Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Traditio]

You've been (and as we'll see below, continue to) disputing that issuing marriage licenses is a primary duty of a county clerk. Your position is demonstrably wrong. Issuing marriage licenses is one of the primary duties of a county clerk.

The contention isn't that one of her primary duties is giving out marriage licenses. The contention is that "giving out marriage licenses," as a primary duty, doesn't include "giving out marrige licenses to homosexual couples." Just as, in another case, "baking wedding cakes" doesn't include "baking gay 'wedding' cakes."

The fact that you liberals are failing to advert to this point, to my mind, speaks volumes.

To which you'll no doubt simply repeat yourself: "But her job is to give out marriage licenses. What part of that do you not understand?"

By which, of course, a 16 year old could say to a bartender: "It's your job to serve alcohol, bartender! What part of that do you not understand? Serve me some alcohol!"

To which, of course, the bartender would answer: "Yes, it is, generally speaking, my job to serve alcohol. Not to persons of minority status, however, as is the law."

I am aware, of course, that there is the following disanalogy: it's "legal" to give marriage licenses to homosexual couples, but it's not legal to give alcohol to persons under the age of 21 in most U.S. jurisdictions. Nonetheless, I think that this is sufficient to show the following:

"It is your job to do x, generally speaking" doesn't give you the conclusion that you want.

Then by the same reasoning, so was your analogy.

Which analogy in particular are you talking about?

No. You don't see a problem with allowing people to break the law without penalty? Why have laws in the first place then?

And yet you were fine with Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus, and I'm sure that you were fine, just fine, with various black protestors trespassing in whites only diners.

It's been fairly well documented that her signature is not required, and the county attorney agrees.

I'll leave this point to people who know more about the law than I do. That said, just because the county attorney agrees doesn't necessarily prove your case.

Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.

Again, you are just proving my point. Liberals only care about the law when they agree with it. You would never say "the law is the law" to Rosa Parks because you disagreed with the law. You think that the law was discriminatory. Because of that, you are perfectly fine with people breaking the law in that case.

Again, if we were talking about the laws of Nazi germany, or of apartheid South Africa, you wouldn't be saying "the law is the law." You would, ironically enough, probably quote St. Augustine: "An unjust law is not a law!"

Which means, of course, that your insistence in this case that "the law is the law" rings perfectly hollow.

Yes it is (see above link to Kentucky government website).

Sheer equivocation.

And apparently you haven't been paying attention to the little fact that since the Obergefell ruling, she has refused to issue any marriage licenses to anyone at all. Therefore, she is refusing to perform a primary duty of her position. The judge ordered her to do her duties as she swore to do under oath, and she still refused. So he found her in contempt of court and put her in jail.

Hm. At this point, I am beginning to wonder whether I didn't concede too easily that it's an essential or primary duty of the clerk of court to issue marriage licenses.

Wikipedia entry on what a clerk of court is.

What's essential to a clerk of court is that he or she maintains court records, etc. The fact that the law says that a clerk of court has to issue marriage licenses doesn't, in and of itself, make it an essential or necessary duty of a clerk of court. If the law made no mention of marriage licenses, there would still be need of clerks of court.

I actually feel really silly at this point. I worked at a DA's office for roughly a year, and I had to go back and forth to the Clerk of Court office all the time to retrieve various records.

Edit:

And finally, Jose-Fly, your point about "the law is the law" is even more hollow because of the following reason. The conservative reply is that she didn't break the law, as per the 1st amendment.

 

[Jose Fly]

These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so.

Government does not grant rights, it can only restrict them. We all have a right to marry who we please, except for those instances the government has deemed illegal (e.g., bigamy).

There is no explicitly-stated right for me to sit down and watch football this weekend, yet I have the right to do it, unless the government passes a law restricting that right.

And that applies in this case. By default, same sex couples have the right to marry. Some states enacted laws denying that right. Gay couples argued that those laws restricted their constitutional rights to liberty and equal protection. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the state laws were unconstitutional.

So now same sex couples are back to the default status of having the right to marry.

None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

But the Loving decision changed the definition of marriage away from "between members of the same race" in those states that had laws banning interracial marriage.

I suppose you can cite dissenting opinions all you like, but they have no legal weight at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

The contention isn't that one of her primary duties is giving out marriage licenses. The contention is that "giving out marriage licenses," as a primary duty, doesn't include "giving out marrige licenses to homosexual couples."

Then by the same argument, a Muslim county clerk could refuse to issue marriage licenses to infidel couples. Would you then agree that "issuing marriage licenses to infidel couples" is not one of her primary duties?

Just as, in another case, "baking wedding cakes" doesn't include "baking gay 'wedding' cakes."

In the Oregon case, the couple didn't ask for a "gay wedding cake". They merely asked for a standard wedding cake, the same as everyone else.

I am aware, of course, that there is the following disanalogy: it's "legal" to give marriage licenses to homosexual couples, but it's not legal to give alcohol to persons under the age of 21 in most U.S. jurisdictions.

Yeah, that's a pretty important distinction.

Nonetheless, I think that this is sufficient to show the following:

"It is your job to do x, generally speaking" doesn't give you the conclusion that you want.

You're not even making sense.

One of the county clerk's primary duties is to issue marriage licenses. There is no law specifically barring issuing licenses to same sex couples, and the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws, as they previously existed, were unconstitutional.

Thus, there is absolutely no legal basis upon which any county clerk can deny a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only basis she has cited for doing so is "God's law", which given that we're not a theocracy, is legally meaningless.

Which analogy in particular are you talking about?

Doesn't matter.

And yet you were fine with Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus, and I'm sure that you were fine, just fine, with various black protestors trespassing in whites only diners.

Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.

Again, you are just proving my point. Liberals only care about the law when they agree with it.

Empty assertion and personal attack. I'll let that speak for itself.

You would never say "the law is the law" to Rosa Parks because you disagreed with the law. You think that the law was discriminatory. Because of that, you are perfectly fine with people breaking the law in that case.

Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.

Again, if we were talking about the laws of Nazi germany, or of apartheid South Africa, you wouldn't be saying "the law is the law." You would, ironically enough, probably quote St. Augustine: "An unjust law is not a law!"

Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.

Sheer equivocation.

Hilarious. Linking to the actual government website that outlines the duties of the county clerk is "equivocation". :chuckle:

Hm. At this point, I am beginning to wonder whether I didn't concede too easily that it's an essential or primary duty of the clerk of court to issue marriage licenses.

Even though I just provided the specific language from the State of Kentucky that states issuing marriage licenses is one of her duties. I'm not sure what part of "The county clerk issues marriage licenses (KRS 402.080) and files and records all marriage certificates (KRS 402.220 and 402.230)" didn't get through to you, but at this point, I don't really care.

I think if I said the earth was a sphere, you would disagree just out of spite.

The fact that the law says that a clerk of court has to issue marriage licenses doesn't, in and of itself, make it an essential or necessary duty of a clerk of court.

I think you've officially jumped the shark. Congrats. :third:

 

[Yorzhik]

Of course, as I'm against the denial of the foundation of our law, which is equality before it. That's what you're speaking to with your example and one of the reasons it isn't a parallel.

It isn't the denial of the foundation of our law if the legislature creates it, the executive branch enforces it, and the courts uphold it. In fact, the courts are the final word on what is foundational and what isn't. Therefore, the example is the same in principle.

 

[TracerBullet]

No.

Mine's real.

Just like theirs

Spoiler

and theirs

and theirs

are real too

 

[StanJ]

She is, however, being used as an example. It should have just been a firing. Perhaps this was done to 'try' and avoid counter-suit...

I don't think they were 'thinking' however, this wasn't the answer to that, nor is fining people out-of-business. It's all like shooting one's own country in the foot.

There is a lot of mindless lemming mentality going on to be PC... :sigh:

The courts don't have the power to fire an elected official, but the judge has the right, after he interprets a law, to find someone in contempt for NOT obeying the law. That is the issue here. He gave her a chance to obey and she refused. It's simply NOT an issue of religious freedom, no matter how many right wing conservatives prevaricate about it.

 

[TracerBullet]

I said this was a logical discussion.

It is also a discussion for adults who can comprehend what legal precedents are.



When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987) ; Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 383; see Loving, 388 U. S., at 12. These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead require a State to justify barriers to marriage .

Which the states failed to do.


So much for your logic

 

[Traditio]

Then by the same argument, a Muslim county clerk could refuse to issue marriage licenses to infidel couples. Would you then agree that "issuing marriage licenses to infidel couples" is not one of her primary duties?

Yes. Note, I'm not even saying that I would agree with her, or even think that her refusal to issue marriage licenses to "infidel couples" should be legally protected. I'm simply making the point that the general principle "she must issue marriage licenses" doesn't really conclusively say anything about the particular instances.

This is why this particular social liberal argument ultimately fails. Universal practical principles only take on concrete significance in their application.

Again, consider the following case. The clerk of court has a position in Iran. There are no "infidels" in that particular jurisdiction. Guess what? Handing out marriage licenses to "infidels" is de facto not a part of his job.

In the Oregon case, the couple didn't ask for a "gay wedding cake". They merely asked for a standard wedding cake, the same as everyone else.

I really don't feel like having this particular argument. Let the following suffice:

Simply saying that A, generally speaking must do y does not tell me anything about a particular, concrete case. Why? Because there may be opposing universal practical premises which ultimately defeat that particular universal practical premise in this particular case here and now.

Yes, generally speaking, one should abstain from shooting people in the head.

This particular man, however, is in the military. He is a sniper. It is a time of war. That man is an enemy soldier.

You're not even making sense.

Playing dumb. Another common liberal tactic. :nono:

One of the county clerk's primary duties is to issue marriage licenses. There is no law specifically barring issuing licenses to same sex couples, and the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws, as they previously existed, were unconstitutional.

Thus, there is absolutely no legal basis upon which any county clerk can deny a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only basis she has cited for doing so is "God's law", which given that we're not a theocracy, is legally meaningless.

1st amendment. Nuff said.

Doesn't matter.

Were you referring to my point about doctors? Let it be granted that the doctor is an OBGYN (or whatever field of medicine in which the matter of abortion might practically arise). You're still saying that a good Catholic cannot be an OBGYN, i.e., that this particular profession should be closed off to Catholics. That's not acceptable.

Another case comes to mind. A man (pretending to be a woman; i.e., a transgendered man) sued a Catholic hospital for refusing to do cosmetic surgery to make him look more like a woman.

Again, my point stands: what the liberal ultimately is saying is that certain mainstream, normal, respectable professions should be closed off to religious persons, i.e., persons who adhere to traditional, mainstrain religions.

At which point, once again, I will cite the two articles from the Summa Theologiae which I cited earlier (which, I suspect, you didn't even bother to read). Laws are to be passed which are suitable or and proportionate to the people who are to be governed.

Note, we need not even talk about the justice or injustice of the laws. Even if the laws are, considered in themselves, just (and they aren't), they still aren't proportionate and appropriate to the people in question.

Again, you try and analogize between a person fighting against government discrimination, and a person fighting for government discrimination.

From the standpoint of positive law as such, the distinction that you are making is irrelevent. The liberal argument is "the law is the law." That point, so far as the legal positivist (which the social liberal must be) is concerned, applies whether the law is discriminatory or not.

Rules are rules whether you like the rules or not.

Rosa Parks broke the rules.

So tell me. You say "Rules are rules. The law is the law. Everybody should follow the laws." Are you going to say that about Rosa Parks and the black trespassers?

Yes or no?

It's a very simple question which requires a very simple answer. There are three possible answers: "Yes." "No." "I don't know."

Pick one.

Hilarious. Linking to the actual government website that outlines the duties of the county clerk is "equivocation". :chuckle:

Supra.

I think you've officially jumped the shark. Congrats. :third:

I'm making what should be a trivial point. If the law says that doctors are to keep medical records, that doesn't make keeping medical records an essential part of being a doctor.

 

[Traditio]

Government does not grant rights, it can only restrict them.

This is just wrong. You are failing to distinguish (once again, as social liberals are wont to do) between positive and negative rights. A negative right is a right "from" interference by others. I have a negative right to life in the precise sense that other people have a duty not to murder me. I have a negative right to liberty in the precise sense that other people have a duty or obligation not to kidnap me.

The "restriction" that you are thinking of primarily deals with negative rights and these restrictions generally are dealt with in criminal law.

A positive right is a right "to" something. The State can and does establish positive rights. My grandmother, e.g., has a positive right to social security payments and medicare insurance.

Again, consider the fact that a massive part of civil law is contract law. This has absolutely nothing to do with "restricting" right. Contract law establishes positive right. The State is stepping in and telling people that they may do things. "You may write up a contract, have it notorized and except that it will be legally enforced."

The State institution of civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with negative right. In point of fact, the "negative right" of sodomites already was respected prior to the ruling. Nobody was busting into their bedrooms and trying to arrest them for sodomy.

 

[fzappa13]

Not necessarily......

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/the_gop_congress_refuses_to_use_the_power_it_has.html


Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states (emphasis added):

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

This means exactly what it says: the Supreme Court (and by implication, the lesser federal courts) can be stripped from hearing and deciding any issue at all, save only those few issues granted to its original jurisdiction in the language above. Cases in which “a state shall be party” is strictly limited to those controversies between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between a state and foreigners (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 [1821]).

I see what your are saying but it's kinda like the "title of nobility" clause. It is routinely ignored ... not unlike most of the Magna Carta. I mean, a District Judge can stop reading his script long enough to not accept a D.A's plea bargain but how often do you see that?

 

[fzappa13]

Except the states, in exercising their authority, cannot violate the constitutional rights of their citizens. And that's what the Obergefell ruling found....that states denying same sex couples marriage licenses was a violation of their constitutional rights to liberty and equal protection.

The 14th amendment was not envisioned by the founding fathers in any way other than any given future legislatures' ability to amend and later was used to justify the existence of corporations and other such golem. It goes back to what I was observing about federalism. Follow the money and the cultural programmers.

 

[kmoney]

You don't see how she would find that problematic?

No. Her name on there shouldn't mean anything at that point. If anything is indicative of support it would be a signature, not just her name being on there because she's the current county clerk (though, I don't think even her signature would necessarily mean she supports it).

 

[kmoney]

Her name DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT appear on the license unless she personally affixes her signature to it.

I think it does, otherwise why would this be necessary....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-released-from-jail/

On Monday, Davis's lawyers took their case to a federal appeals court, asking that Davis be allowed to remove her name and title from marriage certificates issued in Rowan County so that she would not have to act against her conscience.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think it does, otherwise why would this be necessary....

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-released-from-jail/

On Monday, Davis's lawyers took their case to a federal appeals court, asking that Davis be allowed to remove her name and title from marriage certificates issued in Rowan County so that she would not have to act against her conscience.

yes, it does appear there and most news agencies admit it and thats been her entire issue.

 

[Jonahdog]

The 14th amendment was not envisioned by the founding fathers in any way other than any given future legislatures' ability to amend and later was used to justify the existence of corporations and other such golem. It goes back to what I was observing about federalism. Follow the money and the cultural programmers.

The 14th Amendment was a post civil war amendment, the founders were long gone by then.

 

[Jonahdog]

yes, it does appear there and most news agencies admit it and thats been her entire issue.

No, that has not been her entire issue.

But it should not have been an issue any way. The statute provides for "the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license" KSR 402.100 (1) (c).

All she had to do was have one of the deputies sign the ones she was morally outraged about. But Nooooo, she had to make a point. Well she did, the Federal court trumps the Kentucky county clerk. Any decent attorney would have told her that, but Staver and Liberty Counsel had their own axes to grind and just used her.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, that has not been her entire issue.

yes, it is and has been, according to day one. If you are too lazy to read all the news about it, instead of being spoon fed by extreme liberalist news, too bad for you.

She is also out of jail now too.

 

[Angel4Truth]

To the morons who cannot read or understand the facts (and this is from TODAY AND FROM CNN because i know some of you only want to whine about sources instead of information):

Davis previously said she will not authorize her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if her name remains on the certificate. Bunning's order makes no mention of revising the licenses to accommodate Davis, who says issuing a license with her name on it would violate her Christian convictions against same-sex marriage.

Read the judge's order

One of Davis' attorneys said Bunning hasn't resolved anything.

"We've asked for a simple solution -- get her name and authority off the certificate. The judge could order that," Staver said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/

Her name is there whether she signs them or not. :duh:

THAT is the issue. She only objects to others issuing them WITH HER NAME on them.

Reasonable accomodation, would be to remove her name from them and not force it to be there or force her to issue them.

 

[annabenedetti]

No, that has not been her entire issue.

But it should not have been an issue any way. The statute provides for "the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license" KSR 402.100 (1) (c).

All she had to do was have one of the deputies sign the ones she was morally outraged about. But Nooooo, she had to make a point. Well she did, the Federal court trumps the Kentucky county clerk. Any decent attorney would have told her that, but Staver and Liberty Counsel had their own axes to grind and just used her.

Exactly.

Is Kentucky’s Infamous Anti-Gay Clerk Getting Taken for a Ride by Her Lawyers?

 

[Angel4Truth]

The clerks name is printed on them, even when a deputy signs off on them:

Marriage licenses issued Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586/marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html#storylink=cpy

She does not want her name on them, period. that has been the issue this entire time.