Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Umbran]

One legal loophole the KY Clerk seems to have used is that she refused to grant ANY licenses. Thus, though her reason was discriminatory/religious, her actions were technically not.

She began by denying them to gays back on June 26th, then expanded to refusing to issue all licenses. It is on July 1 that four couples (two gay, two hetero) she had denied filed a lawsuit, and the court got involved.

When she phrases it as, "I will not grant any licenses because I must grant them to gays, and that is against my religion" she is in violation of both the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses. I presume she gave her reasons in court - I have not read transcripts. But, she made such a statement on August 31st, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to grant her stay request:

"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word."

So, no shelter for her.

Among her duties as clerk is to process licenses along well-defined guidelines. As soon as she refuses, she's not doing her job. As soon as she gives those reasons, she's also in violation of Constitutional law.

 

[tomBitonti]

I was wondering about that.

If your intent is to deny licenses to gay couples, and you means is to deny licenses to everyone, it would seem that you still intended to discriminate.

It seems to be a fine line.

Although, technically, you aren't discriminating against specific couples based on their race, so I'm not sure if racial discrimination charges apply.

And, not sure how you would prove intent in a general case. In this case, because of specific statements which were made, I'm thinking that wouldn't be a problem.

At some point, one gets to feel a bit of consternation over what is, basically, sophistry. I wonder what a typical judges response would be, or, are they very good at seeing through pretense. If I were judging the situation, trying to cleverly avoid a law would not be greeted very well.

(I see this in code a lot. My basic rule is to weed out unnecessarily clever code, rather with prejudice.)

Thx!
TomB

 

[Umbran]

Although, technically, you aren't discriminating against specific couples based on their race, so I'm not sure if racial discrimination charges apply.

Of course not. But the 14th has been extended to gay marriage rather directly. There's no need for race to be involved.

And, not sure how you would prove intent in a general case.

There is no general case. There are only specific cases. They are handled by a court, so they ask and investigate. Rarely is there going to be such a case where the person is denying to do their job, with *no explanation whatsoever*. And it isn't like giving no explanation actually works out well for you, either.

At some point, one gets to feel a bit of consternation over what is, basically, sophistry. I wonder what a typical judges response would be, or, are they very good at seeing through pretense. If I were judging the situation, trying to cleverly avoid a law would not be greeted very well.

Well, the SCOTUS reply to her request for an appeal was a single line. "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the court is denied." My understanding is that means it isn't just Kagan, but the entire SCOTUS just went. "No." No commentary or discussion. Just, "Denied."

 

[Ryujin]

I was wondering about that.

If your intent is to deny licenses to gay couples, and you means is to deny licenses to everyone, it would seem that you still intended to discriminate.

It seems to be a fine line.

Although, technically, you aren't discriminating against specific couples based on their race, so I'm not sure if racial discrimination charges apply.

And, not sure how you would prove intent in a general case. In this case, because of specific statements which were made, I'm thinking that wouldn't be a problem.

At some point, one gets to feel a bit of consternation over what is, basically, sophistry. I wonder what a typical judges response would be, or, are they very good at seeing through pretense. If I were judging the situation, trying to cleverly avoid a law would not be greeted very well.

(I see this in code a lot. My basic rule is to weed out unnecessarily clever code, rather with prejudice.)

Thx!
TomB

Usually, in discrimination cases, there's some question as to whether or not there actually was discrimination. From where I sit there's absolutely no question, in this case, because the chief witness for the Prosecution would be the Accused.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In Wills & Estates, we were taught that the most dangerous weapon to your unsupervised client was a pen & legal pad.

In criminal cases, it is an open mic. Can't effectively plead the 5th when you blab to the media.

 

[Ryujin]

In Wills & Estates, we were taught that the most dangerous weapon to your unsupervised client was a pen & legal pad.

In criminal cases, it is an open mic. Can't effectively plead the 5th when you blab to the media.

I believe the expression is "declaration against penal interest", no?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Got it in one

 

[Janx]

She began by denying them to gays back on June 26th, then expanded to refusing to issue all licenses. It is on July 1 that four couples (two gay, two hetero) she had denied filed a lawsuit, and the court got involved.

When she phrases it as, "I will not grant any licenses because I must grant them to gays, and that is against my religion" she is in violation of both the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses. I presume she gave her reasons in court - I have not read transcripts. But, she made such a statement on August 31st, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to grant her stay request:

"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word."

So, no shelter for her.

Among her duties as clerk is to process licenses along well-defined guidelines. As soon as she refuses, she's not doing her job. As soon as she gives those reasons, she's also in violation of Constitutional law.

I'm good with that. I'm simply outlining what may have been her chain of "legal" reasoning. She's still a nepotistical active violator of plenty of other things in the Bible that she seems keen to ignore on, so if one of them big stone 10 commandment statues were to fall on her, I'd probably smile.

 

[nightwind1]

...

Or like "cram it down our throats" being used for every law that passed a vote that the opposition didn't like.

Actually, that phrase is almost always used in the case of right-wingers protesting about gay rights legislation. Which makes me wonder what they are thinking about in their spare time...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Something is rotten in the state of Kentucky.
http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order-202819766.html

This woman cannot even step aside with grace.