How is what Kim Davis is doing any different from Governor George Wallace standing at the door of a public school vowing not to let one black kid to cross the threshhold, proclaiming,
“In the name of the greatest people who ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
HIS beliefs were that there should be no integration and he was going to stand up for his beliefs no matter what the law said. Wallace defied the law for his beliefs. How is this different?
Isn’t Kim Davis saying, “No gay marraige now, no gay marriage tomorrow, no gay marriage forever”?
Lois
It's no surprise that people routinely compartmentalize their beliefs. When it comes to morals, they pick and chose among the teachings of the Bible to satisfy themselves. I was watching a news item yesterday though, where two gay men came into the courthouse to apply for their marriage license for about the third time I think they said. They were accompanied by television cameras, obviously hoping to intimidate the woman into changing her mind. She still refused, saying that she was obeying a "higher power". One of the men retorted that he didn't believe in her God. NOT a good way to win people over, in my opinion. Remarks like that will simply help her to dig in her heels even harder, convincing her that she MUST be Right, because the other side represents the Devil. I tried to put myself in her place. What if I were in a position like that, called upon to uphold a law that was obviously (to me) immoral? I certainly do sympathize with her position. It's easy for us to say she should resign her position if she doesn't feel she can issue licenses. But that would be like surrendering (to her). I'm not sure I would resign in her place either. At the same time I wouldn't flout the law, either. It would be a difficult position to be in.I know this all old news now, but wanted to still comment: Yes, but she is an elected official in a government office, she should be very educated in terms of law vs private life and separation of church and state and yet she has appeared oblivious. Why should the tax payer hold back saying he does not believe in god? She is an elected government official using her official position and stand there before the public and press saying she is making the rules for Rowan county based on her religious beliefs. You're suggesting that people/taxpayers with differing beliefs (than Christianity) hush up and not anger the government official who is a Christian and who should never be putting a citizen in a position where he or she must even feel they need to discuss religion with the government.--this illustrates exactly why separation of church and state exists. Furthermore, she was just elected into that position in November 2014 and she was well aware that same sex marriage was being ruled on at the state level at that time and only shortly after it became known by the SCOTUS. If she was educated, she should have been well aware she was about to enter a position that was going to at least "have the potential" to require her to issue same sex marriage licences. I am not being an angry person here, but I do not feel sorry for her--I am sorry it's come to what it has and that she is in jail, but I do not feel sympathy. Then she had the audacity to say that people have options of going to other counties--basically saying "we don't serve your kind her." Sound familiar? It is like she (as a government official) is not even aware of the perils of the civil rights era and she is the perfect picture of white, christian privilege in the Bible Belt. Telling people they can go to another county would be a slippery slope because what happens when other county clerks realize that is acceptable and decide they too can turn people away? Then people will have less and less options and instead of going to the next county over, you're going four counties over...unacceptable...not the American most people would want to live in.
How is what Kim Davis is doing any different from Governor George Wallace standing at the door of a public school vowing not to let one black kid to cross the threshhold, proclaiming, "In the name of the greatest people who ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." HIS beliefs were that there should be no integration and he was going to stand up for his beliefs no matter what the law said. Wallace defied the law for his beliefs. How is this different? Isn't Kim Davis saying, "No gay marraige now, no gay marriage tomorrow, no gay marriage forever"? LoisIt's not different, other than Wallace being in a higher office which means different protocols. But don't forgot they sent the National Guard to enforce that law.
I wonder if she and her supporters would feel similar sympathy for county clerks whose religious or ethical beliefs support LGBT equality, who for so many years, had to tell gay couples: "Sorry, I wish I could give you a marriage license, but the law doesn't allow me to." Does she think they should have followed their beliefs and issued the licenses anyway?Of course not. That would be different because (in her mind) "they" are "wrong". But I changed my mind about being sympathetic for her when I saw another news item the following day, when she was denying another gay couple. She was positively smiling as she turned them down. When asked, rather than saying it was a matter of morality, she said that it was a matter of conscience -- she was simply afraid that if her name were on the certificates, God would have something to say to her. Well that's an entirely different matter. If it was only a matter of conscience, I would resign. No question. Her only valid reason for not resigning is the money she makes from her position (let's face it, she's got a cushy spot; she can't be fired without a formal impeachment hearing, and that's not likely to happen in a conservative town). The only thing I'm not sure about now is how effective putting her in jail is going to be. I'd think it would just make her a martyr, in her own eyes. They should have fined her. That would hit home to her as nothing else would.
With her in jail, her office has begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples:
(CNN)With the clerk who had refused them in jail, William Smith Jr. and James Yates on Friday morning became the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in Rowan County, Kentucky. In what was their sixth attempt this summer, Smith and Yates pressed through a throng of reporters and picked up the marriage license they'd been seeking since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June. They emerged holding hands shortly after the courthouse opened at 8 a.m., as opponents booed and supporters cheered and chanted, "Love wins!" !http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/]However, her attorney claims the licenses are void:
... discussing [the] marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples today, [Mat] Staver [her attorney] said they are "void," because they did not come under her authority. "They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Staver said. Exploring that idea, he said the county clerk has the authority to distribute marriage licenses — and Davis hasn't ceded that authority to her deputies who issued licenses today. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/04/437580385/attorneys-for-kim-davis-marriage-licenses-issued-today-are-void]So let's see: You don't do your job. You violate a court order to do your job. You go to jail for refusing to do your job. Therefore, your staff are breaking the law by complying with the law! Interesting legal theory!
...I changed my mind about being sympathetic for her when I saw another news item the following day, when she was denying another gay couple. She was positively smiling as she turned them down...An interesting contrast to this (from her own official website, in her own words):
...Our office is here to serve the public in a friendly, professional and efficient manner. We are constantly striving to upgrade our services in order to better serve you... Thanks, Kim Davis Rowan County Clerk rowancountyclerk.com]
If she wants to be a martyr, let her. She will only be a martyr to herself and her co-horts. To everyone else she’s a complete fool. Her martyrdom should have no bearing on the law. Martyrdom is a religious concept and has no place in government or the law.
Lois
Taken into custody, didn't expect that http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-orders-ky-clerk-taken-into-custody/35081648I think it was smart to put her in jail instead of a fine. The fine would have quickly been paid for her by her supporters. This way, she is the only one who can do her time. As I understand it, she has to stay in until she agrees to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. I predict a hunger strike just around the corner. I wonder if they will let her out if she resigns her post to avoid compromising her obviously, selective religious conscience choices.
Taken into custody, didn't expect that http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-orders-ky-clerk-taken-into-custody/35081648I think it was smart to put her in jail instead of a fine. The fine would have quickly been paid for her by her supporters. This way, she is the only one who can do her time. As I understand it, she has to stay in until she agrees to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. I predict a hunger strike just around the corner. I wonder if they will let her out if she resigns her post to avoid compromising her obviously, selective religious conscience choices. I'm pretty sure resigning would conform with the judges orders. She would no longer be in contempt.
“Supporters of same-sex marriage face formidable obstacles, but in large part because of the successes of twentieth century opponents of miscegenation law, they have also found support that interracial couples in the 1930s would have envied–from legal experts on the constitution, from county clerks in Oregon who recently decided that rather than discriminate on the basis of sex, they would refuse to issue any marriage licenses at all (to opposite-sex or same-sex couples), and even from the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, who cited theLoving case repeatedly in theirGoodridge decision. If the campaign for same-sex marriage succeeds (and I hope, very much, that it does), it will be not only because of the efforts of lesbian and gay activists but because of the civil rights advocates (black, white, Asian American and American Indian) who spent so much of the twentieth century working to put an end to American’s three-century tradition of miscegenation laws.”
See also:
Justice Alito’s Dissent in Loving v. Virginia
Christopher R. Leslie, University of California, Irvine, School of Law
Abstract
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down miscegenation statutes, which criminalized interracial marriage, as unconstitutional. In 2013, the Court in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA"), which precluded federal agencies from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples even if the marriages were legally valid in the couples’ home state. While Loving was a unanimous decision, the Court in Windsor was closely divided. Almost half a century after Chief Justice Warren issued his unanimous Loving opinion, the Loving dissent has been written. Justice Alito authored it in Windsor. Justice Alito fashioned his dissent as upholding DOMA. But the rationales he employed were much more suited to the facts of Lovingthan the facts of Windsor. In this Article, Professor Leslie explains how each of Justice Alito’s reasons for upholding DOMA applies equally or more strongly to miscegenation laws at the time of the Loving opinion than to DOMA in 2013. There is simply no internally consistent way to defend DOMA with Justice Alito’s arguments without also upholding the constitutionality of miscegenation laws. Thus, Justice Alito not only authored a dissent for the Windsor case; he effectively wrote a dissent in Loving nearly 50 years after the case was decided. His reasoning would require the upholding of Virginia’s miscegenation statute. To the extent that the legal community now recognizes that the former anti-miscegenation regimes represent a shameful chapter of American history, the fact that the same arguments used to defend miscegenation laws are being invoked to justify bans on same-sex marriage suggests that such bans are inherently suspect and probably unconstitutional.
Recommended Citation
Christopher R. Leslie, Justice Alito’s Dissent in Loving v. Virginia , 55 B.C.L. Rev. 1563 (2014), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol55/iss/5
This seems another most valid point from the wlwt.com story, Davis took an oath.
What good is swearing on the Bible, if one doesn’t abide by one’s freely given oath?
Heck even in the Bible it says give onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and all that.
But then, consistently never has been a Christian strong point.
"I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs," the judge said, but "I took an oath." "Mrs. Davis took an oath," he added. "Oaths mean things."
This seems another most valid point from the wlwt.com story, Davis took an oath. What good is swearing on the Bible, if one doesn't abide by one's freely given oath? Heck even in the Bible it says give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's and all that. But then, consistently never has been a Christian strong point.Also, according to the Bible, Jesus didn't exactly approve of her taking that oath in the first place:
"...ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black." -- Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 5:33-36 (King James Version)So when Christians take an oath on the Bible, they're taking an oath on a book that says "Don't take oaths".
This seems another most valid point from the wlwt.com story, Davis took an oath. What good is swearing on the Bible, if one doesn't abide by one's freely given oath? Heck even in the Bible it says give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's and all that. But then, consistently never has been a Christian strong point.Also, according to the Bible, Jesus didn't exactly approve of her taking that oath in the first place:
"...ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black." -- Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 5:33-36 (King James Version)So when Christians take an oath on the Bible, they're taking an oath on a book that says "Don't take oaths". Typical theistic hypocrisy. Lois
I think it was smart to put her in jail instead of a fine. The fine would have quickly been paid for her by her supporters. This way, she is the only one who can do her time. As I understand it, she has to stay in until she agrees to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. I predict a hunger strike just around the corner. I wonder if they will let her out if she resigns her post to avoid compromising her obviously, selective religious conscience choices.Why should she resign? She's still drawing her salary while she sits in jail, right? And she still gets the media attention for holding out against the "evil" state. That's the reason I thought fining her would be better. When you have to chose between your conscience and your paycheck, it's surprising how often your conscience loses. :)
So when Christians take an oath on the Bible, they're taking an oath on a book that says "Don't take oaths".Typical theistic hypocrisy. Lois This is a topic in itself, but quoting the Bible to argue against something a Bible believer said or did, is pretty useless. Davis is an Apostolic Protestant and it's not even clear what version of that she is. She is not really basing her belief on the Bible, she is basing it on what the leaders of that church say it says. There has never been any other form of belief. Monty Python demonstrates this with their people in the back of the audience at the Sermon on the Mount saying they think he said "blessed are the cheese makers". Making an argument that begins with "The Bible really says X" is dropping out of a reasonable conversation and into the world where one can know what the Bible really says. That is not the real world. The conversation we need to have is one about how we know and how we decide. How do we allow for a variety of beliefs without spiraling into chaos? How do we allow for freedom of desires without encouraging hedonism?
See my post under Politics and Social Issues, “Kim Davis, Martyr.”
I had overlooked this ongoing thread on the subject.
Lois
Ok, the clerk is a hick. Can’t sue a government worker. The Gay Power has grown powerful enough to reach the international stage. Mike Huckabee is an idiot. The religious powers in the country are a mess. Is all the money spent on education paying off?
Subject matter. State power verses federal power.
Jeffrey Atherton says US supreme court has deemed Tennesseans ‘incompetent to define’ marriage.
Looks to me like Mr. Atherton has a good point.