Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[Keith&Co.]

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-jailed-over-gay-marriage-return-085806509.html
Kentucky clerk won't interfere with gay marriage licenses

...however:

but she declared they will not be authorized by her and questioned their validity.

The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid. Only Davis and her attorneys claim otherwise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Read an article where Davis's lawyers are trying to argue that because the only people that sued now have licenses they don't need to issue any more marriage licenses to gays. Some call it a Hail Mary. I however recognize that a Hail Mary is lofted while the game is still being played, not after the final whistle.

It's incoherent. She wants to stop issuing licenses because the plaintiffs have been satisfied AND she questions the validity of the license, so she can't really claim that they've been satisfied, but she's filed a claim asking for a delay in issuing the licenses....that may or may not have already been issued, or may have to be reissued, with or without her...

I know there's a point where the state can just take kids because someone's a bad parent...

Can the state just take clients because her legal counsel is a pack of fucking morons?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Read an article where Davis's lawyers are trying to argue that because the only people that sued now have licenses they don't need to issue any more marriage licenses to gays. Some call it a Hail Mary. I however recognize that a Hail Mary is lofted while the game is still being played, not after the final whistle.

Like I said previously, or perhaps it was at Secular cafe, I am beginning to suspect that this is now just becoming a desperate act on the part of the lawyers to stay in the news and keep the bigots contributing money to them.

They can't possibly think that this is at all rational.

Can definitely be true and is logical. Much like how the NRA uses massacres to raise money, this can be used to help fund their coffers so they can continue living the easy life of not doing anything of notice.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can the state just take clients because her legal counsel is a pack of fucking morons?

Well, her lawyers aren't looking to present "valid legal arguments" or any such irrelevancies. They're looking to extend the fight - full stop.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So she can find another job. Isn't freedom great?

 

[ideologyhunter]

This morning MSNBC started their 11 a.m. news hour with Kim. There she was on the steps of the courthouse with the words Kim Davis Still Defiant at the bottom of the screen. They did man on the street interviews and found a local lady who criticized the LGBTs from "up in Ohio" coming down to get their marriage licenses. "They're just coming here to stir up trouble!" Change a few words in this lady's complaint and you'd have the angry white segregationists of the 50s and 60s. Those Northern trouble-makers, coming down here to stir up our coloreds. Aint the Bible Belt great, folks?

 

[scombrid]

Like I said previously, or perhaps it was at Secular cafe, I am beginning to suspect that this is now just becoming a desperate act on the part of the lawyers to stay in the news and keep the bigots contributing money to them.

They can't possibly think that this is at all rational.

Redneck Christianists are a reliable voting bloc for the Republican Party everywhere except in Appalachia where the unions still hold the Robert KKK Byrd vote.

GOP might be doubling down on stupid to get those hillbilly Democrats in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia to finally go the way of their southern brethren.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So she can find another job. Isn't freedom great?

Sorry, that argument only works for employee Do Not Compete contracts at Jimmy John's where workers aren't allowed to work at competing places because they learned how to make a sandwich. They are free not to work there.

 

[maxparrish]

Some interesting perspective from a County Clerk in a faraway left wing gay-loving land named "Kentucky":

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/13/4033967/don-blevins-jr-dont-take-license.html

My role isn't a religious one. When I issue a license or record a marriage, it's an administrative act.

In fact, lost in this discussion is that a marriage license is actually a permanent record like a birth certificate or death certificate. It contains vital statistics that will be used by the government and researchers for centuries to come, and it stands in addition to and aside from any religious ceremony a couple might choose.

Although some have suggested that the government simply get out of marriage altogether, there are very practical reasons why we, as a society, want to confer the numerous benefits of marriage. The Supreme Court has simply said that these benefits must be available to all, equally.

So what should we do?

I support a simple review of the form to insure that we capture the data that we want to preserve for future generations. In addition, I believe that the name or names of the official recording the document should remain because that too is an important element.

Most importantly, I believe that the issuance of marriage licenses should stay exactly where it is. The county clerk is the steward of the county's permanent records. It is the clerk's duty to properly identify both parties and to accurately record the vital statistics.

Clearly, a man who fails to understand the important role he plays in defending religious liberty.

I've been thinking along the same lines, which is why her stance has seemed so unnecessary. The County Clerk's name and title are as an officer certifying that it is a valid legal record, not as a statement of moral support. Her objection is based on the assumption that it means (or appears to others) that she supports gay marriage - a dumb assumption.

Of course, IF her stance is based on civil disobedience to protest what she considers an invalid law, that is a different matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some interesting perspective from a County Clerk in a faraway left wing gay-loving land named "Kentucky":

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/13/4033967/don-blevins-jr-dont-take-license.html


Clearly, a man who fails to understand the important role he plays in defending religious liberty.

I've been thinking along the same lines, which is why her stance has seemed so unnecessary. The County Clerk's name and title are as an officer certifying that it is a valid legal record, not as a statement of moral support. Her objection is based on the assumption that it means (or appears to others) that she supports gay marriage - a dumb assumption.

Of course, IF her stance is based on civil disobedience to protest what she considers an invalid law, that is a different matter.

Passive aggressive for $1200 Alex. Her stance is that she as a public official has the right to enforce her personal religious edicts as part of her job. Her lawyers are pretty much throwing everything at the wall to desperately see if something sticks.

SCOTUS didn't create a new law, they acknowledged a right. Like toothpaste, rights are hard to get back into the tube once they have come out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course, IF her stance is based on civil disobedience to protest what she considers an invalid law, that is a different matter.

I think that's clearly what it is. She doesn't think that gay marriages are a real thing which merit the same consideration as straight marriages and by certifying those marriages, she feels that she's participating in an immoral action. For her, it's a battlefront in a culture war that her side has been losing and she's not going to just back down and retreat further down a path which is destroying everything that America is supposed to stand for.

 

[maxparrish]

Of course, IF her stance is based on civil disobedience to protest what she considers an invalid law, that is a different matter.

I think that's clearly what it is. She doesn't think that gay marriages are a real thing which merit the same consideration as straight marriages and by certifying those marriages, she feels that she's participating in an immoral action. For her, it's a battlefront in a culture war that her side has been losing and she's not going to just back down and retreat further down a path which is destroying everything that America is supposed to stand for.

After seeing her tearful tortured responses today, I am still convinced she is a confused and needlessly tortured mystic. She implies that even after removing her name on the licenses (she scratches her name off) she seems to think it sinful if she does not take action to stop the office from issuing licenses. The woman is a metaphysical (and physical) mess.

I wonder if she is getting any sensible advice on these issues, or if the advice is not penetrating to her brain?

 

[laughing dog]

I think that's clearly what it is. She doesn't think that gay marriages are a real thing which merit the same consideration as straight marriages and by certifying those marriages, she feels that she's participating in an immoral action. For her, it's a battlefront in a culture war that her side has been losing and she's not going to just back down and retreat further down a path which is destroying everything that America is supposed to stand for.

After seeing her tearful tortured responses today, I am still convinced she is a confused and needlessly tortured mystic. She implies that even after removing her name on the licenses (she scratches her name off) she seems to think it sinful if she does not take action to stop the office from issuing licenses. The woman is a metaphysical (and physical) mess.

I wonder if she is getting any sensible advice on these issues, or if the advice is not penetrating to her brain?

Watch out for the wrath of God since you are questioning his/her word.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that's clearly what it is. She doesn't think that gay marriages are a real thing which merit the same consideration as straight marriages and by certifying those marriages, she feels that she's participating in an immoral action. For her, it's a battlefront in a culture war that her side has been losing and she's not going to just back down and retreat further down a path which is destroying everything that America is supposed to stand for.

After seeing her tearful tortured responses today, I am still convinced she is a confused and needlessly tortured mystic. She implies that even after removing her name on the licenses (she scratches her name off) she seems to think it wrong that she does not take action to stop the office from issuing licenses. The woman is a metaphysical (and physical) mess.

I wonder if she is getting any sensible advice on these issues, or if the advice is not penetrating to her brain?

Regardless of the particulars of her motivations, she feels that gay marriage is a moral wrong and she needs to do whatever she can to help stop it. The advice isn't important because she's not trying to find a way for her actions to conform to the law, she's trying to find a way for the law to conform to her actions. She wants to be one of the poster children for a counter-revolution against the degredation of American society. She wants the laws which let men be able to marry each other and darkies be able to become President to be rolled back so the US can once again become the shining city on the hill it once was instead of the second-rate Canada that it's turning into.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that's clearly what it is. She doesn't think that gay marriages are a real thing which merit the same consideration as straight marriages and by certifying those marriages, she feels that she's participating in an immoral action. For her, it's a battlefront in a culture war that her side has been losing and she's not going to just back down and retreat further down a path which is destroying everything that America is supposed to stand for.

After seeing her tearful tortured responses today, I am still convinced she is a confused and needlessly tortured mystic. She implies that even after removing her name on the licenses (she scratches her name off) she seems to think it sinful if she does not take action to stop the office from issuing licenses. The woman is a metaphysical (and physical) mess.

I wonder if she is getting any sensible advice on these issues, or if the advice is not penetrating to her brain?

She's responsible for her actions. Sooner or later that fact is gonna' sink in or be drilled in. Maybe she's had a less than ideal upbringing. Who knows? Assigning blame is merely an exercise in academics. People who think they're channeling their god are always goofy. She's pretty typical.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that's clearly what it is. She doesn't think that gay marriages are a real thing which merit the same consideration as straight marriages and by certifying those marriages, she feels that she's participating in an immoral action. For her, it's a battlefront in a culture war that her side has been losing and she's not going to just back down and retreat further down a path which is destroying everything that America is supposed to stand for.

After seeing her tearful tortured responses today, I am still convinced she is a confused and needlessly tortured mystic.

You misspelled intolerant Bible Thumper.

She implies that even after removing her name on the licenses (she scratches her name off) she seems to think it sinful if she does not take action to stop the office from issuing licenses. The woman is a metaphysical (and physical) mess.

Not really. She and her lawyers are trying to paint this as best they can that they are still fighting the fight.

I wonder if she is getting any sensible advice on these issues, or if the advice is not penetrating to her brain?

The law group is using her as a fundraising tool. Of course, from her church she is probably Christ like at this point, with fight against persecution. The war against Christianity is underway and she is a victim of it.

 

[Malintent]

While for many days posters have enjoyed a lusty hatcheting (one that would make Lizzie Bordon envious) of the "one horse" county's clerk, most have ignored the developing pivotal issue of religious accommodation. Ms. Davis has filed suit with the State of Kentucky, under the religious accommodation act. She is asserting that the state should find a method to accommodate her demand to take her authorization off the marriage licences, as well as her title.

Should she prevail? Should the others I listed previously (repeated below) prevail?

The question has also arisen before (for some examples) with regard to:

- A Muslim employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;

- a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;

- Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;

- A Mormon Truck Driver who refused to transport his company's delivery cargo if it contained alcohol.

- A Muslim Flight Attendant who refused to serve alcohol.

Should these person(s) be given religious accommodation, or are they subject to firing or disciplinary action if they refuse to do their jobs?

I am of the opinion that the cases where a person's job parameters are changed in a way that is deeply disturbing to them (forget "religious", I do not see how a 'test' for "religious" can possibly work), accommodation is a reasonable request. But for the example of a trucker who will only deliver certain items, and not other perfectly legal items, I would not entertain that notion. The job is delivery of random shit. If they have a problem with some shit, then they have no business entering that career.

For the clerk, her job changed. It is reasonable to consider her complaint. It is not reasonable for her to engage in contempt of court and get away with it on 'religious' grounds, though.

 

[ZiprHead]

Read an article where Davis's lawyers are trying to argue that because the only people that sued now have licenses they don't need to issue any more marriage licenses to gays. Some call it a Hail Mary. I however recognize that a Hail Mary is lofted while the game is still being played, not after the final whistle.

It's incoherent. She wants to stop issuing licenses because the plaintiffs have been satisfied AND she questions the validity of the license, so she can't really claim that they've been satisfied, but she's filed a claim asking for a delay in issuing the licenses....that may or may not have already been issued, or may have to be reissued, with or without her...

I know there's a point where the state can just take kids because someone's a bad parent...

Can the state just take clients because her legal counsel is a pack of fucking morons?

I was thinking the same thing about their circular argument.

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course, IF her stance is based on civil disobedience to protest what she considers an invalid law, that is a different matter.

A big part of a civil disobedience protest is accepting the punishment for such disobedience.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Of course, IF her stance is based on civil disobedience to protest what she considers an invalid law, that is a different matter.

A big part of a civil disobedience protest is accepting the punishment for such disobedience.

Isn't that the point? I know I am being punished and I don't care.