Kudos To Utah--A Positive Example Of Religious Liberty & Marriage Licenses

[Daniel2]

On a message board that’s historically engaged in long and often conflicted discussions with how to balance religious liberty with civil equality for LGBT citizens, I thought it’s worth mentioning the following two ends of the spectrum, and specifically giving credit to Utah for being proactive and balanced.

 

The first example we are all familiar with, but a new national poll reflects that a majority of Americans agree how poorly the situation has been handled in Kentucky:

 

 

Poll: Majority of Americans say Kentucky clerk should have to issue licenses

 

By NICK GASS

09/15/15, 07:46 AM EDT

 

Nearly three in four Americans say that when a conflict arises between religious convictions and the need to treat everyone equally under the law, the law should prevail, according to new results from an ABC News/Washington Post poll out Tuesday.

 

And in the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses with her name affixed to them because of her opposition to same-sex marriage, more than six in 10 say she should be compelled to issue them.

 

Among those surveyed, 74 percent said that equality under the law should trump religious beliefs, while 19 percent said that one's personal convictions are more important. Just 33 percent said that Davis should not be required to issue the licenses, compared with 63 percent who said that Davis should do so despite her religiously-based objections.

 

Davis returned to work on Monday, vowing not to interfere with the issuance of licenses by her deputy clerks but also refusing to authorize them with her name.

 

The results contrast with the findings of an Associated Press/GfK surveyconducted in July, weeks after the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. In that poll, 49 percent said that local officials should not be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious objections, while 47 percent said they should be. In the same poll, 56 percent to 39 percent said it is more important for the government to protect religious liberties than gay rights.

 

Langer Research Associates conducted the ABC News/Washington Post poll from Sept. 7-10, surveying 1,003 adults nationwide via landlines and cellphones. The overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

 

The newly-published poll can be found here.

 

In the second example, Utah wisely avoided this kerfuffle by enacting new laws that would allow clerks to step aside, as long as another clerk was available to serve same-sex couples in the office, but otherwise requires the only available clerk to issue licenses:

 

 

New law helps Utah avoid marriage license conflict playing out in Kentucky

 

By Dennis Romboy, Deseret News

Published: Thursday, Sept. 3 2015 5:30 p.m. MDT

Updated: Thursday, Sept. 3 2015 11:46 p.m. MDT

 

A new Utah law requires county clerks to create policies to issue marriage licenses, but it doesn't dictate those guidelines.

 

SALT LAKE CITY — A new Utah law requires county clerks to create policies to issue marriage licenses, but it doesn't dictate those guidelines.

 

The author of the legislation passed earlier this year, however, says he hopes clerks would abide by the spirit of the statute that requires them to have someone available to marry anyone who walks in the door.

 

"If licensing became an issue, what I hope would happen is that they would have somebody up front to license everyone," said Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams, R-Layton. "The clerk's office would allow people to step off as long as there was someone to issue the license."

 

Granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples hasn't caused contention in Utah like it has in Kentucky.

 

A federal judge found Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt of court Thursday and ordered her to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She has said granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples would "violate God's definition of marriage" and infringe on her personal beliefs as an Apostolic Christian.

 

Davis has resisted suggestions that her deputies could issue marriage licenses because her name appears on the certificates.

 

Utah law does not require the clerk's name to be on the license, though some such as Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen choose to have it on the certificate. Granting licenses, she said, hasn't been an issue.

 

Some county clerks in Utah initially refused to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples immediately after U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby overturned the Utah law banning same-sex marriage. But with guidance from their county attorneys, they started granting licenses within days of the ruling.

 

Since a federal appeals court legalized gay marriage in the state a year ago next month, counties have issued licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with the law.

 

"I just don't think an elected official should be able to interject personal preferences into their performance of the duties of their office," Swensen said. "I can't even imagine what a mess that might be if all the elected officials did that, not abide by the laws."

 

State lawmakers approved a bill in March that allows county clerks to opt out of solemnizing same-sex marriages for religious reasons as long as they provide a person inside or outside the office during business hours to perform the ceremony. The statute also protects those who take that option from government retaliation.

 

"There are many clerk's offices right now that are stepping off in the state of Utah, and nobody even knows about it because it's done so seamlessly because of the legislation we passed last session," Adams said.

 

Weber and Davis counties are among those that no longer perform marriages but provide couples a list of judges, clergy or others who will conduct weddings. Deputy clerks in Salt Lake County continue to solemnize marriages, performing about 2,000 ceremonies a year.

 

Utah, Adams said, was ahead of the curve with legislation that provides protections for both religious believers and the LGBT community in housing and employment.

 

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor, said Kentucky and the nation could take a page from Utah. The country, she said, is now where Utah was last spring: confronting lots of questions precipitated by a federal court ruling requiring it to recognize same-sex marriage.

 

"Utah faced a choice. It could give protections for people of faith who adhere to a traditional view of marriage — and only them — the kind of one-sided deal that many rightly find offensive," she wrote in a Thursday blog post. "Or, Utah could be fundamentally decent to all Utahns."

 

Wilson, who helped craft the legislation, said the law for the first time in Utah guarantees access to marriage, using the same process for everyone.

 

"But the compromise also permitted each office to outsource the solemnization to any willing celebrant in the community, avoiding collisions with people like Mrs. Davis," she wrote.

 

"Only if Mrs. Davis, as the elected town clerk, could find no other way to fulfill the state’s function would her job ever be in jeopardy in Utah. And this is as it should be."

 

 

Kudos once again to Utah for being proactive and attempting to find middle ground where good faith efforts are made to attempt to respect everyone, while also ensuring equal treatment is available for all.

 

On a personal note, Ms. Swensen’s name is on my husband’s and my license, which was granted almost a year ago (we didn't have anyone from the office perform the ceremony--we only applied for the license.  My husband's eldest son married us at a family wedding in Park City several weeks later, so asking a government official to officiate over our wedding wasn't an issue at the county office).  I am grateful that we didn’t have to face the likes of what some couples had to experience in Kentucky.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

Or, maybe it isn't just "spin"?

 

It seems the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot win: Frankly tell it like it is without mincing words in response to what it sees as a divine mandate to do so, and, of course, everyone whose ears itch as a result will get up-in-arms.   Try to extend an olive branch, try to find middle ground, be conciliatory, and so forth, and that's just "spin."

 

What's a church to do?

[The Nehor]

Or, maybe it isn't just "spin"?

 

It seems the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot win: Frankly tell it like it is without mincing words in response to what it sees as a divine mandate to do so, and, of course, everyone whose ears itch as a result will get up-in-arms.   Try to extend an olive branch, try to find middle ground, be conciliatory, and so forth, and that's just "spin."

 

What's a church to do?

Kill all the infidels.

Only lasting solution.

[Daniel2]

Or, maybe it isn't just "spin"?

It seems the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot win: Frankly tell it like it is without mincing words in response to what it sees as a divine mandate to do so, and, of course, everyone whose ears itch as a result will get up-in-arms. Try to extend an olive branch, try to find middle ground, be conciliatory, and so forth, and that's just "spin."

What's a church to do?

Wait... huh....?!

Ken, I apologize that my use of the word "spin" led you to believe I was being derrogatory or accusatory of the LDS church, but your post above assumes the exact opposite from what I intended.

I used the word "positive spin" in my thread title merely to indicate that this new thread that I was starting is meant to be a "welcome change" or "pleasant turnabout" from the "negative [seemingly] default" discussions/treads on this topic that all-too-often devolve into bickering and personal attacks.

In short, I was attempting to pre-dispose this thread into a discussion of how Utah postively avoided the negativity coming out of Kentucky.

I had thought my comments in my opening post reflect the sincere kudos I was extending to Utah (and, likely, many members of the LDS faith), as reported in the Deseret News article I posted.

In sum, I'm NOT accusing the church of "spinning" what's in the article I posted--I was attempting to "spin" the negativity on this subject into something that shows that win/wins and middle ground are truly possible, as evidenced by Utah's commendable stance.

Hope that helps clarify. If not, perhaps you can re-read the text of my OP with the above addition in mind.

D

Edited September 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

Fair enough.  Notwithstanding the fact that, in general, I disfavor the term "spin," I certainly don't want to be unfair to you.  Please don't mistake my forthrightness for any form of hostility: it is not.  Any disagreement (speaking generally; not necessarily with respect to this thread in particular) between us notwithstanding, I wish you well.

[Kenngo1969]

Kill all the infidels.

Only lasting solution.

Latter-day Danites, please check to see that your Message Decoder Rings are properly calibrated so as to avoid delays in receiving information on the latest mission.

 

Oh, crap!

 

I don't think I was supposed to use an unsecure mode of communication for that!  Guess I better move, start looking over my shoulder, start paying for stuff in cash, et cetera.

[sethpayne]

Thanks for sharing this Daniel and hats off to Utah for taking reasonable and sensible action.

 

ETA:  A proud day for Utahans everywhere.

Edited September 17, 2015 by sethpayne