Regarding the issue of suing Kim Davis, the clerk who stopped issuing marriage
licenses after the Supreme Court was interpreted as 'establishing the right to marriage'
My thoughts on this:
1. First of all, I believe in equal rights to their own beliefs
of BOTH the couples that believe in their rights to same sex marriage
AND the people like Kim Davis who don't believe in endorsing or participating
in any way in anything to do with same sex marriage.
BOTH beliefs should be protected equally under law,
and NEITHER should be disparaged by discrimination, exclusion, or other bias.
Imposing one side's beliefs at the expense of the other's is a violation, either way.
So the govt forcing either one to compromise their beliefs would be at fault.
And the solution is to remove marriage from govt jurisdiction
UNTIL an agreed policy is established that violates NEITHER side's beliefs.
I believe Kim Davis was within her rights to abstain, until proper legal instructions
were established democratically according to state govt process.
Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex marriage licenses can be sued
2. Secondly, I believe the Court is correct in its authority to STRIKE DOWN bans, limitations,
or exclusions that only allow CERTAIN marriages but not others, because that amounts to govt regulated social, spiritual or religious decisions that belong to people and shouldn't discriminate against choices.
However, the Court striking down restrictions as unconstitutional by discrimination IS NOT THE SAME AS "establishing" a right or law, which only the LEGISLATURE can do by representing the PEOPLE through a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS of writing or reforming laws. The Court can RULE if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, but it cannot WRITE OR CREATE LAWS.
Thus I agree with Kim Davis who argued that until her state passed a law changing
the marriage laws, she was not required to recognize and process same sex marriage licenses
just because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing the right to marriage.
It is one step for the Court to strike down bans on same sex marriage.
But it is a SEPARATE step for LEGISLATURES to write laws including instructions
or procedures for their own state govt and agencies to follow.
3. I agree more with Libertarians and Constitutionalists (and even some politically independent gay/lesbian people who've argued the same) that marriage should be kept out of govt altogether to AVOID
violating or imposing on ANYONE'S beliefs, either way.
4. As for my own personal opinion of JUDGES and COURTS:
I would personally denounce any JUDGE or COURT that rules in favor of ONE SIDE'S BELIEFS about marriage rights vs. opposing religious beliefs about marriage that should be equal by law.
I would go so far as to recommend IMPEACHMENT or REMOVAL of judges who are so biased, they cannot see that by endorsing one side's beliefs, that is infringing on and disparaging the beliefs of others.
If any JUDGE or person in office CANNOT see the biases here, and remain OBJECTIVE enough to treat people of EITHER beliefs EQUALLY under law, I would QUESTION their ability to serve in public office.
I'd argue they'd either have to address and correct that flaw, or defer to a conflict resolution or mediation/facilitation process that allows them to keep their bias OUT OF PUBLIC POLICY.
So that both the policy and the process remain NEUTRAL enough to accommodate ALL people's beliefs without threatening to punish or exclude one for another.
I believe Kim Davis is being used to push this argument into the public arena.
If so, I hope she garners enough support to address and resolve it,
where everyone's rights and beliefs are equally protected.
Neither side should be compromised, or that shows either the policy or the process
is flawed and not protecting the free and equal exercise of all people's beliefs.
If conflicts occur, that means the laws should be revised to become NEUTRAL
and REMOVE any language or restriction that infringes on one side's beliefs or the other.
The laws should be so objective they accommodate everyone equally without such imposition.
licenses after the Supreme Court was interpreted as 'establishing the right to marriage'
My thoughts on this:
1. First of all, I believe in equal rights to their own beliefs
of BOTH the couples that believe in their rights to same sex marriage
AND the people like Kim Davis who don't believe in endorsing or participating
in any way in anything to do with same sex marriage.
BOTH beliefs should be protected equally under law,
and NEITHER should be disparaged by discrimination, exclusion, or other bias.
Imposing one side's beliefs at the expense of the other's is a violation, either way.
So the govt forcing either one to compromise their beliefs would be at fault.
And the solution is to remove marriage from govt jurisdiction
UNTIL an agreed policy is established that violates NEITHER side's beliefs.
I believe Kim Davis was within her rights to abstain, until proper legal instructions
were established democratically according to state govt process.
Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex marriage licenses can be sued
2. Secondly, I believe the Court is correct in its authority to STRIKE DOWN bans, limitations,
or exclusions that only allow CERTAIN marriages but not others, because that amounts to govt regulated social, spiritual or religious decisions that belong to people and shouldn't discriminate against choices.
However, the Court striking down restrictions as unconstitutional by discrimination IS NOT THE SAME AS "establishing" a right or law, which only the LEGISLATURE can do by representing the PEOPLE through a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS of writing or reforming laws. The Court can RULE if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, but it cannot WRITE OR CREATE LAWS.
Thus I agree with Kim Davis who argued that until her state passed a law changing
the marriage laws, she was not required to recognize and process same sex marriage licenses
just because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing the right to marriage.
It is one step for the Court to strike down bans on same sex marriage.
But it is a SEPARATE step for LEGISLATURES to write laws including instructions
or procedures for their own state govt and agencies to follow.
3. I agree more with Libertarians and Constitutionalists (and even some politically independent gay/lesbian people who've argued the same) that marriage should be kept out of govt altogether to AVOID
violating or imposing on ANYONE'S beliefs, either way.
4. As for my own personal opinion of JUDGES and COURTS:
I would personally denounce any JUDGE or COURT that rules in favor of ONE SIDE'S BELIEFS about marriage rights vs. opposing religious beliefs about marriage that should be equal by law.
I would go so far as to recommend IMPEACHMENT or REMOVAL of judges who are so biased, they cannot see that by endorsing one side's beliefs, that is infringing on and disparaging the beliefs of others.
If any JUDGE or person in office CANNOT see the biases here, and remain OBJECTIVE enough to treat people of EITHER beliefs EQUALLY under law, I would QUESTION their ability to serve in public office.
I'd argue they'd either have to address and correct that flaw, or defer to a conflict resolution or mediation/facilitation process that allows them to keep their bias OUT OF PUBLIC POLICY.
So that both the policy and the process remain NEUTRAL enough to accommodate ALL people's beliefs without threatening to punish or exclude one for another.
I believe Kim Davis is being used to push this argument into the public arena.
If so, I hope she garners enough support to address and resolve it,
where everyone's rights and beliefs are equally protected.
Neither side should be compromised, or that shows either the policy or the process
is flawed and not protecting the free and equal exercise of all people's beliefs.
If conflicts occur, that means the laws should be revised to become NEUTRAL
and REMOVE any language or restriction that infringes on one side's beliefs or the other.
The laws should be so objective they accommodate everyone equally without such imposition.
