In re the county clerk in Kentucky
who is now in jail because she refuses to process marriage licenses for gays, it's pretty simple: your conscience should be your guide. Of course. But if your conscience conflicts with your duties, the honorable course is to resign your office.
19 comments:
NO, the honorable course is to hold fast to your beliefs and principles. The issuing of gay marriage licenses was NOT a requirement of the job when she took it, so she shouldn't be expected to resign because some fruitcake judge decides to overlook the obvious and trample individual rights in the process.
Well, technically it's a bunch of "fruitcake" judges including the majority on the Supreme Court, Jerry. I'm with our host; resigning for moral reasons also gets press and communicates the notion that when the judiciary imposes something like this, it is arguable that they have de facto imposed a religious test on certain portions of public service--that one must check one's moral qualms at the door before going in.
govt does NOT sanctify unions. only God can do that. flip this around: what if the govt didnt issue marriages, does that mean all Christians would have to remain celibate in order to properly practice their faith?
Gino, that's kind of a straw man argument. Right now, any gay couple can walk into (a lot of) churches and have their union solemnized with ceremony. The rest is strictly a legal process that simplifies matters of inheritance, etc. But the gay activists didn't want to be married, they wanted not only the government benefits but the "legal" (and social) recognition that the rest of society did not want to grant them-- a status that they could use as a club against those who believed otherwise. That's exactly what is happening here.
As for the most effective "resistance" to this judicial overreach, I think going to jail is pretty gutsy and probably highly effective.
The issuing of gay marriage licenses was NOT a requirement of the job when she took it
Right. How often do job requirements change over the course of someone's career? Is there some sort of grandfather clause built in? You can make that argument, but you won't be employed for long if you do.
Jerry, you know who isn't in jail right now because of what they believe about marriage? Everyone whose job isn't issuing marriage licenses.
Neither are those people whose job it is to issue fishing licenses. And it used to be that States got to set the qualifications for who could get one.
As for job requirements changing, who employs her? I don't think it's the men in black. More likely it is the people the men in black overreached to overrule.
Well, except for the fines and jail time imposed on bakers, florists, photographers, and the like, I guess.
Maybe the overlooked analogy here is to ask why those elected officials who declared themselves a Sanctuary City are not in jail? They violated clearly written federal law because of their "conscience" on the issue of illegal immigrants, and people weren't just inconvenienced, a few actually died because of it!
Sanctuary cities are indeed a problem, as are the politicians who encourage them. If we had a better political class, we'd see something done about it. Doesn't justify Kim Davis, though. I'm considerably more concerned about government coercion on private actors, i.e., the bakers, florists, photographers, etc., that Bubba mentions, than I am about this clerk.
I would agree, with one small exception. I worry about the clerk as well, not because of "government coercion of private actors," but because of the TYPE of government coercion involved, on everybody. A 5-4 ruling, on the most shaky of constitutional grounds, on a matter in which SCOTUS technically has no jurisdiction, upending centuries of law, tradition and common sense, is not exactly a persuasive case against one lone clerk.
My sense about this case -- a lot of kabuki on both sides. I'll have to verify it, but my understanding is at least a few of the gay couples seeking a marriage license in this county don't actually live in the county and could have obtained a license elsewhere in Kentucky without incident, but chose this county because of the clerk in question.
As for SCOTUS not having jurisdiction, that ship sailed in 1803.
Please clarify what you mean by "1803." My 10th amendment text is earlier, and the Constitution says that the court only has jurisdiction where Congress allows it (not that Congress has ever exercised that power to my knowledge.
I have little doubt that this is a religious persecution, putting the clerk in the same category as the bakers and florists.
1803 was when Marbury v. Madison established judicial review. The Supremes have been intervening in matters large and small ever since.
OK, so the SCOTUS can find laws constitutional or not. Fine. What gives them authority to rewrite the Constitution or "make stuff up"?
What gives them authority to rewrite the Constitution or "make stuff up"?
Over 200 years of precedent and the lack of will required to stop them.
Correct answer, but not the /right/ one. What can we do?
I don't know. I'll bet you have a suggestion. Perhaps you might share it.
What stops judges is an electorate willing to elect Senators who are willing to (a) only allow adults onto the bench who believe in judicial restraint and original intent and (b) remove some judges who egregiously violate these principles.
And I mean egregiously, not simple things. Or, as I note above, time to elect some adults to the Senate (former SNL comedians and community organizers do not qualify). Which is a long way of saying "easier said than done."
At the state level, the process is about the same--you elect adults to the legislature who remember that the government does not recognize marriages (and reject others) because they're into wedding cakes and ice sculptures. They do so because of what happens when relationships end, and to protect vulnerable parties.
Post a Comment