Feldman finds this claim not so much unpersuasive as wrongheaded -- a misunderstanding of the nature of the oath. Davis’s argument, he writes, “implies that obedience to divine law is somehow baked in to one’s constitutional duties and obligations.”...
Like much scholarly writing today about oaths, it seeks to impose a post-modern outlook on a pre-modern practice.... Davis’s argument for relying on her oath of office as justification for disregarding the law of the land is well grounded in history. It’s also dangerous. The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
১৫ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০১৫
"What caught [lawprof Noah] Feldman's attention was [Kim Davis's] claim that her oath of office, which ends with 'so help me God,' entitles her to invoke a higher law when necessary."
"Feldman thinks she's mistaken. I wish she were; I fear she's not," writes lawprof Stephen L. Carter.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
The oath is a perfomative. It doesn't matter what it says, just that it's in the ceremony to make it a ceremony.
I do marriage licenses. These aren't marriages. They're civil unions. Get another form.
The truth defense.
Lost in this skirmish is the progress of congruence policy under the State-established pro-choice doctrine.
The error in the oath argument is it's based on the words "... so help me god." But that God is unidentified.
True to the Kentucky political tradition of corrupt bargains made by the Great Compromiser (and she does resemble Henry Clay), the god could be one of many. My guess is that it would be Osiris from over at the Louisville the Free Mason Lodge. And it's not nice to break oaths taken to Egyptians.
I'm unclear WHY this story warrants so many posts.
I'm unclear WHY this story warrants so many posts.
It gives Althouse a chance to make anti gay marriage types look bad.
It’s also dangerous. The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
LO Fucking L How many troops DOES the Supreme Court have?
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Hasn't Obama openly ignored an injunction of his immigration policy for months now?
Don't Democratic cities regularly ignore court rulings on gun ownership?
Hasn't the EPA been told to stop their policies they are trying AGAIN by courts?
Why is it okay for Obama to ignore federal laws that he disagrees with?? Didn't he swear an oath to follow the laws?? What about Gavin Newsom, when he was mayor of San Francisco, he was giving out gay marriage licenses when it was against federal law...Did he go to jail?? Did you even know about it?? Double standards don't work...this is what happens. You can't be okay with one side doing it, and have conniptions when the other side does it.
It is only harmful to the nation when laws or court orders are defied by the right. The left doing the same is Okey Dokey because they (as self identified) are the GOOD guys.
You can't be okay with one side doing it, and have conniptions when the other side does it.
Obviously they can. Try listening to NPR re Kim Davis.
Imagine if millions of Mexicans just ignored our laws! Fuck them, I say. Fuck the courts. Fuck 'em all.
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Oh my, how precious! Where has Carter been for the last 6.5 years, on sabbatical in Antarctica? The current Federal Government's entire administration is built on that exact premise, that court orders do NOT apply to them. From Obama to the IRS to the EPA to the State Department and beyond.
That a law professor could make that statement without the accompanying "but..." is farcical. As always, what the statement should have been is: The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by Republican elected officials...
It is now fairly common knowledge that the rule of law is simply another tool of the left to be used when it advances their addenda and to be ignored otherwise.
I heard one argument that same-sex marriage wasn't legal when she took her oath, so she didn't have to abide by it. By that logic, we'd have to have a new election every time a new law was made effective. Because that law wasn't in place when the office holder (including Congress and the President) took their oaths.
"The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials"
This is why the IRS and the State Department respond so quickly to court orders.
Of course, this argument is only supposed to work one way: elected officials must follow court orders, but courts can ignore the judgment of elected officials, or the voters themselves, with impunity. The nation can "survive" that easily, right? Right?
The commenters here that point out that the Left seems just fine with defiance of the law (e.g., Obama's selective enforcement of immigration laws, sanctuary cities) are correct, but this and the support of Kim Davis by some right wingers only underscores the real problem here--we're supporting this notion that abusing our power is fine and good if in service of the right ideals. Which ones are the "right" ideals? Depends on who you ask!
Every time this happens it is incumbent upon the authority-abuser's natural supporters to firmly rebuke them--it means a lot less to decry the flouting of law and order only when it's the other guys doing it.
Of course, if we don't want to do that and decide might makes right, and we better just be the ones in power because law and order is just something to bring up when we're on the other side of it, then welcome to the decline, my friends! We will slide towards banana republic status.
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials
On the other hand, the nation will not long survive court orders, premised on laughably convoluted judicial decisions based on whim and ether, that defy the will of the people as expressed through clear legislation.
Nor will it survive long if the state's legislative and executive powers are turned over to the judges.
There was at least 11 other ways to skin this cat without surrendering to humor a small minority of a small minority threatening to throw themselves on the floor, kick their heels, and hold their breath until they turn blue in the face.
Amen, Sebastian - and better stated than I was able.
'I'm unclear WHY this story warrants so many posts.
It gives Althouse a chance to make anti gay marriage types look bad"
While Althouse the Mom is naturally pleased at the decision on gay marriage, I'm guessing Althouse the Law Prof realizes the discussion is just beginning.
"The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials..."
For instance, can you imagine a nation whose president says "[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court] has made his decision; now let him enforce it" becoming a great power? Inconceivable!
This fag hag shit is money in the bank for you.
Endless 60s nostalgia. Dylan and Suzy walking hand and hand in the Village. Broadsides against the bigots.
In a lot of ways, it will be a good thing when the Boomers die off.
Same old shit.
Every time this happens it is incumbent upon the authority-abuser's natural supporters to firmly rebuke them--it means a lot less to decry the flouting of law and order only when it's the other guys doing it.
I think it very important to point out the constant hypocrisy of the left on these issues. Personally, I don't give a crap about these people pretending to be married, it's a free country. The real issue is the abuse of the courts by the left, and the de facto repeal of the tenth amendment because liberals can't stand it if there are people in some other state living in a way that they don't approve.
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Actually, it can survive just fine depending on what the defiance is about. The courts have been complicit in the expansion of the federal government into places that it has no jurisdiction. State elected officials ignoring the federal government on lots of topics could work just fine. It is called federalism.
Now if the defiance was about things that the federal government is most certainly authorized to do like the military, currency, tariffs and treaties, then that will go badly. And if the defiance is about Bill of Rights freedoms, as in the federal government is unconstitutionally violating them, then not only will the nation not survive but it probably would be for the best if it didn't.
The oath is a perfomative. It doesn't matter what it says, just that it's in the ceremony to make it a ceremony
We've heard that in different variations over the years.
Sorry, words do matter and higher law does trump lower.
" The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials...."
It wont? Tell that to Gavin Newsome, Jerry Brown or any governor of a sanctuary city.
The constitution of her state still say marriage is a man and a woman. Until the constitution is changed does the SC decision override it?
Congress could and perhaps should impeach and remove the judges involved as a lesson to the courts: it's not your job to be super-legislators.
The commenters here that point out that the Left seems just fine with defiance of the law (e.g., Obama's selective enforcement of immigration laws, sanctuary cities) are correct, but this and the support of Kim Davis by some right wingers only underscores the real problem here--we're supporting this notion that abusing our power is fine and good if in service of the right ideals.
I don't see it that way. There was an invitation to provide an accommodation this woman could deal with. The court declined and preferred to put her in jail. The judge realized he was losing the PR battle and backed down.
I don't care about gay marriage as I think it is a fad that will fade. The woman is an elected official. You could try to impeach her but you might lose. Then what ? We as a country are getting closer to civil disobedience by the "country class" since the "ruling class" chooses to ignore laws it doesn't like.
Ms Althouse seems to be obsessed with gay marriage for personal reasons. I see a building backlash that will come as the gays push harder to force people to celebrate, not tolerate, their life style. We'll see how it plays out; especially after Obama is gone.
"I do marriage licenses. These aren't marriages. They're civil unions. Get another form.
The truth defense."
Think of all the rancor that could have been avoided if we had simply called gay marriages civil unions, which is what they are. Could Kim Davis even make an argument that she could block a civil union? Since its not "Marriage" per se but a civil ceremony. And then, yes, you would have two forms. So?
I stopped reading as soon as he said they couldn't go next door to get what he wanted. Yeah, because no one else issued a marriage license.
I'm a Catholic church musician who gets called pretty frequently to fill in at Protestant churches.
It's amazing how often the pastor at a Protestant church nowadays is a gay man or a lesbian. When they interview me, they never talk about Christianity. The yak endlessly about their sexuality.
The entire focus of their church becomes gaydom.
Result. The hetero child rearing congregation members walk out and quit. Over time, nothing is left but a skeleton congregation committed to gaydom and nothing else. I have no idea how such churches even pay their bills.
Fagdom kills institutions. This is the intent. Althouse intends to destroy. Her intent is evil and malicious, although dressed up in a pretty package of intellectual pettifoggery.
This fag hag is plain evil. Greedy, vain and evil.
The oath is a perfomative. It doesn't matter what it says, just that it's in the ceremony to make it a ceremony
That sounds like Coupe's comment yesterday that her election was meaningless because she is fat and ugly among other things. Liberals can't hear shit they don't want to hear.
there are more delicate ways to put it,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2&version=NIV
hence the churches in Europe, have hollowed out, and the mosques have filled,
Brando: Absolutely agree.
The problem is if Rule of Law only applies to one side, then arguing Rule of Law is a sucker's game. It's like declaring "peace in our time" when the shooting has already started. As mentioned earlier, "Rule of Law" becomes code for "heads I win, tails you lose."
If you think you can salvage it, then I back you. But if Rule of Law is already dead, then what you are warning about has already happened.
We're living through the post-verisimilitude era. Concepts like oaths, promises, and rules don't really mean anything anymore (assuming they ever did). Emotion trumps all other considerations. Emotion is the only truth, especially the emotion of the majority. Emotion is more significant than rationality. A cold, rational argument is lost in the passionate din of the mob.
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
How long will it survive open defiance of the Constitution by the courts?
The commenters here that point out that the Left seems just fine with defiance of the law (e.g., Obama's selective enforcement of immigration laws, sanctuary cities) are correct, but this and the support of Kim Davis by some right wingers only underscores the real problem here--we're supporting this notion that abusing our power is fine and good if in service of the right ideals.
No, we're recognizing that the rule of law is dead, and that if we are going to survive it does us no good to allow those that murdered it to appeal to it in their own defense when the tide turns.
Tit-for-tat. Once the other side unleashes a new tactic, we are well within our rights to utilize the same. Because only the credible threat of retaliation will prevent further degradation of what remains of the civil state.
When Germany used gas on Britain and France, they didn't moan about how it was wrong but they couldn't afford to sink to the level of the enemy. They threw gas back, and the result was no more gas.
Same with how the north threatened to hang southern soldiers if the south followed through on the threat to hang white officers leading black troops. Result: no hangings.
It's why the core elements of the Geneva Convention were in existence long before the paper was signed.
The left has been in open defiance of 'rule of law' when it suits, and have now reached the point of throwing elected officials who are in defiance of their laws in prison. This is battle space - how many sheriffs in rural counties around America were elected with an explicit promise to defy any gun control/gun confiscation order from the federal government. Those people have just been given a warning shot: in the event of a government intrusion, the very people elected on the promise to protect the citizenry must either not do so, yield their position, or accept prison.
No dice.
The rules have been rewritten by the enemy. Very well. We will mourn the dead but we will not delusion ourselves that it still lives. Jail every mayor of a sanctuary city, and every bureaucrat or elected official that aids that process. Imprison governors of states that have sanctuary cities in them. Same for cities that defy the rights of gun owners. For officials who allow domestic spying against court orders. For the EPA. For the states of Washington and Colorado. For the Department of Justice, wholesale.
Or rather: we are not playing the game of live-and-let-live anymore. We are playing face vs. boot.
You deserve nothing if you volunteer you friends, family, and allies to be the face.
"If you think you can salvage it, then I back you. But if Rule of Law is already dead, then what you are warning about has already happened."
All I can do is call it out when I see it on either side. Abusing power shouldn't be tolerated even if we like the intended result.
"I don't see it that way. There was an invitation to provide an accommodation this woman could deal with."
Is that the way it started? My understanding was she wouldn't even allow her deputies to approve the marriages, which seems unreasonable--my usual analogy is the Muslim food inspector who does not want to have to inspect pork, but if he could work it out so that one of his assistants can act for him in those cases it could be a reasonable accommodation. But on the other hand, to use your power to make sure something simply couldn't get done, by anyone--that goes beyond a reasonable religious accommodation and gets to abusing one's power.
"It gives Althouse a chance to make anti gay marriage types look bad."
You know, until Kim Davis decided to take this stand, I didn't realize just how in the tank Fox News was for the establishment. I mean I realized it, but I didn't really realize it. Every other statement seems to be that she "has to follow the law!" It's like none of them have ever even heard of civil disobedience.
And when that is brought up someone will proclaim that civil disobedience means being willing to go to jail. That is, until she went to jail. Then suddenly it was about whether or not a compromise could be achieved.
So Kim Davis, hapless hillbilly, went to jail rather than go contrary to her conscience, and the mighty U.S. Government backed down.
Not sure how that makes her look bad.
Anyway, the whole thing must be some sort of right-wing fantasy, cause I was assured (assured I tell you) that nobody would ever go to jail because they didn't support gay marriage.
All I can do is call it out when I see it on either side. Abusing power shouldn't be tolerated even if we like the intended result.
Ah, the moderate who would rather shoot his own side than the enemy.
Have fun with that. Of course, by that standard you'll end up as an unwitting ally to the side least concerned with listening to you.
Moderate: Call it in the air.
Left: Heads/Tails!
Moderate: Heads, Left called it - he will shoot first.
Right: But!?!
Moderate: No fighting the toss! Gentlemen, 5 steps, then turn and shoot.
Right: Ok...
Moderate: 1... 2... 3...
Left: Turns and shoots
Right: You shot on three! Right, I'm going to kill you now.
Left: You have to take two more steps!
Right: Are you serious, you shot on three! You cheated!
Right: pulls pistol
Moderate: Stop right there, you dishonorable coward! Another move and I'll shoot you down myself!
Right: He shot first! Before 5!
Moderate: sneering Two wrongs don't make a right. Turn back around and two more paces, you cowardly wretch.
Is that the way it started? My understanding was she wouldn't even allow her deputies to approve the marriages, which seems unreasonable--my usual analogy is the Muslim food inspector who does not want to have to inspect pork, but if he could work it out so that one of his assistants can act for him in those cases it could be a reasonable accommodation. But on the other hand, to use your power to make sure something simply couldn't get done, by anyone--that goes beyond a reasonable religious accommodation and gets to abusing one's power.
Except HER name appeared on the form, regardless. That was her issue.
Have it read "The office of the clerk" and not the clerk's name and it'd be a non-issue.
Maybe Obama should say that deporting migrants goes against his beliefs, but he'll just have someone else enforce that part of the job for him. But for him to use power to make sure nobody can get them deported - that goes beyond reasonable and gets to abusing one's power.
QED Jail Obama.
I think that her response, "On order of the court" or whatever is fine. They were not approved by her office.
"Ah, the moderate who would rather shoot his own side than the enemy."
So standing up for a general principle makes one a "moderate"?
I get from your post you consider yourself a fighter, and you consider the world of politics to have turned into total Thunderdome so I can understand how you see someone like me as hopelessly naive. Perhaps we shall continue this conversation when our respective gangs of marauders have taken to the hills--I will be using the nom de guerre "Smokey Joe".
Until then, back to business.
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Bit late to start worrying about that. It is not just court orders, it is the whole regulatory edifice built on the commerce clause and the invention of rights mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. I don't take US law seriously apart from its coercive nature. I obey the law out of habit and fear of punishment, not because I consider it sacred.
Speaking of calling things what they are not, Bruce Jenner cannot help being a man. He said in an interview that his new breasts help him with his putting.
Best comment: "I wanted to reduce my putts, not my putz!"
Davis’s argument for relying on her oath of office as justification for disregarding the law of the land is well grounded in history. It’s also dangerous. The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials.
How long will the nation survive with judges legislating from the bench? How long will the nation survive with judges trashing the Constitution to promote their political agenda?
Judges aren't the high priests of society. They aren't any better than anyone else. Many of them are little more than failed lawyers with sufficient political connections to get appointed or elected to the bench.
So “so help me God” oaths are now considered dangerous? What about progressive agents of the State who impose their post-modern visions on society? Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent
“The majority’s 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 majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.””
Sounds like Roberts was warning where the real danger lies, and it’s not from invoking God in public oaths.
So standing up for a general principle makes one a "moderate"?
When that principle has obviously been forsaken by one party, and yet you intend to use it as a weapon to police the other side?
Then yes, absolutely.
You'd be the guy telling the British and French to just accept the extra casualty burden, and possibly lose the entire war, because principle.
Understand that I fully recognize your right to claim as much - but anyone interested in actually checking this catastrophe would be wise to ignore you, because your rhetoric only has the potential to thwart the side that still accepts the value of the principle in question.
Rule of law cannot be returned if those who seek to abolish it are not countered. And they cannot be countered if they are allowed to play by a separate set of laws. You'll note, for instance, that even those who agree to the principles of say, the Geneva Convention, are explicitly freed from such restraints when combating a foe that does not abide by them*.
*Barring those foolish nations that agreed to protocols I and II put forward by the USSR to assist communist guerrilla movements in Africa that were regularly getting their faces stamped in. Still, nations that still take war seriously either didn't sign on to them (US) or happily ignored such new restrictions when their own side was constrained by them.
well Judaism has proscriptions on that behavior, the New Testament echoes the old in many ways,
I'm sort of curious to know why Ms. Davis is so cocksure that God hasn't got a great big can of eternal damnation waiting on the shelf with her name on it.
I'm sort of curious to know why Ms. Davis is so cocksure that God hasn't got a great big can of eternal damnation waiting on the shelf with her name on it.
Yeah, OK. You know it's all make believe, right Eric?
I'm sort of curious to know why Ms. Davis is so cocksure that God hasn't got a great big can of eternal damnation waiting on the shelf with her name on it.
She can't, of course.
But personally, if God came down now and told me that I could without looking first either keep my own place of share hers, I think I'd feel more confident doing the latter.
"“The majority’s 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 majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.”
the chief justice knows a verdict pulled from whole cloth when he sees.
"I would like to purchase a fish license."https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_Licence
I really want to work at this place but I can't fulfill the requirements of the that job. But I really want to work there. Please halp me.
"It gives Althouse a chance to make anti gay marriage types look bad."
Heh! They make themselves look bad.
"I do marriage licenses. These aren't marriages. They're civil unions. Get another form.
"The truth (sic) defense."
You can stop holding your breath now...your face is purple like a baboon's ass and if you keep it up you're going to pass out. And it still won't make what you're saying true.
9/15/15, 1:49 PM
So you DO understand why gay marriage is preposterous!
Wow, garage lying again. What a shocker.
1) She was elected.
2) She was elected before the Supreme Court ruling.
In short, in both cases she wasn't "looking to work in a place but can't fulfill the requirements."
And then projection. Are you demanding the governors of Colorado and Washington to step down? In their cases, federal law regarding illegal drug use already existed prior to their obtaining office. How about sanctuary cities? No and no, eh?
Rule of law, dead. Being a moderate means running interference for vicious little twats like garage who desire the destruction of justice while spreading lies about the opposition and then attempting to hide behind your own reasonableness. They smile to divert attention from the hand that holds the knife.
Those like Garage always lie (check), always double down (check), and always project (check). Never give them an inch.
"I do marriage licenses. These aren't marriages. They're civil unions. Get another form. The truth defense."
I do dog licenses. That's not a dog. It's been neutered, debarked, tail docked, and perfumed. Plus it's a bitch. Get another form.
Capricious behaviour up and down the executive branch of the federal government, but the nation's survival is threatened by a single county clerk.
yes, and she turned to faith, four years ago, the law in kentucky and 4,000 years of history, recquired one thing,
Spayed, you mean? That's a relief though surely your eggs would be past their sell-by date. So then what turned you into a freakshow?
"(Sub in Jews for gays, and tell me if you support her stance. Remember: they don't worship Christ, and could be damned to hell too, according to Ms. Davis' bizarre religious beliefs.)"
Her religious beliefs are not "bizzare." They are standard Christian (and Muslim, and Hindu, and Buddhist) beliefs. And I don't recall any prohibitions on Jews marrying, so I don't see why she would not issue them a marriage license, so long as they were not a same sex couple.
You seem to have the rather bizarre belief that Christians are unaware that we are all sinners and absent God's Grace we would all be damned to hell. Not just Jews. All. Of. Us.
What amazes me is that nobody references Romans 13 in this debate. Its the chapter of the Bible where Christians are told to submit to secular authority. It would actually be pertinent to the question. Instead we get bizarre hypothetical situations concerning denying marriage licenses to heterosexual Jewish couples. Would those be Orthodox Jews?
Makes you wonder about the intellectual foundation of the same-sex marriage proponents arguments.
In any event, it doesn't matter if I support her position or not. She was willing to go to jail, went to jail, and the U.S. Government decided it needed to save face by finding a compromise with her faith.
That is what is known as a fact.
A gift.
Romans 13:1-7New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
I do dog licenses.
Rent boy speaks!
Have you found another raging black radical for your black dick cuckold obsession yet?
Crack's gone. He's even gotten tired of denouncing you for the virulent racist you are.
What a fucked up couple you and the fag hag make!
Here's another case of liberal double standards....
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2015/09/07/why-isnt-the-dc-police-chief-in-jail-for-not-issuing-gun-permits-n2048763
Davis was sent to jail because she gave the finger to a federal judge. She's lucky she isn't still locked up.
their understanding of faith, they got from old West Wing and Law and Order episodes,
I think it would be nice if people stopped referring to the Democrat who refused to give out marriage licenses as a right-wing hillbilly.
She's clearly a a Democrat. The average of her politics may put her at the center, but I bet if we questioned her, we'd find her to not be right-wing at all.
You can stop holding your breath now...your face is purple like a baboon's ass and if you keep it up you're going to pass out. And it still won't make what you're saying true.
That good Robert. Now try saying it to yourself in the mirror a couple of times a day.
And you could give us a definition of "true" while we wait.
Meade said...
"I do marriage licenses. These aren't marriages. They're civil unions. Get another form. The truth defense."
I do dog licenses. That's not a dog. It's been neutered, debarked, tail docked, and perfumed. Plus it's a bitch. Get another form.
9/15/15, 1:59 PM
I get your point and I agree she was not fulfilling the requirements of her office. I believe that a compromise was offered (take her name off of the forms and not require her to issue that set of licenses to gay couples but allow others to) but that was not accommodated. She did not back down and went to jail for her beliefs. I might not think she was right but I can respect her going to jail over it.
A more apt comparison would if her faith were Muslim instead of Christian. Would this same ruckus have happened or would the entire government have jumped through hoops to find an accommodation? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Also, what ever happened to those cabbies that refused to transport seeing eye dogs and refused to pick up single women passengers because of their religion? I don't recall hearing that any of them lost their licenses or got fined or thrown in jail (may have happened but it sure didn't make the news). How is that different from a baker or photographer?
I may not like some of our laws but if they are to have any legitimacy, they must be applied evenly. It is becoming more and more obvious that today, laws are just another stick for progressives to beat up everyone else with.
@narciso
Yeah, there are two kinds of Christians. The vast majority which are pig ignorant near savages who are dupes of charlatans who are either insane or plain old con men. The followers are all just aching to bash some minority or another and whose entire world view can be summarized as "we are good, everybody else is bad."
The other Christians are a small minority who support all leftist causes, spend all of their time ministering to the poor, and have converted the useless "Sanctuaries" in their church from worshiping God to actual sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, excuse me, undocumented workers. You can tell the good Christians because they are always bucking the leadership of whatever denomination they belong to.
^ Bigot alert.
Again, riddle me this, libs: Did Henry VIII have a natural right to compel Thomas More to place his name on the Oath of Supremacy, under pain of imprisonment and eventual beheading?
Show your work.
Blogger garage mahal said...
Davis was sent to jail because she gave the finger to a federal judge. She's lucky she isn't still locked up.
what?
On the bright side, I think Office Depot recently got hit trying to not bake a cake for people that it is normally OK to not bake cakes for, and gave in. So, the other side is learning to play ball too.
Ironically the Tudor used tyndall to justify his schism, who he subsequently put to death,
It's a little like gun grabbers citing the "well regulated militia" phrase in the second amendment.
Nothing has been done to change the State of Kentucky's requirements for marriage license forms, so right now they are issuing fake licenses for fake marriages. I guess that's appropriate.
What if its not a dog but they insist a dog license be issued on threat of imprisonment?
Given how everyone recognizes the inconsistent application of the law between Left and Right, let's bear in mind the Left's sole rebuttal to gay marriage being about children: "If it was, then you wouldn't let menopausal and sterile people get married."
Get it?
Their entire argument rests on a demand for perfect logical consistency. No exceptions permitted under any circumstances, even if one restriction is easily enforceable and the other not. (I suppose in this case, in order for us to be consistent, the Left would be okay with our demanding invasive fertility tests before women can be married. Cause that would be consistent with all of *their* other positions.)
ONLY WE are required to be consistent though, and not just in practice but even on the abstract philosophical level. They need obey no consistency rules whatsoever, either philosophically or in the practical application.
And with arguments like this, cookie declares his side won the argument, and "it's not even close."
This is what we're dealing with. Utter, complete hypocrisy and shamelessness.
Does it become a dog when the government issues a dog license?
"...Office Depot recently got hit trying to not bake a cake..."
Office Depot? Cake baking? Who knew.
Ron Winkleheimer,
Romans 13 is a highly problematic passage, and I say that as a believing Roman Catholic. One could argue (and Medieval and Renaissance rulers did so so assert) that it endorses the notion of the divine right of kings to rule and command obedience. For that matter, it could be argued that it endorses the divine right of anyone in a position of authority (and power) to rule and command obedience including the cruelest, most evil despots imaginable, e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Tamurlane, Vlad the Impaler, Saddam Hussein, etc., etc.
I am aware that this interpretation requires too narrow of a reading and that Romans 13 must be understood in the much broader context of other New Testament passages which in some cases seem to contradict it. Even so, it is problematic. Catholics deal with such quandries via the concept that the "dictates of an informed conscience" and the teachings and interpretive wisdom of the Church fathers, doctors, saints, and other holy men and women and sanctified personages as it has accumulated over the centuries is to be considered as valid in one's moral decision-making process as the teachings of Scripture.
Question for those here opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that marriage has been and should remain about children:
If the Left would permit it, and if it would then end this issue permanently by giving the Left the perfect internal consistency they require, would you consent to making fertility a requirement for marriage?
I would. In a heartbeat. I bet most churches not captured by Leftist infiltration would too.
It is the Left that would demand we be inconsistent by refusing to subject women to fertility testing, cant even require an ultrasound for an abortion, remember.
If anyone has ever heard a *different* leftist response to the children issue, please share, because "you must be as consistent as the North Star or you lose the argument" is the only one I ever heard.
We are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Of course, the case must first be made that X belongs to Caesar in the first place. No matter how much atheists might wish it, Christianity is not a suicide pact in which the atheist can simply make a witticism and declare game over.
Kim Davis was not asked to pay a tax in a coin tendered by the state. She was asked to not merely tolerate the presence of, but actually endorse, an act that is defined by its sin and makes a mockery of a Holy Sacrament.
Somehow, I do not think that is necessarily something that Caesar is allowed to dicker with.
"Does it become a dog when the government issues a dog license?"
As far as the government is concerned, yes it does.
@Jason
I was being sarcastic.
@Roughcoat
Yeah. Peter tells the Sanhedrin that he is going to obey God, not them; even though they are as duly constituted legitimate an authority as a Jew is going to find at the time. And Romans 12:2 tells Christians to not be conformed to this world. Still, if I was a same-sex supporter I would bring up Romans 13. I actually have a friend, of the leftist persuasion, who argues that Romans 13 means that the American Revolution was not morally justified.
The fact is that most of the supporters of same sex marriage have not really given the issues surrounding it any thought. So you get ridiculous "arguments" about non-existent discrimination against Jews seeking marriage licenses. Its all rhetoric all the way down.
"My understanding was she wouldn't even allow her deputies to approve the marriages, which seems unreasonable-"
The issue for her was her name on the license. The governor could have changed the wording to remove her name. Maybe he thinks the voters won't agree and throw him out of office. Maybe she will be the next governor.
Messing around with democracy to suit some pressure group can be hazardous to your political health.
"Does it become a dog when the government issues a dog license?"
As far as the government is concerned, yes it does.
No, it becomes a legal dog.
Right. Until you get a license for your dog, as far as the government is concerned, all you have is a goldfish. Lose your goldfish and the government says, sorry good luck but there's nothing we can do. Lose your licensed dog and the government says we'll keep an eye out for him, are his shots up to date?
The rule of law died with the Left's establishment of a pro-choice cult, including corruption of The Constitution to force [selective] congruence. Not since the ratification of the South African constitution, has there been an official establishment of race-based discrimination. Not since the Left's Marxist, communist, socialist, fascist global crusades, have so many human lives been lost or dislocated in the pursuit of power and wealth.
Americans, especially Christian Americans, need to confront the left's subversive tactics. Whether it is institutional discrimination of individuals by the congruence movement ("="), or debasement of human life by the pro-choice/abortion rites feminists, or violation of civil rights by the pro-immigration factions, the moral hazards they create are diverse and progressive.
If you think issuing a dog license to someone who actually has a dog is at all comparable with signing a same-sex marriage certificate, you might be a dumbass libtard.
Matthew Sablan:
She's not only a Democrat, but one of a majority who have protested congruence policies. The most prominent Democrat protest occurred in California, which was summarily overruled by a transgender judge. The telling part, however, was that the pro-choice/congruence activists did not attack the Democrat base, but instead launched an assault on Mormons. I guess transgender activists thought they could stir up support through discovery of a common cause in anti-Mormon prejudice. It was a tactical victory, but it also exposed their ulterior motives to scrutiny by the general public.
If you think comparing one government issued license to another government issued license in unimaginable, you might be a humorless dipshit.
"The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials...."
We'll do much better with mayors and others who ignore state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, federal officials who perjure themselves and ignore subpoenas, "sanctuary" cities that violate immigration laws, judges who fabricate law out of whole cloth and a President who flouts the law and whose agents ignore court orders.
Law profs are, by and large, as biased and silly as I remember them!
Sure. One license involves a sacrament. The other doesn't. This isn't difficult, except for people who let their brains turn to mush because gay penis.
It's good to know the government can turn your goldfish into a dog by declaring it so.
Was it Orwell who said, "how many legs would a dogs have if you counted the tail as a leg? Four. A tail is not a leg."
n.n.
What are "congruence policies"? What does congruence mean in this context? I'm not famiiar with the term.
No answers yet, disappointing.
To those who missed it: If you oppose gay marriage because it's supposed to be about children, would you consent to fertility becoming a prerequisite if it would end this farce? (I would, for the record.)
And a new question: To those who support gay marriage, if opponents were willing, en masse, to consent to that prerequisite, would you drop your argument that children are irrelevant to marriage? And if so, what would you replace it with? Because my experience is you guys trot that supposed inconsistency out as if it devastating, when in fact it's really lame, and you guys seem unable to come up with any other argument.
(Oh, and no adding the utterly absurd requirement that once the woman hits menopause the marriage is dissolved. The definition of marriage includes "till death do you part". That ridiculous requirement for "consistency", which was brought up in another thread, is another pretty good example of how the Left requires us to define our own institutions to appease an insane demand for consistency. I cannot think of a single instance of the Left demanding even the most fleeting consistency in enacting or justifying any of their own policies, much less anything that hilariously extreme. Consistency *is* a virtue, but like all others, if you can't follow it yourself while demanding it of others, you're nothing but a hypocrite.
If you think comparing one government issued license to another government issued license in unimaginable, you might be a humorless dipshit.
So, a government dog license makes my cat a dog?
In his defense, the government is heavily laden with humorless dipshits. And a couple of humorous dipshits. The lack of non-dipshits is troubling, though.
Meade wrote:
"As far as the government is concerned, yes it does."
So the government says a bear is a dog. Hah! Laughs all around!
Then the government says that the hotel you own, which has some rooms reserved for guests with their dog, now must allow guests to bring their bear into your hotel. Because as far as the government is concerned, giving a bear a dog license makes it a dog.
The entire purpose of making SSM the law of the lad is to force people like Davis to either violate their principles or leave public life.
Qwinn,
No. I would not accept fertility as a prerequisite for marriage. My Christian understanding of the sacrament of marriage is that marriage is about more than children.
For that reason alone your thought problem, as it were, strikes me as frivolous.
No offense.
Roughcoat,
Really? Cause it's pretty funny... I just went to DuckDuckGo and typed "catechism marriage" and the first drop down option that came up was "catechism marriage children".
As for being "about more than children", that implies it is at least in some *part* about children. Here's a question for you. Per every branch of Christianity I know of, sex outside of marriage is a sin. This means that, per Christian ethics, one cannot virtuously even HAVE children outside of marriage. Given that, how can you claim that the "part" of marriage that is about children is optional and not utterly central to its purpose? If you want children, you *have* to get married, so how exactly can you consider them separable in Christian teaching?
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Depends on the nature of the court orders, doesn't it. We should observe the anniversary of the infamous Nuremberg Laws as a lesson in the power and the moral authority of courts. After that we should reflect on the Dred Scott decision. Our country is in dire straits. It needs fixing. It needs a few judges dangling from lampposts.
Given that, how can you claim that the "part" of marriage that is about children is optional and not utterly central to its purpose?
I made no such claim. I said that my Christian understanding of marriage is that it is about more than children.
If you want children, you *have* to get married, so how exactly can you consider them separable in Christian teaching?
I did not say that I consider children separable in Christian nor is that implied in what I wrote nor is to be extrapolated from what I wrote.
Are you Catholic?
Correction: "I did not say that I consider children separable in Christian marriage, nor is that implied in what I wrote, nor is it to be extrapolated from what I wrote."
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Kind of depends on what order is being defied, and what the consequence of defiance is, doesn't it? As I recall our country was founded based on defiance of the edicts of the British monarch, whose most disliked edicts had been approved by an elected parliament. Suppose everyone had decided to enforce Dred Scott vigorously? And while she is an elected official, she's not a policy maker. She's a bureaucrat. Her individual refusal, though it has gotten lots of people riled up, is as limited as her narrow political writ, and easily circumvented. In the end her personal refusal will keep no one from being married.
It will be argued, what if every official refused as she did? That would tell you something, would it not? Perhaps that there was something wrong with the order? But of course most of the nation is complying. It's an individual act of conscience in my book. She's not evil or a threat to the Republic because a majority (or vocal minority) do not agree with her.
Incidentally, I'm agnostic so I'm not all that invested in the answer to the question of "Christian teaching". Even if it weren't central to the religious meaning (I think it is, and I am quite interested in theology), it is *certainly* central to the "compelling state interest" that got the government involved in it in the first place. Dozens of court cases that justified each further step the government took to insinuate itself into marriage used society's interest in the next generation as the "compelling state interest" for the justification. Of course, none of *those* count as "precedent", only the ones the Left likes do. Maybe it has something to do with the Democrat party basically being nothing more than a criminal lawyer's guild pretending to be a political party. (Note how many Democrat presidential and vice presidential candidates in the last 40 years have been lawyers. Hint: Only 2 haven't been, and that number would be 1 if Al Gore hadn't gotten kicked out of law school).
Roughcoat, I was raised Catholic, and if I ever regained my Faith, I would return to the Catholic Church. I'm open to it, which I'm told should be the only prerequisite to getting it, but for some damn reason it just doesn't happen.
Roughcoat:
Congruence is a mathematical concept that describes a selective, recurring equality based on a chosen modulus. For example, 3 = 13 mod 5. 5 is the modulus. It is also the radix, as in base-10 numbers, where digits are recurring after a sequence of 10 consecutive digits.
I observe that the "=" movement is not at all about equality, but rather a congruence, with a noticeably selective modulus. The same is true of the women's rights movement that required normalization of indiscriminate killing and denigration of male dignity in order to force a perception of male-female equality. And, of course, diversity policies that are class (e.g. race, gender) rather than individual based.
As far as the "fertile" analogy, lets try another one:
We generally acknowledge the government has the right to recognize and subsidize that which it seeks to encourage. Take wind and solar power. The government gives them special permission to kill birds, and subsidizes their production with our money, and then forces us to buy their output at market rates, because they would not otherwise be viable. They ostensibly believe the benefits later will worth it (this is debatable - it's mostly just graft).
Why can't the state governments similarly decide to recognize and subsidize good producing (babies) heterosexual marriages, even though some of those may turn out to be infertile, or are even infertile ab initio, if they desire to encourage production of future workers and tax payers, and decide to discourage homosexual marriage?
You may assert that heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are not in competition, but evidence suggests that at least female sexual preferences not as hard wired as male, and are subject to societal views as well as economic incentives.
"I made no such claim. I said that my Christian understanding of marriage is that it is about more than children."
And my point does not require that it be *only* about children. It can be about more than children, but if you remove the possibility of children, what remains is insufficient to justify the institution, either from a religious perspective or the State's.
"The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials"
Oh please.
It's surviving Lois Lerner and her obstruction at IRS.
It's surviving Hillary's obstruction over her emails as SecState.
It's surviving the EPA's defiance of court orders.
It's surviving the San Francisco clerk's defiance for issuing illegal licenses.
It's surviving DCs defiance of recent 2nd Amendment rulings.
Wake me when you complain about these acts of defiance.
Qwinn:
In my tradition (probably yours as well) we like to say that you aren't a "true" Catholic until you've quit and come back to the church at least three times, LOL!
Kind of like--actually, a lot like--Peter denying Christ three times before the cock crowed.
I've "quit" and returned twice. So I guess I've got one quit due me. But I'm "in" now and I reckon I'll stay in for the duration.
Sometimes a person quits and presumably doesn't return until he gets to the other side. That's okay. Allowances have been made for that. God's grace, and all ...
Whenever you return, on this side or the other, you will be most welcome. See, e.g., the 3 parables of redemption. But especially Matthew 18:12-14 and Luke 15:3-7, my personal favorites. I’ve been the lamb the shepherd came looking for. Maybe I still am to a certain extent. Maybe we all are.
The shepherd always comes for us.
n.n.
Thanks for the explanation. I don't really understand it, but that's my bad.
but if you remove the possibility of children, what remains is insufficient to justify the institution, either from a religious perspective or the State's.
Oh, I don't agree with that at all. I think you're wrong. But I've said my piece, and that's that.
"Davis was sent to jail because she gave the finger to a federal judge. She's lucky she isn't still locked up."
Oh please, cracker. He made a serious PR error locking her up, and I'd bet anything he got a sternly worded message from on high to wake the fuck up.
Softly, softly, catchee monkey. The Left have forgotten this and the eventual backlash is going to send them scurrying for ideological cover.
Give me Judge Vance Day. It's a 1000% better story.
Kim Davis is not going to win. Judge Vance Day should win, and I think he will win.
I just saw on "modern Marvels" tonight that in 1967 some wise guy in Tennessee applied for a license to marry his Shelby 350. His application was rejected.
However, how many states require a license to be married, and why? It would appear to be an exercise in futility, since the questions most likely to be required to be answered by the applicants on the forms, can't be asked these days lest someonoe's feelings get hurt, or it's raaacist!, or whatever.
I cannot remember anything about forms to be filled out when I got married, either before or after. I assume the minister took care of recording it with the county clerk, but I do not know. Nor has anyone ever asked to see any document certifying the marriage, as far as I know. Or the divorce papers for that matter.
In any case, I think as far as the Feds go, and in most states too today, "the authorities" consider you married in a "common law marriage" if you just have been cohabiting with someone of the opposite sex for any length of time. Since the Feds now, following the SCOTUS dictat, consider same sex to be the same as opposite sex, why is there even any discussion about licenses to marry?
And - how many people list their pet iguana as their "spouse" and file a joint return?
Only The Shadow knows!
Yet another question I never had answered (though I admit I wasn't the one to think of this one, someone else did, can't recall who): for at least a decade, corporations have been extending benefits to gay couples in the workplace. Now that they *can* get married, allowing a grace period of maybe a year to actually have the ceremony, "equality" would require that those benefits be rescinded. As far as I know, they haven't been, nor have they even been advised that they need to in order to keep the benefits (one would assume this would've made the news at least once if it happened). Ask yourself why cohabiting gays still get the benefits without the marriage, while straights never have and never will.
Perhaps we could start a movement to repeal the 14th Amemdment, or at lest require a 2/3 majority on the Supreme Court to find any more magical powers in there?
Roughcoat:
Try this: Modular Arithmetic
It's a critical concept in mathematics that enables exploitation of the periodicity or symmetry that is found throughout nature and in artificial systems and processes.
The best known example is our counting numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... 9; this is the decimal or base-10 number system. It reuses its digits on every eleventh (10+1) count: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11, 12, ...
In the equation from my earlier comment, 3 = 13 mod 5, 3 is the integer remainder after dividing 13 by 5: 13/5 = 2, with a remainder of 3. So, obviously, 3 <> 13/5, but 3 is congruent to 13 mod 5. This becomes more interesting when combined with algebra, which generalizes its application and extends its utility.
Hagar wrote:
"Perhaps we could start a movement to repeal the 14th Amemdment, or at lest require a 2/3 majority on the Supreme Court to find any more magical powers in there?"
Personally, I favor lowering the requirement for a constitutional amendment from a 2/3 vote the House and the Senate to a 3/5 vote. When a single SC justice can change the meaning of the constitution, we need to make it more sensitive to small-d democratic influence.
I've gotten over this issue for some time now but I do have one question:
Why do so many on the right insist on pointing out she's a democrat?
so what!?
Fred Phelps is also, and has always been, a Democrat.
If you've ever seen how the news covers him, you wouldn't need to ask why we are in the habit of pointing it out.
"...It’s also dangerous. The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials...."
Is this really the sentiment of Ms. Althouse?
When the high court justices, demonstrated themselves to be ideological hacks--that's dangerous. They pulled up their robes, and mooned the country.
"Why do so many on the right insist on pointing out she's a democrat?
so what!?"
Hypocrisy os always good to point out when the practice is enshrined in law.
On children and marriage, I suspect many of those arguing are not aware that children, even when grown, are often quite dependent on post childbearing year parents. When you are 70 and your children still need patenting in some fashion, you will understand that aspect.
"...It’s also dangerous. The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials...."
hahaha. The nation will survive. But the hypocrites babbling about the rule of law while simultaneously selling guns to mexican cartels, using the IRS and EPA to harrass political enemies, harboring illegals in our country in violation of our laws, selective enforcement of laws, using the DOJ to start a race war, rewriting obamacare laws to help cronies, enriching Wall Street and corporate cronies like GE at our expense, lying on the graves of veterans etc.
It is hard t find a decent bone in a progressive body at this point. The only people in the democrat party that still support Hillary are baby boomers. The baby boomer generation has looted this country and is destroying it's institutions. This will not end well.
Not sure where Feldman's been this entire time while various elected officials have seen fit to ignore things like immigration laws and drug laws. The left has long held, if not officially then at least in practice, that laws that run counter to its ideals need not be followed and can actively be undermined. Hence sanctuary cities, allowing marijuana sales, numerous attempts to make end-runs around the First and Second amendments, or one of the latest fads, which is to ignore due process when it comes to sexual assault accusations.
I don't have any sympathy for people getting upset that a mere county clerk isn't following the law, precisely because the rule of law hasn't been respected by many left-leaning officials much higher than a clerk in recent years and progressives mainly haven't had any problem with that. Law cannot be sacred in one instance and an unjust thing that must be ignored in another, unless one is specifically and selectively employing Kim Davis's principle that immoral laws must not be followed.
Davis's issue may not be popular here, but the principle of fighting laws one disagrees with should be a no-brainer, since that is the genesis of reform and change.
The nation will not long survive open defiance of court orders by elected officials....
Yes it will. The judiciary is out of control, and if this ends with the people paring back the more egregious SCOTUS excesses it'll be a good thing. The court's whole claim to legitimacy is based on its adherence to the constitution, and we've had far too many emanations of penumbras for that claim to be taken seriously.
"I made no such claim. I said that my Christian understanding of marriage is that it is about more than children."
As Qwinn said, it is the protection of children, and for a long time, spouses who were economically unequal, that justify the state's involvement in marriage. Absent that, contract law is certainly sufficient to deal with any other issues.
Gays bring up the issue of not being able to visit "spouses" (That word is even funnier than "marriage" in these circumstances) in the hospital, but that is a cultural issue. No one ever demanded my marriage certificate for me to visit my wife in the hospital. This also could easily be managed by contract law.
Women are no good at oath.
An oath is a vow or promise made to a god or gods. An atheist can't make an oath (though they can say the words). Where I live an atheist cop sued the state because he wanted to take his police oath without saying "so help me God". He won. No one seemed to have realized that his oath was meaningless without the "so help me God" formula. He was promising the state to obey the state? That's ludicrous. If he was to disobey the state he wouldn't care about obeying the state. If he did whatever the state asked him to do he is no better than a nazi. If he chose to simply obey his conscious, he might make a great super hero, but he would be a terrible cop.
Funny how we only get posts on this law professors blog about how it's bad when public servants fail to uphold the law when it's about opposing gay marriage by some County clerk.
The bar to lawlessness by public officials has been set at the top, repeatedly, by the man you voted for, Althouse.
I have no sympathy for Obama supporters complaining about adherence to the law when it comes to their ox being gored. I have zero fucks to give.
Your take on the American oath of office is strange and mistaken, Terry. Public officials swear to uphold the Constitution and duly passed laws, on their honor, and is not a blanket vow to serve "the State".
I am agnostic and I took my oath to serve seriously. It wasn't meaningless. That you can't see that non-believers can take an oath seriously speaks more about your lack of vision than anything else.
@SGT Ted Can you give an example of Obama faced with a court order to follow what the court says is the law where he has claimed that he, as an individual, has a right to do what the court has said is in violation of law?
The answer, of course, is no. You are only thinking of examples of things where Obama has an opinion of what the law is that you think is wrong and that has not gone through the courts and resulted in an order.
And that's a law professor answer.
To Althouse:
"The Court was first apprised by the Government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this Court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions—violations which have not yet been fixed. This Court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this Court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regard to its “efforts” to rectify this situation.The Government promised this Court on May 7, 2015, that “immediate steps” were being taken to remedy the violations of the injunction. Yet, as of June 23, 2015—some six weeks after making that representation—the situation had not been rectified. With that in mind, the Court hereby sets a hearing for August 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. In addition to the individual Defendants, the Government shall bring all relevant witnesses on this topic as theCourt will not continue this matter to a later date. The Government has conceded that it has directlyviolated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior. That is unacceptable and,as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional. To be clear, thisCourt expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Complianceas to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance."
And
"[A]t some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct into compliance, one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate. If these violations have not been corrected by the end of this month, absent very compelling evidence, which this Court will be glad to consider, the only logical conclusion is that the Government needs a stronger motivation to comply with lawful court orders."
So, yes, Althouse. There is that.
That was quick.
Althouse apparently can't even spell RFRA.
She thinks she's got that "creamy hippie-chick center" but when it comes to teh gheys she's fine with Lavrenty Beria and cheers on the Stasi. Get those counter revolutionaries, Ann! Throw them all in prison until they sign their oaths and confessions and official denunciations of their faith!
Go get 'em!
So much for the small l liberalism that you pretended to yourself you believed in.
tim in vermont,
Re my statement that "my Christian understanding of marriage is that it is about more than children" and your response to it:
It seems that we are not talking about the same thing, or that we are talking past each other, or some such. Marriage is a sacrament, i.e. "a visible sign or symbol of God's grace conferred on humans." And my wife and I were unable to have children (God's will, that). Children or no, our marriage of 35 years is consecrated and blessed by God, and is undertaken and maintained in recognition (and the belief) that we are fulfilling His purpose for us. In other words it is, for us, about more than children. Mere contract law does not and cannot encompass the holy nature of our union.
Sorry to get all churchy in my language. I rarely talk like this to anyone. But it is appropriate to the subject and to [trying] to get my point across.
To be honest Roughcoat, I gave up church a long time ago. My only point is that the state's interest in marriage as an institution has nothing to do with religion. It is perfectly rational for the government to distinguish between sterile "marriages" and marriages that my produce children, and that involve a spouse who sacrifices economically to produce those children, who are essential to the survival of the nation for which the state is responsible.
The SCOTUS opinion that no such justification exists was nothing more than a rationalization of their will.
Roughcoat, you are right of course about the Catholic view of marriage and this is why we can't answer affirmatively to Quinn's hypothetical.
There is a lot more to the theology. Marriage is a union that reflects the complementarity of the sexes (one reason it's impossible for the Church to endorse SSM) and a primary reason that God created us "man and women" is for the creation of new life which comes forth from those unions.
There is also a deeper theology involving a metaphor wherein the spouses represent Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride....but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
From the secular perspective though, certainly the natural bearing of children from sexual unions between men and women is the main interest of the state with respect to marriage. Looking at it that way, I'd still reject the premise that the couple would have to prove fertility because there is no such test in other situations where the state confers benefits that exclude some groups (I think someone mentioned the example of tax breaks for certain corporations that might provide some benefit to society- the petitioners that receive those benefits sometimes do not end up providing the societal benefit, but they had to meet some standard initially to show that they were in a class that might do so.)
It's also foolish to think that if this were offered up (offering that only fertile couples could obtain marriage licenses) that SSM advocates would be satisfied. Anyone who points out the "hypocrisy" of allowing nonfertile heterosexual to marry is really not looking for such as solution.
I blame Theodore Roosevelt - he's the person who introduced "so help me God" to the oath of office as a punctuation to his inauguration after the assignation of McKinley.
tim in vermont and CStanley:
Thanks to you both for your comments and observations.
We are basically in agreement on the larger issues.
Tim, I agree entirely with what you said about SCOTUS. I believe the term you used in previous thread was "machtgelust."
But ... "sterile marriages"? Ouch! :)
This country will not long survive the open defiance of RFRA statutes and First Amendment liberties by appointed officials.
If this country will not long survive the open defiance of elected officials if court orders, Obama has killed it already.
Sgt. Ted wrote:
"Your take on the American oath of office is strange and mistaken, Terry. Public officials swear to uphold the Constitution and duly passed laws, on their honor, and is not a blanket vow to serve "the State".
I am agnostic and I took my oath to serve seriously. It wasn't meaningless. That you can't see that non-believers can take an oath seriously speaks more about your lack of vision than anything else"
Look up the word "oath", Sgt. Ted. What are you calling to witness and hold you to your oath? As I wrote, you can always say the words, but an oath must be sworn to a deity, or it's just words. I was talking about language and its corruption, not whether atheists are better at holding to their oaths than non-atheists. Is an atheist using a swear word if he says reflexively says "Jesus!" as an exclamation? I don't know, but I am pretty sure he's not being a principled atheist.
"@SGT Ted Can you give an example of Obama faced with a court order to follow what the court says is the law where he has claimed that he, as an individual, has a right to do what the court has said is in violation of law?"
So when Obama says he is going to ignore the law because he wants to ignore the law (as in DOMA enforcement), and then he ignores the law, he isn't really ignoring the law until a judge orders him to stop ignoring the law.
Good thing that we have the rule of law in this country!
What Terry said @ 10:02.
In any case, aren't there a few lawsuits working their way through the channels right now that could put Obama in that position? I've lost track of where things stand with Boehner's suit, and I think I heard that the family of the girl killed in a sanctuary city was bringing a suit.
The question in a lot of these instances of Obama's lawlessness, I think, is who has legal standing. There's also the question of whether the judicial branch should be checking the executive, when that's generally thought to be the role of the legislative branch.
@SGT Ted Can you give an example of Obama faced with a court order to follow what the court says is the law where he has claimed that he, as an individual, has a right to do what the court has said is in violation of law?
A federal judge explicitly forbade his admin from continuing their immigration policy until the hearing.
They've been nailed twice lying about it and the judge has been threatening sanctions.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/judge-hanen-is-not-amused.php
Ditto the IRS in their FOIA suit with Judicial Watch.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/federal-judge-orders-obama-irs-to-court/
Roughcoat:
28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. "
The first commandment.
24 Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The definition of marriage.
My opinion is that only a relationship between a man and woman is compatible with evolutionary fitness (the function that directs evolution/chaos). As such, this is the only relationship that can be legitimately normalized/promoted in a society, in humanity. Since this is a matter of not only normalizing functional behaviors, but also orientations, the inclusion of infertile or abstaining couples -- not couplets, etc. -- does not deter or distract from realizing this objective.
When I swore my oath, so help me god meant nothing to me. Because as an agnostic, I'm not sure there is one. I know atheists who served honorably. So that dog don't hunt Terry.
SGT Ted Can you give an example of Obama faced with a court order to follow what the court says is the law where he has claimed that he, as an individual, has a right to do what the court has said is in violation of law?"
Quit playing stupid.
I do get that marriage is supposed to be about "more than" children from a theological standpoint (from the perspective of the State, however, I still maintain there's no other purpose). Unfortunately, the Left has turned it into having *absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with children*, and they're succeeding. I'd rather see marriage tied more firmly to children than it strictly needs to be, than to have it severed entirely, because, you know, while the former isn't ideal, the latter is societal suicide.
And yes, of course, the Left wouldn't accede even if we made fertility a requirement. That was the true point of my hypothetical - to demonstrate how utterly disingenuous they are in all this. Of course, none of them are answering, because they know any answer they give can only give away their game.
And I have to say I'm highly entertained that the Professor stated outright that there's no evidence of Obama defying the law - wait, actually, she demanded evidence and then assumed in her next paragraph without even giving anyone a chance to offer it that it doesn't exist - and she's been handed multiple links showing multiple ways in which Obama has done just that, and shamelessly. I wonder if she'll address them? I suspect not.
His fecking AG is in contempt of Congress for Chrissakes! Why doesn't the Sergeant at Arms arrest him?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন