Posted on 09/02/2015 1:50:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she believes same-sex marriage is immoral. According to Davis, her religious convictions prevent her from issuing the license: “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear ordered all county clerks in the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but Davis refused. A federal district court ordered her to comply and issue such licenses, and she still refused. She sought relief in federal court, and even sought relief from the Supreme Court, but to no avail. She now risks contempt.
No justice publicly dissented from the Supreme Court’s denial of Davis’s plea for relief, and this was not surprising. The law on this point is clear. Davis cites her religious conscience as the excuse for her intransigence, but she is wrong to do so. That’s not only my view, but the view of no less than Justice Antonin Scalia.
Davis has a right to observe and adhere to her religious beliefs, but she does not have a right to her job as county clerk. The latter obligates her to follow federal law, including the applicable judgments of federal courts, and it is now the law of the land that the Constitution bars state governments from refusing to recognize same-sex marriages on equal terms with opposite-sex marriages. If, as Davis claims, her religious convictions bar her from issuing such a marriage license, she should resign.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is actually the author's UNDERSTANDING of what Scalia would have said ( without bothering to ask him personally ) based on one article the justice wrote about the Death Penalty for the magazine -- FIRST THINGS.
Of course, the libs did not think the Justice’s reasoning applied when one gay judge after another refused to enforce state laws on same-sex marriage and religious freedom. What a load of crap!
They changed the rules AFTER she was hired, so she should demand they move her to an equal position that does not interfere with her religious beliefs, or fire her and lets get on with the lawsuits.
The left is creating a religious test for public office.
“No Religious test shall be given”. - Article VI.
Scalia would not have said it and this creep should be sued for claiming he would.
If Obama doesn’t have to follow the law, why should a clerk?
And I heard they can’t fire her, only impeach her. Wish we could impeach Obama.
She is elected and they can’t fire her.
Yes but did the Supreme Court justices have the right to force their religious views on the states?
What an interesting observation.
Not very long ago, I would have thought you off your rocker because it would be ludicrous.
Any more, I don't discount any possibility no matter how far fetched.
The law on this point is clear. Davis cites her religious conscience as the excuse for her intransigence, but she is wrong to do so. That’s not only my view, but the view of no less than Justice Antonin Scalia.
Davis has a right to observe and adhere to her religious beliefs, but she does not have a right to her job as county clerk. The latter obligates her to follow federal law, including the applicable judgments of federal courts, and it is now the law of the land that the Constitution bars state governments from refusing to recognize same-sex marriages on equal terms with opposite-sex marriages. If, as Davis claims, her religious convictions bar her from issuing such a marriage license, she should resign.
_________________________________________
Crap and Bull Crap. It is NOT the law of the land. Kentucky law is still clear. And since WHEN does a SCOTUS decision equals a law duly passed by the lege?
Furthermore - her religious objections are valid, but not the only basis for objecting to this SCOTUS ruling.
Anytime any court - even the Supreme Court - issues an unlawful and unconstitutional opinion (like Obergefell v. Hodges) then ALL Americans must rise up and ignore such a dangerous and damaging rule.
scalia does not get it. This has nothing to do with law. This is insurgents trying to use our rules against us.
rule of law died at the supreme court with Obama.
As someone else pointed out, she was elected not hired.
She will eventually be removed but not at the expense of her conscience.
RE: And I heard they can’t fire her, only impeach her.
This is much ado about nothing ( of course the press and the activists always specialize in this ).
Under Kentucky marriage law predating the SCOTUS (questionable) decision, individuals may obtain a marriage license from the county clerk in any of Kentucky’s 120 counties.
Gay couples can choose to go to any of the other 119 counties but they INSIST on going to this one.
This is similar to the gay couple ( who married in Massachusetts ) INSISTING on patronizing the Christian Baker’s shop for their wedding cake instead of going to the hundreds of other bakers who would have no objection to baking their cake.
Worth repeating. In bigger font.
“No Religious test shall be given”. - Article VI.
Good point!
Note that the 14th Amendment applies the religious test prohibition of Clause 3 of Article VI, to the states.
RE: She will eventually be removed but not at the expense of her conscience.
She is ELECTED. To fire her, they’ll have to impeach or have a recall election.
They have Federal Marshals. They can arrest people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.