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.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/god-and-marriage-equality
“The Lovings challenged the basis for the prosecution, but the trial judge, Leon Bazile, explained why the case against them should stand. “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” he wrote. “And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” In light of this ruling, the Lovings decided to plead guilty and accept, in lieu of a prison sentence, banishment from Virginia for the next twenty-five years.
God may reign, but He (or She) doesn’t legislate. The gritty business of passing laws is left to the people’s representatives, who answer, in the first instance, to their constituents, and defer, at least in theory, to the Constitution. The record of politicians who claim, in anything more than a general way, to be doing God’s will is dubious. Too often, assertions of divine guidance spoken in state capitols (as well as in the Capitol) have turned out to be little more than bigotry dressed in clerical garb. This is why, at least in theory, we have a Supreme Court. In their best moments, the Justices apply the careful scrutiny demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment—for equal protection of the laws—against any government official’s clairvoyance about God’s intent. That is what happened in 1967, when the Supreme Court finally heard Loving v. Virginia and ruled that all anti-miscegenation statutes must fall.
And that is what the Court did on Friday, in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that is, in every sense except ease of pronunciation, the modern analogue to the Loving case. In the current opinion, the Justices ruled five-to-four that states may no longer bar same-sex marriage, just as in Loving they said that states could no longer forbid interracial marriage.”
The government confers a bundle of rights on individuals who choose to marry. The constitution’s guarantee of equal protection forbids any state from withholding those rights from the class of people who happen to be gay. End of story.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/12/loving_v_virginia_compared_to_gay_marriage_arguments.html
“Opponents of marriage equality, on the other hand, predictably tried to cordon off Loving, insisting that it was more a case about race than a case about marriage. Yet the legal teams dedicated to combatting gay marriage could never quite shake off the lingering legacy of Loving. Compiled below are highlights from oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Loving, side-by-side with arguments from the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases. See if you experience a sense of déjà vu hearing the arguments that didn’t work the first time being trotted out for another round of battle.
No matter how deftly they dress up their language in polite euphemisms, gay marriage opponents are still stealing directly from the Loving playbook. And it’s working no better today than it did 47 years ago.”
Barry, the SCOTUS did not issue a decision for “Hobby Lobby,” the Constitution did.
The SCOTUS simply cited the Constitution.
It is the duty of the SCOTUS; to present to America what the Constitution establishes.
The Constitution prevails over, directs and commands the SCOTUS and the judicial branch.
When the SCOTUS deviates from and “interprets” the words of the Constitution, it is subversive.
The Constitution does not allow for the nationalization of the healthcare or any other industry and it does not provide for homosexual marriage or otherwise promote the perversion of nature.
In deed, the very binding Preamble limits government to security and infrastructure while assuring the “blessings of liberty” (i.e. freedom and free enterprise) to the people.
The founding documents present the dominion of “nature” and things “natural,” understanding that “natural” and “God-given” rights existed before government was established. Lacking the capacity for procreation, there is no possibility of associating homosexuality with anything natural or having to do with nature, when, in fact, it is a very perversion of nature.
Barry,
Here’s a list of Bush’s co-conspirators. I agree; prosecute them all. They all presented and supported the false intelligence. Is that Hillary’s name down there?
WIKI –
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are: Lincoln (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Carper (D-DE)
Nelson (D-FL)
Cleland (D-GA)
Miller (D-GA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Clinton (D-NY)
Schumer (D-NY)
Edwards (D-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Hollings (D-SC)
Daschle (D-SD)
Johnson (D-SD)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Kohl (D-WI)
Barry,
Tyranny for the SCOTUS is generating “rights” and “conditions” in the Constitution that are not there.
The Constitution doesn’t debate the SCOTUS.
The Constitution prevails over the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS does not prevail over the Constitution by way of “interpretation.”
When the very words of the Constitution are nullified by the SCOTUS as “interpretation,” judicial tyranny
exists.
The SCOTUS had no authority to commingle the definitions of “state” and “federal.”
That was not “interpretation,” that was one of many “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The SCOTUS, in criminal “overreach” mode, would do well to “interpret” Article II, Section 4 of the U.S.
Constitution which reads:
“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.”
Barry,
“I’m fascinated, because I never even knew that there was provision for any type of marriage in the Constitution!”
Looks like we just stipulated to the dearth of decipherable provision for homosexual marriage in the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Thank you. I rest my case.
Let’s see. Lincoln conducted a criminal act when he suspended Habeas Corpus. Lincoln illegally denied SECESSION to the Confederate States; the very secession enjoyed by Scotland, Spain, West Virginia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the entire USSR. Lincoln’s entire “Reign of Terror” was unconstitutional including his unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” which were improperly ratified without a quorum, through coercion and as a result of the duress of violence, vigilantism and war. To be sure, if the CSA successfully seceded, Lincoln’s successors had a quorum. If secession was denied, Lincoln did not have a quorum.
An argument regarding the Constitution that is based in unconstitutional acts, is no argument at all, other than an argument for corrective action.
Perhaps a remedial lesson on the Fourteenth Amendment is in order for Mr. Forgot?
http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2996
Annie wrote: “Perhaps a remedial lesson on the Fourteenth Amendment is in order for Mr. Forgot?”
The Fourteenth Amendment is the most damnable Amendment in our Constitution. By it the Supreme Court capriciously picks and chooses what powers it will invent for the federal government.
The Loving decision, however, is completely different from the Obergefell decision. In Loving, there was invidious racial discrimination at play and this court ruling did not require any change to the definition of marriage. Unlike sexual behavior or sexual orientation, the Constitution identifies specifically race as a protected class, so the ruling that anti-miscegenation laws created second class citizens based upon prejudice was reasonable. That case truly was about applying the law to everyone equally regardless of race.
In Obergefell, we something very different going on. We have the court inventing a right for Same Sex Unions to be treated the same as Opposite Sex Unions. The cases that speak to marriage being a fundamental right point to the reproductive nature of it. The Skinner case that declared marriage a fundamental right dealt with how the States should not sterilize prisoners because of their fundamental right to marry and reproduce. The court lifts the meaning of words out of context like this in order to rationalize why same sex relationships are allegedly the same as opposite sex relationships. They forget about biology entirely, not recognizing the the sexual equipment of the two people are not complementary and do not by nature work together properly. They ignore the greatly increased health risks associated with the sexual activities of homosexuals, and they ignore the increased mental problems associated with it. They ignore the fact that a same sex couple cannot produce children and families with new relationships. And then after all is said, they order the States across the nation to nullify the votes of the people in order to put the imprimatur of government on sexually immoral behavior. They might have just as well sanctioned and protected a behavior like adultery, pedophilia, or alcoholism based upon the equal protection clause. Such is a completely irrational approach to the law. The decision was based upon emotional feelings, of wanting to pat the homosexual on the back and tell them they do not deserve people telling them that their sexual activity is inferior to heterosexual relations. They don’t want anybody to tell them anymore that what they do is contrary to biological nature and is not normal behavior. This latest Supreme Court case was pure emotion rising up against logic. It did not matter to the court that nobody was ever denied a marriage license because they were gay. They found a sophist way to promote same sex relationships, and they jumped at the chance. It did not matter to them that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to redefine marriage for the States.
David, I’m sure a conservative public in 1967 had as difficult a time accepting the Loving decision as you do in accepting Obergefell. You’ll adjust as they did. Give it time.
Why the Obergefell Court was split was somewhat disturbing, however.. As one Harvard Law prof stated recently, the Court needs to “suck it up and follow precedent.”
forgotwhoiam
“There is no provision for homosexual marriage in the Constitution.”
I’m fascinated, because I never even knew that there was provision for any type of marriage in the Constitution!
“Defrauding the United States of America and their citizens is inexcusable and contemptible.”
Agreed – imprison Dubya and Dick.
“Judicial tyranny is treason; subversion of the state; a capital crime.”
Never heard that in 2000, or after Hobby Lobby, Citizens United – or any SCOTUS decision which the Right won.
Hugh Beaumont
“Doesn’t the Constitution guarantee us that the government will not prohibit our free exercise of religion? How does this obvious statement get overlooked?”
Meditate on the difference between a private citizen exercising their religious beliefs, and a government official discriminating against others, based on their own religious beliefs.
It’s arrogant to assume it a “mistake of nature”? As has been said, perhaps it is nature’s way. Quit questioning nature….or God.
Actually I do have problems with human cloning David. I am speaking about using sperm donors or surrogate mothers. It DOES NOT MATTER that the couple cannot have children together. Really why should it matter? It matters to you because it’s your belief system that this concept insults or bothers somehow. If one is truly worried in a bilogical sense that the human species will die out because of homosexuality. modern childbearing options have allowed a homosexual couple to have one of them be a biological parent.
And with modern science, homosexuals can actually father or mother their own individual children. No worries about the species surviving.
Annie wrote: “And with modern science, homosexuals can actually father or mother their own individual children.”
I guess you have no problems with cloning humans.
Good ole Ms Davis was back at it this morning, still citing her religious rights over-riding her duties of elected office. She’s barely avoiding, I suspect, another trip to jail by saying she will not act against her subordinates who sign off on marriage licenses…while still demanding the state of Kentucky reconvene the legislature (a part time outfit) to re-write the requirements of her job…one she was elected to, not hired for, nor has she any property rights as a result.
My issue is still and will remain the concept of embedding religion, of any ilk, in to political office. Period.
I feel the same about political opinions being embedded in religious activities….yes, I am Catholic and don’t think much of the current Pontiff’s current attempts at that. He’s putting the church at risk.
And if one is frightened that the presence of homosexuality in the populace will bring down birth rates, it is pure nonsense. Homosexuality is a human trait that that been with us since we’ve recorded history. The birth rate has not been negatively affected.
@Annie ” Homosexuality is a human trait that that been with us since we’ve recorded history.”
Anyone know of any evolutionary biology hypotheticals to explain homosexual behavior?
For example there are at least a couple of explanations for grandmothers that live far beyond their fertile years but contribute to survival of their genes and so are selected through evolutionary process.
Homosexuals have survived since we came down from the trees. The most reasonable guess is they are doing something to contribute to the survival of the species.
Who knows. Our gay cousins may be making vital contributions to ensure our survival – just like grandma.
BFM, exactly. Maybe homosexuals are nature’s way of preventing overpopulation of the species.
bigfatmike wrote: “Anyone know of any evolutionary biology hypotheticals to explain homosexual behavior?”
Yeah, evolutionary processes are not perfect. A hawk diving for prey sometimes misses. Nature codes for a strong sex drive, and sometimes individuals make mistakes and copulate with the same gender, wasting energy and resources. Less of that individual’s genes are going to get passed on. If the individual is purely homosexual, then none of his genes will get passed on. It is a mistake of nature.
So David would be in favor of restricting geriatric and infertile couples from marrying? Why say something like this, then backtrack when Karen challenges him on it?
Annie wrote: “So David would be in favor of restricting geriatric and infertile couples from marrying? Why say something like this, then backtrack when Karen challenges him on it?”
You are not understanding me. Because of privacy issues, I do not think the State should pry into this area. My advice would always be that such couples should not marry. All they do is cause confusion with the existing children from previous marriages and children end up losing their inheritance, etc. But I would not favor the State sticking its nose into this area.
Nevertheless, if you were going to make me choose between redefining marriage to include SSU, which is not marriage by any stretch of the imagination, or making laws more strict about reproductive possibilities in the union, then I would vote in favor of weeding out the infertile couples from marrying before I would vote to allow SSU. Far less damage to society would happen this way. Let the infertile couples come under domestic partnerships, even though they still satisfy the disparate gender aspect of marriage.
Davidm said…
“We allow some latitude because often we do not know for sure about fertility. Men 100 years old have produced children. However, I would favor laws restricting such to marry before I would support Same Sex Unions being treated as marriage.”
————————–
Davidm:
I misunderstood your point. I thought you had said that couples who could not procreate, such as the infertile, should not marry but rather have domestic partnerships. Infertility was a deal breaker for marriage.
Of course the sole biological purpose of intercourse is procreation, just as the biological purpose of winking is to get something out of your eye.
As for the religious purpose of intercourse in addition to procreation, here is an excerpt of the Song of Solomon:
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is better than wine;
your anointing oils are fragrant;
your name is oil poured out;
therefore virgins love you.
Draw me after you; let us run.
The king has brought me into his chambers.
Clearly, the bride is attracted to and reveling in the husband, body and soul.
The blessing of marriage is that the partners can enjoy each other and get closer together in a loving, committed relationship. There are many pleasurable activities they engage in that do not involve reproduction directly, such as kissing and hugging. Not doing an intimate act, such as oral sex, that both desire merely because it does not involve reproduction does not seem like a valid religious argument. The purpose of oral sex is merely to bring pleasure, as a gift, to your partner, or to ready him or her for intercourse. That activity would not be considered sinful or wrong for a religious couple. A female who is not aroused sufficiently will find intercourse painful, so such non-procreative activities as kissing, hugging, and oral sex can be a loving thing to do for her.
I feel a similar aversion to legalizing polygamy that you do to gay marriage, so I appreciate that there is a range of beliefs on the subject of marriage.
Does it say anything in the Constitution about having more than one wife?
Forgetwhoiam said:
The sex drive exists for procreation which marriage was established to facilitate. (people seem to enjoy it as well which is a “right”; rRemember life, liberty and the pursuit of “Happiness”)
There is NO purpose for mankind other than procreation. (Of course there is. this is just your opinion. There are many books that disagree with you on this. The Joy of Sex showed that most people disagree with you.)
Without procreation mankind ceases to exist. (actually right now many believe to many children are being born.) (We surely don’t want anymore of the Davis’s having children.)
Without procreation as mankind’s purpose, there is no mankind. (We don’t have to worry about this… see previous answers)
Homosexuality equals the end of mankind’s existence. Less than 5% of people are estimated to homosexuals thus the odds are very much against your statement… see previous two erroneous statements)
Homosexuality represents nothing, literally. Homosexuality is suicide of the species. (95% of the population will easily satisfy the necessary amount of procreation.
Homosexual marriage is impossible since homosexual activity cannot result in procreation. (For a marriage to be valid one must have children?)
Homosexual marriage proponents have no standing in any court. (many States and the Supreme Court say otherwise)
The Constitution would be an irrational and invalid document if it provided for any perversion of nature or
suicide of the species. (Yes it would, but as we established above, it does not. Homosexuality is not a perversion and it is abundant throughout nature. You need to study nature a bit more before you criticize so many of Gods creatures as being perverted.) Various primates, insects, mammals, birds and retiles all practice homosexuality. God created this huge abundance of perversion in nature? I think that it is you who are not really listening to God and instead, false profits.
I do not understand how people can place all their beliefs in a book created by the Roman Empire 1900 +/-years ago. Especially in todays world with so much knowledge. Oh that’s right the world is only 5,800 years old.
I am not homosexual but I will fight for those who are, just like I will fight for all your inalienable rights. Our society has instead of protecting all individual rights, has decided they we should politically pick and choose which rights should be protected and which rights we should acquiesce for the alleged public good. Now everyone is lined up at the public treasury trying to get their special interests served.
The problem with the public good is that it is subjective. It can never be proven that the public good is served to a higher degree than the negative ramifications of the public policy enacted. People do not often look a the negative ramifications of public policy and all public policy, it can be logically argued not only has negative ramifications but they are almost all worse then the benefits.
People like to play stupid. Who would pay for the roads? Well let see. Most roads in this country were built by private capital. Developers play this role. As they build their communities and subdivisions, they must build the roads and are then “forced” to Deed them over to the government. Abacoa, Weston and Coral Springs here in Florida are examples but that is the history of our nation. Many people do not know that many of the early turnpikes in this country were build by private capital. We know what people like Barron Collier and Henry Flagler did for railroads in Florida and their are numerous others behind.
The Republicans sadly started providing subsidies to various railroads in the early 1800s and that is what really started corporate welfare as we know it today.
Keep thinking your smart enough to know what is in the public good. To me it’s arrogance.
Does Springer still have a show?