Clerk must issue marriage licenses

[ecco]

County Clerk Kim Davis ordered to issue licenses or face penalties (fines and/or dismissal)



(Summary)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08 ... iage-case/

Supreme Court rules against Kentucky clerk in gay marriage case
Published August 31, 2015 Associated Press

MOREHEAD, Ky. – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and the clerk will arrive at work Tuesday morning to face her moment of truth.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis will have to choose whether to issue marriage licenses, defying her Christian conviction, or continue to refuse them, defying a federal judge who could pummel her with fines or order that she be hauled off to jail.

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the landmark decision. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience."

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment.

• Do you believe she was right or wrong in refusing to issue licenses?
  Does any public employee, or an employee in a public establishment, have the right to refuse service to anyone for "religious reasons"?

[Paprika]

So the only reason you provide for 'why should I listen to you?' is 'because I say it is better that you do so'.

In the absence of a specific context, that's all you should expect. Why would anybody want anything ever? Because that person thinks having that thing is better than not having it. That's hardly a revelation.

Well, not only is such a reason not only unpersuasive, it's hardly provides anyone else with anything they can regard as a rational basis to adopt your view. But I suppose if you want intellectual impotence, you can certainly have it.

No: politics cannot be divorced from morality so long as people continue to invoke morality as justification for political acts and as means of political persuasion.

There are overlaps, sure, but your challenge was clearly directly as relativism/subjectivism, as opposed to the social impact of the actions of a clerk.[/quote]
Yet I gather that you are trying to use your moral system to persuade others to certain political and social views and against others. So we are well within the overlap.

[Danmark]

I've been curious to hear how an actual attorney would clarify this mess. Davis does have the capacity to fire her deputies, but I assume she can't do so for the reasons she's given. The state must have a considerable bureaucratic checklist to follow in order to fire a state employee.

I can't help but notice Davis' autocratic 'style' in managing the County Clerk's office, so spent some time looking at local blogs and article commentary from Rowan County citizens. It is a small, rural county, where folks tend to know something about most everyone else, and especially those who hold public office. The locals frequently cited the hostile work environment Davis ostensibly created since Obergefell vs Hodges. I guess the evidence for that is her threat to fire deputy clerks who fail to follow HER directions rather than the laws that define the functions of the office of County Clerk. This is a woman with a rather poisonous egotism unaccustomed to push-back, methinks. How many of her loyal supporters are her employees or peers? The answer to this would infer the nature of her 'reign' as County Clerk.

So she could bounce in and out of jail, perhaps, until January when this nonsense can be brought to session? Can she really fire her deputies for following the law instead of her religious conscience? I seriously wonder when her 'supporters' (including Liberty Counsel and a couple of marginalized GOP candidates) will just up and abandon her, and why they might do such a thing -- perhaps to avoid the notoriety of a George Wallace stand-off? We don't make rebels like we used to . . . but I'm interested in your thoughts and predictions as a lawyer

I'd have to do a lot of research outside my area of experience, criminal law, to answer more definitively. This is particularly true regarding the laws of another State. I can tell you that an elected official, particularly a county clerk, has tremendous power. This is in part because elections are typically held only every four years. If her county is one where the majority of the voters are in the same party or reflect her views on a key issue, she may retain office indefinitely, and short of the power union contracts her employees may provide, she can fire at will.

[ecco]

The Kentucky clerk who was jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples hasn't exactly gotten the warmest welcome in her hometown after her release.

[/img]


Biblical concepts of marriage
Pay the father for the daughter...


Genesis 29:(KJV)

16And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

18And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. 19And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me. 20And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.

21And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. 22And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.

24And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. 25And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

Polygamy is acceptable...
Genesis 29:(KJV) (Cont.)

26And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. 29And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. 30And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

Rape the daughter, pay the father and live happily after after...
Deuteronomy 22:(NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

[Paprika]

The Kentucky clerk who was jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples hasn't exactly gotten the warmest welcome in her hometown after her release.

[/img]


Biblical concepts of marriage
Pay the father for the daughter...

Consider me unsurprised that there still exists such widespread historical ignorance that leads to conflation of bride price with purchasing a wife as property.

[Bust Nak]

Well, not only is such a reason not only unpersuasive, it's hardly provides anyone else with anything they can regard as a rational basis to adopt your view. But I suppose if you want intellectual impotence, you can certainly have it.

How can a reason be any more persuasive than one that is factually correct. Go on, tell me it is not true that a person only ever wants something when he thinks having that thing is better than not having it.

Yet I gather that you are trying to use your moral system to persuade others to certain political and social views and against others. So we are well within the overlap.

The record will show that I gave a certain specific political and social reason to persuade others to certain political and social views and against others. Clearly labelled to boot, to distinguish it from the debate on subjectivism. Remember my a, b, c answers?

[Paprika]

Well, not only is such a reason not only unpersuasive, it's hardly provides anyone else with anything they can regard as a rational basis to adopt your view. But I suppose if you want intellectual impotence, you can certainly have it.

How can a reason be any more persuasive than one that is factually correct.

Persuasive to others, not yourself.

Yet I gather that you are trying to use your moral system to persuade others to certain political and social views and against others. So we are well within the overlap.

The record will show that I gave a certain specific political and social reason to persuade others to certain political and social views and against others. Clearly labelled to boot, to distinguish it from the debate on subjectivism. Remember my a, b, c answers?

And here we are questioning the coherency and meaningfulness of your system of values, which is relevant because in the end these are still necessary to make sense of your public statements about 'this state is desirable', and 'this other state isn't', that is, for others to determine whether your talk has any meaning (yes, we get it that for you, the moral subjectivist, it obviously is meaningful and true).

[ecco]

The Kentucky clerk who was jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples hasn't exactly gotten the warmest welcome in her hometown after her release.

[/img]


Biblical concepts of marriage
Pay the father for the daughter...

Consider me unsurprised that there still exists such widespread historical ignorance that leads to conflation of bride price with purchasing a wife as property.

How interesting that you commented on the picture and ignored the biblical quotes:

Genesis 29:(KJV)
Quote:
16And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

18And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. 19And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me. 20And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.

21And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. 22And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.

24And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. 25And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

26And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. 29And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. 30And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

Deuteronomy 22:(NIV)


28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Or do you consider biblical quotes to be examples of "historical ignorance"?

[Bust Nak]

Persuasive to others, not yourself.

Persuasive to everyone who values truth. Is it or is it not true that a person only ever wants something when he thinks having that thing is better than not having it.

And here we are questioning the coherency and meaningfulness of your system of values, which is relevant because in the end these are still necessary to make sense of your public statements about 'this state is desirable', and 'this other state isn't', that is, for others to determine whether your talk has any meaning (yes, we get it that for you, the moral subjectivist, it obviously is meaningful and true).

Which again, takes it away from social politics and into philosophy.

[Paprika]

Persuasive to others, not yourself.

Persuasive to everyone who values truth. Is it or is it not true that a person only ever wants something when he thinks having that thing is better than not having it.

Ah, the feckless ranting of the subjectivist who cannot provide any meaningful justification to others for his own valuations except 'they are mine, and therefore they are true'. Oh, and I forget 'it is justified to me, so clearly it is justified and you should view them as justified and adopt them'.

And here we are questioning the coherency and meaningfulness of your system of values, which is relevant because in the end these are still necessary to make sense of your public statements about 'this state is desirable', and 'this other state isn't', that is, for others to determine whether your talk has any meaning (yes, we get it that for you, the moral subjectivist, it obviously is meaningful and true).

Which again, takes it away from social politics and into philosophy.

Which again, are inseparable.

[Paprika]

How interesting that you commented on the picture and ignored the biblical quotes:

Genesis 29:(KJV)
Quote:
16And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

18And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. 19And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me. 20And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.

21And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. 22And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.

24And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. 25And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

26And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. 29And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. 30And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

Deuteronomy 22:(NIV)


28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Or do you consider biblical quotes to be examples of "historical ignorance"?

Consider me unsurprised that there still exists such widespread historical ignorance that leads to conflation of bride price with purchasing a wife as property, and also the ignorance that cannot learn after being instructed.