US: Despite order, office refuses to issue gay marriage license

[sdanielmcev]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that.
My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me.
Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power.
So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution?

The inclusion of the first 10 Amendments was agreed to as part of approving the Constituion in 1783. The U.S. Constitution delineates powers given to the national government and those reserved to the states so it addresses both. As to learning about the U.S. Constitution from others, true, their were others who taught me as I pursued my academic degrees.

You didn't answer the question.

[sdanielmcev]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court.... <<snip>>

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The right does not like it or accept it, but the SCOTUS ruling presented below established that the Constitution is superior to all illegal acts that are justified by belief in a religion.

This clerk is acting illegally, in that she is in violation of her sworn oath to the US Constitution, violating the constitution of Kentucky to include being in violation of upholding the oath the clerk swore which has no provision of a personal or individual nullification of it.

Here is SCOTUS again anyway this time with a bit more specificity added....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

1]

1] Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/


The Court concluded that to make religious rule or religious law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html


In a word, anarchy. Immoral anarchy. This clerk is completely wrongheaded.

So? It still has nothing to do with what I wrote. Can you even follow a logical argument without your leftist psychoses taking over? If you didn't look at every statement with your conservative-hating eyes, you would see I believe Kim Davis to be wrong. And the gay couple to be grandstanding. Kim Davis' moral convictions are no more or less important than this gay couples moral convictions. It's why I said calling it marriage is a mistake. Making it a moral argument instead of a legal one.
It is why John Roberts was correct in proclaiming the Obergfell decision shouldn't be a Constitutional issue.

[Linky]

Rubbish. Why should they have to get married somewhere else when it is perfectly legal to get married where they are? Why should they be put out because someone wont do their job.

Its like a muslim being employed in a piggery and then refusing to touch the pigs. Their ass would be out of there.

You can't even get your metaphors right. It would be a Muslim employed at a cattle yard, then asked to work on pigs.

I'm questioning their motives for continuing to stay unmarried. I agree they should be able to get their license there, or anywhere. But since they can't at the moment, it seems suspiciously like demagoguery. Like Kim Davis is doing.

Thats right, they cant at the moment because an employee is breaking the law. Put her in jail for contempt. Edited August 17, 2015 by Linky

[jdinasia]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Edited August 17, 2015 by jdinasia

[sdanielmcev]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

[Credo]

There isn't going to be a different word for it and the reason is that there is equal rights and protections. That is the reason that civil unions, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships didn't work. They fell short of marriage, which excluded gays. They were not covered under the same broad, sweeping constitutional protections.

In some places there is a Covenant marriage, which has religious significance and church can decide who is eligible for a covenant marriage.

Personally, I think you are just trolling.

[FritsSikkink]

No. No. And no. You're confusing pacifism with weapon use, such as in hunting.

Well, yes, yes and yes. There are groups who do not believe in killing. But you are splitting hairs -- even some Buddhist groups.

This lady was asked to issue a license; she was not asked to perform a marriage. Just issue a license. It is her job.

Well, then, if Scott will allow, because this is off topic, show me the money. I'm asking about weapons, here. I'll wait.

And why are her convictions less important than a gay couples'? Could it be the media spotlight that beckons? I mean if their marriage is so important, get married elsewhere, then do your fight. And, no, the converse is not true.

Because her convictions are against the law and the gay couples aren't

[Seastallion]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

[manarak]

Marriage has its roots in religion, and I think that as society has evolved, the government should not call the civil uniuon a marriage anymore - just call it civil union, and all kinds of couples are eligible to form one.

Let the proper "Marriage" be a religious thing, governed by the laws of religion.

[Jingthing]

Marriage has its roots in religion, and I think that as society has evolved, the government should not call the civil uniuon a marriage anymore - just call it civil union, and all kinds of couples are eligible to form one.

Let the proper "Marriage" be a religious thing, governed by the laws of religion.

What are you on about?

This thread is NOT a debate about marriage vs. civil unions in the USA.

That has already been fully decided.

The SCOTUS has ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses is unconstitutional.

Yes, marriage.

Your points may be relevant in OTHER nations which are still deciding on such issues.

However, it is 100 percent irrelevant in the USA.

Yes, there are reactionary pockets of resistance in the USA as in this news story, just as there were when banning INTERRACIAL marriages was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS ... but that is really just some noise as this has been settled ... by SCOTUS.

The USA is NOT going to go backwards on this.

The right wingers and/or domestic partner arguers have LOST. It is over. DEAL WITH IT.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[manarak]

Marriage has its roots in religion, and I think that as society has evolved, the government should not call the civil uniuon a marriage anymore - just call it civil union, and all kinds of couples are eligible to form one.

Let the proper "Marriage" be a religious thing, governed by the laws of religion.

What are you on about?

This thread is NOT a debate about marriage vs. civil unions in the USA.

That has already been fully decided.

The SCOTUS has ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses is unconstitutional.

Yes, marriage.

Your points may be relevant in OTHER nations which are still deciding on such issues.

However, it is 100 percent irrelevant in the USA.

Yes, there are reactionary pockets of resistance in the USA as in this news story, just as there were when banning INTERRACIAL marriages was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS ... but that is really just some noise as this has been settled ... by SCOTUS.

I am saying that the state shouldn't call a civil union a marriage.

In a secular state with separation between religion and state, I don't see why the state should be applying religious principles to the institution of civil union - and that's what the supreme court ruling is about.

I just say let's take it to the end and cross out the word "marriage" from the state's legal vocabulary and replace it with the religiously neutral wording "civil union".

The "marriage license" would be become a "civil union license".

Marriage would then be independently performed only by a Priest, Rabbi, Muslim Qadi, Buddhist Monk, or whoever is responsible for performing the ritual in the couple's religion.

[Jingthing]

This topic has nothing to do with that.

That's just your personal schtick which we've probably heard 100 times before.

There is no movement in the USA to do what you suggest and it's clear there never will be.

The issue of legalizing same sex marriage in the USA is now SETTLED.

It has nothing to do with forcing religious institutions to perform marriages they don't want to.

This is about the LEGAL part of it, NOT how what religions think or do.

The retro place you're at maybe was worth discussing TEN YEARS AGO in the USA ... but that's not how things went.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[manarak]

This topic has nothing to do with that.

That's just your personal schtick which we've probably heard 100 times before.

There is no movement in the USA to do what you suggest and it's clear there never will be.

The issue of legalizing same sex marriage in the USA is now SETTLED.

It has nothing to do with forcing religious institutions to perform marriages they don't want to.

This is about the LEGAL part of it, NOT how what religions think or do.

The retro place you're at maybe was worth discussing TEN YEARS AGO in the USA ... but that's not how things went.

I don't want to touch religions... my thoughts are all about the state and how religious stuff has nothing to lose in the state's laws.

Clearly separating the official state-sanctioned "civil marriage" (as it's called in France) from religious rites would also remove religious persons' problems with performing their duty of issuing licenses. So I am 100% on topic.

[Jingthing]

No, you're not on topic at all.

Read the OP.
It's about a local refusal to honor the SCOTUS ruling.

Which is clearly about MARRIAGE rights.

At SCOTUS, marriage vs. domestic partners was NOT part of that historic case.

This is a USA topic. It is not a FRANCE or any other country topic.

I think your POV may indeed be very relevant in other nations ... but in the USA ... it is well past it's USE BY date.

From a philosophical, academic POV, there are plenty of people who don't approve of any kind of relationship legal formalization. That's well and good but not really the question of this thread.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[manarak]

No, you're not on topic at all.

Read the OP.

It's about a local refusal to honor the SCOTUS ruling.

Which is clearly about MARRIAGE rights.

At SCOTUS, marriage vs. domestic partners was NOT part of that historic case.

This is a USA topic. It is not a FRANCE or any other country topic.

I think your POV may indeed be very relevant in other nations ... but in the USA ... it is well past it's USE BY date.

From a philosophical, academic POV, there are plenty of people who don't approve of any kind of relationship legal formalization. That's well and good but not really the question of this thread.

That's your own specious logic, but I think discussing it further would add nothing.

I hold my opinion, you hold yours.

[FritsSikkink]

Marriage has its roots in religion, and I think that as society has evolved, the government should not call the civil uniuon a marriage anymore - just call it civil union, and all kinds of couples are eligible to form one.

Let the proper "Marriage" be a religious thing, governed by the laws of religion.

What are you on about?

This thread is NOT a debate about marriage vs. civil unions in the USA.

That has already been fully decided.

The SCOTUS has ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses is unconstitutional.

Yes, marriage.

Your points may be relevant in OTHER nations which are still deciding on such issues.

However, it is 100 percent irrelevant in the USA.

Yes, there are reactionary pockets of resistance in the USA as in this news story, just as there were when banning INTERRACIAL marriages was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS ... but that is really just some noise as this has been settled ... by SCOTUS.

I am saying that the state shouldn't call a civil union a marriage.

In a secular state with separation between religion and state, I don't see why the state should be applying religious principles to the institution of civil union - and that's what the supreme court ruling is about.

I just say let's take it to the end and cross out the word "marriage" from the state's legal vocabulary and replace it with the religiously neutral wording "civil union".

The "marriage license" would be become a "civil union license".

Marriage would then be independently performed only by a Priest, Rabbi, Muslim Qadi, Buddhist Monk, or whoever is responsible for performing the ritual in the couple's religion.

religion doensn't own marriage, has never owned it and never will own it, so what you are saying is ridiculous

[manarak]

Marriage has its roots in religion, and I think that as society has evolved, the government should not call the civil uniuon a marriage anymore - just call it civil union, and all kinds of couples are eligible to form one.

Let the proper "Marriage" be a religious thing, governed by the laws of religion.

What are you on about?

This thread is NOT a debate about marriage vs. civil unions in the USA.

That has already been fully decided.

The SCOTUS has ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses is unconstitutional.

Yes, marriage.

Your points may be relevant in OTHER nations which are still deciding on such issues.

However, it is 100 percent irrelevant in the USA.

Yes, there are reactionary pockets of resistance in the USA as in this news story, just as there were when banning INTERRACIAL marriages was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS ... but that is really just some noise as this has been settled ... by SCOTUS.

I am saying that the state shouldn't call a civil union a marriage.

In a secular state with separation between religion and state, I don't see why the state should be applying religious principles to the institution of civil union - and that's what the supreme court ruling is about.

I just say let's take it to the end and cross out the word "marriage" from the state's legal vocabulary and replace it with the religiously neutral wording "civil union".

The "marriage license" would be become a "civil union license".

Marriage would then be independently performed only by a Priest, Rabbi, Muslim Qadi, Buddhist Monk, or whoever is responsible for performing the ritual in the couple's religion.

religion doensn't own marriage, has never owned it and never will own it, so what you are saying is ridiculous

my point is about disambiguation, who invented or who owns marriage is not really relevant.

[FritsSikkink]

Marriage has its roots in religion, and I think that as society has evolved, the government should not call the civil uniuon a marriage anymore - just call it civil union, and all kinds of couples are eligible to form one.
Let the proper "Marriage" be a religious thing, governed by the laws of religion.

What are you on about?
This thread is NOT a debate about marriage vs. civil unions in the USA.
That has already been fully decided.
The SCOTUS has ruled that denying same sex couples marriage licenses is unconstitutional.
Yes, marriage.
Your points may be relevant in OTHER nations which are still deciding on such issues.
However, it is 100 percent irrelevant in the USA.
Yes, there are reactionary pockets of resistance in the USA as in this news story, just as there were when banning INTERRACIAL marriages was also ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS ... but that is really just some noise as this has been settled ... by SCOTUS.

I am saying that the state shouldn't call a civil union a marriage.
In a secular state with separation between religion and state, I don't see why the state should be applying religious principles to the institution of civil union - and that's what the supreme court ruling is about.
I just say let's take it to the end and cross out the word "marriage" from the state's legal vocabulary and replace it with the religiously neutral wording "civil union".

The "marriage license" would be become a "civil union license".
Marriage would then be independently performed only by a Priest, Rabbi, Muslim Qadi, Buddhist Monk, or whoever is responsible for performing the ritual in the couple's religion.

religion doensn't own marriage, has never owned it and never will own it, so what you are saying is ridiculous

my point is about disambiguation, who invented or who owns marriage is not really relevant.

your point is irrelevant

[CMNightRider]

Just to put this into context, I wonder what would be said if a public official refused to grant permits for guns because it was against their religious beliefs? Would that be OK?

That's a very good analogy. I imagine they would feel compelled to resign if they could not do the job they were elected or hired to do.

Can you imagine the uproar if a county employee stopped issuing gun permits on religious grounds in Texas?

What???? You have to be kidding me. What on earth do guns have to do with men who want to marry other men or religion?

What???? You have to be kidding me.What on earth are you doing replying to a post on page 5 without having followed the entire dialogue or read the OP?

If you had followed (and comprehended) the dialogue, you would see that an analogy is being used regarding religious convictions and not doing the job you are supposed to do.

When you take out the "men who want to marry other men" (which you should, anyway because the OP is not about that, it's about issuing licenses), and insert "gun license", the point seems to taken differently.

Hold on there cowboy. This is about getting a marriage license for men who want to marry other men, and has nothing to do with a gun license.

[manarak]

my point is about disambiguation, who invented or who owns marriage is not really relevant.

your point is irrelevant

I love you too

[sdanielmcev]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

[sdanielmcev]

There isn't going to be a different word for it and the reason is that there is equal rights and protections. That is the reason that civil unions, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships didn't work. They fell short of marriage, which excluded gays. They were not covered under the same broad, sweeping constitutional protections.

In some places there is a Covenant marriage, which has religious significance and church can decide who is eligible for a covenant marriage.

Personally, I think you are just trolling.

Civil unions carry the same legal protections as marriage. Without the moral connotation. When you post with that many inaccuracies, careful who you call troll.

[manarak]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

And in my opinion this is - regardless of what other posters say - the core of the problem.

[Jingthing]

In the USA, there is no requirement whatsoever to have any kind of religious ceremony to be legally married. Just go CITY HALL, the COUNTY CLERK, etc. Totally SECULAR institutions.

[sdanielmcev]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

And in my opinion this is - regardless of what other posters say - the core of the problem.

And you are correct. The legal aspect and the religious aspect should be separate.

[jdinasia]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Not without the marriage license issued by the state. The person performing the Rite of Holy Matrimony, is allowed to do so by the state.

I was legally married in a bank

Do I care in the least about someone's belief in mythology? No.

Does the state care about someone's mythology? No.

Settled

[Seastallion]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it.

[gk10002000]

Legally, if the decision is being appealed, and IF the appeal has been filed, then the clerk, and the city, and the county, and the state probably are OK by not issuing the license. If no appeal has been filed, then they should be arrested on site. Of course, that assumes that any state official would do that.

Welcome to democracy. Civilian courts are entrusted to enforce the laws. Sometimes they don't, and then the federals step in, similar to some of the more famous cases such as when Governor Wallace was moved aside and the National Guard let the black students in, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling.

[Seastallion]

The "Rite of Holy Matrimony" is a religious rite.

Many religions offer it for gay people.

Marriage is a civil/secular contract which offers rights and obligations to people in the US.

People used the same tactics in response to Loving vs Virginia.

No, Roberts isn't correct. He wouldn't have been correct in Loving vs Virginia

Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.

Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right.

Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.

And in my opinion this is - regardless of what other posters say - the core of the problem.

And you are correct. The legal aspect and the religious aspect should be separate.

OK, so the solution is to stop all legal marriages by churches. They can have their religious ceremony, but to actually get married in the eyes of the law, couples need to go to the county office.

Church ceremony: Married in the eyes of God.

Civil procedure: Married in the eyes of the law.

Simple.

[gk10002000]

In the USA, there is no requirement whatsoever to have any kind of religious ceremony to be legally married. Just go CITY HALL, the COUNTY CLERK, etc. Totally SECULAR institutions.

Absolutely correct. One of my sisters did a simple civil ceremony and I applauded her for that. My two other sisters wanted a big traditional Greek ceremony at the church. I kind of disagreed with that because neither of them had been in the church since they were kids, and neither planned to nor followed up with any sort of traditional Greek Orthodox following. But the church has provisions for that, and with some mandatory coursework and training they were allowed to use the church as our parents had.