General Gay Marriage Issues Thread

[Borgholio]

Dent County, Mo., reconsiders protest of same-sex marriage ruling. They had voted to lower the flags in the county to half-mast for a year to mourn the death of traditional marriage...then reverses itself less than a day later because of "Veterans". Nice to know that the right-wing can be counted on to keep itself in check once in awhile. Truth is, someone must have leaned on them. In either case, this is funny as hell.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ne ... 22904.html

Well, that didn’t take long.

The Dent County Commission in southern Missouri voted unanimously Monday to lower flags in “mourning” for a year over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

On Tuesday, Presiding Commissioner Darrell Skiles said the commission was reversing itself. He said the body would meet Tuesday or Wednesday to rescind the order “out of respect for veterans and those currently serving in the military,” the Salem News reported.

Wouldn’t you love to know who applied the hammer?

Skiles told the newspaper that all three commissioners are expected to vote to rescind the order.

Skiles was the ringleader here. He had filed a letter into the public record that protested “the U.S. high court’s stamp of approval of what God speaks of as an abomination.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ne ... rylink=cpy

[Borgholio]

So a month ago, a county clerk in Hood County, Texas, refused to give a gay couple a marriage license because of her religion. They sued her in federal court, and won. She now owes over $43k in lawyers fees.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015 ... 3000.html/

Her bosses will cover the bill so it's taxpayers who will end up paying for it...but the precedent has been set. If she keeps costing taxpayers 40 thousand dollars every time she refuses a license, she won't have a job much longer.

[Flagg]

That's too bad. They should have gotten more expensive lawyers.

[Borgholio]

That's too bad. They should have gotten more expensive lawyers.

Oh next time I think the expensive lawyers will jump at the chance to get a paycheck from the state.

[Borgholio]

The Kentucky clerk who refused multiple times to issue marriage licenses for gay couples has been arrested and sent to prison for contempt of court. She will remain there until she complies.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... t=20150903

A federal judge found a Kentucky clerk at the center of the national debate over same-sex marriage in contempt of court after she defied the Supreme Court by refusing to issue marriage licenses in protest of such marriages.

Kentucky Public Radio's Ryland Barton reports that District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Kim Davis taken into custody by federal marshals "until she complies" with a court order.

Davis, the Rowan County clerk, has become the most prominent elected official to refuse to abide by a Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal across the United States.

The plaintiffs in the case had asked the judge to fine Davis until she complied, but Barton reports that "the judge said that he wasn't convinced fines would have compelled" Davis to issue licenses.

As we've reported, a lower court had ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses, despite her religious objections. She appealed and then went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to ask that the lower court's decision be put aside while she waited for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to issue an opinion on the matter.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied that stay, tacitly ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis has refused.

In a motion filed with the court Wednesday, her lawyers argued that it is presently "impossible" for Davis to comply with the court order because it "irreparably and irreversibly violates her conscience by directing her to authorize and issue SSM licenses bearing her name and approval."

Legal scholars disagree with that assessment.

Here's how Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia University, where she heads the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, explained it to NPR's Robert Siegel earlier this week:

FRANKE: She has absolutely no legal ground to stand on. As a public official, she's supposed to abide by the law and perform her public duties, which are issuing marriage licenses to qualified couples. Same-sex couples are now qualified to marry in the state of Kentucky, so she is refusing to do her job.

SIEGEL: But are there protections — even for public officials — for some religious convictions that might, in some ways, conflict with someone else's performance of the same job?

FRANKE: Of course. Kim Davis has all sorts of religious liberty rights secured under the First Amendment and under other laws. But they are not at stake in this case. All she's asked to do with couples that come before her is certify that they've met the state requirements for marriage. So her religious opposition to same-sex marriage is absolutely irrelevant in this context.

It's worth noting that in an amicus brief filed Wednesday, Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers asked the court to "temper its response."

The laws of the state, argues Stivers, have not yet caught up with the Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal across the whole United States.

In fact, Stivers argues, state law currently contains penalties for performing prohibited marriages — such as those between people who are "nearer of kin ... than second cousins" — but does not contain penalties for refusing to issue licenses to those who are permitted to marry.

So, Stivers argues, the court should slow down and let the Legislature sort this out before holding Davis in contempt.

As we reported Wednesday, because Davis is an elected official she cannot be fired from her job. Instead, she would have to be impeached by the state's House of Representatives and tried by the state's Senate.

Barton reports that she could be held in custody until she changes her mind or until her term ends four years from now.

Barton tells our Newscast unit that the judge decided to put her in custody after the plaintiffs questioned Davis on whether she had received offers of financial support.

If there was the potential of an "endless supply of money for her to pay her fines," she would have no incentive to comply with the court order, the judge decided.

[TimothyC]

The Kentucky clerk who refused multiple times to issue marriage licenses for gay couples has been arrested and sent to prison for contempt of court. She will remain there until she complies.

To butcher Voltaire,
Pour décourager les autres.

[Flagg]

The Kentucky clerk who refused multiple times to issue marriage licenses for gay couples has been arrested and sent to prison for contempt of court. She will remain there until she complies.


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... t=20150903

A federal judge found a Kentucky clerk at the center of the national debate over same-sex marriage in contempt of court after she defied the Supreme Court by refusing to issue marriage licenses in protest of such marriages.

Kentucky Public Radio's Ryland Barton reports that District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Kim Davis taken into custody by federal marshals "until she complies" with a court order.

Davis, the Rowan County clerk, has become the most prominent elected official to refuse to abide by a Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal across the United States.

The plaintiffs in the case had asked the judge to fine Davis until she complied, but Barton reports that "the judge said that he wasn't convinced fines would have compelled" Davis to issue licenses.

As we've reported, a lower court had ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses, despite her religious objections. She appealed and then went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to ask that the lower court's decision be put aside while she waited for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to issue an opinion on the matter.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied that stay, tacitly ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis has refused.

In a motion filed with the court Wednesday, her lawyers argued that it is presently "impossible" for Davis to comply with the court order because it "irreparably and irreversibly violates her conscience by directing her to authorize and issue SSM licenses bearing her name and approval."

Legal scholars disagree with that assessment.

Here's how Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia University, where she heads the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, explained it to NPR's Robert Siegel earlier this week:

FRANKE: She has absolutely no legal ground to stand on. As a public official, she's supposed to abide by the law and perform her public duties, which are issuing marriage licenses to qualified couples. Same-sex couples are now qualified to marry in the state of Kentucky, so she is refusing to do her job.

SIEGEL: But are there protections — even for public officials — for some religious convictions that might, in some ways, conflict with someone else's performance of the same job?

FRANKE: Of course. Kim Davis has all sorts of religious liberty rights secured under the First Amendment and under other laws. But they are not at stake in this case. All she's asked to do with couples that come before her is certify that they've met the state requirements for marriage. So her religious opposition to same-sex marriage is absolutely irrelevant in this context.

It's worth noting that in an amicus brief filed Wednesday, Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers asked the court to "temper its response."

The laws of the state, argues Stivers, have not yet caught up with the Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal across the whole United States.

In fact, Stivers argues, state law currently contains penalties for performing prohibited marriages — such as those between people who are "nearer of kin ... than second cousins" — but does not contain penalties for refusing to issue licenses to those who are permitted to marry.

So, Stivers argues, the court should slow down and let the Legislature sort this out before holding Davis in contempt.

As we reported Wednesday, because Davis is an elected official she cannot be fired from her job. Instead, she would have to be impeached by the state's House of Representatives and tried by the state's Senate.

Barton reports that she could be held in custody until she changes her mind or until her term ends four years from now.

Barton tells our Newscast unit that the judge decided to put her in custody after the plaintiffs questioned Davis on whether she had received offers of financial support.

If there was the potential of an "endless supply of money for her to pay her fines," she would have no incentive to comply with the court order, the judge decided.

Good. If the bitch wants to live in a goddamned Theocracy she can move to Saudi Arabia.

[Borgholio]

Good. If the bitch wants to live in a goddamned Theocracy she can move to Saudi Arabia.

I'm anxious to see how many days (weeks, months?) in jail she will be able to survive before she realizes that being a fundie bigot isn't worth it anymore.

[Borgholio]

And the first couples got licensed by the deputy clerks today. At least THEY know how to do their jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/ki ... p=cur&_r=0

[Broomstick]

You know, the judge did her an out - have her assistants who didn't find it a "heaven or hell" issue give out the licenses. But no - her true colors flew and it was no longer about her conscience, she wouldn't authorize/let other people do this. She denied to others the same choice based on beliefs/conscience she demands for herself, so this really isn't about freedom of religion it's about imposing her beliefs on others.

She can rot in jail as far as I'm concerned, although I think there might be a two year limit on being jailed for contempt. Not sure on that.

Oh, BTW - for decades before she was county clerk her mother was, and she took over from mom, and was pretty clearly grooming her son as a successor... I'm sorry, that's not the way things are supposed to be done in this country. You are not supposed to inherit and elected office.

Time for someone who is not a relative to run that county clerk's office if you ask me.

[Batman]

To these people, 'freedom of religion' means the freedom to force their religion on everybody else.

[Zeropoint]

To these people, 'freedom of religion' means the freedom to force their religion on everybody else.

It's the Christian/Abrahamic/Theist/Religious way.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know, the judge did her an out - have her assistants who didn't find it a "heaven or hell" issue give out the licenses. But no - her true colors flew and it was no longer about her conscience, she wouldn't authorize/let other people do this. She denied to others the same choice based on beliefs/conscience she demands for herself, so this really isn't about freedom of religion it's about imposing her beliefs on others.

This statement I think really encapsulates the "truth" behind what people like her want, as well as why the Far Right have SUCKED so bad in recent years when it comes to court cases.

Her "legal" defense is "This is against my religion! therefor I should not have to do it!" Which is...fine... if that is what you want to argue. But both she and many others come out and say "If I can't marry these gays,NO ONE should!" which is not...
If you think "logically" about her out case, you would want to put EVERY fibre of your legal argument into the "I shouldn't have to do this!" side of this...
What that means, is having to make 'sacrifices'. You would have to go out of your way to say that its 'ok' to have it done, it's just YOU don't want to be the one doing it.
This lady should be gratefully accepting of her clerks doing the work FOR her. Then she doesn't have to violate her silly religion...

But thats not how the far right work... In their Quixotic Quest to over turn the 'evils' of gay marriage, they attempt to take everything on all at once! I mean one must wonder what the conversation with the lawyers is like...

"Ok so, what are we arguing here?"
"That marrying gays is against my religion so I should be exempt from doing it!"
"Ok sounds good, how do you want to go about doing it.."
"By forcing no gays anywhere to ever be able to marry!"
"Um...."

[Borgholio]

Now that her deputy clerks are issuing marriage licenses, she has been released from jail and ordered not to interfere. If her lawyers are smart, they'll tell her to take what she can get and stay out of the way. If she interferes, she goes back to jail. Sounds fair for now.

[Borgholio]

Now the Oath Keepers are saying they will protect Davis and prevent her from being arrested again. Firstly, I find it ironic that a pro-constitution militia is trying to get the government to stop punishing someone for violating the constitution. Secondly, I wonder if they're stupid enough to actually try to prevent Federal Marshals from arresting Davis if she breaks the law again.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's bordering on treason and armed revolt.

I don't know weather they'd have the grounds to do so in practice, but I'd say that whoever made that threat should be arrested. And if it was an official statement on behalf of the group as a whole, every member of the group should be arrested. Of course, that would probably mean at least a small-scale armed uprising.

[Lagmonster]

I don't know weather they'd have the grounds to do so in practice, but I'd say that whoever made that threat should be arrested. And if it was an official statement on behalf of the group as a whole, every member of the group should be arrested. Of course, that would probably mean at least a small-scale armed uprising.

Not likely. They aren't a group of cultists or fanatics; they're whiners who like to stroke their guns and fume and generally prance around playing soldier. These don't seem like the type to take any real risks with their relatively comfy first world lives.

[Elheru Aran]

Bundy Ranch was their peak thus far. I have no doubt there'll be a small-scale showdown at some point in the near future, and likely a few more incidents of these assholes prancing about, but I doubt any of them are going to actually start a war. They know perfectly well, despite all their blather, that they would lose hard. Shooting a cop? BAD airtime. Shooting a soldier? BAD. Never mind the actual results of a firefight-- the media would excoriate them for daring to harm the sacred cows. Fox would implode from the confusion between supporting the militia and the police.

[Borgholio]

So Davis is back at work today and is saying she won't interfere with her deputies but she won't issue the licenses herself or sign them. She's questioning if they licenses issued like that are even valid, but the state AG says they're valid so that's that. The best part is this though:

"Upon returning to work in Morehead, Davis was greeted by a billboard installed by a non-profit organization that advocates for LGBTQ rights.The billboard erected by Planting Peace reads: "Dear Kim Davis, The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage.""

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know weather they'd have the grounds to do so in practice, but I'd say that whoever made that threat should be arrested. And if it was an official statement on behalf of the group as a whole, every member of the group should be arrested. Of course, that would probably mean at least a small-scale armed uprising.

Not likely. They aren't a group of cultists or fanatics; they're whiners who like to stroke their guns and fume and generally prance around playing soldier. These don't seem like the type to take any real risks with their relatively comfy first world lives.

I sincerely hope you are correct. You may be correct. But I tend to feel that armed groups making threats should be taken with absolute seriousness, that we should precede on the assumption that their is at least a possibility they are serious. I very much doubt, for example, that if a mosque started arming all its members and making threats about using force against anyone who violated the Koran, that people would wave it aside. Right wing domestic terrorists should be held to the same standard.

[FaxModem1]

Though this seems silly, I think it's relevant to the Kim Davis discussion:

Time Magazine

Watch the Wonderful New Tide To Go Ad That Takes On the Gay Marriage Debate
Melissa Locker @woolyknickers 10:11 AM ET
It's the perfect antidote to Kim Davis


Tide To Go is poised to enter the gay marriage debate with a new tongue-in-cheek ad. Director Mark Nickelsburg posted the commercial to his Facebook page, and while the ad hasn’t hit the air yet (and it’s unclear whether it actually will) it’s already generating a lot of buzz.

In the commercial, two men head to the altar, but are stopped on the church steps by a serious looking woman determined to make sure they don’t “blemish the sanctity of marriage!” As the couple winds up for a massive argument, the woman pulls out a Tide To Go pen and removes a stain from the shirt of one of the grooms. When the stain is gone, the men receive the blessing of the woman, played by Pee Wee’s Playhouse actress Lynne Marie Stewart a.k.a. Miss Yvonne, the most beautiful woman in the world.

The ad is certainly timely. In his Facebook post Nicklesburg references Kim Davis, the clerk who was jailed after refusing to authorize marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He noted, “First a clerk in Kentucky, and now a church lady in Los Angeles! This same-sex couple faces yet another obstacle on the way to marriage equality in this spot I directed for Tide to Go.”

This isn’t the first time Tide has featured a gay couple in one of their commercials. An ad that aired in Canada featured a gay couple arguing about laundry. Tide’s parent company, Procter & Gamble, has prominently stated their support of marriage equality, using their official Twitter account to promote the cause and noting that “labels are for products, not people.”

[H/T NewNowNext]

The commercial is on the article, if you care to see it. How often does a company mock a 'controversial' figure like that in its advertisements?

[FaxModem1]

Update on Kim Davis

Buzzfeed

ACLU Says Kim Davis Is “Interfering” With Deputy Clerks, Seeks Court Action
By modifying marriage licenses, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is issuing licenses that may be invalid and interfering with her staff, which would violate the court’s orders, the couples’ lawyers argue in a motion filed Monday.

Originally posted on Sept. 21, 2015, at 7:36 p.m.
Updated on Sept. 21, 2015, at 8:56 p.m.
Dominic Holden
Dominic Holden
BuzzFeed News Reporter
TweetTumblr

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis tells media on Sept. 14 that her office will issue marriage licenses under order of a federal judge, but they will not have her name or office listed. AP / Timothy D. Easley
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis interfered with her deputy clerks by altering marriage licenses after she was released from jail for contempt of court, according to a court filing Monday by four Kentucky couples represented by the ACLU.
“Davis immediately began interfering with the Deputy Clerk’s issuance of marriage licenses upon returning to her office on September 14,” the lawyers wrote in the filing.
The couples are asking U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning to order Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses without recent changes — she had modified the forms to say they were issued by a “notary public” and “pursuant to a federal court order.” Those alterations raise questions about the licenses’ validity and stigmatize same-sex couples, the plaintiffs argue.
Davis has protested her office issuing marriage licenses due to her religious objections to same-sex couples marrying, a position that led her to be jailed after being held in contempt for failing to follow Bunning’s initial order that she end her “no marriage licenses” policy.
If Davis were to disobey the further order requested by the plaintiffs on Monday, their lawyers argue that Bunning should fine Davis and temporarily reassign marriage license duties to another entity in a receivership. The couples do not request that Davis be sent to jail.
“The marriage licenses currently issued by the Rowan County Clerk’s Office are so materially altered that they create a two-tier system of marriage licenses throughout state,” says the motion filed in a U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. “The adulterated marriage licenses received by Rowan County couples will effectively feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the government’s position is that LGBT couples are second-class citizens unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this Court’s intervention and Order.”
Mat Staver, a lawyer for Davis, countered in a statement Monday evening, “Kim Davis has made a good faith effort to comply with the court’s order and has not prevented the issuance of marriage licenses by Deputy Clerks.”
Davis plans to respond to the allegations, the statement said.
“The adulterated marriage licenses received by Rowan County couples will effectively feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community.”
The motion is the latest in a federal lawsuit that centers on Davis’s opposition to her name appearing on the licenses of any same-sex couples or any appearance that she authorizes those marriages.
Kentucky law, however, says marriage licenses are to be issued by the county clerk.
After the Supreme Court’s decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage, Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple. The four couples filed suit, and on Aug. 12, Judge Bunning ordered Davis to begin issuing the licenses. On Sept. 3, he jailed Davis for failing to comply with his previous order.
While Davis was incarcerated, Deputy Clerk Brian Mason issued licenses, and staff collectively decided to remove Davis’s name and replace it with the words “Rowan County.”
Bunning issued an order on Sept. 8 releasing Davis from jail on the condition that she “not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.” Upon returning to work Sept. 14, Davis said she would not interfere with the deputies issuing licenses.
According to her lawyer, however, Davis modified the licenses to omit her name, title, and the name of the clerk’s office.
The licenses issued after Sept. 14 said they were issued “pursuant to federal court order.” And while Deputy Clerk Mason’s name appeared on the licenses, the form identified him as a “notary public” instead of a deputy clerk.
A marriage license issued Sept. 14:

BuzzFeed News / Dominic Holden
“Davis’ decision to significantly interfere with the marriage licenses being issued as of this Court’s September 8 Order not only violates the Court’s clear directive, but it also has resulted in material alterations to those licenses that render their validity questionable at best,” the plaintiffs argue in the motion submitted Monday to Bunning.
The plaintiffs ask Bunning to require deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses “in the same form or manner as those that were issued on or before Sept. 8,” and to bar Davis from altering marriage licenses. Violating such an order, the plaintiffs argue, should result in fines against Davis to “coerce” her into compliance — and in Bunning placing the clerk’s office in a “receivership for the limited purpose of issuing marriage licenses.”
Three of the couples who sued Davis initially obtained licenses from Davis’s office before the forms were modified to language about being issued “pursuant to court order” or a “notary public.” Those couples’ licenses simply said they were issued by “Rowan County” instead of including Davis’s name. The fourth couple has not applied for a marriage license at all. The Monday filing notes that the plaintiffs filed Monday’s motion on behalf of themselves and the pending class of all couples seeking to marry in the county, another request still pending before Bunning.
The state’s top officials have not said the licenses were invalid. On Sept. 14, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said the licenses issued were valid. The same day, WHAS reported that Attorney General Jack Conway concurred, according to a spokesperson for Conway.

[Batman]

Anybody surprised by this?

[bilateralrope]

Given that the reason for imprisoning her in the first place was:

If there was the potential of an "endless supply of money for her to pay her fines," she would have no incentive to comply with the court order, the judge decided.

I can't see a judge trying to fine her this time. I can't see her backing down. Which means imprisoning her is the most likely option.

Which means we might soon get to see if the Oath Keepers are stupid enough to try and interfere with her arrest. Which will be lose/lose for them. Do nothing and they show everyone that they are just talk. Do something and they are likely going down with her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sadly, there's also option three: the government crawls away with its tail between its legs like they did at Bundy's ranch.

I'd much rather not have an armed confrontation, of course, but I sincerely hope the authorities show their spines if Oath Breakers try to defy the law with force, as discussed in this thread.