Thought Casey Davis, the county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, would go away after being ordered by the Kentucky governor to do his job?
In the words of The Princess Bride: get used to disappointment.
Thought Casey Davis, the county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, would go away after being ordered by the Kentucky governor to do his job?
In the words of The Princess Bride: get used to disappointment.
Since the Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision earlier this summer, the Religious Right has been desperately scrambling for any talking point that would allow them to stay relevant in the national conversation. According to Politico, it looks like they've hit on one:
"A number of religious conservatives told POLITICO that the key to winning...upcoming legislative and legal battles will be employing tactics refined by the same-sex marriage movement that recently defeated them...
The Obama Administration today issued the latest in a series of regulations designed to ensure that Americans have access to affordable birth control, but the move isn’t likely to end litigation over the matter, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The new regulations accommodate religious objections advanced by certain closely held for-profit corporations; they also finalize previous accommodations made available to religious non-profit entities, such as religiously affiliated colleges and universities. The new rules go beyond what is required by court decisions, but that’s unlikely to placate bosses who are determined to curtail women’s access to birth control.
“I blame this mess on the Supreme Court,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Although these accommodations preserve women’s access to contraception, the definition of religious freedom adopted by the high court in the Hobby Lobby case has spawned new legal challenges that put American women at risk.”
The Hobby Lobby ruling, issued in 2014, permits certain for-profit businesses to refuse to include contraceptives in employee health-care plans if employers disagree with it on religious grounds. The case concerned a chain of craft stores whose fundamentalist owners insist, incorrectly, that certain types of birth control cause abortion.
“The administration had to respond to this ruling, and today’s regulations are a good-faith effort to protect women,” Lynn said. “Although I hope I’m proven wrong, I fear that the Religious Right and its allies, the Catholic bishops, won’t stop until they have denied access to safe and affordable birth control to as many women as possible.”
Lynn pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby was based on a faulty interpretation of a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In light of the manner in which the high court misconstrued that law, Lynn said it may be time to fix it and make clear that RFRA was never intended to allow harms to third parties.
“An employee’s decision to obtain and use birth control is a purely private matter,” Lynn said. “It in no way diminishes or even affects the religious freedom of her boss.”
From Americans United's Wall of Separation blog:
"This week, Americans United launched a new initiative, Protect Thy Neighbor (PTN), which is intended to stop religious zealots from using “religious freedom” as an excuse to discriminate against others. Unsurprisingly, those who are intent on discriminating against LGBT persons and others were none too happy about AU’s announcement.
Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins took to one of FRC’s many publications to denounce AU’s work as evidence of Christian “persecution.”
From The New York Times:
"Not so long ago, of course, government officials invoked religious beliefs to justify all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, including laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck down that marriage ban in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.
It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere."
From Right Wing Watch:
"'The next time in your state the federal government tries to put a church or a bakery or a pizza place out of business because they want to live by their religious conviction,” [David Clarke] said, “when I talk about pitchforks and torches, you need to get down there, surround that business and dare the federal government to come in and close it. That’s the revolution I’m talking about, it has to start in the states.'"
From The Arkansas Times Arkansas Blog:
"Channel 4's Greg Yarbrough tells me at 5 p.m. that reporter Marci Manley has talked with Van Buren Clerk Pam Bradford, who has not returned my calls. She tells Manley that she's spoken with an Arkansas attorney, Mike Rainwater, who provides legal advice to county governments through the Association of Arkansas Counties, and is now saying she will issue marriage licenses — and treat customers "with respect." This followed by about an hour a phone message to me from Mathew Staver, head of the Liberty Counsel in Texas, which said it had agreed to represent Bradford to defend her in resisting issuance of licenses."
Government employees who oppose marriage equality because of their religious beliefs are not entitled to refuse service to same-sex couples, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has informed officials in all 50 states today.
From The Washington Post:
"Gay rights advocates in Virginia and across the country have said repeatedly that they have no interest in forcing religious leaders to marry gay couples if they don’t want to. Gilbert said if that’s the case, “no one will mind if we put that in writing.”
“Religious people are right to be wary of where this agenda is headed,” he said. “It remains my position that the far left does not simply want to protect the rights of gay individuals. Their ultimate goal is to tear down religious institutions and belief systems.”...
From Raw Story:
"Ermold tells the employee that he has a letter from Gov. Steve Beshear ordering all county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and he says he also brought the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
“We know what it reads, sir, and we’re not issuing any licenses,” the woman says. “You need to talk to her. You can go to any other county and get your marriage license. We’re just not doing it at this time – not even for other people.”
From Americans United's Wall of Separation blog:
"[Protect Thy Neighbor] hits the ground running today with its first initiative: AU’s Legal Department is sending a letter to every state attorney general in the country as well as every county clerk in the states of Texas and South Dakota reminding them that they have a legal obligation to give wedding licenses and otherwise provide service to all qualified couples, including those who are of the same sex.
From The New York Times:
"At issue was whether Jack Phillips, a Colorado bakery owner, had broken state antidiscrimination laws when he refused to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception, citing his religious beliefs. With same-sex marriage now legal everywhere nationally in the wake of the United States Supreme Court ruling in June, his case is being closely watched as a test of the boundary between personal religious objections and legal discrimination.
From an Americans United press statement:
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback today issued executive order 15-05, which purports to prohibit the state from discriminating against religious organizations that hold “the belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” What the order really does is sanction government-funded discrimination, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
From Raw Story:
"“I think I deserve some sort of relief that I took my oath to do this job to the best of my ability so help me God," Davis said. “I can’t go beyond what my conscience allows.”... The Casey County attorney said he respected the county clerk – but he said Davis was wrong about this issue.