Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Adenoid_Hynkel

(14,093 posts)
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:02 AM Sep 2015

Marco Rubio Says Government Should Respect Kim Davis’s Beliefs

Source: NY Times



Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said on Wednesday that the government should respect the beliefs of the Kentucky county clerk who has denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that society needs to accommodate public officials who object to carrying out duties they say violate their religious beliefs.

“We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,” Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case.

“While the clerk’s office has a governmental duty to carry out the law,” he added, “there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.”

The clerk, Kim Davis, of Rowan County, Ky., has turned away gay men and lesbians who want to marry after the Supreme Court in June established a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Despite numerous rulings against her, including one this week from the Supreme Court, she has remained defiant. Ms. Davis will face a federal judge on Thursday morning who will decide whether to declare her in contempt of court.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/marco-rubio-says-government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/



The empty-headed tool takes the side of defying the law of the land, but tries to wrap it up in moderate-sounding language.
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Marco Rubio Says Government Should Respect Kim Davis’s Beliefs (Original Post) Adenoid_Hynkel Sep 2015 OP
And she should respect her duty to do her job. Salviati Sep 2015 #1
He is not a smart man. madaboutharry Sep 2015 #2
He's plenty smart TexasBushwhacker Sep 2015 #4
Exactly. Infuriating. NowSam Sep 2015 #3
what if my beliefs demand discrimination against all cubans and cuban americans? nt msongs Sep 2015 #5
The burden of proof is on Kim Davis Midnight Writer Sep 2015 #6
The Supreme Court has long ruled that such membership is NOT needed for the First Amendment. happyslug Sep 2015 #18
Unless you are resisting the draft because of your non-violent belief Midnight Writer Sep 2015 #25
That goes back to the Civil War and WWI rulings happyslug Sep 2015 #29
Rubio doesn't get it----PUBLIC service 1Greensix Sep 2015 #7
This is a man who wants to be President of the United States dem in texas Sep 2015 #8
Marriage is a CIVIL institution with a legal framework which can also... steve2470 Sep 2015 #9
it's interesting to me cvoogt Sep 2015 #10
I like the notion of a Quaker clerk not issuing gun licenses. Same reasoning as Kim Davis'. n/t Beartracks Sep 2015 #11
If same-sex marriage was law BEFORE Kim Davis got the Clerk job... Beartracks Sep 2015 #12
She didn't apply for the job, she was elected csziggy Sep 2015 #21
That explains a lot. Beartracks Sep 2015 #24
So not so much elected as anointed SwankyXomb Sep 2015 #27
The issue isnt about respecting her position its about her refusal to do her job. nt cstanleytech Sep 2015 #13
While an atheist angrychair Sep 2015 #14
She can stand by her religious convictions of truthisfreedom Sep 2015 #15
"allowing people to stand by their religious convictions" left-of-center2012 Sep 2015 #16
Imagine if a clerk refused to issue gun licenses based on religious beliefs. Vinca Sep 2015 #17
i am waiting for that one. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #28
Was the Ken doll part of the New York Times article, or is it commentary? NT mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #19
Incorrect Rubio rtracey Sep 2015 #20
So, Rubio doesn't respect the Rule of Law? Matariki Sep 2015 #22
Fuck him. roamer65 Sep 2015 #23
I don't believe I should pay taxes. I wonder if the government will respect my beliefs? still_one Sep 2015 #26

TexasBushwhacker

(20,165 posts)
4. He's plenty smart
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:12 AM
Sep 2015

He knows it doesn't work that way. He's just trolling for votes. I'm no fan of Lindsay Graham, but he's right. She should do her job or quit.

NowSam

(1,252 posts)
3. Exactly. Infuriating.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:12 AM
Sep 2015

You said it. The little dance of rhetoric that makes indefensible positions sound almost reasonable - to those who are desperate to cling to their own prejudice and biases. But those with eyes to see and ears to hear, which is thankfully a growing number, these tactics have lost their ability to conceal reason.

Midnight Writer

(21,737 posts)
6. The burden of proof is on Kim Davis
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:48 AM
Sep 2015

She needs to identify her specific religion, prove that she adheres to all of its tenants, and show exactly where in her religion it says specifically that she cannot recognize gay marriage, and that by issuing a marriage license to a gay couple she is violating her religious belief.

Her current tactic is to deny all marriage licenses, so she is not guilty of discrimination. So where in her religion does it say that all marriage is illicit?

The more she squirms, the deeper the hook is planted.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
18. The Supreme Court has long ruled that such membership is NOT needed for the First Amendment.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 08:41 AM
Sep 2015

The court has long held that a strongly held personal belief is enough to kick in First Amendment rights. Thus Atheist have standing when it comes to issues of Government support for religion. Thus even if you are the only believer in a belief, the Government has duty NOT to attack that belief UNLESS there are good secular reasons to do so (Banning the Sacrifice of Chickens is an example of the latter, while such sacrifices are part of Santeria and other religions, the Government can ban such sacrifices as part of a larger effort to protect animals from abuse. Another example is Peyote, the Government can ban Peyote provided it is part of a larger anti Drug policy as opposed to Native Americans using Peyote in religious ceremonies).

Midnight Writer

(21,737 posts)
25. Unless you are resisting the draft because of your non-violent belief
Fri Sep 4, 2015, 01:41 AM
Sep 2015

In that case, you need to demonstrate a specific religious affiliation (and a record of that affiliation) that exempts you from service. You cannot just say you are a non-violent person or that you don't believe in war.

In any case, I think there is a good secular reason to do your duty under the law as an elected official. And again, what in her religious code allows her to refuse to issue ANY marriage licenses, including "opposite sex" marriage licenses.

This argument (a First Amendment religious right), for example, was used as a device to deny interracial marriages. Your rights end where the other person's nose begins.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
29. That goes back to the Civil War and WWI rulings
Fri Sep 4, 2015, 10:21 AM
Sep 2015

In those trials, the court ruled the religious exemption can be over ruled by military need. You must remember the two parts of the ORIGINAL Constitution with the broadest authority given to Congress is in regards to interstate commence AND military needs. If you can avoid those two issues, the Bill of Rights come into full play. Thus look at Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Notice the language in regard to the Militia, it is very broad and that has been viewed as including who is a member of the Militia. By US Law, all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the "Reserve Militia" UNLESS on Active Duty OR a member of the National Guard (There are a few other exceptions, all minor, and a reference that women serving in the Guard are also members of the Militia). Thus Congress can call up anyone to serve at any time. The First Amendment has NEVER been viewed as creating an exception to that rule.

Now, in the Civil War, it was possible for Citizens who did not want to be drafted to buy they way out. In many ways the Draft of 1863 was designed to create a pool of people who would gladly pay veterans, whose enlistment had ended, to reenlist as a substitutes. By 1863 all the money for enlistment bonuses had dried up and the draft was designed to get people to come up with the money to encourage such reenlistment. Some historians question if anyone was really drafted in the 1863 Draft for even in New York City, which had Draft Riots against the Draft, ended up setting up funds to pay for such substitutes for people who could not pay the the substitute themselves.

WWI had no exception for Religious reasons. Now individual Officers could rule a man was unfit for duty do to his religious objections but only after that person had been assigned to a unit being sent to the Front (and most officers new they needed every man they had so rarely done).

For WWII, a religious exception was created, but it is viewed as a product of legislation NOT the Bill of Rights. As written it only included those people who were members of a religion that had a CLEAR objection to going to war. Objections to a particular war was NOT enough, objection to being shot out was NOT enough. You had to meet the STATUTORY requirements of the law. Efforts to expand those exceptions failed during WWII and Vietnam, with the courts deferring to Congress in that matter.

Just a comment, when it comes to the draft you have to look at the Militia clauses and those clauses have NO exemptions to them.

1Greensix

(111 posts)
7. Rubio doesn't get it----PUBLIC service
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:00 AM
Sep 2015

Because Rubio is Only in politics for the MONEY, he doesn't understand that public service means the individual public servant Must submerge their private beliefs for the good of the public, no matter who the public is. Davis is a racist, a bigot, and if you asked her three previous husbands, probably a tramp. Rubio couldn't care less about Davis, the gays, lesbians, or any minority. He only adores money. He's a greedy opportunist without scruples or morals, and I'd bet a dollar to a donut he's Gay himself.

dem in texas

(2,673 posts)
8. This is a man who wants to be President of the United States
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:02 AM
Sep 2015

When you are paid to do a job, you are not going to church. When you take a oath to enforce the law, you carry out the law. If you don't agree, get another job. They need to throw her ass in jail and put Rubio in there with her.

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
9. Marriage is a CIVIL institution with a legal framework which can also...
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:31 AM
Sep 2015

have a religious side. These idiots conveniently ignore that fact, including Rubio. The state only deals with the CIVIL side.

cvoogt

(949 posts)
10. it's interesting to me
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:36 AM
Sep 2015

that she is denying licenses to everyone, regardless of orientation... hmm. If she is going to treat everyone equally, why not just do your job and hand out licenses, you know, to everyone, regardless of orientation. Plus, it's the law.

I also think it's curious that somehow respect for someone's convictions has to automatically translate into being OK with them flouting the law. Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that we can respect her beliefs; that still does not mean her beliefs should keep her from doing her job. But to be honest, I really don't respect her beliefs. I could say I sincerely believe I am an alien or Queen Victoria or a French pastry and don't respect human laws... but I will still be very much arrested if I break the law. Her belief in a mythical being in the sky who she *thinks* wants her to be mean to gays should not on its own disqualify her from public service, but her refusal to do her damn job sure should.

Beartracks

(12,806 posts)
12. If same-sex marriage was law BEFORE Kim Davis got the Clerk job...
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 02:15 AM
Sep 2015

... she probably wouldn't have even applied, thinking to herself, "Gosh, I won't be able to do that job, because then I might end up being complicit in the acts of sinners." Or whatever.

But because she was already in the Clerk's job when same-sex marriage was legalized, NOW she wants to keep a job she can't conscientiously perform?

The government and most everyone else is not telling her she can't have her beliefs. But, really, it's the better part of valor for her to step aside and leave a job that her conscience wouldn't have even let her apply for had same-sex marriage been legalized years ago.

==================================

csziggy

(34,135 posts)
21. She didn't apply for the job, she was elected
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 03:13 PM
Sep 2015

As part of taking the position she swore to god to uphold the US Constitution. That means she has to abide by the decisions of the US Supreme Court and not pick and chose which parts of their court history she will obey.

She probably thinks her family OWNS the court clerk office in Rowan County - her mother held the position for 40 years. Kim worked in the office for her mother for 27 years before her mother retired and Kim was elected. Now Kim's son works for her - they are probably thinking he is in training to take the office when Kim gives it up.

Beartracks

(12,806 posts)
24. That explains a lot.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 10:44 PM
Sep 2015

That explains why she feels entitled to the job, demanding accommodation instead of just realizing she can't (won't) fulfill the duties and should step down. Like she thinks it's not just "her job" (like the rest of us think of our jobs), but rather, perhaps, "HER job," like that position itself is a dynastic right.

==================

angrychair

(8,686 posts)
14. While an atheist
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 03:37 AM
Sep 2015

I take great satisfaction in opportunities, like this, to use the xian bible to confuse the issue with its contradictions and poor to nonexistent viable conclusions.
Jesus was never married. There is no specific biblical evidence to support that any of the 12 apostoles were married during their time with Jesus. Yes, there is mention of a mother in law being healed and then serving Jesus and those in the home....this act would preclude the existence of a wife as if there were a wife, she would be the caretaker. There is mention of daughters for another but due to the ambiguity and context and often sloppy translation of biblical text, the word "daughter" could just have been "sister" or a female follower. Given that they were asked to give up and leave all their worldly possessions to follow jesus, that would have included their wives, if any, and children, if any, so not much of a commitment to the ideal of marriage or family.
I could almost write a book how wrong this women is about her understanding of the bible and the confusion and misuse of its text is on purpose but it would as pointless to have this conversation as it would to have one on the synoptic problem or biblical apocrypha.

truthisfreedom

(23,141 posts)
15. She can stand by her religious convictions of
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 03:46 AM
Sep 2015

Endless adultery and divorce in the comfort of her own home after resigning the post she so completely disrespects.

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
16. "allowing people to stand by their religious convictions"
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 06:32 AM
Sep 2015

So if a Muslim ..........
Oh wait, he meant just evangelical Christians?

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
20. Incorrect Rubio
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 11:56 AM
Sep 2015

Basically, this statement you made just disqualified you from the office.... Instead of the government respecting her beliefs, she as a government employee should respect the beliefs of public you serve. If you want to shove religion into it.... go into private business

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
22. So, Rubio doesn't respect the Rule of Law?
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 03:21 PM
Sep 2015

The Constitution? The Supreme Court as an equal branch of Government?

And he wants to be President? Good luck with that.

roamer65

(36,745 posts)
23. Fuck him.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 08:09 PM
Sep 2015

If he has no idea of rule of law, then he has no right to be anywhere near the Presidency, let alone his Senate seat.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Marco Rubio Says Governme...