority above the Law. We are a nation of Man's Law's not God's Law's.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: Boadicea
Ever hear of the separation of Church and State?

Sorry for the delayed response, Ugmold, I didn't get notified of you comment and just saw it now...

But really? Of course I have. Have you heard of the 1st Amendment and RFRA and Title VII and reasonable accommodations? Of course you have. So we both know that all of these expand and define the parameters of religious freedom and government imposition on that freedom.

And? So???

originally posted by: Boadicea
No formal training whatsoever

That puts you way ahead of the pack...

As another man without a high school diploma, I discovered many years ago that the "educated" class is generally not educated at all, it is mis-educated. The whole purpose of American (perhaps all "western") "higher education" is obviously to bring minds into lock step with "The Agenda." As a general rule, the less official American education a person has been exposed to, the greater his/her ration of common sense.

"Education" is Spiritual Suicide

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Boadicea

No you're wrong, I actually liked your post.

Thank you. I don't want to be rude (really!) but I had to speak plainly to make my point. But I think you understand that, eh?

But I still think you're off course a bit.

You seem to be supporting "Rights" and that they are equal for us all but are you really???

First off, there aren't "Religious Rights or Gay Rights". There are Equal Rights and we all have them.

Yes! Exactly!!! We all have the same rights... in this situation, freedom of conscience, which includes but is not limited to freedom of religion. There are so many legal principles at work here. If Ms. Davis cannot in good conscience equally apply the law, and reasonable accommodations cannot be found, then she's gotta go. But in respect for everyone's rights -- to support everyone's rights -- we have to let the process play out.

But her job which she is choosing to stay at is a Gov. job which means that on the job she is representing the will of everyone, not just herself.

Not to nitpick -- really! -- but this is a crucial point: She will never be able to represent the will of everyone. She must represent the law, and apply that law equally. We have individual rights that are Constitutionally protected no matter who we are, or who our officials and representatives are, at any level of government -- including Ms. Davis. The law allows for both the employee and employer to seek and offer reasonable accommodations that respect BOTH the individual rights to freedom of conscience and Constitutional due process and equal application of the law. If the parties cannot find mutually agreeable solutions, then the employee -- in this case, an elected official -- must go... but NEVER our rights.

She can't elevate her Rights above everyone else. That is what she's doing.

You're right, she can't elevate her rights above anyone else... but she has rights under the law too. We have to let her exercise her rights too.

I'm really wondering though why the law allows one person so much power over marriage anyway. It seems to me that putting all one's eggs in one basket this way is troublesome in and of itself. Shouldn't the clerks simply be certifying that the applicants qualify, rather than approving them? There is too much room for abuse there.

Supporting her Right to pick and choose what law she is going to follow is not protecting Equal Rights. You're elevating Religious Authority above the Law.

Again, no no no! There are many laws at play here, from multiple legal sources, all meant to protect us (though I have my doubts about that!). If Ms. Davis had not offered a reasonable accommodation which addressed BOTH her rights and gay rights, I would agree with you. And maybe the future events will change my mind. But for now, we have to let her seek legal protection for her rights for the same reasons we had to let gays seek legal protection for their rights. It protects everyone's rights... and it's the right thing to do.

a reply to: Murgatroid

That puts you way ahead of the pack...

Haha! My dad would agree and he spoke from experience -- he had two degrees!

We can't have elected government representatives just representing their special interest groups. I know many already do, but they are supposed to represent everyone.

a reply to: windword

Could you give a link to your quote? Without being able to read the entire document I can't comment.
Could you also give a link to your previous claim that government documents must be signed by the issuing authority.

... Government documents are supposed to bear the signature of the person who heads the issuing office. Is she proposing changing signatory laws now?

Specifically, to which "signatory laws" are you making reference?

The simple remedy was for him to do as she asked and provide a marriage license that didn't require her signature and didn't include her name. Clerks in her office could then begin issuing licenses as they have apparently now done and she could resume the other duties required of her in her elected position. Her clerks can do anything she can do under the statutes.
She has not prevented anybody from getting married in Kentucky. You do understand that do you not? Anyone who truly wanted to get married could simply drive over to the next county and get the license so to say that she is shoving her religion on others is simply an error.
The need for attention in this case can't be placed on just one side. The people who sued her could easily have gotten their marriage license had they wished to do so but they decided to sue instead because they disagreed with her religious views.

a reply to: diggindirt

Here ya go. Try this. I posted it earlier, but I guess these kinds of links only work through the "LINK" option.

LINK

The simple remedy was for him to do as she asked and provide a marriage license that didn't require her signature and didn't include her name.

Can you provide a link stating that she actually asked for that to happen. I don't believe that she did ask for new forms, without her name on them, that don't require her signature, in order for her office to authorize same sex marriages. It looks to me like she's asking that her office be exempt from the law, entirely.

a reply to: windword
You've provided the very link that states that she offered up six different options. Have you not read the link you provided to me?
It is very clear that she is asking for relief from being required to attach her name to these same sex marriages. The document even makes the very clear comparison of the actions of the governor in this case being diametrically opposed in the two cases---when the Attorney General of the Commonwealth refused to do his statutory duty to defend KY's constitutional amendment on marriage, the governor simply hired outside counsel rather than telling him that he must do his statutory duty or resign his office. That's documented hypocrisy. (But that was political, one Democrat refusing to make another do the job the electorate hired him to do---because the AG is the golden boy of the party running for governor. Where were all you "must do the job or resign" folks back then?)
Perhaps you would do well to take the time to actually read the document before cherry-picking a few quotes that you assume support your view.

Now please provide the answer to the questions I've been asking in reference to your earlier post:

... Government documents are supposed to bear the signature of the person who heads the issuing office. Is she proposing changing signatory laws now?

Could you please provide links to such laws as you reference in that post? State or federal?

ETA: Sorry I can't seem to get that document to copy and paste---the six options for relief begin at the bottom of page 30.

Beautifully said, Bodacia!

I'll help you out... in answer to your question:

Hell if I know! Given the absolutely reprehensible actions og heterosexuals in marriage (not all, but many), I don't know how gay couples could do any worse.




Here's my thoughts on them damn gays getting married.........

1) I think that with a 50% divorce rate, cheating websites, drive through wedding chapels, "instantly ordained" internet ministers, and third, fourth, and fifth marriages........... Us non-gays aren't playing the game so well ourselves. If HALF of straight marriages cant get it right, then who are we to deny TWO LOVING ADULTS the opportunity to get married.

2)As far as the state/fed definition of "marriage" is concerned, it should be as simple as

"MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS".

Easy for everyone, no discrimination on gender, race, and religion. It solves the polygamy issue and the "I want to marry my dog" crazies. Because if Fido can't sign his name, then no wedding bells for him.

3) I got married at 25. Next month my wife and I will be celebrating our "ten year" anniversary on Oct. 1st. We had our certificate from the courts, and had an outdoor wedding along the river walk in our home town, in a ceremony were we declared our love for each other in front of family and friends. Ten happy years of walking up everyday next to my best friend.

We are not Christian, or any other religion. We are also not atheists. In all honesty, I don't know if I believe in a god or not. I only mentioned all of this because if someone would have told me that I could not have married my wife because the clerk had different beliefs than ours. I would have been devastated.

Any type of discrimination should not be tolerated

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, the fact remains that all of the other industrialized democracies of the world recognize marriage through their governments.

If the government did not recognize marriage in the USA, and my spouse and I got injured in a foreign country -- I would not be legally recognized as the husband of my wife. I may not be able to make decisions about her care. I may have problems with travel arrangements and security check points.

By removing the government from marriage you're essentially telling people to stay home and never travel outside of America.

The whole "removing the government from marriage" is simply an argument that was born when the government decided to sanction marriages that religious people didn't like. Sorry, it doesn't work that way -- no religion can claim to own marriage.

It's not unlike taking your football home when you don't like the rules of the game. So instead of playing by the new rules, you'd rather no one play.

You're operating under a very false premise that assumes other countries recognize one anothers marriage licenses. They do not. Further, even if they did, do you bring your marriage license with you on vacation? If not, you are in the same predicament as you are suggesting that removing the government from marriage creates.

originally posted by: RainyState

2)As far as the state/fed definition of "marriage" is concerned, it should be as simple as

"MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS".

So you're saying the federal government should define marriage? (I agree, we should have a constitutional amendment to define it. However, the LGBTQ community won't be happy with the definition that wins).

The federal government now has the power to define what once was deferred to the state? Do you think the federal government should also force it's view of what makes a corporation upon the states?