Appeals court rules in favor of gay marriage in Kentucky
- Thread starter mstp1992
- Start date
Finally!
Now a 15 yr old can marry her sister instead of her brother!
Now a 15 yr old can marry her sister instead of her brother!
Mat Staver, chairman and founder of Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which represents Davis, said the law firm was disappointed in the order and would consult with Davis about possible further steps, including asking the Supreme Court for a stay.
"It suggests that a government official doesn't have any independent constitutional rights," Staver said.
Nice strawman, Mat. Since when do you have the constitutional right to NOT do your job? Lady should resign or be removed from her position.
I wish my life was so easy I had nothing better to do than worry about who is marrying who.
I was married and it sucks. The gheys should have the right to learn that first hand also.
I was married and it sucks. The gheys should have the right to learn that first hand also.
I'm looking for a serious conversation on one specific issue within this:
Why would issuing a State (see, non-religious affiliated) license/certificate for anything be seen as violating the issuer's religious freedom?
Using the basics of this story as an example:
Christian, man/woman marriage-believing, clerk
State Marriage License
Homosexual couple seeking license
So the clerk believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore, within her religious beliefs, the homosexual couple can not be "married." Why does issuing them a non-religious license or certificate violate the clerk's beliefs? The clerk isn't approving or performing the marriage, certainly not religiously. The clerk isn't affirming that it is a marriage in the "eyes of God" or anything similar. The clerk is solely distributing and filing a record of the marriage taking place.
I see this akin to a County Recorder refusing to stamp/file/book a Deed to two co-habiting, but non-married adults. Stamping the deed doesn't do anything (certainly not religiously) other than record that the transaction took place.
So why is it violating religious belief? Does believing, religiously, that something is "wrong" mean you can't have any interaction, whatsoever, with the "wrong" thing?
Now, certainly, a specific religious belief that bans that interaction would be different. Let's say, just for examples sake, that the New Bible of Man/Woman Marriage Followers has the following passage, "It shall be unforgivable sin to speak to, conduct business with, or breath the same air, as those homosexuals who pretend to be married or be seeking marriage." But, that would be different.
I see the current Christian (anti-ssm) status as being, "Marriage is for man/woman." That is very distinguishable to me.
Anyone?
Why would issuing a State (see, non-religious affiliated) license/certificate for anything be seen as violating the issuer's religious freedom?
Using the basics of this story as an example:
Christian, man/woman marriage-believing, clerk
State Marriage License
Homosexual couple seeking license
So the clerk believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore, within her religious beliefs, the homosexual couple can not be "married." Why does issuing them a non-religious license or certificate violate the clerk's beliefs? The clerk isn't approving or performing the marriage, certainly not religiously. The clerk isn't affirming that it is a marriage in the "eyes of God" or anything similar. The clerk is solely distributing and filing a record of the marriage taking place.
I see this akin to a County Recorder refusing to stamp/file/book a Deed to two co-habiting, but non-married adults. Stamping the deed doesn't do anything (certainly not religiously) other than record that the transaction took place.
So why is it violating religious belief? Does believing, religiously, that something is "wrong" mean you can't have any interaction, whatsoever, with the "wrong" thing?
Now, certainly, a specific religious belief that bans that interaction would be different. Let's say, just for examples sake, that the New Bible of Man/Woman Marriage Followers has the following passage, "It shall be unforgivable sin to speak to, conduct business with, or breath the same air, as those homosexuals who pretend to be married or be seeking marriage." But, that would be different.
I see the current Christian (anti-ssm) status as being, "Marriage is for man/woman." That is very distinguishable to me.
Anyone?
I don't believe homosexual marriage is legitimate in the eyes of God but I honestly don't know on what theological basis she's basing her religious objection on.
My wife pointed out that is she truely objects to this religiously speaking then she should have also refused to provide new marriage licenses to people who divorced their previous spouse for any reason other then abandonment or adultery. But I'm guessing she didn't do that.
In fact one thing that upsets me is how many Christians flip out about secular gay marriage but ignore un-biblical divorces happening within their own church! As a Christian who again believes homosexual acts are a sin and that God does not recognize homosexual marriages, I find it absolutely hilarious to hear people like Newt Gingrich talk about the gays ruining the sanctity of marriage.
Not changing my religious views on homosexuality any time soon, but the church just seems so lost sometimes, lacking proper priorities. Get the log out of your own eye so that you may then clean the speck from your friends. . . The church's log when it comes to marriage is divorcee's. It typically chooses not to deal with them and when it does it does so with kid gloves.
I totally agree with this. She absolutely has all the constitutional rights in the world not to issue these certificates, but if part of the job is doing so, then her bosses also have all the freedom in the world to relieve her of duties. If she feels like issuing certificates means she has a role in the process and that's against her beliefs, that's fine......just find another job.
I like you hoosier, you are extremely different than me, but you have always posted within your "I am a Christian, here is what I believe" persona. Putting aside the clerk's probable hypocrisy (divorced persons), I'm with you, I just don't know what she is basing the objection on.
Even if she believes it is a sin, is issuing a State (Non-Religious) license, "participating" in the sin? Is using a stamp to mark a deed, participation in cohabitation? This is simply statistical, clerical work, imo.
Edit to discuss your very first comment: I don't believe homosexual marriage is legitimate in the eyes of God...
Of course I don't think government should interfere with your belief of this, but does a recognition that someone is married NOT in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of Kentucky interfere with that belief? It seems to me that you, the clerk, anyone could do both of those things simultaneously.
In that case, the people are her boss, and she should, in fact, be summarily removed.
I would also presume the Federal Court would have authority to order her removal from office.
They might be conservative, but how much of their taxes are they willing to spend to pay her court costs indefinitely? (Yes, I presume organizations have covered the costs thus far)
She doesn't believe in it, therefore is against it and doesn't want to play a part in making it happen. I see her position but she should be removed from her job. The licenses can be granted, it's not for her to decide.
I think that most people would admit that moronic stances are to be found on either side of the aisle.
You say that, but I don't think follow through with the actual chain of logic.
She doesn't "believe in" what? Homosexuals marrying right? So what does that mean? If she doesn't "believe in" it, does that mean she believes their marriages aren't real? Fine, how does that affect her duty to issue a license? It doesn't stop her from not "believing in" it.
If she is, in fact, "against it", as in she would like to stop homosexuals from being married, that brings two questions to my mind: 1) Is she against it in the "eyes of God"? As in, she believes they can't be religiously married? Fine, the above statement still applies, they will not be married in the eyes of her God, regardless of her issuing the license. 2) Is she required to stop it from happening? Is it her duty to refuse to issue a non-religious document to them? Would she be required to refuse to issue them a permit to build a house, filing of a deed, or anything else? If so, this follows my comment that this could lead to necessitating her actions....but is that what is happening?
I think your simplification ignores the actual chain of events required to reach the conclusion.
For example: Looking at the Ten Commandments as a simple example, working on the Sabbath is usually frowned upon, seen as sin. Would a person who believes in this specific religious observance be required to refuse a permit (say, Liquor license or building permit) to someone who would operate their business on the weekend? I would think not, because issuing the permit has no "participation" in the event, certainly not in a religious way. The issuer would still a) not be working on the Sabbath, and b) wouldn't be issuing anything religious (such as some type of proclamation allowing the violation). Just because someone doesn't "believe in" something doesn't mean they have a duty to stop it in any way possible, especially non-religiously.
As a con, my advise is to give up the damn fight. This has been decided and we are not turning back
It is unfortunate that you see it as a "con" issue. I approve of your stance on it though.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm
It was unConstitutional, therefore invalid. Therefore States must issue licenses on an Equal Protection basis, and the basis put forth by the government to restrict it by sex/gender/orientation failed to meet the standard, therefore same sex marriages can not be restricted by government.
Did you miss the memo?
What was unconstitional, the first ammendment says she has relgious rights granted by the creator. Where's the law passed by congress that says she does not? To come after her..... There must be a law she's brealing
You are missing basic Constitutional understanding here.
She has religious rights, yes: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Congress, in this instance, has not passed any law prohibiting her free exercise of her religion.
There must be a law she is breaking, no, that is wrong. She is a public agent of the government of Kentucky. The women that she denied the license to had a Constitutional right to Marriage...as says the Supreme Court of the United States, in reading the Constitution. The public agent of Kentucky, i.e. the Government, denied those women their Constitutional right.
Therefore a Federal Court required the Government to stop violating the Constitution.
The Government refused to do so, appealed, and asked for a stay. The Federal Appeals Court said there is no likelihood of her winning her appeal so they denied the stay.
Therefore, currently, there is a valid Federal Court order requiring the Government in Kentucky (Rowan County) to stop violating the Constitution.
I would really think that a "Limited Government" proponent would be completely and wholly frightened by a Government agent that believes their religion can be used as a basis for denial of a Constitutional right.
For those that think our POTUS is a secret Muslim....why would you want a standard where he could just refuse to follow the Constitution....while legally blaming it on his religion.
That seems frightening. (Great, now this will become an Obama thread)
For those that think our POTUS is a secret Muslim....why would you want a standard where he could just refuse to follow the Constitution....while legally blaming it on his religion.
That seems frightening. (Great, now this will become an Obama thread)
What, pray tell, do you mean?
If your Constitutional (Federal) rights are violated by the State of Texas, you have nowhere to turn? You can't ask the Federal Courts for help?
So if your good buddy Rick Perry knocked on your door, punched you in the face, dragged you out in the yard, and then sent in an army of Texas Rangers to confiscate all of your alien-tracking technology and advanced weaponry..........you wouldn't be able to do shit about it?
Show me the fed law that states you can come after this lady? Maybe call her a terrorist.throw her in gitmo? Her rights are being violated
The feds should have thought of this when they stuck their noses in a states rights issue. Seriously, on what grounds could she be caharged? Note texans are doing the samw thing are the feds. Coming?
The feds should have thought of this when they stuck their noses in a states rights issue. Seriously, on what grounds could she be caharged? Note texans are doing the samw thing are the feds. Coming?
What are you missing here? Who is "coming after this lady?"
There was a Federal District Court ruling ordering her OFFICE to issue the licenses. Ordering the GOVERNMENT to stop violating the Constitution.
The article in the OP is the Federal Appeals Court denying her stay on that order. Who is saying she will be "charged" with violating the law? If she doesn't comply she would be held in contempt, for violating a direct federal order.
Why don't you answer my question above, it was a good hypothetical for you. It really will demonstrate whether you are capable of understanding basic Federal Court jurisdiction and the, you know, Constitution.
I really thought you'd be on board with a Court ordering the GOVERNMENT to stop violating the Constitution. Weird that you aren't.
I dont view the supreme court as valid i do view each state as valid, she wants this in Kentucky no fed can tell her no
In the words of Billy Joel "You should never argue with a crazy mimimimimind."
OiT is just batshit crazy.
You are not talking about limiting goverment you are talking about using goverment as a weapon to go after sovereign citizens, the church, the several states, and businesses.
Ok so whats her punishment for contempt, even thought the courts are showing extreme contempt towards the people???
Rick perry doing an illegal search and seizure is covered i believe it is the 4th. Marriage is not covered
Wait, she is a sovereign citizen?
OiT, what do you think a Sovereign Citizen is?
Let's back this party train up, and start simple.
Do we agree that there are Federal Courts?
If yes:
Do we agree that Federal Courts can order State governments to stop violating the Federal Constitution?
Do we agree that there are Federal Courts?
If yes:
Do we agree that Federal Courts can order State governments to stop violating the Federal Constitution?
