"Freedom", According to Mat Staver
Are you ready for this: Not only does Kim Davis' religious freedom entitle her to opt out of the law, it also means she can assert her religious freedom to prevent others from abiding by the law.
Sounds incredible, doesn't it?
Steve Bittenbender↱ explains, for Reuters:
Additionally, it is worth reconsidering the question↑ of what manner of attorney Mat Staver actually is.
What was that note from Reuters?
It would appear Mr. Staver is trying to argue both sides of the same coin; on 31 August, he suggested that removing Ms. Davis' name from the licenses would remove the personal nature of the authorization. Ms. Davis' name is no longer on the licenses, and on Friday Mr. Staver asserted them invalid because his client has not exercised authorization of a personal nature.
This is pretty straightforward.
Would any of Ms. Davis' defenders care to attempt reconciliation of this point? Because the thing is that Mr. Staver now ranges in disciplinary territory, but we also know that his supporters would think action against his legal practice unjust. In the end, though, would any of them be able to reconcile the contradiction?
And how is this remotely appropriate?
____________________
Notes:
Bittenbender, Steve. "Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licenses". Reuters. 4 September 2015. Reuters.com. 6 September 2015. http://reut.rs/1g39vu2
Liberty Counsel. "Accommodations Would End Rowan County Dispute". Press Release. 31 August 2015. LC.org. 6 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1JMRQS4
Are you ready for this: Not only does Kim Davis' religious freedom entitle her to opt out of the law, it also means she can assert her religious freedom to prevent others from abiding by the law.
Sounds incredible, doesn't it?
Steve Bittenbender↱ explains, for Reuters:
Deputies of a county clerk in rural Kentucky issued marriage licenses to four gay couples on Friday after she defied a federal judge's orders for months because as a Christian she opposes same-sex unions.
With Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis jailed for refusing to follow the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning, her deputies issued a marriage license to James Yates and William Smith on Friday. The couple had previously been denied five times.
However, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel which represents Davis, said he believes Friday's licenses are invalid because they were not issued with her approval. Davis' name does not appear on the licenses.
"They are not worth the paper they are printed on," Staver said, standing in front of the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis is being held. He added she had no intention of resigning as clerk.
With Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis jailed for refusing to follow the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning, her deputies issued a marriage license to James Yates and William Smith on Friday. The couple had previously been denied five times.
However, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel which represents Davis, said he believes Friday's licenses are invalid because they were not issued with her approval. Davis' name does not appear on the licenses.
"They are not worth the paper they are printed on," Staver said, standing in front of the Grayson, Kentucky, detention center where Davis is being held. He added she had no intention of resigning as clerk.
Additionally, it is worth reconsidering the question↑ of what manner of attorney Mat Staver actually is.
"The stay request offers several options such as removing Davis's name from the marriage license, thus removing the personal nature of the authorization," Staver pointed out. "Another accommodation would be to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or developing a statewide, online marriage license process," Staver suggested. "There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis's First Amendment rights," Staver concluded.
(Liberty Counsel↱; boldface accent added)
(Liberty Counsel↱; boldface accent added)
What was that note from Reuters?
However, Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel which represents Davis, said he believes Friday's licenses are invalid because they were not issued with her approval. Davis' name does not appear on the licenses.
(Boldface accent added)
(Boldface accent added)
It would appear Mr. Staver is trying to argue both sides of the same coin; on 31 August, he suggested that removing Ms. Davis' name from the licenses would remove the personal nature of the authorization. Ms. Davis' name is no longer on the licenses, and on Friday Mr. Staver asserted them invalid because his client has not exercised authorization of a personal nature.
This is pretty straightforward.
Would any of Ms. Davis' defenders care to attempt reconciliation of this point? Because the thing is that Mr. Staver now ranges in disciplinary territory, but we also know that his supporters would think action against his legal practice unjust. In the end, though, would any of them be able to reconcile the contradiction?
And how is this remotely appropriate?
____________________
Notes:
Bittenbender, Steve. "Kentucky clerk's office ends ban on same-sex marriage licenses". Reuters. 4 September 2015. Reuters.com. 6 September 2015. http://reut.rs/1g39vu2
Liberty Counsel. "Accommodations Would End Rowan County Dispute". Press Release. 31 August 2015. LC.org. 6 September 2015. http://bit.ly/1JMRQS4