Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
And they are certainly free to do so.
Performing marriage ceremonies for every couple that walks through his door is not a part of his essential duties. Do you have any documentation to show that he has never declined to do a wedding for any reason? Was he justified in doing so? I turned down a wedding last year because I did not believe that the couple should be married. They were a hetero couple, but I did not want to be a part of it. He has the same freedom.
Incidentally, the couple was able to secure another officiant with no issues. They still got married, regardless of my involvement.
YOU are not a government official, and the freedom to express your religion applies to you in your capacity. A government official, while acting on the part of the government, does not have that right.
As the FFRF wrote the judge:
The bottom line is that by law, there must be a secular option for people seeking to get married. In Trigg County, you are that secular option. The default ceremony offered by your office should be secular and people wishing to add in religion should be able to do so upon request. Not the other way around and certainly not to the exclusion of a secular option.
I poked around a little. The Trigg Co. site has a section on marriages...requirements for obtaining a license, undergoing the ceremony, situations where a license or ceremony may not be granted, and it was silent on this particular matter.
The attorney for the FFRF had this to say:
...and I don't consider that the final word. This is from a lawyer who clearly knows far more about the law than do I, and one who hopefully has looked at the local statutes concerning this, but another judge, should this come to trial, may well not agree with Seidel.
So, we're kinda back to "not sure...?"
The LGBT one may hold water in getting him in trouble.
Earlier someone posted an important legal distinction which was answered and apparently people are ignoring. It is the use of the term 'may' vs 'shall' in executing 'miscellaneous responsibilties'.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13
The LGBT one may hold water in getting him in trouble.
Earlier someone posted an important legal distinction which was answered and apparently people are ignoring. It is the use of the term 'may' vs 'shall' in executing 'miscellaneous responsibilties'.
I'm very familiar with the legal impact of a law or regulation of the difference between "may" and "shall". That is not the issue here, what IS the issue, is that the county judge/executive refused on the basis of religious grounds, while acting in his capacity of a government official. That is unconstitutional.
I'm very familiar with the legal impact of a law or regulation of the difference between "may" and "shall". That is not the issue here, what IS the issue, is that the county judge/executive refused on the basis of religious grounds, while acting in his capacity of a government official. That is unconstitutional.
I'm sure you appreciate the difference.
I think the statute is going to hold up. Especially with a recommendation for another to solemnize the wedding.
We'll see how it shakes out. Personally, I think he is being silly, but, I do think he has legal foundations to support him.
I've since read all the stories that come up under his name. I find it ironic they all link back to the same original story. Not debating the veracity, just a very odd question: County judges don't approve the marriage application, nor sign the marriage certificate in this state. They only oversee the ceremony.
None of these stories are addressing that very important fact.
Kim Davis violated the actual law by NOT performing her duties under the Supreme Court Decision. And the state slapped her a.. in jail over it. But that is a big distinction between a ceremony, where 'may' and 'shall' are part of the descriptors, vs. the clerks legally authorized responsibility to approve applications then sign the marriage certificate within 30 days after a ceremony.
Earlier someone posted an important legal distinction which was answered and apparently people are ignoring. It is the use of the term 'may' vs 'shall' in executing 'miscellaneous responsibilties'.
To make a brief digression: does anyone else find it somewhat amusing that 'accepting a duel' is still grounds for disqualification? I mean, I can see the logic behind the rule (preventing the use of force in obtaining a government position), but is challenging someone to a duel even a thing anymore?
To make a brief digression: does anyone else find it somewhat amusing that 'accepting a duel' is still grounds for disqualification? I mean, I can see the logic behind the rule (preventing the use of force in obtaining a government position), but is challenging someone to a duel even a thing anymore?
I get your jest but the duel actually produced far more civility in discourse than what we currently experience today. Especially on anonymous Internet forums, FB, snapchat, Instagram.
Back to the federal register for me. Cfr 160 and 164, got to educate the parent company lawyers in India on the fed reg.
I would suggest that the lawyer for the FFRF is biased.
Of course you would, but your feelings aren't the question here. Do you have any substantive reason for us to believe their analysis is wrong?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
