By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Kentucky was faced with another case of drama and failure to perform statutory duties and the federal courts. The Casey County Clerk announced that he would refuse to issue marriage licenses to couples who’s marriage he objects to.
The clerk, in a bit of irony, is named Casey Davis.
Davis insists that he has a duty to himself to violate state law but oddly he feels the Commonwealth should pay for an attorney to represent him.
Kentucky governor Steve Beshear in July granted an audience with Mr. Davis and thereafter ordered him to issue licenses to all couples regardless of their gender or resign. Defiantly, the county clerk stated, “I’m going to trust the Lord with all my heart, my position remains.”
Governor Beshear issued the following statement:
“This morning, I advised Mr. Davis that I respect his right to his own personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriages,” the Governor’s statement reads. “However, when he was elected, he took a constitutional oath to uphold the United States Constitution. According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution now requires that governmental officials in Kentucky and elsewhere must recognize same-sex marriages as valid and allow them to take place. One of Mr. Davis’ duties as county court clerk is to issue marriage licenses, and the Supreme Court now says that the United States Constitution requires those marriage licenses to be issued regardless of gender. Mr. Davis’ own county attorney has advised him that his oath requires him to do so.”
Here is a video of Mr. Davis speaking before supporters:
By Darren Smith
Source:
The New Civil Rights Movement
MSNBC Photo Credit
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
OK BFM, you got my attention, as for the rest of the folks here….
I find it interesting that until the idea of same sex marriage became more widely accepted, there was no talk of government getting out of the marriage business.
“I find it interesting that until the idea of same sex marriage became more widely accepted, there was no talk of government getting out of the marriage business”
Oh, I talked about it. The only problem was nobody would listen.
It seems to me that marriage is clearly a religious relation. Let the churches administer marriage. Let the government set up and administer domestic contracts.
Besides who can claim that marriage is a right and keep a straight face.
What kind of right places restrictions on age, familial relationship, soundness of mind. What kind of right requires the parties go the county court house and apply for a license?
Got your ‘freedom of speech’ license? How about your ‘freedom of assembly license’? Better keep you license against ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ up to date! And be sure to carry your license against ‘self incrimination’ in your pocket at all times! You just never know now do you?
But as I said, no body has been paying attention for a long, long time. And I don’t expect anyone to start now.
However, if the movement gains traction I just hope you will all give proper credit. Thank you for you kind attention to this important matter – just be sure to spell my name right.
bigfatmike wrote: “Got your ‘freedom of speech’ license? How about your ‘freedom of assembly license’? Better keep you license against ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ up to date! And be sure to carry your license against ‘self incrimination’ in your pocket at all times! You just never know now do you?”
LOL. Very well made point!
However, government is infringing into some of these areas all the time. Every hear of a person requiring a press pass in order to observe an event? Ever hear of free speech zones? I was once arrested for speech because I had failed to apply 10 days in advance for a proper permit to speak. Check your zoning laws and you will find that most residences cannot be used for a regular assembly like a church. I was speaking once where a huge crowd gathered to listen to what I had to say. Can you imagine? Well, the police started dispersing the crowd in the name of public safety. No right to assembly.
So, knowing the Supreme Court has already decided that the States cannot discriminate on the basis of gender when issuing marriage licenses,
@ Steve
That the Government is now involved in the issuing of “marriage” licenses …IS the problem. Should the government merely keep a registry of unions be they secular or solemnized by an additional religious ceremony and stay out of the “marriage” business this would not be an issue. Treating people differently based on their “marriage” status IS the problem. Basing the tax code and giving people preferences one over the other IS the unequal aspect of the way that we treat “marriage” in this country.
The Government should not be the arbiter of who is married and who is not. That term….marriage…..is the big sticking point in the eyes of those who are religiously inclined. The term …..marriage…..is one that has been the purview of religion from time immemorial.
I agree that it is necessary to have a registry of who is connected to each other for the sake of establishing children’s position in the mix and for the sake of establishing inheritance for those who die intestate. However, to get into the “marriage” business by the State or Federal Government is the reason we are in this stew today.
Now…..If I don’t respond…..nothing personal. We are off to the “big” city for our monthly shopping and overnight stay. We live in the country and have to go monthly or semi monthly to buy bulk groceries and other supplies.
It’s the fault of those darn constitutional emanations. My mother used to have emanations. She always blamed them on the dog.
Doggy,
Catholic clerks should feel free to not issue marriage licenses to divorcees. Kim Harris maybe never would’ve been married four times if her the clerck that kept issuing licenses to her were to have been Catholic.
There is a whole history of Southerners refusing to marry mixed race couples. Probably some case law there. That would give us some precedent to look at. Probably the same problem in the same counties in KY. Which is why they invented KY Jelly.
If I was a County Clerk I would not want to give out a marriage license between an Irish person and an Ital. Any of you watch the movie Blazing Saddles?
I do not think that a Baptist should be married to a Catholic. If they do get married then it should be by a pedophile priest. In a teepee. Afterwards all can go outside and peepee.
There is no provision for homosexual marriage in the Constitution.
There is no provision for marriage of ANY kind in the Constitution.
The government should butt out of the marriage issue. If you think that they must have some records of who is shagging who then a registry of couples or of multiples of people who are group shagging. (You know it is going to happen. That is the next shoe. Polygamy)
The government started all of this mess when they decided to tie marriage to the tax code and give different groups of people differential treatment.
Marriage is the territory of the religious institutions and always has been up until now.
Trying to mix the secular with the religious. Never works.
DBQ: While there’s no provision for deciding marriage cases in the federal Constitution, there’s Article III, sec. 2, which states:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
So, knowing the Supreme Court has already decided that the States cannot discriminate on the basis of gender when issuing marriage licenses, when someone brings a dispute before the Court claiming a violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment when a clerk refuses to issue a marriage license because of gender, it’s pretty clear there’s a “Case” “in Law” arising under “this Constitution.”
.
We need more people like Casey Davis to have the courage to uphold their oath of office to defend their State Constitution. I hope we will soon see hundreds of elected officials having the courage to do the same as these pioneers, walking in the example of Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore. They need to raise the battle cry, “Stop Judicial Tyranny.” Just as the Civil Rights Movement had people arrested and jailed for the conviction of their conscience against lawless laws, so will many of these suffer for doing the right thing against an evil government that has turned lawless. The new Civil Rights Movement is against a lawless federal government rather than lawless State and local governments.
Feyd Rautha: Love that dark satire.
Max-1: Love that billboard.
Casey Davis: I support your right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays, lesbians, the transgendered, and the people who love them. I hope your next job gives you as much meaning as this one did. Keep listening to the voices.
I just finished rewatching Ken Burns’ The Civil War. That war was so much fun, I think we may do it again.
Jim Crow was a white guy who set forth some of his bigot rights on the basis of religion. And, StatesRights! That States Rights notion is one word with an exclamation point. You might note that the word Rights in the Constitution refers to individual persons and when the Constitution speaks to the States it speaks with the word Powers. A state has powers not rights. People have some rights but not based on state powers. People rights are based upon people provisions of the Constitution. Never the Twain shall meet as Mark said.
Interesting that those who perversely interpret the Constitution are aligning. The oath takers are an unregulated or authorized militia but they are forming as an armed group perversely using the 2nd Amendment as justification. Davis is shoving her personal beliefs down the throats of Americans by perversely interpreting ‘freedom of religion’ and ignoring ‘separation of church and state’.
A couple + centuries and built in ambiguity allows for many interpretations. What’s next?
Elected officials who break their oath of office should resign or be impeached. I am tired of theocrats who view their beliefs as the ones we should all follow and that they have the right to enforce their relgious beliefs via the power of their offices. Enough.
Homosexuals need to accept the fact they are not ‘gay’. “Gay” remains a closet word. If they were truly ‘up front’ about their sexual orientation, they’d come out of the ‘name closet’ After all, a rose by any other name, is still a rose. Why not call it a rose.
Nor are heterosexuals STRAIGHT. If heterosexuals are straight, that means homosexuals are CROOKED. Not exactly what we are looking for.
As for the term ‘lesbian’ we know the derivative of that. Perhaps the men could find some historical precedent that would satisfy.
As for expressing oneself as being ‘carefree and gay’, well…I can hardy be gay in that I’m straight.
Hugh Beaumont – The Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to free exercise of religion, and private citizens are given great latitude to live according to their conscience. The does not permit an elected official to impose their beliefs on others in officially state-sanctioned capacity.
Separation of church and state – it’s what made the Constitution so great. The Davis’ are attempting to create a theocracy through the backdoor. And from what I understand, they don’t believe in going through the backdoor.
The Governor isn’t happy that his veto of the state RFRA was overridden, which is actually why he suggested that Mr. Davis resign, without discussing reasonable accommodation. How tacky. It would be an accommodation to marriage license applicants, and very cost effective, legitimately certifiable using notaries and efficient, to do marriage licensing mostly on-line, from the comfort and convenience of one’s home. It’s hilarious to think I can get a mortgage on line, and KY can’t do a marriage license that way. The fact that it would turn out to be a reasonable accommodation to conscience is probably why nobody except Mr. Casey is promoting it. Some people are getting joy from the dog and pony show, and it’s not just the objectors. If same-sex marriage is a mark of modernity, surely an automated process is. But I’ll think that over some more while I self-check out at the grocery, buy my first-aid supplies on line, refi my VA mortgage without leaving my house, pack and ship from home, A high-school whiz kid could probably design a system if the Governor is wondering how doable it is. I’m really sorry to p*** in everyone’s post toasties but reasonable accommodation has been in Title VII since 1972, and although people are making a fuss over the idea that we’re talking about elected officials, there’s virtually no way to say that the patchwork of civil service law in KY doesn’t in some part apply to them. Then we come to the Governor’s hated KY RFRA. Pretty hypocritical that he’s pontificating about a clerk doing “their job or resigning” when he has refused to do his, which is to administer KY RFRA. But he has time to go on twitter and make lame excuses that “he has to wait for the legislature to come back” That’s actually horse hoo haa. I have a question for Governor Beshear. What does least restrictive mean to him? Is doing nothing whatsoever “least restrictive” and does he have any credibility deciding what “substantially burdens” means? Did KY do anything whatsoever to review and/or modify their required paperwork, KRS 420 criteria, or offer any support of any kind, knowing that they’d have quite a few conscientious objectors? What did they do all summer, pass the buck? After all, it does take a 2/3 majority to override a veto, so KY RFRA must have been a hot ticket in KY. An accommodation that is seamless to the customer and perhaps even an improvement resulting in convenience is not an undue burden on the state if there is a net savings to provide it. I have been listening, and other than people criticizing the legal reasoning and rhetoric in the Obergfell ruling (as at least 4 justices did, I believe, so why shouldn’t many others?), the harshest words by objectors have been “These are my beliefs that differ little if any from what hundreds of thousands of clergy, rabbis, and monotheists believe. I don’t violate my beliefs. I should not have to quit my job due to the failure of the responsible authority, to provide a de minimus accommodation. This is a matter of precedent and current law ” The record of precedent for this is crystal clear, and nothing about a Governor’s partisan policy adherences or assertion of opinion or authority changes any of this in the least. When the Governor is essentially saying, there is no accommodation that is not an undue burden, he’s simply full of crap. He has no business bringing up the US Constitution if that is his attitude.
Of course he wasn’t
One, arguments from silence demand careful use as they often burn the fingers of the user and associates. You see, it’s that argument used when Jesus is used to justify gay marriage. In the Gospels, He is silent on the matter of homosexual sex. But He was silent on a number of other practices or orientations as well. NAMBLA uses the “suffer the children” in its appeal, and Jesus was silent on sex with young boys. But NAMBLA claims the relationship they proclaim is the true way for boys to truly become men.
Two, bisexuals have been left in the dust by their associated sisters and brothers. Now the Constitution and Jesus are silent on this as well. The out-workings of the “relationship” argument in the bisexual case does not limit itself to a committed triad—consider various linkages—think polyamory (a group already being included in the expanding alphabet of LGBTQP). A Federal suit has been filed in Montana based on the “relationship” clauses found in the majority opinion. Also note that the Episcopal Church was meeting in Salt Lake City at the time of SCOTUS ruling and it too emphasized relationships—-in the land of Mormon. But wait, when the Episcopal Bishop in Western Washington (Seattle etc) was asked about ordaining a bisexual in a committed triad? He would require the person to choose one or the other. And yet he fully favors full inclusion of his brothers and sisters of the LGBT community. He also ordains people living together out of wedlock….hmmmm.
Three, do we really think licensing is stopping at two people now that the means to the end have been established? Don’t Islam, Mormonism, and others provide for multiples in marriage? Now we have the opportunity to expand our horizons into another free expression of religion and relationships.
Oh by the way, Jesus only addressed those things being wrongly applied. Either the early church ditched His words which changed the Law and Prophets or He was content with his utterance at the wedding feast when he laid out the cause for a man to leave his family of origin.
As to the “judge not…” citation bandied about?.? That applies only to judging another’s salvation. Jesus was explicit about judging another’s behavior—with great care, and holding others to account.
Then there is the “public support”, the survey numbers quoted by many as a sign of the public’s support really nosedive when the free expression of male-male anal sex is merely mentioned. Oral sex, hetero-genital and lesbian sex barely budge. Is what goes on under the covers our business? That’s not the point. Gathering and using data is the issue.
In closing, what exception of conscience (short of resignation) is allowed a government official when faced with a significant change in the Law of the Land which violates a core ethical construct not only personally but the official’s community’s construct as well? We are a republic which claims democratic rule.
Oh, oh, oh, one last thing….do the Reservations have to comply as well? Just how sovereign are they?