Religious Belief Licence To Discriminate

[Steve]

Kim Davis, a county clerk from Kentucky, who would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples based upon her own deeply held religious beliefs, went to jail yesterday for continuing to allow those beliefs to supersede federal law. She's still in jail this morning.

Same Sex Marriage Kentucky Showdown - CNN

During Davis' hearing, April Miller told the court that the clerk had denied her a marriage license three times, and when Davis took the stand to deliver her at-times emotional testimony, she explained that she could not issue the licenses because of her religious beliefs.

"You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," she told the judge, according to CNN affiliate WKYT-TV.

American Civil liberties Union attorneys argued in a motion filed Monday that Davis "continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform."

They said they didn't want her to be jailed as punishment, but rather, the attorneys asked the court to "impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous" to make her comply with the court order.

(U.S. District Judge) Bunning, however, apparently felt she deserved jail time, but he also told Davis she could end her incarceration by complying with the Supreme Court order and telling her deputy clerks to do the same.

He said he didn't believe fining Davis would convince her to comply with the high court ruling, especially considering that Davis had testified earlier that her supporters are raising funds for her and calling her office to offer financial support, WKYT reported.

'She can't disobey her conscience'

Bunning said he, too, was religious, but he explained that when he took his oath to become a judge, that oath trumped his personal beliefs, the station reported.

"Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense," Bunning said.

----------------------------CNN.com

What bothers me most is that this is the same sort of mentality that über religious groups have used to justify hate and discrimination for the lgbt community for a very long time. Whether cherry picking religious doctrine from the Bible or using gay liberation as a divisive political wedge issue, these fanatics have been using religion as a means to discriminate for... hell I was going to say decades, but centuries (if not millennia).

In the seventies the movement was referred to as gay liberation. Later as the movement progressed gay people pretty much all fell into a trap as we were fighting for our rights. The rights we were fighting for were conveniently coined "gay rights". And that, of course, lent an easy excuse to conservatives that gay people didn't need "extra" or "special" rights. Many of us were side tracked, forgetting that they aren't gay rights, they're civil rights.

In light of SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, many of those religious wingnuts who no longer have the defense of marriage act in their back pocket now fall back upon the first amendment and scream that their rights are being violated.

Just as some states passed what they called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in anticipation of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage, there's now a proposed federal law to protect people who find same-sex unions contrary to their faith. Republican sen. Mike Lee of Utah has introduced a bill called the First Amendment Defense Act.

................................NPR.org

A "harmless" variation of this argument is probably what Kim Davis's attorney's will use in her defense. "Just take her name off the marriage certificate," has been floated by her legal team. Yeah, otherwise she won't do her job. Her deep seated religious beliefs haven't stopped Davis from being married four times to three different men and had twins out of wedlock. The church forgave her for that. How convenient.

It’s all a bit complicated. Here’s the breakdown:

After divorcing her first husband of 10 years, she had twins five months later; the twins were fathered by the man who would become her third husband, according to NBC News.
When she married her second husband, he adopted the twins.
Davis and her second husband divorced 10 years later.
She then married the father of her children, a union that lasted “less than a year,” according to NBC.
She remarried her second husband in 2009, and they are still together.

“I am not perfect. No one is,” she said in her statement. “But I am forgiven, and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.”

---------------1 God, 2 Kids, 3 Husbands, 4 Marriages: 5 Facts About Clerk Jailed Over Gay Marriage

This sort of religious discrimination isn't just happening in Kentucky either.

September 3, 2015
Marion County Circuit Judge Vance Day, a former chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, took steps Thursday to create a legal defense fund in an apparent response to his decision not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Day took action because of what he described as "deeply-held religious beliefs," KGW reported.

"It's an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment," Day spokesman Patrick Korten told the news station.

In recent months, Day has not performed any marriage ceremonies, KGW reported. His courtroom is in Salem.

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission voted unanimously Thursday to approve Day's request to establish a legal defense fund.

-------------------------The Oregonian: OREGONLIVE

And even more, this little gem happened a couple of days ago in Tennessee as well (via Chattanooga Times Free Press‎:

September 3rd, 2015
A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.

Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.

Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.

-------------Judge declines divorce case, citing gay marriage ruling

When FADA was introduced prior to the SCOTUS gay marriage decision the majority opinion was that it didn't have the support it needed to pass. After the decision and the ensuing inevitable backlash against it, these new little legal skirmishes are pitting staunchly (and even moderately) religious people against gay civil liberties concerns. FADA has been "lost in committee" since its introduction. That "lost in committee" description is both a good way to kill a bill. It is also a good way to pull legislation out of limbo to debate as this political wedge issue evolves.

A few sensationalist incidents like the ones above, some media spin telling the same misleading propaganda about "gay rights" usurping religious freedom over and over, and presidential candidates placing the issue in the spot light whether they want to or not... the general public starts to get confused. Yes there are some smart ones. There always are. But there are a whole lot of people who base their vote almost solely upon television ads and sensationalist news. The public opinion poll is a fickle pendulum. Especially when conservative interests now have a much bigger chuck of television news pie within their grasp.

In response to the Supreme Court's historic marriage equality ruling, conservative media has endorsed a newly proposed federal bill called the "First Amendment Defense Act" (FADA). Though conservatives have touted FADA as an effort to protect religious liberty, critics warn the bill would undermine the government's ability to combat anti-gay discrimination...

-Daily Signal: FADA Is "Common Sense" Protection For Opponents Of Same-Sex Marriage. Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, endorsed FADA in a post for The Daily Signal...

-RedState Instructs Readers To Call Congressional Reps In Support Of FADA. A "Member Diary" on RedState.com urged readers to call members of Congress in support of the legislation...

-Family Research Council: FADA Is "Vital Legislation." In a press release immediately following FADA's introduction, the Family Research Council (FRC) praised FADA and urged Congress to pass the bill...

-The American Family Association Issues Action Alert In Support of FADA. The American Family Association (AFA) issued an "Action Alert" to "one million-plus friends" in support of FADA...

-Liberty Counsel Calls for "Quick And Decisive Action" On FADA. The action arm of the Liberty Counsel called on Congress to pass FADA and announced it would hand deliver petitions advocating for FADA to House and Senate leadership...

-National Organization For Marriage "Doing All We Can" To Pass FADA. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced its support for FADA...

---------------------------MediaMatter.Org

That's a helluva lot of money and influence being thrown at congress (esp. the right-wing) to resolve the issue of not only gay marriage to their satisfaction, but civil rights for the lgbt community. A resolution pointedly not in our favor. The outcome of the Equality Act will be telling.

It's worth noting that no less than four of the republican presidential candidates sign anti-same-sex marriage pledge (August 25th, 2015).

The National Organization for Marriage said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson signed the group's pledge "to take several specific actions as president to restore marriage to the law and protect people of faith from discrimination because of their support for traditional marriage."
......CNN Politics

You can bet they'll be using a States-Rights vs. SCOTUS ruling as the basis of the fight, although every argument will firmly be using the First Amendment as its base.

Ted Cruz:


Rick Santorum:


Rand Paul:


Mike Huckabee:



Most people think the gay marriage issue is largely a done deal. On the whole I'd agree with them. But 2016 is an election year and republican's, despite public polling concerning gay rights, aren't hesitating to use "gay rights as a threat to religious freedom" as a wedge issue to drive their constituents to the polls. In addition, largely dependent upon the next sitting US president, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court may be up for grabs.

I'm just sayin'...

[Steve]

[matty7]

the message im going to post may piss people off but its my quick view of things - I saw the video of her denying the marriage license on my phone and she was wrong to do that as its passed by law that she do just that - but I do not want her in jail because her religious beliefs against someone like me having a same sex marriage - remove her from her job - yes , sack her - yes , but why not just re assign her ??? and put someone who will do their job description in her place and we'll all be happy again - don't know if she has kids but that must be awful for them to see mum in jail - I don't care if she hates us for been lgbt move her aside and let people marry in peace

[Emiliano]

I dislike the black and white perspective that some people seem to take on issues like this - that gains for gay people equal losses for religious people (as if those are mutually exclusive anyway) - rather than it simply meaning broader access to the rights, privileges, and institutions enjoyed in this country. Adding a wheel chair ramp to an entrance does not mean you have to destroy the front steps.

I have a lot of feelings on all of this, and the way that the so called war on religion has been used to manipulate and divert attentions.... but i don't feel articulate enough to express them at the moment.

What I will say though, is that if she honestly, truly feels compelled by God and that it is her religious right to deny marriage licenses by allowing the teachings of the Bible to take precedence over the Constitution and the laws of the USA - then she should also take it on as her religious duty to stone to death any gay couples that come seeking a marriage license.

[LJay]

The whole brouhaha about religion sidesteps the real issue. What is being protested is that gays should be able to marry at all. The religious objection is a convenient smokescreen meant to keep the issue in the public eye. Legally, Davis has no grounds. By running for the office of County Clerk she asked to assume its duties. She is now saying that the duties she accepted may be redefined according to her personal beliefs. She thus becomes not an office holder performing given duties, but an autocrat doing as she pleases. Whether her justification is religion or the divine right of kings it is not applicable to the case.

[Pix]

remove her from her job - yes , sack her - yes , but why not just re assign her ???

I'm also wondering why she isn't simply fired herself. I did read of someone who refused to sell the alcohol in the store she worked at because it was against her religious beliefs (I think she was some kind of Muslim) and she was simply fired for refusing to do her job (she sued for religious discrimination but it was rightly thrown out of court). I vaguely recall reading of similar news articles on pharmacists who refused to sell birth control and such over religion and they, too, were fired for not doing their job. So why not just fire (or at least reassign) her? :confused:

There might be some union rules or something of that nature in place that prevents them from doing the easiest and most obvious solution, however. Or, if one wants to think conspiracy, it could be a sneaky way to make her a martyr in a deliberate dishonest legal strategy to challenge the federal ruling.

ETA: I just remembered, in some locations this position is an elected one rather than an assigned one. If she was elected then I see the problem here and why she'd be in jail instead.

[CellarDweller]

She's in jail where she deserves to be.

Best part is, that by not issuing the licenses, she's breaking her religious code.

She classifies herself as an Apostolic Catholic.

If you search for information about that, you'll find a site which lists Lifestyle, Doctrine, and then Statement of Faith.

Item #17 on that Statement of Faith is "Governmental authority is respected and obeyed...."

[Cobalt]

To clarify the point someone was asking, I believe she was an elected official.

I think she should be in jail, she was chosen to do a government job and decided not to do it. If a job conflicts with your religious beliefs, you do not work that particular job. It's as simple as that. If I was working for a company and one day they decided: hey, we're going to start drowning a puppy each morning, I would quit. Now drowning puppies isn't really against a religious belief I have (though it probably should be) but I think that would be morally wrong and not something I'd be comfortable with. Would I decide to keep going to work and simply sit and do nothing because I don't agree with what the company is doing? No, I'd just go and quit.

Simply: Stupid bitch should have quit the moment gay marriage was legalized in her state. I feel 0 sympathy for her.

[TigerLover]

Ok this is a rant but the argument on this topic is really getting under my skin.
First of all I have a great deal of sympathy for the woman she's clearly just a silly old woman who's been brainwashed into these beliefs since she a little girl.
Buuut I have to add that

In this discussion religion and LGBT rights are irrelevant.
She is not acting as an individual she is acting on behalf of the state. She is empowered by the state to issue licences on behalf of the state.

She does not have the right to do whatever the hell she wants with the powers granted to her anymore than a police officer can make up new laws on the spot and enforce them.

It's not like they were twisting her arm behind her back and making her grant marriage licenses or go to jail. After all the state governor agrees with her point of view. She could've gotten a transfer she could of quit if she felt so strongly. Heck she could have gone on a speaking tour and published a book. But no she wanted to stay because she liked abusing her power and wanted to continue doing so.

Her refusal to grant marriage licences + Her decision to remain in her job = An abuse of power and a serious violation of the law.

And for those who are saying lets not give them a martyr. Lets explore the "alternative" message. That people in positions of authority can abuse their power and not be reprimanded so long as they have "god" on their side. There will be those who believe she was somehow vindicated in what she did because the courts refused to prosecute. The main argument against same sex marriage is that the law is somehow tyrannical and against the constitution. What better argument could bigots have than to point at a court and say "look the marriage equality act is so immoral and oppressive that even the courts refuse to enforce it."

But as I say all that conjecture is pointless. She chose to repeatedly and publicly violate the law despite full knowledge of the consequences and she displays no remorse. Like it or not the book very much has to be thrown at her.

And now i'm going to go brew some earl grey tea and remind myself that I'm not an American and these things don't concern me anyway.

[jimcrackcorn]

Kim Davis is an elected official in Kentucky, who receives $80,000 a year from Kentucky tax payers (which includes LGBT Kentuckians who pay their taxes also). She cannot be fired. The Kentucky legislature would have to impeach her, thereby removing her from office.

The Judge had no other choice but to give her jail time because Kim Davis had religious financial backers who were ready to pay any fine the court would impose,,, thereby negating any punishment she might have gotten financially.

I expect the Judge to release her from jail within a week, at which time she will either relent and do her job,,, or the Judge will have her hauled back into court on contempt charges and put back in jail again!!!

My personal opinion is she started this little frackas on her own,, and it quickly grew into something much bigger than she had anticipated. She now has the financial/legal backing of some of the biggest anti-gay establishments in the country who are propelling her into this long drawn out fight which she will lose.

The proposed First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) if passed,, will most likely find it's way to the United States Supreme Court where religious freedom verses gay civil rights will be resolved. My personal opinion is that the FADA will only be used as a conservative talking point to get votes from the religious right. It will never get voted on in Congress.....

Kim Davis should have stepped down from her position when she first realized she couldn't perform the duties she was elected to do. Instead,,, she decided to break the law.

I feel bad for the people who had to bare the humiliation of being publicly refused a marriage license by this woman.

What gets my goat,,, is that this Kim Davis isn't performing a marriage, she is simply providing the appropriate government paperwork to the prospective couples who then take that document (once filled out) to a church or Justice Of The Peace to get married. The county clerks only other responsibility concerning the marriage certificate is to record the marriage contract with the state after the wedding was performed by someone else. It's nothing but a darn paperwork shuffle on her part.

Is this a case of Religious Freedom,, or,,, a case of religious bigotry/discrimination? It's both.......... Some religious people want the freedom to display their bigotry and discriminate against others who they want to treat as second class citizens.

In the United States, we are not a theocracy. We are not governed by any religious sect. We are a sectarian style government where all it's people are free to practice, or not practice a religious belief. In other words, if I don't believe in your God, I don't have to be subject to your Gods LAWS!!!! I am only required to abide by the laws set forth by the United States and it's governing bodies.

My final word, she can take her religion and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Jim