11
   

State Constitution vs. US Constitution

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 02:03 am
I wanted to get a source for those who are a little slow to understand the issue of the court order. Davis is prohibited from interfering with other employees who issue licenses to same sex couples. Regardless of what her religious views are, she can avoid jail again by not interfering with other employees issuing the licenses. She is not being required to issue them herself, simply to not interfere with other employees of the Clerk's Office who can issue licenses.

CNN article on Davis' release from jail.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 02:33 am
Here's a wonderful passage from a Dadpad thread from four and half years ago:

dadpad wrote:
28 Perfectly Good Reasons To Oppose Gay Marriage
by Outrage Magazine on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 1:47am
By Rick Chris
http://www.rickchris.com/

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.

5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.

9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.

10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.

11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don't know what comes next, we should never change our laws.

13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like suburban malls and tupperware parties.

15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.

16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption.

17. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.

18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.

19. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up going to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.

21. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.

22. Each state should decide for itself whether gay marriage will be recognized, because there is no "full faith and credit" clause that requires states to recognize each other's institutions.

23. Gay marriage attempts to replace natural heterosexual instinct with a cultural institution. Morality demands that we subordinate institutionalized commitment to raw, unfettered, biological impulse.

24. Gay marriages could very well suffer maladies like domestic violence and substance abuse. That's why we invented the Quality Control department to pre-approve the righteousness of all marriage applicants, such as convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez who married a woman while on Death Row.

25. Those who support gay marriage aim to overthrow the dominant culture, as evidenced by their enthusiasm to participate in it.

26. The country can't afford to provide benefits for married gay couples. That's why Bush would never consider spending $150 million on programs that encourage more straight people to get married.

27. Gay couples do not deserve marriage because, if everyone on earth limited themselves to same-sex sexual behavior, humanity would soon be extinct. Based on the same concern, we also deny marriage rights to the biologically childless and to those who have borne only one child. (We are also considering denying marriage rights to those who have borne three or more children, because if everyone copied them, the world population would shoot through the roof.)

28. Marriage was created in the Bible as a bond between a man and a woman. The people who lived prior to the writing of the Bible, such as the Chinese, sat around in confusion for many years until the Mesopotamians finally came around and invented the family unit.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:10 am
@roger,
roger wrote:

Vetting? How? She is an elected official.


Let's assume that before the gay marriage law, she was deemed qualified to do her job. So, she gets elected to that job. Then the law changes. Isn't a new vetting required, in context of the changed law? Is the idea that one is elected to a job and therefore that makes them immune to changing requirements for a job? In my opinion, there may be something missing in the law surrounding elected officials.

Now this woman has been divorced. Has anyone pointed out that her divorce proceedings were based on some similar government official officiating over her divorce. And, if that official did not believe in divorce...



maxdancona
 
  4  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 05:24 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Let's assume that before the gay marriage law, she was deemed qualified to do her job. So, she gets elected to that job. Then the law changes. Isn't a new vetting required, in context of the changed law? Is the idea that one is elected to a job and therefore that makes them immune to changing requirements for a job? In my opinion, there may be something missing in the law surrounding elected officials.


So you suggest that any time a law changes... all public officials be re-qualified for their job? This seems as impractical as it is silly.

glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 05:49 pm
@Setanta,
That was inspired, and it lays bare the lie.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 07:27 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Let's assume that before the gay marriage law, she was deemed qualified to do her job. So, she gets elected to that job. Then the law changes. Isn't a new vetting required, in context of the changed law? Is the idea that one is elected to a job and therefore that makes them immune to changing requirements for a job? In my opinion, there may be something missing in the law surrounding elected officials.


So you suggest that any time a law changes... all public officials be re-qualified for their job? This seems as impractical as it is silly.




I wouldn't be qualified to offer a paradigm; however, couldn't there be something in the way of an job acceptance document, that specified that if there was ever any reason to not comply with one's job requirements, the employee will advise management, to see if other jobs are available? Haven't there been government officials that have vacated their post before the end of their term of office, and a special election was held, or by-laws already specified who would take the place of the official leaving?

0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2015 02:38 am
I have been reading some of these comments suggesting that Davis should have some type of waiver regarding to laws that have changed after the date she was elected. I have to say that truly is ridiculous. Not only should she not be allowed to interfere with the other officials from granting same sex marriage license. She herself should also be required to issue same sex marriage license or resign. For those who may not be aware, in some cities, counties, and jurisdictions the Sheriff is an elected position. Based on some of these ridiculous arguments, any law that was implemented after the date the Sheriff was elected to his position, he would not have to abide by if it violates his religious beliefs. We would have to make special accommodation for the elected Sheriff who in some cities is the chief law enforcement official. This whole argument about elected government of officials should have special waivers and accommodations is on so many levels outrageous and ridiculous. Whether or not you are elected, appointed, or hired in a government position, it really doesn't matter. You can be a US postman, a city clerk, a police officer, DMV employee, elected Sheriff, or any government position. Laws all across this country are constantly changing all of the time. Some local laws, some state laws, and some federal laws.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2015 09:12 pm
@CollierT,
What does being fired for not upholding the law in performance of your public duties has to do with your constitutional rights? You still have your constitutional rights. At no point have you lost your constitutional rights. You just happen to be unemployed for not doing your job. Having your job is not a constitutional right.
0 Replies
 
PARIPASSU
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2018 04:04 pm
@CollierT,
The U.S. Constitution makes plain that even if any right is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it is still a right of the people. If no federal law exists proscribing such right, then the state may offer that right to its people. Obviously, if a state law proscribes a constitutional right, that law is illegal under the U.S. Constitution.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 01:10:46