Kentucky county clerk jailed on contempt charges until she agrees to issue same-sex marriage licenses

[japantiger 4,051]

Titan, I wasn't even addressing you. Just the discussion at large. If you allow her to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce...this is going to end in chaos. She is an elected official. No one is abridging her right of speech or assembly or even to go run for a legislative office or even be elected governor of Kentucky. She can form an advocacy group etc. She has options. She is choosing the loser's path tho. She has no legal footing to stand on. She will lose this legal case. She will hand her enemies a quick and easy victory. If you want it fight this, than get a legal team together, find a better case, and fight. Her case is a loser.

Need you guys to answer the earlier question...why is it OK for Obama or democrats to choose which laws to enforce; actual written laws; but not a KY County Clerk...when, there is in fact, no written law to this effect. So I guess you are saying Obama should resign if he want enforce immigration laws?

when Obama ignores "written law"...actual written legally passed laws , you guys can't get yours noses far enough up his ass...and he's still at large. When a Christian does it; she goes to jail and you guys want her impeached...priceless.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Titan, I wasn't even addressing you. Just the discussion at large. If you allow her to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce...this is going to end in chaos. She is an elected official. No one is abridging her right of speech or assembly or even to go run for a legislative office or even be elected governor of Kentucky. She can form an advocacy group etc. She has options. She is choosing the loser's path tho. She has no legal footing to stand on. She will lose this legal case. She will hand her enemies a quick and easy victory. If you want it fight this, than get a legal team together, find a better case, and fight. Her case is a loser.

Need you guys to answer the earlier question...why is it OK for Obama or democrats to choose which laws to enforce; actual written laws; but not a KY County Clerk...when, there is in fact, no written law to this effect. So I guess you are saying Obama should resign if he want enforce immigration laws?

when Obama ignores "written law"...actual written legally passed laws , you guys can't get yours noses far enough up his ass...and he's still at large. When a Christian does it; she goes to jail and you guys want her impeached...priceless.

You cannot separate your reasoning from your emotions, and the rhetoric, long enough to realize that the President cannot (in almost every case) operate unilaterally. He is subject to the law and, is challenged in Congress or, in the courts, or both, in almost every instance.

You are preaching a false narrative. Just as, you are the one employing the term impeachment.

[homersapien 11,351]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Your obfuscating. I didn't mention anything about political parties. I am talking about conservatives and liberals.

You're real big on making generalized statements about liberals. It's a straightforward question: Which side of those causes were conservatives on and which side were liberals on?

[homersapien 11,351]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

Actually they left on their own and switched to the Republican party. By the droves. Just as LBJ predicted.

[TexasTiger 12,798]

Always interesting to see it from another angle:

"It's interesting that gay activists who praised SF mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally issuing marriage licenses now vilify Kim Davis.” - Michael Brown

Which federal laws are ok to ignore again?

Humans are nothing if not maddeningly inconsistent.

I didn't defend Newsom's directive, but he was not ignoring a court order and it was not a matter of settled law. So while there may be a degree of hypocrisy on the part of some folks, the two situations aren't completely analogous.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

Actually they left on their own and switched to the Republican party. By the droves. Just as LBJ predicted.

Homer, Homer, Homer, what are you talking about. They were motivated by the actions of the party leadership. The point is, the Democrats were well aware of the political costs, the loss of a significant voting bloc. They took a very admirable stand knowing, and accepting, the costs.

[DKW 86 7,410]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

Dont mean to confuse the issue here, BUT at one time it was legal to deny blacks the right to register to vote, seats at the restaurant, segregation was the law of the land. At one time women could not vote, own property, drive cars. Just about all these things changed because someone started an act of Civil Disobedience. Not following the rule of law has a glorious history. I dont think KD is on the right side of the issue however.

I would agree but jail is not the way to handle it. I wonder if it will be OK to disobey when, not if but when, a homosexual couple sues a church and a court sides with the couple.

And that has happened where exactly?

[DKW 86 7,410]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

Actually they left on their own and switched to the Republican party. By the droves. Just as LBJ predicted.

Homer, Homer, Homer, what are you talking about. They were motivated by the actions of the party leadership. The point is, the Democrats were well aware of the political costs, the loss of a significant voting bloc. They took a very admirable stand knowing, and accepting, the costs.

So, just for honesty sake, are we going to admit that back during the 60s it was in large part a Republican Effort to get the Great Society passed.

Democrats George Wallace And Bull Connor say hi.

[homersapien 11,351]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

Actually they left on their own and switched to the Republican party. By the droves. Just as LBJ predicted.

Homer, Homer, Homer, what are you talking about. They were motivated by the actions of the party leadership. The point is, the Democrats were well aware of the political costs, the loss of a significant voting bloc. They took a very admirable stand knowing, and accepting, the costs.

So, just for honesty sake, are we going to admit that back during the 60s it was in large part a Republican Effort to get the Great Society passed.

Democrats George Wallace And Bull Connor say hi.

Sure, there was a large base of support for civil rights in the GOP. But it was LBJ who made it happen and there was a huge desertion from the Democratic Party by southerners as a result.

Nixon's "southern strategy" sealed the deal.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

Actually they left on their own and switched to the Republican party. By the droves. Just as LBJ predicted.

Homer, Homer, Homer, what are you talking about. They were motivated by the actions of the party leadership. The point is, the Democrats were well aware of the political costs, the loss of a significant voting bloc. They took a very admirable stand knowing, and accepting, the costs.

So, just for honesty sake, are we going to admit that back during the 60s it was in large part a Republican Effort to get the Great Society passed.

Democrats George Wallace And Bull Connor say hi.

Sure, there was a large base of support for civil rights in the GOP. But it was LBJ who made it happen and there was a huge desertion from the Democratic Party by southerners as a result.

Nixon's "southern strategy" sealed the deal.

I think it was really sealed with the 1964 Presidential election. Goldwater only won six states. His home state and the south. The Republican nominee opposed the Civil Rights Act. The exodus was on. As was the birth of radical conservatism. I give some in the GOP credit, H.W. Bush for instance but, the party in general made an unfortunate and disappointing choice.

[DKW 86 7,410]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You can take anything to an extreme as this demonstrates

[homersapien 11,351]

Why is that extreme compared to opposing homosexual marriage? (Serious question.)

[cooltigger21 0]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

Dont mean to confuse the issue here, BUT at one time it was legal to deny blacks the right to register to vote, seats at the restaurant, segregation was the law of the land. At one time women could not vote, own property, drive cars. Just about all these things changed because someone started an act of Civil Disobedience. Not following the rule of law has a glorious history. I dont think KD is on the right side of the issue however.

I would agree but jail is not the way to handle it. I wonder if it will be OK to disobey when, not if but when, a homosexual couple sues a church and a court sides with the couple.

And that has happened where exactly?

It hasn't yet but I say within the next ten years a homosexual couple will attempt this. Now whether a court would go along who knows. Ten years ago SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled the way they did so who's to say that in ten years a court in say California, the place where all these goofy ideas start, would not agree and say yes a church must allow them to get married there.

More importantly and of a more serious and present danger, we are slowly but ever so surely moving toward a reverse religious test for public office. In other words people of faith need not apply for a government job. If you do you must agree to never allow your religious beliefs to play any role in your work.

[homersapien 11,351]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

Dont mean to confuse the issue here, BUT at one time it was legal to deny blacks the right to register to vote, seats at the restaurant, segregation was the law of the land. At one time women could not vote, own property, drive cars. Just about all these things changed because someone started an act of Civil Disobedience. Not following the rule of law has a glorious history. I dont think KD is on the right side of the issue however.

I would agree but jail is not the way to handle it. I wonder if it will be OK to disobey when, not if but when, a homosexual couple sues a church and a court sides with the couple.

And that has happened where exactly?

It hasn't yet but I say within the next ten years a homosexual couple will attempt this. Now whether a court would go along who knows. Ten years ago SCOTUS wouldn't have ruled the way they did so who's to say that in ten years a court in say California, the place where all these goofy ideas start, would not agree and say yes a church must allow them to get married there.

More importantly and of a more serious and present danger, we are slowly but ever so surely moving toward a reverse religious test for public office. In other words people of faith need not apply for a government job. If you do you must agree to never allow your religious beliefs to play any role in your work.

You seriously don't see the fundamental difference between the government and a church? Let me summarize it for you:

Under our constitution, our government is obligated to serve all citizens, including homosexuals.

Under our constitution, a church can (literally) tell homosexuals go to hell.

[TexasTiger 12,798]

Some folks should probably choose their careers more wisely:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html

[cooltigger21 0]

Homie don't pretend that there isn't an effort underway to marginalize those of faith. Its been going on for 50 years or more. Not everyone who doesn't believe is part of this effort. There are non believers who work to put a stop to it. Then there are the ones like you who are completely indifferent. It doesn't affect you so you just turn a blind eye. You have stated before that you fear religion. People that have that fear will try to stamp it out and make sure that threat never materializes. You and your kind are enablers. You don't work with them but you don't try to stop them. It just doesn't bother you.

[homersapien 11,351]

Homie don't pretend that there isn't an effort underway to marginalize those of faith. Its been going on for 50 years or more. Not everyone who doesn't believe is part of this effort. There are non believers who work to put a stop to it. Then there are the ones like you who are completely indifferent. It doesn't affect you so you just turn a blind eye. You have stated before that you fear religion. People that have that fear will try to stamp it out and make sure that threat never materializes. You and your kind are enablers. You don't work with them but you don't try to stop them. It just doesn't bother you.

That was disturbed.

[quietfan 233]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world.

...

Actually, the two movements are VERY alike: One was a fight for legal equality regardless of one's anatomical color, the other is a fight for legal equality regardless of one's anatomical shape (or the shape of the person one loves).

[quietfan 233]

This is simple and straightforward: She should resign if her conscience won't allow her to do her job.

So should this newly converted muslim woman who filed a complaint.

http://www.cbsnews.c...rlines-alcohol/

Correct.

Agreed.

Question regarding a technicality...I'm not as knowledgeable of the Koran as I probably should be: But does it explicitly forbid serving alcohol, or merely consuming alcohol? (Of course, like the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, or Tolstoy's War & Peace, there are probably almost as many different interpretations of those books as there are readers of those books.)

I am reminded of a story from my deceased father-in-law, a career Air Force officer:

At a town/base he was stationed at in SE Asia (Thailand, IIRC, but during the Vietnam War so it might have been Vietnam), there was a terrible problem with an over population of feral stray dogs...caused in large part by U.S. GI's who'd adopt a puppy while stationed there and abandon said dog on being shipped out. U.S. officials at the base wanted to start shooting strays, but the local Buddhists were appalled by such a suggestion. Eventually, a compromise was reached: The Americans could put out poisoned meat on the base. If the dogs chose to eat the toxic bait, that was their own karmic choice/destiny. Perhaps the Muslim flight attendant could rationalize: "I'm not making anyone drink alcohol just because I hand them a drink. If they choose to sin by consuming it, that's their choice."

[DKW 86 7,410]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.

Who is they? It certainly was not Democrats. That is pretty obvious when you look at who pushed the Civil Rights Act.

The group I think you are referring to is, ignorant, racists.

The Democrats took a stand against the racists in their ranks. They pushed them out. They had the courage to accept the political costs. Have most Republicans?

I am not suggesting that all, or even most, Republicans are racists. I am suggesting that the Republican Party does not do enough to discourage and denounce racially motivated rhetoric.

You do not deny the fact that after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the "Solid South" became, and still is, solidly Republican, do you? Is race still a factor in Southern politics?

Are black Americans Democrats because of the "giveaway programs" or, is that just another justification of racist attitudes? Is it more likely that black Americans actually understand the politics of race and, the associated politically/racially motivated rhetoric?

Actually they left on their own and switched to the Republican party. By the droves. Just as LBJ predicted.

Homer, Homer, Homer, what are you talking about. They were motivated by the actions of the party leadership. The point is, the Democrats were well aware of the political costs, the loss of a significant voting bloc. They took a very admirable stand knowing, and accepting, the costs.

So, just for honesty sake, are we going to admit that back during the 60s it was in large part a Republican Effort to get the Great Society passed.

Democrats George Wallace And Bull Connor say hi.

Sure, there was a large base of support for civil rights in the GOP. But it was LBJ who made it happen and there was a huge desertion from the Democratic Party by southerners as a result.

Nixon's "southern strategy" sealed the deal.

I think it was really sealed with the 1964 Presidential election. Goldwater only won six states. His home state and the south. The Republican nominee opposed the Civil Rights Act. The exodus was on. As was the birth of radical conservatism. I give some in the GOP credit, H.W. Bush for instance but, the party in general made an unfortunate and disappointing choice.

BG was actually the flip guy. He ended up as different after that campaign as anyone. Later in life, he was pretty much a liberal.

[DKW 86 7,410]

Why is that extreme compared to opposing homosexual marriage? (Serious question.)

The cartoon is right on the money. I know these people. I know baptist churches where divorced people are literally third class citizens. They are shunned by everyone else and to be frankly the rest of the congregation wishes they would just go away. Same thing with blacks in white churches. How about a black woman offended that a white woman took another black man to marry? They could argue that the bible argues not to mix races. Why cant they be denied services? Folks, especially fat folks are not PC Cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMA2nq2xfCQ

Does this guy actually think that name-calling works as a motivator?

Why does what someone else does effect him to the point of roid rage?

Yes, what we need to do is allow crazy people to pick and choose which laws they follow.

This is not going to end well.

[TitanTiger 20,465]

Interesting view:

Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples

Madonna's brother, Christopher Ciccone, is speaking out in defense of the county clerk in Kentucky who was recently jailed after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Ciccone, who is openly gay, posted a message to Facebook on Friday in which he said that Kim Davis should be granted the right deny the licenses, with Ciccone citing her "religious freedom."

"The county clerk in [Kentucky] deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a Muslim [woman] who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without your man's approval," he wrote.

Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind…or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."

"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

Ciccone began his entertainment career as one of Madonna's backup dancers before moving on to direct music videos for such stars as Dolly Parton.

His full post can be seen below.

The county clerk in Kentucy deserves about as much support as you would give her if she were a muslim women who insisted on covering her face and refused not only gay marriages licenses, but divorce, accusations of rape and driving a car without ur mans approval.....perspective is everything.....this woman is a civil servant, she is required to follow federal law.....but why should she....when DOJ and other civil authories don't follow federal law when they choose not to.....i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of "sanctuary cities".....i always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches.......these things aside....this is why we have elections.....if the folks of this county in Kentucy don't want her as the county clerk....then don't have to vote for her.....that is how a democracy works....not to mention the courts.

In the mean time.....since when are we the arbiter of other peoples faith?.......can you honestly say that you know how much a person is allowed to have??..if i'm not mistaken, it's in the constitution.....something about religious freedom or something......selective shaming and bullying corrupts a democracy....freedom of press, speech and religion give it strength. Not to mention reason and the god given compassion we as humans have a right and responsibility to practice. Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners. Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion?...or must we destroy her in order for here to betray her faith. No matter how we judge its truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers.

http://www.hollywood...ed-clerk-820753

[TitanTiger 20,465]

I find plenty of logical holes with the above piece from Madonna's brother. However, I think this piece raises more important questions about how we're going to balance religious freedom and gay marriage rights. Or if we're going to even bother to shoot for balance and go straight to forcing anyone in a public position to cast aside their religious convictions anytime there is a conflict.

A Religious Test for Public Office

We have been talking in this space for the past few days about religious liberty fights worth committing to. This Oregon case is a big one:

Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.

Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.

“He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs,” Korten said.

It’s not just in Oregon:

Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct said judges can’t refuse to marry same-sex couples on personal, moral or religious grounds.

Judges who stop performing all marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples may be interpreted as biased and could be disqualified from any case where sexual orientation is an issue, the Ohio board ruled.

We have a wide variety of men and women serving as judges in this country. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any situation in which a judge is presumed to be incapable of reaching an impartial decision because of his or her religious beliefs. True, a particular judge may well be biased, but the presumption upon which our entire legal system is based is that a judge is considered impartial absent a flagrant conflict of interest (e.g., a case involving a relative is brought before his court).

It’s not like the Kim Davis case because all citizens in Rowan County have to go through Kim Davis’s office to get married. There are many ways to get legally hitched without having to go to a particular judge. You can find a willing clergyman, or a justice of the peace, or another judge. It might be inconvenient, but it is a price that can easily be paid for the sake of pluralism.

But if judges are not allowed to withhold their services as marriage agents, as a matter of religious conscience, without jeopardizing their offices, in what sense is this not a de facto religious test for public office? If this trend takes hold among the judiciary, it will result in orthodox Christians being unable to serve as judges, no matter what their demonstrated record of fairness. It is about policing the ranks of the judiciary to weed out orthodox Christians.

In 2012, a lesbian judge in Dallas County stopped marrying couples, as a protest against the absence of same-sex marriage. By the same logic that is being deployed against orthodox Christian judges, shouldn’t Judge Tonya Parker be disqualified from presiding over cases that have to do with sexual orientation?

Yes, but judges like her won’t be. It’s all about “who, whom.” This is a fight Christians should be eager and willing to take on. Marriage is widely available, from both religious and secular agents, so there is no compelling reason to penalize judges for declining to officiate at marriages. If this stands, orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims who have a conscience objection to presiding over same-sex marriages will be excluded from the judiciary.

This is potentially huge. And, I believe, this kind of thing is the main way orthodox Christians and others will be driven out of the public square: by guilds and professional associations regulating their own professions in such a way as to forbid employment to people who do not conform. In his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school

must

seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See

Romer

,

supra

, at 653.

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”

Ante

, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is

mandated

by federal statute, see

10 U.S.C. § 654

(

(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see

Boy Scouts of America

v.

Dale

,

530 U.S. 640

(2000).

That was 2003. What would we say today to professional associations who regulate, and regulate access to, their professions, and do so to keep out of their ranks people who believe that homosexuality is morally aberrant? It may be the case that if challenged constitutionally, rulings like the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct’s could be overturned or modified as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on a religious test for public office. This is a result religious believers should be fighting for.

It gets murkier when it comes to private entities, like the American Bar Association and the American Association of Law Schools, institutions that control access to the legal profession. No one who has not been a practicing lawyer can hope to become a judge. But if you are not able to enter legal practice without affirming homosexuality in every way, then religious conservatives — Christians, Jews, Muslims — will be unable to practice law, and unable to become judges.

Please return to my interview earlier this year with “Prof. Kingsfield,” a deeply closeted Christian professor at one of America’s elite law schools:

“Alasdair Macintyre is right,” he said. “It’s like a nuclear bomb went off, but in slow motion.” What he meant by this is that our culture has lost the ability to reason together, because too many of us want and believe radically incompatible things.

But only one side has the power. When I asked Kingsfield what most people outside elite legal and academic circles don’t understand about the way elites think, he said “there’s this radical incomprehension of religion.”

“They think religion is all about being happy-clappy and nice, or should be, so they don’t see any legitimate grounds for the clash,” he said. “They make so many errors, but they don’t want to listen.”

To elites in his circles, Kingsfield continued, “at best religion is something consenting adult should do behind closed doors. They don’t really understand that there’s a link between Sister Helen Prejean’s faith and the work she does on the death penalty. There’s a lot of looking down on flyover country, one middle America.

“The sad thing,” he said, “is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don’t hold. It’s all about power. They’ve got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything. They’ve got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the answers, and believe that they are good.”

And:

“Accreditation is critical to being admitted to law schools and medical schools,” Kingsfield said. “College accreditation will matter for some purposes of sports, federal aid, and for the ability to be admitted by top graduate schools. Ghettoization for Christians could be the result.”

“In California right now, judges can’t belong to the Boy Scouts now. Who knows if in the future, lawyers won’t be able to belong to churches that are considered hate groups?” he said. “It’s certainly true that a lot of law firms will not now hire people who worked on cases defending those on the traditional marriage side. It’s going to close some professional doors. I certainly wouldn’t write about this stuff in my work, not if I wanted to have a chance at tenure. There’s a question among Christian law professors right now: do you write about these issues and risk tenure? This really does distort your scholarship. Christianity could make a distinct contribution to legal discussions, but it’s simply too risky to say what you really think.”

The emerging climate on campus of microaggressions, trigger warnings, and the construal of discourse as a form of violence is driving Christian professors further into the closet, the professor said.

“If I said something that was construed as attacking a gay student, I could have my life made miserable with a year or two of litigation — and if I didn’t have tenure, there could be a chance that my career would be ruined,” he said. “Even if you have tenure, a few people who make allegations of someone being hateful can make a tenured professor’s life miserable.”

“What happened to Brendan Eich” — the tech giant who was driven out of Mozilla for having made a small donation years earlier to the Prop 8 campaign — “is going to start happening to a lot of people, and Christians had better be ready for it. The question I keep thinking about is, why would we want to do that to people? But that’s where we are now.”

In the Kim Davis case, I think there can be and is a reasonable work-around that would protect her conscience rights but also protect the ability of gay citizens of her county to exercise their marriage rights (see Ryan T. Anderson’s piece in the NYT today) — if the Kentucky governor would get off his butt and act. But it is very hard to argue persuasively in the court of public opinion that a local official has the right to deny, effectively, a constitutional right because she perceives it to violate her religious beliefs.

It is much easier, at least for now, to point out how even Christians who have no record of discriminating against gays and lesbians in their public and professional lives are being, and will be, pushed out of those professions — and to mount resistance to it. The unsympathetic Kim Davis cannot be the only face of Christian resistance, not if we want to successfully defend our present, though shrinking, liberties.

http://www.theameric...-public-office/