Appeals court rules in favor of gay marriage in Kentucky
- Thread starter mstp1992
- Start date
The clerk has no case. Either do your job or find another one. End of story.
Maybe a SCOTUS clerk will refuse to pass along the paperwork to Kagen. Fair?
The apartments thing though, that's not really requiring him to sell or rent anything it's just requiring standards on the apartments he does rent. It's not really the same thing.
Thats closer to telling a pharmacist he has to sell medications that are approved by the FDA and are in date.
It's not going to matter. . . the courts have already ruled several times over. It doesn't matter how many court rulings she gets she won't obey them.
And the sad thing is that she is protected by being in elected office. It's really hard to remove an elected official, especially if her constituents support her.
This case is interesting because it brings up a weakness in our system. Because elected officials are so hard to remove especially if the constituents support them, what do we do. We may want to consider alternative ways of removing elected officials but a proper balance needs to be struck at the same time. You want to be careful so as to not give other officials the ability to remove said officials just because they find them to be a pain in the rear. People where elected for a reason and it's a perversion of democracy if they can be removed from office without the consent of the constituents absent them committing a major crime.
ASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to let a Kentucky county clerk deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of what she said were her religious beliefs.
The ruling, made without comment or any apparent dissents, is an early indication that while some push-back against gay marriage on religious grounds may be upheld, the justices won't tolerate it from public officials.
In one of the first tests of the court's June 26 decision upholding the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis had argued that her Christian faith prevented her from recognizing such marriages.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015/08/31/supreme-court-gay-marriage-licenses/71463760/
The ruling, made without comment or any apparent dissents, is an early indication that while some push-back against gay marriage on religious grounds may be upheld, the justices won't tolerate it from public officials.
In one of the first tests of the court's June 26 decision upholding the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis had argued that her Christian faith prevented her from recognizing such marriages.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015/08/31/supreme-court-gay-marriage-licenses/71463760/
See congress passes laws. Prez can veto. Supreme court says law is ok or not. Where is the law passed by congress stating marriage is a must do or else? And or else what? Fines prison?
This is such a poor interpretation of what is going on, I've tried to discuss it, but either you just don't get it, or more likely, refuse to.
No, its an interpretation of how the country works. Or is supposed to. There is no law here . The supremes cannot force things on people. They stated in 1973 that abortion and killings were womens rights,yet they never once fined ben carson for refusing a woman's right to an abortion that i know of anywho
Sigh. The "law" you are refusing to acknowledge is the Constitution of the U.S.
Are you claiming Carson was a government official tasked with performing abortions?
You've now said this twice. Do you bieve the federal courts are just advisory? That they hold no authority?
You think this lady can continue until she is voted out?
I hope she's arrested and placed in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists
SCOTUS advises this woman to consider making a career change -
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/kentucky-gay-marriage-licenses-supreme-court/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/kentucky-gay-marriage-licenses-supreme-court/index.html
Also, if you have a moment, listen to the dude in the CNN clip. Essentially says at the end that the Kentucky Constitution prevails in any conflict with the United States Constitution or Federal law. Just the sort of sharp legal analysis I would expect from Kentucky.
This quote is precisely what I've questioned in this thread:
In her belief," the lawyers wrote, same-sex marriage "is not, in fact, marriage."
Can the two, very different, things not be separated? She doesn't have to believe that ssm is "religious marriage", only that the people applying satisfy the statute (minus man/woman).
It seems to me that both things can be true, ssm is legal-marriage but not her religious marriage; I don't see issuing the license as hypocritical.
I wonder if she'd be ok doing her job of the title was changed from "marriage." If yes, then I think she proves my point: her problem is a definitional one where she doesn't properly understand the definitions.
Also, I don't get the "we aren't preventing anyone from getting married" stance, when they clearly are. He stands by the point that they can go to any other county, which presuming true, still means that he would, in fact, prevent marriages if the other clerks were as God-fearing as he.
Thirdly, I don't quite agree that his Kentucky over US Constitution belief is that absurd. Yes, I believe it legally wrong, but he supported his position thoughtfully.
The section he cites is: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."
He uses this to invalidate every other law, including the U.S. Constitution.
Legally he has two significant problems. 1. His oath of office probably adhered him to the U.S. Const., and 2. Kentucky ratifying the U.S. Const., including the supremacy clause and then the 14th Amendment.
But, at least he supported his position.
Thirdly, I don't quite agree that his Kentucky over US Constitution belief is that absurd. Yes, I believe it legally wrong, but he supported his position thoughtfully.
The section he cites is: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."
He uses this to invalidate every other law, including the U.S. Constitution.
Legally he has two significant problems. 1. His oath of office probably adhered him to the U.S. Const., and 2. Kentucky ratifying the U.S. Const., including the supremacy clause and then the 14th Amendment.
But, at least he supported his position.
Again:
"Render unto Caesar..."
No one is asking her to perform a ceremony.
No one is asking her to recognize a SSM.
No one is asking her church to recognize a SSM.
Fill out and sign "Caesar's" paperwork and go worship in your own way privately.
She is going to cost her county a LOT of money in legal fees and fines.
"Render unto Caesar..."
No one is asking her to perform a ceremony.
No one is asking her to recognize a SSM.
No one is asking her church to recognize a SSM.
Fill out and sign "Caesar's" paperwork and go worship in your own way privately.
She is going to cost her county a LOT of money in legal fees and fines.
The only thing they can do is lay contempt charges on her. That's it. They can't remove her from office.
Looks like she & her staff have been summoned to appear in district court on Thursday.
http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-court-ruling-083217111.html
And from that article, the clerk's husband is truly an intelligent man:
'The clerk's husband, Joe Davis, came by to check on his wife. He said she has received death threats but remains committed to her faith and is "standing for God." As for himself, he said he believes in the Second Amendment: "I'm an old redneck hillbilly, that's all I've got to say. Don't come knocking on my door." He pointed to the gay rights protesters gathered on the courthouse lawn and said: "They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won't accept our beliefs and our ways." '
True, but hey can also find her in criminal, not just civil contempt, and let her sit in jail while her temporary replacement issues the licenses.
She may choose to resign as opposed to rotting in jail. Or she may just rot in jail and hold everything up.
She is saying this morning that God is preventing her from issuing marriage licenses. Is God telling her to keep cashing her payroll checks? She has a job that the taxpayers expect her to carry out. Do that job, or get one more suited to your beliefs, lady. Nobody is forcing you to take a public service paycheck.
This is how I see it playing out, and why the judge also summoned her staff.
(1) Ask clerk if she's ready to comply. "No, your Honor."
(2) Boom, jail.
(3) Next in line: "Are you ready to assuming the role of interim clerk and comply with the law?
(4) Repeat Steps 2-3 until you find someone on her staff that isn't a nitwit.
Jesus, what do you think this means?
"only thing they can do".
At least, it seems, in your later OP that you are starting to figure out her potential consequences.
I would follow the same procedure, but not go as far. I would schedule her for court first thing every morning. Whatever her salary is, I would dock it, that day, to be paid immediately. I would also require her to report any financial support she is receiving from sources due to this issue, such as some "family" religious group, and I would fine her that amount as well. Also, on top of this, I would fine the County triple that daily amount, unless they are willing to put one of the subordinates in her place to issue the licenses.
This does two things: Allows her to give up her financial compensation for her "religious belief", but also penalize the County, so that the County realizes they have a stake in this matter.
I would never jail someone for this, I don't think it a) works, other than to force resignation, or b) is the right "message". Now, some may think resignation is one of the goals, but I think that the financial penalties will reach that more appropriately.
No
You do put them in jail.
Jail is not an acceptable excuse for not showing up for work.
So, she can use up all of her PTO days, & once those are gone, she is involuntarily terminated for not showing up for work. They put a temp in her place & hold an election to backfill her role.
If that county wants to keep re-electing idiots, they can enjoy the extra taxes they'll pay once the discrimination lawsuits are settled & their budget runs dry with 3 months still to go in the year.
You do put them in jail.
Jail is not an acceptable excuse for not showing up for work.
So, she can use up all of her PTO days, & once those are gone, she is involuntarily terminated for not showing up for work. They put a temp in her place & hold an election to backfill her role.
If that county wants to keep re-electing idiots, they can enjoy the extra taxes they'll pay once the discrimination lawsuits are settled & their budget runs dry with 3 months still to go in the year.
It will deny her the spotlight she currently has & craves.
Also, I like your approach to fines. Ideally the judge would do both.
No.
Don't really care, either. She's entitled to whatever religious beliefs & opinions she wants. She just doesn't have the right to impose her religious views on to others.
The irony here is that she & her ilk would probably be the first to start squawking about 'Sharia Law' if anyone tried to pass a Muslim-related law in her county. But she cannot see that it's entirely the same issue when she tries to impose her particular version of Christianity on others.
She'd be well served to read up on why the original Mayflower settlers left England & came to The New World...
I believe she can be charged with official misconduct by refusing to complete her appointed duties. It's only a misdemeanor, but could set things in motion for impeachment proceedings for the Kentucky state legislature to act upon.
It really is the same issue, and that should scare these people.
But, if jail won't change her mind, jailing her really is pointless, imo. Plus, the Court can order others from the office to do it.
Jail is not intended to change her mind; it's intended to change her behavior, & will ultimately result in her being fired if she cannot show up for work. It is also a deterrent from having other self-appointed 'martyrs' inclined to take up her cause at the courthouse.
If she gets fired, she will make out better financially than the pizza place that refused to serve the gheys. I bet there is a gofundme account already set up for her defense.
