Kim Davis - not the only public official refusing to issue marriage licenses

[Up All Night]

From the CSM:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0913/Kim-Davis-is-not-the-only-public-official-refusing-to-issue-marriage-licenses-video

North Carolina, for instance, passed a law in June that allows public officials to forgo performing marriage rites on the grounds of religious objections. Since then, 32 magistrates â€" out of the total 672 â€" have done so. In McDowell County, all four magistrate judges have recused themselves from granting marriage to all couples. This requires a magistrate from another county to perform the deed three days a week.

In Alabama, 67 counties have stopped issuing marriage licenses, though their defiance began before the Supreme Court ruling in June and before Davis landed in the national spotlight. Under the state’s law, probate judges may issue marriage licenses, but have no obligation to do so.

Nick Williams, a Washington County probate judge, told The Wall Street Journal he stopped issuing licenses immediately after the US Supreme Court ruling in June that legalized same-sex marriage. He says it was “ill-advised” and “invalid,” because marriage should be based on a state-by-state standard.

“By not issuing licenses to anyone, I’m not discriminating against anyone,” Judge Williams says.

Indeed, some gay marriage advocates agree â€" if no one is getting a license, then there’s no practical prejudice.

A spokesperson for Freedom to Marry, which supports legalizing gay marriage, told the Guardian “we don’t see this as discrimination.” But Susan Watson, the executive director of Alabama’s ACLU, said her organization is looking for ways to encourage the abstaining judges to resume their duties.

“While I issue every marriage license as a legal obligation without personal judgment, my conscience does not allow me to voluntarily officiate a same-sex marriage,” Ricky Hatch, the clerk of Utah’s Weber county, told the Guardian. “My decision does not prevent the marriage from taking place, but I am also not personally promoting the practice. I should also mention that the decision to not perform marriage ceremonies in our office applies equally to all couples.”

[Inglorious Bitch]

If they are unwilling to do their jobs, then they should get fired. Period. I'm sick and tired of people picking and choosing which part of their religion they will practice this week in order to discriminate against others and deny them equal treatment under the law. Maybe I should open up a business and refuse to wait on religious hypocrites like them. I'm sure they would blow a gasket and sue if it was done to them. The best part is that these a-holes are most likely "Christian". And by "Christian" I don't mean people with love and acceptance in their hearts like Christ, I mean people who judge and condemn others, who expect special rights due to their (cough) values, people who walk around with a stick up their ass telling others that they will burn in hell if they don't repent and join their religious cult, etc. Basically, do the complete opposite of all of Christ's teachings while acting holier than thou in the process.

[Uncle Duke]

If they are unwilling to do their jobs, then they should get fired. Period. I'm sick and tired of people picking and choosing which part of their religion they wilhl practice this week in order to discriminate against others and deny them equal treatment under the law. Maybe I should open up a business and refuse to wait on religious hypocrites like them. I'm sure they would blow a gasket and sue if it was done to them. The best part is that these a-holes are most likely "Christian". And by "Christian" I don't mean people with love and acceptance in their hearts like Christ, I mean people who judge and condemn others, who expect special rights due to their (cough) values, people who walk around with a stick up their ass telling others that they will burn in hell if they don't repent and join their religious cult, etc. Basically, do the complete opposite of all of Christ's teachings while acting holier than thou in the process.

Elected officials generally cannot "get fired".  State and/or local laws do define the processes by which nonperforming or otherwise unacceptable public officials can be removed from my their elected positions.  One of the more common methods is the recall election.  In the case of Kim Davis, who lives in a county where 75% of the electorate agree with her fundamentalist definition of marriage, there is no way she would be voted out of office if recall was the means by which to remove her.  In Davis' specific case,  KY law requires the state legislature to vote her out of office.  Again, this would never have happened in a fundamentalist state such a KY as any legislator who would have voted against her would have signed his/her own political death warrant.  Besides, are elected officials not expected to represent and vote the beliefs/positions of those who put them in office?

Now let's look at a hypothetical, but similar situation in one of the heavily populated Muslim areas around Detriot.  Consider a Muslim who is elected by those in his community to the same job Davis holds in Rowan Co., KY.  What happens if this elected official, based on his personal religious beliefs, refuses to issues marriages licences to gays?  Does our media take the side of those denied marriage licenses, and more interestingly do Christians side with the non-Christians who are espousing the same definition of marriage but doing so based on a principle of Sharia Law?

[onan]

Now let's look at a hypothetical, but similar situation in one of the heavily populated Muslim areas around Detriot.  Consider a Muslim who is elected by those in his community to the same job Davis holds in Rowan Co., KY.  What happens if this elected official, based on his personal religious beliefs, refuses to issues marriages licences to gays?  Does our media take the side of those denied marriage licenses, and more interestingly do Christians side with the non-Christians who are espousing the same definition of marriage but doing so based on a principle of Sharia Law?

Did this happen? You start by presenting an hypothetical. If someone is breaking law or stated policy, they are not performing the tasks ascribed. That would be grounds for dismissal. Funny, how this isn't bothersome to some because it fits into their ideology; whereas if it were on the other side of the fence, the event would be similar to ground meat to attack dogs.

[chefist]

Did this happen? You start by presenting an hypothetical. If someone is breaking law or stated policy, they are not performing the tasks ascribed. That would be grounds for dismissal. Funny, how this isn't bothersome to some because it fits into their ideology; whereas if it were on the other side of the fence, the event would be similar to ground meat to attack dogs.

At first I had little interest in this story. However, once I learned Davis was an elected Democrat, it piqued my interest.  Normally the media would eviscerate a Republican for such an incident, but they seemed quite mild in this case.  No news trucks parked in front of her house, no interviews with old friends or co-workers...

The key here is she invoked the 1st amendment.  If she had not and refused to follow the law for no reason, yes, she could be fired.  However, there are so many laws safeguarding the 1st amendment that there is a higher level of protection given to workers.  Many restaurants have adjusted to servers whose faith prevents serving alcohol by having another server bring the drink to the table.  That is what should have happened in this case, but no one took the lead to change the policy.

it's a pretty interesting story to follow IMO based on these political cross over themes...

[onan]

At first I had little interest in this story. However, once I learned Davis was an elected Democrat, it piqued my interest.  Normally the media would eviscerate a Republican for such an incident, but they seemed quite mild in this case.  No news trucks parked in front of her house, no interviews with old friends or co-workers...

The key here is she invoked the 1st amendment.  If she had not and refused to follow the law for no reason, yes, she could be fired.  However, there are so many laws safeguarding the 1st amendment that there is a higher level of protection given to workers.  Many restaurants have adjusted to servers whose faith prevents serving alcohol by having another server bring the drink to the table.  That is what should have happened in this case, but no one took the lead to change the policy.

it's a pretty interesting story to follow IMO based on these political cross over themes...

Not a constitutional lawyer, but the first amendment covers your right to redress the government, not harangue people of different faiths following the law.

If Kim wants to speak about her religious faith, no one should stop her, if she is on her own time. However, working as an agent for a local government, while working, her actions are that of the government not as a citizen.

[Inglorious Bitch]

Not a constitutional lawyer, but the first amendment covers your right to redress the government, not harangue people of different faiths following the law.

If Kim wants to speak about her religious faith, no one should stop her, if she is on her own time. However, working as an agent for a local government, while working, her actions are that of the government not as a citizen.

Thank you. This should be obvious to all.

[chefist]

Not a constitutional lawyer, but the first amendment covers your right to redress the government, not harangue people of different faiths following the law.

If Kim wants to speak about her religious faith, no one should stop her, if she is on her own time. However, working as an agent for a local government, while working, her actions are that of the government not as a citizen.

If you don't want to take the pledge of allegiance, you have the right to refuse without the threat of losing your job. It's basically the same thing here...but the county leadership didn't step in and introduce policy change...

Another example are conscientious objectors in the military... They are granted noncombat roles such as medics...

It all could have been avoided and I smell politics at that local level...someone wanted her to look bad...

[onan]

If you don't want to take the pledge of allegiance, you have the right to refuse without the threat of losing your job. It's basically the same thing here...but the county leadership didn't step in and introduce policy change...

Another example are conscientious objectors in the military... They are granted noncombat roles such as medics...

It all could have been avoided and I smell politics at that local level...someone wanted her to look bad...

I disagree with your premise, but yeah management did screw up.

[chefist]

I disagree with your premise, but yeah management did screw up.

That's why there is a judicial system... Two sides argue in front of the court...its very hard to fire elected officials for a reason... There has to be a recall election...

It could be argued President Obama in not enforcing immigration law...in my opinion he is...but you just can't fire him as an elected official...

[Uncle Duke]

Did this happen? You start by presenting an hypothetical. If someone is breaking law or stated policy, they are not performing the tasks ascribed. That would be grounds for dismissal. Funny, how this isn't bothersome to some because it fits into their ideology; whereas if it were on the other side of the fence, the event would be similar to ground meat to attack dogs.

Exactly.  That's why I asked in my hypothetical scenario how Christians would react to a duly elected Muslim in Michigan, one voted into office by those in his community, doing precisely the same thing Davis did.....but based on an entirely different theology than their own.  We both know we'd hear the Alex Jones' of the world screaming about Shira Law in Michigan.

I respect Kim Davis' beliefs, just as I respect the religious beliefs (of lack thereof) of all.  I do not respect her actions in this case, however.  If her faith does not allow her to do the job she was elected to do, the honorable thing to do is resign.  The strength of her convictions, however, do not extend to giving up an $80K/yr job in a rural tobacco farming community where the median family income probably isn't a third of her salary. 

[chefist]

Exactly.  That's why I asked in my hypothetical scenario how Christians would react to a duly elected Muslim in Michigan, one voted into office by those in his community, doing precisely the same thing Davis did.....but based on an entirely different theology than their own.  We both know we'd hear the Alex Jones' of the world screaming about Shira Law in Michigan.

I respect Kim Davis' beliefs, just as I respect the religious beliefs (of lack thereof) of all.  I do not respect her actions in this case, however.  If her faith does not allow her to do the job she was elected to do, the honorable thing to do is resign.  The strength of her convictions, however, do not extend to giving up an $80K/yr job in a rural tobacco farming community where the median family income probably isn't a third of her salary.

There were many options:

1. As County Clerk prescribe seal and signature authority to another.
2. State authorities assign seal and signature authority thus bypassing the County Clerk
3. Resignation

This was a person making a religious ego based statement and a Federal judge asserting unnecessary egocentric power...

It all could have easily been avoided...It is an interesting case that is for sure...

[albrecht]

Exactly.  That's why I asked in my hypothetical scenario how Christians would react to a duly elected Muslim in Michigan, one voted into office by those in his community, doing precisely the same thing Davis did.....but based on an entirely different theology than their own.  We both know we'd hear the Alex Jones' of the world screaming about Shira Law in Michigan.

I respect Kim Davis' beliefs, just as I respect the religious beliefs (of lack thereof) of all.  I do not respect her actions in this case, however.  If her faith does not allow her to do the job she was elected to do, the honorable thing to do is resign.  The strength of her convictions, however, do not extend to giving up an $80K/yr job in a rural tobacco farming community where the median family income probably isn't a third of her salary.

Actually nobody, the government, media, businesses, or Hollywood activists, are going after the Muslims who refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals, though a few are objecting (and even punishing) those Muslims who refuse service for alcohol but other places are "accommodating" them and allowing Muslim employees not sell alcohol and pork products. I haven't heard of any Muslim government employees, yet, making news by not marrying homosexuals etc but I imagine with the immigration flood this might happen at some point soon. And companies and government offices have been forced to accommodate (via EEOC and Court cases) Muslim garb and Muslim beards in some circumstances- even if there was a pre-existing company policy with regard to dress.

[chefist]

Actually nobody, the government, media, businesses, or Hollywood activists, are going after the Muslims who refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals, though a few are objecting (and even punishing) those Muslims who refuse service for alcohol but other places are "accommodating" them and allowing Muslim employees not sell alcohol and pork products. I haven't heard of any Muslim government employees, yet, making news by not marrying homosexuals etc but I imagine with the immigration flood this might happen at some point soon. And companies and government offices have been forced to accommodate (via EEOC and Court cases) Muslim garb and Muslim beards in some circumstances- even if there was a pre-existing company policy with regard to dress.

I have quite a few Muslims that work in my business... And orthodox Jews as well...they all wear western clothing and don't request prayer accommodations...in return I give them religious holidays off with pay...there is always a way to work things out...:-)

[Uncle Duke]

Actually nobody, the government, media, businesses, or Hollywood activists, are going after the Muslims who refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals, though a few are objecting (and even punishing) those Muslims who refuse service for alcohol but other places are "accommodating" them and allowing Muslim employees not sell alcohol and pork products. I haven't heard of any Muslim government employees, yet, making news by not marrying homosexuals etc but I imagine with the immigration flood this might happen at some point soon. And companies and government offices have been forced to accommodate (via EEOC and Court cases) Muslim garb and Muslim beards in some circumstances- even if there was a pre-existing company policy with regard to dress.

And again, exactly why I also asked the question of media support of gays denied marriage licenses in my hypothetical, but entirely possible, scenario. 

[Uncle Duke]

There were many options:

1. As County Clerk prescribe seal and signature authority to another.
2. State authorities assign seal and signature authority thus bypassing the County Clerk
3. Resignation

This was a person making a religious ego based statement and a Federal judge asserting unnecessary egocentric power...

It all could have easily been avoided...It is an interesting case that is for sure...

Are 1) and 2) legal under KY law?  A rhetorical question really, but we know there are legal questions even now about the legality of licenses being issued without seal/signature in Rowan Co currently. 

[chefist]

Are 1) and 2) legal under KY law?  A rhetorical question really, but we know there are legal questions even now about the legality of licenses being issued without seal/signature in Rowan Co currently.

Yes, #2 is how it was resolved...could have been done from the start if Davis simply stepped aside on this one licensure function of her office...egos are egos....

[albrecht]

And again, exactly why I also asked the question of media support of gays denied marriage licenses in my hypothetical, but entirely possible, scenario.

It will be interesting to see but I imagine it would go the same way with others issues like "people of color" can't be racist, "women can't rape," etc because the dominant white-male society power structure with the inherent classim, racism, capitalism, sexism, and so forth. So the Muslim would likely be accommodated, if we even heard about the issue because it is likely it wouldn't be covered by the media or championed by Hollywood (like with the Muslim bakeries refusing to make a cake for a homosexual "wedding" was ignored except youtubes and independent/activist media.)

Such issues are coming more to a head in places like The Netherlands, Sweden, etc in which the immigrants are finding much conflict with the previous "open" and "liberal" society. It is, sort of, funny that the more leftist types pine for increased immigration, open borders, government support for immigrants/refugees, and then find their core values, like homosexuality, or even their person under attack by those allowed in! Germany is having special police to maintain separation at the train station in Munich now with Weisn. They fear the Muslims won't appreciate all the beer drinking and gals in drindls and/or that some drunken Germans might attack the immigrants.

[Uncle Duke]

Yes, #2 is how it was resolved...could have been done from the start if Davis simply stepped aside on this one licensure function of her office...egos are egos....

Yes, and I pointed out, there are questions even now as to whether the resolution (no signature/seal on license) is legal under KY law. 

[chefist]

Yes, and I pointed out, there are questions even now as to whether the resolution (no signature/seal on license) is legal under KY law.

Anything like that can be argued in the court, but if there is precedent, which I'm sure there is, then it is not pursued...

[Uncle Duke]

Anything like that can be argued in the court, but if there is precedent, which I'm sure there is, then it is not pursued...

Exactly, and everything I've read says there is no such precedent, taking us back to my original question about whether omitting the seal/signature is legal under current KY law.  That's why there is talk about having to change KY law to make it legal when the legislature reconvenes. 

[chefist]

Exactly, and everything I've read says there is no such precedent, taking us back to my original question about whether omitting the seal/signature is legal under current KY law.  That's why there is talk about having to change KY law to make it legal when the legislature reconvenes.

There are very few issues local municipalities and States go to the mattresses on with the Feds...the Feds have unlimited funds to defend Federal law...

Oh and the Feds have the ultimate internal self protection... The supreme Court... Bought n paid for by federal dollars and a lifelong guaranteed job! 

[Uncle Duke]

There are very few issues local municipalities and States go to the mattresses on with the Feds...the Feds have unlimited funds to defend Federal law...

Oh and the Feds have the ultimate internal self protection... The supreme Court... Bought n paid for by federal dollars and a lifelong guaranteed job! 

Sure, but this is a state, not a federal, issue that will be addressed within the state court system and/or by the KY legislature. Remember, what is at issue here is not same sex marriage, rather it's a question of roles/responsibilities of a county clerk within and under the laws of the state of Kentucky. 

[chefist]

Sure, but this is a state, not a federal, issue that will be addressed within the state court system and/or by the KY legislature. Remember, what is at issue here is not same sex marriage, rather it's a question of roles/responsibilities of a county clerk within and under the laws of the state of Kentucky.

If that is the case it would be interesting how that plays out then...I'm pretty sure the seal says "the count of ______, and state of ______" is the state the ultimate authority? I'm pretty sure the state has the authority to implement federal law...but let's see what happens...

Brown v Board of Education proved the feds will just mobilize the national guard and enforce the law anyway...and now if you don't enforce, fed dollars for programs and elections are held back...that is the real power!

[Uncle Duke]

If that is the case it would be interesting how that plays out then...I'm pretty sure the seal says "the count of ______, and state of ______" is the state the ultimate authority? I'm pretty sure the state has the authority to implement federal law...but let'certificate s what happens...

Brown v Board of Education proved the feds will just mobilize the national guard and enforce the law anyway...and now if you don't enforce, fed dollars for programs and elections are is the real power!

Yeah, again has nothing to do with federal law.  At issue is whether an official state (of KY) document that requires the signature/seal of a state official is a legal document without that signature/seal.  The basic issue goes well beyond marriage licences.  As you know there are hundreds of such documents in any state, everything from birth/death certificates and auto titles to building permits and elevator inspection/permits.   This is apparently why the governor backed away from pencil whipping the Davis resolution with an executive order as he initially said he would do.  As I understand it, those who have married with the unsigned/unsealed licenses from Rowan Co have nothing more than the word of the state AG their marriage is legal. Not surprisingly, other legal opinions disagree.  Who's right?  Unknown, but apparently the state legislature will be looking at the situation when they reconvene.

[chefist]

Yeah, again has nothing to do with federal law.  At issue is whether an official state (of KY) document that requires the signature/seal of a state official is a legal document without that signature/seal.  The basic issue goes well beyond marriage licences.  As you know there are hundreds of such documents in any state, everything from birth/death certificates and auto titles to building permits and elevator inspection/permits.   This is apparently why the governor backed away from pencil whipping the Davis resolution with an executive order as he initially said he would do.  As I understand it, those who have married with the unsigned/unsealed licenses from Rowan Co have nothing more than the word of the state AG their marriage is legal. Not surprisingly, other legal opinions disagree.  Who's right?  Unknown, but apparently the state legislature will be looking at the situation when they reconvene.

Well I have to say that there is an underlying issue that happened after the Supreme Court made this ruling...before, almost every constitutional lawyer though the gay marriage debate would be a state resolved law...that the federal government had no constitutional role at all! That is why marriage licenses are issued at the state level, not the federal level.  Now, many argue this ruling means the feds can basically have power over every aspect of our society, and that the state and local governments have been diminished to parks and recreation.

I understand what you are talking about...I'm just afraid of larger issues in this case about gay marriage...I'm a Libertarian...I think anyone should marry who they like...but having the feds force it upon each state I believe is wrong...in the old days, you had to go to different states to get a divorce...I think the same should be with gay marriage based on the rules of constitutional law...each state must determine what they want to do!  Most have already voted for gay marriage anyway! but that's just my opinion...

It really is an interesting case that is for sure! 

[Uncle Duke]

Well I have to say that there is an underlying issue that happened after the Supreme Court made this ruling...before, almost every constitutional lawyer though the gay marriage debate would be a state resolved law...that the federal government had no constitutional role at all! That is why marriage licenses are issued at the state level, not the federal level.  Now, many argue this ruling means the feds can basically have power over every aspect of our society, and that the state and local governments have been diminished to parks and recreation.

I understand what you are talking about...I'm just afraid of larger issues in this case about gay marriage...I'm a Libertarian...I think anyone should marry who they like...but having the feds force it upon each state I believe is wrong...in the old days, you had to go to different states to get a divorce...I think the same should be with gay marriage based on the rules of constitutional law...each state must determine what they want to do!  Most have already voted for gay marriage anyway! but that's just my opinion...

It really is an interesting case that is for sure! 

Sounds we have similar viewpoints, I also consider myself a Liberterian, at least on social/domestic issues.  I think our Founding Fathers would be astounded, if not horrified, to learn of the areas the federal government has decided to assume authority over despite those areas not expressly being identified in the Constitution.

[chefist]

Sounds we have similar viewpoints, I also consider myself a Liberterian, at least on social/domestic issues.  I think our Founding Fathers would be astounded, if not horrified, to learn of the areas the federal government has decided to assume authority over despite those areas not expressly being identified in the Constitution.

Exactly...most states have already legalized it! You could get married there and the other states would automatically accept it! People forget that each state is almost like it's own country...a separate culture...forcing moral values from New York City on Arizona, and vice versa is a dangerous act...

[albrecht]

Exactly...most states have already legalized it! You could get married there and the other states would automatically accept it! People forget that each state is almost like it's own country...a separate culture...forcing moral values from New York City on Arizona, and vice versa is a dangerous act...

Having a Federal government with so much power and seemingly the ability to interfere is every aspect of a person's life is a dangerous thing. Obviously our Founding Fathers were be horrified but this level of "top-down" thinking also prohibits the benefits of a real federal system with more independent/free states, counties, cities, and people who can try different measures, innovation, or ideas out which can be adopted, or not, by other States or by the Feds. It also risks alienating a large percentage of the population, or a significant minority, or States or regions with ultimately even calls for succession or violence. One-size fits all, top-down, totalitarian systems don't well in the long run. The crazy thing is the stuff the Federal government is expressly commanded to do in the Constitution, like protect the country, is the one thing it is refusing to do with the open border and what not.

[WOTR]

Having a Federal government with so much power and seemingly the ability to interfere is every aspect of a person's life is a dangerous thing.

I have a very different take on this.  To me, this may be the federal government preventing the states from interfering in peoples lives.

Marriage be damned- the states ought to have allowed civil unions years ago to protect the perceived "sanctity" of marriage while allowing property rights to gays.  Years ago, I asked a gay man that I knew what the big deal with marriage was.  His response?  It had nothing to do with marriage- everything to do with property rights and the likes.

He told me a story of a man he knew whose partner was dying in a hospital bed.  The family of the dying man was able to prevent him from visiting once the dying man lost consciousness because they had the legal rights- his partner of 30 years had none.  Once dead, the family had the right to prevent him from attending the funeral.  They had argued that they were next of kin (and they were) and took "their" share of the estate (yeah, you should always have a will.  But the penalty for not having one should not be to screw your partner of decades out of house and home...)

So, when you say that the federal government is interfering in peoples lives- I would like to know how?  They are forcing somebody to rubber stamp a piece of paper?  I would argue that the state not allowing that paper to be issued caused far more harm to gay individuals than forcing someone to issue a piece of paper ever will.

While I understand the problem of a federal government stepping in to force states to do what they do not want to, sometimes to protect the rights of citizens, they have to (hello end of Jim Crow laws...) 

Albeit, this story took place many years ago, I can see the same problem arising.  Without the ability to recognize a couple legally, how do you guarantee them rights in life and in death? (or would you actually argue that 30 years of partnership among same sex couples should not carry the same weight and expectations as that of heterosexuals?)