Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ordered released from jail

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Heh heh, my man.

2nd line.

a reply to: Phoenix

Then let them make that stand which is a valid one. Take away all the legal rights and privileges that come with getting married, from every married person in the US. No contracts either (that's exactly the legal part of getting married) unless they will be applied to all persons regardless of religion, gender, sexuality and race.

Until then, government officials cannot selectively choose which part of the Constitution they are restricted by or not. That is a very bad precedent to set.

a reply to: DeathSlayer


I think she should be fired for not upholding her oath of office. She doesn't get to pick and choose (and neither do any of us) what laws to obey and which to 'ignore'. I guess it's an elected office so 'impeahed' or the like

If she has a strong opinion on a law, she, as a private citizen can do what we call can but has to be willing to pay the consequences of her 'conscious'. If she had such deep convictions why didn't she resign her post publically....

Perhaps ...

No GoFundMe For Kim Davis: Crowdfunding Puts the Brakes On the Disturbing Bigots-Get-Rich-Quick Trend

www.alternet.org...

It’s a narrative so familiar by now that we can all recite the script.

As Sarah Thyre laid it out Thursday: “1. Jail 2. Book deal/Fox News guest 3. jillion dollar @gofundme page w/donations from fellow bigots.”

And with the developments this week in the case of Kim Davis, who was indeed jailed not for being a Christian but for being in contempt of court, many presumed this was the jackpot the $80,000-a-year-salaried Kentucky county clerk was headed toward. But not so fast, partner.

a reply to: Kali74

Cant agree with "till then" as Constitution has NO provision for Federal Government involvement in States Issue nor can it discriminate based upon religious belief.

It's those other ignored Amendments ya know that folks abusing 14th meant for post Civil War Reconstruction are using to dictate to voters just how they should do business.

Contracts are by nature non discriminatory and probably are the way to go as far as government is concerned.

Marriage on the other hand is a moral obligation belonging with tradition and religious belief.

I say separate the two functions into its civil and religious components.

Otherwise we'll end up with chaos.

a reply to: Phoenix

No federal provision in states' issues? Well, when something becomes federal law, that becomes an issue of every state. Like voting rights (women, blacks), like many other issues such as DISCRIMINATION.

What contracts "ought to be" versus what they "are" are two completely different issues. That marriage should not be a legal contract honored by the state is beside the point. The fact that it IS a legal contract recognized by the state doesn't mean that people entering into it should not be subjected to the legal benefits that others receive, or that those who disagree with it should be able to prevent those benefits under law. And there is also fact that the law (about marriage contracts) in itself is not unconstitutional, even though some might disagree with it.

Don't like that fact that it's a legal contract? Change the law.

Until then, it's irrelevant. Because the law isn't unjust.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't think she cares about violating the judge's order, she went to jail to prove her point and did not give in. I think when she returns to work she will once again direct the clerks to stop issuing any further gay marriage certificates.

She is not afraid to go to jail. Whether she is morally right or wrong....I do not judge but at least she stands her ground in what she believes in which is more than most people I know.

To stand up against the government whether right or wrong shows character.

You are aware that she had stopped issuing any marriage licenses, right?

Not just gay marriage licenses... any marriage license.

She literally was not doing her job. The article is incorrect. It wasn't just gay couples that were denied licenses:
Marriage licenses issued since Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

Davis had refused to issue marriage licenses to any couples, gay or straight, since late June when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. She has said that same-sex marriage conflicts with her religious convictions and that she could not issue a license under her name to a same-sex couple.

People who agree with her 'beliefs' conveniently overlook that particular bit.

a reply to: Greven

That's exactly why I agree with her stance, Kentucky State Government needs to act since it's law was nullified.

No law = no license.

a reply to: Liquesence

And that's the core issue, some consider a ruling by a court to be law as you call it and others tend to believe law comes from duly elected officials which I believe.

Law being by elected representitives, dictates which you have by the courts usually in cases like this circumventing 75% of the voting public of Kentucky.

originally posted by: Phoenix

Marriage on the other hand should be left to the churches as a religious ceremony according to their tenants.

It stopped being that a long time ago when married couples were afforded numerous codified financial and legal privileges.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Law being by elected representitives, dictates which you have by the courts usually in cases like this circumventing 75% of the voting public of Kentucky.

The big thing that you, and people like you, are missing is that the Supreme Court invalidated laws that were passed to prohibit gay marriage as it discriminated against those citizens 14th Amendment rights in two separate places.

Why does it discriminate? Because codified federal law (and various states laws) give noticeable financial and legal benefits to married persons. You cannot give those benefits to some while discriminating against others, the laws providing these benefits were already passed, which is why I am still amazed that many of you think certain states need to pass new laws.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Is there any reason she can't just be fired for not doing her job?

Yes, she's an elected official, and in most places in the US if not all of them, an elected official can't simply be fired, and it's for the best that things work this way. Imagine electing a reformer only for someone above them in the government to fire them to maintain the status quo. In order to remove her she has to be impeached by the state legislature, and if found guilty of what she's charged with (in this case it would be a constitutional violation) by x% of the members then they can decide the punishment up to and including removal from office.

The governor doesn't want to call a special session of the legislature, and they're not back in session until January, so as far as short term fixes go, that doesn't work. I don't know all the reasons for not calling a special session but legislatures from Congress on down are notorious for turning off the work from X date until Y date. I imagine calling them would create a lot of political rifts the governor doesn't want to deal with, plus it would probably cost several million dollars which just isn't cost effective.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Liquesence

And that's the core issue, some consider a ruling by a court to be law as you call it and others tend to believe law comes from duly elected officials which I believe.

Law being by elected representitives, dictates which you have by the courts usually in cases like this circumventing 75% of the voting public of Kentucky.

You're implying that "it's ok to treat class X people differently simply *because* a law doesn't say they should be treated the same, and the court has no authority to rule otherwise without said law passed by congress in which to affirm or strike down." That's BS and you know it.

While there is not, to my knowledge, a federal law made and passed by representatives of the people defining marriage one way or the other (only that bigots HOLD marriage to be only between a man and woman based upon their religious conviction and therefore use the absence of a statute to affirm their bigotry and discrimination), the court has made it law because of equal rights under the 14th Amendment.

It's funny how people argue the "well there's no law therefore they're acting outside their power."

"Some consider a ruling by a court to be law..."

Most of us do, where equal rights are concerned.

You're missing the bigger picture.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Rather than the extreme solution of jailing her......why not just you know.....fire her?

What is it with Americas obsession in jailing people for non violent crimes?

In theory, she should be issuing them too. In practice, who wants to go to court over the issue and spend all that time/money when the office itself is complying and just using someone else to do so. As far as short term fixes go that shouldn't be a problem. Long term I think the voters will take care of it when they realize electing someone who won't hand out gay marriage certificates only serves to raise their taxes when another full time replacement who will also has to be hired.

originally posted by: Willtell
The thing she claims to NOT WANT is her name on the license.

At least I think that’s the issue.


As the official county clerk her name goes on the documents from that office.


It shouldn’t matter whether the documents have Mickey mouse on them as long as people get their legal marriage licenses

So all this is about whether her signature is on the document

Then she should step down, because having your name on government paperwork is part of the price of being in her position, since it's her office for now. I think having to redo all the letterhead for certain situations is an undue burden on the office. I also think it's discriminatory to say gay's get one set of papers but straights get another.

originally posted by: crazyewok
And heres me thinking the UK had it bad with beurocrates

We want it this way in the US. Can you imagine if the President could wantonly fire Governors over disagreements? Or if town Mayors could throw out the troublemakers in their local government? You can't have a Republic if your elected officials can easily be fired.

originally posted by: mOjOm
She's already a hypocrite by using the bible as her guide to marriage refusing it to gays when she's been married and divorced 3 times and committed adultery.

She also has no legal right to stand her ground while in that position. She's a Public Servant and Gov. employee. What she personally thinks should be the law doesn't matter. What IS the Law is what matters. End of story.

Anyone supporting her is also supporting the idea that Public Officials don't have to do the job we elect them for. So anyone supporting her is supporting a corrupt government that doesn't listen to the will of the people.

Idiots!!

I'm going to say this since no one else is. If you read my other posts on the subject it should be clear I don't think much of Kim Davis, but whether we consider her a hypocrite or not doesn't really matter, to an outside observer we are all hypocrites in some fashion but we justify it to ourselves, just as she does to herself. She's been divorced 3 or 4 times and an adulterer, that all happened before she became a born again Christian... I know very little about the woman but maybe she saw that lifestyle and wanted to try something different to improve and that's what pushed her to her faith. I think it's a low blow to attack the womans past as a way of trying to score points in the present. Judge her based on her actions revolving solely around this issue, there's plenty of material there without bringing up the other mistakes she's made in her life that are only tangentially related.

originally posted by: MysterX
I'd imagine there is a rule that a criminal conviction would be grounds to fire an elected official, regardless of that infringing on the electorate's choice? Ought to be the same thing or at least ball park in this case surely?

If she isn't doing what she was elected to do, and i had voted for her..i'd want to have another election.

Firing an elected official is done through impeachment. Think Clinton.

The person needs to be found guilty by a state legislature (or Congress in Clintons case), then x% have to vote for removal from office.

It's a very high bar to pass, even if she's 100% guilty it's conceivable enough state representatives will sympathize and say she keeps her job. Then it all goes back to the voters, which it goes to anyways if she doesn't.

So long story short, just wait until the next election and there's a chance she might be out before then even.

a reply to: Liquesence

Nope not implying at all, make it a contract as far as government and it's interests are concerned and be done with it.

I think using the courts and mis-applying an amendment meant for a completely unrelated subject is at best disingenuous at worst bastardizing the Constitution.

All this has done is create much anger due to side stepping the voters and legislative process.

In doing so it shows the corruption of the idea itself.

Marriage in the church, civil contracts with government solves the issue.

a reply to: Aazadan

Ok fair enough. Although I think the Born Again excuse is just a neat little way to do whatever you want then in one fail swoop clear away all that guilt by claiming religion. But that's fine.

She's still a hypocrite for using the "conscience exemption" excuse for why we should allow her to break the law while at the same time telling her clerks they must obey her and not issue marriage licenses either. Shouldn't they be allowed to exercise their own conscience as well then??? Why is it only her conscience that matters and not her clerks???

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aazadan

Ok fair enough. Although I think the Born Again excuse is just a neat little way to do whatever you want then in one fail swoop clear away all that guilt by claiming religion. But that's fine.

She's still a hypocrite for using the "conscience exemption" excuse for why we should allow her to break the law while at the same time telling her clerks they must obey her and not issue marriage licenses either. Shouldn't they be allowed to exercise their own conscience as well then??? Why is it only her conscience that matters and not her clerks???

I bring it up because despite the disagreements caused and the harm she's doing, she's still a functional thinking person, just an American trying to go about her life with her family. I think that gets lost lots of times when it's easier to just dehumanize the person. She's clearly in the wrong here but attacking her personal life to cast her as a bad person doesn't improve that argument, a lot of people have a non traditional personal life and it doesn't mean they're bad people. There's plenty of reasons this should change:
1. Governments cannot be discriminatory.
2. Reasonable accommodations require another full time person hired to do her job.
3. Religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with government function.
4. She has citizens requesting this now legal service, her job is to provide not turn away.

There's also reasons to throw her back in jail if she doesn't comply. Namely, it lets her feel like a martyr, and it has a very negative connotation with the voters come election season and the voters will ultimately fix the issue. Jail is also much preferable to fines because jail is temporary. Can you imagine fining her $10,000/day while she's being stubborn? In a month that's a lifetime of crippling debt that's never going away... hardly fair.

Now that she has been in jail a few days and hopefully cleared her head (judges use contempt for that reason often), she has a deal. She can go back to work as long as the other clerks can issue licenses. That's not an ideal solution, and I'm pretty sure that's not even a truly legal solution but it's a functional one until another election happens, or even until the legislature can decided if they want to do anything about it.

From reading the rest of this thread though it sounds like she won't take it. She wants to change all the letterhead and remove her name/office from any license given to a gay couple. That's just not reasonable in my mind. One paper for the straights, and one paper for the gays is discriminatory, which all goes back to the original issue with the SC ruling. States cannot be discriminatory in their marriage practices.