The “same-sex marriage” maelstrom that swept up Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this summer isn’t about whether same-sex duos can be married in Kentucky or even “same-sex marriage.”
It’s about whether homosexual activists can identify a person as a Christian and attack that person personally, and, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, force them to violate their constitutionally protected rights, suggests a new filing with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A consolidated brief has been filed with the appeals court regarding several issues in the Davis case, from the validity of an injunction ordering her to violate her faith and issue “same-sex marriage” licenses to a decision by U.S. District Judge David Bunning to jail her for nearly a week over the conflict between two constitutional rights.
The dispute appears likely to end up before the Supreme Court, too, as members of the Supreme Court minority in the “same-sex marriage” decision warned the majority’s opinion – a bare five lawyers including two who apparently had violated common judicial ethics standards by advocating for one side while the case was pending before the court – would create such conflicts.
At issue are the differences between the First Amendment-enumerated right for Americans to practice their religion and the newly created right to “same-sex marriage.”
The brief, filed by officials with Liberty Counsel, points out that Davis “has consistently argued that there were multiple alternatives by which her undisputed sincerely held religious beliefs protected by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, both of which predate and survive Obergefell, could be accommodated while simultaneously ensuring individuals who are qualified to marry under Kentucky law may obtain valid marriage licenses in Rowan County.”
But, the brief said, that wasn’t good enough for activists.
“In a rush to judgment that promoted expediency over due process, the district court’s original injunction [from Bunning] in this dispute tramples upon Davis’ religious rights in subjugation to plaintiffs’ ‘preference’ for a marriage license authorized by a particular person in a particular county.”
The brief explained, “Under the circumstances here, plaintiff’s purported rights should not trump Davis’ undisputed sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The filing said the case is not about marriage partners, any state ban, whether the state recognizes “same-sex marriage,” or whether the plaintiffs could obtain a license.
“Marriage licenses – including licenses issued to same-sex couples — are and have been readily available across Kentucky in more than 130 locations, and plaintiffs are indisputably financially and physically able to drive to those locations to secure a license, as shown by their 60-mile and 100-mile trips to attend court hearings.”
And it’s not about a governor who was helpless – he could have at any point approved the accommodation that ultimately was installed as a result of the many court hearings, the argument says.
“Nor is this case about a county clerk who wants to re-litigate in federal court [the same-sex marriage case.]”
It continues, “Nothing in the Obergefell decision compels states to accomplish recognition [or equal treatment] of SSM by invading and trampling upon the conscience of individual county clerks, as occurred with the SSM mandate.
“This case need not be resolved by picking one set of rights to the outright exclusion of another. While plaintiffs continue to demand unrelenting adherence and submission to their orthodoxy of no accommodation whatsoever, Davis has consistently shown from the outlset of this case that there are multiple alternatives by which her undisputed sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage can be accommodated, while simultaneously allowing individuals to obtain valid marriage licenses…”
Errors in the case include when Bunning acknowledged that Davis had religious rights in the case, but simply brushed them aside, whether Bunning blew the ruling when he refused a request brought by Davis for injunctive relief to protect her rights, and whether Bunning was mistaken again when he ruled Davis was in contempt and jailed her.
That was done, the brief explains, “without affording her appropriate due process, violating her rights under the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and discarding fundamental principles of federalism and comity by commandeering a state office run by a publicly eleted official.”
Even to this day, Kentucky law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, because the state legislature has had no opportunity to change the definition since the court decision. In fact, it’s a misdemeanor for a clerk to issue a marriage license to such a couple, under the law as written.
The governor simply ordered clerks to start issuing “same-sex marriage” licenses or resign.
On the release of the Supreme Court’s opinion, Davis had simply stopped issuing any marriage licenses, in order to treat everyone exactly the same. She had sought an accommodation either from the legislature or the governor to allow her her First Amendment religious freedom rights.
Neither responded.
But a series of plaintiffs sued Davis specifically, despite the fact they could have obtained their licenses from multiple other locations.
“Rowan County is bordered by seven counties, and the clerks’ offices in these counties are within 30-45 minutes from the Rowan county clerk’s office … More than ten other clerks’ offices are within a one-hour drive of the Rowan County clerk’s office, and these counties are issuing marriage license, along with the two counties where the preliminary injunction hearings were held in this matter.”
Further, the brief explains more of the evidence that the activists in the case were targeting a specific Christian to try to force their agenda.
“Plaintiffs admitted that they never even attempted to obtain a license in any county other than Rowan County, despite the widespread availability of such licenses and even though plaintiffs have the economic means and no physical handicap preventing such travel … In fact, plaintiffs only attempted to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County clerk’s office after becoming aware of Davis’ religious objections to SSM.”
Then the district court, Bunning, took sides, too.
“Rather than considering Davis’ and plaintiffs’ requests together and allowing Davis to develop a further evidentiary record on her own request for individual religious accommodation from the SSM mandate, the district court granted plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.”
That’s even though Bunning “recognized that ‘this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence,’ thereby conceding that Davis’ individual religious rights are being ‘threaten[ed]‘ and ‘infringe[d]‘ by plaintiffs’ demands for her approval of their proposed unions.”
In fact, the district court said, “Plaintiffs can obtain marriage licenses from one fo the surrounding counties,” the plaintiffs are “not totally precluded from marrying in Kentucky,” and “plaintiffs have the means to travel.”
But Bunning struck down Davis’ constitutional rights becusae the plaintiffs “strongly prefer” to get their licenses from Davis.
“Here … the district court elevated their ‘preference’ to a newfound constituitonal right,” the brief argues.
Bunning said all was right because Davis still could believe what she wanted; she just wasn’t allowed to live her beliefs.
When she still refused to violate her faith and issue the licenses to homosexual duos, Bunning jailed her.
The brief explains Bunning violated the Constitution and the Kentucky RFRA by refusing to consider Davis’ own constitutional rights and choosing one of several options whereby the homosexual couples could get their licenses and Davis’ rights would be protected.
The brief points out that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision had two conclusions: that states may not absolutely bar “same-sex marriages” as voters in a majority of the 50 states had done, and states must recognize “same-sex marriage” like traditional marriage.
Further, Bunning made an issue of telling “Davis what her religious convictions should be, instead of recognizing the undisputed fact of what her religious convictions actually are,” Liberty Counsel explained.
That result, the attorneys argue, is “narrow-minded” and ignores “other laws requiring religious accommodation, name the Kentucky RFRA and First Amendment.”
WND reported earlier when Liberty Counsel asserted the case was not about “gay weddings” but about forcing a homosexual agenda on a Christian.
That comment followed a move by the ACLU, representing the same-sex duos, to demand from the judge an order that Davis re-issue the marriage licenses authorized by her office while she was in jail in her own name.
WND also reported just days ago on a new effort that is developing in reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Groups of voters are strategizing ways to simply nullify the ruling.
A Kentucky lawyer, Jeff Cobble of the Cobble Law Firm, told WND that there are hundreds for sure, and possibly thousands, of residents already taking up the discussion of how to nullify the decision.
Multiple arguments and possible moves are being discussed, but he said a couple of counties already have adopted resolutions condemning the action by the justices in Washington and expressing the sentiment that the decision needs to be ignored.
One of those counties, Greene County, recently approved a resolution that says the county is “vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage.”
It asks Tennessee state officials to challenge the Supreme Court ruling however they can.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/court-told-marriage-fight-really-about-targeting-christians/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/court-told-marriage-fight-really-about-targeting-christians/
No comments:
Post a Comment