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".
She was sworn in 4 months ago. Gay marriage rights were rapidly approaching and there is documentation and admission from her that she knew it was coming. She was not ignorant of the change in law. Her oath says she will uphold the LAW. This presumes that the officer recognizes the process of law and legality of laws.
Davis assumed she could pick and choose which laws she was to follow, like she picks and chooses what her bible tells her to do.
She is wrong.
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.
Under whose authority did she make that decision? That's not her call. She doesn't make the rules of who she serves. The state does.
- All six deputies agreed. All felt it was a violation of their religious conscious.
Actually she ordered them to not issue the licenses. So obviously, some would have had they not been forbidden by her to do so. And since her deputies are not elected and COULD be fired, I can see how they would be reluctant to go against the flow. Regardless, her deputies' opinions are irrelevant. Like her, they're there to issue licenses in the name of the STATE, not themselves.
- Couples were referred to the seven neighboring counties - a short drive. None of the couples suing lacked transportation.
Why should people, who live in the county and pay taxes to pay the salary of their county clerks, have to go elsewhere? SHE is breaking the law, not them. Why should they be the ones to be inconvenienced?
- The County Executive Judge can sign licenses during the absence of the Clerk.
Guess she should have asked him to do so. Except she didn't want him to.
- Davis continues to be in jail because her attorneys won't assure the judge that she will not interfere with the issuance of licenses if released.
Yep. Which means she will. So, she needs to sit her butt in jail.
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.
And I agree that we ought to remove ayatollahs of every stripe, theocratic or secular.
We need more secular ayatollahs, not less.
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.
So the judge should make an exception for her? Why? The rest of us go to jail for ignoring several court orders. What makes her special? Her religion?
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.
Um wrong. The laws Kentucky created to keep gays from marrying each other were deemed in violation of the Constitution. Actually the laws DID allow gays to get married. The laws Kentucky voters passed tried to interfere with the 14th amendment It was rightfully slapped down.
Imperial rule by invented law, by judges, result in this kind of social fractiousness.
The fractiousness is caused by ignorant bigoted folks who don't know the laws of their own nation and greedy folks who have 'strong religious convictions' but not so strong that they will give up their job for them.
