Pros And Cons Of County Clerks

This bill “was called Resolution Seventeen, a bill defining marriage in Wyoming as being exclusively between a man and woman” (Kaufman 163). Connolly passionately fought against such a piece of legislation arguing homosexuals should be able to be able to marry as well. This did not go as well since the Laramie legislation consisted of mainly conservative republicans refusing to allow anything, but the traditional style of marriage. Republicans argue,

The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (1967) resulted in the striking down of state laws that prohibited whites and African Americans from marrying. Mildred Loving, one of the parties in the case, issued a statement on the fortieth-anniversary of her case in which she urged that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.

For centuries same sex marriage has been a dispute, especially in Texas because of how powerfully Texas believes in the bible and how extremely “old fashioned” it is. The debate has been over LGBT equality, just like the black civil rights movement and the women’s movement in the 1960’s. Due to the traditional and common law, Texas does not allow same sex marriage. Actually, the state banned same sex marriage a decade ago or more. The issue was during the 2004 presidential election when Missouri and Louisiana voters approved same sex marriage and eleven states placed amendments. Everyone held their word and continued to protect the laws of Texas. The constitutional amendments that banned same sex marriage well-defined marriage as a union between

As it was in the past history, today’s denial of the freedom to marry is part of establishing a larger and oppressive social vision by the government that encompasses individual ideologies such as Biblical values. In 2004 Liberal senator Guy Barnett petitioned the

She upholds that her religion as an Apostolic Christian prevents her from supporting same-sex nuptials. “This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.” (Starnes, 2015) Public-order advocates maintain the idea that an elected official has a duty to uphold to the law. Individual-rights advocates continue to support Davis, such as Liberty Counsel Attorney, Mat Staver, who said “if this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.” (Starnes, 2015) The lack of tolerance for gay marriage has also been seen in Oregon where a bakery was sued for “emotional suffering” (The Guardian, 2015) because the bakery owner refused to make a cake for a gay couple. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.” (The Guardian, 2015) Anna Harmon, one of the attorneys for the couple “said Avakian’s order is unconstitutional, because “the right to speak freely, to think uniquely, and to live according to our faith is the bedrock of this country.” (The Guardian,

　　Judge Steven L. Bunning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses, but as of Tuesday, September 1, she continued to defy the Supreme Court Order, claiming she was acting under "God's authority" when she refused to issue the

Hundreds of protestors are gathering outside of the courthouse either protesting or supporting a Christian woman’s beliefs and actions. Many hold up signs or scream louder than others to declare their personal point of view. Kim Davis is a county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky; has denied numerous marriage licenses for multiple same-sex and straight couples (Smith). This has become a very controversial issue for many and everyone has a different opinion as well. Kim Davis' trial is an influential trial by challenging many of the essential American principles such as morality or ethicality, upholding constitutional rights, and separation of church and state.

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

County Clerk Kim Davis, of Rowan County, Kentucky, is in a difficult situation because she refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson have written an article about why they think she is doing the right thing not just religiously, but Constitutionally as well. They outline the reasons why the stand she is taking is her only option as a Christian and as an elected official of the United States.

The United States Supreme court a while ago made same sex marriages legal in all the 50 states of the nation. However, a clerk from the Kentucky state marriage office Kim Davis has come under the spot light. She had refused to grant a marriage licence to a gay couple, and was as a result incarcerated. A federal court order brings consequences with it if one breaches the same. Miss Davis managed to overlook this aspect or preferred jail over a marriage licence to a gay duo.

The Legislature adopted the Civil Union law, complying with the Court order. Then in 2009, Vermont took the next step, and legalized gay marriage.

Though I agree with her right to express it. I just don’t believe her personal prejudices should be brought into her work for the state government. I also agree with the court to telling her she must grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. While I agree private business has the right to decide since they are not being funded by tax payers’ money and people have the ability to find other options when a private business does not agree with their morals. But when it is a government official, the public has less options. Whether or not she agrees, she has to follow the

When I began to read on this and really found out about this issue of Kim Davis I knew right then how things would go for her. Kim Davis is like every human being on this earth she has choices and some choices causes us to be in a uncomfortable position and some causes us to deal with things that starts conflict especially if the goverment is involved. Now as fellow Americans we know that in later history religon has always got most in trouble behind it simple because that was what people were known to stand by and believe in becuase it was only right. Now recently all around the world homesexuality has come up and now they are now not those people but regualr people of America that have a right to do possibly any hetrosexual person can do for example, marry, adopt, and vote and all sorts of things just to name a few.

This included mixed marriage. Marriage has a long history in the legislature, whether that being that same sex couples cannot marry, or in this case, a white man cannot marry a black woman or vice versa. This law was implemented in Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Wyoming. This devastated people's lives. The act of marriage has much significance in many cultures. Along with people getting married, in many states it nullified any and all previous marriages under law (“Jim Crow

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,