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.
What crime has she been charged with? I’d like to know the
statute number of the law she has allegedly broken.
I agree. States need to punt back to Justice Kennedy.
This is not the only case. More are coming. Tennessee and Texas.
If there is no need for an abortion license, then get rid of the marriage license. Let it all be private.
Well, it’s contempt of court, so the question is what limits, if any, are there to the court’s power of decree.
“The Supreme Court says, put your hand on your head!”
My opinion as well. Some sort of paper work that would satisfy hospitals nationwide but not be considered marriage. This should have been up to the states and the voters if they want to reconnect same sex marriage in their state
I’d pretty much agree....just get state governments out of the business. Other than a driver’s license, a fishing license and a hunting license...I don’t see any need beyond those for another license.
How about we simply say we don’t throw Christians in jail for expressing their beliefs and let her out?
Too simple, I suppose.
Obergefell v. Hodges wouldn't have happened if there was a standing Article V state amendments convention that met every year. Knowing that one of the two powers higher than itself (God and the people acting in their sovereign capacity) would look over their shoulders once a year would cause the lefties on Scotus to think twice about taking measures to “create the new man.”
As it is, a further emboldened Scotus/Uniparty apparatus will continue to destroy society.
Our national sickness is far beyond the capacity of elections alone to cure.
Yep. That is how the fedgov deals with any resistance to their policies.
Change the form.....CHANGE THE LAW that the SUPREME COURT MADE UP!!
Contempt of court? How can you have anything but contempt for the courts.
That argument is B.S. For one thing, there is nothing that prevents someone from fabricating a family relationship in order to get into a hospital to see a close friend. Secondly, I have never heard of a case where someone was refused entry to a hospital room because they didn’t “qualify” as a family member.
You can legally give someone (non-relative, relative) your medical power of attorney. I served in this capacity for a non-relative person for years. You can make all medical decisions for them if they are incapacitated .... unconscious, elderly, etc. Frankly, no one even asked me for the paperwork. If you have aggressive relatives (parents or whatever that disagree with the sodomite life style & would try to interfere), you probably would have to carry the paperwork with you to prove to the doctor/hospital that YOU were the one with the right to be there and make decisions.
“you probably would have to carry the paperwork with you to prove to the doctor/hospital that YOU were the one with the right to be there and make decisions”
That’s why it’s a difficult case to make - it places burdens on some couples but not others.
The only solution would be to dissolve all marriages and force all couples to create new contractual agreements. Man, would the lawyers love that.
But Thomas Jefferson said, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
Doug Wilson says,
The end game here is not armed revolution. The end game is simply a refusal to cooperate with their revolution. Make them fire or impeach faithful officials. Once removed, such faithful officials should run for office again with a promise to continue to defy all forms of unrighteous despotism. As one friend of mine put it, “Lather. Rinse. Repeat.”
Douglas Wilson - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3333363/posts
Cordially,
That would be a victory for the gays also.
Drive persons of conscience, religious beliefs from government.
I really really want to see a similar confrontation with a Muslim.
We need to glean the Country and find a similar example involving Muslim.
Let's see what happens when a group that will fight back is forced to kowtow to the government.
no...... that would be impermanent
permanence is needed
The problem is we are not dealing with "people of good will". They demand that specific individuals bake the damn cake. They demand that specific individuals sign the damn form. It's not about getting a cake or a license, it's about compelling obedience to their orthodoxy, and accepting that political correctness takes precedence over God's word. It's about totalitarian evil and has nothing to do with good will.
“She must be crushed.”
You are correct, from the perspective of the lesbians and queers. They can accept no compromise, take no prisoners, there is only full and immediate capitulation or there is full and complete ruination.
Kim Davis dared defy them, so she must be crushed, as you say.
Lesbians and queers aren’t normal people. They are psychologically compromised adult babies, and until the country stands up to their infantile tantrums, we are like parents of spoiled children - constantly catering to their escalating demands. There is no end to the lives that will be destroyed in furtherance to their demands. The courts, the legislatures, and the culture has bent to their demands.
They belong in the closet - not because they have to hide who they are, but because they are disgusting vile human beings and people should never have to see them or interact with them until they decide to behave civilly and accept that indeed, there was a whole successful civilization that existed for millenia before gay marriage was enshrined by spineless courts and legislators and the culture was polluted with their fetid stench entirely based on what they do with their anuses.
In essence, what this lady received is a life sentence in prison, if she holds her ground, because she committed the grave offense of not issuing a marriage license to a “gay” couple.
Amendment VIII...”Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted...”
Amendment V...No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...
IMHO
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.