Refusing Jim and Joe a marriage license—worth $44K?
Attorneys for a gay couple who sued a Texas county clerk who denied them a marriage license on religious grounds have announced they’ve reached a settlement of the lawsuit.
In a statement, attorneys for Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton said Monday that they’ve settled their federal lawsuit against Hood County Clerk Katie Lang for what they’ve spent in attorneys’ fees — almost $44,000 [“Texas Gay Couple Settles Suit over Marriage License Denial,” NBCDFW.com, 2015.08.17].
Actually, $43,872.10, says the press release from the happy couple’s lawyers. Had Hood County not settled, the plaintiffs’ lawyers say the county could have faced half a million dollars in damages and legal fees.
As JT Eberhard writes, balky county employees standing for the non-existent right to use a state job to impose personal religious beliefs on others face two choices: settle for $44K and issue the marriage license, or go to court, lose half a million in taxpayer dollars, and issue the license.
Or, county employees, you could just do your job, issue the marriage license, and save yourself and taxpayers a whole lot of grief. Your call….
Coulda,shoulda,woulda Jackley be sued for his bad advice?
jerry
2015-08-22 15:15
If it is Jackson County you speak of, hell, they got all the money in the world. 44 thousand, chump change to these guys. When you get into the millions is when they take notice, until then, the taxpayers will pick up the slack.
leslie
2015-08-22 16:02
maybe a citizen initiated complaint to the state bar assn alleging malpractice, bad advice to jackley’s client: the people of the state of SD perhaps??
the bar assn of course is likely run by republicans in the old boy network.
this is the new version of “standing up for your rights while ignoring your responsibilities”. like those guys toting ak47s, or holsters, or concealed handguns in coats or purses, or ar15s (like what the guy imprisoned for life for the aurora theater shooting) in macdonalds. quoting Kooetnai Tribal chair, Shining Mountains, ep. 3, natl geographic
mhs
2015-08-22 16:06
No doubt Clerk Lane has hired herself a media consultant and shadow author by now. Look for her book tour coming soon to a Fox affiliate or hate radio station near you.
Cory asks rhetorically:
>“How much might it cost your county government to follow Attorney General Marty Jackley’s bogus advice and let county employees discriminate against gay couples based on personal religious beliefs?”
Has Marty Jackley ever advised that a homosexual couple could be legally denied a marriage license, Cory? In the statements you’ve referenced here at DFP, he seems to propose nearly the opposite: commonsense solutions that would allow such licenses to be issued while still honoring county employees’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
Your repeated suggestions that such a proposal is the equivalent of denying someone a marriage license seem dishonest to me. They also lead to a boy-who-cried-wolf effect that will unfortunately tend to detract from your credibility when you have more substantive criticisms of Jackley to offer.
Here Kurt and I go again (says Cory, eagerly rubbing his hands together):
I graciously overlook Kurt’s temporal omission (Kurt would make a good Senator: he pays strict attention to language!) and leap to the main question of what Jackley has said.
Marty Jackley has not said that the state may refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. He did say to the press on July 2 that individual public officials may refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. He also said that entire county staffs may refuse to provide said service.
That advice is sufficient to trigger a separate-but-equal complaint, as surely as if the county officials put up signs segregating water fountains for “Whites” and “Colored”. Imagine an Indian walked into the courthouse seeking a drink of water, and a county official said, “Look, I’m not saying you can’t have a drink of water, but I’m not going to allow you to drink water out of this fountain right here where all these good Christian white people are refreshing themselves. Wait right here, and I’ll see if any other county employees can bring you a cup of water; if they can’t, I’ll direct you to a county where you can get some water.” The violation doesn’t wait to find out whether the Indian can get water from any source; the punishable discrimination happens at the moment when the first county employee makes the Indian wait.
Ditto with marriage licenses: the discrimination case doesn’t wait for Joe and Jim to ask around for unoffended or heathen county employees or for a more tolerant courthouse across the county line. The discrimination case gets legs the moment the regular county clerk, who issues licenses to other people tells Joe and Jim they have to wait. Jackley’s advice tells individual county employees they can discriminate. Jackley’s advice subjects county employees to the kind of discrimination lawsuit that Hood County Clerk Katie Lang had to settle.
Dereliction of duty is grounds for a firing squad in times of war or peace. This is a time of war when right wing bigots believe they don’t have to perform the jobs they were hired for because it offends their widdle feelers. What a crock of overripe toro caca. There is the door. Don’t let it hit your brain on your way to Fake Noise to whine about hard assed liberals.
leslie
2015-08-22 23:51
“common sense solutions’-KINDA LIKE “BRING IT ON”. KINDA LIKE JACKLEY’S LAST EXPLANATION OF JUDGE SCHEIRER’S ruling against him and his news release weaslel!
nice hit cory. oh, and by the way, think republicans would ever consider hiring democrats for those jobs?
>“Marty Jackley has not said that the state may refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.”
Thanks for clarifying that, Cory. It seems to me that the above post could reasonably lead a reader to believe otherwise.
>“[Jackley’s] advice is sufficient to trigger a separate-but-equal complaint, as surely as if the county officials put up signs segregating water fountains for ‘Whites’ and ‘Colored’.”
We disagree.
mike from iowa
2015-08-23 08:22
and the Reclines.
Jake Cummings
2015-08-23 08:52
Kurt, an official’s personal religious beliefs do not grant him/her license to unduly burden constituents with the expectation that those seeking a service, such as a marriage license, can hypothetically be expected to visit neighboring counties or the state for a service his/her home county is legally obligated to provide. Is the state/discriminating county going to reimburse the discriminated party for the added expense this would occur? If so, how is that fiscally responsible (setting aside the morality, and yes, I understand some believe their religion trumps any social responsibility/morality). If the discriminating county official feels that strongly, maybe s/he should seek another line of work.
Perhaps one way to relieve the burden on constituents would be for the discriminating county to coordinate with a non-discriminating county to partner to offer service using an official who does not harbor religious objections to provide marriage licenses, but again, that would seemingly involve some appropriation of county funds that could be avoided if the original county official would fulfill the obligation s/he agreed to; namely to uphold and honor the laws of the state/county.
Hopefully reasonable minds prevail and this all remains hypothetical, but if it does not, Jackley’s comments certainly should give open-minded South Dakotans pause.
Jake Cummings
2015-08-23 09:06
I should clarify that the partnership I propose above would involve the non-discriminating county official traveling to the discriminating county to offer marriage licenses rather than the constituents having to do so.
Also, my prior post should read “… expense that would occur.” I guess I was vacillating between that phrasing and “this would incur.”
That’s what I get for posting before breakfast.
Nick Nemec
2015-08-23 10:17
Jake, government officials swear an oath to carry out their duties and support the Constitution. If they are unable to do so they should resign. There is no need to establish Rube Goldburg schemes to work around the alleged prejudices, religious or otherwise, of any government employee. The citizens who show up during business hours to receive normal government services should not be burdened by having to wait or come back at a later time when a not prejudiced employee is available to provide the service.
Jake Cummings
2015-08-23 10:29
Nick, I can only hope that Jackley’s views will evolve to support your assertions, as currently expressed, they offer no assurance that a homosexual couple seeking a marriage license would not potentially be expected to visit a neighboring county or the state, let alone waiting or revisiting their home county.
Nick Nemec
2015-08-23 13:08
I agree Jake. If that were to happen I hope the couple sues and wins. Equal protection under the law trumps everything.
Lynn
2015-08-23 14:53
Anyone know if the Family Heritage Alliance and the usual legislators will be parading Josh Duggar again during the next legislative session? Were they at the latest SDHSAA meeting? Do as I say and not as I do?
Perhaps someone should sue the county clerk who issued Josh Duggar his marriage license? Ah, but we don’t want our county clerks judging the merits of couples desiring to wed and making themselves liable for personal discrimination, do we?
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Kurt, an official’s personal religious beliefs do not grant him/her license to unduly burden constituents with the expectation that those seeking a service, such as a marriage license, can hypothetically be expected to visit neighboring counties or the state for a service his/her home county is legally obligated to provide. Is the state/discriminating county going to reimburse the discriminated party for the added expense this would occur?”
I’m not sure Marty Jackley has suggested that responsibility for finding someone to issue a marriage license would ever be shifted from the county to a couple, or that a couple seeking a marriage license would ever be required to travel or to incur any other expenses.
A straw man is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Jon D
2015-08-23 23:16
Here’s the deal, Mr. Evans. My parents, along with Roy Rogers, the Hardy Boys and my big sister Alice, taught me that when you see a big guy picking on a little guy who’s done nothing to deserve it, you step in and stop it. That’s what the good guys do. And if the bully actually has the gall to cry and wail that he’s the one being picked on because his “beliefs” tell him the little guy is a lesser human being than he is and therefore needs to be pushed down in the mud, well, not really going to listen to that. You have been legally ordered to stop your pushing, Mr. Evans, by good and honest people who have gone through the proper channels and passed laws requiring you to lay off. Do so or we will find it necessary to enact even more stringent laws against you. Please. End this now.
Jon D. wrote:
>“And if the bully actually has the gall to cry and wail that he’s the one being picked on because his ‘beliefs’ tell him the little guy is a lesser human being than he is and therefore needs to be pushed down in the mud, well, not really going to listen to that. You have been legally ordered to stop your pushing, Mr. Evans …”
Speaking of straw men, Jon, exactly when would you say I’ve argued for pushing anyone down in the mud?
You’ve certainly got me there, Kurt. You have never, to my knowledge, used the exact words “pushing anyone down in the mud”. You also clearly have no more idea of the concept of metaphor than you do that of strawman.
Now, maybe this is just another case of sneaky “liberal media” distorting Jackley’s statements, as I admit the sentence I cite above is not directly quoted by Keloland; however, there just may be a risk that the “strawman” we should fear is our AG — in the Wizard of Oz sense, because his statements evince the lack of forethought one expects from the proverbial Scarecrow.
Fortunately, I suspect his statements are intended to appeal to the base and position him for his eventual gubernatorial run. My hope is that reason will prevail over rhetoric as this situation transpires.
Kurt, the AG has not made clear whose responsibility it is to help applicants find an unbalking county employee to issue a license. The Yankton Press & Dakotan quotes the A.G. thus: “…[I]n the event that a register of deeds had a bona fide and sincere religious objection, that we would find a common-sense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license.” The “we” suggests the state would actively seek out the alternative. But that doesn’t change the fact that the balking employee is causing gay applicants to experience unequal treatment. That also does not make clear just how far the state will go in ensuring equal service. The Yankton report continues: “[A.G. Jackley] also said that in the unlikely event that there is no other county employee available, South Dakota law allows any county to issue a marriage license, in which case, LGBT couples could obtain them in an adjoining or nearby county.” Not the A.G.’s exact words, but that statement about what the law allows suggests a rather passive approach: if Adam and Steve stroll to their local courthouse and bump into balky staff, it’s up to them to drive all the way to another county to get their license. Plus, if I’m balky staff, exercising my personal religious freedom on the public dime (again, the employee loses the court challenge on that count: public employees must subordinate their First Amendment rights to their oath to carry out their public functions) means I want nothing to do with promoting the sin of gay marriage. I won’t fill out that license; why should I have to give those sinners advice on where to get their license? Doesn’t A.G. Jackley’s advice grant public employees license to essentially turn their backs on gay-marriage applicants?
leslie
2015-08-25 09:40
how does one get a sincere religious objection to sexuality? is it written somewhere?
mike from iowa
2015-08-25 10:37
leslie-it is so written in the wingnut’s political plank.
Steve Huff
2015-08-25 15:23
Let me make this as simple as possible. I am very willing to consult with any same sex couple that is denied, delayed or does not receive a marriage license by a county employee who claims they have a right to not issue the same. Opposite sex couples are not denied, delayed or otherwise do not receive a license if they pay the charge, follow the same steps and have filled out the appropriate paperwork. Saying that the state will help accommodate the objecting county employee is simply an invitation to losing litigation by the county and/or state. The story above is a perfect example of res ipsa loquitor – it speaks for itself. If the state/county had the right side of the argument, it would not have settled.
Thank you, Mr. Huff! County employees, you have an attorney ready to take you to court if you follow Attorney General Jackley’s advice. Do you want to take that chance, county clerks, or do you just want to do your jobs?
leslie
2015-08-25 16:04
what if Adelstein was gay, approached the counter for 500 license plate renewals back in the day when he owned all those trucks that did 15,000 times more damage to highways and likely much more to roads, as wiken is so fond of saying) and the clerk said, no, you are gay, you may have to wait. that person’s job would last about another 5 minutes. no common sense there.
or, concerning Howe’s recent photographed jailing and plea to a crime(s) a decade or more old, like the boz (btw, did the boz appear in shackles and orange jumpsuit?); what if vurcurevich grandson’s fraud or embezzelment charge highlighted parading him about in shackles and jumpsuit (i personally have never heard any more about it), was he treated differently? Howe’s last name is arguably much better known than vucurevichs’. How did the state handle either of these matters applying “common sense”. was it better lawyering?
fer chrissake jackley, you can’t treat ANY people differently at the license desk if they meet the requirements. period (as biloreily is so fond of saying). nobody needs a law degree to know that. maybe boz’ haber was right insisting “i don’t need no stinkin’ law degree to be Atty General!!”
Cory wrote:
>>“Kurt, the AG has not made clear whose responsibility it is to help applicants find an unbalking county employee to issue a license. The Yankton Press & Dakotan quotes the A.G. thus: ‘…[I]n the event that a register of deeds had a bona fide and sincere religious objection, that we would find a common-sense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license.’ The ‘we’ suggests the state would actively seek out the alternative.”
You suggested above (2015-08-22 at 19:57) that Marty Jackley would require “Joe and Jim to ask around for unoffended or heathen county employees or for a more tolerant courthouse across the county line.” That was a straw man.
>>“I won’t fill out that license; why should I have to give those sinners advice on where to get their license?”
Requiring a government employee to provide truthful information about an activity to which he or she has a religious objection is vastly different from requiring the employee’s direct participation.
>>“Doesn’t A.G. Jackley’s advice grant public employees license to essentially turn their backs on gay-marriage applicants?”
No, it doesn’t.
Leslie asks:
>“how does one get a sincere religious objection to sexuality? is it written somewhere?”
My impression is that the religious objections under discussion are less about sexuality per se and more about the forcible redefinition of the word marriage. The Gospel of Matthew quotes Christ clearly defining the institution traditionally known as marriage:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
—Jesus Christ
Kurt, I’m not convinced I’ve offered a straw man. If I really object to sending Jews to the gas chambers, but I still tell the Nazis where the Jews are hiding, I bear some moral culpability. If I object to gay marriage, but I provide the information gays need to get married (“Go talk to Suzie at the next window”), I bear some moral culpability for speeding their and my nation’s descent into Hell.
And even if the balking clerk provides that truthful information, I maintain that the balking clerk only avoids the civil rights lawsuit if the balky clerk provides that same information to everyone and processes no licenses, just as the county auditor would tell every citizen, gay or straight, inquiring about a driver’s license to go down the hall to the DMV. If straight folk can come to clerk X and get service right away while gay folk get told by Clerk X to go down the hall, we have separate but equal and a winning lawsuit.
bearcreekbat
2015-08-27 10:31
Great link Jake! Another Biblical verse directly supports men who lie down (or sleep) with each other. Ecclesiastes 4:11 points out that if two men lie down together, they will keep warm, but then asks how can one keep warm alone? This seems to be an explicit encouragement and approval of men who sleep together and would seem to support two men in love who make a life long commitment through marriage to lie down together.
Jake Cummings
2015-08-27 16:47
Thank you, Bear. While I do not personally understand homosexual attraction, I also cannot allow the vilification and discrimination of consenting adults that some of these zealots espouse.
I know it sounds cheesy, but a person’s beliefs and values (their “heart”) are what determine whether I want to interact with them, not his/her sexual orientation. I suspect some discriminators would say that “immoral” homosexual behavior demonstrates a character defect, but I obviously disagree.
mike from iowa
2015-08-27 18:02
William Sharp, legal director of the ACLU of Kentucky, said he believes the case is simple. “Religious liberty certainly does not allow public officials to deny government services to the public based on their personal beliefs,” Sharp wrote in a statement. “All that Davis is required to do in her official capacity as clerk is issue a form. In no way is she being forced to endorse anyone’s marriage or beliefs.”
bearcreekbat
2015-08-27 18:24
Jake, like you, I have no real understanding of how or why an individual is gay or lesbian, but I think I have some understanding of why someone might vilify and discriminate against gays and lesbians. I am old enough to recall when such vilification and discrimination was the “norm.” That certainly does not mean it was ever right, yet it might explain why some older folks learned this behavior.
And in these olden days, much like today, the folks quoting the Bible relied upon what they were told by preachers or friends and family, rather than what they read for themselves or their own common sense. They went along with the views that they heard.
Your view that “a person’s beliefs and values” mean much more than a few Bible verses quoted out of context is one reason why I have confidence that the future holds optimism for us all. Thanks for that!
Deb Geelsdottir
2015-08-27 19:50
Kurt, you’ve tried that bit of Scripture before to claim that Jesus opposed marriage for all and I’ve corrected you before.
Jesus was responding to a question about heterosexual divorce, so he responded about heterosexual couples. He made no reference, pro or con, about LGBT marriages because it did not exist at that time.
The quote you’ve continued to use has zero relevance to a discussion about marriage for all. In the Biblical record Christ never mentioned that subject.
Straw men are typically set up using factual statements.
Cory wrote:
>>>“If I object to gay marriage, but I provide the information gays need to get married (‘Go talk to Suzie at the next window’), I bear some moral culpability for speeding their and my nation’s descent into Hell.”
We disagree, Cory, but that’s mostly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. When Marty Jackley says “we would find a commonsense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license,” the word we clearly refers to those who issue marriage licenses. It doesn’t merely—as you say above (2015-08-25 at 08:22)—“suggest” that a couple wouldn’t be responsible for seeking out someone willing to issue the license. It explicitly states it.
If you believe there’s internal inconsistency in Jackley’s position, that’s a separate topic. Whether there is or isn’t, you’re setting up a straw man when you suggest his advice would require a couple to “ask around for unoffended or heathen county employees or for a more tolerant courthouse across the county line” and “grant public employees license to essentially turn their backs on gay-marriage applicants.”
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>>“And in these olden days [when vilification and discrimination against gays and lesbians was the ‘norm’], much like today, the folks quoting the Bible relied upon what they were told by preachers or friends and family, rather than what they read for themselves or their own common sense. They went along with the views that they heard.”
I’m wondering how you claim to know the basis for other people’s views.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>“Kurt, you’ve tried that bit of Scripture before to claim that Jesus opposed marriage for all and I’ve corrected you before.”
Also, if I were trying to demonstrate that Christ opposed marriage for all, I’d probably start by pointing out that Christ Himself was never married.
>“The quote you’ve continued to use has zero relevance to a discussion about marriage for all.”
Christ cites the fact that God created Adam and Eve male and female as the basis for the inseparable lifelong union traditionally known as marriage:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
—Jesus Christ
Even if you were an atheist, your claim that the above quote from the Christian scriptures has “zero” relevance to a discussion about marriage would be absurd.
Mike, interesting to note that Davis now faces a misconduct charge for her dereliction of duty. Of course, to avoid local conflict of interest, that charge must be prosecuted by the Kentucky Attorney General. Imagine if that scenario happened here in South Dakota, where we’d have to take charges against a balky clerk to the Attorney General who recommended balking.
Kurt, part of the problem here is that Jackley has not issued an official opinion or explicit guidelines for county officials to follow. His words leave room for clerks to balk and leave responsibility for solving the problem in the hands of the victims of discrimination. His advice may not require discrimination, but it allows discrimination. His vague “commonsense and reasonable to issue the marriage license” is cover for permitting unconstitutional discrimination.
It comes down to this: if your Quaker beliefs forbid you from taking life, you don’t take a job as a soldier. If your Baptist beliefs forbid you from facilitating gay marriage, you don’t take a job as a county clerk. Life demands choices.
Jake Cummings
2015-08-29 04:09
Kurt, that does not address the question — where is the straw man in my statements?
Jackley said what I indicated. Is your issue that Jackley’s statements regarding another county/the state granting the marriage license that it lacked quotation marks? Regardless, Cory and I both offered evidence from the media that supported my statement. I never asked what you considered “conclusive.” Straw men must be your default when confronted with evidence that does not support your position.
We are also going to have to agree to disagree on how one should quote the Apostles, but scholars who know considerably more about the subject than me have highlighted contradictions in the Gospels you cite (e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693). Thus, I would submit that when you quote a gospel, the apostle should be cited, not Jesus.
Alas, you just “keep on truckin,'” as I suspect we cannot have a discussion without some Evansian “straw man” appearing.
bearcreekbat
2015-08-29 10:37
Kurt, I am curious why you haven’t addressed the Biblical admonition in Ecclesiastes 4:11 that men are better off when they lie down together? Wouldn’t you agree that fully supports gay marriage? If not, why not?
Bob Newland
2015-08-29 10:52
I wish someone would explain what interest the State has in who makes contracts and promises consensually with another person, except to enforce the provisions of those contracts from a disinterested point of view.
mike from iowa
2015-08-29 11:09
Cory,Ms Davis’ lawter filed an emergency appeal to the Scotus – In an emergency filing with the high court, lawyers with the far-right Liberty Counsel argue that for Davis to issue and sign a marriage license for a same-sex couple would be a “searing act of validation” that “would forever echo in her conscience.” The order for her to license same-sex unions “demands that she either fall in line (her conscience be damned) or leave office (her livelihood and job for three-decades in the clerk’s office be damned).”
Maybe she should be forced to listen to 72 hours of Obama screaming about voter’s rights before she is fired from her job. She is not issuing any licenses. She is not performing her duties.
Deb Geelsdottir
2015-08-29 12:18
Kurt, Kurt, Kurt. This is your MO, focusing on small points while the issue gets lost. Here are a couple things:
If the fact that JC never married is a relevant example, as you seem to indicate, then no one should get married.
I SAID your JC quote was only about ***heterosexual marriage*** because that is what they asked him about. So he answered their direct question about ***heterosexual marriage*** with a direct answer about ***heterosexual marriage***. Therefore, as I SAID, it has no relevance to ***Marriage For All*** because the question JC was asked was not about ***Marriage For All***.
Is that clear enough?
Jake Cummings
2015-08-29 14:56
Thanks for pointing out the poetic language in the appeal, mfi.
I wonder if Davis feels a “searing invalidation” when she reads of couples whose marriage license she signed filing for divorce. Her lack of concern for the possible “echoes” of her discrimination on the consciences of homosexual couples is despicable.
I’ve had jobs that required searing acts of validation (of crass capitalist objectification and manipulation of fellow human beings) that echo in my conscience to this day. I quit those jobs and sought other employment.
Cory wrote:
>“[Jackley’s] words leave room for clerks to balk and leave responsibility for solving the problem in the hands of the victims of discrimination… His vague ‘commonsense and reasonable [way] to issue the marriage license’ is cover for permitting unconstitutional discrimination.”
When Marty Jackley says “we would find a commonsense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license,” the word we clearly refers to those who issue marriage licenses. That’s an explicit statement that responsibility for seeking out someone willing to issue the license wouldn’t be left in the hands of a couple.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Kurt, that does not address the question — where is the straw man in my statements?”
It’s in your suggestion (2015-08-23 at 08:52) that Marty Jackley would require those seeking a marriage license to incur extra travel expenses.
>“Is your issue that Jackley’s statements regarding another county/the state granting the marriage license that it lacked quotation marks?”
No.
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>“Kurt, I am curious why you haven’t addressed the Biblical admonition in Ecclesiastes 4:11 that men are better off when they lie down together? Wouldn’t you agree that fully supports gay marriage? If not, why not?”
If you’re going to badger me, I haven’t bothered to address your line of reasoning because I regard it as laughably ridiculous.
Bob Newland wrote:
>“I wish someone would explain what interest the State has in who makes contracts and promises consensually with another person, except to enforce the provisions of those contracts from a disinterested point of view.”
Consider the irony of an authoritarian Catholic like Rick Santorum who’s dedicated his life to creating state-sponsored incentives for marriage. Libertarians tried to warn you, Rick. Can you hear me now?
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>“If the fact that JC never married is a relevant example, as you seem to indicate, then no one should get married.”
No, Christ’s example doesn’t show that marriage isn’t for anyone, but it clearly shows that it isn’t for everyone.
>“I SAID your JC quote was only about ***heterosexual marriage*** because that is what they asked him about. So he answered their direct question about ***heterosexual marriage*** with a direct answer about ***heterosexual marriage***. Therefore, as I SAID, it has no relevance to ***Marriage For All*** because the question JC was asked was not about ***Marriage For All***. Is that clear enough?”
No, it isn’t. Christ cites the fact that God created Adam and Eve male and female as the basis for the inseparable lifelong union traditionally known as marriage. How do you say He’d have answered a question about “marriage for all”?
Jake Cummings
2015-09-01 03:29
First, Kurt, I never said Jackley would require anything. What I have suggested is that he, and it appears you, seems/seem to fail to consider the ramifications of his proposed “commonsense” solution.
Second, you seemingly have failed to research the stipulations pertaining to application for a marriage license. SDCL 25-1-10.1 (http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-10.1) states “To obtain a marriage license, each applicant shall sign the application in person in the presence of the register of deeds or in the presence of a person duly appointed by the register to act in the register’s behalf.”
If the discriminating county’s register of deeds refuses to grant a marriage license, the couple would need to travel elsewhere to satisfy the “in person” proviso. Now, perhaps you and Jackley know that every county has an open-minded individual who could be “duly appointed by the register to act in the register’s behalf,” but demonstrating that is the AG’s responsibility, if he presents that as a viable/”commonsense” option. Otherwise, yes, the couple would have to travel to an adjacent county or a location designated by the state — again, unless the state is going to travel to the couple (like the option I posed in an earlier post). Either way, there would be an added expense that could be avoided if the discriminating county’s register of deeds did his/her job.
Still no straw man (other than your own statements).
bearcreekbat
2015-09-01 10:59
Sorry Kurt, I did not mean to badger you. It is telling that you find the language I quoted from the Bible to be “laughably ridiculous” because I interpreted in a manner inconsistent with your world view.
I guess your answer provides support for the view of many other folks that some of your own particular interpretations of biblical language are “laughably ridiculous” or worse yet, harmful to others. At least my interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:11 harms no one.
Deb Geelsdottir
2015-09-01 15:01
If that isn’t clear Kurt, then there is nothing else I can say. And No, I’m not going to speculate on how Jesus might have responded to something he was never asked about and never talked about. As the scripture you originally quoted shows, Jesus only talked about heterosexual marriage. Even that was not apparently a major issue for him since he only discussed marriage when others asked him about it.
Jesus is not a source for marriage quotes. Try Paul. That’s about it for the NT.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>>>“First, Kurt, I never said Jackley would require anything… If the discriminating county’s register of deeds refuses to grant a marriage license, the couple would need to travel elsewhere to satisfy the ‘in person’ proviso.”
I’m not sure how you reconcile those two statements, Jake. You seem to be saying Marty Jackley would require the couple in your scenario to travel.
>>>“Now, perhaps you and Jackley know that every county has an open-minded individual who could be ‘duly appointed by the register to act in the register’s behalf,’ but demonstrating that is the AG’s responsibility, if he presents that as a viable/‘commonsense’ option.”
You claim it’s Marty Jackley’s responsibility to demonstrate the existence of such a potential appointee in every county. I’d say we can reasonably assume the existence of such a potential appointee in every county without Marty Jackley demonstrating it.
>>>“Still no straw man (other than your own statements).”
We obviously disagree.
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>>“It is telling that you find the language I quoted from the Bible to be ‘laughably ridiculous’ because I interpreted in a manner inconsistent with your world view.”
That isn’t why I find it laughably ridiculous. There are lots of Bible interpretations inconsistent with my worldview that I don’t find laughably ridiculous.
>>“At least my interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:11 harms no one.”
It’s not that it harms no one. It’s just that the harm it does is relatively small.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>“Even [heterosexual marriage] was not apparently a major issue for [Jesus] since he only discussed marriage when others asked him about it.”
I’m wondering how you profess to know that Christ only discussed marriage when others asked Him about it, Deb.
>“Jesus is not a source for marriage quotes. Try Paul. That’s about it for the NT.”
The New Testament includes important statements about marriage by Christ, Paul, Peter, John and others.
larry kurtz
2015-09-03 22:59
Cannabis is a product of Roman times even in Jesus’ pipe: self-reliance or moral hazard?
Jake Cummings
2015-09-04 05:03
Kurt, the law I referenced is clear about the couple needing to visit the county in person.
If an official “assumes” (as you and Jackley do — setting aside the colloquial caution about what assuming does to “you and me”) a common sense solution exists s/he must demonstrate that the couple would not be unduly burdened by the solution, and that is something SCOTUS requires, not just me.
You and Jackley saying something is “common sense” does not make it so. Moreover, how many possible designees do you think some of these counties (particularly our more rural ones) have?
Is your “common sense solution” to have one of your fabricated straw men certify the marriage? The fact that said straw man is a figment of a pious male’s imagination could definitely lend it credence in the eye’s of the hypothetical discriminators. Plus, “Evans’ Straw Man Certifiers” could have a certain lilting appeal in some circles.
>“If an official ‘assumes’ (as you and Jackley do — setting aside the colloquial caution about what assuming does to ‘you and me’) a common sense solution exists s/he must demonstrate that the couple would not be unduly burdened by the solution, and that is something SCOTUS requires, not just me.”
I’m not sure how anyone could possibly demonstrate in advance that no couple would ever be unduly burdened. As I understand it, such a demonstration would only be required after a specific person (or persons) filed a lawsuit alleging the contrary, and even then it would only be required for the person (or persons) who filed the suit.
>“Moreover, how many possible designees do you think some of these counties (particularly our more rural ones) have?”
I think every county in South Dakota probably has at least two dozen.
>“Is your ‘common sense solution’ to have one of your fabricated straw men certify the marriage?”
No.
>“The fact that said straw man is a figment of a pious male’s imagination could definitely lend it credence in the eye’s of the hypothetical discriminators.”
Kurt says, “every county in South Dakota probably has at least two dozen” officials who can issue marriage licenses. Each could also have dozens of drinking fountains marked for Colored use, but their presence would not allow a single “Whites Only” water fountain to pass constitutional muster.
larry kurtz
2015-09-06 09:44
Not rhetorical, Kurt: it’s a fact that Nazareth was a center of the cannabis trade and that the guy you call Jesus was a drug kingpin.
Jake Cummings
2015-09-07 06:38
Kurt, I already proposed that solution when I indicated the travel solution seemed less “common sense” when it would add needless expense to county or state budgets. Just curious, if the designee(s) travel to certify same sex couples’ marriages, would you expect heterosexual couples to receive the same service? If so, that is yet another added expense for the state/county, because if the traveling certifier service were not offered to everyone, then we tread into “reverse discrimination” (not sure why they needed the “reverse,” as discrimination is discrimination, but I digress).
Part of the criteria for whether a recommendation is “common sense” should be whether it represents an undue burden. Otherwise, the advisor is providing legal counsel that will almost inevitably result in the state losing in court (which we pay for as taxpayers), but doctrinaire perspectives (and electoral ambitions) obviously prevent such consideration in cases like this, abortion, and voting rights.
Your 24 officials in every county must spring from the Land of Your Straw Men. Again, saying something is common sense or a straw man or cooking up 24 mystery marriage certifiers does not make it true (or maybe the Wikipedia link to the SD county official roster you used as a basis for that outlandish statement was missing from your prior post).
I trust you will continue to ground your beliefs in whatever ideologies you espouse, and I will hope that our state officials come to their senses and help us avoiding becoming “Kentucky Northwest.”
Cory wrote:
>>“Kurt says, ‘every county in South Dakota probably has at least two dozen’ officials who can issue marriage licenses. Each could also have dozens of drinking fountains marked for Colored use, but their presence would not allow a single ‘Whites Only’ water fountain to pass constitutional muster.”
Straw men are typically set up using factual statements.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Just curious, if the designee(s) travel to certify same sex couples’ marriages, would you expect heterosexual couples to receive the same service?”
Probably.
>“Your 24 officials in every county must spring from the Land of Your Straw Men.”
Coulda,shoulda,woulda Jackley be sued for his bad advice?
If it is Jackson County you speak of, hell, they got all the money in the world. 44 thousand, chump change to these guys. When you get into the millions is when they take notice, until then, the taxpayers will pick up the slack.
maybe a citizen initiated complaint to the state bar assn alleging malpractice, bad advice to jackley’s client: the people of the state of SD perhaps??
the bar assn of course is likely run by republicans in the old boy network.
this is the new version of “standing up for your rights while ignoring your responsibilities”. like those guys toting ak47s, or holsters, or concealed handguns in coats or purses, or ar15s (like what the guy imprisoned for life for the aurora theater shooting) in macdonalds. quoting Kooetnai Tribal chair, Shining Mountains, ep. 3, natl geographic
No doubt Clerk Lane has hired herself a media consultant and shadow author by now. Look for her book tour coming soon to a Fox affiliate or hate radio station near you.
Cory asks rhetorically:
>“How much might it cost your county government to follow Attorney General Marty Jackley’s bogus advice and let county employees discriminate against gay couples based on personal religious beliefs?”
Has Marty Jackley ever advised that a homosexual couple could be legally denied a marriage license, Cory? In the statements you’ve referenced here at DFP, he seems to propose nearly the opposite: commonsense solutions that would allow such licenses to be issued while still honoring county employees’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
Your repeated suggestions that such a proposal is the equivalent of denying someone a marriage license seem dishonest to me. They also lead to a boy-who-cried-wolf effect that will unfortunately tend to detract from your credibility when you have more substantive criticisms of Jackley to offer.
I asked:
>“Has Marty Jackley ever advised that a homosexual couple could be legally denied a marriage license, Cory?”
I mean since the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, obviously.
Marriage licenses are marriage licenses. Every marriage license in SD looks exactly the same. Just issue them and don’t be self-righteous.
Here Kurt and I go again (says Cory, eagerly rubbing his hands together):
I graciously overlook Kurt’s temporal omission (Kurt would make a good Senator: he pays strict attention to language!) and leap to the main question of what Jackley has said.
Marty Jackley has not said that the state may refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. He did say to the press on July 2 that individual public officials may refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. He also said that entire county staffs may refuse to provide said service.
That advice is sufficient to trigger a separate-but-equal complaint, as surely as if the county officials put up signs segregating water fountains for “Whites” and “Colored”. Imagine an Indian walked into the courthouse seeking a drink of water, and a county official said, “Look, I’m not saying you can’t have a drink of water, but I’m not going to allow you to drink water out of this fountain right here where all these good Christian white people are refreshing themselves. Wait right here, and I’ll see if any other county employees can bring you a cup of water; if they can’t, I’ll direct you to a county where you can get some water.” The violation doesn’t wait to find out whether the Indian can get water from any source; the punishable discrimination happens at the moment when the first county employee makes the Indian wait.
Ditto with marriage licenses: the discrimination case doesn’t wait for Joe and Jim to ask around for unoffended or heathen county employees or for a more tolerant courthouse across the county line. The discrimination case gets legs the moment the regular county clerk, who issues licenses to other people tells Joe and Jim they have to wait. Jackley’s advice tells individual county employees they can discriminate. Jackley’s advice subjects county employees to the kind of discrimination lawsuit that Hood County Clerk Katie Lang had to settle.
By the way, am I allowed to chuckle at the irony of this clerk’s name?
Dereliction of duty is grounds for a firing squad in times of war or peace. This is a time of war when right wing bigots believe they don’t have to perform the jobs they were hired for because it offends their widdle feelers. What a crock of overripe toro caca. There is the door. Don’t let it hit your brain on your way to Fake Noise to whine about hard assed liberals.
“common sense solutions’-KINDA LIKE “BRING IT ON”. KINDA LIKE JACKLEY’S LAST EXPLANATION OF JUDGE SCHEIRER’S ruling against him and his news release weaslel!
nice hit cory. oh, and by the way, think republicans would ever consider hiring democrats for those jobs?
Cory wrote:
>“(Kurt would make a good Senator: he pays strict attention to language!)”
I try, and I’m usually somewhat skeptical of news stories without enough direct quotations to let me evaluate the words of a public official for myself:
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/ag-marriage-rights-must-coexist-with-religious-freedom/?id=181977
>“Marty Jackley has not said that the state may refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.”
Thanks for clarifying that, Cory. It seems to me that the above post could reasonably lead a reader to believe otherwise.
>“[Jackley’s] advice is sufficient to trigger a separate-but-equal complaint, as surely as if the county officials put up signs segregating water fountains for ‘Whites’ and ‘Colored’.”
We disagree.
and the Reclines.
Kurt, an official’s personal religious beliefs do not grant him/her license to unduly burden constituents with the expectation that those seeking a service, such as a marriage license, can hypothetically be expected to visit neighboring counties or the state for a service his/her home county is legally obligated to provide. Is the state/discriminating county going to reimburse the discriminated party for the added expense this would occur? If so, how is that fiscally responsible (setting aside the morality, and yes, I understand some believe their religion trumps any social responsibility/morality). If the discriminating county official feels that strongly, maybe s/he should seek another line of work.
Perhaps one way to relieve the burden on constituents would be for the discriminating county to coordinate with a non-discriminating county to partner to offer service using an official who does not harbor religious objections to provide marriage licenses, but again, that would seemingly involve some appropriation of county funds that could be avoided if the original county official would fulfill the obligation s/he agreed to; namely to uphold and honor the laws of the state/county.
Hopefully reasonable minds prevail and this all remains hypothetical, but if it does not, Jackley’s comments certainly should give open-minded South Dakotans pause.
I should clarify that the partnership I propose above would involve the non-discriminating county official traveling to the discriminating county to offer marriage licenses rather than the constituents having to do so.
Also, my prior post should read “… expense that would occur.” I guess I was vacillating between that phrasing and “this would incur.”
That’s what I get for posting before breakfast.
Jake, government officials swear an oath to carry out their duties and support the Constitution. If they are unable to do so they should resign. There is no need to establish Rube Goldburg schemes to work around the alleged prejudices, religious or otherwise, of any government employee. The citizens who show up during business hours to receive normal government services should not be burdened by having to wait or come back at a later time when a not prejudiced employee is available to provide the service.
Nick, I can only hope that Jackley’s views will evolve to support your assertions, as currently expressed, they offer no assurance that a homosexual couple seeking a marriage license would not potentially be expected to visit a neighboring county or the state, let alone waiting or revisiting their home county.
I agree Jake. If that were to happen I hope the couple sues and wins. Equal protection under the law trumps everything.
Anyone know if the Family Heritage Alliance and the usual legislators will be parading Josh Duggar again during the next legislative session? Were they at the latest SDHSAA meeting? Do as I say and not as I do?
Perhaps someone should sue the county clerk who issued Josh Duggar his marriage license? Ah, but we don’t want our county clerks judging the merits of couples desiring to wed and making themselves liable for personal discrimination, do we?
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Kurt, an official’s personal religious beliefs do not grant him/her license to unduly burden constituents with the expectation that those seeking a service, such as a marriage license, can hypothetically be expected to visit neighboring counties or the state for a service his/her home county is legally obligated to provide. Is the state/discriminating county going to reimburse the discriminated party for the added expense this would occur?”
I’m not sure Marty Jackley has suggested that responsibility for finding someone to issue a marriage license would ever be shifted from the county to a couple, or that a couple seeking a marriage license would ever be required to travel or to incur any other expenses.
A straw man is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Here’s the deal, Mr. Evans. My parents, along with Roy Rogers, the Hardy Boys and my big sister Alice, taught me that when you see a big guy picking on a little guy who’s done nothing to deserve it, you step in and stop it. That’s what the good guys do. And if the bully actually has the gall to cry and wail that he’s the one being picked on because his “beliefs” tell him the little guy is a lesser human being than he is and therefore needs to be pushed down in the mud, well, not really going to listen to that. You have been legally ordered to stop your pushing, Mr. Evans, by good and honest people who have gone through the proper channels and passed laws requiring you to lay off. Do so or we will find it necessary to enact even more stringent laws against you. Please. End this now.
Jon D. wrote:
>“And if the bully actually has the gall to cry and wail that he’s the one being picked on because his ‘beliefs’ tell him the little guy is a lesser human being than he is and therefore needs to be pushed down in the mud, well, not really going to listen to that. You have been legally ordered to stop your pushing, Mr. Evans …”
Speaking of straw men, Jon, exactly when would you say I’ve argued for pushing anyone down in the mud?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
You’ve certainly got me there, Kurt. You have never, to my knowledge, used the exact words “pushing anyone down in the mud”. You also clearly have no more idea of the concept of metaphor than you do that of strawman.
Kurt, I understand what a straw man is, and it seems you have mischaracterized the situation. Here is one source that led to my concerns: http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/ag-marriage-rights-must-coexist-with-religious-freedom/?id=181977 (note the last sentence “He [Jackley] says if someone else was not available, another county or the state could issue a license”).
Now, maybe this is just another case of sneaky “liberal media” distorting Jackley’s statements, as I admit the sentence I cite above is not directly quoted by Keloland; however, there just may be a risk that the “strawman” we should fear is our AG — in the Wizard of Oz sense, because his statements evince the lack of forethought one expects from the proverbial Scarecrow.
Fortunately, I suspect his statements are intended to appeal to the base and position him for his eventual gubernatorial run. My hope is that reason will prevail over rhetoric as this situation transpires.
Kurt, the AG has not made clear whose responsibility it is to help applicants find an unbalking county employee to issue a license. The Yankton Press & Dakotan quotes the A.G. thus: “…[I]n the event that a register of deeds had a bona fide and sincere religious objection, that we would find a common-sense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license.” The “we” suggests the state would actively seek out the alternative. But that doesn’t change the fact that the balking employee is causing gay applicants to experience unequal treatment. That also does not make clear just how far the state will go in ensuring equal service. The Yankton report continues: “[A.G. Jackley] also said that in the unlikely event that there is no other county employee available, South Dakota law allows any county to issue a marriage license, in which case, LGBT couples could obtain them in an adjoining or nearby county.” Not the A.G.’s exact words, but that statement about what the law allows suggests a rather passive approach: if Adam and Steve stroll to their local courthouse and bump into balky staff, it’s up to them to drive all the way to another county to get their license. Plus, if I’m balky staff, exercising my personal religious freedom on the public dime (again, the employee loses the court challenge on that count: public employees must subordinate their First Amendment rights to their oath to carry out their public functions) means I want nothing to do with promoting the sin of gay marriage. I won’t fill out that license; why should I have to give those sinners advice on where to get their license? Doesn’t A.G. Jackley’s advice grant public employees license to essentially turn their backs on gay-marriage applicants?
how does one get a sincere religious objection to sexuality? is it written somewhere?
leslie-it is so written in the wingnut’s political plank.
Let me make this as simple as possible. I am very willing to consult with any same sex couple that is denied, delayed or does not receive a marriage license by a county employee who claims they have a right to not issue the same. Opposite sex couples are not denied, delayed or otherwise do not receive a license if they pay the charge, follow the same steps and have filled out the appropriate paperwork. Saying that the state will help accommodate the objecting county employee is simply an invitation to losing litigation by the county and/or state. The story above is a perfect example of res ipsa loquitor – it speaks for itself. If the state/county had the right side of the argument, it would not have settled.
Thank you, Mr. Huff! County employees, you have an attorney ready to take you to court if you follow Attorney General Jackley’s advice. Do you want to take that chance, county clerks, or do you just want to do your jobs?
what if Adelstein was gay, approached the counter for 500 license plate renewals back in the day when he owned all those trucks that did 15,000 times more damage to highways and likely much more to roads, as wiken is so fond of saying) and the clerk said, no, you are gay, you may have to wait. that person’s job would last about another 5 minutes. no common sense there.
or, concerning Howe’s recent photographed jailing and plea to a crime(s) a decade or more old, like the boz (btw, did the boz appear in shackles and orange jumpsuit?); what if vurcurevich grandson’s fraud or embezzelment charge highlighted parading him about in shackles and jumpsuit (i personally have never heard any more about it), was he treated differently? Howe’s last name is arguably much better known than vucurevichs’. How did the state handle either of these matters applying “common sense”. was it better lawyering?
fer chrissake jackley, you can’t treat ANY people differently at the license desk if they meet the requirements. period (as biloreily is so fond of saying). nobody needs a law degree to know that. maybe boz’ haber was right insisting “i don’t need no stinkin’ law degree to be Atty General!!”
Cory wrote:
>>“Kurt, the AG has not made clear whose responsibility it is to help applicants find an unbalking county employee to issue a license. The Yankton Press & Dakotan quotes the A.G. thus: ‘…[I]n the event that a register of deeds had a bona fide and sincere religious objection, that we would find a common-sense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license.’ The ‘we’ suggests the state would actively seek out the alternative.”
You suggested above (2015-08-22 at 19:57) that Marty Jackley would require “Joe and Jim to ask around for unoffended or heathen county employees or for a more tolerant courthouse across the county line.” That was a straw man.
>>“I won’t fill out that license; why should I have to give those sinners advice on where to get their license?”
Requiring a government employee to provide truthful information about an activity to which he or she has a religious objection is vastly different from requiring the employee’s direct participation.
>>“Doesn’t A.G. Jackley’s advice grant public employees license to essentially turn their backs on gay-marriage applicants?”
No, it doesn’t.
Leslie asks:
>“how does one get a sincere religious objection to sexuality? is it written somewhere?”
My impression is that the religious objections under discussion are less about sexuality per se and more about the forcible redefinition of the word marriage. The Gospel of Matthew quotes Christ clearly defining the institution traditionally known as marriage:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
—Jesus Christ
This is a link to a possibly relevant comment on another post:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2015/07/03/ag-jackley-wrong-county-employees-have-no-first-amendment-right-to-refuse-marriage-license/#comment-15325
Kurt, still waiting for an explanation for how my statement was a straw man in light of evidence otherwise.
Also, given your quoting of Jesus Christ (which is actually Matthew quoting Christ, is it not?) you might be interested in this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-mark-achtemeier/jesus-and-same-sex-marriage_b_5634659.html. That assumes you can overcome your own confirmation biases and propensity to see straw men in factual statements.
Kurt, I’m not convinced I’ve offered a straw man. If I really object to sending Jews to the gas chambers, but I still tell the Nazis where the Jews are hiding, I bear some moral culpability. If I object to gay marriage, but I provide the information gays need to get married (“Go talk to Suzie at the next window”), I bear some moral culpability for speeding their and my nation’s descent into Hell.
And even if the balking clerk provides that truthful information, I maintain that the balking clerk only avoids the civil rights lawsuit if the balky clerk provides that same information to everyone and processes no licenses, just as the county auditor would tell every citizen, gay or straight, inquiring about a driver’s license to go down the hall to the DMV. If straight folk can come to clerk X and get service right away while gay folk get told by Clerk X to go down the hall, we have separate but equal and a winning lawsuit.
Great link Jake! Another Biblical verse directly supports men who lie down (or sleep) with each other. Ecclesiastes 4:11 points out that if two men lie down together, they will keep warm, but then asks how can one keep warm alone? This seems to be an explicit encouragement and approval of men who sleep together and would seem to support two men in love who make a life long commitment through marriage to lie down together.
Thank you, Bear. While I do not personally understand homosexual attraction, I also cannot allow the vilification and discrimination of consenting adults that some of these zealots espouse.
I know it sounds cheesy, but a person’s beliefs and values (their “heart”) are what determine whether I want to interact with them, not his/her sexual orientation. I suspect some discriminators would say that “immoral” homosexual behavior demonstrates a character defect, but I obviously disagree.
William Sharp, legal director of the ACLU of Kentucky, said he believes the case is simple. “Religious liberty certainly does not allow public officials to deny government services to the public based on their personal beliefs,” Sharp wrote in a statement. “All that Davis is required to do in her official capacity as clerk is issue a form. In no way is she being forced to endorse anyone’s marriage or beliefs.”
Jake, like you, I have no real understanding of how or why an individual is gay or lesbian, but I think I have some understanding of why someone might vilify and discriminate against gays and lesbians. I am old enough to recall when such vilification and discrimination was the “norm.” That certainly does not mean it was ever right, yet it might explain why some older folks learned this behavior.
And in these olden days, much like today, the folks quoting the Bible relied upon what they were told by preachers or friends and family, rather than what they read for themselves or their own common sense. They went along with the views that they heard.
Your view that “a person’s beliefs and values” mean much more than a few Bible verses quoted out of context is one reason why I have confidence that the future holds optimism for us all. Thanks for that!
Kurt, you’ve tried that bit of Scripture before to claim that Jesus opposed marriage for all and I’ve corrected you before.
Jesus was responding to a question about heterosexual divorce, so he responded about heterosexual couples. He made no reference, pro or con, about LGBT marriages because it did not exist at that time.
The quote you’ve continued to use has zero relevance to a discussion about marriage for all. In the Biblical record Christ never mentioned that subject.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>>>>“Kurt, still waiting for an explanation for how my statement was a straw man in light of evidence otherwise.”
Your evidence that Marty Jackley would require a couple to travel doesn’t strike me as conclusive, Jake.
>>>>“Also, given your quoting of Jesus Christ (which is actually Matthew quoting Christ, is it not?) …”
No, Matthew’s quoting of Christ is Matthew quoting Him, and my quoting of Christ is me quoting Him. :-)
>>>>“… you might be interested in this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-mark-achtemeier/jesus-and-same-sex-marriage_b_5634659.html. That assumes you can overcome your own confirmation biases and propensity to see straw men in factual statements.”
Straw men are typically set up using factual statements.
Cory wrote:
>>>“If I object to gay marriage, but I provide the information gays need to get married (‘Go talk to Suzie at the next window’), I bear some moral culpability for speeding their and my nation’s descent into Hell.”
We disagree, Cory, but that’s mostly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. When Marty Jackley says “we would find a commonsense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license,” the word we clearly refers to those who issue marriage licenses. It doesn’t merely—as you say above (2015-08-25 at 08:22)—“suggest” that a couple wouldn’t be responsible for seeking out someone willing to issue the license. It explicitly states it.
If you believe there’s internal inconsistency in Jackley’s position, that’s a separate topic. Whether there is or isn’t, you’re setting up a straw man when you suggest his advice would require a couple to “ask around for unoffended or heathen county employees or for a more tolerant courthouse across the county line” and “grant public employees license to essentially turn their backs on gay-marriage applicants.”
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>>“And in these olden days [when vilification and discrimination against gays and lesbians was the ‘norm’], much like today, the folks quoting the Bible relied upon what they were told by preachers or friends and family, rather than what they read for themselves or their own common sense. They went along with the views that they heard.”
I’m wondering how you claim to know the basis for other people’s views.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>“Kurt, you’ve tried that bit of Scripture before to claim that Jesus opposed marriage for all and I’ve corrected you before.”
If you’re talking about this, Deb, I’m not sure you corrected me:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2015/07/02/michael-hope-south-dakota-should-accept-marriage-equality/#comment-10328
Also, if I were trying to demonstrate that Christ opposed marriage for all, I’d probably start by pointing out that Christ Himself was never married.
>“The quote you’ve continued to use has zero relevance to a discussion about marriage for all.”
Christ cites the fact that God created Adam and Eve male and female as the basis for the inseparable lifelong union traditionally known as marriage:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
—Jesus Christ
Even if you were an atheist, your claim that the above quote from the Christian scriptures has “zero” relevance to a discussion about marriage would be absurd.
Mike, interesting to note that Davis now faces a misconduct charge for her dereliction of duty. Of course, to avoid local conflict of interest, that charge must be prosecuted by the Kentucky Attorney General. Imagine if that scenario happened here in South Dakota, where we’d have to take charges against a balky clerk to the Attorney General who recommended balking.
BCB, we humans seem to have an instinctive fear of difference. When the absolute word of God seems to support our fear, we behave badly.
Kurt, part of the problem here is that Jackley has not issued an official opinion or explicit guidelines for county officials to follow. His words leave room for clerks to balk and leave responsibility for solving the problem in the hands of the victims of discrimination. His advice may not require discrimination, but it allows discrimination. His vague “commonsense and reasonable to issue the marriage license” is cover for permitting unconstitutional discrimination.
It comes down to this: if your Quaker beliefs forbid you from taking life, you don’t take a job as a soldier. If your Baptist beliefs forbid you from facilitating gay marriage, you don’t take a job as a county clerk. Life demands choices.
Kurt, that does not address the question — where is the straw man in my statements?
Jackley said what I indicated. Is your issue that Jackley’s statements regarding another county/the state granting the marriage license that it lacked quotation marks? Regardless, Cory and I both offered evidence from the media that supported my statement. I never asked what you considered “conclusive.” Straw men must be your default when confronted with evidence that does not support your position.
We are also going to have to agree to disagree on how one should quote the Apostles, but scholars who know considerably more about the subject than me have highlighted contradictions in the Gospels you cite (e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693). Thus, I would submit that when you quote a gospel, the apostle should be cited, not Jesus.
Alas, you just “keep on truckin,'” as I suspect we cannot have a discussion without some Evansian “straw man” appearing.
Kurt, I am curious why you haven’t addressed the Biblical admonition in Ecclesiastes 4:11 that men are better off when they lie down together? Wouldn’t you agree that fully supports gay marriage? If not, why not?
I wish someone would explain what interest the State has in who makes contracts and promises consensually with another person, except to enforce the provisions of those contracts from a disinterested point of view.
Cory,Ms Davis’ lawter filed an emergency appeal to the Scotus – In an emergency filing with the high court, lawyers with the far-right Liberty Counsel argue that for Davis to issue and sign a marriage license for a same-sex couple would be a “searing act of validation” that “would forever echo in her conscience.” The order for her to license same-sex unions “demands that she either fall in line (her conscience be damned) or leave office (her livelihood and job for three-decades in the clerk’s office be damned).”
Maybe she should be forced to listen to 72 hours of Obama screaming about voter’s rights before she is fired from her job. She is not issuing any licenses. She is not performing her duties.
Kurt, Kurt, Kurt. This is your MO, focusing on small points while the issue gets lost. Here are a couple things:
If the fact that JC never married is a relevant example, as you seem to indicate, then no one should get married.
I SAID your JC quote was only about ***heterosexual marriage*** because that is what they asked him about. So he answered their direct question about ***heterosexual marriage*** with a direct answer about ***heterosexual marriage***. Therefore, as I SAID, it has no relevance to ***Marriage For All*** because the question JC was asked was not about ***Marriage For All***.
Is that clear enough?
Thanks for pointing out the poetic language in the appeal, mfi.
I wonder if Davis feels a “searing invalidation” when she reads of couples whose marriage license she signed filing for divorce. Her lack of concern for the possible “echoes” of her discrimination on the consciences of homosexual couples is despicable.
I’ve had jobs that required searing acts of validation (of crass capitalist objectification and manipulation of fellow human beings) that echo in my conscience to this day. I quit those jobs and sought other employment.
Cory wrote:
>“[Jackley’s] words leave room for clerks to balk and leave responsibility for solving the problem in the hands of the victims of discrimination… His vague ‘commonsense and reasonable [way] to issue the marriage license’ is cover for permitting unconstitutional discrimination.”
When Marty Jackley says “we would find a commonsense and reasonable way to issue the marriage license,” the word we clearly refers to those who issue marriage licenses. That’s an explicit statement that responsibility for seeking out someone willing to issue the license wouldn’t be left in the hands of a couple.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Kurt, that does not address the question — where is the straw man in my statements?”
It’s in your suggestion (2015-08-23 at 08:52) that Marty Jackley would require those seeking a marriage license to incur extra travel expenses.
>“Is your issue that Jackley’s statements regarding another county/the state granting the marriage license that it lacked quotation marks?”
No.
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>“Kurt, I am curious why you haven’t addressed the Biblical admonition in Ecclesiastes 4:11 that men are better off when they lie down together? Wouldn’t you agree that fully supports gay marriage? If not, why not?”
If you’re going to badger me, I haven’t bothered to address your line of reasoning because I regard it as laughably ridiculous.
Bob Newland wrote:
>“I wish someone would explain what interest the State has in who makes contracts and promises consensually with another person, except to enforce the provisions of those contracts from a disinterested point of view.”
Consider the irony of an authoritarian Catholic like Rick Santorum who’s dedicated his life to creating state-sponsored incentives for marriage. Libertarians tried to warn you, Rick. Can you hear me now?
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>“If the fact that JC never married is a relevant example, as you seem to indicate, then no one should get married.”
No, Christ’s example doesn’t show that marriage isn’t for anyone, but it clearly shows that it isn’t for everyone.
>“I SAID your JC quote was only about ***heterosexual marriage*** because that is what they asked him about. So he answered their direct question about ***heterosexual marriage*** with a direct answer about ***heterosexual marriage***. Therefore, as I SAID, it has no relevance to ***Marriage For All*** because the question JC was asked was not about ***Marriage For All***. Is that clear enough?”
No, it isn’t. Christ cites the fact that God created Adam and Eve male and female as the basis for the inseparable lifelong union traditionally known as marriage. How do you say He’d have answered a question about “marriage for all”?
First, Kurt, I never said Jackley would require anything. What I have suggested is that he, and it appears you, seems/seem to fail to consider the ramifications of his proposed “commonsense” solution.
Second, you seemingly have failed to research the stipulations pertaining to application for a marriage license. SDCL 25-1-10.1 (http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-10.1) states “To obtain a marriage license, each applicant shall sign the application in person in the presence of the register of deeds or in the presence of a person duly appointed by the register to act in the register’s behalf.”
If the discriminating county’s register of deeds refuses to grant a marriage license, the couple would need to travel elsewhere to satisfy the “in person” proviso. Now, perhaps you and Jackley know that every county has an open-minded individual who could be “duly appointed by the register to act in the register’s behalf,” but demonstrating that is the AG’s responsibility, if he presents that as a viable/”commonsense” option. Otherwise, yes, the couple would have to travel to an adjacent county or a location designated by the state — again, unless the state is going to travel to the couple (like the option I posed in an earlier post). Either way, there would be an added expense that could be avoided if the discriminating county’s register of deeds did his/her job.
Still no straw man (other than your own statements).
Sorry Kurt, I did not mean to badger you. It is telling that you find the language I quoted from the Bible to be “laughably ridiculous” because I interpreted in a manner inconsistent with your world view.
I guess your answer provides support for the view of many other folks that some of your own particular interpretations of biblical language are “laughably ridiculous” or worse yet, harmful to others. At least my interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:11 harms no one.
If that isn’t clear Kurt, then there is nothing else I can say. And No, I’m not going to speculate on how Jesus might have responded to something he was never asked about and never talked about. As the scripture you originally quoted shows, Jesus only talked about heterosexual marriage. Even that was not apparently a major issue for him since he only discussed marriage when others asked him about it.
Jesus is not a source for marriage quotes. Try Paul. That’s about it for the NT.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>>>“First, Kurt, I never said Jackley would require anything… If the discriminating county’s register of deeds refuses to grant a marriage license, the couple would need to travel elsewhere to satisfy the ‘in person’ proviso.”
I’m not sure how you reconcile those two statements, Jake. You seem to be saying Marty Jackley would require the couple in your scenario to travel.
>>>“Now, perhaps you and Jackley know that every county has an open-minded individual who could be ‘duly appointed by the register to act in the register’s behalf,’ but demonstrating that is the AG’s responsibility, if he presents that as a viable/‘commonsense’ option.”
You claim it’s Marty Jackley’s responsibility to demonstrate the existence of such a potential appointee in every county. I’d say we can reasonably assume the existence of such a potential appointee in every county without Marty Jackley demonstrating it.
>>>“Still no straw man (other than your own statements).”
We obviously disagree.
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>>“It is telling that you find the language I quoted from the Bible to be ‘laughably ridiculous’ because I interpreted in a manner inconsistent with your world view.”
That isn’t why I find it laughably ridiculous. There are lots of Bible interpretations inconsistent with my worldview that I don’t find laughably ridiculous.
>>“At least my interpretation of Ecclesiastes 4:11 harms no one.”
It’s not that it harms no one. It’s just that the harm it does is relatively small.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>“Even [heterosexual marriage] was not apparently a major issue for [Jesus] since he only discussed marriage when others asked him about it.”
I’m wondering how you profess to know that Christ only discussed marriage when others asked Him about it, Deb.
>“Jesus is not a source for marriage quotes. Try Paul. That’s about it for the NT.”
The New Testament includes important statements about marriage by Christ, Paul, Peter, John and others.
Cannabis is a product of Roman times even in Jesus’ pipe: self-reliance or moral hazard?
Kurt, the law I referenced is clear about the couple needing to visit the county in person.
If an official “assumes” (as you and Jackley do — setting aside the colloquial caution about what assuming does to “you and me”) a common sense solution exists s/he must demonstrate that the couple would not be unduly burdened by the solution, and that is something SCOTUS requires, not just me.
You and Jackley saying something is “common sense” does not make it so. Moreover, how many possible designees do you think some of these counties (particularly our more rural ones) have?
Is your “common sense solution” to have one of your fabricated straw men certify the marriage? The fact that said straw man is a figment of a pious male’s imagination could definitely lend it credence in the eye’s of the hypothetical discriminators. Plus, “Evans’ Straw Man Certifiers” could have a certain lilting appeal in some circles.
Larry Kurtz wrote:
>>“Cannabis is a product of Roman times even in Jesus’ pipe: self-reliance or moral hazard?”
Was that a rhetorical question, Larry, or was it addressed to me?
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Kurt, the law I referenced is clear about the couple needing to visit the county in person.”
It looks to me like it would allow a register of deeds or an appointee to go to the applicants:
http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-10.1
>“If an official ‘assumes’ (as you and Jackley do — setting aside the colloquial caution about what assuming does to ‘you and me’) a common sense solution exists s/he must demonstrate that the couple would not be unduly burdened by the solution, and that is something SCOTUS requires, not just me.”
I’m not sure how anyone could possibly demonstrate in advance that no couple would ever be unduly burdened. As I understand it, such a demonstration would only be required after a specific person (or persons) filed a lawsuit alleging the contrary, and even then it would only be required for the person (or persons) who filed the suit.
>“Moreover, how many possible designees do you think some of these counties (particularly our more rural ones) have?”
I think every county in South Dakota probably has at least two dozen.
>“Is your ‘common sense solution’ to have one of your fabricated straw men certify the marriage?”
No.
>“The fact that said straw man is a figment of a pious male’s imagination could definitely lend it credence in the eye’s of the hypothetical discriminators.”
No, your straw man is real.
Kurt says, “every county in South Dakota probably has at least two dozen” officials who can issue marriage licenses. Each could also have dozens of drinking fountains marked for Colored use, but their presence would not allow a single “Whites Only” water fountain to pass constitutional muster.
Not rhetorical, Kurt: it’s a fact that Nazareth was a center of the cannabis trade and that the guy you call Jesus was a drug kingpin.
Kurt, I already proposed that solution when I indicated the travel solution seemed less “common sense” when it would add needless expense to county or state budgets. Just curious, if the designee(s) travel to certify same sex couples’ marriages, would you expect heterosexual couples to receive the same service? If so, that is yet another added expense for the state/county, because if the traveling certifier service were not offered to everyone, then we tread into “reverse discrimination” (not sure why they needed the “reverse,” as discrimination is discrimination, but I digress).
Part of the criteria for whether a recommendation is “common sense” should be whether it represents an undue burden. Otherwise, the advisor is providing legal counsel that will almost inevitably result in the state losing in court (which we pay for as taxpayers), but doctrinaire perspectives (and electoral ambitions) obviously prevent such consideration in cases like this, abortion, and voting rights.
Your 24 officials in every county must spring from the Land of Your Straw Men. Again, saying something is common sense or a straw man or cooking up 24 mystery marriage certifiers does not make it true (or maybe the Wikipedia link to the SD county official roster you used as a basis for that outlandish statement was missing from your prior post).
I trust you will continue to ground your beliefs in whatever ideologies you espouse, and I will hope that our state officials come to their senses and help us avoiding becoming “Kentucky Northwest.”
Cory wrote:
>>“Kurt says, ‘every county in South Dakota probably has at least two dozen’ officials who can issue marriage licenses. Each could also have dozens of drinking fountains marked for Colored use, but their presence would not allow a single ‘Whites Only’ water fountain to pass constitutional muster.”
Straw men are typically set up using factual statements.
Jake Cummings wrote:
>“Just curious, if the designee(s) travel to certify same sex couples’ marriages, would you expect heterosexual couples to receive the same service?”
Probably.
>“Your 24 officials in every county must spring from the Land of Your Straw Men.”
You asked what I thought, and I told you.
>>> Indeed, Mr. Evans