Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[Deborah K]

But Davis is the government in this case and the citizens fighting this govt can be said to be disobeying govt over reach to get into the marriage business



Marriage license grants you special privileges from the state which one wouldn't otherwise have without it. It is the same way nurses who are experienced practicing in other states seek a new license when coming into a new state. Its not like they have all of a sudden forgotten how to practice medicine, but they seek a license because it grants them the ability to work.

Also there is a problem with asking this question just to gay people. I mean, there must be reason other than mere recognition why straight couples by the millions seek this license

The public has been brainwashed into thinking they need their marriages to be sanctioned by the state.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

That's true. But the federal government doesn't mandate that you get a marriage license to exercise any rights at all. Neither does any state government.



I don't know it they will pay higher taxes. They may or may not. It could go either way. I also don't see why not giving them a marriage license would make the government their heir. With or without a marriage license they could choose to make their gay lover their heir or someone else.

It looks like you're trying to make it look like giving same-sex couples marriage licenses somehow helps the tax payer, which it doesn't. The biggest impact as far as government spending is concerned is probably that they would get Social Security spousal benefits. The only reason I could see anyone here supporting that would be if they just want to make the federal government default that much sooner (which admittedly does have some appeal to it).

I think Voluntarist and Ender have proven otherwise.

 

[Deborah K]

Only because I was conscious and able to tell the nurse to go get her. I'm guessing you misunderstand Ender claim. I have never heard of a hospital not allowing patients to have visitors.

- you cannot even be in the hospital with a sick or dying spouse if you can't prove you are married.

I was refuting that claim. I didn't misunderstand him.

 

[Deborah K]

Dropping this comment here from another thread:

She's a Democrat, and 75% of people in her state (Republicans and Democrats) support her stance, along with the hundreds who showed up to rally for her. Even an abrasive atheist from my area backs her (see Chris Cantwell's piece in LRC today, or my recent blog post). Some here are letting their aversion to certain social circles color their judgment about supporting their rights. Do they object as hard when officials in sanctuary cities defy the federal immigration laws, or officials in legalized pot states defy the federal drug laws?

No one has an inalienable right to a government license, as a license is a privilege the government can choose to grant OR deny at its whim. Davis WAS exercising her elected duties when she decided not to grant the licenses. Her duties give her the power to choose to grant, OR to choose not to. Clerks and bureaucrats make 'determinations' to deny licenses and permits all the time, across the land. If people don't like her decisions, they can vote her out at the next election. Instead, the denied applicants ran to a federal judge to immediately and needlessly escalate the matter. THEY created this standoff, but didn't count on Davis standing her ground, or obtaining martyr status.

In the meanwhile, even 'holier than thou' people have basic liberty rights, and exercise of Davis's religious liberty rights should supersede the merely inconvenienced couples seeking a license, who could have just opted to go to another county. This case shows how litigative the PC side is, and that their tactics should be countered. Rand should utilize the Davis situation to 1) get more interview time, since it's a case from his own state, and 2) push for a broader application of the RFRA to cover Davis and others in her situation from being made needlessly subject to criminal or civil court litigation or financial ruin for exercising their beliefs.

 

[juleswin]

The public has been brainwashed into thinking they need their marriages to be sanctioned by the state.

I am sure part of it is brainwashing but there are real benefits that come with getting a state licensed marriage. Just look at Ender's post #477 and even if you don't believe all of it, the spousal benefits alone on SS and medicare is reason enough for a loving husband to marry his wife just so when he dies, his wife can have some extra support to live out the rest of her life.

Govt needs to get out of the marriage business and end all benefits for straight couples before they have the right to tell anybody else they cannot get married. Sometimes I wonder why some people fight for really shitty deals, like the African Americans and women fighting for the right to serve in the US military, I think it is stupid and very dangerous to want such a thing for your people but these people for some reason want it and I think govt should allow anyone who is willing and capable to serve.

That is the same way I see marriage, govt should NOT discriminate when it comes to consenting adults who want the license.

 

[TheCount]

If it is a lifelong career, then she was around long before this new government overreach.

Your claim is that all marriage licensing is overreach, and I guarantee she isn't older than marriage licenses.

You've already asserted that you think government workers have no rights, but I disagree with you, they pay taxes too, and they are just as valuable as laypeople, if not more so, when it comes to fighting gov't overreach.

Straw man #2.

She is doing it on religious moral grounds, but so what? That's her first amendment right.

The government does not have first amendment rights, the people have first amendment rights. When acting as a clerk, she represents the government.

When slavery was legal, would you have imprisoned a postal worker who harbored a fugitive slave because, after all, he was a government worker violating the slave master's right to his property? If you lived in the south at the time, and based on your present attitude, yeah you probably would have sided with the slave owner.

Are you even reading my posts? That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, it's the opposite of what Davis did, and again, the government worker still has rights. Read up to my previous posts.

I liken it to Rand's stance on the civil rights act - as appalling as segregation was - people have a right in this country to protest laws they don't agree with, whether they're public servants or not.

Again, that is private action, not public action. Are you proposing that Davis could choose, as a county clerk, not to give licenses to nonwhites? That would be, based on the argument you just made, civil disobedience to protest laws she doesn't agree with.

 

[Ender]

I was refuting that claim. I didn't misunderstand him.

Again:

Visitation Rights
• Regular visitation with a patient's spouse is usually encouraged and is considered beneficial to the patient's recovery. Certain complex legal issues may limit a spouse's right to visit, however, and are often determined by hospital policy and individual state law. States that fail to recognize same-sex or common-law marriages often don't provide the same rights to same-sex or domestic partner couples that are provided to traditional married couples. Therefore, it's important to ask the hospital about its visitation policies so that you may provide whatever documentation may be required.

Right to Information
• Under federal law, hospitals, doctor's offices and health care facilities must limit what information they make available regarding a patient's confidential health information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, places strict limitations on what information may and may not be released without a patient's consent. However, the patient's spouse is usually considered the legal next of kin and is permitted to receive pertinent information relating to the patient's care and prognosis. These rights may be limited, however, in states that don't recognize the rights of same-sex couples and domestic partnerships.

Right to Make Medical Decisions
• If a patient should become incapacitated and is unable to make decisions on his own behalf, states usually permit the spouse to make decisions on the patient's behalf as the legal next of kin. In cases in which the couple consider themselves common-law spouses or domestic partners, however, states that don't recognize domestic partnerships or common-law marriages may require proof that the patient gave his domestic partner power of attorney for the partner to make medical decisions on his behalf.

And BTW- I totally agree that .gov should be out of marriage. Been saying that since I first joined the forum.

 

[tod evans]

The government does not have first amendment rights, the people have first amendment rights. When acting as a clerk, she represents the government.

Absolutely correct but intentionally misleading.

As county clerk she represents the people within the bounds of her county by recording the instruments filed with her office that the county and possibly the state has instructed her to.

Fed-gov is out of bounds in their efforts to proscribe the duties of her job, that matter falls to those in her county who elected her.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[erowe1]

I think Voluntarist and Ender have proven otherwise.

How?

Same sex couples can have weddings, live together, share everything, have sex, and do whatever it is they think it means to be what they call "married," without that piece of paper.

 

[tod evans]

No problem there. She's allowed to have moral objections and act upon them as a private individual. She's not allowed to use her control of government apparatus to back her in those actions. She's not allowed to shape that government apparatus to reflect her own religious preferences - that would be a violation of the "establishment of religion" clause.

Which "government apparatus"?

I hold that it's entirely possible, in fact highly probable, that she is upholding the position of County Clerk exactly as her constituents proscribe.

It appears as though you are setting forth the idea that DC has the authority to not only define the job of County Clerk in rural Ky. but to insist that said clerk follow their mandates even when they fly in the face of the local electorate....

There is not one homogenous "government" in these United States and it's entirely possible that this broad will be the catalyst used to prove that to DC this century..

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No problem there. She's allowed to have moral objections and act upon them as a private individual. She's not allowed to use her control of government apparatus to back her in those actions. She's not allowed to shape that government apparatus to reflect her own religious preferences - that would be a violation of the "establishment of religion" clause.

That notion of the establishment clause is the modern secularist separation view, not the original intent constitutional view. The Founders only intended to prevent the establishment of a specific sectarian church at the federal level of government, whereas state and local levels could elect to do so. The 1st amendment says no to the central establishment of a church, not no to general expression of, or support for religion by government.

At all levels of government, acknowledging God was not construed to be violating the clause, nor was the federal government thought to be empowered in any way to enforce its version of 'separation' onto the states. Davis made her decisions in a state that and locality that agrees with her, that should have been the end of it, until her next election.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The entirety of the marriage Code in Kentucky and most states is riddled with references to there being one wife and/or one husband. SCOTUS effectively voided the entire body of marriage law with the new decision.

The Loving decision would have only invalidated a line or two of state marriage law, leaving the rest intact.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That notion of the establishment clause is the modern secularist separation view, not the original intent constitutional view. The Founders only intended to prevent the establishment of a specific sectarian church at the federal level of government, whereas state and local levels could elect to do so. The 1st amendment says no to the central establishment of a church, not no to general expression of, or support for religion by government.

At all levels of government, acknowledging God was not construed to be violating the clause, nor was the federal government thought to be empowered in any way to enforce its version of 'separation' onto the states. Davis made her decisions in a state that and locality that agrees with her, that should have been the end of it, until her next election.

Honestly, I just want to repeal the establishment clause. That Jefferson was even allowed to be a citizen despite ripping his BIble to shreads and rejecting Jesus Christ is the start of our problems as a nation.

 

[tod evans]

Honestly, I just want to repeal the establishment clause. That Jefferson was even allowed to be a citizen despite ripping his BIble to shreads and rejecting Jesus Christ is the start of our problems as a nation.

Please be more forthcoming here, you would ONLY be comfortable repealing the establishment clause if your version of Christianity were declared law....

 

[Christian Liberty]

Please be more forthcoming here, you would ONLY be comfortable repealing the establishment clause if your version of Christianity were declared law....

Well, sort of. I'm not for establishing a particular denomination (just Christianity generally) but yeah

 

[Deborah K]

I think it's probably more appropriate to say they've been bribed ... with all kinds of legislative incentives.

What about marriage penalty taxes? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marriage-penalty-couples-income.html?_r=0

 

[Deborah K]

Again:Visitation Rights
• Regular visitation with a patient's spouse is usually encouraged and is considered beneficial to the patient's recovery. Certain complex legal issues may limit a spouse's right to visit, however, and are often determined by hospital policy and individual state law. States that fail to recognize same-sex or common-law marriages often don't provide the same rights to same-sex or domestic partner couples that are provided to traditional married couples. Therefore, it's important to ask the hospital about its visitation policies so that you may provide whatever documentation may be required.

Right to Information
• Under federal law, hospitals, doctor's offices and health care facilities must limit what information they make available regarding a patient's confidential health information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, places strict limitations on what information may and may not be released without a patient's consent. However, the patient's spouse is usually considered the legal next of kin and is permitted to receive pertinent information relating to the patient's care and prognosis. These rights may be limited, however, in states that don't recognize the rights of same-sex couples and domestic partnerships.

Right to Make Medical Decisions
• If a patient should become incapacitated and is unable to make decisions on his own behalf, states usually permit the spouse to make decisions on the patient's behalf as the legal next of kin. In cases in which the couple consider themselves common-law spouses or domestic partners, however, states that don't recognize domestic partnerships or common-law marriages may require proof that the patient gave his domestic partner power of attorney for the partner to make medical decisions on his behalf.

Ender, why are you beating a dead horse? You claimed that couples can't visit each other in hospital w/out proof of marriage. I refuted your claim with real world experience. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be.