Posted on 09/05/2015 10:04:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Rowan County, Ky., is a lesson for America in how not to resolve social conflict. The local head clerk is sitting in jail, and a judge has ordered her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her absence.
When the Supreme Court redefined marriage for the nation in an activist decision this June, it took the issue out of the democratic process and made it much harder for citizens to navigate our differences on this fundamental institution. Both sides of the debate knew the decision would have significant social effects. For civil servants like clerks who issue marriage licenses, the implications were also immediately personal.
Rowan County clerk Kim Davis could not, as a matter of religious conviction, issue same-sex marriage licenses. Davis’ further dilemma is the fact that her name is attached to every county marriage license, and she believes issuing them to same-sex couples would constitute precisely the kind of endorsement of same-sex unions her faith forbids. Because of that, her office stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court decision.
A lawsuit followed and a federal court on August 12 ordered her to issue licenses despite her faith-based objections. She did not comply with the order, and at a hearing Thursday the judge sent Davis to jail for contempt of court, even though the plaintiffs had specifically asked she be given fines instead of jail time. The judge ordered the deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses or also face contempt of court and five out of six said they would comply. Meanwhile, the judge has told Davis she will stay in jail because she will not comply with his orders.
This situation could have been avoided. This problem would not have even existed in Kentucky and many other parts of the country had the Supreme Court allowed states to deal with the marriage question democratically—with the give-and-take that naturally leads to compromises, the balancing of competing interests, and a diversity of solutions over time. Instead the Supreme Court redefined the institution for the entire country in one fell swoop but did not say how our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty would be reconciled with the new order of things.
Conflicts have been warned about for years, and all four dissenters to the Supreme Court’s marriage decision predicted dire consequences for religious freedom.
Given the inevitable challenges to this fundamental freedom, it is imperative that we seek solutions to navigate the complex road ahead. In this particular case, there are a number of potential ways forward so that same-sex couples can get licenses as required by the courts and Kim Davis can be released from jail without having to agree to resign or violate her conscience.
One help in finding the way forward is Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to avoid substantially burdening religious expression absent a compelling government interest. There is no compelling government interest in keeping Kim Davis’s name on the licenses instead of the name of the deputy clerks who are willing to issue them. If it’s “just a little form”—as Davis’ critics would like to suggest—then change the form, not the beliefs.
There are a number of other possible accommodations that could be adopted by the legislature, courts, or executive agencies in the state. Davis is not interested in stopping all same-sex marriages in her county. She is only asking that she not be forced to participate in them in a way that violates her beliefs.
Opt-out systems like this work in many walks of life. In fact, we already have examples of such options being adopted in the marriage licensing context. For example, North Carolina allows objecting clerks to choose to not get involved with marriage licensing at all, and the state will guarantee that someone will take their place if needed. Hawaii has an online registration system for marriage licensing that gets rid of many of these concerns.
Whatever the method, people of good will want a solution that leads to better outcomes than the impasse in Rowan County this week. Reaching such a solution in Kentucky is still feasible—and desirable, to respect the legally protected interests of the plaintiffs and the religious conscience of Kim Davis.
Removing the signature from the form was specifically requested of the KY legislature by the county clerks association prior to the Obergefell disaster.
Lawyers would be fine.
Clergy would be jailed for not blessing homosexual unions.
The only thing that is going to save America is a huge Jesus Movement revival. America has grown complacent and our dedication to God as a nation is at an all time low.
America used to be a beacon for the Christian faith. It no longer is. We have sat idly by while 60 million babies have been sacrificed on the altar of Baal and things are only getting worse.
Obergefell is just a symptom of our illness.
It is long past time that we repent. If we no longer honor God as a nation, then our nation is doomed.
Time to spread the gospel. Time to take the gospel seriously.
Kim Davis is in jail for her faith. In America. We need a spiritual revolution.
Yep. If marriage is to be defined any way one wishes, then it can be defined as a temporary, fleeting thing. But any children from such an arrangement are obviously permanent.
The children will be harmed if the word "marriage" is not taken seriously. Just as children produced from one night stands are harmed.
Nicely written post. I especially liked “They are psychologically compromised adult babies” I never looked at them that way but it works, particularly the males.
Minus the recognition and supremacy of family, all duty is first to the state. Already the state is grabbing away man’s first duty to God, making it submit to the state. Now you want to give them family.
1. God
2. Family
3. Country
What you do not seem to see (Rand Paul, is that you?) is that the recognition of family is to protect the family from the state, not so much the other way around (although it encourages responsibility with the recognition). Equating all sexual abnormalities with “family” fundamentally changes that. It makes it a protection for org*sm style preference. Family matters because it is the means of bringing in and bringing up the next generation of society. Mom and Dad have duties to the children and vice versa. This keeps their values first, not the state’s. Homos pretend to be child rearing but it is biologically impossible and robs children of their mother or father. It also still subjugates children to the supreme “ideal” of org*sm, witch is crazy. If that is our new supreme value just give everyone something in the water to take away all sexual drive and we can all have our first allegiance to the state.
According to your theory we shouldn’t need any laws or constitutions. Everyone can just do what is right in their own eyes. That will absolutely, out of necessity, lead to total government control. The chaos will have to be managed. Human nature is bent toward corruption.
Ordered liberty is not libertine. It is sustainable liberty that best protects the people from an overreaching government and a society from degrading to the lowest common denominator.
I have wondered if this SCOTUS ruling will ultimately lead to licensing to become a parent. It is impossible for those in a homosexual union to have children without involving a third party. To avoid legal problems, I would assume some legal documents are needed to assign who are the parents of a child. Is it unfair for them to have to jump through this hoop? Make everyone do it! I know this may be far fetched, but seeing as the government wants it’s hand in everything, I would not be surprised to see this coming.
The article in your link (in post 6 ) references statements Scalia made in 2002, addressing Chief Justice Harry Blackmun’s opposition to the death penalty.
The author of the article, Adler, then turns Scalia’s statements toward Kim Davs. Adler’s admission of this is buried deep in his article, where he attempts to justify his misleading headline.
Interestingly, Adler quotes Scalia saying this about fellow SCOTUS judge Blackmun:
“He can lead a movement to overturn the law. Or a revolution. But he does not have a right to rewrite the law.”
HA! Which is why Kim Davis is correct in refusing to resign. She is following Kentucky law, which SCOTUS has no authority to rewrite.
Who knows what those lunatics have planned. Right now they want to force everyone to not see gender. As for the children, they want the state to have supreme say. We must deny reality, deny our beliefs or at least fashion them according to the will of the state, and we must bow to the supreme government.
Heterosexuals, married or unmarried, draw up Powers of Attorney all the time. Also Wills, Revocable Trusts, etc. These documents can include or exclude anyone you so choose.
Gays could always avail themselves of the same legal documents as unmarried persons.
The whole gay marriage farce was cooked up during the AIDS epidemic to get employer-provided spousal medical benefits, as well as to tone down their decadent image and infiltrate straight society. This was to gain more access to potential recruits, since so many of them were dying.
Where do you get the idea that clergy have to be licensed???
See my post 48.
Adler’s quoting statements Scalia made in 2002.
One thing I’ve learned about liberal lefties, they’re often excellent writers. By which I mean they’re so good at manipulating facts, the truth can be right there, but so twisted and buried under misleading asides, it’s almost impossible to see.
One needs to become a verrrry careful reader to pull the facts out of the propaganda.
One of the left’s favorite journalistic tricks, is to make the most revealing statement at the end, which effectively contradicts all preceding BS. That’s why I like to scan all the way to the bottom.
I’ve never seen hospital visits restricted to relatives. I’ve visited many a person in the hospital to which I was not related in any way. When my mother was dying in the hospital, many people that were unrelated to my family visited her.
Perhaps there would be a problem with someone unrelated (or not married) to the patient making medical decisions, but that can be solved by a simple power of attorney and living wills.
To reinforce this point in my conversations, I like to point out that I have absolutely ZERO respect for the laws of the jurisdictions where I live ... and yet most people will acknowledge that they've never met someone more law-abiding than I am. This is because I conduct myself in a certain way even aside from any considerations for a civil legal authority.
What you do not seem to see (Rand Paul, is that you?) is that the recognition of family is to protect the family from the state, not so much the other way around (although it encourages responsibility with the recognition).
I don't believe that's the case at all. Can you cite me any law on the books anywhere in the U.S. that were written with this in mind? If anything, "family law" in most cases is nothing more than pernicious tool that is abused by the state to disrupt and break down the family.
There was no government recognition of marriage for most of human history. In fact, government recognition of spouses and families today is mainly tied to institutions of government that shouldn't exist in a free nation at all (the IRS and Social Security, first and foremost).
Then why aren't "one night stands" illegal?
More importantly ... Why aren't Christians out there pushing to make them illegal?
Most of human history is a story of tyranny and savagery. The ordered liberty of a constitutional republic built on Judeo-Christian values was the antidote plan to that problem. It is failing because it has been systematically divorced of its roots.
“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” — President George Washington, 1753
“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” —Fisher Ames
“Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. ... The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.” —John Adams
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” — Edmund Burke
OK, that’s interesting. I hadn’t considered that it would be a contempt of court charge for a court she’s never set foot in.
Here’s one way, armed patriots go down to to the jail and order the jackboots to release her.
Oh but that’s “crazy talk”, never mind me, a woman was jailed for not bowing down to queers, that’s not a state run amok that needs an enema, a lead enema, nope. Why don’t we try asking nicely instead, that usually works.
Ministers and priests aren’t government employees. Only chaplains might have that problem. For now, that is.
Many states require clergy to only be licensed in order to perform weddings. The point is that they are not government employees, and, for the moment anyway, cannot be forced to marry a couple that they don’t want to marry. They also handle the paperwork on one end, so why not both ends?
I don’t doubt that some same-sex couples will try to force Christian pastors to officiate, but they won’t have the same technically legal argument they have with county clerks who refuse.
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.