Posted on 09/02/2015 2:56:20 AM PDT by markomalley
Can a Christian be a county clerk in the United States?
This is a question it now appears may ultimately be decided by five Supreme Court justices. With it, too, will ride such questions as: Can a Christian be a doctor? A nurse? A public-school teacher?
In June, when five justices declared that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment creates a right to "same-sex marriage," Justice Clarence Thomas issued a warning.
"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution, it is a religious institution as well," Thomas wrote in his dissent. "Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
"The majority," said Thomas, "appears unmoved by that inevitability."
No sooner had the five justices commanded nationwide recognition of same-sex "marriage," then a move began in Kentucky to test whether an individual county clerk could be forced to personally authorize a same-sex marriage in contradiction to her Christian faith.
The rapid sequence of events was summarized in an appeal this clerk's nonprofit law firm — the Liberty Counsel — presented to the Supreme Court asking for an injunction to prevent her from being forced to do so.
First, Democratic Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear ordered that all county clerks in the state would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on a new "gender-neutral" form provided by the state government.
Like the previous form that recognized marriage as the union of a man and woman, this new form required county clerks to personally authorize each marriage in their own name — whether the two people getting "married" were a man and a woman or a same-sex couple.
This presented Kim Davis, a devout Christian, with a moral problem. She had served as deputy clerk of Rowan County for 26 years before being elected clerk last November.
She had never refused to perform any function of her office. But this was different.
"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage," she said in a statement issued Tuesday.
"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience," she said. "It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
"Our history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience," said Davis. "I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned - that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking."
Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses, whether to opposite-sex or same-sex couples, and sought an accommodation from the state that would allow people to get marriage licenses without forcing a particular county clerk to personally authorize the marriage
In the meantime, nothing prevented same-sex couples living in Rowan County from entering "marriages" as ordered by the five Supreme Court justices.
"Under Kentucky marriage law predating Obergefell, individuals may obtain a marriage license from the county clerk in any of Kentucky's 120 counties, irrespective of their county of residence," Davis's Liberty Counsel attorneys told the Supreme Court in her request for an injunction.
"More than ten other clerks' offices are within a one hour drive of the Rowan County office, and these counties are issuing marriage licenses, along with the two counties where preliminary injunction hearings were held in this matter," said the lawyers.
But that did not stop four couples — two of opposite sexes and two of the same — from suing Davis, demanding she execute their marriage licenses.
The governor, meanwhile, offered Davis no mercy.
"Gov. Beshear has flatly rejected Davis' request for religious exemption," her lawyers explain. "In his view, Davis must either comply with his SSM Mandate, or resign from office."
This courageous woman has stood her ground.
The crusade against Davis aims to establish that if you are a Christian, who believes in Christ's teachings on marriage and will not act against them, you are no longer qualified to serve as a county clerk in the United States.
I get that the intention is to destroy her. If someone else signing their fake license allows them to go ahead and “marry”, it should give them no case. I don’t see how they can insist on her prosecution if they have another way around.
The two issues are completely different.
The stewardess knew about the requirement coming in. Customers are responsible for their consumption, and she does not have to authorize the consumption under her signature.
The clerk had a federal interpretation of law changed, without updating the KY laws she is beholden to, that requires her to personally authorize the marriage in her own name.
There are no parallels here.
No.
You are advocating that anyone who holds Christian values must capitulate to anyone who wishes to destroy them.
Given that this situation is wholly a construct of judicial activism, do you really want to specifically give the left the power to destroy any semblance of godliness in the government?
“No. You are advocating that anyone who holds Christian values must capitulate to anyone who wishes to destroy them.
Given that this situation is wholly a construct of judicial activism, do you really want to specifically give the left the power to destroy any semblance of godliness in the government?”
Like it or not the SC made a decision and all appeals have been denied. That is our legal process and to allow officials to ignore it would result in anarchy. Do you think Muslims working in a pork store should be allowed not to do their job because touching pork is against their religion? No one is forcing her to violate her religion, she can always quit if they cant find another job for her.
Inventing "rights" that specifically run afoul of enumerated rights in the constitution is not a valid legal process under the constitution.
Do you think Muslims working in a pork store should be allowed not to do their job because touching pork is against their religion? No one is forcing her to violate her religion, she can always quit if they cant find another job for her.
That is a false equation. First, muslims who apply for a job in a pork store know when they apply that handling pork is a requirement of the job. The KY legal definition of marriage is unchanged.
Second, the SCOTUS mandate to deliberately misinterpret the existing law requires a Christian to forsake the free exercise of their religion - that is, the clerk must personally authorize the marriage on the state form - in order to occupy an elected position. Religious tests for office are also explicitly unconstitutional, including a test that requires one to forswear the tenets of one's religion. Added to the fact that the change is post-facto, occurring after she was duly elected, it is doubly bogus.
Third, being an elected official doesn't allow the state to "find another job for her".
Under your stance, you will stand aside while the judicial system destroys the government's acceptance of fundamental rights enumerated in the supposedly governing document of our nation. If creative interpretation can negate fundamental rights of business people and elected officials alike, then none of us have ANY rights at all.
This is a fight worth having.
“Inventing “rights” that specifically run afoul of enumerated rights in the constitution is not a valid legal process under the constitution.”
I dont like the decision either but it currently has the force of law until a Constitutional amendment is ratified or a new SC decision. Neither is happening soon.
“That is a false equation. First, muslims who apply for a job in a pork store know when they apply that handling pork is a requirement of the job. The KY legal definition of marriage is unchanged.”
How about a Muslim working in a store that suddenly decides to sell pork or alcohol? Selling and handling the items wasn’t originally a condition of the job but it is now. Is the owner violating the rights of his clerk?
“Second, the SCOTUS mandate to deliberately misinterpret the existing law requires a Christian to forsake the free exercise of their religion - that is, the clerk must personally authorize the marriage on the state form - in order to occupy an elected position. Religious tests for office are also explicitly unconstitutional, including a test that requires one to forswear the tenets of one’s religion.”
White gay marriage is an absurdity, there is no commandment, against nor is it a sin to authorize a marriage licence for gays. Has she authorized marriage licences for divorced people, adulterers, those who dont go to church? Signing the form for a sinner is not the same as committing the sin.
“Third, being an elected official doesn’t allow the state to “find another job for her”.”
Federal law overrides KY law. She was elected to do the job and there is no clause that guarantees the job wont change. She has free will to quit her job if she morally objects to it.
“Under your stance, you will stand aside while the judicial system destroys the government’s acceptance of fundamental rights enumerated in the supposedly governing document of our nation. If creative interpretation can negate fundamental rights of business people and elected officials alike, then none of us have ANY rights at all.”
It is arguable whether she is being forced to violate her religion. No one is forcing her to marry a woman, perform gay sex acts, take birth control or have an abortion. It depends on whether you think enabling someone else’s sin is the same as committing that sin. I don’t think it does.
By your stance Muslims are free not to give cab rides to people with seeing eye dogs, refuse to sell alcohol, etc. Just because something violates your religious beliefs does not entitle you to force others to comply with them. If you work in a drug store its not a sin to sell condoms to an unmarried guy.
The question is just the first in what will ultimately become, “ Should Christians be allowed to work for any government?” And the purge will begin, presaging the reeducation camps.
The trend we are seeing in this country, in both the public and private sectors, is that (to paraphrase your sentence):
Just because something violates your their religious beliefs does not entitle entitles you to force others to comply with them.
This clerk is being specifically singled out for upholding the law as written. With the KY law being set aside by the SCOTUS ruling, she has no authority to issue licenses for marriage at all. Which is exactly what she is doing.
Thank you for engaging in this debate honestly, without resorting to attacking. I hope I can claim that same distinction in your eyes, FRiend.
It’ll only get more difficult.
“...where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage”
When no-fault divorce became universally enshrined in civil marriage law, were there clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses because of it?
Freegards
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.