Columbia County Humane Society: Fill & Download for Free

Worldwide or Serving Multiple Countries[edit]Albino Squirrel Preservation SocietyAnimal People (based in U.S.)Animal Transportation AssociationAnimal Welfare InstituteAnimaNaturalisAssociation of Zoos and AquariumsAssociation for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care InternationalAustralia for DolphinsBat Conservation InternationalBirdLife InternationalBrooke Hospital for Animals (equine)Care for the Wild InternationalCompassion in World FarmingThe Donkey Sanctuary (based in U.K.)Friends of AnimalsGlobal Alliance for Rabies ControlGrey2K USAHumane Slaughter Association (based in UK)Humane Society InternationalInternational Animal RescueInternational Bird Rescue (based in California)International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)International Primate Protection LeagueJane Goodall InstituteMarine ConnectionMonkey World (based in U.K.)Parrots InternationalPeople for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsPerforming Animal Welfare SocietyRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsSANCCOB (seabirds, based in South Africa)Sea Shepherd Conservation SocietyShark TrustUniversities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW)Vegan OutreachVets Beyond BordersVets for ChangeWhale and Dolphin Conservation SocietyWolf Preservation FoundationWorld Animal ProtectionWorld Association of Zoos and AquariumsWorld Horse WelfareAsia[edit]Animals Asia FoundationEurope[edit]Eurogroup for AnimalsPrince Laurent FoundationAustralia[edit]Animals AustraliaHumane Society International AustraliaLone Pine Koala SanctuaryLost Dogs' HomeRSPCA AustraliaVoiceless, the animal protection instituteNew South Wales[edit]Cat Protection Society of NSWDoggieRescue.comRSPCA NSWVictoria[edit]Cat Protection Society of VictoriaTasmania[edit]RSPCA TasmaniaBolivia[edit]Comunidad Inti Wara YassiLa Senda Verde (wildlife)Voluntarios en Defensa de los AnimalesCanada[edit]Canada's Accredited Zoos and AquariumsCanadian Association for Laboratory Animal ScienceCanadian Council on Animal Care (lab animals)Canadian Federation of Humane SocietiesCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal HealthDog Legislation Council of CanadaBritish Columbia[edit]British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA)Richmond Animal Protection SocietySenior Animals In Need Today SocietyVancouver Orphan Kitten Rescue AssociationAlberta[edit]Alberta SPCACochrane & Area Humane SocietySecond Chance Animal Rescue SocietyVoice for Animals Humane SocietyManitoba[edit]Prairie Wildlife Rehabilitation CentreOntario[edit]Little RES Q (Toronto, turtles)Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsPrairie Wildlife Rehabilitation CentreToronto Humane SocietyQuebec[edit]Fauna FoundationNova Scotia[edit]Nova Scotia Society for the Prevention of CrueltyChina[edit]Chinese Animal Protection NetworkWah Yan College CatsHong Kong[edit]Jane Goodall Institute (Hong Kong)Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong)Denmark[edit]AnimaInges kattehjemEgypt[edit]Society for Protection of Animal Rights in EgyptGermany[edit]Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft zum Schutz der Eulen (owls)Ghana[edit]Ghana Wildlife SocietyIndia[edit]Abubshahar Wildlife SanctuaryAnimal Welfare Board of IndiaBhartiya Gau Raksha DalBir Bara Ban Wildlife SanctuaryBir Shikargah Wildlife SanctuaryThe Blue Cross of HyderabadBlue Cross of India (Chennai)Ch. Surender Singh Memorial Herbal Park, KairuFederation of Indian Animal Protection OrganizationIndian National Kennel ClubKhol Hi-Raitan Wildlife SanctuaryNational Institute of Animal WelfareWildlife Institute of IndiaJersey[edit]Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsKenya[edit]David Sheldrick Wildlife TrustMalaysia[edit]Sarawak Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsSPCA Selangor, MalaysiaNepal[edit]Animal Welfare Network NepalKathmandu Animal Treatment CentreThe Netherlands[edit]Dutch Society for the Protection of AnimalsNorway[edit]Dyrebeskyttelsen NorgeNew Zealand[edit]See also: Animal welfare in New Zealand § OrganisationsRoyal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsSAFE, Save Animals From ExploitationPakistan[edit]Todd's Welfare SocietyPakistan Animal Welfare SocietyPhilippines[edit]Compassion and Responsibility for AnimalsPhilippine Animal Welfare SocietyPhilippine Tarsier FoundationSerbia[edit]Organization for Respect and Care for AnimalsSingapore[edit]Singapore Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsAnimal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES)South Africa[edit]National Council of SPCAs - NSPCAChimp EdenShamwari Game Reserve, near Port ElizabethThailand[edit]Elephant Nature ParkElephantstayWildlife Friends Foundation Thailand (WFFT)Turkey[edit]HAYTAPUganda[edit]Ziwa Rhino SanctuaryUnited Kingdom[edit]Animal AllsortsAssisi Animal SanctuaryBadger TrustBattersea Dogs and Cats Home (London)Blue CrossBorn Free FoundationBritish Divers Marine Life RescueBritish Horse SocietyCats ProtectionCentre for Animals and Social JusticeDogs TrustDSPCA (Dublin)Eurogroup for AnimalsFarm Animal Welfare CouncilHillside Animal SanctuaryThe Horse TrustHounds for HeroesIrish Blue CrossLeague Against Cruel SportsThe Mayhew Animal HomeNational Animal Welfare TrustNational Office of Animal HealthNational Wildlife Crime UnitOxford Centre for Animal EthicsPeople's Dispensary for Sick AnimalsRedwings Horse SanctuaryRetired Greyhound TrustRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)Save Me (animal welfare)Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsScreech Owl SanctuarySwan Sanctuary, SheppertonThornberry Animal SanctuaryUlster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsWetheriggs Zoo and Animal SanctuaryViva! (organisation)United States of America[edit]Alley Cat AlliesAlley Cat RescueAmerican Humane AssociationAmerican Pet AssociationAmerican Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsAmerican Tortoise RescueAnimal Legal Defense FundAnimal PeopleAnimal Protection and Rescue LeagueBest Friends Animal SocietyCoastal Pet RescueFarm SanctuaryFood Animal Concerns TrustHumane Farm Animal CareThe Humane LeagueHumane Research CouncilHumane Society of the United StatesNational Animal Interest AllianceNo Kill Advocacy CenterOffice of Laboratory Animal WelfarePetfinderPets for VetsSky ArkUnited States Association of Reptile KeepersThe Wild Animal SanctuaryAlabama[edit]Alabama Wildlife CenterCalifornia[edit]Animal Rescue FoundationDedication and Everlasting Love to Animals RescueHelen Woodward Animal CenterHope for PawsHouse Rabbit SocietyNorthcoast Marine Mammal CenterColorado[edit]Dumb Friends LeagueThe Wild Animal SanctuaryDelaware[edit]Forgotten CatsFlorida[edit]Salty Dog PaddleIllinois[edit]The Anti-Cruelty SocietySafe Humane ChicagoIndiana[edit]Black Pine Animal SanctuaryFriends of Indianapolis Animal Care & ControlHumane Society of IndianapolisIowa[edit]Animal Rescue League of IowaLouisiana[edit]Villalobos Rescue Center (New Orleans, featured on the television series Pit Bulls & Parolees)Maryland[edit]Alley Cat RescueMassachusetts[edit]Alliance for AnimalsMassachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell Animal Medical CenterWinslow FarmMichigan[edit]Michigan Humane SocietyMissouri[edit][[Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation]]New Jersey[edit]Liberty Humane SocietyNew Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsNew York[edit]Friends of AnimalsNorth Shore Animal League AmericaWoodstock Farm Animal SanctuaryNorth Carolina[edit]Goathouse RefugeOklahoma[edit]The Garold Wayne Interactive Zoological FoundationOregon[edit]Chimps Inc.Feral Cat Coalition of OregonPennsylvania[edit]Animal Rescue League of Western PennsylvaniaForgotten CatsHumane League of Lancaster CountyRed Paw Emergency Relief TeamTennessee[edit]The Elephant Sanctuary (Hohenwald)Tiger HavenTexas[edit]Bat World SanctuaryOperation KindnessVirginia[edit]Alley Cat RescueHumane Farm Animal CareZimbabwe[edit]Zimbabwe Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong’s Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation. He replied: “[It would take] 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.” Since colonization had recently killed millions of Chinese and plunged the country into a century of poverty and despair, ordinary Chinese were outraged by Liu’s statement so Chinese police asked him if he were planning to restore colonization and, when he said, “No,” they took no action.Liu once stated in an interview: “Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Difference between Western and Chinese governing system is humane vs in-humane, there’s no middle ground… Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race”In 1989, Liu flew back from Columbia University to lead the Tiananmen demonstrations. He was subsequently detained for 18 months before his trial but the judge released him for time served on the grounds that he had encouraged students to leave the Square peacefully.In 1995, the police took Liu into custody for launching a petition campaign on the eve of the sixth anniversary of the Tiananmen incident, calling on the government to reassess the event and to initiate political reform. He was sentenced to stay home and watch TV for nine months.In 1996, he was released in February but arrested again in October for the October Tenth Declaration on cross-Straits policy, which he co-authored with prominent dissident, Wang Xizhe. He was ordered to serve three years of re-education through labor "for disturbing public order”.In 2004 Liuhepublished an article in support of Bush’s war on Iraq, titled “Victory to the Anglo-American Freedom Alliance”, in which he praised the U.S.-led post-Cold War conflicts as “best examples of how war should be conducted in a modern civilization.” He wrote “regardless of the savagery of the terrorists, and regardless of the instability of Iraq’s situation, and, what’s more, regardless of how patriotic youth might despise proponents of the United States such as myself, my support for the invasion of Iraq will not waver. Just as, from the beginning, I believed that the military intervention of Britain and the United States would be victorious, I am still full of belief in the final victory of the Freedom Alliance and the democratic future of Iraq, and even if the armed forces of Britain and the United States should encounter some obstacles such as those that they are currently facing, this belief of mine will not change.” He predicted “a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge.”During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu again praised Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic Party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the wars in which the U.S. was then involved. He commented on Islamism that, “a culture and (religious) system that produced this kind of threat (Islamic fundamentalism), must be extremely intolerant and blood-thirsty.”In 2008, on the eve of the Beijing Olympics, he wrote and publicly circulated a document, Charter ’08, calling for China to adopt a Western political system, a free market, transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership and privatize all land–policies that ruined Russia and is currently ruining the USA. Liu had timed his campaign to coincide with Uyghur and Tibetan rioters who murdered hundreds and the U.S. Government-sponsored NGO, Reporters Without Borders urged a boycott of the Olympics because of ‘brutal repression’ (despite a notable absence of government brutality).In 2009, investigators discovered that Liu had been secretly receiving money from the U.S. Government and prosecutors charged him with being an undeclared, paid agent of a hostile foreign power attempting to subvert and overthrow the government under a statute similar to the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.)Liu pled ‘freedom of expression’ but was judged to be a clear and present danger and also adjudged to be unrepentant, so he was sentenced to 11 years. Even under US law (Schenck v. United States) political speech can be reasonably limited if the government deems it ‘clear and present danger’.Liu had also failed to declare his income for tax purposes. Here is a record of his payments from the US Government’s National Endowment for Democracy* to Minzhu Zhongguo, Democratic China, Inc., which Liu founded. In 1991, Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing National Endowment for Democracy (NED), candidly said: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA". In effect, the CIA launders money through NED. (The Washington Post, Sept. 22, 1991). Western media simply reported that Professor Liu was an innocent man fighting for democracy. More on the Western media coordinated narrative here.2005: $136,0002006: $136,0002007: $145,0002008: $150,0002009: $195,000 + $18,000 (supplement): $213,0002010: $220,000Total sum from NED to Democratic China, Inc., $1,000,000Mr. Liu received additional money from NED for being the president of Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc.:2005: $99,5002006: $135,0002007: $135,0002008: $152,3502009: $152,9502010: $170,000NED payments for «Independent Chinese PEN Centre, Inc.»: US $844,800. Professor Liu’s total receipts from NED: US$1,844,800, about 14 million yuan.* The United States is not a democracy and has never been. It is a republic, to which American schoolchildren swear allegiance every day. There is no mention of ‘democracy’ in America’s constitutional documents. America’s Founding Fathers hated democracy. Democracy is an export–like opium in the 19th century–and is not consumed domestically.P.S. Charter ’08 is a rather simple-minded mishmash of popular ‘democratic’ ideals. There have been much more radical documents published and circulated in China for decades. Liu’s mistake was sending it for signatures when he was secretly being paid to do so by a hostile foreign power.This translation was done for the New York Review of Books by Perry Link, who knew some of its authors, so we can take it as being authentic.CHARTER ‘08I. FOREWORDA hundred years have passed since the writing of China’s first constitution. 2008 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thirtieth anniversary of the appearance of the Democracy Wall in Beijing, and the tenth of China’s signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters. The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.By departing from these values, the Chinese government’s approach to “modernization” has proven disastrous. It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse. So we ask: Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with “modernization” under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.The shock of the Western impact upon China in the nineteenth century laid bare a decadent authoritarian system and marked the beginning of what is often called “the greatest changes in thousands of years” for China. A “self-strengthening movement” followed, but this aimed simply at appropriating the technology to build gunboats and other Western material objects. China’s humiliating naval defeat at the hands of Japan in 1895 only confirmed the obsolescence of China’s system of government. The first attempts at modern political change came with the ill-fated summer of reforms in 1898, but these were cruelly crushed by ultraconservatives at China’s imperial court. With the revolution of 1911, which inaugurated Asia’s first republic, the authoritarian imperial system that had lasted for centuries was finally supposed to have been laid to rest. But social conflict inside our country and external pressures were to prevent it; China fell into a patchwork of warlord fiefdoms and the new republic became a fleeting dream.The failure of both “self- strengthening” and political renovation caused many of our forebears to reflect deeply on whether a “cultural illness” was afflicting our country. This mood gave rise, during the May Fourth Movement of the late 1910s, to the championing of “science and democracy.” Yet that effort, too, foundered as warlord chaos persisted and the Japanese invasion [beginning in Manchuria in 1931] brought national crisis.Victory over Japan in 1945 offered one more chance for China to move toward modern government, but the Communist defeat of the Nationalists in the civil war thrust the nation into the abyss of totalitarianism. The “new China” that emerged in 1949 proclaimed that “the people are sovereign” but in fact set up a system in which “the Party is all-powerful.” The Communist Party of China seized control of all organs of the state and all political, economic, and social resources, and, using these, has produced a long trail of human rights disasters, including, among many others, the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957), the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960), the Cultural Revolution (1966–1969), the June Fourth [Tiananmen Square] Massacre (1989), and the current repression of all unauthorized religions and the suppression of the weiquan rights movement [a movement that aims to defend citizens’ rights promulgated in the Chinese Constitution and to fight for human rights recognized by international conventions that the Chinese government has signed]. During all this, the Chinese people have paid a gargantuan price. Tens of millions have lost their lives, and several generations have seen their freedom, their happiness, and their human dignity cruelly trampled.During the last two decades of the twentieth century the government policy of “Reform and Opening” gave the Chinese people relief from the pervasive poverty and totalitarianism of the Mao Zedong era, and brought substantial increases in the wealth and living standards of many Chinese as well as a partial restoration of economic freedom and economic rights. Civil society began to grow, and popular calls for more rights and more political freedom have grown apace. As the ruling elite itself moved toward private ownership and the market economy, it began to shift from an outright rejection of “rights” to a partial acknowledgment of them.In 1998 the Chinese government signed two important international human rights conventions; in 2004 it amended its constitution to include the phrase “respect and protect human rights”; and this year, 2008, it has promised to promote a “national human rights action plan.” Unfortunately most of this political progress has extended no further than the paper on which it is written. The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.The stultifying results are endemic official corruption, an undermining of the rule of law, weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor, pillage of the natural environment as well as of the human and historical environments, and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts, especially, in recent times, a sharpening animosity between officials and ordinary people.As these conflicts and crises grow ever more intense, and as the ruling elite continues with impunity to crush and to strip away the rights of citizens to freedom, to property, and to the pursuit of happiness, we see the powerless in our society—the vulnerable groups, the people who have been suppressed and monitored, who have suffered cruelty and even torture, and who have had no adequate avenues for their protests, no courts to hear their pleas—becoming more militant and raising the possibility of a violent conflict of disastrous proportions. The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.II. OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLESThis is a historic moment for China, and our future hangs in the balance. In reviewing the political modernization process of the past hundred years or more, we reiterate and endorse basic universal values as follows:Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China’s recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime’s disregard for human rights.Equality. The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every person—regardless of social station, occupation, sex, economic condition, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief—are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights must be upheld.Republicanism. Republicanism, which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served, resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of “fairness in all under heaven.” It allows different interest groups and social assemblies, and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs, to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics: (1) Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. (2) Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. (3) The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. (4) While honoring the will of the majority, the fundamental dignity, freedom, and human rights of minorities are protected. In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens, limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power, and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends.III. WHAT WE ADVOCATEAuthoritarianism is in general decline throughout the world; in China, too, the era of emperors and overlords is on the way out. The time is arriving everywhere for citizens to be masters of states. For China the path that leads out of our current predicament is to divest ourselves of the authoritarian notion of reliance on an “enlightened overlord” or an “honest official” and to turn instead toward a system of liberties, democracy, and the rule of law, and toward fostering the consciousness of modern citizens who see rights as fundamental and participation as a duty. Accordingly, and in a spirit of this duty as responsible and constructive citizens, we offer the following recommendations on national governance, citizens’ rights, and social development:1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights, authorizes the exercise of public power, and serves as the legal underpinning of China’s democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land, beyond violation by any individual, group, or political party.2. Separation of Powers. We should construct a modern government in which the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive power is guaranteed. We need an Administrative Law that defines the scope of government responsibility and prevents abuse of administrative power. Government should be responsible to taxpayers. Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.3. Legislative Democracy. Members of legislative bodies at all levels should be chosen by direct election, and legislative democracy should observe just and impartial principles.4. An Independent Judiciary. The rule of law must be above the interests of any particular political party and judges must be independent. We need to establish a constitutional supreme court and institute procedures for constitutional review. As soon as possible, we should abolish all of the Committees on Political and Legal Affairs that now allow Communist Party officials at every level to decide politically sensitive cases in advance and out of court. We should strictly forbid the use of public offices for private purposes.5. Public Control of Public Servants. The military should be made answerable to the national government, not to a political party, and should be made more professional. Military personnel should swear allegiance to the constitution and remain nonpartisan. Political party organizations must be prohibited in the military. All public officials including police should serve as nonpartisans, and the current practice of favoring one political party in the hiring of public servants must end.6. Guarantee of Human Rights. There must be strict guarantees of human rights and respect for human dignity. There should be a Human Rights Committee, responsible to the highest legislative body, that will prevent the government from abusing public power in violation of human rights. A democratic and constitutional China especially must guarantee the personal freedom of citizens. No one should suffer illegal arrest, detention, arraignment, interrogation, or punishment. The system of “Reeducation through Labor” must be abolished.7. Election of Public Officials. There should be a comprehensive system of democratic elections based on “one person, one vote.” The direct election of administrative heads at the levels of county, city, province, and nation should be systematically implemented. The rights to hold periodic free elections and to participate in them as a citizen are inalienable.8. Rural–Urban Equality. The two-tier household registry system must be abolished. This system favors urban residents and harms rural residents. We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups, which requires a group to be “approved,” should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws, which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.10. Freedom to Assemble. The constitution provides that peaceful assembly, demonstration, protest, and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen. The ruling party and the government must not be permitted to subject these to illegal interference or unconstitutional obstruction.11. Freedom of Expression. We should make freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom universal, thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. These freedoms should be upheld by a Press Law that abolishes political restrictions on the press. The provision in the current Criminal Law that refers to “the crime of incitement to subvert state power” must be abolished. We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.12. Freedom of Religion. We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief, and institute a separation of religion and state. There must be no governmental interference in peaceful religious activities. We should abolish any laws, regulations, or local rules that limit or suppress the religious freedom of citizens. We should abolish the current system that requires religious groups (and their places of worship) to get official approval in advance and substitute for it a system in which registry is optional and, for those who choose to register, automatic.13. Civic Education. In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party. We should replace them with civic education that advances universal values and citizens’ rights, fosters civic consciousness, and promotes civic virtues that serve society.14. Protection of Private Property. We should establish and protect the right to private property and promote an economic system of free and fair markets. We should do away with government monopolies in commerce and industry and guarantee the freedom to start new enterprises. We should establish a Committee on State-Owned Property, reporting to the national legislature, that will monitor the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership in a fair, competitive, and orderly manner. We should institute a land reform that promotes private ownership of land, guarantees the right to buy and sell land, and allows the true value of private property to be adequately reflected in the market.15. Financial and Tax Reform. We should establish a democratically regulated and accountable system of public finance that ensures the protection of taxpayer rights and that operates through legal procedures. We need a system by which public revenues that belong to a certain level of government—central, provincial, county or local—are controlled at that level. We need major tax reform that will abolish any unfair taxes, simplify the tax system, and spread the tax burden fairly. Government officials should not be able to raise taxes, or institute new ones, without public deliberation and the approval of a democratic assembly. We should reform the ownership system in order to encourage competition among a wider variety of market participants.16. Social Security. We should establish a fair and adequate social security system that covers all citizens and ensures basic access to education, health care, retirement security, and employment.17. Protection of the Environment. We need to protect the natural environment and to promote development in a way that is sustainable and responsible to our descendants and to the rest of humanity. This means insisting that the state and its officials at all levels not only do what they must do to achieve these goals, but also accept the supervision and participation of nongovernmental organizations.18. A Federated Republic. A democratic China should seek to act as a responsible major power contributing toward peace and development in the Asian Pacific region by approaching others in a spirit of equality and fairness. In Hong Kong and Macao, we should support the freedoms that already exist. With respect to Taiwan, we should declare our commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy and then, negotiating as equals and ready to compromise, seek a formula for peaceful unification. We should approach disputes in the national-minority areas of China with an open mind, seeking ways to find a workable framework within which all ethnic and religious groups can flourish. We should aim ultimately at a federation of democratic communities of China.19. Truth in Reconciliation. We should restore the reputations of all people, including their family members, who suffered political stigma in the political campaigns of the past or who have been labeled as criminals because of their thought, speech, or faith. The state should pay reparations to these people. All political prisoners and prisoners of conscience must be released. There should be a Truth Investigation Commission charged with finding the facts about past injustices and atrocities, determining responsibility for them, upholding justice, and, on these bases, seeking social reconciliation.China, as a major nation of the world, as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and as a member of the UN Council on Human Rights, should be contributing to peace for humankind and progress toward human rights. Unfortunately, we stand today as the only country among the major nations that remains mired in authoritarian politics. Our political system continues to produce human rights disasters and social crises, thereby not only constricting China’s own development but also limiting the progress of all of human civilization. This must change, truly it must. The democratization of Chinese politics can be put off no longer.Accordingly, we dare to put civic spirit into practice by announcing Charter 08. We hope that our fellow citizens who feel a similar sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether they are inside the government or not, and regardless of their social status, will set aside small differences to embrace the broad goals of this citizens’ movement. Together we can work for major changes in Chinese society and for the rapid establishment of a free, democratic, and constitutional country. We can bring to reality the goals and ideals that our people have incessantly been seeking for more than a hundred years, and can bring a brilliant new chapter to Chinese civilization.—Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link

Although this link has been posted in a comment, I want to specifically post a link to the actual judgment.It's a model of clear thinking, and should be read beginning to end for a full overview: Google ScholarEdit to add: I've added the full text below for those who cannot click the link:________________________________APRIL MILLER, et al. Plaintiffs.v.KIM DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 15-44-DLB.United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland.August 12, 2015.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERDAVID L. BUNNING, District Judge.I. IntroductionThis matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk's Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anycouples. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Davis, an Apostolic Christian with a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, specifically sought to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples without discriminating against them. Plaintiffs now allege that this "no marriage licenses" policy substantially interferes with their right to marry because it effectively forecloses them from obtaining a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs' right to marry, which is justified by the need to protect her own free exercise rights.The Court held preliminary injunction hearings on July 13, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier were represented by William Sharp of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and Daniel Canon. Jonathan Christman and Roger Gannam, both of the Liberty Counsel, and A.C. Donahue appeared on behalf of Defendant Kim Davis. Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins and Jeff Mando represented Defendant Rowan County. Official Court Reporters Peggy Weber and Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Court submitted the Motion pending receipt of the parties' response and reply briefs. The Court having received those filings (Docs. # 28, 29 and 36), this matter is now ripe for review.At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party's rights. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative.II. Factual and Procedural BackgroundPlaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts have been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years. (Doc. # 21 at 25). After hearing about the Obergefelldecision, they went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license from one of the deputy clerks. (Id. at 25-26). The clerk immediately excused herself and went to speak with Kim Davis. (Id. at 28). When she returned, she informed the couple that the Rowan County Clerk's Office was not issuing any marriage licenses. (Id.). Plaintiffs Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez, a committed opposite-sex couple, had a similar experience when they tried to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Id. at 36).Both couples went straight to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins and asked him to issue their marriage licenses. (Id. at 30-32, 36). Blevins explained that, under Kentucky law, a county judge executive can only issue licenses when the elected county clerk is absent. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.240. Because Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, Blevins concluded that she was not "absent" within the meaning of the statute. (Id.). Therefore, he did not believe that he had the authority to issue their marriage licenses. (Id.).Plaintiffs Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs also planned to solemnize their long-term relationship post-Obergefell. (Id. at 42-44). Before going to the Rowan County Clerk's Office, they phoned ahead and asked for information about the marriage licensing process. (Id.). They wanted to make sure that they brought all necessary documentation with them. (Id.). One of the deputy clerks told the couple "not to bother coming down" because they would not be issued a license. (Id.).Seven neighboring counties (Bath, Fleming, Lewis, Carter, Elliott, Morgan and Menifee) are currently issuing marriage licenses. (Doc. # 26 at 53). All are less than an hour away from the Rowan County seat of Morehead. (Id.). While Plaintiffs have the means to travel to any one of these counties, they have admittedly chosen not to do so. (Doc. # 21 at 38, 48). They strongly prefer to have their licenses issued in Rowan County because they have significant ties to that community. (Id. at 28-29, 47). They live, work, socialize, vote, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. (Id.). Quite simply, Rowan County is their home.According to Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk's Office serves as a "pass through collection agency" for the State of Kentucky. (Doc. # 26 at 24-25). She and her six deputy clerks regularly handle delinquent taxes, oversee elections, manage voter registration and issue hunting and fishing licenses. (Id.). A portion of the fees collected in exchange for these services is used to fund the Office's activities throughout the year. (Id.). The remainder is remitted to the State. (Id.).Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage licenses.[1] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple must first go to the county clerk's office and provide their biographical information to one of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.[2] Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk's office for recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080.The Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives ("KDLA") prescribes the above-mentioned form, which must be used by all county clerks in issuing marriage licenses.[3] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.100, 402.110. It is composed of three sections, which correspond to the steps detailed above: (1) a marriage license, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk; (2) a marriage certificate, to be completed by a qualified officiant; and (3) a recording statement, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk. The marriage license section has the following components:(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100(1) (emphasis added).Davis does not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they will bear the above-mentioned authorization statement. She sees it as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which runs contrary to her Apostolic Christian beliefs. (Id. at 42). Four of Davis' deputy clerks share her religious objection to same-sex marriage, and another is undecided on the subject. (Id. at 49). The final deputy clerk is willing to issue the licenses, but Davis will not allow it because her name and title still appear twice on licenses that she does not personally sign. (Doc. # 29-3 at 7).In the wake of Obergefell, Governor Beshear issued the following directive to all county clerks:Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.(Doc. # 29-3 at 11). He has since addressed some of the religious concerns expressed by some county clerks:You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you're also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.(Doc. # 29-11). Davis is well aware of these directives. Nevertheless, she plans to implement her "no marriage licenses" policy for the remaining three and a half years of her term as Rowan County Clerk. (Doc. # 26 at 67).III. Standard of ReviewA district court must consider four factors when entertaining a motion for preliminary injunction:(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits;(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm;(3) whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of such an injunction.See Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 1998). These "are factors to be balanced, and not prerequisites that must be met." In re Eagle Picher Indus., Inc.,963 F.3d 855, 859 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating further that these factors "simply guide the discretion of the court").IV. AnalysisA. Defendant Kim Davis in her official capacityPlaintiffs are pursuing this civil rights action against Defendants Rowan County and Kim Davis, in her individual and official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .This statute "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotations omitted).At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights by obtaining injunctive relief against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk. Because official capacity suits "generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," one might assume that Plaintiffs are effectively pursuing injunctive relief against Rowan County. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978). However, Rowan County can only be held liable under § 1983 if its policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation. Id. at 694.A single decision made by an official with final policymaking authority in the relevant area may qualify as a policy attributable to the entity. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986). Whether an official acted as a final policymaker is a question of state or local law. Id. However, courts must avoid categorizing an official as a state or municipal actor "in some categorical, `all or nothing' manner." McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). They key inquiry is whether an official is a "final policymaker [] for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue." Id. Accordingly, the Court will focus on whether Davis likely acted as a final policymaker for Rowan County regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.While Davis is the elected Rowan County Clerk, subject to very little oversight by the Rowan County Fiscal Court, there are no other facts in the record to suggest that she set marriage policy for Rowan County. After all, the State of Kentucky has "absolute jurisdiction over the regulation of the institution of marriage." Pinkhasov v. Petocz, 331 S.W.3d 285, 291 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). The State not only enacts marriage laws, it prescribes procedures for county clerks to follow when carrying out those laws, right down to the form they must use in issuing marriage licenses. Id.; see also Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.080, 402.100. Thus, Davis likely acts for the State of Kentucky, and not as a final policymaker for Rowan County, when issuing marriage licenses.This preliminary finding does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from obtaining injunctive relief against Davis. While the Eleventh Amendment typically bars Plaintiffs from bringing suit against a state or its officials, "official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state." Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). This narrow exception, known as the Ex Parte Young doctrine, permits a federal court to "enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law." Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). "It rests on the premise-less delicately called a `fiction,'-that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign immunity purposes." Va. Office for Prot. and Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1638 (2011). Because Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Davis from violating their federal constitutional rights, this Court has the power to grant relief under Ex Parte Young.[4]B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction1. Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the meritsa. The fundamental right to marryUnder the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This "due process" clause has both a procedural component and a substantive component. See EJS Prop., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012). Procedural due process simply requires that the government provide a fair procedure when depriving an individual of life, liberty or property. Id. By contrast, substantive due process "protects a narrow class of interests, including those enumerated in the Constitution, those so rooted in the traditions of the people as to be ranked fundamental, and the interest in freedom from government actions that `shock the conscience.'" Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 588 (6th Cir. 2014).Although the Constitution makes no mention of the right to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified it as a fundamental interest subject to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes as violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). After all, "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Id. This right applies with equal force to different-sex and same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2604-05 (2015) ("[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.").If a state law or policy "significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right[, it] cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978). A state substantially interferes with the right to marry when some members of the affected class "are absolutely prevented from getting married" and "[m]any others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements[,] will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry." Id. at 387 (invalidating a Wisconsin statute that required individuals with child support obligations to obtain a court order before marrying).However, "not every state action, `which relates in any way to the incidents of or the prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.'" Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1134 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386). States may impose "reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship." Id. at 1135. If the statute does not create a "direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married" or significantly discourage marriage, then it will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Id. (quoting Zablocki 434 U.S. at 387-88 n. 12); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 54 n.11 (1977) (upholding a Social Security provision that terminated secondary benefits received by the disabled dependent child of a covered wage earner if that child married an individual who was not entitled to benefits).The state action at issue in this case is Defendant Davis' refusal to issue anymarriage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly interferes with their right to marry because they are unable to obtain a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy does not significantly discourage Plaintiffs from marrying because they have several other options for obtaining licenses: (1) they may go to one of the seven neighboring counties that areissuing marriage licenses; (2) they may obtain licenses from Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins; or (3) they may avail themselves of other alternatives being considered post-Obergefell.Davis is correct in stating that Plaintiffs can obtain marriage licenses from one of the surrounding counties; thus, they are not totally precluded from marrying in Kentucky. However, this argument ignores the fact that Plaintiffs have strong ties to Rowan County. They are long-time residents who live, work, pay taxes, vote and conduct other business in Morehead. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Plaintiffs would prefer to obtain their marriage licenses in their home county. And for other Rowan County residents, it may be more than a preference. The surrounding counties are only thirty minutes to an hour away, but there are individuals in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel.[5]This argument also presupposes that Rowan County will be the only Kentucky county not issuing marriage licenses. While Davis may be the only clerk currently turning away eligible couples, 57 of the state's 120 elected county clerks have asked Governor Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to address religious concerns related to same-sex marriage licenses.[6] (Doc. # 29-9). If this Court were to hold that Davis' policy did not significantly interfere with the right to marry, what would stop the other 56 clerks from following Davis' approach? What might be viewed as an inconvenience for residents of one or two counties quickly becomes a substantial interference when applicable to approximately half of the state.As for her assertion that Judge Blevins may issue marriage licenses, Davis is only partially correct. KRS § 402.240 provides that, "[i]n the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk." The statute does not explicitly define "absence," suggesting that a traditional interpretation of the term is appropriate. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015, Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster, (describing "absence" as "a period of time when someone is not present at a place, job, etc."). However, Davis asks the Court to deem her "absent," for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unableto do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties.[7] Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.Davis finally suggests that Plaintiffs will have other avenues for obtaining marriage licenses in the future. For example, county clerks have urged Governor Beshear to create an online marriage licensing system, which would be managed by the State of Kentucky. While these options may be available someday, they are not feasible alternatives at present. Thus, they have no impact on the Court's "substantial interference" analysis.Having considered Davis' arguments in depth, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses-they must go to another county. Davis makes much of the fact that Plaintiffs are able to travel, but she fails to address the one question that lingers in the Court's mind. Even if Plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? The state has long entrusted county clerks with the task of issuing marriage licenses. It does not seem unreasonable for Plaintiffs, as Rowan County voters, to expect their elected official to perform her statutorily assigned duties. And yet, that is precisely what Davis is refusing to do. Much like the statutes at issue in Loving and Zablocki, Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly discourages many Rowan County residents from exercising their right to marry and effectively disqualifies others from doing so. The Court must subject this policy apply heightened scrutiny.b. The absence of a compelling state interestWhen pressed to articulate a compelling state interest served by her "no marriage licenses" policy, Davis responded that it serves the State's interest in protecting her religious freedom. The State certainly has an obligation to "observe the basic free exercise rights of its employees," but this is not the extent of its concerns. Marchi v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Serv. of Albany, 173 F.3d 469, 476 (2d. Cir. 1999). In fact, the State has some priorities that run contrary to Davis' proffered state interest. Chief among these is its interest in preventing Establishment Clause violations. See U.S. Const. amend. I (declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). Davis has arguably committed such a violation by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.[8] In such situations, "the scope of the employees' rights must [] yield to the legitimate interest of governmental employer in avoiding litigation." Marchi, 173 F.3d at 476.The State also has a countervailing interest in upholding the rule of law. See generally Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 171 (1972) ("The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, . . . is the great mucilage that holds society together."). Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.For these reasons, the Court concludes that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' rights without serving a compelling state interest. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, this first factor weighs in favor of granting their request for relief.2. Potential for irreparable harm to PlaintiffsWhen a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of a constitutional deprivation claim, it follows that he or she will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Courts have also held that a plaintiff can demonstrate that a denial of an injunction will cause irreparable harm if the claim is based upon a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights."); see also Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir .1998) (finding that the loss of First Amendment rights for a minimal period of time results in irreparable harm); Ohio St. Conference of NAACP v. Husted, 43 F. Supp. 3d 808, 851 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (recognizing that a restriction on the fundamental right to vote constitutes irreparable injury).The Court is not aware of any Sixth Circuit case law explicitly stating that a denial of the fundamental right to marry constitutes irreparable harm. However, the case law cited above suggests that the denial of constitutional rights, enumerated or unenumerated, results in irreparable harm. It follows that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from Davis' "no marriage licenses" rule, absent injunctive relief. Therefore, this second factor also weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.3. Potential for substantial harm to Kim Davisa. The right to free exercise of religionThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). This Free Exercise Clause "embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act." Id. at 304. "The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." Id. Therefore, "[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Id.Traditionally, a free exercise challenge to a particular law triggered strict scrutiny.See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 (1963). A statute would only be upheld if it served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest. Id. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated slightly from this approach. See Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). While laws targeting religious conduct remain subject to strict scrutiny, "[a] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532; see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 880 (stating further that an individual's religious beliefs do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate")."Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532. A law is not neutral if its object "is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation." Id. at 533 (finding that a local ordinance forbidding animal sacrifice was not neutral because it focused on "rituals" and had built-in exemptions for most other animal killings). The Court has not yet "defined with precision the standard used to evaluate whether a prohibition is of general application." Id. at 543. However, it has observed that "[t]he Free Exercise Clause `protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment,' and inequality results when a legislature decides that the governmental interests it seeks to advance are worthy of being pursued only against conduct with a religious motivation." Id. at 542.While Smith and Babalu do not explicitly mention the term "rational basis," lower courts have interpreted them as imposing a similar standard of review on neutral laws of general applicability. See, e.g., Seger v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 453 F. App's 630, 634 (2011). Under rational basis review, laws will be upheld if they are "rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest." Id. at 635 (noting that "[a] law or regulation subject to rational basis review is accorded a strong presumption of validity"); see also F.C.C. v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)(stating generally that laws subject to rational basis review must be upheld "if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification").In response to Smith and Babalu, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. It prohibits the government from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," except when the government demonstrates that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Id. Although Congress intended RFRA to apply to the states as well as the federal government, the Court held that this was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' powers under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 512 (1997). Free exercise challenges to federal laws remain subject to RFRA, while similar challenges to state policies are governed by Smith. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).For purposes of this inquiry, the state action at issue is Governor Beshear's post-Obergefell directive, which explicitly instructs county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argues that the Beshear directive not only substantially burdens her free exercise rights by requiring her to disregard sincerely-held religious beliefs, it does not serve a compelling state interest. She further insists that Governor Beshear could easily grant her a religious exemption without adversely affecting Kentucky's marriage licensing scheme, as there are readily available alternatives for obtaining licenses in and around Rowan County.[9]This argument proceeds on the assumption that Governor Beshear's policy is not neutral or generally applicable, and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.[10]However, the text itself supports a contrary inference. Governor Beshear first describes the legal impact of the Court's decision in Obergefell, then provides guidance for all county clerks in implementing this new law. His goal is simply to ensure that the activities of the Commonwealth are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.While facial neutrality is not dispositive, Davis has done little to convince the Court that Governor Beshear's directive aims to suppress religious practice. She has only one piece of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that Governor Beshear "is picking and choosing the conscience-based exemptions to marriage that he deems acceptable." (Doc. # 29 at 24). In 2014, Attorney General Jack Conway declined to appeal a federal district court decision striking down Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-12). He openly stated that he could not, in good conscience, defend discrimination and waste public resources on a weak case.[11] (Id.). Instead of directing Attorney General Conway to pursue the appeal, regardless of his religious beliefs, Governor Beshear hired private attorneys for that purpose. (Doc. # 29-13). He has so far refused to extend such an "exemption" to county clerks with religious objections to same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-11).However, Davis fails to establish that her current situation is comparable to Attorney General Conway's position in 2014. Both are elected officials who have voiced strong opinions about same-sex marriage, but the comparison ends there. Governor Beshear did not actually "exempt" Attorney General Conway from pursuing the same-sex marriage appeal. Attorney General Conway's decision stands as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on an unsettled legal question. By contrast, Davis is refusing to recognize the legal force of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in performing her duties as Rowan County Clerk. Because the two are not similarly situated, the Court simply cannot conclude that Governor Beshear treated them differently based upon their religious convictions. There being no other evidence in the record to suggest that the Beshear directive is anything but neutral and generally applicable, it will likely be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.The Beshear directive certainly serves the State's interest in upholding the rule of law. However, it also rationally relates to several narrower interests identified inObergefell. By issuing licenses to same-sex couples, the State allows them to enjoy "the right to personal choice regarding marriage [that] is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy" and enter into "a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 135 S. Ct. at 2599-2600. It also allows same-sex couples to take advantage of the many societal benefits and fosters stability for their children. Id. at 2600-01. Therefore, the Court concludes that it likely does not infringe upon Davis' free exercise rights.b. The right to free speechThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Under the Free Speech Clause, an individual has the "right to utter or print, [as well as] the right to distribute, the right to receive and the right to read." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)(citing Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943)). An individual also has the "right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977) (invalidating a state law that required New Hampshire drivers to display the state motto on their license plates). After all, "[a] system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Id.While the Free Speech Clause protects citizens' speech rights from government intrusion, it does not stretch so far as to bar the government "from determining the content of what it says." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,135 S. Ct. 2239, 2245-46 (2015). "[A]s a general matter, when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and carries out its duties on their behalf." Id.That being said, the government's ability to express itself is not unlimited. Id. "[T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government's speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government's speech." Id. (stating further that "[c]onstitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may [also] limit government speech").This claim also implicates the Beshear directive. Davis contends that this directive violates her free speech rights by compelling her to express a message she finds objectionable. Specifically, Davis must issue marriage licenses bearing her "imprimatur and authority" as Rowan County Clerk to same-sex couples . Doc. # 29 at 27). Davis views such an act as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which conflicts with her sincerely-held religious beliefs.As a preliminary matter, the Court questions whether the act of issuing a marriage license constitutes speech. Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to "authorize" same-sex marriage. A close inspection of the KDLA marriage licensing form refutes this assertion. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry.The Court must also acknowledge the possibility that any such speech is attributable to the government, rather than Davis. See Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2248 (finding that specialty license plates are government speech because the government has exercised final approval over the designs, and thus, chosen "how to present itself and its constituency"). The State prescribes the form that Davis must use in issuing marriage licenses. She plays no role in composing the form, and she has no discretion to alter it. Moreover, county clerks' offices issue marriage licenses on behalf of the State, not on behalf of a particular elected clerk.Assuming arguendo that the act of issuing a marriage license is speech by Davis, the Court must further consider whether the State is infringing upon her free speech rights by compelling her to convey a message she finds disagreeable. However, the seminal "compelled speech" cases provide little guidance because they focus on private individuals who are forced to communicate a particular message on behalf of the government. See, e.g., W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(striking down a state law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag). Davis is a public employee, and therefore, her speech rights are different than those of a private citizen.[12] Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006)."[T]he government may not constitutionally compel persons to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition of public employment," but it does have "a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 156 (1983); Waters v. Churchill,511 U.S. 661, 671 (1994). Accordingly, "[w]hen a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, (1973) (stating that "neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution" invalidates the Hatch Act's bar on partisan political conduct by federal employees)."[T]wo inquiries [] guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech." Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 563 (1968)). First, a court must determine "whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." Id. (explaining further that this question often depends upon whether the employee's speech was made pursuant to his or her official duties). Id. at 421. If the answer is no, then the employee's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 421 ("Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen."). If the answer is yes, a court must then consider "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Id.(stating further that the government's restrictions "must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations").The Court must adapt this test slightly because Davis' claim focuses on her right notto speak. In this context, the first inquiry is whether Davis refused to speak (i.e. refused to issue marriage licenses) as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The logical answer to this question is no, as the average citizen has no authority to issue marriage licenses. Davis is only able to issue these licenses, or refuse to issue them, because she is the Rowan County Clerk. Because her speech (in the form of her refusal to issue marriage licenses) is a product of her official duties, it likely is not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to succeed on her compelled speech claim.c. The prohibition on religious testsArticle VI, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Under this Clause, "[t]he fact [] that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution." Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (striking down a state requirement that an individual declare his belief in God in order to become a notary public); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)(invalidating a state law that prevented religious officials from serving in the state legislature).Davis contends that "[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation, amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office." (Doc. # 29 at 20). The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met thelegal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief as a condition of public employment, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties. Thus, it seems unlikely that Davis will be able to establish a violation of the Religious Test Clause.Although Davis focuses on the Religious Test Clause, the Court must draw her attention to the first half of Article VI, Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office on January 1, 2015. However, her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents. When such "sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602. Such policies simply cannot endure.d. The Kentucky Religious Freedom ActKentucky Constitution § 1 broadly declares that "[a]ll men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned .. . [t]he right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences." Kentucky Constitution § 5 gives content to this guarantee:No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Kentucky courts have held that Kentucky Constitution § 5 does not grant more protection to religious practice than the First Amendment. Gingerich v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Ky. 2012). Such a finding would normally permit the Court to collapse its analysis of state and federal constitutional provisions. However, the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, patterned after the federal RFRA, subjects state free exercise challenges to heightened scrutiny:Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.350.Davis again argues that the Beshear directive substantially burdens her religious freedom without serving a compelling state interest. The record in this case suggests that the burden is more slight. As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.4. Public interest"[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994). Because Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry, and because Davis herself is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free speech or free exercise rights if an injunction is issued, this fourth and final factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.V. ConclusionDistrict courts are directed to balance four factors when analyzing a motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, all four factors weigh in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein,IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. G:\DATA\Opinions\Ashland\15-44 MOO Granting Mtn for Preliminary Injunction.wpd[1] This task requires relatively few resources, at least in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 24-30). Davis testified that her Office issued 212 marriage licenses in 2014. Marriage licenses cost $35.50. (Id.). Of that sum, the Office retains $21.17, and remits the remaining $14.33 to the State. (Id.). Thus, Rowan County Clerk's Office made about $4,500, or roughly 0.1% of its annual budget, from issuing marriage licenses in 2014. (Id.). Davis also estimated that the task of issuing marriage licenses occupies one hour of one deputy clerk's time per week. (Id.).[2] A couple is "legally qualified" to marry if both individuals are over the age of eighteen, mentally competent, unrelated to each other and currently unmarried. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.010, 402.020(a)-(d), (f).[3] Only one aspect of the form has changed since Obergefell-whereas the marriage applicants were once referred to as "Bride" and "Groom," they are now identified as "First Party" and "Second Party."[4] In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that the Court need not decide whether Davis is a state actor or municipal policymaker in order to grant injunctive relief. The Court's preliminary finding on this matter does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from arguing the "municipal policymaker" theory in the future. The Court simply seeks to ensure that it is indeed able to grant injunctive relief against Kim Davis in her official capacity.[5] The median household income in Rowan County is $35,236 and 28.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. See United States Census Bureau, Rowan County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. For the entire state of Kentucky, the median household income is $43,036 and 18.8% of the population lives below the poverty line. Id.[6] See also Jack Brammer, 57 County Clerks Ask Governor for Special Session on Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, The Lexington Herald Leader (July 8, 2015), 57 Kentucky county clerks ask governor for special session on same-sex marriage licenses; Terry DeMio, Boone, Ky. Clerks Want Same-Sex License Law, Cincinnati Enquirer (July 9, 2015), Page on cincinnati.com ession-address-sex-marriage-issues-clerks/29919103/.[7] Even if the Court were inclined to accept Davis' interpretation of the term "absence," it would have doubts about the practicality of this approach. Judge Blevins is the highest elected official in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 7). He is frequently out of the office on official business. (Id.). While Judge Blevins would not have to process a large number of marriage requests, he might not be regularly available for couples seeking licenses. Thus, the Court would be concerned about Judge Blevins' ability to perform this function as efficiently as Davis and her six deputy clerks.[8] Although it is not the focus of this opinion, Plaintiffs have already asserted such an Establishment Clause claim against Kim Davis in her official capacity. (Doc. # 1 at 13).[9] Davis further develops this argument in her own Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against Governor Beshear and KDLA Librarian Wayne Onkst. That Motion is not yet ripe for review.[10] In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that free exercise claims involving neutral and generally applicable laws may still be subject to heightened scrutiny if asserted alongside another constitutional right. If the Court concludes that the Beshear directive is neutral and generally applicable, Davis argues that strict scrutiny must still apply because her free exercise claim is coupled with a free speech claim. (Doc. # 29 at 23). However, this proposal fails because Davis' free speech rights are qualified by virtue of her public employment. See Draper v. Logan Cnty. Pub. Library, 403 F. Supp. 2d 608, 621-22 (W.D. Ky. 2005) (applying the Pickering balancing test to a combined free exercise and free speech claim asserted by a public employee). The Court will discuss this concept further in the next section.[11] Davis refers to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky's decisions in Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542, 545 (W.D. Ky. 2014), and Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 539 (W.D. Ky. 2014). Judge John Heyburn held that Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages "violate[] the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review." Bourke, 996 F. Supp. 2d at 544. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated these cases with several similar matters originating from Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and reversed them. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari on these cases, now collectively known asObergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).[12] Most free speech cases involving public employees center on compelled silence rather than compelled speech. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48 (focusing on a district attorney's claim that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her free speech rights). "[I]n the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees `freedom of speech,' a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-97.