Casey clerk says Beshear told him to issue same-sex marriage licenses or resign

[PurplePride92]

I think the clerks have a case to strongly and specifically request specific updates to Conways procedures that he issued. His instructions indicated how to deal with the laws and specifically called out the penalties associated with not following the law. Something like that from the AG holds a lot of power.

 

So clerks who hold up on issuing ANY licenses until that is done seem to be in the right.

 

 

And I think many posters here should understand that SCOTUS did no magical thing and no magical power. They just set aside the 6th Circuit opinion. They did not 'tell' the states to do anything and one has to go back to the original cases to understand what has really happened.

 

And I think you should understand that the clerks aren't issuing licenses because of their religious beliefs. Not one clerk has said that they'll issue licenses when the codes are cleared up. They are doing so because of discrimination. Can you at least admit that or do you want to keep playing the state's rights game?

[Bipsic]

Understand that the 6th Circuit and SCOTUS are appellate courts. What they do is usually very, very simple. They usually simply uphold or overturn originating court and lower appellate court decisions. They may also remand a decision back for correction or other work. But usually they just uphold or overturn.

 

This seems to be an overly simplified role of the Supreme Court. If the justices sat around a table and simply voted affirm, reverse, or remand, they would hear a heck of a lot more cases each term. There's a reason why each term the Court has cases with just orders, short opinions, and convoluted opinions with concurrences and dissents.

 

The case at issue is a little bit more than just reverse and remand. I did read the opinion, and while it is and extremely complicated concept, the majority opinion held of substantive due process grounds. This isn't a criticism of these two, but regardless of Scalia and Thomas' usual denial of its existence, the holding on SDP grounds means more than one or more laws are invalid.

 

Without writing a dissertation on SDP, the Court found marriage a fundamental right. This isn't a law in the sense that it is a statute, but its law. Sure the Kentucky or anyone else can pass some future laws or update some admin details, but regardless of their rationale, withholding licenses is a denial of a fundamental right.

 

As PurplePride keeps mentioning, no clerk in the state is genuinely holding out because of confusion. Even if that were the case, wouldn't they be able to provide provisional licenses which don't restrict a right, but can maybe be updated later to say H/H or W/W.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Randy Parker

[Bluegrasscard]

And I think you should understand that the clerks aren't issuing licenses because of their religious beliefs. Not one clerk has said that they'll issue licenses when the codes are cleared up. They are doing so because of discrimination. Can you at least admit that or do you want to keep playing the state's rights game?

 

Yes, yes. I agree the argument of most who are playing this game is hollow by using the religious arguement. The one who is not issuing ANY licenses seems to have it most correct.

 

As I have said. Since marriage status has worked its way into codified law in so many places the status of 'married' provides access to non-secular, government provided or government-mandated benefits, etc. that are not available to those who are not in similar situated circumstance. So the broad opinion is reasonable.

 

I think the Governor, the AG (Governor candidate Jack Conway) have an immediate need to provide updates to the specific instructions that AG Conway has previously issued. I have posted the link to that set of explicit procedures before.

 

People are posting that SCOTUS said that the administrators must do this or that. That is not correct at all. SCOTUS merely set aside the 6th Circuits opinion. That means that Bourke v Beshear and Love v Beshear now control the matter.

 

Bourke seemed to offer a broad memorandum of opinion that was not specific. Love does provide explicit specifics on what is null and void.

 

https://casetext.com/case/bourke-v-beshear

 

https://casetext.com/case/love-v-beshear

 

From Love:

 

Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct. Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree. Thus, same-sex couples' right to marry seems to be a uniquely “free” constitutional right. Hopefully, even those opposed to or uncertain about same-sex marriage will see it that way in the future.

 

The Court's holding today is consistent with Bourke, although it requires different relief. The ability to marry in one's state is arguably much more meaningful, to those on both sides of the debate, than the recognition of a marriage performed in another jurisdiction. But it is for that very reason that the Court is all the more confident in its ruling today.

Being otherwise sufficiently advised,

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT to the extent Ky.Rev.Stat. §§ 402.005 and .020(1)(d) and Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution deny same-sex couples the right to marry in Kentucky, they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable.

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for all the reasons set forth in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Orders in this case dated February 28, 2014 and March 19, 2014, the order here is STAYED until further order of the Sixth Circuit.

 

So if one peels back the legal scaffolding there IS a specific action in the Love ruling that addresses SPECIFIC Kentucky laws and Constitutional amendments.

 

Now, for a clerk who says - we need clarity that comes directly and specifically from the state - there is a case, a strong case that THAT request is correct and appropriate. After all, would one expect the clerks to read every court ruling, every date and try to interpret its meaning on their procedures? Of course not. So guidance from the administration and legislator is required, regardless how high profile the case is. As seen here most people fail to understand the legal mechanics of what really happened. And people in local elected positioins probably have similar challenges - its not easy following the legal bouncing ball on these type of appealed cases. But most clerks have chosen a hollow argument on the issue.

 

Politically this is nightmare for Conway. If he did what I believe is the right thing he would be portrayed as supporting the ruling - and that will not sit with well with the voters. So I believe he is trying to stay in the bunker on this.

 

So there is my position. I like making people understand what really happened and that SCOTUS did not specifically tell anyone to do anything. Just doing forum civics lessons....and keeping the fun banter going!

[PurplePride92]

Yes, yes. I agree the argument of most who are playing this game is hollow by using the religious arguement. The one who is not issuing ANY licenses seems to have it most correct.

 

As I have said. Since marriage status has worked its way into codified law in so many places the status of 'married' provides access to non-secular, government provided or government-mandated benefits, etc. that are not available to those who are not in similar situated circumstance. So the broad opinion is reasonable.

 

I think the Governor, the AG (Governor candidate Jack Conway) have an immediate need to provide updates to the specific instructions that AG Conway has previously issued. I have posted the link to that set of explicit procedures before.

 

People are posting that SCOTUS said that the administrators must do this or that. That is not correct at all. SCOTUS merely set aside the 6th Circuits opinion. That means that Bourke v Beshear and Love v Beshear now control the matter.

 

Bourke seemed to offer a broad memorandum of opinion that was not specific. Love does provide explicit specifics on what is null and void.

 

https://casetext.com/case/bourke-v-beshear

 

https://casetext.com/case/love-v-beshear

 

From Love:

 

 

 

So if one peels back the legal scaffolding there IS a specific action in the Love ruling that addresses SPECIFIC Kentucky laws and Constitutional amendments.

 

Now, for a clerk who says - we need clarity that comes directly and specifically from the state - there is a case, a strong case that THAT request is correct and appropriate. After all, would one expect the clerks to read every court ruling, every date and try to interpret its meaning on their procedures? Of course not. So guidance from the administration and legislator is required, regardless how high profile the case is. As seen here most people fail to understand the legal mechanics of what really happened. And people in local elected positioins probably have similar challenges - its not easy following the legal bouncing ball on these type of appealed cases. But most clerks have chosen a hollow argument on the issue.

 

Politically this is nightmare for Conway. If he did what I believe is the right thing he would be portrayed as supporting the ruling - and that will not sit with well with the voters. So I believe he is trying to stay in the bunker on this.

 

So there is my position. I like making people understand what really happened and that SCOTUS did not specifically tell anyone to do anything. Just doing forum civics lessons....and keeping the fun banter going!

 

Screw civics lessons. There are hundreds if it thousands of clerks doing their damn jobs all throughout the country. Civic lessons have nothing to do discrimination that these ignorant clerks are partaking in. Don't justify their ignorance. That's not allowed on here anymore.