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.
I put the link to Liberty Counsel’s Matt Staver and Human Rights Campaign legal director Sarah Warbelow on C-SPAN today, sunday Sept, 12, 2015. In it Mr. Staver even admits, at the 7:43 minute mark, that, “YOU CAN NOT ACCOMMODATE EVERYONE’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM”.
No one doubts Kimmy D’s deeply held faith. However, her deeply held faith also means that other people become subject to IT when she’s County Clerk using her buybull to dictate which edicts to mandate her fellow clerks to follow and press upon the general public. It is called RELIGIOUS TYRANNY. And it is UNAMERICAN!
Max-1 wrote: “Mr. Staver even admits, at the 7:43 minute mark, that, “YOU CAN NOT ACCOMMODATE EVERYONE’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM”.”
Didn’t you listen to the rest of what he said? He said if there is not a simple way to accommodate her, then she should resign. But there is a very reasonable way to accommodate her conscience.
Incidentally, I don’t agree with him because I do not recognize the Supreme Court’s opinion as valid. The legislature has as much right to determine Constitutionality as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s opinion as pertains to the parties involved should be held as valid, but common law based upon their opinion has not yet been established. There is no universal law created by their adjudication that applies to everybody. Their decision in this is bad, like Dred Scott.
davidm:
I was, indeed, referencing the English system historically. Our current civil ceremonies are secular.
I cannot watch videos because of my internet restrictions. Can you please summarize her position? How does gay marriage increase gay hookups?
Although we disagree on some points, I do agree with you that the erosion of our values and our descent into hedonism can decay our society, as has happened to other culture in history. For example, the mindless pursuit of self gratification in reality TV like the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, and they have this stupid new show where it’s like a naked survivor. The put two strangers naked in a remote location without preparing them at all on what’s poisonous, etc. I saw about 5 minutes flipping channels, and I was so pissed that this is the new low we’ve come to. I would have been far more interested watching trained survivalists like former SEALS put their training to the test and use their skills in challenging environments.
Way too many young people now just think about “me, me, me!”, without much thought or effort on helping others or making the world a better place. They pass on cute FB messages like “World Peace,” but how many build wells, volunteer after natural disasters? It’s mostly about a race to see who can get into as much debt and trouble as possible. People are famous for absolutely nothing. Instead of young men helping elderly ladies carry their groceries, they’re knocking them down for sport. Fighting with police. Wrecking their futures. We are paying for the erosion of our values and manners.
Karen S wrote: “I cannot watch videos because of my internet restrictions. Can you please summarize her position?”
At this link you can find a transcript of a different video of the same speech:
http://lybio.net/masha-gessen-gay-marriage-is-a-lie-institution-of-marriage/people/
—–
[Masha Gessen] Source: LYBIO.net
And I agree it’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. So uh that – that causes my brain some trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — you know, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. Uh, and again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in – in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. You know – I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. And I don’t why we should choose two of those parents and make them into a sanctioned couple. And because between those five parents we have uh, we have two groups with two different citizenships, two groups of three with two different citizenships.
(You might need to – you might need to take us through that – cause we are getting a little bit confused with the 5 parents.)
[Masha Gessen]
I have uh – well uh – my former partner.
(You got married in Massachusetts?)
[Masha Gessen] Source: LYBIO.net
Married in Massachusetts to my partner who is Russian, my ex- partner, by that time I had two kids, one of whom was adopted and one whom I gave birth to. We broke up a couple of years after that. And a couple of years after that I met my new partners and she had just had a baby and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three – who have two different citizenship’s.
[Audience]
That’s not so very [British]
[Masha Gessen] Source: LYBIO.net
And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
Masha Gessen – Gay Marriage Is A Lie – Institution Of Marriage. I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. And I don’t why we should choose two of those parents and make them into a sanctioned couple.
—–
steveg:
Thank you for your kind words. There is probably no one on Earth with which I agree on all things. I enjoy differing points of view and discussions, because if I can’t defend my position I may change it, or appreciate the different opinions.
“So, if a new state law requires that a woman become the property of her spouse upon marriage and abolishes divorce, sort of the Dred Scott v. Sanford of domestic-relations law, are you saying that federal due process and equal protection should not intervene to prevent enforcement of that law?”
Wouldn’t such a state law be unconstitutional, in making a woman a piece of property? No state law can be unconstitutional. The argument that I’ve heard is that the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench, misinterpreting the Constitution. I am not a legal scholar to know.
In my opinion, some areas are best governed by State law, which can reflect and more readily adapt to the wishes of the voters of the state, while others fall under the purview of federal law. I dread the steady encroachment of federal government intrusion beyond its core responsibilities. Such creep renders it unanswerable to citizens. A good example is the California Coastal Commission, which originally had a very tight focus on successfully defeating building a nuclear reactor on Bodega Bay, on a fault line. (Seriously? A nuclear reactor on a fault line? They’re trying to do the same thing with a High Speed Rail tunnel on several fault lines, now, so we’re slow learners. But I digress.) The CCC has now morphed into this vast, far reaching agency that governs far inland. Here is one of the most hilarious accounts of dealing with the infamous CCC. As a lover of Monty Python, this never gets old:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/03/another-california-coastal-commission-horror-story.html
david wrote
“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.”
Gay marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage. It only extends it to cover couples that wish to be protected under the same civil laws. If you feel threatened, David, then you should focus inward on your own conviction. Personally I don’t need everyone else doing it the way I did it and continue to do it. My own personal relationship with my wife and family belongs to me and represents the epitome of individual rights. When someone, who is not representative of the prevailing opinion, dictates what marriage is or isn’t, that represents everything the founding fathers fought against as well as everything everyone who has fought for this country has fought against. Those that have fought to protect our rights have fought to protect them against bullies and tyrants such as these two zealots.
The freedom of religion is under an umbrella of the freedom from religion. The word of law and the common opinion of the population expressed in the law takes precedent over any and all individual opinions that are not shared by the majority.
Throwing about definitions of the biological and social implications to illustrate marriage is nothing more than an attempt to define marriage in accordance with one’s own ‘religious’ intents.
issac wrote: “When someone, who is not representative of the prevailing opinion, dictates what marriage is or isn’t, that represents everything the founding fathers fought against as well as everything everyone who has fought for this country has fought against.”
The prevailing opinion of the voters in Kentucky is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Seventy-five percent of the voters made it part of the Kentucky State Constitution. So when you talk about someone who is not representative of the prevailing opinion dictating to others what marriage will be defined as, it sounds to me like you are talking about the United States Supreme Court. You should be agreeing with me that they are tyrants.
issac wrote: “The word of law and the common opinion of the population expressed in the law takes precedent over any and all individual opinions that are not shared by the majority.”
Again, according to the facts in this matter, you should then be agreeing with me. I stand up for the principle that you just stated, that the law rightfully enacted by the vote of the people has precedence over a handful of Supreme Court Justices who erred in judgement.
BFM,
You hit it head on, he HAS undermined his argument.
Maybe it’s not the government that should get out of the legal marriage business, but instead it should be the religious institutions that should. How about having a nice religious ceremony but it won’t be legal until you go to city hall to get hitched.
In some European countries a couple gets married twice, once in church and once in the City Hall. Why not consider such a system here? No church wedding is legal until it’s made legal in city hall? No agent of the church has a right to act as an agent of the state.
Annie wrote: “In some European countries a couple gets married twice, once in church and once in the City Hall. Why not consider such a system here?”
Some people do that in this country too, but it is not necessary.
Annie wrote: “No agent of the church has a right to act as an agent of the state.”
Why not? Aren’t they citizens too? So in your perspective, an agent of the church should not be allowed to become a notary or run for public office? You can’t have a pastor of a church also be the mayor, but the owner of a real estate company could be mayor?
Note to others reading: this is the illogical mess that the gay marriage advocates have created.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327988-3/washington-journal-roundtable-religious-freedom-samesex-marriage-laws
So, is a person who is employed by a government entity an agent of the government? Can agents of the government violate the Establishment Clause when they prohibit others from their civil rights due to the agent of the government’s personal religious beliefs?
As for enumerated rights, Doggy, you should comment more often on such matters. We all could stand to learn much more about our rights, states rights and federal powers.
Annie wrote: “Can agents of the government violate the Establishment Clause when they prohibit others from their civil rights due to the agent of the government’s personal religious beliefs?”
The government has no personal religious beliefs, so I can’t make much sense of your question. Government should behave as neutral as possible toward religion. It should not put people like Kim Davis or Casey Davis in the position of forcing them to approve and authorize gay marriage when they know it violates their conscience and sense of morality to do so.
I do not acknowledge that there is any civil right for same sex unions to be treated like marriage. Same sex unions are inherently different from opposite sex unions. They naturally fall under contract law and the fundamental right of association. SSU do not have the same issues that come about from biological reproduction and the creation of a family. Therefore, I do not see any civil rights being violated.
The Free Exercise Clause protects government workers from undue burdens upon their religious convictions of conscience. In this particular case with Kim Davis or Casey Davis, both are protected by their State laws, particular the one known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that basically conveys the intent of the State legislature to make the Free Exercise Clause applicable to the State of Kentucky.
A similar situation is where the sheriff deputy is off duty, but with badge in pocket, wearing a Klan hood, while lynching a black guy for looking at a white gal. The feds try to send in the Marshals to stop the lynching and Klan guy yells: “StatesRights!”. Yeah.
Enumerated Powers. Enumerated Rights. Unenumerated Powers and Rights.
The individual faces power problems from the federal government and from his/her state.
The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government or state government to exercise over us people. The Constitution enumerates certain people rights. The Tenth Amendment talks about powers reserved for the states which are unenumerated and rights reserved to humans which are unenumerated.
The right of privacy has been declared an unenumerated right. It has many facets.
A person who works for the federal government or state stands in a different position than a human standing in his or her front yard. So this confusion, as seen in the comments, about StatesRights! and what not needs to be carefully examined. Not bandied about. So stick the StatesRights! phrase up the butt of the Clerk who won’t recognize human rights.
Karen S writes: “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.”
Provocative points here: So, if a new state law requires that a woman become the property of her spouse upon marriage and abolishes divorce, sort of the Dred Scott v. Sanford of domestic-relations law, are you saying that federal due process and equal protection should not intervene to prevent enforcement of that law?
There are some good things about federalism, but I’m sure many would argue “States’ rights! States’ rights!”
Does anyone know if I need a license to masturbate in Virginia? I certainly want to comply with whatever laws that politicians have imposed on their subjects.
When did these changes happen? A centuries old concept in the common law of inheritance called “the rule against perpetuities” contains an assumption known as the “fertile octogenarian.” This assumes that, despite the physical incapability to reproduce, an 85 year old will be presumed to be capable of having issue. One obvious example is adoption.
This predates the US Constitution by more than a century.
PhillyT’s onto it: “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. . . .”
How can it be that the states don’t have the right to regulate marriage? They do.
Due process and equal protection and the mandate to determine cases and controversies involving those two among other fundamental rights is what requires the federal judiciary to become involved in state regulation of marriage. Moreover, it’s what did away with DOMA, the ridiculous attempt by Congress to hijack state regulation by way of the Commerce Clause (and, better late than never, struck down under due process and equal protection) to which Annie alluded.
Using another example, let’s say that the State of California passed a law citing health and safety concerns that requires anyone and everyone not born in California must leave immediately. Dust Bunny Queen, being from parts more eastward and having just arrived in California to return the State to its glorious conservative values, is directly affected and sues the State of California in the federal district court so that she might continue to reside here. DBQ argues that although there’s no mention in the US Constitution of a fundamental right to travel from state to state, the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to provide such a right including taking up residence in the state of DBQ’s choice.
Of course, DBQ doesn’t believe her own argument because she believes that states have the right to create their own laws, sort of like Casey Davis does, regardless of federal due process, equal protection, and interference from some federal judge.
Of course, DBQ wins her case in federal court under current Supreme Court precedent, and she’s allowed to stay in California and continue to belly-ache about how the federal government is infringing on states’ rights to legislate marriage. Intellectual hypocrisy is of no consequence: it’s advancing self-interest at the cost of intellectual honesty that is DBQ’s primary concern.
Forgotwhoiam: did your god tell you all that stuff? If so, that’s okay by me, but ours is a secular government, as much as you might want that to change. That’d hurt the tax exemption for your church, though. Wouldn’t it?
Karen S: Interesting facts. Thanks for them. I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts. You’re clearly a good debater, but it’d take me days to dig up a response, neither of which I have. And even then it might not be good enough. Kind regards.
So when the court rules in a way you agree with, they are wise and just. And when they rule in a way you disagree with, they are legislating from the bench and should be overthrown. Got it. Thanks.
phillyT wrote: “So when the court rules in a way you agree with, they are wise and just. And when they rule in a way you disagree with, they are legislating from the bench and should be overthrown. Got it. Thanks.”
LOL. No, you don’t get it.
I did not agree with Roe v. Wade, but I thought I could live with it. I did not agree with Lawrence v. Texas, but again, I thought it doesn’t bother me and my life. I can live with it. I did not like the ACA (Obamacare), but again, I thought, it is just money, I will pay the $1900 fine every year so as not to offend my government or those who want this program. But in Obergefell, we have a whole new situation. We have the destruction of the Institution of Marriage. It might not bother my marriage, but it does effect the societal consciousness of my children and their children. We have clear overreach by the Supreme Court ordering the States how they shall define marriage when just two years prior they acknowledged this power was with the States and the People. So the unelected officials of the Supreme Court nullifies democracy and the vote of the people. IF WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW THIS TO GO FORWARD, THERE IS NO TYRANNY OUTSIDE THE REACH OF THIS COURT. At some point, the abuse of government has to be recognized and the people have to stand up together and say NO! We will not have you to rule over us.
I do not say this over light and transient causes. There is a long train of abuse. If you want dysfunctional government and to be ruled by despots and tyrants, then go ahead and acquiesce. I think there are millions of people in our country who feel just like I do. I speak for them. And if this government doesn’t like it, and refuses to obey the rule of law that has been created for them, then we will create a new government based upon better values.
The article can give each of us pause to consider who we are. By that I mean where we stand on some political spectrum, some religious spectrum of thought (or non thought) and how we came to our social position. What that social position is. If for example we grew up in a Catholic faith family, our daddy belonged to the Moolah Temple, mommy was devout in her religion, and neither one went to college and studied history, politics, religion, or social rights, then we might be framed along their lines.
One has to ask why a guy like Chuck Todd on one of the news networks called Edward Snowden a “traitor”. Would he calll Patrick Henry a “traitor”?
If you look at the Confederate Flag issue for a moment do some questions come to mind?
Like why dont these Confederate Flag worshipers also respect and revere the likes of Paul Revere?
Why does their historical perspective stop with Bobby Lee?
Many of the same folks today had ancestors who fought for the colonialists against the Crown in the American Revolution.
What is it about Race in America which is so controlling? Why do certain people, North and South, still wish for the “good ol days” of pre Civil War? Or Jim Crow?
Some new issues have come to fore in America, such as Gay Rights. If you delve into the mentality of the Clerk in KY then what is behind all this?
Just a female dog talking. We dogs call female dogs “bitches”. I am BitchinDog by name because I am a complainer. I am complaining today. I am observing some things. Maybe this little comment will give some of you pause for thought. Or reaction.
Dowry… Religious institution.
Is she worth the sheep/goats?
(Only if she doesn’t kick like the sheep do when taken from behind)
Marriage between a man and his dead brother’s widow is a religious institution.
The earliest records of marriage seem to be from about 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, and were mostly about property, alliances, preservation of power and establishing heirs. The catholic church did not get involved until the 5th century at the earliest, and it was not until the 13th century that marriage became one of the so-called sacraments.
Anyone who has read the bible knows that the definition of marriage changed radically over time, and has covered everything from rape, polygamy, and incest to what we might think of as a standard run-of-the-mill monogamous marriage.
But if you attend a “traditional” wedding even today, what you hear in the ceremony amounts to a transfer of property (the bride) from the father of the bride, to the husband.
steveg:
Yes, polygamy was practiced in many cultures throughout the ages. It was especially prevalent in times when warfare reduced the male population when women had literally zero means to support themselves besides selling themselves, and little rights. The Rule of the Club always seemed to lead to men collecting women. In times, such as ancient Greece, where polygamy was not common, the men had mistresses, while the wife had the protected legal status. In fact, Greco Roman laws protected the rights of wives to the extent that at least the husbands were prohibited from cohabitation with their concubines. They had social monogamy rather than genetic monogamy, the latter of which includes actual faithfulness. Accepted concubinage was in effect a form of polygyny in societies otherwise considered monogamous because the husband took only one wife at a time.
I suppose a driving factor for social monogamy, which only concerns itself with marriage rather than faithfulness, is the likelihood for war among the heirs of polygamous dynasties. If a king has 100 children from 15 different legally recognized wives, that’s just a recipe for disaster. And, in fact, history bears this out as fighting among heirs was so common.