Tag Archives: gay marriage

legal news, national news, political news, religious news

Now the clerk is free … to quit her job

kim-davis

Believe this or not, but I am glad that Kim Davis is no longer in jail.

A federal judge ordered the Rowan County (Ky.) clerk to jail because she had stopped issuing marriage licenses to protest the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage all across the United States of America; the ruling includes Kentucky.

I didn’t want her jailed over this.

Davis is free, therefore, to make a critical decision.

She needs to quit her job as county clerk. Heck, she won’t perform all the duties required of her. She cites religious objections to the legalization of gay marriage, even though she has a rather checkered heterosexual marital history herself.

The germane issue is whether Davis will do the job to which she swore an oath.

She insists she cannot. Her husband says she’s become a victim of a government that is persecuting her because of her Christian beliefs — which, by many people’s thinking, is a serious crock of mule fritters. Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz say Davis is a victim of “judicial tyranny,” which also is so much malarkey.

Just quit your job, Mme. Clerk, and take up the cudgel against gay marriage as a private citizen. You are free to do so. No one’s going to arrest you.

 

national news, religious news

Feds trump states on gay marriage

same-sex-marriage

The issue over whether a county clerk in a particular state has the authority to deny marriage licenses to gay couples brings up the time-honored debate over states’ rights.

Rowan County (Ky.) Clerk Kim Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses because she opposes — on religious grounds — sanctioning same-sex marriages.

A federal judge found her in contempt of court and threw her into a jail. Davis is appealing her incarceration to the Kentucky governor.

Does the state have the right to deny a marriage license to a gay couple? Here’s my view on it.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens. The U.S. Constitution is the governing framework for the federal government. The Constitution, therefore, is the pre-eminent law of the land.

The U.S. Supreme Court this year ruled, thus, that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Constitution. Therefore, states must follow the law as prescribed in that document.

So, when someone takes an oath to “uphold the Constitution,” he or she is bound by that oath to perform the duties of his or her office.

The federal law, in this instance, trumps state law.

 

national news, political news

Kim Davis proves the Founders got it right

4 Comments

huck

Here’s the latest social media missive from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

“This morning, on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Mike Huckabee said Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is equivalent to Abraham Lincoln’s refusal to accept slavery, which was the law of the land when Lincoln became president. ‘You obey it if it’s right,’ Huckabee said, arguing that Davis shouldn’t be jailed. ‘Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored the law?’

“So if Kim Davis who opposes gay marriage can refuse to issue a perfectly legal marriage license, a Quaker clerk who’s a pacifist can refuse to issue gun licenses, a clerk who’s a committed environmentalist can refuse to issue building permits, and a clerk who believes in a $15 minimum wage can refuse to issue Walmart a permit to build a new store. What planet does Huckabee live on?

“Here’s a man who was governor of Arkansas and wants to be president of the United States, and he compared Kim Davis to Abraham Lincoln? Sometimes I’m flabbergasted.”

Me, too, Mr. Secretary.

I’ll just add that the Kim Davis gay marriage license debate has demonstrated precisely why the Founding Fathers got it exactly right when they wrote a secular document — the U.S. Constitution — that would become the framework for the federal government.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Davis saga recalls long-ago controversy

john-f-kennedy

The Kim Davis Saga in Rowan County, Ky., should serve as a key lesson to all public officials who take an oath to perform their duties on behalf of the entire public constituency they serve.

Davis took that oath to serve as county clerk. One of her duties is to issue marriage licenses to those who request them. The highest court in the land then decreed that gay couples are entitled to the same rights of marriage as straight couples.

That doesn’t comport with Davis’s Christian values, she said. She refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples and now she’s been ordered to jail by a federal judge.

Public officials take an oath to serve everyone. Their oath is a secular one. One’s faith has no bearing on whether they should perform their duties.

This does sound familiar to those of us old enough to remember a controversy 55 years ago involving a young candidate for president of the United States. Democratic U.S. Sen. John Kennedy was his party’s nominee and was campaigning to become the first Roman Catholic ever elected to the presidency.

Questions arose during that campaign about Kennedy’s ability to fulfill the oath he would take if he were elected. Would he be loyal to the U.S. Constitution or, some wondered, to the Vatican? Some die-hard conspiracy theorists conjectured that he would be taking orders from the pope.

Sen. Kennedy then decided to settle the issue once and for all. He came to Texas and, speaking to a Protestant gathering of clergy, made a solemn vow: He would follow the Constitution and if in the highly unlikely event he encountered an issue that contradicted the teachings of the church and he could not act on that issue, he would resign the presidency.

And then he added: “I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.”

Read the speech here

He won the 1960 election, took his oath and as near as anyone can tell was loyal to the U.S. Constitution.

Kim Davis cannot perform the duties of her office. She says they conflict with her faith.

She needs to quit that public office.

 

religious news

Ten Commandments, anyone?

gay marriage

So …

I’m talking with a friend at work this afternoon. We’re chatting about the controversy over in Kentucky with that rogue county clerk, Kim Davis, who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious objection to same-sex marriage.

I mention to my friend that Davis — it turns out — has been thrice divorced and, get this, she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. The father of her twins, incidentally, is the man she would take later as husband No. 3.

“Well, let’s see,” my friend said, “I think she’s violated at least one of the Ten Commandments.” We both chuckled.

Then he noted, “I don’t think any of the Commandments says anything about homosexuality.”

Bingo!

religious news

Kim Davis redefines hypocrisy

2 Comments

AP_kim_davis_mm_150901_4x3_992

Oh, my. I don’t know where to begin with this little item.

Rowan County (Ky.) Clerk Kim Davis remains on the job, even though she refuses to follow the oath she took to follow the laws of her state and nation. Those laws say that gay couples are entitled to be married.

That’s not God’s law, Davis says. So, she’s refusing to follow the law.

Davis’ marital history

Then there’s this: Davis is married to her fourth husband. She’s been divorced three times. That’s not as big a deal as this next tidbit, which is that she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband.

Five months. Do that math and recall your sex education teaching about human gestation.

I believe Scripture has plenty to say about sex outside of marriage, not to mention adultery. But, hey, who’s keeping track?

In another interesting twist, the twins were fathered by Davis’s third husband, but were adopted by her second husband. I mention that only because it, well, doesn’t exactly fall into the category of a “traditional family.”

Davis has brought all this scrutiny on herself by declaring her strong belief in God’s holy word.

However, she works for a secular government agency. She is drawing a paycheck financed by the public, many of whom, I’m quite certain, disagree with her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

And no matter what the county clerk says, God’s word does not supersede the oath she took when she took public office. The oath requires her to follow the law of the land.

She’s refusing to do so. Davis needs to quit her job … immediately.

 

national news

Resign from your office, Kim Davis

same-sex-marriage

Consider this an open letter to Kim Davis, the rogue county clerk in Kentucky who thinks she’s above the law.

Madame Clerk, quit pretending you’re serving the people of Rowan County, Ky., your state and your nation.

You keep refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because, you say, God doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples are entitled to be married, just like straight couples. It ruled recently that you cannot keep refusing to issue the licenses to gay residents of your state. You still refuse. Hey, does that mean you’re in contempt of court?

I get that you’re invoking your religious liberty.

But your freedom to pray as you wish isn’t being threatened here. What’s at issue is whether you’re going to remain faithful to the secular oath you took when you became Rowan County clerk.

It says you will uphold the laws of the state and the nation. It doesn’t provide any qualifiers; there’s nothing in the oath that allows you to say “but only if those laws do not conflict with my religious beliefs.”

You adhere to all the laws or none of them. If you can’t do your job, then quit.

To be honest, I would salute if you did exactly that.

Kim Davis defies the high court

 

legal news, local news, national news, political news

Read your oath of office, Mme. Clerk

same-sex-marriage

Kim Davis took an oath when she became a county clerk in Kentucky to uphold the constitutions of her state and her nation.

The oath, I’m quite willing to suggest, didn’t include any exemptions for her religious faith.

Thus, it becomes imperative that she fulfill all the terms of the oath she took.

But she’s refusing to do that.

Instead, she’s refusing to grant marriage certificates to gay couples. She cites her religious belief opposing gay marriage and the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religious liberty.

I get that Kim Davis’s Christian faith is important to her. Mine is important to me as well.

But she took an oath to uphold the law. What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court this year has ruled that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. That includes Kentucky.

To their credit, Potter County Clerk Julie Smith and Randall County Clerk Renee Calhoun declared they would issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples who request them. I also would have applauded either or both of them had they resigned if their religious faith interfered with their public oath.

Davis should resign from her office, as some county clerks have done around the country. She cannot serve in an elected public office without carrying out all the duties that the office requires.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-again-denies-license?utm_content=buffercaf60&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

national news

Most county clerks are going to follow the law

Well, it turns out Texas’s county courthouses aren’t occupied by defiant rebels intent on ignoring state and federal law.

According to the Texas Tribune, most county clerks — and I presume that to mean more than 127 of them — are going to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/10/lawsuits-needed-holdout-counties-gay-marriage/?goal=0_141c96f7df-5c77452cb0-99785833&mc_cid=5c77452cb0&mc_eid=c01508274f

Those who don’t will face lawsuits from couples seeking marriage licenses.

I was intrigued by the story that included statements from way up yonder, in tiny Roberts County, that officials there will issue licenses to same-sex couples when they apply for them.

Randall and Potter clerks said from the outset of the ruling that they would issue the licenses, even though Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton decreed it was all right with him if counties declined to do so.

The Tribune reports: “Hartley County Clerk Melissa Mead said her office won’t issue same-sex marriage licenses until the clock runs out on the 25 days that parties in the Supreme Court case have to ask for a rehearing of the case.”

A handful of the state’s 254 counties are bucking the highest court in the land — not to mention ignoring the oath that county clerks take that require them to uphold federal law.

A handful of clerks in other states have declined to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and have resigned their public offices in protest. I’m OK with those who quit rather than flout their oath. Those who resign are far more principled, in my view, than those who simply refuse to do their duty based on religious principles. Their oaths don’t allow for that, as I read the oath they all must take.

A friend posted this portion of a New York Times editorial on the subject:

“Some same-sex marriage opponents argue that under state religious-freedom laws, a government employee’s beliefs should be accommodated so long as another official is available to carry out the task. But government employees do not have a constitutionally protected right to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve, no matter their religious beliefs. Not so long ago, of course, government officials invoked religious beliefs to justify all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, including laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck down that marriage ban in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.”

As I see it, there you have it.

legal news, national news, political news

Change the federal judicial system? Please, no

What is it with some American politicians?

A court ruling or two doesn’t go their way and they want to toss aside one of the basic tenets of our federal government? They want to elect federal judges, make them stand for “retention” if they make a decision that upsets some of us?

That’s the view of a leading so-called “conservative” U.S. senator who’s also running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Take it away, Ted Cruz of Texas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-chris-matthews-supreme-court-119891.html

Cruz jousted this week with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews over the setup of the federal judiciary. Cruz doesn’t like the two recent Supreme Court rulings that (a) upheld the Affordable Care Act and (b) legalized gay marriage in the United States.

The junior senator from Texas now thinks Supreme Court justices should stand for retention to enable voters a chance to decide if they want them to keep their jobs.

Matthews, not surprisingly, went semi-ballistic — which is part of his shtick. He brought up the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount. Texas Gov. George W. Bush was leading by 537 votes at that moment over Vice President Al Gore. Gov. Bush was awarded Florida’s electoral votes, which were enough to elect him president of the United States by a single electoral vote.

The five Republican-appointed justices’ overruled the four dissents cast by the Democratic-appointed justices. Politics? Gosh, do you think?

Conservatives hailed that decision. And why not? It was all done according to precisely the manner allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Some of us might not have liked the outcome, but that’s how it goes. The justices made the call.

Cruz didn’t object then, Matthews reminded him.

The nation’s founders set up a system in which the federal judiciary is intended to be free of political pressure. The president appoints judges and Supreme Court justices, who then are subject to approval by the Senate. They get lifetime jobs and, therefore, are able to rule according to how they interpret the Constitution.

This idea that we should now subject justices to the political will of the people is simply not in keeping with what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Political conservatives, such as Sen. Cruz, keep harping on “original intent.” Well, the founders’ “original intent” was to separate the judicial branch of government from the political tug-of-war that exists in the legislative and executive branches.

Cruz said he is “reluctant to call for elections,” and said it “makes him sad.” He added that he has made that call because “a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.”

Yes they are, senator.

Let’s leave the judicial system alone.