We have reached the George Wallace stage of the same-sex marriage fight
I hasten to point out that the two groups who most strongly supported Civil Rights are blacks and Republicans, who are the same groups today who most strongly oppose gay marriage.
* Chief Justice John Roberts: "The [Obergefell] decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent."
The only similarity is that they're both Democrats.
The differences are:
Wallace denied black people's Constitutional rights.
Davis upholds Christian's Constitutional rights.
Wallace defied a Constitutional Supreme Court ruling (Brown)
Davis defied an "act of will, not legal judgment, ...[with] no basis in the Constitution."* (Obergefell)
Wallace sent people to jail.
Davis went to jail.
"Davis defied an "act of will, not legal judgment, ...[with] no basis in the Constitution."* (Obergefell)"
ReplyDeleteRepeating a falsehood does not make it true. The superme court ruling was a legal ruling and carries the force of law. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that it is not legal. You should really read a bit about your own legal system.
There is another thing that Wallace and Davis have in common; they both swore an oath to defend the constitution and the laws formed under it, and they both intentionally and willfully broke that oath. In addition, Davis has broken three other vows made before God, that we know about.
They both have something else in common. They are both hypocritical bigots.
[In addition, Davis has broken three other vows made before God, that we know about.]
DeleteA particularly repulsive form of argument--about as ugly as ad-hominem gets.
[carries the force of law]
ReplyDeleteJudicial rulings are not law. This ruling is illegitimate, and should be defied. It will be, all across the country, again and again.
This is Dred Scott, again. I believe it will eventually lead to war.
"Judicial rulings are not law"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the facts disagree with you.
It took me ten seconds to find this on Wiki. I confirmed it on other sources as well to be sure that it was correct: "Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and Delegated legislation (in U.K. parlance) or regulatory law."
So a Supreme Court ruling is law.
Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a couple legally entitle to receive one. She would receive no penalty, and not have to issue any licenses to same sex couples, if she agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks issuing the licenses. She refused and is now in jail. That was her own decision.
But you never answered by previous question. If she was catholic, would freedom of religion allow her to refuse to file a license for a doctor who performs abortions? Or issue a business license to a pharmacist who sells contraceptives. If she was Muslim, would religious freedom allow her to refuse a marriage license to an opposite sex couple of a male member of the bride's family was not present?
All of these scenarios are of equal validity to the Davis one.
The standard is simple:
DeleteFree exercise right trumps statutory law except:
1) Compelling state interest
2) Least coercive way
If it is a compelling state interest, it must be done in least coercive way.
There is no compelling state interest to have Kim Davis sign your marriage certificate. Most people don't have Kim Davis sign their marriage certificate.
The compelling state interest is to have a marriage certificate, which can be signed by a clerk in a neighboring county.
Least coercive way.
From the Gaystapo perspective, all of this legal precedent is irrelevant, because the point is to put Christians in jail.
DeleteMission accomplished.
"There is no compelling state interest to have Kim Davis sign your marriage certificate. Most people don't have Kim Davis sign their marriage certificate. "
DeleteAnd the judge told her that she did not have to personally issue the licenses. So where is your problem? Please spell it out for me.
The Supreme Court ruled that it violated the 14th amendment. So, until this amendment is repealed, it is against the law to prevent same sex couples from getting married.