Kim Davis and the First Amendment

[PJMcK]

It's disturbing to hear and read statements by lawyers and supporters of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis that claim her First Amendment rights are being offended by the courts' orders that she has to issue same-sex marriage licenses. This ignorance is stunning.

The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The courts have not prevented Ms. Davis from holding her religious beliefs. Further, Congress did not pass a law regarding the establishment or imposition of any specific belief or faith. What the Supreme Court did was to interpret the US Constitution (its primary function) to protect the equality of the application of States' civil marriage laws. In fact, Ms. Davis has no standing to make such a claim which is why the courts have rejected her position. Certainly, her lawyers know this.

Her position is exactly backward. As an elected official, she is an agent of the government. By refusing to issue the licenses to same-sex couples because of her sincerely held beliefs, the government, by her actions, is establishing a religious component to Kentucky's marital laws. This is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

As with so many conservative and fundamental viewpoints, this is the opposite of what our Constitution provides. Judge Bunning should explain this to Ms. Davis and her attorneys.

[Raster]

1. There is no ignorance on the part of Mat Staver, Kim Davis' lead attorney.

He is fully aware. He is also a RABID homophobic bigot, and founder of Liberty Council, designated a HATE GROUP by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/meet-hate-group-trying-turn-kim-davis-anti-gay-rosa-parks

Meet The Hate Group Trying To Turn Kim Davis Into The Anti-Gay Rosa Parks

SUBMITTED BY Brian Tashman on Thursday, 9/3/2015 1:30 pm

While Kentucky clerk Kim Davis insists that her decision to break the law by ordering her office to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples “has never been a gay or lesbian issue,” the right-wing legal group defending Davis, Liberty Counsel, has made no secret of their contempt for gays and lesbians. Liberty Counsel, which is closely tied to Liberty University, the school founded by Jerry Falwell, has urged Davis to flout the law and defy the courts.

The way Liberty Counsel sees it, the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell decision is illegitimate and can be ignored. In a lawsuit that Liberty Counsel filed for Davis against the governor of Kentucky, the group claims that Davis cannot act “in contradiction to the moral law of God, natural law, or her sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions” or it would be a violation of her oath.

Liberty Counsel adds that the enforcement of the marriage equality ruling is inherently unconstitutional as it “creates a religious (or anti-religious) test for holding office — which the United States and Kentucky Constitutions expressly forbid.”

By invoking “God’s authority” even after the Supreme Court rejected her appeals, Davis is closely following Liberty Counsel’s own legal reasoning that her own interpretation of divine law trumps whatever the courts say, and as a public official she must follow this higher authority.

<snip, more>

[Warren DeMontague]

3. By the liberty council's own reasoning, though, "constitutional" doesnt matter.

They're saying fuck the law, fuck the constitution, all that matters is what we think God wants. Period.

So why even bother with courts and "unconstitutional"? They're basically saying the Constitution itself loses authority the minute someone decides "God" knows better.

[Raster]

5. You are correct. "Constitutional" is just a part of the religious shell game being played.

I believe Kim Davis is basically just an appearance pawn in Staver and Liberty Council's endgame, which is an America based on a rigid Christo-facist theocracy, U.S. Constitution be damned.

[mnhtnbb]

8. Precisely right.

It's not a coincidence that the fb support Kim Davis page has a US flag waving on it.

What's that saying?

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
- Sinclair Lewis

not a direct quote from Sinclair Lewis, but a description of Sinclair's point about nationalism and religion in It Can't Happen Here

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/sinclair-lewis.html

[Warren DeMontague]

2. The First Amendment gives her the right to believe and say what she wants.

It doesnt give her the right to refuse to do her job. If she couldnt do the job, she shouldnt have signed up for it. Or quit when she realized there would be an irreconcilable conflict.

[PJMcK]

6. Exactly

You are, of course, correct, Mr. DeMontague. Since she is employed as an elected representative of the government, her actions violate the First Amendment by imposing a religious element in a civil document between the government and its citizens.

[mnhtnbb]

4. She's being represented by a dangerous--not just nutty, hateful, and bizarre--group of people

who have as their goal turning this country into a theocracy--and their particular brand of
theocracy.

It's encouraging to see the judge stand firm on this. Personally, I hope she rots in jail.
The media will move on in a little while.

[smirkymonkey]

12. +1000

[Generic Brad]

7. She's still free to say whatever outlandish things she wants

No one has said she cannot discuss her beliefs. Her actions (or inactions) are not speech and not protected by the First Amendment. She still has to face the legal consequences of her actions.

[WinkyDink]

9. Heh. We're the choir here.

[jeff47]

10. One key thing her supporters keep glossing over

is the SCOTUS has ruled people do not have a constitutional right to a government job.

If the job requires her to violate her religion, well she has the right to resign. She does not have a right to the job.

[pinstikfartherin]

11. She refused reasonable accommodation.

The judge tried to work with her and accommodate her beliefs, but she refused to let her deputies issue licenses. She's saying the ones they issued are invalid because she isn't approving them. Yet, her name is not on the licenses issued Friday and supposedly that was her issue. No, now it's gone beyond her name being associated with gay marriage and her issuing gay marriage licenses. She's trying to stop gay marriage period from her office. If it was only an issue with her name being on licenses, then she should have no problem with the licenses now being issued.

On another note: If her deputies are willing to issue licenses and their religious beliefs have no objection to gay marriage, is she not using her religious beliefs to dictate what they do? Is that not an infringement of their rights to do their job or even on their religion if their beliefs do not match hers? I haven't seen many people discuss that, and I don't know if that would apply.