Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[Blahface]

I wonder if conservatives would be as sympathetic if the clerk were Hindu and refused to give out deer hunting permits.

 

[maxparrish]

The Clerk's Ballad by Jelly Roll Morton

I know you’ve got a man
I know you are a man
Try to marry him if you can

I know what the judge told me
I know what SCOTUS don't see
If you want a license, You'd better flee...

Anyone who is so familiar with Jelly Roll Morton to know the Murder Ballad can't be all bad. Although without Jelly Roll's accompanying piano, the unfamiliar cannot appreciate his true genius.

 

[credoconsolans]

Apparently she couldn't make it through a weekend in jail before trying to wheel and deal.

So much for her comparisons to St. Paul.

Or she saw her lawyers were not going to be able to get her out...and Jesus did not rescue her by creating an earthquake to make the prison walls fall down.

https://gma.yahoo.com/jailed-kentuc...edy-same-120304964--abc-news-topstories.html#

Of course her lawyers are saying it's the state's fault for not coming up with this in the first place.

Makes me wonder then why her signature - and hence position - is needed at all.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I wonder if conservatives would be as sympathetic if the clerk were Hindu and refused to give out deer hunting permits.

Below is a link to a Muslim Flight Attend who was suspended for not serving alcohol.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/mu...ms-she-was-suspended-for-not-serving-alcohol/

 

[Keith&Co.]

Of course her lawyers are saying it's the state's fault for not coming up with this in the first place.

I can't imagine why the state of Kentucky didn't consider the alternative of allowing her not to do her job.... How strange.
Will she take an appropriate cut in pay for not doing her entire job, just the parts she thinks her skybuddy likes?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Apparently she couldn't make it through a weekend in jail before trying to wheel and deal.

So much for her comparisons to St. Paul.

Or she saw her lawyers were not going to be able to get her out...and Jesus did not rescue her by creating an earthquake to make the prison walls fall down.

https://gma.yahoo.com/jailed-kentuc...edy-same-120304964--abc-news-topstories.html#

Of course her lawyers are saying it's the state's fault for not coming up with this in the first place.

Makes me wonder then why her signature - and hence position - is needed at all.

there lies in fundamentalist belief all kinds of evil, not the least of which is an innate cowardice that needs only time to show itself.

 

[maxparrish]

Apparently she couldn't make it through a weekend in jail before trying to wheel and deal.

So much for her comparisons to St. Paul.

Or she saw her lawyers were not going to be able to get her out...and Jesus did not rescue her by creating an earthquake to make the prison walls fall down.

https://gma.yahoo.com/jailed-kentuc...edy-same-120304964--abc-news-topstories.html#

Of course her lawyers are saying it's the state's fault for not coming up with this in the first place.

Makes me wonder then why her signature - and hence position - is needed at all.

It's not unusual that an official document requires a signature of a public official. But changing the law does require a bit of notice, and some time.

Of more interest is the psychological (and perhaps moral) difference between the government's prohibition of an act, and their compulsion to act. Telling individuals they can't do something others consider sinful tends to be less intrusive to their conscious than mandating that they must approve and facilitate something the person considers wrong. It is the difference between telling an anti-war protestor they cannot disable or blockade transportation of war material (even if they think they are entitled to), versus telling them they must load the military trucks and make material delivery (one reason the draft was so odious to so many).

As long as the official is refusing to 'report for office duty' and officially sign off on gay marriages, and does no more, she has my sympathy (not necessarily my approval). But it is also her job to record valid marriages; and if she won't do her job then their must be a remedy.

So rather than compelling her to participate, might the court been more judicious and ordered the State of Kentucky to change its signatory requirement. After all, the State of Kentucky is the one requiring the clerk to do something (sign) that is unnecessary and deeply offensive to her conscious.

 

[credoconsolans]

Apparently she couldn't make it through a weekend in jail before trying to wheel and deal.

So much for her comparisons to St. Paul.

Or she saw her lawyers were not going to be able to get her out...and Jesus did not rescue her by creating an earthquake to make the prison walls fall down.

https://gma.yahoo.com/jailed-kentuc...edy-same-120304964--abc-news-topstories.html#

Of course her lawyers are saying it's the state's fault for not coming up with this in the first place.

Makes me wonder then why her signature - and hence position - is needed at all.

It's not unusual that an official document requires a signature of a public official. But changing the law does require a bit of notice, and some time.

Of more interest is the psychological (and perhaps moral) difference between the government's prohibition of an act, and their compulsion to act. Telling individuals they can't do something others consider sinful tends to be less intrusive to their conscious than mandating that they must approve and facilitate something the person considers wrong. It is the difference between telling an anti-war protestor they cannot disable or blockade transportation of war material (even if they think they are entitled to), versus telling them they must load the military trucks and make material delivery (one reason the draft was so odious to so many).

As long as the official is refusing to 'report for office duty' and officially sign off on gay marriages, and does no more, she has my sympathy (not necessarily my approval). But it is also her job to record valid marriages; and if she won't do her job then their must be a remedy.

So rather than compelling her to participate, might the court been more judicious and ordered the State of Kentucky to change its signatory requirement. After all, the State of Kentucky is the one requiring the clerk to do something (sign) that is unnecessary and deeply offensive to her conscious.

Yeah, but there is nothing holding her to the job. It's cheaper still and more judicious for all those with conscience problems with the new law to resign their jobs since the job required an oath from the holder to enforce ALL the laws...not just the ones they approve of.

But no. Such people are hypocrites. Their consciences apparently don't come before their paychecks and this is why there is a problem. LOGICALLY the answer is for her to resign. But she's greedy and doing all she can to twist her thinking so she gets to force the state to cow-tow to her desires, while not serving the public she swore to serve and still get paid for it.

Best way to get rid of these little theocratic ayatollahs like Davis is to make the license something you can get online. There. Problem solved. The county clerk's office is no longer necessary. They all lose their jobs. The taxpayers save money and don't have to run the gauntlet of their local county clerk's religious judgmental tyranny when they want service.

 

[Derec]

I wonder if conservatives would be as sympathetic if the clerk were Hindu and refused to give out deer hunting permits.

Or if the "liberals" would be as hostile ...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you refuse to do the job you are being paid to do, seems to me you've just quit your job. You can't change laws to accommodate every fucking publically employed individual. Tell this assbag to do her job. When she refuses she's fired. She somehow thinks her religious convictions can inconvenience the people she's elected to serve. Send the bitch walking.

 

[bilby]

If you refuse to do the job you are being paid to do, seems to me you've just quit your job. You can't change laws to accommodate every fucking publically employed individual. Tell this assbag to do her job. When she refuses she's fired. She somehow thinks her religious convictions can inconvenience the people she's elected to serve. Send the bitch walking.

Yeah, this whole "She can't be fired because it's an elected position" seems pretty bogus to me - she need not be fired, because when you refuse to do your job, you have quit.

I fail to see the meaningful difference between not turning up for work, and turning up but then refusing to do the work that is to be done; If she had simply disappeared one day, without explanation or warning, would the State of Kentucky need to impeach her before they could stop paying her salary into her bank account, and select or elect a new Clerk? Would there be no marriages in KY for a year while the State sorted things out? Don't they have a deputy who can just do the job in her stead - and if the deputy refuses to do the job too, that they can fire and replace with someone who will do the job they are paid to do?

What did they do in the past if she went on vacation, or got the flu? It seems very odd that one person can hold an entire State to ransom; what kind of half-arsed system doesn't have a way to work around a single person who cannot, will not, or does not do their job?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you refuse to do the job you are being paid to do, seems to me you've just quit your job. You can't change laws to accommodate every fucking publically employed individual. Tell this assbag to do her job. When she refuses she's fired. She somehow thinks her religious convictions can inconvenience the people she's elected to serve. Send the bitch walking.

She can't quit. There are no other jobs that her mom can hand down to her. There are no other jobs for her that will pay her the kind of money she is making now. She is where she is because she hasn't the will or the courage to be anywhere else. This is her life and sitting in jail she saw how easily she could lose it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you refuse to do the job you are being paid to do, seems to me you've just quit your job. You can't change laws to accommodate every fucking publically employed individual. Tell this assbag to do her job. When she refuses she's fired. She somehow thinks her religious convictions can inconvenience the people she's elected to serve. Send the bitch walking.

No, they can't fire her.

They should treat the refusal to do her job as resignation, though.

 

[RavenSky]

Kim Davis may be against gay marriage, but she is also the cause of gay marriage

so sayeth the Westboro Baptist Church, in the most perverse twist of this ridiculous saga yet...

Proving that there is no limit to fundamentalist Christian extremism, the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist church has launched a crusade against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis despite all parties being against same-sex marriage.

While Davis is sitting in jail on contempt charges for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, members of the extremist Westboro Baptist church in Topeka are threatening to go to Kentucky to protest against Davis for being an adulteress –due to having been married four times — and for causing “F*g marriage” because of her sinfulness.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/go...h-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/

alrighty then

 

[credoconsolans]

If you refuse to do the job you are being paid to do, seems to me you've just quit your job. You can't change laws to accommodate every fucking publically employed individual. Tell this assbag to do her job. When she refuses she's fired. She somehow thinks her religious convictions can inconvenience the people she's elected to serve. Send the bitch walking.

Yeah, this whole "She can't be fired because it's an elected position" seems pretty bogus to me - she need not be fired, because when you refuse to do your job, you have quit.

I fail to see the meaningful difference between not turning up for work, and turning up but then refusing to do the work that is to be done; If she had simply disappeared one day, without explanation or warning, would the State of Kentucky need to impeach her before they could stop paying her salary into her bank account, and select or elect a new Clerk? Would there be no marriages in KY for a year while the State sorted things out? Don't they have a deputy who can just do the job in her stead - and if the deputy refuses to do the job too, that they can fire and replace with someone who will do the job they are paid to do?

What did they do in the past if she went on vacation, or got the flu? It seems very odd that one person can hold an entire State to ransom; what kind of half-arsed system doesn't have a way to work around a single person who cannot, will not, or does not do their job?

She let one of the deputies sign for her. But she forbade her deputies to issue gays marriage licenses. And because THEY were not elected and could be fired, they obeyed her.

so sayeth the Westboro Baptist Church, in the most perverse twist of this ridiculous saga yet...

Proving that there is no limit to fundamentalist Christian extremism, the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist church has launched a crusade against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis despite all parties being against same-sex marriage.

While Davis is sitting in jail on contempt charges for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, members of the extremist Westboro Baptist church in Topeka are threatening to go to Kentucky to protest against Davis for being an adulteress –due to having been married four times — and for causing “F*g marriage” because of her sinfulness.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/go...h-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/

alrighty then

Any wonder our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid this entrails eating behavior by extremist Christians?

 

[jonatha]

Best way to get rid of these little theocratic ayatollahs like Davis is to make the license something you can get online. There. Problem solved.

Not really, unless you're going to make free internet access a civil right....

 

[jonatha]

If you refuse to do the job you are being paid to do, seems to me you've just quit your job. You can't change laws to accommodate every fucking publically employed individual. Tell this assbag to do her job. When she refuses she's fired. She somehow thinks her religious convictions can inconvenience the people she's elected to serve. Send the bitch walking.

Yeah, this whole "She can't be fired because it's an elected position" seems pretty bogus to me - she need not be fired, because when you refuse to do your job, you have quit.

I fail to see the meaningful difference between not turning up for work, and turning up but then refusing to do the work that is to be done; If she had simply disappeared one day, without explanation or warning, would the State of Kentucky need to impeach her before they could stop paying her salary into her bank account, and select or elect a new Clerk? Would there be no marriages in KY for a year while the State sorted things out? Don't they have a deputy who can just do the job in her stead - and if the deputy refuses to do the job too, that they can fire and replace with someone who will do the job they are paid to do?

What did they do in the past if she went on vacation, or got the flu? It seems very odd that one person can hold an entire State to ransom; what kind of half-arsed system doesn't have a way to work around a single person who cannot, will not, or does not do their job?

The Deputy Clerks can sign in her place, even if she is present, and all save her son have been doing so since Judge Bunning told them they could and that if they didn't they too could be held in contempt.

The Deputy Clerks were formerly *not* signing because their boss (Kim Davis) expressly forbade them to do so.

The County Judge Executive (an elected official roughly equivalent to "president of the county") can sign if the Clerk is "unable", but the incumbent Judge Executive has indicated he's not sure if "unable" covers the present situation, and his office doesn't have the requisite software to interact properly with the state anyway...

The latest filing from Ms. Davis's "counsel" indicates they didn't realize incarceration was a possible outcome of a contempt ruling, and they are appealing to the Sixth Circuit against Judge Bunning's order.

- - - Updated - - -

so sayeth the Westboro Baptist Church, in the most perverse twist of this ridiculous saga yet...

Proving that there is no limit to fundamentalist Christian extremism, the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist church has launched a crusade against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis despite all parties being against same-sex marriage.

While Davis is sitting in jail on contempt charges for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, members of the extremist Westboro Baptist church in Topeka are threatening to go to Kentucky to protest against Davis for being an adulteress –due to having been married four times — and for causing “F*g marriage” because of her sinfulness.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/go...h-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/

alrighty then

I wish The Onion were a publicly trade company, so I could short it...

 

[maxparrish]

It's not unusual that an official document requires a signature of a public official. But changing the law does require a bit of notice, and some time.

Of more interest is the psychological (and perhaps moral) difference between the government's prohibition of an act, and their compulsion to act. Telling individuals they can't do something others consider sinful tends to be less intrusive to their conscious than mandating that they must approve and facilitate something the person considers wrong. It is the difference between telling an anti-war protestor they cannot disable or blockade transportation of war material (even if they think they are entitled to), versus telling them they must load the military trucks and make material delivery (one reason the draft was so odious to so many).

As long as the official is refusing to 'report for office duty' and officially sign off on gay marriages, and does no more, she has my sympathy (not necessarily my approval). But it is also her job to record valid marriages; and if she won't do her job then their must be a remedy.

So rather than compelling her to participate, might the court been more judicious and ordered the State of Kentucky to change its signatory requirement. After all, the State of Kentucky is the one requiring the clerk to do something (sign) that is unnecessary and deeply offensive to her conscious.

Yeah, but there is nothing holding her to the job. It's cheaper still and more judicious for all those with conscience problems with the new law to resign their jobs since the job required an oath from the holder to enforce ALL the laws...not just the ones they approve of.

But no. Such people are hypocrites. Their consciences apparently don't come before their paychecks and this is why there is a problem. LOGICALLY the answer is for her to resign. But she's greedy and doing all she can to twist her thinking so she gets to force the state to cow-tow to her desires, while not serving the public she swore to serve and still get paid for it.

I find it interesting that much of this thread is more interested in vilifying the character of Ms. Davis, than it is in looking at the legal and valid moral issues involved. The vilification of an obscure county clerk in a postage stamp sized county in Kentucky tells us much about the motives of some of her haters, and is the source of mangled perceptions.

First, she swore to execute her legal duties under the law that existed, not the yet to be discovered (invented), "Constitutional" law found in the head by Justice Kennedy. So she is not a hypocrite just because her prior oath conflicts with her current stance on a new "law".

Second, there seems to be 'forum myths' in some folk's posts. Let's be reminded that the facts are, but not limited to:

- Kim Davis decided to NOT issue ANY marriage licenses to any couple, rather than violate her beliefs. The effect of their choice was to get out of the marriage business. Davis, as well as her staff, believed it would protect their religious rights without discriminating against anyone.

- All six deputies agreed. All felt it was a violation of their religious conscious.

- Couples were referred to the seven neighboring counties - a short drive. None of the couples suing lacked transportation.

- The County Executive Judge can sign licenses during the absence of the Clerk.

- Davis continues to be in jail because her attorney's won't assure the judge that she will not interfere with the issuance of licenses if released.

Best way to get rid of these little theocratic ayatollahs like Davis is to make the license something you can get online. There. Problem solved. The county clerk's office is no longer necessary. They all lose their jobs. The taxpayers save money and don't have to run the gauntlet of their local county clerk's religious judgmental tyranny when they want service.

An excellent idea - perhaps one that ought to be extended to all government licenses and permits.

And I agree that we ought to remove ayatollahs of every stripe, theocratic or secular. But there are ways to nullify folks who won't execute the law (assuming, for example, Kentucky counties are required to issue marriage licenses). The judge might have, for example, issued an order that she not return to her office (and put a federal marshal in charge of checking) and then directed the County Executive Judge to approve the licenses with his authorizing statement. None needed to be threatened with jail (such as her clerks), and none jailed.

Finally, one should note that 57 of Kentucky's 120 County Clerks have expressed their religious concerns to the Governor (and 2 or 3 others have also refused to issue licenses). Because this "law" was not created through a local and democratic process, but passed down by the secular demigods of the SUPREMES, the State could not have developed either a consensus for gay marriage nor a method of religious accommodation - one of the pitfalls of non-democratic law making.

Imperial rule by invented law, by judges, result in this kind of social fractiousness.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yeah, but there is nothing holding her to the job. It's cheaper still and more judicious for all those with conscience problems with the new law to resign their jobs since the job required an oath from the holder to enforce ALL the laws...not just the ones they approve of.

But no. Such people are hypocrites. Their consciences apparently don't come before their paychecks and this is why there is a problem. LOGICALLY the answer is for her to resign. But she's greedy and doing all she can to twist her thinking so she gets to force the state to cow-tow to her desires, while not serving the public she swore to serve and still get paid for it.

I find it interesting that much of this thread is more interested in vilifying the character of Ms. Davis, than it is in looking at the legal and valid moral issues involved. The vilification of an obscure county clerk in a postage stamp sized county in Kentucky tells us much about the motives of some of her haters, and is the source of mangled perceptions.

First, she swore to execute her legal duties under the law that existed, not the yet to be discovered (invented), "Constitutional" law found in the head by Justice Kennedy. So she is not a hypocrite just because her prior oath conflicts with her current stance on a new "law".

Second, there seems to be 'forum myths' in some folk's posts. Let's be reminded that the facts are, but not limited to:

- Kim Davis decided to NOT issue ANY marriage licenses to any couple, rather than violate her beliefs. The effect of their choice was to get out of the marriage business. Davis, as well as her staff, believed it would protect their religious rights without discriminating against anyone.

Is that her decision to make?

- All six deputies agreed. All felt it was a violation of their religious conscious.

And?

- Couples were referred to the seven neighboring counties - a short drive. None of the couples suing lacked transportation.

Why should I have to leave the county where I pay taxes to conduct legal business with regards to the state?

- The County Executive Judge can sign licenses during the absence of the Clerk.

- Davis continues to be in jail because her attorney's won't assure the judge that she will not interfere with the issuance of licenses if released.

Best way to get rid of these little theocratic ayatollahs like Davis is to make the license something you can get online. There. Problem solved. The county clerk's office is no longer necessary. They all lose their jobs. The taxpayers save money and don't have to run the gauntlet of their local county clerk's religious judgmental tyranny when they want service.

An excellent idea - perhaps one that ought to be extended to all government licenses and permits.

And I agree that we ought to remove ayatollahs of every stripe, theocratic or secular. But there are ways to nullify folks who won't execute the law (assuming, for example, Kentucky counties are required to issue marriage licenses). The judge might have, for example, issued an order that she not return to her office (and put a federal marshal in charge of checking) and then directed the County Executive Judge to approve the licenses with his authorizing statement. None needed to be threatened with jail (such as her clerks), and none jailed.

Finally, one should note that 57 of Kentucky's 120 County Clerks have expressed their religious concerns to the Governor (and 2 or 3 others have also refused to issue licenses). Because this "law" was not created through a local and democratic process, but passed down by the secular demigods of the SUPREMES, the State could not have developed either a consensus for gay marriage nor a method of religious accommodation - one of the pitfalls of non-democratic law making.

Imperial rule, by judges, result in this kind of social fractiousness.

So an individual should not have a right until the state inwhich this person lives has "developed either a consensus for gay marriage [or] a method of religious accommodation?"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I find it interesting that much of this thread is more interested in vilifying the character of Ms. Davis, than it is in looking at the legal and valid moral issues involved. The vilification of an obscure county clerk in a postage stamp sized county in Kentucky tells us much about the motives of some of her haters, and is the source of mangled perceptions.

First, she swore to execute her legal duties under the law that existed, not the yet to be discovered (invented), "Constitutional" law found in the head by Justice Kennedy. So she is not a hypocrite just because her prior oath conflicts with her current stance on a new "law".

Max, Darling, how high does that moral horse of yours fly? Your brain may be suffering oxygen deprivation. Time to come back to earth.

If I went to get a hunting license and doe tags and the clerk refused to give me or anyone else doe tags because we're hunting doe with high powered rifles now, a change in the law, should I say, "Sure, you have a point, guess I'll hunt in another county where they all issue doe tags."

Your argument isn't insane in's inane. You carry out the law or you take a walk.