[
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-17-20-02-04)My initial reaction was, of course, “fuck you, Judge”, but then I thought well, maybe this could help settle some of the issues surrounding the RFRA, so I’m refraining from uttering the invective at this point.
I still think it’s bullshit to coddle bigots and allow this kind of footdragging, but maybe in the long run it’ll be a net positive. :dubious:
From the same story linked in my previous post:
Ms.(? Mrs.?) Davis has a helluva set of beliefs, eh: no internal consistency required, apparently.
At least she was good enough to make it clear that when it comes to religious beliefs, she’s just another garden-variety hypocrite.
Suppose we go with the idea that “oh, they can just get a license elsewhere”.
Think about the consequences of this. County clerk is an elected position in many (most? all?) places in the US. In more regressive areas, people will start electing clerks who emphasize their religious beliefs against SSM or, if they don’t want to do it that explicitly will instead emphasize their religiosity and perhaps how “family friendly” they are (wink wink).
Based on this they will win the elections and in those areas county after county will refuse licenses to same sex couples. The electorate will have effectively overruled SCOTUS and the Constitution via unconstitutional means.
What issues surrounding the RFRA? :dubious:
How do you know her brand of Christianity labels divorce a sin? I’d be more :dubious: of her comment of the Bible saying marriage was between one man and one women. Polygamy is all over the place in the Bible, and I don’t think there is any instructions in the NT that polygamy is no longer kosher.
[
](http://www.religionnews.com/2015/07/22/ky-county-clerk-invokes-god-in-denying-gay-marriages/)
[Apostolic Christian Church of America: What we Believe
](http://www.apostolicchristian.org/page.cfm?p=545)[
](http://www.apostolicchristian.org/page.cfm?p=555)
Until I see some information that Mrs. Davis’s beliefs are different than the declared tenets of the Apostolic Church, I’m gonna stay with what I wrote.
I found this in [an article at Christian Science Monitor:
](Kim Davis: Kentucky clerk refuses federal order to marry gay couples - CSMonitor.com)The woman isn’t fit to be County Clerk, IMO.
I think there are a lot of issues with the RFRA; this situation would be one of them manifesting.
If you’d like to discuss the RFRA in general, please start a new thread; I don’t want to hijack this one in order to have that discussion.
I have to agree with this. Yes, I know the Constitution points out that you have the right to worship whatever invisible sky fairy you want to. But seriously, lady - you wanna follow your interpretation of Jeebuz to the point that you are refusing to obey the law? Quit your frickin’ job. Problem resolved, and you are no longer being an ignorant douche bag.
At least in this one particular case.
^ :eek: ^
Eh, it’s not that atypical for a judge to delay a ruling pending an appeal. I figured it was a push as to which way he’d go on this. He knows this is a politically contentious issue, and also that it’s not really settled until the appeals process is over, so he punted on jailing or fining the clerk immediately.
In what way do you believe this case relates to the RFRA?
I wondered if he was trying to make it harder for her and her backers to play the persecution card.
If a reason didn’t exist, they’d invent one. They’ve never hesitated to do so.
I think this is what us secular types find so fucking aggravating about this whole “defend biblical marriage” bullshit. It is manifestly a thin cover for homophobia. Christians have no interest in defending biblical marriage. Let’s go straight to the source:
.
That’s Matthew 19:8-9, for those who are following along at home.
So either ban second marriages, or STFU about defending biblical marriage. (This STFU is not directed at you, John Mace, but rather at the ‘Christians’ defending ‘Biblical marriage’.)
As an aside, here’s hoping a homosexual couple that hasn’t been able to get married in her county sue the fuck out of her, like this couple in Texas.
Now, I doubt it will cost her anything out of her own pocket, but maybe it will make others in the community that are having their taxpayer dollars wasted or who are trying to balance a county budget much less likely to turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination.
It’s not really contentious. Whether a deputy clerk may be subject to sanctions for refusing to personally issue a license is one thing, and subject to honest dispute. Whether the large-C Clerk is subject to sanctions for refusing to allow her office to issue one is another issue entirely, and it’s pretty obvious that Obergefell requires her to issue the license.
Nice post/user name combo!
I can see it. At the very least, she’s asserting that her religion gives her the right not to enforce the law, is she not?
Plus, isn’t there technically a way to accommodate her religious beliefs–empower someone else not under her jurisdiction to hand out the licenses? How does that align with the whole “least restrictive” test?
Of course, I’m not a lawyer, which is why I put everything as a question. It just seems like there is always a way to accommodate religious beliefs.
And I could see her attempt to enforce her religion on her subordinates being a problem, especially since she works for the state. She’d be violating the very law she’s appealing to by not accommodating their religious beliefs.
The RFRA only applies to interpretation of federal statutes (or state statutes, in the case of state RFRA equivalents). The right at issue here stems directly from the 14th Amendment, not a statute.