BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Does a lesser magistrate ever have any other option other than compromise or resignation? If you answer "no" are you consistent with that answer?
So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
Does a lesser magistrate ever have any other option other than compromise or resignation? If you answer "no" are you consistent with that answer?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Another way to put this is - should all government officials always obey all the current statutes and laws and rulings?
If that's the case then if, as someone has commented elsewhere, you were "the sheriff who captured Dred Scott in free territory, you would have cheerfully followed Chief Justice Taney's interpretation of the Constitution (to say that blacks were not U.S. citizens, but were white peoples' private property), and sent Dred Scott back to his southern slave master. Is that what you really mean by "follow the law"?"
I'm not equating the two cases, but I am asking, shouldn't we have an allowable category for this sort of thing? Sure it'll vary. Sure there are limits. Sure we'll differ on who's in the right and who is in the wrong when such defiance by a lesser magistrate is given. But when it is given due to conscience, then I'm thinking we ought to be willing to extend some means of reasonable accommodation. Who knows, through such truly unjust or immoral or wrongly made laws will be questioned and repealed.
Call me a dreamer...
If that's the case then if, as someone has commented elsewhere, you were "the sheriff who captured Dred Scott in free territory, you would have cheerfully followed Chief Justice Taney's interpretation of the Constitution (to say that blacks were not U.S. citizens, but were white peoples' private property), and sent Dred Scott back to his southern slave master. Is that what you really mean by "follow the law"?"
I'm not equating the two cases, but I am asking, shouldn't we have an allowable category for this sort of thing? Sure it'll vary. Sure there are limits. Sure we'll differ on who's in the right and who is in the wrong when such defiance by a lesser magistrate is given. But when it is given due to conscience, then I'm thinking we ought to be willing to extend some means of reasonable accommodation. Who knows, through such truly unjust or immoral or wrongly made laws will be questioned and repealed.
Call me a dreamer...
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I've told you in previous conversations that I don't really understand the "substantial burden" argument re: same-sex marriage and christianity, so you're going to help me to reach the point where I can answer your question.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
My question isn't specific - it is general. Can you answer the general question? I might not understand why someone else's conscience is burdened and still understand that it is.
Does a lesser magistrate ever have any other option other than compromise or resignation? If you answer "no" are you consistent with that answer?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I've been really busy this week and only read a little bit and seen the crazy woman on TV.
But couldn't they have just fired her? I met Huckabee down here Wednesday, the day he came to her defense.
But couldn't they have just fired her? I met Huckabee down here Wednesday, the day he came to her defense.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
She's an elected official. So no. She can be impeached.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
The following opinion piece in WaPo, I find most helpful:
Link
It discusses actual federal and state practice. In reading it, I learned that Davis actually offered a compromise that evidently was rejected - that the licenses wouldn't use her actual name but rather title.
"...it seems to me that Davis has a much stronger claim under state law for a much more limited exemption. Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with
Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.
Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest."
Here's another interesting tidbit:
"...There’s a lot of appeal to the “you take the job, you follow the rules — if you have a religious objection to the rules, quit the job” approach may be. But it’s not the approach that modern American federal employment law has taken, or the approach that the state religious exemption law in Kentucky and many other states has taken.
Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to transport alcohol, Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who don’t want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who don’t want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who don’t want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too."
Link
It discusses actual federal and state practice. In reading it, I learned that Davis actually offered a compromise that evidently was rejected - that the licenses wouldn't use her actual name but rather title.
"...it seems to me that Davis has a much stronger claim under state law for a much more limited exemption. Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with
Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.
Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest."
Here's another interesting tidbit:
"...There’s a lot of appeal to the “you take the job, you follow the rules — if you have a religious objection to the rules, quit the job” approach may be. But it’s not the approach that modern American federal employment law has taken, or the approach that the state religious exemption law in Kentucky and many other states has taken.
Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to transport alcohol, Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who don’t want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who don’t want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who don’t want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too."
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
57, I know it's rare for me to say, but I appreciate that view.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Course Cheney would have been quick to sign. 
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Bedell, sorry I haven't had time to read the links you posted, I didn't ignore you, just got a LOT of stuff going on in pretty much every area of life, not something I want to go into here, but my health, as far as I know, is fine (in case anyone might think this).
Let me say first that I agree with what you and fitty, among others have said, I don't agree with her stance in a job-related way, but that's just opinion, not based on anything else. I definitely do not and did not want her to have to go to jail, I think that's a no win situation for just about everybody and I would like to see some sort of realistic compromise reached, if there is one out there.
A friend and worker of mine posted this on Facebook. I did check to see if it was on snopes.com (cause I trust pretty much nothing I see online these days) and it wasn't there, at least not the parts I checked. I must admit I had some similar thoughts to what this pastor had, and have stated some of them here from time to time, but he takes it further than I was prepared to, again just posting a point of view here, this man claims to be a Southern Baptist pastor, I did not post his name, just the message from my friend's Facebook. You all can form whatever conclusion(s) you wish from this information (his words in bold font):
Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.
First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.
Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.
Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.
This is why we are losing.
This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.
Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.
We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.
We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.
If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self.
Let me say first that I agree with what you and fitty, among others have said, I don't agree with her stance in a job-related way, but that's just opinion, not based on anything else. I definitely do not and did not want her to have to go to jail, I think that's a no win situation for just about everybody and I would like to see some sort of realistic compromise reached, if there is one out there.
A friend and worker of mine posted this on Facebook. I did check to see if it was on snopes.com (cause I trust pretty much nothing I see online these days) and it wasn't there, at least not the parts I checked. I must admit I had some similar thoughts to what this pastor had, and have stated some of them here from time to time, but he takes it further than I was prepared to, again just posting a point of view here, this man claims to be a Southern Baptist pastor, I did not post his name, just the message from my friend's Facebook. You all can form whatever conclusion(s) you wish from this information (his words in bold font):
Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.
First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.
Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.
Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.
This is why we are losing.
This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.
Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.
We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.
We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.
If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
OHawk, I'm afraid that much of that pastor's message is just ill-informed. Read the WaPo opinion piece I posted. We may not like the woman, but let's all take a deep breath. For a shorter, and better informed read, just try this piece if you don't want to read all the rest i've provided:
"From both left and right, critics of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis have criticized her as a law-breaker. Supporters of same-sex marriage say that her religious scruples don't give her the right to pick and choose what responsibilities she'll fulfill. Critics from the right have said her stance is a threat to law-and-order.
Eugene Volokh shows in the Washington Post that the issue is more complicated, more complicated legally. After all, religious scruples are often accommodated in the workplace. In fact, under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, they have to be. As Volokh summarizes, “both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an ‘undue hardship,' meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer.”
So, nurses don't have to be involved in abortions, Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to raise flags, Muslims don't have to drive trucks containing alcohol.
Volokh isn't sure this is the best way to guarantee religious freedom: “The government is barred by the Free Exercise Clause from discriminating based on religion, but the government has no constitutional duty to give religious objectors special exemptions from generally applicable rules. Maybe it (and private employers) shouldn’t have such a statutory duty, either.” Regardless, it is the way the Civil Rights Act has been applied “for over 40 years.” Reasonable as it may sound, the rule has not accepted the “you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job” argument.
That's not a slam-dunk for Kim Davis, though, since “Title VII expressly excludes elected officials.” For Davis, though, a Kentucky version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act kicks into gear. This has a much higher bar: “to deny an exemption, the government must show not just ‘undue hardship' but unavoidable material harm to a ‘compelling government interest.'”
On the other hand, there's the question of whether Davis has a Constitutional duty to issue same-sex marriage licenses, whether refusing to sign them imposes an “undue hardship” on the citizens of Rowan County. Volokh thinks she could bypass that dilemma by pursuing a more limited exemption. What she has objected to is the fact that her name appears on the licenses, which Davis takes as an implicit endorsement of same-sex marriage. It would not burden the county or its gay citizens if the licenses were issued without her name. And Volokh argues that it could be done without any modification of Kentucky law.
Conservatives who have tagged Kim Davis as a bad case and a foolish martyr have, in short, spoken too soon. There's a lot of legal water yet to pass under this bridge, and her case may end up carving out a good bit of space for other conscientious objectors. Hers is a cause worth supporting.
But we must also ask: If Kim Davis has a plausible legal right to ask for an exemption, why has her case become a cause celebre? Why hasn't everyone taken a deep breath and looked for ways to accommodate her religious convictions? The answer isn't difficult to determine. She must be made an example, because the fascist marriage regime can brook no public dissent. And for that reason too, we should stand with Davis, lest we end up standing with the bullies."
Link
"From both left and right, critics of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis have criticized her as a law-breaker. Supporters of same-sex marriage say that her religious scruples don't give her the right to pick and choose what responsibilities she'll fulfill. Critics from the right have said her stance is a threat to law-and-order.
Eugene Volokh shows in the Washington Post that the issue is more complicated, more complicated legally. After all, religious scruples are often accommodated in the workplace. In fact, under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, they have to be. As Volokh summarizes, “both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an ‘undue hardship,' meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer.”
So, nurses don't have to be involved in abortions, Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to raise flags, Muslims don't have to drive trucks containing alcohol.
Volokh isn't sure this is the best way to guarantee religious freedom: “The government is barred by the Free Exercise Clause from discriminating based on religion, but the government has no constitutional duty to give religious objectors special exemptions from generally applicable rules. Maybe it (and private employers) shouldn’t have such a statutory duty, either.” Regardless, it is the way the Civil Rights Act has been applied “for over 40 years.” Reasonable as it may sound, the rule has not accepted the “you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job” argument.
That's not a slam-dunk for Kim Davis, though, since “Title VII expressly excludes elected officials.” For Davis, though, a Kentucky version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act kicks into gear. This has a much higher bar: “to deny an exemption, the government must show not just ‘undue hardship' but unavoidable material harm to a ‘compelling government interest.'”
On the other hand, there's the question of whether Davis has a Constitutional duty to issue same-sex marriage licenses, whether refusing to sign them imposes an “undue hardship” on the citizens of Rowan County. Volokh thinks she could bypass that dilemma by pursuing a more limited exemption. What she has objected to is the fact that her name appears on the licenses, which Davis takes as an implicit endorsement of same-sex marriage. It would not burden the county or its gay citizens if the licenses were issued without her name. And Volokh argues that it could be done without any modification of Kentucky law.
Conservatives who have tagged Kim Davis as a bad case and a foolish martyr have, in short, spoken too soon. There's a lot of legal water yet to pass under this bridge, and her case may end up carving out a good bit of space for other conscientious objectors. Hers is a cause worth supporting.
But we must also ask: If Kim Davis has a plausible legal right to ask for an exemption, why has her case become a cause celebre? Why hasn't everyone taken a deep breath and looked for ways to accommodate her religious convictions? The answer isn't difficult to determine. She must be made an example, because the fascist marriage regime can brook no public dissent. And for that reason too, we should stand with Davis, lest we end up standing with the bullies."
Link
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Well I did say I wish there was a more humane way to deal with her other than jail, does that not count for anything? You point, as usual, is fair, but did you take into account that the WaPo author was "looking for a way "to put her actions in a better light". Not saying he was, but name me an author of anything these days who doesn't try to put his/her own spin on "what is is"?
I suppose the better and more baffling question might be, how did she find not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 different guys who were willing to not only "engage in coitus" with her on a consistent basis, but actually marry her? Sorry I know that was rude, but no more so than this whole damn story.
EDIT: Oh and bravo to Steak Sauce, she really does look like Vlad Cheney.
I suppose the better and more baffling question might be, how did she find not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 different guys who were willing to not only "engage in coitus" with her on a consistent basis, but actually marry her? Sorry I know that was rude, but no more so than this whole damn story.
EDIT: Oh and bravo to Steak Sauce, she really does look like Vlad Cheney.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
I thought the author(s) were trying to deal fairly with the situation and not join the rabid pack. So many of the talking points are dispelled when you actually read a bit more. That's got to be worth something.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Well I don't have much use for the "usual rabid suspects" either, I just feel like this woman has ulterior motives, I could and probably am wrong, but that's just how she strikes me. Hey at least we agree on Steak Sauce's Cheney-Davis "separated at birth" pics, right?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Can't read her heart. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. But I know this - she offered a reasonable solution and she was willing to go to jail. Doesn't seem like she would have offered that reasonable solution if she was just in this for the money...
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Well you're certainly right in that we don't know her heart, but why would she go to jail? Why does Sarah DUMAS Palin keep (as either Lincoln or Twain, depending on which source you believe) insist on "opening her mouth and removing all doubt"? LOTS of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be had if you appeal to the right people.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Why did she offer a reasonable solution if she's in it for the money?
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Because her alternative could be used as a technicality in court to invalidate marriage licenses. According to the law the name of the person holding her office has to be on the marriage certificate for it to be valid. If you dont think someone would sue to invalidate those marriages on that basis you are naive.
People objected on religious grounds interracial marriage, desegregation, women/blacks voting and ending slavery too. 50 years from now we will remember this in the same vain as those issues. What side of that do you want to be on?
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959