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.
Oh, and another historical aspect of marriage is the transfer of lands and property, as well as making it technically illegal (during the times that adultery was illegal) for your spouse to wander. But the latter seems to have only been applied to women. So it’s interesting that religion seems to have always been involved in the ceremony itself, while the law protected the rights of property, inheritance, support, as well as conjugal rights. What an interesting dichotomy.
Karen S wrote: “So it’s interesting that religion seems to have always been involved in the ceremony itself, while the law protected the rights of property, inheritance, support, as well as conjugal rights. What an interesting dichotomy.”
This is just classic separation of church and state. The state is the sword against injustice, while religion persuades people to do what is right voluntarily.
David:
I always understood that marriage formalized unions in order to legitimize heirs, and ensure a commitment to care for the wife and issue.
Before that, in prehistoric cultures, it is theorized that unions gave a man’s mate the right for support for herself and her children.
All of the unions performed over recorded times, that I am aware of, referenced the religion of the time. Even the ceremonies performed “as emergencies” by the captains of naval vessels in His Majesty’s Fleet used the Anglican service. Civil ceremonies were not secular, as I understand it, but rather a government official acted as an agent of the church. Technically, a mosque and imam are not required to perform a Muslim ceremony. Anyone can officiate it as long as they follow the Qu’ran. (I was part of a very moving ceremony conducted by my friend’s father, which took care of the religious aspect of the wedding. They had a civil ceremony days later for the legal part.)
The objection to gay marriage has always been couched as a religious objection to changing a religious ceremony. I suppose there may be non religious objections, as well.
I agree with you that the effort was made to provide the protections of a spouse by providing “domestic partnerships.” On the one hand, that provides the rights that I was concerned about. On the other hand, gay marriage advocates felt that it was still “less” than a full marriage. And were domestic partnerships available on the federal level, or just state to state?
I also agree with you that the argument can be made that the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. There is certainly debate about any marriage rights being named in the Constitution.
I, personally, have no problem with gay marriage, but I do with recognizing polygamy, so I can certainly understand people whose line on marriage is a bit different than my own.
Karen S wrote: “All of the unions performed over recorded times, that I am aware of, referenced the religion of the time.”
You are perhaps focused on the English system which does not have separation of church and state. My historical perspective is different from yours. Civil authorities regulated marriage long before religion played much of a role in it. Religion certainly opined about marriage, but the civil authorities were the ones most concerned with defining the relationship, the duties and obligations of the parties involved, who can marry and who can’t marry, and how a marriage relationship might be dissolved. Church officials actually did not get involved officiating marriages until about the 12th century A.D.
Karen S wrote: ” … Civil ceremonies were not secular, as I understand it, but rather a government official acted as an agent of the church.”
Government officials do not act as agents of the church. It is just the opposite. In regards to marriage, the church official is acting as an agent of government. The priest or pastor basically performs the role of a notary. In many marriages, the priest or pastor will say, “by the authority vested in me by the laws of the State of …, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Notably, Justice Ginsburg 2 years ago officiated a gay marriage between Michael Kaiser and John Roberts. She referenced the authority of the Constitution as vesting her with the power to pronounce them married.
” It is just the opposite. In regards to marriage, the church official is acting as an agent of government.”
I wonder if David is undermining his own argument.
If marriage is an artifact of state power then it is hard to see how religious freedom enters into the discussion.
The churches can make up what ever ceremony they choose. But marriage is a matter of democratic law limited by constitutional protection.
Do we really have to give serious consideration to a religious exception for a government official issuing a dog license?
If marriage does not have a special, perhaps unique, religious nature then it is hard to argue that carrying ordinary governmental activities is a religious burden.
If marriage is simply an artifact of government power then it is hard to see how there is any principle involved in refusing to carry out the tasks and responsibilities of a government official.
bigfatmike wrote: “If marriage is an artifact of state power then it is hard to see how religious freedom enters into the discussion.”
It’s called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. We have a principle that says government is not to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
bigfatmike wrote: “But marriage is a matter of democratic law limited by constitutional protection.”
The wording here indicates you are a legal positivist. I favor natural law theory. I see marriage as defining a condition of nature. It is not something to be voted upon as much as something to be understood by observations of nature. To talk about a “democratic law” regarding marriage is like arguing for a law of gravity that people vote on. It sounds silly. Gravity is gravity and we should seek to understand it and work with it. Marriage is the law that defines what happens when a man and a woman come together in sexual union and create children. What laws govern that relationship and define the duties and obligations that exist between them.
bigfatmike wrote: “Do we really have to give serious consideration to a religious exception for a government official issuing a dog license?”
I don’t believe in laws making exceptions for anybody. The laws should be applicable in their plain reading such that it applies to everybody equally.
bigfatmike wrote: “If marriage does not have a special, perhaps unique, religious nature then it is hard to argue that carrying ordinary governmental activities is a religious burden.”
Actually, the fact that a law creates a religious burden is indicative that something is wrong with the presumed law. It is as if a scientist describes gravity in a way different than it actually acts.
bigfatmike wrote: “If marriage is simply an artifact of government power then it is hard to see how there is any principle involved in refusing to carry out the tasks and responsibilities of a government official.”
Again, you are viewing this as a logical positivist, that laws are mere artifacts of men who create whatever laws they capriciously choose to make. From the perspective of natural law theory, government legislatures are like scientists studying nature. They discern principles of civil and social interactions that lead to peace and harmony. Government facilitates civilized society by ordering it according to natural laws that they discern in nature. This is how government came to define marriage. They observed the results of the male and female coming together in coitus, the bond created thereby, the children produced, and the management of the family that came about through it. They recognized the family as instrumental to the economy and prosperity of society in general, and therefore defined the relationship and regulated it with the purpose of making society better for everybody.
Karen S wrote: “The objection to gay marriage has always been couched as a religious objection to changing a religious ceremony. I suppose there may be non religious objections, as well.”
I have never recognized any validity to an argument about changing a religious ceremony. My objection to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion.
Gay marriage is wrong because it destroys the institution of marriage. In order to accommodate gay marriage, you have to change the definition of marriage by removing gender diversity, reproduction, the creation of a family with new individuals, etc. None of this has anything to do with religion. It is based upon the biological and social implications of a male and female coming together and engaging in coitus. A new relation comes into existence by this, and we call that new relation marriage.
Karen S wrote: “On the other hand, gay marriage advocates felt that it [domestic partnership] was still “less” than a full marriage.”
Correct. And that is how it should be because same sex unions are inferior to opposite sex unions and should never be considered a marital relationship. In the California Supreme Court case, the Justice asked what marriage could confer that domestic partnership did not seeing that it had all the same rights. The answer was basically status. And herein is my problem with this whole thing. The law is not supposed to confer status upon a particular group. The gay activists are manipulating the court system to have the government put their imprimatur on their philosophy of sexual hedonism. With the power of the law behind them, they will be able to advance their philosophy of sexual hedonism to new levels. Most of their efforts are behind finding more sexual hookups and more partners. By destroying the institution of marriage through having the courts redefine it to include same sex unions, they will better achieve that objective. In the end, civilization loses as we move backward towards less civilized times when there was no governmental authority to define a marital relationship.
In the following video, Masha Gessen, a well known gay activist fighting to make gay marriage legal, and who married her same sex partner in Massachusetts when they won the victory in that State for gays to marry, honestly admits that gay marriage destroys the institution of marriage and that is what should happen.
https://youtu.be/nJrmBocx0o4
” And that is how it should be because same sex unions are inferior to opposite sex unions and should never be considered a marital relationship”
Sorry, but I am just not seeing how there is any negative impact from broadening the legal understanding of marriage from a relation for procreation to include relationships based on mutual affinity that might or might not include procreation.
I do not see how that expansion of the concept would have a negative impact on the states need for reproduction. Further, as a practical matter, the clear results is that SS couples do in fact build strong families.
It seems to me that it is in the interest of society and the state to give support and recognition to all who have an interest in forming positive family units.
bigfatmike wrote: “Sorry, but I am just not seeing how there is any negative impact from broadening the legal understanding of marriage from a relation for procreation to include relationships based on mutual affinity that might or might not include procreation.”
There are actually two important concepts lost. First and foremost is the concept of gender diversity. Men and women are different from each other. Scientifically, their brains are different. Socially, we all recognize the differences. Books have been written about it. John Gray wrote a book entitled, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” There is a colloquial expression about men and women, saying how ‘opposites attract.’ There are strengths that exist in women that cover the weaknesses that exist in men, and there are strengths in men that cover the weaknesses that exist in women. So in coming together of the two sexes in marriage, there is a completion of the person. That completion represents the bond talked about in marriage. The second concept concerns procreation, that through the two coming together, new life is created from their loins. Together they jointly bear the responsibility and duty to raise them to adulthood. In this action too are relationships forged. Husband to wife, and wife to husband. Father to son and daughter, mother to daughter and son. Brothers and sisters, cousins, uncles and nephews, aunts and nieces. The complexity of social arrangements brought about by marriage are far reaching, and defining the institution of marriage has created a societal mindset in children approaching puberty. Girls aspire to the idea of marriage as a good and fruitful way to bond with a man and create family. Men aspire to the idea of marriage as a noble way for him to likewise assume the responsibilities of manhood and raise a family.
If the concept of marriage loses these two basic foundational premises, and marriage is nothing more than two people who have “found love and romance” agreeing to stay together, then all of these things I have described will be lost in future generations. Young people will see no value in marriage at all. They will not understand the consequences of their sexuality. They will become more hedonistic in their values. They will shack up with others instead of marrying, they will abort their babies, they will suffer increased sexual diseases and mental illness like depression, and become more suicidal and unhappy in their lives.
Think about it this way. If you have a bucket half full of pure water, and you have a bucket half full of dirty water, and you mix them together in one bucket, what do you get? The argument is being made that the dirty water will become clean, but that is not what will happen. Instead, in the end, you will no longer have pure water. All the water will be dirty.
Karen S wrote: “I, personally, have no problem with gay marriage, but I do with recognizing polygamy, so I can certainly understand people whose line on marriage is a bit different than my own.”
Interesting. I have much less of a problem with polygamy, marrying minors, and incest than I do with calling same sex unions marriage. It is worthy noting that the equality argument of the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell seems to apply to all of these other categories just as easily.
Just one more comment for you, forgotwhoiam, before I go about ignoring you and your ignorant rants. You clearly know nothing about the history of marriage, its co-opting by religion, or its purpose in any respect. If marriage were about procreation we would not allow infertile people or old people to get married. Your concept of marriage is obviously based on some perverse editing of history that includes about the last fifteen minutes of your version of human history.
Really tired of your half-witted reasoning.
Anyone have anything intelligent to contribute?
Wow, forgotwhoiam. Thank you for the absolute dumbest answer ever. That was unbelievable..
Did SCOTUS just order you to get “gay married”?
Anyone else want to try an intelligent answer?
Speaking of old and worn out…
Actually the issue is whether homosexual marriage is in the Preamble, Constitution or Bill of Rights.
The answer is NO.
The Supreme Court pretends, like children, that it has the authority to modify the founding documents and “legislate from the bench” which it clearly does not. The Supreme Court hides behind the twisted concept of “interpretation” of the English language before a nation of English speaking people. Preposterous. In deed, the SCOTUS has no authority to modify the Ten Commandments and it has no authority to modify the Constitution.
The only thing in play here is CORRUPTION. In some quarters that corruption is referred to as “overreach.” Different name, same game.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
– Lord Acton
In constitutional terms, the Supreme Court has committed “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” by conspiring to attempt to usurp the power of the legislative branch and subvert the Constitution.
The SCOTUS can no longer undermine the Constitution through acts of treason with impunity.
To wit:
U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 4.
“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Can someone please explain the “marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution” argument to me?
As near as I can remember from the last time I read it, it doesn’t mention airplanes or automobiles, flash trading or hedge funds, brain tumor surgery or polio vaccines, flammable pajamas or lead paint.
Yet somehow the government manages to write laws and regulate all of these and thousands and thousands of other things.
So is the argument that the government (and what is that, pray tell?), can ONLY regulate what is specifically written into the original document? Or that marriage is somehow different because it belongs to the church? It doesn’t, by the way–marriage clearly predates religion, especially the cow and three goats for your daughter kind of marriage. Or is it something else? Maybe one of them thar “natural rights” that people seem to believe in. Anyone?
phillyT wrote: “Can someone please explain the “marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution” argument to me? As near as I can remember from the last time I read it, it doesn’t mention airplanes or automobiles, flash trading or hedge funds, brain tumor surgery or polio vaccines, flammable pajamas or lead paint.”
The Constitution was created to enumerate the powers of the federal government. It was meant to give more power to the federal government than it had under the Articles of Confederation, but the founders feared a big federal government. History has shown that big governments abuse their power in a way that hurts the people. So the founders established a concept of limited federal government. This was meant to give the States a great deal of autonomy. The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Such a model of government led to the United States prospering greatly and becoming the greatest nation on earth.
So if the Constitution does not enumerate the right to regulate marriage to the federal government, then it remains a power of the States. In 2013, Windsor v. United States, the Supreme Court agreed with this concept and said the following: “The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379 –384.” The Court used this understanding to further gay rights by striking down a federal law known as DOMA which defined marriage for the federal government as between a man and a woman. Basically the high court said that the federal government did not have the authority to define marriage differently than a State would define marriage.
Such argument is reasonable, but now in Obergefell, the court has amnesia and forgot what they reasoned two years ago about the federal government not having the authority to define marriage. The Supreme Court effectively nullified the vote of millions of people by its twisted interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of staying with the facts of the parties before them, they basically ordered the States to change their laws voted upon by the people. I say that the people need to disregard their decision as a mistake. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When government acts contrary to the will of the people, it has become despotic and tyrannical. It is the duty of the citizens to correct errant government by any means necessary. If we do not, then injustice will reign and many people will suffer. The suffering of Kim Davis is just one small example of many yet to come. Tyrannical governments must be modified or overthrown by the will of the people.
http://lovehasnolabels.com/
Marriage between a man and the teen he raped is a religious institution…
Max, well that would be amusing….
Annie
Do you think Davidm can give this gay man his remedial crash course on gay male sex, again?
When I hear that someone is “happily married” then I wish him or her well. If I hear that they are “unhappy in their marriage” then I wish they would unmarry. They need to learn about tying knots. Some knots are complicated. Like a Catholic knot. There if you do not get permission to untie the knot then you cannot get into heaven because you have a knot which bars the door. And if you pork without a knot then you can not get into heaven because you broke a rule. And if you pork someone else while knotted then you have cheated. Watch Out For The Cheater. Make Way For the Fool Hearted Foul.
Which religions does the Constitution ‘afford’ the ability of others to govern others by?
David, marriage is not contingent upon coitus. Elderly or handicapped people love each other too, get married and have no desire for intercourse or having children. The same old worn out arguments time after time.
Annie wrote: “David, marriage is not contingent upon coitus. Elderly or handicapped people love each other too, get married and have no desire for intercourse or having children.”
As I have answered many times, such couples who cannot have children through age or handicap should not get married. If coitus cannot consummate the marriage, then it is not marriage. If they want to establish a domestic partnership, fine.
What hinders your understanding, Annie, is that our laws have slowly changed and eroded the proper understanding of the institution of marriage in natural relationships. With no-fault divorce eliminating adultery as a grounds for divorce, and some jurisdictions changing the law to remove the consummation requirement, people are confused about the institution of marriage because the law no longer properly defines what it is.
Marriage has never just been about love. Anybody can love another person passionately without regard to gender or family relationship. For example, a father and son or father and daughter can love each other, but that does not mean they will marry each other. Why do we have laws against incest? It is because of the reproductive consequences. Using your logic, one might now argue that if a father and daughter use medical science to make themselves infertile with each other, or if they agree to abort any pregnancies, then the father and the daughter ought to be allowed a marriage license. Isn’t this correct? According to your thinking in regards to the Fourteenth Amendment, incest must be allowed under these circumstances. Do you remember the recent case of a father and daughter who want to marry and also have children?
“The teenager said her father reached out to her on Facebook when she was in high school and soon after, she went to stay with him for a week. After the week together, the 18-year-old said they had sex and then started dating.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/17/woman-plans-to-marry-her-father-after-two-years-dating/
I met a girl one time who was in love with her brother and engaged in sex with him all the time. According to your sacred Fourteenth Amendment interpretation, the federal government should force the States to allow them to marry as long as the higher risk of defective offspring is handled responsibly.
Marriage between a man and his WIVES is a religious institution…
Wasn’t marriage around long before the religious edict? And polygamy was common throughout history.
@Max-1: “Eric Garner forgot to renew his Right to due process…”
Need to keep that one up to date and – don’t leave home without it!
Separation of Church and State.
America is not a theocracy.
Freedom of religion means you can do whatever you want on Sunday,
but don’t bring it to the government on Monday.
The state is sovereign and not affected or governed by any religion.
Ms. Davis’ duties are not affected by her religious beliefs.
She should be removed from her position immediately.
Her religious beliefs compel her to resign from her position.
Bfm
Eric Garner forgot to renew his Right to due process…
… It seems that Right often doesn’t get renewed.
DBQ – I might have already missed you on your way out the door. Great post. I agree that government should get out of the marriage business and simply record unions.
Here is where I’m stuck. Social Security and other benefits are awarded to spouses. What if people start “marrying” 65 different people in order to give them benefits? People could be “married” to so many people, collecting benefits from each one. Perhaps there’s a way around this that I am not aware of.
I support gay marriage because without recognition of a union, they cannot make medical decisions for their loved ones, visit them in the hospital in Intensive Care, or have any standing if, God forbid, someone dies without a will.
BFM – I agree. Marriage is a religious institution, which is the basis of the whole kerfuffle. Rabbi Schmuley made similar remarks about government getting out of the marriage business and only issuing civil unions.
It is my understanding that the basic issue is that people believe the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. It is true the Constitution does not expressly reference gay marriage, although a lot can fall under “the pursuit of happiness.” If the county clerks will not issue licenses, then they are legislating from their office, too. In my own personal opinion, they should resign, and follow their conscience through other avenues. This is not a private business, where people can vote with their feet. This is a government office where there is no other place to go.
The debate concerning freedom of religion, freedom to wed who you want, the rights of business owners, and the rights of employees has been very interesting. I hope there is more discussion on this topic, because I’m very curious where the line will eventually be drawn.
Is the only purpose of a marriage license to determine if the parties are single and eligible to wed?
Karen S wrote: “I support gay marriage because without recognition of a union, they cannot make medical decisions for their loved ones, visit them in the hospital in Intensive Care, or have any standing if, God forbid, someone dies without a will.”
Not true. Domestic Partnerships solved all these issues. This problem is caused by the HIPAA privacy rules. The answer is to use Domestic Partnerships, not to destroy the institution of marriage.
Karen S wrote: “Marriage is a religious institution.”
Marriage is not just a religious institution. Some religions consider marriage to be a sacrament but others do not. First and foremost, marriage is a public institution based upon the biological fact that human beings are born male and female and require a union between a male and a female to be a complete person and to create a family to carry on his and her legacy. You can’t squirm out of this egregious decision of the Supreme Court in Obergefell by pretending that marriage is only a religious institution and government should not be involved. Hold the government accountable for its mistake and move on. The Supreme Court is not perfect. Get over it already. Leave all the State laws about marriage intact.
Karen S wrote: “If the county clerks will not issue licenses, then they are legislating from their office, too.”
No they are not. They are upholding their State’s Constitution which rightly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The people voted, with 75% of them agreeing with this definition that has been in place for milleinia. The Supreme Court made a mistake. They were wrong.
Karen S wrote: “In my own personal opinion, they should resign, and follow their conscience through other avenues. This is not a private business, where people can vote with their feet. This is a government office where there is no other place to go.”
So a person should lose their livelihood because the Supreme Court made a mistake and ruled based upon emotions rather than logic? That doesn’t sound right. The Constitution says that there should be no religious tests for public office, yet here you are saying that she should resign if her religious convictions do not allow her to approve of legitimizing sodomy with the appellation of marriage.
You do realize, don’t you, that same sex couples can never consummate their marriage. Coitus is a biological impossibility.
Karen S wrote: “Is the only purpose of a marriage license to determine if the parties are single and eligible to wed?”
There is a little more to it. They check for any family relations to each other, such as father / daughter, brother / sister, cousins, etc. They check for mental capacity, age of consent or parental consent, identification, previous marriages, divorces, etc. They are supposed to check for compatibility of the spouses being male and female… gotta have the right biological equipment you know. But Obergefell has thrown that part into a state of confusion.
You know what will clear all this up…
… Is an Amendment naming which Religion the State prefers to carve out law. But of course there’s that pesky First Amendment again!
BDog
Davidm is giving you a run for your money. I never understood how funny he was until I realized that he was having us all on. We do need more comics on this blog.