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 ...
Rather than the author’s imagined understanding of what Scalia would have said, let’s read what Scalia has said.
Furthermore, if the Judeo-Christian morality that serves as our cultural glue dissolves, we are no longer bound by anything other than force. We've become a jungle where the strongest make all the rules and the weak have no voice.
If that is the nightmare scenario that emerges from "progressive" lawlessness, I will be one of the strong. And I will fight to survive.
Scalia didn’t write this. The journalist extrapolated what he thinks Scalia’s views would be, if asked.
But the law says that the couple has to apply in the county where the female resides so....wait, what?
President: Obama, Clinton, Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Washington State, etc.
Scalia’s silence speaks volumes. The appeal to the supremes was rejected without comment. Who the hell cares what 9 perverts in black dresses think, anyway. Certainly not the dictatorship in power.
He is not a journalist, he is a libertarian law professor. One of the few, the proud, the latrines.
Was Judge Moore of AL similarly “fired”?
Tens of millions in America do eagerly endorse it.
ROGUE SUPREME COURT.
Salon articles should be banned here. Just an open sewer overs there.
Oops, I was reading a second article from Salon. This is the Compost.
So can a doctor refuse to perform an abortion? I would say absolutely.
How can they print a newspaper article with a lie as the headline? Well, I guess WashPoop prints fiction now.
That’s why WashPoop printed a lie. Their assumption is that the people of the state won’t impeach her, so they plan on lying about her.
I forgot the official name of the Compost.
WashPoop. Because the left doesn’t know you can’t polish a turd.
You can’t polish a turd, but you sure can publish it.
They love test. They instituted the literacy test.
:)
And tens of millions more abhor it. Since the right to reject it is vouchsafed us in the Constitution and the right to embrace it is entirely fictional, which one should win?
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.