KY - Rowan County clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt, 2015

[Donjeta]

Not sure if she and her lawyer want a modest exemption... that wouldn't bring in the attention and the donation dollars that martyrdom might.

 

[sonjay]

Not sure if she and her lawyer want a modest exemption... that wouldn't bring in the attention and the donation dollars that martyrdom might.

I agree.

Notice that I said above "if this objection really is based on her religious belief, she's going about it all wrong"

I'm not at all sure it's based on a sincerely held religious belief. The totality of the circumstances suggest to me that it's not.

But if it is, she's going about it wrong. And if it is, and if she approaches it the proper legal way, there's a readily available solution that wouldn't have to involve federal judges and jail time.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

This is interesting commentary on the status of religious exemption cases:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
It's by Eugene Volokh, a lawyer who written extensively about these types of cases in the past.

Part of the article is about when and to what extent employers have an obligation to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees. There's a great deal of case law already in existence. Employers have an obligation to exempt you from specific tasks based on religious objections if it's possible to do so without "undue cost."

Then the article addresses Kentucky's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

Then it turns specifically to this case and the monkey wrench that it has thrown into the works. It appears that KD doesn't have much of a case under federal law:

denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.

But she might have a pretty strong claim under state law:

Modifying the Kentucky marriage license to remove her name from them would be a "cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide."

But, here's the monkey wrench: this is a federal case, and a federal judge generally can’t issue an injunction against state officials under state law (to change the KY marriage license).

It's the author's opinion that "if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA — simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them — she might indeed prevail. Rightly or wrongly, under the logic of Title VII’s religious accommodation regime and the RFRA religious accommodation regime, she probably should prevail."

My opinion, now: I think that if this objection really is based on her religious belief, she's going about it all wrong. She needs to request from the state an exemption to allow her office to issue licenses without her name on them.

I'm not suddenly changing my mind about the whole issue and saying it's fine for her to refuse to issue same-sex marriage license. But I think I'm changing my mind about her right to a limited religious exemption related to the job duty of issuing marriage licenses. And I think it's in the wrong court, and I think all parties involved have turned it into a showdown rather than engaging in a productive discussion about how to accommodate her religious beliefs without interfering with the obligations and duties of her office.

Anyway, the article is an interesting and astute analysis of the legal issues, whether or not it changes your mind about any of it.

The problem is, if a exception is made for her then it will also have to be made for all others that follow. This would be setting a very bad precedence, not only on this issue but other issues as well. In the past, people have refused marriage of interracial couples based on religious beliefs. Making exceptions for this woman, would open up a huge can of worms I'm afraid.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

 

[kimlynn]

Hundreds rally for jailed clerk. A series of speakers hailed Davis a hero in a war against the godless.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-dav...-licenses-same-sex-couples-holding-head-high/

 

[Hiandmighty]

That article presumes she would want a reasonable accommodation and I think it is clear she does not. She does not want any gay marriage licenses coming through her office.

And P.S. Kim and lawyer: the Nazis were out for genocide: to eliminate people because of their RACE and BLOODLINES of Jewish heritage, not because of their religion. It was the elimination of bloodlines....

But tell that to a woman who says she has it harder than "Rose Parks".. SMDH

 

[flourish]

Hundreds rally for jailed clerk. A series of speakers hailed Davis a hero in a war against the godless.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-dav...-licenses-same-sex-couples-holding-head-high/

Can you hear my eyes rolling? The godless? Does she mean the specifically non-religious institution she chose to work for? Why does she accept what seems to be a ridiculously inflated salary from those godless heathens anyway?

 

[Hiandmighty]

Hundreds rally for jailed clerk. A series of speakers hailed Davis a hero in a war against the godless.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-dav...-licenses-same-sex-couples-holding-head-high/

1) gee, you would think there would be thousands

2) everyone else got on with their lives and marriages

3) let them talk. It proves this is not about an accommodation.

 

[kimlynn]

Amazing that they think equal rights and protections under the law for all equals being godless. IMO

 

[La Louve]

There are none. We have no record that Jesus ever mentioned homosexuality at all, which makes sense since the concept was little understood in his day. But the behaviors were commonly known and He apparently didn't find them important enough to mention either.

But I do hear a lot of fundamentalists talk about the Bible as if the whole thing were "written by Jesus", even though the first five books are specifically attributed to Moses and the entire OT was written before Jesus' birth. So maybe Davis is referring to the few prohibitions against gay sex in the OT and wrongly claiming Jesus wrote them.

This article has some good insight into the "biblical argument" against gay marriage. http://www.gaychristian101.com/did-jesus-define-marriage-as-only-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html. It is written with a point-counterpoint format, debunking every bible verse thrown up by gay marriage opponents.

Personally, I don't get where KD or any of the other "christians" who pull this nonsense get any of their sense of moral superiority. I don't recall reading in the headlines that Ms. Davis is the second coming of Christ or that her god specifically appointed her as his agent. And basically that's what she tried to do, was act on her god's behalf and make decisions for the rest of her community based on her over-inflated opinion of herself.

I've known "born-agains" like her in the past and it was always obvious to me that the zeal of their proselytizing was in direct proportion to how shaky and nebulous was their faith. All the bible verses and judgmental comments were really just to hear themselves speak and convince everyone around them what great "christians" they were, while all the time they were backstabbing, stealing and lying and cheating on their spouses. HYPOCRITES who used the bible as their justification for their bigotry.

As Yeshua of Nazareth said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I'm looking at you, Ms. Davis.

ETA: I read upthread a ways that all KD's deputy clerks are issuing licenses. But KD's son (who will probably inherit the position from his mother) is not issuing licenses. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim...sex-marriage-licenses-after-mother-is-jailed/

"The one deputy who refused to comply was Davis’ 21-year-old son, Nathan. The judge said he wouldn’t hold Nathan in contempt. Nathan turned away a gay couple in August while his mother was on vacation. He said the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel had advised the office to continue denying licenses to same-sex couples." [BBM]

As an elected official it would be highly improper for KD to engage an outside firm on a business matter, especially one with such an obvious bias. She should have consulted the County attorney or someone within the county government to advise her. I wonder if the Liberty Counsel is billing the county for their services.

 

[Irisha]

I hope they throw every possible book at her.

hopefully a law book to her nimnuts att.:moo:

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I wonder if she holds the same beliefs as someone I talked to recently. They told me that the end is near and we are all going to die because of the legalization of same sex marriage. lol Maybe Kim feels like she is going to save us all from sinners by not allowing that piece of paper to go out of "her" office.

I need to contact this Kim woman. I have some snake oil for sale and she ought to be able to afford it with that salary.

 

[Irisha]

After reading these I have gained zero insight into why she's doing what she's doing, or what her point is, but I sure do like this verse:

Deuteronomy 24:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

I want to puke, our gov. never mind,
can she prove there is a GOD? No she can't, do your job.

 

[sonjay]

The problem is, if a exception is made for her then it will also have to be made for all others that follow. This would be setting a very bad precedence, not only on this issue but other issues as well. In the past, people have refused marriage of interracial couples based on religious beliefs. Making exceptions for this woman, would open up a huge can of worms I'm afraid.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Um...... I think maybe you missed reading the article.

Exceptions have already been made, for many people. It's settled statutory law as well as case law. And not just Christians. Jews, Muslims... all kinds of religious beliefs qualify for exemptions. That can of worms is already open, and it's not going to be closed back up.

The article I linked is not asserting (nor am I) that she should be able to impose her religious beliefs on other people.

Rather, the statutes and case law support the concept that she should be entitled to an exemption for her religious beliefs so long as there's a way to provide that exemption without undue hardship and without infringing on the rights of other people. And there is such a way.

 

[sonjay]

That article presumes she would want a reasonable accommodation and I think it is clear she does not. She does not want any gay marriage licenses coming through her office.

And P.S. Kim and lawyer: the Nazis were out for genocide: to eliminate people because of their RACE and BLOODLINES of Jewish heritage, not because of their religion. It was the elimination of bloodlines....

But tell that to a woman who says she has it harder than "Rose Parks".. SMDH

BBM. I think you're probably right.

And I think that offering a reasonable accommodation that would meet her stated objection while still providing all couples with the right to get a marriage license would either force her to go along with said accommodation or would reveal that her stated objection is not in fact her real agenda.

What would happen if the state acted as if her stated objection is her real objection, and changed the marriage license requirements so that her name wouldn't be on them?

I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that one of two things would happen: Either she would go back to issuing marriage licenses to all legally qualified couples, or she would reveal herself to have an agenda other than the objection that she has put forth.

I for one would like to see what choice she would make.

 

[sonjay]

Amazing that they think equal rights and protections under the law for all equals being godless. IMO

Under the system in the U.S., she is absolutely allowed to believe that if she wishes to.

She is not allowed to impose that belief on others, or to "wage war on the godless."

She is probably entitled to an exemption based on that belief, IMO. She is not entitled to prevent legally qualified couples from getting marriage licenses.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Yes, eventually we will see what the core issue is.

 

[Irisha]

Under the system in the U.S., she is absolutely allowed to believe that if she wishes to.

She is not allowed to impose that belief on others, or to "wage war on the godless."

She is probably entitled to an exemption based on that belief, IMO. She is not entitled to prevent legally qualified couples from getting marriage licenses.

Who claims the couples are godless? Her?

 

[TorisMom003]

BBM. I think you're probably right.

And I think that offering a reasonable accommodation that would meet her stated objection while still providing all couples with the right to get a marriage license would either force her to go along with said accommodation or would reveal that her stated objection is not in fact her real agenda.

What would happen if the state acted as if her stated objection is her real objection, and changed the marriage license requirements so that her name wouldn't be on them?

I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty that one of two things would happen: Either she would go back to issuing marriage licenses to all legally qualified couples, or she would reveal herself to have an agenda other than the objection that she has put forth.

I for one would like to see what choice she would make.

This has already been done, in a way. The marriage licenses that have been issued while she sits in jail do not have her name or signature on them. Davis, through her attorney, issued a statement that those licenses without her signature or name on them are not worth the paper they are written on. IMO Davis has already proven that the real issue isn't her name/signature on the marriage licenses for same sex couples, it is that they are being allowed to marry at all.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

Did the judge not say that any in that office that refused to issue marriage licenses would be held in contempt? Why is Davis' son not sitting in jail along with her then? Why let him slide on the judges ruling? Either he abides by the law or he sits in jail as well.

MOO

 

[sonjay]

Who claims the couples are godless? Her?

Who cares? It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the legal issues of this case.

This is not a case about whether same-sex couples are godless, or about whether they should be allowed to get married.

For the record, my own personal opinion is, I think they should be allowed to get married. Of course they should! For the record, I also completely support the right of this woman to believe anything she wishes to about marriage.

But this case isn't about any of that. This case is about some very specific legal issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not same-sex couples are godless or have a right to marry.