Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

[hurtinbuckaroo]

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.

And this was done with a straight (no pun intended) face?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ben Carson is worried about Kim Davis:

I'm guessing she's a lesbian, and is why all her marriages failed. Or she found out her husbands were gay. Now it's personal for her.

And I see a little Ted Kaczynski in those eyes.

She's clearly awaiting Gabriel's clarion call when justice will be restored and the evil will be smitten. Does she fly the confederate flag at her home too?

 

[Sea of red]

Frankly, conservatives have no problem jailing any/all that don't go along with their moral laws, so I don't have much sympathy when these rare cases come up where the shoe is on the other foot. The war on drugs, prostitution, gambling, and all these other vice crime laws have fucked with so many peoples lives (including me once) that's it's depressing to think about. I mean, according to the right-wing, you should be arrested for drugs regardless of whether you've done anything beyond simple recreational use. But if you're a county clerk intentionally interfere with a basic right of the people in this country because of your religious beliefs, you're somehow a martyr.

She was warned countless times - more than you or I would have been - before she was finally held responsible. The judge in this case gave her every single out he possible could, and each time she shit on the life-vest he gave her. Hell, she can walk out anytime she WANTS as long as she does her job. And that's another thing, do you guys think if you pulled this kind of shit at your work that your job would still be made available to you? The POS should have been fired.

- - - Updated - - -

Ben Carson is worried about Kim Davis:

I'm guessing she's a lesbian, and is why all her marriages failed. Or she found out her husbands were gay. Now it's personal for her.

And I see a little Ted Kaczynski in those eyes.

It could just be that she's an insufferable bitch...

 

[atrib]

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.

The State of Kentucky is not compelling her to participate. If she believes that issuing marriage certificates to gays violates her conscience, she is free to resign. She is free to act in accordance with her conscience and religious beliefs, as long as such is not in violation of the law and the duties of her office, or on the taxpayers' dime.

Second, the act of issuing marriage license to gays is NOT unnecessary, it is a required part of her job. Something she is being paid to do. Until the State of Kentucky removes the requirement for the Clerk to sign off on marriage licenses, it is very much a necessary part of her job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She appealed to SCOTUS. They told her to fuck off and now she is appealing her punishment. This woman is either really dumb or her lawyers are feeding her a crock of crap for advice... or both.

Lawyers in this situation get paid whether they win or lose. Of course they are going to advise her to keep (having them) fighting for her (lost) cause.

Davis can't afford a lawyer who appeals to SCOTUS.

 

[skepticalbip]

Very much like dictators who decide to hold 'free elections' but then when voted out, refuse to abide by the vote.
................

Ah, you misunderstand dictators. As Stalin said, it doesn't matter how people vote - it is who counts the vote that matters.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Your analogy is fatally flawed. If you can't buy county doe tags where you want, you also can't have access to the benefits of county game. If, like marriage, you could go to another county 20 or 30 minutes down the road and obtain tags that are good for anywhere in the state or nation, then it would not be such a big deal, right?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Your analogy is fatally flawed. If you can't buy county doe tags where you want, you also can't have access to the benefits of county game. If, like marriage, you could go to another county 20 or 30 minutes down the road and obtain tags that are good for anywhere in the state or nation, then it would not be such a big deal, right?

It is a matter that the tax payers are paying her do fulfill specific duties. If she can not in good conscious do the job they are paying her to do then fine, no problem - she should resign her position so that the tax payers can put someone in that office who will do what they are paying them to do. You wouldn't expect to pay a lawn maintenance outfit who refused to mow your lawn because you put in some flower beds and they hate flowers would you?

 

[maxparrish]

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. ...

Your defense of bigotry, religious intolerance and stupidity is unconvincing. Ms. Davis swore to uphold the law. She does not get to define "the law". It does not matter whether "the law" is established by a legislature or the judiciary - it is the law of the land. Ms. Davis's beliefs have not been compromised and no one is making her believe anything different. She is simply being expected to carry out the secular duties of her office. According to your ridiculous reasoning, she would be within her rights to refuse to issue any marriage licenses if she believed interracial marriages or interfaith marriages violated "God's law".

Interesting.

Where did I defend her bigotry, intolerance, or stupidity? I've not conveyed any positive or negative view of her actual convictions that I recall.

Where did I disagree that a law established by either a legislature or the judiciary becomes the law of the land?

Where did I say that, in my view, her beliefs were compromised?

Who is suggesting that she is NOT expected to carry out the duties of her office?

Who said it is within her rights to refuse marriage licenses if it violated God's law?

Nothing I wrote supports Davis's actions and, in fact, I pointed out that her obstruction must be removed. It seems to me you are confirming my impression that folks are more interested in vilification and punishment, and accusing anyone with the slightest sympathy for her as a person and skepticism of the need for jailing (or skepticism of the courts as lawmakers) as the real heresy.

 

[maxparrish]

Your analogy is fatally flawed. If you can't buy county doe tags where you want, you also can't have access to the benefits of county game. If, like marriage, you could go to another county 20 or 30 minutes down the road and obtain tags that are good for anywhere in the state or nation, then it would not be such a big deal, right?

It is a matter that the tax payers are paying her do fulfill specific duties. If she can not in good conscious do the job they are paying her to do then fine, no problem - she should resign her position so that the tax payers can put someone in that office who will do what they are paying them to do. You wouldn't expect to pay a lawn maintenance outfit who refused to mow your lawn because you put in some flower beds and they hate flowers would you?

I can't say what the people of Rowan county are paying her to do, however I suspect that in this area they are not paying her to provide licences for gay marriages. That may not even be paying her to provide any marriage licences, if it means gays can then marry.

And I can't even say that the general populace of Rowan county are paying her anything, given that her office is partially or fully funded by a portion of every license and recording.

If, of course, the general taxpayer is paying for her to issue licences to everybody then of course they have to find a way to produce her compliance or to get rid of her.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is a matter that the tax payers are paying her do fulfill specific duties.

And that Kentucky has defined her duties.
Whether or not the people of the county can go 20 or 30 minutes down the road, Kim right to religious expression doesn't include telling Kentucky what job duties she will and won't accept in the performance of her job. They did not create the position of County Clerk as a ppodium for her conscience at the inconvenience of anyone else.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a matter that the tax payers are paying her do fulfill specific duties. If she can not in good conscious do the job they are paying her to do then fine, no problem - she should resign her position so that the tax payers can put someone in that office who will do what they are paying them to do. You wouldn't expect to pay a lawn maintenance outfit who refused to mow your lawn because you put in some flower beds and they hate flowers would you?

I can't say what the people of Rowan county are paying her to do, however I suspect that in this area they are not paying her to provide licences for gay marriages. That may not even be paying her to provide any marriage licences, if it means gays can then marry.

And I can't even say that the general populace of Rowan county are paying her anything, given that her office is partially or fully funded by a portion of every license and recording.

If, of course, the general taxpayer is paying for her to issue licences to everybody then of course they have to find a way to produce her compliance or to get rid of her.

I seriously doubt that her job description says that part of her duties is to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples. It would more likely list one of her duties as issuing marriage licenses. If she can not in good conscience do this then she should resign. If not then she should be impeached.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

The State of Kentucky is not compelling her to participate. If she believes that issuing marriage certificates to gays violates her conscience, she is free to resign. She is free to act in accordance with her conscience and religious beliefs, as long as such is not in violation of the law and the duties of her office, or on the taxpayers' dime.

Sure she is being compelled to participate OR suffer a negative consequence - although it is the Court that is doing the compelling and the State of Kentucky is the one requiring the clerk to do something unnecessary and deeply offensive to her conscious.

In this regard, whether it is a County Clerk or the Muslim Flight Attendant who was fired, they are being compelled to participate, in their view, a deeply offensive act or suffer dire results. That does not mean they should not suffer those results (e.g. termination), but let's not pretend that compulsion is not an element.

Second, the act of issuing marriage license to gays is NOT unnecessary, it is a required part of her job. Something she is being paid to do. Until the State of Kentucky removes the requirement for the Clerk to sign off on marriage licenses, it is very much a necessary part of her job.

You misunderstand, what is unnecessary is her initial and continued jailing. There were/are other means to attain the ends of marriage licenses.

 

[maxparrish]

I can't say what the people of Rowan county are paying her to do, however I suspect that in this area they are not paying her to provide licences for gay marriages. That may not even be paying her to provide any marriage licences, if it means gays can then marry.

And I can't even say that the general populace of Rowan county are paying her anything, given that her office is partially or fully funded by a portion of every license and recording.

If, of course, the general taxpayer is paying for her to issue licences to everybody then of course they have to find a way to produce her compliance or to get rid of her.

I seriously doubt that her job description says that part of her duties is to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples. It would more likely list one of her duties as issuing marriage licenses. If she can not in good conscience do this then she should resign. If not then she should be impeached.

Your assuming that her job description reflects the current will of the general population of Rowan County. They are very aware of this controversy, and given that this area seems saturated with fundi's and evangelicals, I would not venture to say what they think they are paying her to do at this time.

 

[blastula]

The gay couples trying to get married pay taxes too.

 

[maxparrish]

It is a matter that the tax payers are paying her do fulfill specific duties.

And that Kentucky has defined her duties.
Whether or not the people of the county can go 20 or 30 minutes down the road, Kim right to religious expression doesn't include telling Kentucky what job duties she will and won't accept in the performance of her job. They did not create the position of County Clerk as a ppodium for her conscience at the inconvenience of anyone else.

If the State of Kentucky makes it a requirement that her office issue marriage licenses, then her office must. If it merely grants the County Office the power to do so, but does not mandate it, then her office need not to.

Perhaps someone will find a copy of State Law or County Ordinances that will clarify this point.

 

[skepticalbip]

I seriously doubt that her job description says that part of her duties is to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples. It would more likely list one of her duties as issuing marriage licenses. If she can not in good conscience do this then she should resign. If not then she should be impeached.

Your assuming that her job description reflects the current will of the general population of Rowan County. They are very aware of this controversy, and given that this area seems saturated with fundi's and evangelicals, I would not venture to say what they think they are paying her to do at this time.

It doesn't really matter what what the general population of the county think. The county does not establish the state's regulations on marriage. It is the clerk's duties to issue marriage licenses and it is the state (under federal guidelines) that defines marriage laws.

ETA:
I can understand her dilemma but she is not entitled to the salary and benefits of the position if she refuses to fulfill the duties of that position. If she really is compelled to protest the law then she must do it on her own time.

 

[jonatha]

Perhaps someone will find a copy of State Law or County Ordinances that will clarify this point.

KRS 402.080

 

[jonatha]

Perhaps someone will find a copy of State Law or County Ordinances that will clarify this point.

KRS 402.080

Now that I'm at a computer that will handle the full site instead of the mobile one, i can insert hyperlinks....

KRS 402.080

Or even put in large quotations....

402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue.

No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk

 

[Tigers!]

Or even put in large quotations....

402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue.

No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk

I wonder if the requirement of one party being a female is a problem?