d-usa wrote: When you can no longer follow your oath because the law has changed and you no longer agree with it, then you resign. You don't stop following your oath.
Exactly. That's what somebody who was following their principles would do, if they found themselves in a position where their beliefs no longer allowed them to do their job.
Davis has made it abundantly clear that principle has nothing to do with it.
Interestingly, the Kentucky Oath of Office has been getting passed around on-line, the last line of which is now pretty interesting.
“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God
d-usa wrote: When you can no longer follow your oath because the law has changed and you no longer agree with it, then you resign. You don't stop following your oath.
Exactly. That's what somebody who was following their principles would do, if they found themselves in a position where their beliefs no longer allowed them to do their job.
Davis has made it abundantly clear that principle has nothing to do with it.
Interestingly, the Kentucky Oath of Office has been getting passed around on-line, the last line of which is now pretty interesting.
“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God
*GASP*
She broke an oath made before God!?!?!111 You're right lady, it was a heaven or hell decision.
So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?
Yeah, actually, it is. Well, converting and praying for forgiveness. I mean, if you think you can "trick" God into believing yourself truly repentant, then, well, good luck with that...
Earlier posts said at least one had agreed to do them. And there's another moral point. She didn't have to do them herself, thus not sinning. Someone else could do them.
There are some folks of various religions who hold the view that if they commit the sin themselves, that's bad. But nearly as bad, is if they knowingly "allow" another to sin, or allow another to sin on their behalf.
Apparently this lady is one such believer, who felt that her sin would be just as great if she allowed others to do their jobs in her stead.
The most important thing is that she was taken into custody by us marshals for contempt of court. In Kentucky. So one could say that it was entirely...Justified.
Earlier posts said at least one had agreed to do them. And there's another moral point. She didn't have to do them herself, thus not sinning. Someone else could do them.
There are some folks of various religions who hold the view that if they commit the sin themselves, that's bad. But nearly as bad, is if they knowingly "allow" another to sin, or allow another to sin on their behalf.
Apparently this lady is one such believer, who felt that her sin would be just as great if she allowed others to do their jobs in her stead.
There's... well, I'm trying really hard to find a Biblical justification for that belief, but I'm drawing a blank. The Bible teaches to lead by example, and in so doing, be humble in one's faith. To pray at home, behind closed doors with curtains drawn, and not loudly in public out in the streets. I can't think of a passage that tells you that by not stopping someone from committing a sin you are also committing a sin, since attempting to do so is likely to result in the commission of several other sins.
motyak wrote: The most important thing is that she was taken into custody by us marshals for contempt of court. In Kentucky. So one could say that it was entirely...Justified.
*Slow clap*
Raylan Givens demanded I give you an exalt. Who am I to deny him?
whembly wrote: It's really not different from Sanctuary Cities...
Whatever one thinks of the sanctuary cities, it’s fairly easy to see how letting them operate as they are encouraged others to do the same.
For that to be the case with this, it’d rely on people somehow just letting this woman carry on as she has. I can see no slightly plausible hypothetical that would produce that result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.
I’ve never heard of a Christian sermon that fantasized about the martyrdom of resignation. If you want to be a martyr it’s got to be death or prison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.
Reality is a lot less fun than persecution fantasies.
d-usa wrote: When you can no longer follow your oath because the law has changed and you no longer agree with it, then you resign. You don't stop following your oath.
Great... when will Obama resign for not following immigration laws?
Or, mayors of sanctuary cities like San Francisco?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: The most important thing is that she was taken into custody by us marshals for contempt of court. In Kentucky. So one could say that it was entirely...Justified.
It must be so frustrating to keep calling for the end of civilisation, only for civilisation to keep carrying on just fine. Hardline Christians have been suffering from apocalypse blue balls for about 1,800 years now, it must be really getting to you guys.
It must be so frustrating to keep calling for the end of civilisation, only for civilisation to keep carrying on just fine. Hardline Christians have been suffering from apocalypse blue balls for about 1,800 years now, it must be really getting to you guys.
TBH, it gets a bit tiresome for those of us who don't believe period, yet are related to hardliners. Seriously, everytime my grandmother visits, I hear some new "thing" about how we're surely in the end times.
Sorry, folks. The Bible makes it pretty clear that the Apocalypse will come when people least expect it. Jesus himself said that he will return "like a thief in the night".
It will be a time when religions have all gone from the face of the Earth, when there are none who even remembered that there was a man/prophet/Messiah named Jesus. When there are no more churches, when the evening news does not even speak of the beliefs of different people, because those beliefs simply do not exist.
When it happens, there will be none alive who can say "I told you so". These days are most certainly not those days.
Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.
I'm actually fine with that compromise.
I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or "Stolen from the desk of Jack Daniels."
kronk wrote: Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.
I think that was always the core of the issue. As the county clerk, it was her name and signature "authorizing" the marriage certificate. It is my understanding that this is the reason why she didn't simply pawn the job off on one of the other people in her office (I won't issue them, but let me get Susie to get it for you) because even if Susie did all the paper work it would still be "issued" by the clerk.
I'm actually fine with that compromise.
I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or
My only issue is that this is not something for her to decide, or the judge to decide. What it says on the certificate, including who issues it, is set by law and she swore to uphold and follow that law with her job. I'm fine if she, and others, want to petition the legislature to change the forms, but until then she should follow the law or resign.
"Stolen from the desk of Jack Daniels."
Jack Daniels is probably responsible for a lot of marriages...
I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or
My only issue is that this is not something for her to decide, or the judge to decide. What it says on the certificate, including who issues it, is set by law and she swore to uphold and follow that law with her job. I'm fine if she, and others, want to petition the legislature to change the forms, but until then she should follow the law or resign.
I don't disagree, mind you. I've never once seen her appeal to the Kentucky legislature, so this might just be blowing smoke. Dunno. Perhaps she has and they told her to suck it.
kronk wrote: Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.
It was bs.
This has been about her and Liberty Counsel trying to get attention.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: TBH, it gets a bit tiresome for those of us who don't believe period, yet are related to hardliners. Seriously, everytime my grandmother visits, I hear some new "thing" about how we're surely in the end times.
Fair enough. To me its a novelty and quite fun, but if you experience all the time, and in a social environment where you can't just crack a joke and move on, I can see how it would wear.
A bit like facing a drop bear attack here. To a US tourist that life and death struggle would be quite exciting, but for us it's just something we have to put up to go buy some bread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: You never heard of resigning on principle? I mean I know public integrity disappeared decades ago, but I thought you were older than that.
Oh I've not only heard of resigning on principle, I think it's still quite common.
But this is nothing to do with principle. This is about a woman following her own private martyrdom fantasy.
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.
Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.
Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.
GG
For someone suggesting that I'm acting as though I'm a mind reader, you sure seem to be making some assumptions yourself there buddy.
She had an opportunity to resign and to try and actually work things out in a manner beneficial to her. She chose instead to make a political statement and accepted the legal representation of Liberty Counsel, a group which does nothing but make actual Christians look bad.
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.
Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.
GG
I'm a straight married Christian with the (unpopular) view that homosexuality is a sin and that a "Christian" marriage is between a man and a woman, yet I still think that she should have resigned and that she deserves the punishment she is getting.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just an employee of the federal government who is married to a black woman and who has a biracial daughter who somehow manages to do my job even if it involves taking care of rapists, racists, Muslims, and every other group. I help Muslims get on the ground so that they can pray, I facilitated religious ceremonies for native Americans, and go out of my way to make sure that my patients believes and religious practices are respected and accommodated even if it goes against my own. Because if I don't like doing my job, even if my job is to take care of a racist pedophile satan worshiper, I can quit.
generalgrog wrote: Would you please stop parroting the gay activist's latest talking point. As if you and Dan Savage are mind readers and know what is in these peoples hearts.
People have been pointing out in this thread that her martyrdom is readily convertible to a pretty lucrative racket well before Mr. Savage made his statements.
So far as what's really in her heart.... who cares? It's totally irrelevant. I care about what she is doing, which is claiming that as an elected official she follows the laws of her diety rather than what she sword to uphold, and that she won't let anyone else uphold their duties either; thus making it impossible to reach a reasonable accommodation. We do not live in a theocracy.
I'm talking about the statements you guys are making that she is doing this for monetary gain, to get some kind of fundraiser going. That is a strategic talking point that Dan Savage has made, to try and lesson the impact of what this woman is Doing. Typical ad hominem attack.
And, I repeat, those ideas were discussed in this thread well before Dan Savage floating them. The idea that we're all reading of a script written by an activist starts to look less likely when the dialogue started before the script was delivered.
After all, any reasonable person can see the allure that is presented; look at that pizza place that made $900k simply for saying that they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, and then closing up. Of course no one actually asked them to cater a gay wedding, it's more fun to pretend, just as Mike Huckabee is doing now with this "the criminalization of christianity" schtick.
Ouze wrote: And, I repeat, those ideas were discussed in this thread well before Dan Savage floating them. The idea that we're all reading of a script written by an activist starts to look less likely when the dialogue started before the script was delivered.
Ouze wrote: And, I repeat, those ideas were discussed in this thread well before Dan Savage floating them. The idea that we're all reading of a script written by an activist starts to look less likely when the dialogue started before the script was delivered.
I'll admit that I apparently posted an article that got linked by Dan Savage, not long after he linked it.
I guess I was reading from a script without knowing it!
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.
I am not certain the judge has that capacity. I think... While not positive, remedies can only be related to mandamus, or alternatively contempt of court. I freely admit I could be wrong on that though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: I'm talking about the statements you guys are making that she is doing this for monetary gain, to get some kind of fundraiser going. That is strategic talking point that Dan Savage has made, to try and lesson the impact of what this woman is Doing. Typical ad hominem attack.
GG
Again how is it morally correct to deny an entire district the ability to legally marry?
The reason they simply don't suspend or fire her is because they can't, she's an elected official, and elected officials cannot simply be dismissed from their posts.
To remove her from office requires action on the part of the State Legislature, which is not currently in session, and will not be until January, unless the Governor calls them to Special Session, which he has said he has no intent to do because it's a waste of tax-payer money.
I agree with the above that the moral high ground here was for her to hold a press conference, state her views, and then step down. Say your piece, drop the mic and walk off.
Maybe replacing her would require a Special Election, maybe someone in the interim would step in, I don't know, but.... the actions taken thus far are not the proper way to go about doing this as an elected official. Especially considering that most of the rest of her office doesn't have her back on this, it would, indeed, seem like this is a one-woman (and a pack of lawyers) crusade.
I would also imagine she's doing it on the advice of her lawyers, because she may otherwise be up for discrimination charges/suits. At least in these conditions, no marriage licenses of any kind are being given out, so it's a non-discriminatory ban.
It's dumb, yes, and childish (this is almost a literal example of taking your ball and going home) but it is, at least, only guardedly discriminating.
The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings.
Are you for real?!?
Just walk away. Nothing good comes down that path except a thread lock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: I would also imagine she's doing it on the advice of her lawyers, because she may otherwise be up for discrimination charges/suits. At least in these conditions, no marriage licenses of any kind are being given out, so it's a non-discriminatory ban.
It's dumb, yes, and childish (this is almost a literal example of taking your ball and going home) but it is, at least, only guardedly discriminating.
It's the live action version of "just get rid of marriage" argument that always gets thrown around.
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
The problem is jailing was the only way to get anything done. Not only would fining her have no effect at all, it also would've left her free to continue to thwart her office from doing it's job. Now at least the county clerk office can do what it's meant to.
From what I was reading, GoFundMe was deleting all attempts for crowdfunding due to their policy of not allowing funds for people to support her due to no funds being allowed for
‘Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.’
The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings.
Are you for real?!?
Good chunk of the U.S. population really don't care. Its like math. You only go through it once and never go back again.....sometimes though....they come back
wait....
a =b
a + a = a + b
2a = a + b
2a - 2b = a + b - 2b
2 (a - b) = a + b - 2b
2 (a - b) = a - b
2 = 1
kronk wrote: Last night I heard one of her lawyers argue that Mrs. Davis told the judge that if they would remove her name from the marriage certificates and replace it with County of Blah Blah (like I fething care about Kentucky Counties) and she'd start passing them out again. I had not heard that mentioned before now, so that might have been a last minute plea when the judge was out of patience or it might be bs.
I'm actually fine with that compromise.
I wouldn't give two damns if my marriage certificate said "By the authority of John Doe, County Clerk" or "by the authority of Blah County" or "Stolen from the desk of Jack Daniels."
What is the point of electing an official to a public office if they then can draw the pay without performing the office and a rubber stamp is put on documents instead?
At some level it is important that a responsible person witnesses and signs these documents.
Ouze wrote: The clerks office has started issuing licences.
Kim Davis remains jailed as she still refuses to, and won't promise not to prevent the rest of her staff from doing so.
She shouldn't have been jailed. It gives her the martyrdom she thoroughly seems to have wanted and the ticket to the conservative prayer circuit money.
She and her family members on staff ideally should have been barred from the offices and put on unpaid suspension.
She has committed a misfeasance and a contempt of court. She must be effectively punished, or any elected official will rightly conclude they can flip off the will of the People of the United States.
A fine is meaningless since she is being bankrolled by I don't know how to describe them but let's say extremist Christians. The workable alternative is gaol and a fine. The state may as well get some money back to cover the expenses of this whole business.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said U.S. District Judge David Bunning knew he was going to send Davis to jail on Thursday before he heard one word of her testimony. He accused the judge of violating constitutional law and said he will file an appeal and a writ of habeas corpus to get her released. That's a legal action that seeks relief from unlawful imprisonment.
Esshhh. This ought to be interesting journey down the legal system
So I know the mods werent fond of the conversation earlier regarding disbarment for the lawyer, but appears theres a lot of legal opinions floating around that the atty may be giving her advice in bad faith, and advocating she break the law due to their grandstanding on this issue.
There any truth to that? Is it one of those "Impossible to prove" things?
I know that I didn't go to judge school, but I'm going to guess that it you tell the lady "you are going to jail if you don't do this" and she doesn't do this, then there is nothing wrong with "knowing that you are going to send her to jail before she says anything".
WrentheFaceless wrote: So I know the mods werent fond of the conversation earlier regarding disbarment for the lawyer, but appears theres a lot of legal opinions floating around that the atty may be giving her advice in bad faith, and advocating she break the law due to their grandstanding on this issue.
There any truth to that? Is it one of those "Impossible to prove" things?
Well, if the person their defending is on board with it, what can you do? It's when the lawyer is going against what their client says that you can actually do anything about it. So when the client is a slow with a martyr complex and the lawyer is more interested in pursuing a cause than anything related to law, this is what you end up with.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So I know the mods werent fond of the conversation earlier regarding disbarment for the lawyer, but appears theres a lot of legal opinions floating around that the atty may be giving her advice in bad faith, and advocating she break the law due to their grandstanding on this issue.
There any truth to that? Is it one of those "Impossible to prove" things?
If you can show that an attorney did not act in his/her clients interest, especially if they acted in their own, then that is a pretty serious breach of legal ethics. As you can imagine, it is very difficult to prove, and since this particular client seems most interested in seeking jail time, I don't think it would be easy to show.
There's a long history of people planning ahead of time with lawyers to get arrested, and thus be the test case to find laws unconstitutional. Rosa Parks was an NAACP activist, Plessy v. Ferguson happened after a setup, etc. So there's nothing inherently unethical about using a person to make a larger point, as long as that person is willing. Remember that, within reason, a person has the right to the representation of their choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: I'm talking about the statements you guys are making that she is doing this for monetary gain, to get some kind of fundraiser going. That is strategic talking point that Dan Savage has made, to try and lesson the impact of what this woman is Doing. Typical ad hominem attack.
I disagree with the idea that jailing her makes her a martyr. I think a small handful of people will see her as fighting the good fight, while most Christians see her less as a martyr and more as a volunteer. Jail is the correct remedy in this case, because it affects people's rights, time is a factor, and her contempt of court is undeniable.
Polonius wrote: There's a long history of people planning ahead of time with lawyers to get arrested, and thus be the test case to find laws unconstitutional. Rosa Parks was an NAACP activist, Plessy v. Ferguson happened after a setup, etc. So there's nothing inherently unethical about using a person to make a larger point, as long as that person is willing. Remember that, within reason, a person has the right to the representation of their choice.
Thanks, I had wondered about that as well - the best interests, but yeah, you make sense here.
Quick question about the whole "she didn't sign them and she didn't delegate the authority to anyone else" argument by the lawyer:
Wouldn't, or shouldn't, the county have a system in place that already delegates the authority of her office to someone else in case she is no longer able to perform her duties (resigned/in a coma/dead/locked up)?
Easy answer. Signature of Authority memorandum.
Document empowering the individual the power of the state pertaining to an area (example being Marriage Certificate) that requires a Signature of an Official.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I was reading other reports that her name and signature are already pre-printed on the forms anyways.
The various news I read today all stated that the signature spot is blank. It was one thing I was wondering about because I would think that using anything with her signature against her will might be grounds for having a judge invalidate all the documents down the line.
But I know that if she would have died in a car accident in the morning, the office would be able to issue licenses that afternoon even though she never authorized anyone to issue them. Should be a simple case of "office temporarily vacant" so X person in the office becomes "acting" clerk, or someone in the county or state having the power to appoint someone while she cannot execute her office.
The whole "she still runs the office from jail, she didn't approve this" argument just seems silly, so that had me wondering.
If I were one of the people who got one of those certificates, unsigned, I'd be pretty worried. Perhaps a spouse gets into a care accident or what have you, and then the insurance company refuses to pay out, saying that the marriage is invalid?
I'm not sure this is 100% an improvement.
Does the clerk have to sign off on every single certificate? Seems unlikely though - why have 6 clerks if that's the case?
Ouze wrote: If I were one of the people who got one of those certificates, unsigned, I'd be pretty worried. Perhaps a spouse gets into a care accident or what have you, and then the insurance company refuses to pay out, saying that the marriage is invalid?
I'm not sure this is 100% an improvement.
Does the clerk have to sign off on every single certificate? Seems unlikely though - why have 6 clerks if that's the case?
Why have any form of needless bureaucracy? Six clerks is already too many.
At some level it is important that a responsible person witnesses and signs these documents.
A bit apples to oranges here, but when I got my State of Washington Health and Life Insurance licenses, the entire document was sent with a letter. Basically, it read something like "by the authority of the Office of the Insurance Commission of the State of Washington" and then had the signature of the commissioner of the state.
Perhaps for a situation like this, a State "board" might be a solution, where now the county clerk is no longer the signing authority on something, they are merely the gatekeeper who ensure's that paperwork is done correctly? Sure, they may have to personally sign the document, but they are not the one ultimately making the decision?
From the UK perspective, the registration of births, marriages and deaths is the key originating point of someone's existence as a citizen in the official world.
There are all sorts of other official documents such as passport, driving licence, national insurance number, residency card (for foreigners) and so on, that depend on the correct registration of these two original documents.
In regards to birth, the attending doctor signs the form and the mother or father present it to the registrar to get the birth officially registered.
In regards to marriage, the officiant signs the form and the registrar registers it (these two are often the same person.)
Given all our worries about crime, security, terrorism, identity theft, and so on, it seems to me crucial that at least the origination points of legal existence are witnessed in person by reliable officials.
From what I can gather it seems quite a conservative site (has an article about the "feminization of boys"), so seeing that viewpoint was interesting, to say the least.
It is a rational viewpoint based on the rule of law and welcome that a possibly conservative writer can see the issue in terms of the constitution applying to the entire civic body rather than a narrow religious interest.
It would, and the governor is on the record saying "I'm not spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money on a special session for her". Her lawyers are saying he could just executive order the problem away, but he doesn't seem inclined to give her anyway out of the hole she is digging.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can a State official lawfully overturn the decision of a federal court?
To take an extreme example, if a citizen of say Georgia had been convicted of high treason, would the Governor be able to grant a pardon.
I'm no lawyer, but it would seem that, a state can "officially" "not overturn", or not enforce a change in Federal law. I'm thinking of the prohibition situation here... though I think it's kind of the opposite of what you're asking.
But, I would suspect that any number of high crimes tried and convicted in federal court would take a presidential pardon, not a gubernatorial pardon.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can a State official lawfully overturn the decision of a federal court?
To take an extreme example, if a citizen of say Georgia had been convicted of high treason, would the Governor be able to grant a pardon.
The authority to pardon for a federal crime rests solely with the President of the United States, I believe. So; no.
Additionally I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted of a crime. The purpose of her confinement is coercion to follow the law, not punishment for having broken it. She is free to leave at any time if she would simply agree that she won't interfere with her staff issuing licenses, but she has declined to do so. So, you can't pardon someone for a future act.
There are things the governor of the state can do to alleviate the situation (for example, issue an executive order that removes the signature of the clerks from the licenses, or convene a special session) but he has stated he is not willing to do them for reasons political for the former and financial for the latter.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can a State official lawfully overturn the decision of a federal court?
To take an extreme example, if a citizen of say Georgia had been convicted of high treason, would the Governor be able to grant a pardon.
No, not if its a federal issue, as is the situation (federal being a court found right of nondiscrimination via powers granted from Constitutional Amendment).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted of a crime.
Well, at least the President can.
Reference: 1. Ford pardoning Nixon. 2. Johnson pardoning the officers and military of the (former) CSA. 3. President Genghis Connie pardoning Frazzled for crimes against "those fracking people on my lawn."
Kilkrazy wrote: Can a State official lawfully overturn the decision of a federal court?
To take an extreme example, if a citizen of say Georgia had been convicted of high treason, would the Governor be able to grant a pardon.
The authority to pardon for a federal crime rests solely with the President of the United States, I believe. So; no.
Additionally I don't think you can pardon someone who has not been convicted of a crime. The purpose of her confinement is coercion to follow the law, not punishment for having broken it. She is free to leave at any time if she would simply agree that she won't interfere with her staff issuing licenses, but she has declined to do so. So, you can't pardon someone for a future act.
There are things the governor of the state can do to alleviate the situation (for example, issue an executive order that removes the signature of the clerks from the licenses, or convene a special session) but he has stated he is not willing to do them for reasons political for the former and financial for the latter.
Furthermore, "a state" can't lawfully overturn a court ruling.
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
I could see the argument that the issuing of licenses without her signature would not have happened with her remaining at the office. She had to be removed for the current process to begin, and the I my way to do that was via jail.
I do honestly expect her to round up every license and lock them up somewhere to keep them from being issued though. She will find a way to keep herself in hot water.
The Volokh ConspiracyOpinion
When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?
Can your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? This is one of the questions in the Kentucky County Clerk marriage certificate case. But it also arises in lots of other cases — for instance, the Muslim flight attendant who doesn’t want to serve alcohol and who filed a complaint on Tuesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the airline’s denial of an exemption.
The question has also arisen before with regard to:
Nurses who had religious objections to being involved in abortions (even just to washing instruments that would be used in abortions);
Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;
A Jehovah’s Witness employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;
An IRS employee who had religious objections to working on tax exemption applications for organizations that promote “abortion, … homosexuality, worship of the devil, euthanasia, atheism, legalization of marijuana, immoral sexual experiments, sterilization or vasectomies, artificial contraception, and witchcraft”;
a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership;
and more.
And of course it arises routinely when people are fine with their job tasks, but have a religious objection to doing them on particular days (e.g., Saturdays and Fridays after sundown).
Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)
Thus, for instance, in all the cases I mentioned in the numbered list above, the religious objectors got an accommodation, whether in court or as a result of the employer’s settling a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. Likewise, the EEOC is currently litigating a case in which it claims that a trucking company must accommodate a Muslim employee’s religious objections to transporting alcohol, and the court has indeed concluded that the employer had a duty to accommodate such objections. But if the accommodation would have been quite difficult or expensive (beyond the inevitable cost that always come when rearranging tasks), then the employer wouldn’t have had to provide it.
Now I’m not saying this to praise the law, or to claim that it’s demanded by vital principles of religious principles. One can certainly argue against this approach, especially as applied to private employers, but also as applied to the government.
The government is barred by the Free Exercise Clause from discriminating based on religion, but the government has no constitutional duty to give religious objectors special exemptions from generally applicable rules. Maybe it (and private employers) shouldn’t have such a statutory duty, either. But my point so far has been simply to describe the American legal rule as it actually is, and as it has been for over 40 years (since the religious accommodation provisions were enacted in the 1972 amendments to Title VII).
Once we see this rule, we can also make some practical observations about it:
1. The rule requires judgments of degree. Some accommodations are relatively cheap (again, always realizing that any accommodation involves some burden on employers), while other are more expensive. The courts have to end up drawing some fuzzy line between them. Maybe that’s a bad idea, but that’s what Congress set up with the “reasonable accommodation” requirement. So if you want to argue that one religious objector shouldn’t get the relatively easy accommodation she wants, you can’t do that by analogy to another claim where the accommodation would be very expensive.
2. The rule turns on the specific facts present in a particular workplace. An accommodation can be very expensive when the objecting employee is the only one at the job site who can do a task, but relatively cheap when there are lots of other employees. It can be very expensive when all the other employees also raise the same objection, but relatively cheap when the other employees are just fine with doing the task.
Again, maybe that’s a bad rule, but it’s the rule Congress created. And if you want to argue that one religious objector shouldn’t get an accommodation that’s easy at the objector’s job site, you can’t do that by pointing out that the accommodation would be expensive at other job sites.
3. The rule accepts the risk of insincere objections. Of course, when sincere religious objectors can get an exemption, others can ask for the same exemption even just for convenience rather than from religious belief. That’s not much of a problem for many exemption requests, since most people have no personal, self-interested reasons not to transport alcohol on their trucks, or raising an American flag on a flagpole. But for some accommodations, there is a risk of insincere claims, for instance when someone just wants Saturdays off so he can do fun weekend things. The law assumes that employers will be able to judge employees’ sincerity relatively accurately, and to the extent some insincere objections are granted, this won’t be too much of a problem. Again, the law might be wrong on this, but it’s the law.
4. The rule accepts the risk of slippery slopes, and counts on courts to stop the slippage. Once some people get a religious exemption, others are likely to claim other religious exemptions; indeed, some people who before managed to find a way to live with their religious objections without raising an accommodation request might now conclude that they need to be more militant about their beliefs. Here too, the law accepts this risk, and counts on courts to cut off the more expensive accommodations.
5. The rule rejects the “you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job” argument. Again, that argument is a perfectly sensible policy argument against having a Title VII duty of religious accommodation. It’s just an argument that religious accommodation law has, rightly or wrongly, rejected.
6. The rule focused on what specific accommodations are practical. If someone demands as an accommodation that a company completely stop shipping alcohol, that would be an undue hardship for an employer. But if it’s possible to accommodate the person by just not giving him the relatively rare alcohol-shipping orders, then that might well not be an undue hardship.
* * *
OK, now we’ve seen the big picture, which is that sincere religious objections can indeed legally excuse you from doing part of your job — if the employer can exempt you without undue cost to itself, its other employees, or its clients (recognizing that some cost is inevitable with any exemption request). Now let’s try to see how it can apply to the Kim Davis controversy.
First, a technical but important legal point: Title VII expressly excludes elected officials. But Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials.
Such RFRAs are narrower than Title VII (they apply only to the government) but also broader (they apply not just to employment but to all government action). Nothing in them exempts accommodation claims by elected officials. Moreover, the 1963-90 Free Exercise Clause rules that the RFRAs were meant to restore included protections for elected officials, see McDaniel v. Paty (1978); though McDaniel involved a rule that discriminated against religious practice, the plurality opinion treated it as a standard religious exemption request.
The terms of these RFRAs actually seem to offer greater protection for claimants — to deny an exemption, the government must show not just “undue hardship” but unavoidable material harm to a “compelling government interest.” Tagore v. United States (5th Cir. 2013) illustrates this: When Sikh IRS agent Kawaljeet Tagore sought a religious exemption from IRS’s no-weapons-in-the-workplace policy for her kirpan (a 3-inch dulled symbolic dagger), the court concluded that accommodating the request was an “undue hardship,” but allowed the RFRA claim to go forward, so that the trial court could determine whether denying the exemption “furthers a compelling government interest with the least restrictive means.” On the other hand, Harrell v. Donahue (8th Cir. 2011) took the view that, at least as to federal employees, RFRA provided no protections beyond those offered by Title VII.
The Kentucky appellate courts have had no occasion to interpret the Kentucky RFRA yet (it was enacted in 2013), and I don’t know of cases under other state RFRAs dealing with government employees or elected officials. But it’s very likely that (1) the Kentucky RFRA, by its terms, would apply to religious exemption claims brought by elected officials, and (2) it would provide at least the protections offered to ordinary employees by the Title VII religious accommodation regime, and possibly more.
* * *
With all this in hand, we turn to the Kim Davis controversy.
1. The current lawsuit is a federal claim against her, claiming that her policy of not issuing any marriage licenses (for any couples, same-sex or opposite-sex) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s right to marry. Whether the policy does violate the right to marry (and not just the state law mandating that clerks issue marriage licenses, a state law that federal courts generally don’t enforce) is an interesting question, given that licenses are available from neighboring counties. Compare Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011), which rejected the “you can go to the neighboring city” argument when it came to Chicago’s ban on shooting ranges and Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim (1981), which did the same as to a town’s ban on live entertainment.
But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.
Yet besides her losing claim in the federal lawsuit, it seems to me that Davis has a much stronger claim under state law for a much more limited exemption. Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40, 133, and 139 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with
Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.
Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide. It’s true that state law requires the County Clerk’s name on the marriage license and the marriage certificate. But the point of RFRAs, such as the Kentucky RFRA, is precisely to provide religious objectors with exemptions even from such generally applicable laws, so long as the exemptions don’t necessarily and materially undermine a compelling government interest.
And allowing all marriage licenses and certificates — for opposite-sex marriages or same-sex ones — to include a deputy clerk’s name, or just the notation “Rowan County Clerk,” wouldn’t jeopardize any compelling government interest. To be sure, it would have to be clear that this modification is legally authorized, and doesn’t make the license and certificate invalid. But a court that grants Davis’s RFRA exemption request could easily issue an order that makes this clear.
Indeed, Kim Davis has filed a federal complaint against state officials under, among other things, the Kentucky RFRA. And, as I noted, one of the proposed accommodations that she herself has suggested, albeit in the federal stay application, is the simple removal of her name. But that sort of accommodation based on the Kentucky state RFRA is not a remedy that’s likely to be available in federal court.
But if Davis sues in state court, seeking a declaration that she can issue licenses and certificates without her name — as a Kentucky RFRA-based exemption from the Kentucky statutory requirements for what must go on her license — I think she’d have a good case. The federal district court rejected her Kentucky RFRA argument on the grounds that the requirement doesn’t much burden her beliefs:
The record in this case suggests that the burden [on Davis] is more slight. As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.
But though I agree that her religious convictions can’t excuse her from issuing marriage licenses altogether, I think the judge erred in the rest of the analysis in this paragraph. If Davis believes that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky RFRA. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA. (The federal district court’s conclusion about the inapplicability of the Kentucky RFRA won’t be binding on state courts, because that conclusion came in a preliminary injunction hearing; such conclusions on preliminary injunction generally lack so-called “collateral estoppel” effect on future hearings.)
[UPDATE: Some commenters argue that the clerk’s name can only be removed if the Kentucky Legislature amends the relevant law. But with RFRA, the Kentucky Legislature has already enacted a state law that provides for religious exemptions from existing state laws — there doesn’t have to be any follow-up statute implementing any such exemption; a court can simply issue an order saying that an exemption from one state statute (the signature requirement) is available because of another state statute (the RFRA).
Relatedly, some commenters argue that asking to be excused from the state law requiring the clerk’s signatures would be trying to violate the law. I agree that just refusing to issue licenses is a violation of state law. But asking for an exemption from a state statute under the state RFRA would be asking for something that state law itself provides, because state law includes the state RFRA.]
So if Kim Davis does indeed go through the state courts, and ask for a modest exemption under the state RFRA — simply to allow her to issue marriage licenses (opposite-sex or same-sex) without her name on them — she might indeed prevail. Rightly or wrongly, under the logic of Title VII’s religious accommodation regime and the RFRA religious accommodation regime, she probably should prevail.
There’s a lot of appeal to the “you take the job, you follow the rules — if you have a religious objection to the rules, quit the job” approach may be. But it’s not the approach that modern American federal employment law has taken, or the approach that the state religious exemption law in Kentucky and many other states has taken.
Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to transport alcohol, Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t want to raise flags, Sabbatarians (Jewish or Christian) who don’t want to work Saturdays, and philosophical vegetarians who don’t want to hand out hamburger coupons can take advantage of this law. Conservative Christian county clerks who don’t want to have their names listed on marriage certificates and licenses likely can, too.
[UPDATE: When talking about the Kentucky RFRA claim raised in Kim Davis’s federal complaint against state officials, I wrote, “I think the federal theories in the federal complaint are unpersuasive, and I doubt that a federal judge would be inclined to order state officials to carve out an exemption from state marriage license/certificate law under the state RFRA — in principle, such a decision by a federal judge is possible, but in practice I expect the federal judge would likely leave this to state courts.” But reader Jason Walta points out that a federal judge generally can’t issue an injunction against state officials under state law, see Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman (1984), and getting the exemption recognized would likely take an injunction or a declaratory judgment; so I changed the text to say “that sort of accommodation based on the Kentucky state RFRA is not a remedy that’s likely to be available in federal court.” As you might gather, this doesn’t affect the rest of the analysis, but I thought it was worth noting; many thanks to Jason Walta for the correction.]
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
I'm not tracking Fraz... why?
If he could order her not to interfere, why jail her?
The answer of course is that his order is the same as previous orders that she didn't heed which resulted in her jailing. This current order is just a finger wag as she's being ushered out the door to deflate the upcoming protest planned on her behalf. She can ignore the order, like she has the others, which will result in her being sent back to jail for contempt....re-contempt?
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
I'm not tracking Fraz... why?
jailing someone is a nuke strike as it were, and typically the last resort. if he had other options and didn't use them...
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
I'm not tracking Fraz... why?
jailing someone is a nuke strike as it were, and typically the last resort. if he had other options and didn't use them...
So... the judge should hold her in contempt? That means... exactly what?
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
I'm not tracking Fraz... why?
jailing someone is a nuke strike as it were, and typically the last resort. if he had other options and didn't use them...
So... the judge should hold her in contempt? That means... exactly what?
Putting her in jail. You know, like what he did already.
Just hours before a big rally to call for her release, a federal judge has ordered that Kim Davis be released from jail.
Judge David L. Bunning also ordered Davis not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
Bunning, who held Davis in contempt and ordered her in custody, said he was satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is now complying with a Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all the United States.
As we reported, a deputy clerk has been issuing marriage licenses to both opposite sex and same-sex couples since Davis was sent to jail.
bering jailed, when the judge had the power to do this, SCREAMS retaliation now. Judge should be reprimanded.
I'm not tracking Fraz... why?
jailing someone is a nuke strike as it were, and typically the last resort. if he had other options and didn't use them...
So the courts should tip toe around someone who's throwing their defiance of a lawful ruling in their face? Contempt is as much a tool to accomplish the result of compliance as it is a tool to ascertain compliance itself, both in the specific case, and more generally.
Frankly, she decided the court system could go feth itself and got a firm but just reminder that in a nation of laws, that's just not how things are done. The judge wasn't only within his rights, he was doing precisely what he ought to, under those circumstances.
She was sent to jail because the judge felt that a fine (which would be paid via gofundme or similar donation services) would not actually address the issue. Judges aren't required to fine instead of jail, it's simply an option.
Psienesis wrote: She was sent to jail because the judge felt that a fine (which would be paid via gofundme or similar donation services) would not actually address the issue. Judges aren't required to fine instead of jail, it's simply an option.
-Why not an injunction against her interfering with other employees issuing licenses?
-Send the existing marriage law back to the legislature to fix.
-Some that i can think of. I am not necessarily against the jail, but this now looks bad, looks vindictive.
Psienesis wrote: She was sent to jail because the judge felt that a fine (which would be paid via gofundme or similar donation services) would not actually address the issue. Judges aren't required to fine instead of jail, it's simply an option.
-Why not an injunction against her interfering with other employees issuing licenses?
-Send the existing marriage law back to the legislature to fix.
-Some that i can think of. I am not necessarily against the jail, but this now looks bad, looks vindictive.
He already ordered her to issue then in accordance with her job, a ruling that the SCOTUS upheld. I don't think a judge has to go "you know what, never mind, don't do your job" and take a previous ruling back after SCOTUS days "ditto" to the original ruling.
Maybe because he feels like there is now a process in place that is working: issuing licenses without her signature and involvement by the clerks. If she can go without screwing up that process she should be fine.
Because the clerk's office is now issuing licenses like it was supposed to be doing, in compliance with the court's order. Which it was not, and would not do while she was there.
So now that the clerk's office is doing it's job, and if she doesn't interfere to make it stop again, there's no need to find her in contempt of the order.
The fact is, Davis had MULTIPLE other possible solutions to her conumdrum, if she was actually acting in good faith, but it was here decision to go straight to the nuclear option that got her thrown in jail.
The fact is, Davis had MULTIPLE other possible solutions to her conumdrum, if she was actually acting in good faith, but it was here decision to go straight to the nuclear option that got her thrown in jail.
Psienesis wrote: She was sent to jail because the judge felt that a fine (which would be paid via gofundme or similar donation services) would not actually address the issue. Judges aren't required to fine instead of jail, it's simply an option.
-Why not an injunction against her interfering with other employees issuing licenses?
-Send the existing marriage law back to the legislature to fix.
-Some that i can think of. I am not necessarily against the jail, but this now looks bad, looks vindictive.
If you read the whole article, Kentuckian law already provides for her to claim a religious exception from putting her name on marriage licences, but she hasn't taken the course of invoking this state law and instead has involved herself with the Federal courts. I understand also that she prevented her deputies from issuing licences as well.
In other words, her stance is not one of protecting her personal religious freedom and beliefs, it is one of preventing gay people from marrying.
Frazzled wrote: Except contempt rarely sends you to jail in this context.
When you go around spouting how you are morally superior for ignoring the ruling that does tend to hack off a judge a bit more than if you were just slacking off a bit in complying. Add the publicity and I'd have been surprised if nothing like this had happened. That's the thing: when you around announcing the courts can go feth themselves you're going to be made an example of pretty much every time.
I'm sure you're right that someone who just doesn't bother to obey won't generally get himself shoved behind bars (not terribly quickly anyway), but that is just not what happened here. Not the same case *at all*.
I am especially amused by the crowd of ignorant savages gathering around the house of the judge to find him "in contempt of God's court" (their words) when, in fact, Jesus told them to obey the law of the land.
Kim Davis? Had her way to uphold her religious views, but decided not to take it. Jesus never said that following Him was going to be easy... but she's unwilling to give up that sweet, sweet government salary and pension. She, further, attempted to to force other people to follow her religion as a representative of the secular government of the State of Kentucky.
As the Bible says, the governments of the land are placed there by God. Perhaps she should consider the possibility that God doesn't really give a feth about gay marriage? There's plenty of Unitarian and Methodist congregations that welcome people of all walks, all colors, all sorts of people, that have spoken out in opposition to what Davis has tried doing, and this not to mention groups like the Church of Universal Life.
d-usa wrote: Didn't the judge state that fines wouldn't work because he was aware that other people would just pay the fine for her?
Couldn't the same be said for any fine as a sentence?
It probably could, but I think we had a high profile event here were it was pretty obvious that someone other than her would be bankrolling the fines.
Interestingly enough, some countries take your ability to pay a fine into account and are able to issue higher fines just because someone is richer. That way even a rich person "feels" the impact the same way a regular Joe would.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Couldn't the same be said for any fine as a sentence?
Sure it could be said of any fine, but most fines wouldn't have a realistic chance of being paid by strangers, whereas there are many misguided people willing to back someone as foolish as Kim. Most issues aren't raised to a national level either, but then it takes a special someone to simultaneously make Christians and government employees look like idiots.
d-usa wrote: It probably could, but I think we had a high profile event here were it was pretty obvious that someone other than her would be bankrolling the fines.
Why should the profile of the case matter? If Person A has fallen on hard times and Person B pays the fine to help them (especially given the current for profit criminal justice system which is stacked against the less well off) should Person A be jailed instead because someone else is paying the fine?
d-usa wrote: Interestingly enough, some countries take your ability to pay a fine into account and are able to issue higher fines just because someone is richer. That way even a rich person "feels" the impact the same way a regular Joe would.
Which would have been immaterial here as any fine (which would have potentially been paid by a 3rd party) would have been assessed against her income
A fine, despite increasing use as a revenue source by many areas, has nothing to do with the court getting paid. The fine is supposed to hurt the person who is fined, that is the purpose of the punishment. If you know a particular punishment will not work as it is designed to do, because it won't hurt that person, then you choose a different option.
d-usa wrote: A fine, despite increasing use as a revenue source by many areas, has nothing to do with the court getting paid. The fine is supposed to hurt the person who is fined, that is the purpose of the punishment. If you know a particular punishment will not work as it is designed to do, because it won't hurt that person, then you choose a different option.
At least a conservative judge has the cajones to throw her ass in jail...
Unlike a certain political body over an ex-Attorney General who was (and currently?) held in contempt.
d-usa wrote: A fine, despite increasing use as a revenue source by many areas, has nothing to do with the court getting paid. The fine is supposed to hurt the person who is fined, that is the purpose of the punishment. If you know a particular punishment will not work as it is designed to do, because it won't hurt that person, then you choose a different option.
But that still does not take account of Good Samaritans. If Person A has fallen on hard times and Person B pays the fine to help them (especially given the current for profit criminal justice system which is stacked against the less well off) should Person A be jailed instead because someone else is paying the fine?
d-usa wrote: A fine, despite increasing use as a revenue source by many areas, has nothing to do with the court getting paid. The fine is supposed to hurt the person who is fined, that is the purpose of the punishment. If you know a particular punishment will not work as it is designed to do, because it won't hurt that person, then you choose a different option.
But that still does not take account of Good Samaritans. If Person A has fallen on hard times and Person B pays the fine to help them (especially given the current for profit criminal justice system which is stacked against the less well off) should Person A be jailed instead because someone else is paying the fine?
None of this really has anything to do with why she wasn't fined.
I think I said it a couple pages back, but the reason why a fine wouldn't work in this case has nothing to do with if she, or anyone else would pay it. The whole point was to compel her to actually do her job, like the court told her she had to. If she'd be fined, whether she or anyone else paid it or not, she would've been able to go to work and keep on not doing her job the same as before. Jailing her for contempt instead of fining her allowed the clerk's office to start doing what it was supposed to again.
And just to add to the hilarity of this whole sideshow, it looks like when both Ted Cruze and Mike Huckabee showed up at her release, one of Huckabee's aides cock-blocked Cruz so that the Huckster could get the camera spotlight.
How may activist groups raise funds (and have funds set aside specifically) to pay off fines and bail when selected members get 'arrested for the cause' while protesting ?
Folks get their fines paid all the time, from big to small. In families with only one spouse with a job, does that spouse pay the other's fines? How many parents pay their kids' parking or speeding tickets?
How or from whom she raises the money is irrelevant. The point is, it was clear a fine would not have had the intended effect. She refused to comply with a lawful court order, she ran out of appeals, and she still refused to comply and would not agree to not prevent other people from complying, either. The reason she was jailed was to coerce her to obey the law. If a fine is levied and it's paid by others, over and over again, there is no coercive value. This seems pretty straightforward.
She's not the victim here. She's not a martyr. She's George Wallace in the schoolhouse door.
Ouze wrote: The point is, it was clear a fine would not have had the intended effect. She refused to comply with a lawful court order, she ran out of appeals, and she still refused to comply and would not agree to not prevent other people from complying, either. The reason she was jailed was to coerce her to obey the law. If a fine is levied and it's paid by others, over and over again, there is no coercive value. This seems pretty straightforward.
This sums it up nicely.
The court didn't impose a criminal penalty, where she was being punished after being found guilty for breaking a law. Contempt is used to compel compliance with (lawful) court orders; in this case, she got a LOT of bites at the apple, as every level of the Federal court system had a chance to weigh in.
d-usa wrote: A fine, despite increasing use as a revenue source by many areas, has nothing to do with the court getting paid. The fine is supposed to hurt the person who is fined, that is the purpose of the punishment. If you know a particular punishment will not work as it is designed to do, because it won't hurt that person, then you choose a different option.
But that still does not take account of Good Samaritans. If Person A has fallen on hard times and Person B pays the fine to help them (especially given the current for profit criminal justice system which is stacked against the less well off) should Person A be jailed instead because someone else is paying the fine?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Couldn't the same be said for any fine as a sentence?
Sure it could be said of any fine, but most fines wouldn't have a realistic chance of being paid by strangers, whereas there are many misguided people willing to back someone as foolish as Kim. Most issues aren't raised to a national level either, but then it takes a special someone to simultaneously make Christians and government employees look like idiots.
You people aren't thinking big enough. The Judge could have fined her (best Dr. Evil voice) Two Gazillion Dollars. Crowdfund that!
You people aren't thinking big enough. The Judge could have fined her (best Dr. Evil voice) Two Gazillion Dollars. Crowdfund that!
Nope. Charges all have minimum and maximum sentencing, usually with alternative jail and or monetary amounts; my guess here is that contempt in her state just has a max dollar amount of several thousand dollars.
The judge had to jail her because she was actively prohibiting people from doing their jobs while she was willfully ignoring court orders to do her own. Once she was out of the picture, the momentum of work exceeded her non-work so if she goes back now and tries to stop everything, she goes from martyr to bad guy.
She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.
Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:
d-usa wrote: She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.
Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:
incorrect. She was following Kentucky law. Kentucky law doesn't provide for same sex marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.
Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?
Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...
In this instance, she is violating court orders which were derived from a suit. The court is following the precedent set by SCOTUS that there is a fundamental right found in the Amendments.
d-usa wrote: She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.
Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:
incorrect. She was following Kentucky law. Kentucky law doesn't provide for same sex marriage.
No, Kentucky law provides for marriage. And Kentucky law directs that county clerks certify that applicants that apply for a marriage license meet the legal requirements for marriage and issue a license to all applicants that meet those requirements. By refusing to issue marriage licenses, to one or to all, she broke the law that specifies the functions of a county clerk in Kentucky.
Edit: To quote:
Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage
licenses.1 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple
must first go to the county clerk’s office and provide their biographical information to one
of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into
a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is
licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.2 Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents
this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage
ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk’s office for
recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize
marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.
Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?
Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...
The answer to all your questions is in the link to the actual ruling.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her main objection having her name on these same-sex certificates? Has she pursued any remedies at a State level yet?
Legalities aside:
Psienesis wrote: I am especially amused by the crowd of ignorant savages gathering around the house of the judge to find him "in contempt of God's court" (their words) when, in fact, Jesus told them to obey the law of the land.
I'm certain there is a famous story involving Daniel and a Den of Lions for doing exactly the opposite of that.
CptJake wrote: Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.
No Federal judges can jail people for not obeying federal court orders.
Which State law did she violate?
The law that directs county clerks to verify that applicants meet the legal requirements for marriage and to certify that the legal requirements are met on the license she is required by law to issue.
Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?
Remember that time you had, most likely, at least one rainbow colored picture show up on your Facebook feed? That's when KY, together with every other state in the Union, had gay marriage legalized by virtue of the SCOTUS.
Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...
She was sued for breaking the law, she was ordered by a court to stop breaking the law, she was jailed because she ignored the order to stop breaking the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humble Guardsman wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her main objection having her name on these same-sex certificates? Has she pursued any remedies at a State level yet?
She told the judge in her county "I can't do this, you do it since it's your job when I'm not in office" and the judge basically replied "wtf, you are totally in office, I'm not doing your job".
She also told the Governor to change the wording on the text or to exempt her.
The Governor, and the federal judge, are pretty much on record with the opinion that including her name, as the holder of the office of County Clerk, does not violate her 1st Amendment rights because the job of the County Clerk is simply to certify that the applicants meet the legal requirements to marry not that she approves of the marriage. She can think that they are all going to hell if she so wishes, but signing the license simply states "they meet the requirement of the law to marry" and not "I approve of this marriage".
d-usa wrote: She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.
Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:
incorrect. She was following Kentucky law. Kentucky law doesn't provide for same sex marriage.
No, Kentucky law provides for marriage. And Kentucky law directs that county clerks certify that applicants that apply for a marriage license meet the legal requirements for marriage and issue a license to all applicants that meet those requirements. By refusing to issue marriage licenses, to one or to all, she broke the law that specifies the functions of a county clerk in Kentucky.
Edit: To quote:
Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage
licenses.1 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple
must first go to the county clerk’s office and provide their biographical information to one
of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into
a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is
licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.2 Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents
this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage
ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk’s office for
recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize
marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.
Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?
Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...
The answer to all your questions is in the link to the actual ruling.
Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.
Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.
I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.
Humble Guardsman wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her main objection having her name on these same-sex certificates? Has she pursued any remedies at a State level yet?
She told the judge in her county "I can't do this, you do it since it's your job when I'm not in office" and the judge basically replied "wtf, you are totally in office, I'm not doing your job".
She also told the Governor to change the wording on the text or to exempt her.
The Governor, and the federal judge, are pretty much on record with the opinion that including her name, as the holder of the office of County Clerk, does not violate her 1st Amendment rights because the job of the County Clerk is simply to certify that the applicants meet the legal requirements to marry not that she approves of the marriage. She can think that they are all going to hell if she so wishes, but signing the license simply states "they meet the requirement of the law to marry" and not "I approve of this marriage".
Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.
I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
Frazzled wrote: No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
At some point one has to consider the possibility the discussion has degenerated into pigeon chess, and at that point it's foolhardy to be upset with the pigeon.
Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.
I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
I get it. The two straight couples that wanted to marry in the county, and who were included in the court case, don't actually exist and Davis has been issuing straight marriage licenses during this whole ordeal.
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
Frazz, she was refusing to issue licenses for straight couples as well. Two hetero couples are included in the initial suit against her if I can recall correctly.
Frazzled wrote: No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
At some point one has to consider the possibility the discussion has degenerated into pigeon chess, and at that point it's foolhardy to be upset with the pigeon.
mmm...so instead of agreeing to disagree or think "maybe he's right but its nothing to do with the issue" you insult me. Awesome.
Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.
I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
I get it. The two straight couples that wanted to marry in the county, and who were included in the court case, don't actually exist and Davis has been issuing straight marriage licenses during this whole ordeal.
They aren't the ones who sued. I'm not seeing why you people have burrs in your asses. They were suing to force her to perform her job, but thats only valid because SCOTUS found a previously unfound right in the Amendments. Otherwise she's perfectly within her capacity to sign said marriage certificate. Whats the problem? Rights cases don't necessarily hinge on a law, but often on its application.
Frazzled wrote: No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.
At some point one has to consider the possibility the discussion has degenerated into pigeon chess, and at that point it's foolhardy to be upset with the pigeon.
mmm...so instead of agreeing to disagree or think "maybe he's right but its nothing to do with the issue" you insult me. Awesome.
I think it's in the best interest of the thread to try and avoid a descent into intellectual Calvinball, and that there's a pretty firmly established track record of you asking questions, having them answered, and then either pretending they didn't get answered, moving the goalposts, or throwing out some confused derp into weird unrelated areas. For example,
I get it. The two straight couples that wanted to marry in the county, and who were included in the court case, don't actually exist and Davis has been issuing straight marriage licenses during this whole ordeal.
They aren't the ones who sued.
Are you ever going to actually read the actual ruling and comment on what actually happened, or are you just going to continue to make things up?
Fact: Kentucky law says that as a county clerk it is her job to certify that all applicants meet the requirements of the law and to issue them licenses.
Fact: Davis decided to no longer issue any licenses to anyone.
Fact: All couples, straight or gay, were unable to obtain services in the county because she decided to no longer follow the law.
Fact: Two straight couples, as well as two gay couples, are named in the suit seeking a ruling in their favor.
Article on page 1 of thread wrote:The next day, Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez were refused as well. After years of referring to Ms. Fernandez as “my wife,” Mr. Holloway, said he had hoped to “make it official.” But like Ms. Miller and Ms. Roberts, they left the courthouse here empty-handed.
“I don’t want to have a gay wedding — I want to have one with Jody — but I don’t care if other people do,” said Mr. Holloway, who, along with the others, is a plaintiff in the A.C.L.U. suit.
Not only is it in a 5 second Google search, but its in the OP.
So you can be coy if you want to, but I suspect everyone in this thread knows exactly how this particular game ends.
With some sort of "harhar dachshund/wienderdogs/cavemen/hunting dinosaurs/my daughter has new color hair and can beat me up/Texas is awesome/where is my burrito" comment?
She was ordered by the court to do her federal duty which she refused. She was found to be in contempt of court and was therefore jailed. Pretty simple.
Would anyone care to guess if she is going to comply?
I'm sure she will find some way to screw things up. I'm going back and forth between her having a bonfire in front of the building where she is burning all the blank licenses (aka "can't marry anyone if we don't have any licenses, lol") or locking them all up in a safe and refusing to tell anyone the combination (aka "can't marry anyone without the form and I have freedom of speech and can't be forced to say what the combination is, lol").
She might just tell her staff not to issue them again, but that wouldn't be as entertaining to watch.
Would anyone care to guess if she is going to comply?
We all know she's gonna wind up back in jail...
I'm wondering whats gonna happen when she fires her deputy clerks for issuing licenses. Would there be legal recourse? I imagine so (she would be firing them based off of religious discrimination), but I'm no expert on the law.
That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
Would anyone care to guess if she is going to comply?
She won't - she will be asked to step down. When she doesn't she will be fired. There will be lawsuits - which she will lose. Then all evangelicals can complain about how they are being persecuted because they can't impose their own religious beliefs on onto others.
Xenomancers wrote: [She won't - she will be asked to step down. When she doesn't she will be fired. There will be lawsuits - which she will lose. Then all evangelicals can complain about how they are being persecuted because they can't impose their own religious beliefs on onto others.
She is an elected official and cannot be fired.
The rest of those things have already happened though.
Ouze wrote: That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
Ouze wrote: That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
Masadan - did you mean Mastodon?
Blessed visionary
Cut me with your sun
The rivers ran in blood
Spark fueled to fire
Deep within this endless void
Searching for a sign
The vessel forged inside of me
Watches over like the death of the moon
Ouze wrote: That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
Masadan - did you mean Mastodon?
Blessed visionary
Cut me with your sun
The rivers ran in blood
Spark fueled to fire
Deep within this endless void
Searching for a sign
The vessel forged inside of me
Watches over like the death of the moon
I have that album on limited edition blue vinyl.
On topic, I'm glad I don't live in America so I don't have to put up with this nonsense.
I don't think she would dismiss all of them right off the bat, but Mr. Mason (deputy clerk from the article you posted) stands a good chance if he defies her.
Xenomancers wrote: [She won't - she will be asked to step down. When she doesn't she will be fired. There will be lawsuits - which she will lose. Then all evangelicals can complain about how they are being persecuted because they can't impose their own religious beliefs on onto others.
She is an elected official and cannot be fired.
The rest of those things have already happened though.
Impeachment then - might take some time. However in the meantime she can be replaced.
Ouze wrote: That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
So far as impeachment and removal goes, legislature is not in session until January. I think the governor can remove her if she's convicted of that charge they referred to the AG? But I'm not 100% sure of the details on that.
Ouze wrote: That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
Masadan - did you mean Mastodon?
Blessed visionary
Cut me with your sun
The rivers ran in blood
Spark fueled to fire
Deep within this endless void
Searching for a sign
The vessel forged inside of me
Watches over like the death of the moon
Ouze wrote: That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."
She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.
However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.
So far as impeachment and removal goes, legislature is not in session until January. I think the governor can remove her if she's convicted of that charge they referred to the AG? But I'm not 100% sure of the details on that.
Apologies - I had never heard that term before - and I really wanted to say Mastodon too so. Again...apologies.
angelofvengeance wrote: So do we know if she went back to work and actually started doing her job or did the prison time not work?
I believe she said she is going to keep doing what she was doing. Also I would imagine her ego is stoked even more that she has a presidential candidate on her side now.
I like how this will all blow over by the time the legislature goes in session and ousts here; by then the media will be on to another "issue" and everyone will have forgotten about her.
The only people I feel bad for are the ones that do not agree with her idiocy but will be painted with the same brush i.e. Christians and Conservatives.
Ashiraya wrote: But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?
I empathize with them, but do not feel bad for them, no. It isn't as if the system wasn't going to weed her out and eventually return to work giving out licenses as prescribed by the law, which it has done; the people that are there fighting for their rights don't need my sympathy either. Also, I am referring to this situation specifically, not all people in all situations.
Ashiraya wrote: But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?
I doubt anyone could not get married due to her tomfoolery. It is pretty easy to go to another county.
To quote the findings of the ruling:
- The people live in the county.
- The people have ties to the county
- The people pay taxes in their county
- The people want to get service from "their" county
- People in the community might not have the means to drive to the next county
- Half the other county clerks in the state are already on record stating that they also object to gay marriage and they are waiting on the outcome of this whole mess, so if one county gets away with it then half the state might not issue licenses
- there is zero reason why anyone should have to go anywhere just because one chick refuses to follow the law
Psienesis wrote: I am especially amused by the crowd of ignorant savages gathering around the house of the judge to find him "in contempt of God's court" (their words) when, in fact, Jesus told them to obey the law of the land.
You keep saying this over and over...so according to you in order to be a good german christian in nazi germany they should have never hidden jews..because afterall it was"THE LAW OF THE LAND" to hand over any hiding jews..if the gestapo was looking for them. So all of those christians that hid jews or really anyone from the nazis... were bad christians... or what about those nasty Christians who broke the law and helped negros escape the south in the underground railroad.....or what about those hypocritical christians that helped indians break the law during the time of Gandhi...or what about those Christians who refused to consider Caesar god and who were fed to the lions...what a bunch of hypocrites eh?
And adolf Eichmann was A good christian in your eyes because he obeyed the law of the land in nazi germany, and helped to kill Jews.
You need to read up on righteous civil disobedience and Christianity.
You also might want to read up on what a "virtuous lie" is..lying is also forbidden, but if you have to lie in order to save someones life(hiding jews from gestapo for example), the saving of a persons life overrides the prohibition on lying.
Things are not always as black and white as you would like to make them. That's why you need context.
generalgrog wrote: You keep saying this over and over...so according to you in order to be a good german christian in nazi germany they should have never hidden jews..because afterall it was"THE LAW OF THE LAND" to hand over any hiding jews..if the gestapo was looking for them. So all of those christians that hid jews or really anyone from the nazis... were bad christians... or what about those nasty Christians who broke the law and helped negros escape the south in the underground railroad.....or what about those hypocritical christians that helped indians break the law during the time of Gandhi...or what about those Christians who refused to consider Caesar god and who were fed to the lions...what a bunch of hypocrites eh?
All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...
Linking one side of the argument or the other to supporting the holocaust is hardly a polite way to argue. Do not follow that line of argument, it's rude and will lead to consequences.
All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...
All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...
So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.
Yes, and the majority of Alabama citizens didn't want to desegregate. As a matter of fact, they passed a series of laws to codify segregation. It's almost like the SCOTUS is designed to address just these sorts of issues.
All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...
So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.
Yes, and the majority of Alabama citizens didn't want to desegregate. As a matter of fact, they passed a series of laws to codify segregation. It's almost like the SCOTUS is designed to address just these sorts of issues.
And? Does that somehow negate my statement? My simple point is this woman's opinion is right along that of 75% of those in her state, including those who elected her.
All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...
So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.
Yes, and the majority of Alabama citizens didn't want to desegregate. As a matter of fact, they passed a series of laws to codify segregation. It's almost like the SCOTUS is designed to address just these sorts of issues.
And? Does that somehow negate my statement? My simple point is this woman's opinion is right along that of 75% of those in her state, including those who elected her.
Well, I mean, I suppose anyone in Jim Crow South who REALLY wanted to go to school with white kids could have just moved to New England (I'm paraphrasing your exact sentiment on homosexuals looking to get married in Rowan County). Let's not pretend that gay marriage was an election issue during the heated Rowan County Clerk's Race. Her job includes issuing marriage licenses to all those who meet the requirements. The SCOTUS, in their ruling, made homosexual couples part of the set that meets the requirements. SCOTUS overrides state law or state constitutions. Therefore, she is in contempt of court and in dereliction of duty for refusing to issue marriage licenses. There's not much to debate here. She's a bigot who doesn't want to play by the rules. Other bigots support her because they don't like the rule of law when it doesn't swing their way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Jake, democracy is only tolerable when it produces the "correct" results.
And if the results aren't to your liking, they must not be "correct"?
So far as impeachment and removal goes, legislature is not in session until January. I think the governor can remove her if she's convicted of that charge they referred to the AG? But I'm not 100% sure of the details on that.
I believe it was either mentioned earlier ITT, or I've seen it elsewhere on the net, that the Governor, while having the power to convene a special session, has already stated that he will not do so, because he feels it would be a waste of taxpayer money.
Ashiraya wrote: But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?
I doubt anyone could not get married due to her tomfoolery. It is pretty easy to go to another county.
Are people allowed to go to another county?
In the Church of England, you have to be a bachelor of the parish to marry. In other words, you can only get married at your own local church.
My wife and I got married in a county (and actually state) neither of us lived in at the time. I was stationed at Ft Knox, KY, she was at Ft Rucker, AL, and we drove to Panama City Beach, FL for a weekend and had a JOP hitch us.
You keep saying this over and over...so according to you in order to be a good german christian in nazi germany they should have never hidden jews..because afterall it was"THE LAW OF THE LAND" to hand over any hiding jews..if the gestapo was looking for them. So all of those christians that hid jews or really anyone from the nazis... were bad christians... or what about those nasty Christians who broke the law and helped negros escape the south in the underground railroad.....or what about those hypocritical christians that helped indians break the law during the time of Gandhi...or what about those Christians who refused to consider Caesar god and who were fed to the lions...what a bunch of hypocrites eh?
And adolf Eichmann was A good christian in your eyes because he obeyed the law of the land in nazi germany, and helped to kill Jews.
You need to read up on righteous civil disobedience and Christianity.
Christianity has been on both sides of civil disobedience. During the Civil War, churches gave sermons using the bible to defend slavery or call for abolition, depending on the region and the denomination. The Civil Rights movement was spurred on by black churches and northern liberal churches, while white southern churches surely didn't exactly support it.
I'm not interested in telling any particular Christian how to be Christian, any more than I'm interested in anybody telling me how to be Christian.
I am interested in telling elected officials, officers of the court, how to be a good officer of the court. And this isn't, technically, an issue of religion. It's an issue of conscious, which is highly related to religion, but there are well over a thousand County clerks in this nation, the majority of whom I am sure are christian, many of whom are practicing. That only one has decided that her job and her faith are at odds, this isn't a struggle with a core tenet of Christianity, but rather with her own conscious. That doesn't make it less real, or less valid of an argument, but what it does is not make any actions against her an "attack on Christianity."
As for this being civil disobedience... what's the good? All of the examples you cited generally showed people taking risks and breaking the law to help others. Who, exactly, is she helping here? I
You also might want to read up on what a "virtuous lie" is..lying is also forbidden, but if you have to lie in order to save someones life(hiding jews from gestapo for example), the saving of a persons life overrides the prohibition on lying.
I think most people (Kant excluded) would agree with you, but lying isn't a particularly harmful act, and saving a life is a very good thing. Denying people marriage licenses actually is a harmful act, and preventing gay marriage is... well, less morally laudable than saving a life.
Ashiraya wrote: But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?
I doubt anyone could not get married due to her tomfoolery. It is pretty easy to go to another county.
Are people allowed to go to another county?
In the Church of England, you have to be a bachelor of the parish to marry. In other words, you can only get married at your own local church.
It varies by state/county, but generally speaking, you need to register in the county you will marry in. My wife and I did not live in the county we got hitched, but we had to get our certificate/license there. In fact, we had to get it 48 hours before the event, but not more than 30 days before the event. If you don't have a venue and caterer locked in 30 days in advance, then you're obviously eloping or stupid.
Which brings up another point, if they want to get married in County A, but had to drive to County B to get their license, then they might not be able to marry in County A. If they've already spent $5000 on the venue, catering, etc, and then the County says "feth you, you fethers!" If Galveston County had not been issuing licenses 3 days before my marriage due to tomfoolery, I would have been out a lot of money.
Which brings up another point, if they want to get married in County A, but had to drive to County B to get their license, then they might not be able to marry in County A. If they've already spent $5000 on the venue, catering, etc, and then the County says "feth you, you fethers!" If Galveston County had not been issuing licenses 3 days before my marriage due to tomfoolery, I would have been out a lot of money.
Now what? What would have been my recourse?
I think too much importance is placed on having that piece of paper on the wedding day. Just go get married, party you heart out...then the following weeks, find a county who'll issue your license afterwards.
If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).
The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant
If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).
The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant
I think most people understand that, but it's also rude to tell a person how they should believe. We can disagree strongly with how she acts, but any time I see a comment along the lines of "well, if she were really a Christian/Fundamentalist/whatever she'd do X," it drives me up a wall. There are plenty of ways to have and express faith, and nobody gets to criticize another person for their beliefs.
It also distracts from the real issue. The issue isn't how good or bad of a Christian she is, it's how good or bad of a County Clerk she is.
It also distracts from the real issue. The issue isn't how good or bad of a Christian she is, it's how good or bad of a County Clerk she is.
Exactly. I'm perfectly okay with her judging all the gays that get a license from her office, I'm perfectly fine with her believing that they will go to hell, I'm perfectly fine if she closes her eyes for a few seconds after handing them her license to silently pray the gay away, I'm perfectly fine with her praying to God to strike down this sinful nation or whatever she wants to do.
As long as she does her job and signs the paper that says "I certify that they meet the legal requirements to get married" (and not "I approve of this marriage" like she seems to think) she can do all the other stuff as much as she wants to.
If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).
The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant
If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).
The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant
I think most people understand that, but it's also rude to tell a person how they should believe. We can disagree strongly with how she acts, but any time I see a comment along the lines of "well, if she were really a Christian/Fundamentalist/whatever she'd do X," it drives me up a wall. There are plenty of ways to have and express faith, and nobody gets to criticize another person for their beliefs.
It also distracts from the real issue. The issue isn't how good or bad of a Christian she is, it's how good or bad of a County Clerk she is.
Point well taken, I was off base there and certainly wouldn't think to tell someone directly, "You're doing it wrong." Philosophically though, it drives me batty when people make things up, whole cloth to justify their actions.
Maybe I'm just OCD since I spent all that time and money becoming knowledgable about such things...gotta justify my wasted youth somehow!
It's odd that she thinks that she's somehow approving of the marriage, personally when she signs the papers instead of just performing a duty of her office that benefits her constituency.
Before post edit: I looked up Kentucky's marriage license and can see where someone would become conflicted, "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person Legally Authorized to Solemnize Matrimony....."
Before post edit: I looked up Kentucky's marriage license and can see where someone would become conflicted, "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person Legally Authorized to Solemnize Matrimony....."
That's not really a problem IMO. It still just says "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person, this couple meets the legal requirements..." not "To any Minister...this couple has my personal approval and/or God's approval"
Before post edit: I looked up Kentucky's marriage license and can see where someone would become conflicted, "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person Legally Authorized to Solemnize Matrimony....."
That's not really a problem IMO. It still just says "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person, this couple meets the legal requirements..." not "To any Minister...this couple has my personal approval and/or God's approval"
I was just trying to see things from the other side. If the document were strictly a civil procedures document, she would have less ground for contention; however, the wording of the document adds religious relevance.
I like the Japanese system, civil documents have zero religious significance but for various reasons religiously significant language can be found throughout US official documents, even our money. For a country that accepts all religions, we don't really do a good job of keeping them all on the same footing, officially.
If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).
The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant
I agree! Go all in or GTFO!
Spoiler:
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
That's actually a lot closer to the truth than you think.
King James really hated gay people, and he was the one who oversaw the production of the King James Bible.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
That's actually a lot closer to the truth than you think.
King James really hated gay people, and he was the one who oversaw the production of the King James Bible.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
motyak wrote: Linking one side of the argument or the other to supporting the holocaust is hardly a polite way to argue. Do not follow that line of argument, it's rude and will lead to consequences.
Youve got to be kidding me... I was using an illustration to show how absurd his contention is that your a hypocritical Christian if you don't follow the laws of the land(in all cases).
I wasn't saying he agreed with the holocuast....
mod fail.
GG
edit...thats why I threw in two other Examples, becauseI knew the knee jerk godwinists would chime in.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
Sorry, off-topic.
I think you mean Romans was written by Paul.
Leviticus, while traditionally written by Moses, was almost certainly hundreds of years before Christ.
You keep saying this over and over...so according to you in order to be a good german christian in nazi germany they should have never hidden jews..because afterall it was"THE LAW OF THE LAND" to hand over any hiding jews..if the gestapo was looking for them. So all of those christians that hid jews or really anyone from the nazis... were bad christians... or what about those nasty Christians who broke the law and helped negros escape the south in the underground railroad.....or what about those hypocritical christians that helped indians break the law during the time of Gandhi...or what about those Christians who refused to consider Caesar god and who were fed to the lions...what a bunch of hypocrites eh?
And adolf Eichmann was A good christian in your eyes because he obeyed the law of the land in nazi germany, and helped to kill Jews.
You need to read up on righteous civil disobedience and Christianity.
Christianity has been on both sides of civil disobedience. During the Civil War, churches gave sermons using the bible to defend slavery or call for abolition, depending on the region and the denomination. The Civil Rights movement was spurred on by black churches and northern liberal churches, while white southern churches surely didn't exactly support it.
I'm not interested in telling any particular Christian how to be Christian, any more than I'm interested in anybody telling me how to be Christian.
I am interested in telling elected officials, officers of the court, how to be a good officer of the court. And this isn't, technically, an issue of religion. It's an issue of conscious, which is highly related to religion, but there are well over a thousand County clerks in this nation, the majority of whom I am sure are christian, many of whom are practicing. That only one has decided that her job and her faith are at odds, this isn't a struggle with a core tenet of Christianity, but rather with her own conscious. That doesn't make it less real, or less valid of an argument, but what it does is not make any actions against her an "attack on Christianity."
As for this being civil disobedience... what's the good? All of the examples you cited generally showed people taking risks and breaking the law to help others. Who, exactly, is she helping here? I
You also might want to read up on what a "virtuous lie" is..lying is also forbidden, but if you have to lie in order to save someones life(hiding jews from gestapo for example), the saving of a persons life overrides the prohibition on lying.
I think most people (Kant excluded) would agree with you, but lying isn't a particularly harmful act, and saving a life is a very good thing. Denying people marriage licenses actually is a harmful act, and preventing gay marriage is... well, less morally laudable than saving a life.
I wasn't saying that her action was of equal "virtuousness" as the examples I cited (that is yours (and others) reading into my post). I was simply using examples of Christians disobeying laws of the land due to there conscience, to correct psi's errant view that Christians are required by God to obey the law of the land, in all cases. Certainly Christians should render unto Caesar what is Caesars, as long as that rendering doesn't conflict with Gods will. Hence why many Christians were martyred in the early years of the Church.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
Sorry, off-topic.
I think you mean Romans was written by Paul.
Leviticus, while traditionally written by Moses, was almost certainly hundreds of years before Christ.
You're correct, I got it mixed-up a bit. Old Testament/New Testament. Which is why it was ancient Hebrew vs the Greek that Paul used. I guess I'm getting old.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
Sorry, off-topic.
I think you mean Romans was written by Paul.
Leviticus, while traditionally written by Moses, was almost certainly hundreds of years before Christ.
You're correct, I got it mixed-up a bit. Old Testament/New Testament. Which is why it was ancient Hebrew vs the Greek that Paul used. I guess I'm getting old.
Does it even matter in this instance? If she really wants to stay true to her faith and not issue any marriage that isn't condoned by her church (I believe she's Baptist?) then to be consistent she should be refusing to issue licenses to Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because none of those couples are in compliance with her sect of Protestant Christianity. She's just refusing to marry gays so its a cut and dried case of descrimination and failure to uphold her official responsibilities. She can't pick and choose who can get married, that's not her job, her job is to issue licenses to every eligible couple that wants one.
If Kentucky was contesting the SCOTUS decision and the issue of the legality of gay marriage was still in legal limbo due to injunctions or appeals or whatever she might have legal standing to refuse to issue licenses to gays but to my knowledge that's not the case.
Evangelicals really do themselves a disservice when they conflate private religious beliefs with public responsibilities. The state of Kentucky is not requiring the clerk to do anything that violates her personal religious views against gay marriage because the state isn't asking her to get married to a woman. This is like a vegan or a buddhist refusing to issue a hunting license. If you're not specifically partaking in an activity that violates your personal religion then the govt isn't infringing upon your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Does it even matter in this instance? If she really wants to stay true to her faith and not issue any marriage that isn't condoned by her church (I believe she's Baptist?) then to be consistent she should be refusing to issue licenses to Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because none of those couples are in compliance with her sect of Protestant Christianity. She's just refusing to marry gays so its a cut and dried case of descrimination and failure to uphold her official responsibilities. She can't pick and choose who can get married, that's not her job, her job is to issue licenses to every eligible couple that wants one.
If Kentucky was contesting the SCOTUS decision and the issue of the legality of gay marriage was still in legal limbo due to injunctions or appeals or whatever she might have legal standing to refuse to issue licenses to gays but to my knowledge that's not the case.
Evangelicals really do themselves a disservice when they conflate private religious beliefs with public responsibilities. The state of Kentucky is not requiring the clerk to do anything that violates her personal religious views against gay marriage because the state isn't asking her to get married to a woman. This is like a vegan or a buddhist refusing to issue a hunting license. If you're not specifically partaking in an activity that violates your personal religion then the govt isn't infringing upon your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Well, the counter is that it does matter to her. For whatever, IMO selfish, reason she's hellbent on not issuing any licenses, to anyone. From a purely academic standpoint, I'm curious as to what authority in the bible she's appealing to in order to support her decision....since she's supposedly doing this for religious reasons.
If it's Leviticus then she's sinning because she's actively preventing what the bible espouses the human condition to be, one of marriage with one person tied to another. Leviticus stresses that it is God's will that man(kind) be married and by thwarting God's will, she'll have to make an accounting in the afterlife. If it's Romans, her position is derived from one of ignorance because she's using an inferior translation of the original Greek; not to mention she'd be an adulteress as defined by Romans anyway and she's forgetting the whole, "let he without sin cast the first stone" thing.
IMO, she doesn't like homosexuality, on a personal level, and is using her religion as a shield to protect her from being labeled what she is. It's distasteful but something that we Americans appear to not only condone but encourage with all of our supposed religious protections...funny how they only apply if you're Christian.
Edit:
As your signature states, the world wants to be deceived and so it is deceived.
Does it even matter in this instance? If she really wants to stay true to her faith and not issue any marriage that isn't condoned by her church (I believe she's Baptist?) then to be consistent she should be refusing to issue licenses to Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because none of those couples are in compliance with her sect of Protestant Christianity. She's just refusing to marry gays so its a cut and dried case of descrimination and failure to uphold her official responsibilities. She can't pick and choose who can get married, that's not her job, her job is to issue licenses to every eligible couple that wants one.
If Kentucky was contesting the SCOTUS decision and the issue of the legality of gay marriage was still in legal limbo due to injunctions or appeals or whatever she might have legal standing to refuse to issue licenses to gays but to my knowledge that's not the case.
Evangelicals really do themselves a disservice when they conflate private religious beliefs with public responsibilities. The state of Kentucky is not requiring the clerk to do anything that violates her personal religious views against gay marriage because the state isn't asking her to get married to a woman. This is like a vegan or a buddhist refusing to issue a hunting license. If you're not specifically partaking in an activity that violates your personal religion then the govt isn't infringing upon your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Well, the counter is that it does matter to her. For whatever, IMO selfish, reason she's hellbent on not issuing any licenses, to anyone. From a purely academic standpoint, I'm curious as to what authority in the bible she's appealing to in order to support her decision....since she's supposedly doing this for religious reasons.
If it's Leviticus then she's sinning because she's actively preventing what the bible espouses the human condition to be, one of marriage with one person tied to another. Leviticus stresses that it is God's will that man(kind) be married and by thwarting God's will, she'll have to make an accounting in the afterlife. If it's Romans, her position is derived from one of ignorance because she's using an inferior translation of the original Greek; not to mention she'd be an adulteress as defined by Romans anyway and she's forgetting the whole, "let he without sin cast the first stone" thing.
IMO, she doesn't like homosexuality, on a personal level, and is using her religion as a shield to protect her from being labeled what she is. It's distasteful but something that we Americans appear to not only condone but encourage with all of our supposed religious protections...funny how they only apply if you're Christian.
Edit:
As your signature states, the world wants to be deceived and so it is deceived.
Thought: One reason I've heard that they don't simply fire the lady is because she's an elected official.
Despite the uproar she's caused, from what I understand she has been sent back to work with instructions not to interfere with marriage licensure.
Lastly, Kentucky isn't what I'd guess is a hotbed of liberal sympathizers, and this lady has quite a few supporters, both in Kentucky and across the country.
So, when it comes time for reelections, what's the odds of her getting reelected? Again, while her stance is certainly divisive, people are going to come out of the woodwork for that vote. And I assume there's simply more supporters than detractors in Kentucky for her on this issue.
It just seems ironic that not only is the lady not being penalized for not doing her job, she may well have cemented a position for herself with the Kentucky voters.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Thought: One reason I've heard that they don't simply fire the lady is because she's an elected official.
Despite the uproar she's caused, from what I understand she has been sent back to work with instructions not to interfere with marriage licensure.
Lastly, Kentucky isn't what I'd guess is a hotbed of liberal sympathizers, and this lady has quite a few supporters, both in Kentucky and across the country.
So, when it comes time for reelections, what's the odds of her getting reelected? Again, while her stance is certainly divisive, people are going to come out of the woodwork for that vote. And I assume there's simply more supporters than detractors in Kentucky for her on this issue.
It just seems ironic that not only is the lady not being penalized for not doing her job, she may well have cemented a position for herself with the Kentucky voters.
I'm assuming that the state legislature will reconvene in the spring before her office is up for reelection. The legislature can yank her out of office and then the county can set up an "emergency" election to fill the position.
The Governor is loathe to call a special session of the legislature as it costs money to do so, a great deal of money, and it would lend too much weight to someone who is acting like a willful child (my words, not his).
Her 15 minutes will be up about the time the legislature convenes and she'll quietly go away, only to be seen as a speaker on Fox.
agnosto wrote: she'll quietly go away, only to be seen as a speaker on Fox.
I'm sorry to look like I'm jumping all over you, which I'm not, but you keep reminding me of some of my pet peeves in this saga.
I think that a lot of people are too quick to assume she has secondary gain as her goal here, and they are even quicker (and IMO, wrongly) to think that she'll actually reap a fiscal benefit from this.
At the end of the day, the religious right tends to be big into law and order, and respect for authority. I don't think the support is as fertile as some people think.
As for making a media career, unlike other polarizing figures, she doesn't appear to be particularly articulate or charismatic.
I think if she's doing this to become a right wing star, she's going to be sadly disappointed. That said, my gut says this isn't about money or fame. I think she honestly believes this stuff, whether due to passionate faith or because she's a little off.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Thought: One reason I've heard that they don't simply fire the lady is because she's an elected official.
Despite the uproar she's caused, from what I understand she has been sent back to work with instructions not to interfere with marriage licensure.
Lastly, Kentucky isn't what I'd guess is a hotbed of liberal sympathizers, and this lady has quite a few supporters, both in Kentucky and across the country.
So, when it comes time for reelections, what's the odds of her getting reelected? Again, while her stance is certainly divisive, people are going to come out of the woodwork for that vote. And I assume there's simply more supporters than detractors in Kentucky for her on this issue.
It just seems ironic that not only is the lady not being penalized for not doing her job, she may well have cemented a position for herself with the Kentucky voters.
I'm assuming that the state legislature will reconvene in the spring before her office is up for reelection. The legislature can yank her out of office and then the county can set up an "emergency" election to fill the position.
The Governor is loathe to call a special session of the legislature as it costs money to do so, a great deal of money, and it would lend too much weight to someone who is acting like a willful child (my words, not his).
Her 15 minutes will be up about the time the legislature convenes and she'll quietly go away, only to be seen as a speaker on Fox.
Why do you assume the legislature will do anything to her? They could more easily change the marriage certification law/rules such that another person in the office can be substituted to sign (or anyone in the office at a certain level has the capacity-aka what is effectively occurring now).
Do not assume that she in unpopular there just because the media doesn't like here. Reportedly there are multiple other registrars there, waiting to see how the chips fall as they have taken the same position as her.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Thought: One reason I've heard that they don't simply fire the lady is because she's an elected official.
Despite the uproar she's caused, from what I understand she has been sent back to work with instructions not to interfere with marriage licensure.
Lastly, Kentucky isn't what I'd guess is a hotbed of liberal sympathizers, and this lady has quite a few supporters, both in Kentucky and across the country.
So, when it comes time for reelections, what's the odds of her getting reelected? Again, while her stance is certainly divisive, people are going to come out of the woodwork for that vote. And I assume there's simply more supporters than detractors in Kentucky for her on this issue.
It just seems ironic that not only is the lady not being penalized for not doing her job, she may well have cemented a position for herself with the Kentucky voters.
I'm assuming that the state legislature will reconvene in the spring before her office is up for reelection. The legislature can yank her out of office and then the county can set up an "emergency" election to fill the position.
The Governor is loathe to call a special session of the legislature as it costs money to do so, a great deal of money, and it would lend too much weight to someone who is acting like a willful child (my words, not his).
Her 15 minutes will be up about the time the legislature convenes and she'll quietly go away, only to be seen as a speaker on Fox.
Unfortunately, a special election will probably be just as much of an economic hardship for the county as the special session of the legislature would be for the state. Holding elections isn't cheap and I'm sure the county didn't budget extra funds just in case their clerk decided to be incredibly unprofessional and petulant.
agnosto wrote: she'll quietly go away, only to be seen as a speaker on Fox.
I'm sorry to look like I'm jumping all over you, which I'm not, but you keep reminding me of some of my pet peeves in this saga.
I think that a lot of people are too quick to assume she has secondary gain as her goal here, and they are even quicker (and IMO, wrongly) to think that she'll actually reap a fiscal benefit from this.
At the end of the day, the religious right tends to be big into law and order, and respect for authority. I don't think the support is as fertile as some people think.
As for making a media career, unlike other polarizing figures, she doesn't appear to be particularly articulate or charismatic.
I think if she's doing this to become a right wing star, she's going to be sadly disappointed. That said, my gut says this isn't about money or fame. I think she honestly believes this stuff, whether due to passionate faith or because she's a little off.
No. I believe that she has sincerely held beliefs, no matter how I feel that they are misguided; all of which will not prevent her from being a puppet for some special interest.
Sarah Palin believed she could see Russia from her back porch and she's been around how long? (tongue in cheek, don't read too much into this comment)
Why do you assume the legislature will do anything to her? They could more easily change the marriage certification law/rules such that another person in the office can be substituted to sign (or anyone in the office at a certain level has the capacity-aka what is effectively occurring now).
Do not assume that she in unpopular there just because the media doesn't like here. Reportedly there are multiple other registrars there, waiting to see how the chips fall as they have taken the same position as her.
*shrug* It depends on a number of factors. If she goes back to work and then obstructs her office from doing work, she prolongs the whole thing and keeps the media focused on Kentucky, portraying the state as the land of bigots in an era of rainbow flags. The long this goes on, I'd say the greater the chance she gets bounced in the spring and conservative politicians have a leg to stand on by toeing the, "it's not about religion, it's about following the rules and we all have to follow the rules..." line.
Something I read said that about 1/2 of the clerks in the state are waiting to see how this turns out. If the legislature has any people with intelligence at all, they'll impeach her quickly to head off 1/2 the state turning into no-marriage ville.....utopia?
Unfortunately, a special election will probably be just as much of an economic hardship for the county as the special session of the legislature would be for the state. Holding elections isn't cheap and I'm sure the county didn't budget extra funds just in case their clerk decided to be incredibly unprofessional and petulant.
It's not as bad as you think. Most communities have elections of one sort or another every July and/or November; check your community calendar, you might be surprised if you're not a regular voter.
If they impeach her in the Spring, the deputy will hold office until a clerk is duly elected; it's not that big of a deal and happens when people die, step down or any number of other instances where a vacancy in a publicly held office arises.
Do not assume that she in unpopular there just because the media doesn't like here.
Right, that's the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter what the anyone here, on in the media, or anywhere else thinks of the lady or the issue, if she's an elected official the only people whose opinions truly matter on the subject are the voters of Kentucky.
And if her stance strikes a chord with the voters, which I'd be willing to bet it does, than there's nothing anyone can say that will override the Kentucky voters.
I suppose the Kentucky government higher-ups could do something, special elections and whatnot have been mentioned, but again, and not to be demeaning, but this is Kentucky, not new York or California we're talking about here, so I'd be willing to bet that getting the higher-ups to do something about her is going to be like pulling teeth.
And here's another thought: Lets say someone, say the governor of Kentucky does comes down hard and does something drastic to see her removed or barred from office.
How do you think the voters of Kentucky will view him in the next election cycle? What kind of political ads do you suppose his opponents will have on the subject?
I mean, I might be off base here, but I would be very, very surprised if she wasn't extremely popular in Kentucky, and if so, any state politician who swats her down is going to find himself in a bit of trouble come next election cycle.
Do not assume that she in unpopular there just because the media doesn't like here.
Right, that's the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter what the anyone here, on in the media, or anywhere else thinks of the lady or the issue, if she's an elected official the only people whose opinions truly matter on the subject are the voters of Kentucky.
And if her stance strikes a chord with the voters, which I'd be willing to bet it does, than there's nothing anyone can say that will override the Kentucky voters.
I suppose the Kentucky government higher-ups could do something, special elections and whatnot have been mentioned, but again, and not to be demeaning, but this is Kentucky, not new York or California we're talking about here, so I'd be willing to bet that getting the higher-ups to do something about her is going to be like pulling teeth.
And here's another thought: Lets say someone, say the governor of Kentucky does comes down hard and does something drastic to see her removed or barred from office.
How do you think the voters of Kentucky will view him in the next election cycle? What kind of political ads do you suppose his opponents will have on the subject?
I mean, I might be off base here, but I would be very, very surprised if she wasn't extremely popular in Kentucky, and if so, any state politician who swats her down is going to find himself in a bit of trouble come next election cycle.
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure any State established same sex marriage though popular vote or legislation. I think it was a court ruling, even if only state courts.
Polonius wrote: I could be wrong, but I'm not sure any State established same sex marriage though popular vote or legislation. I think it was a court ruling, even if only state courts.
Most of the country had laws allowing gay marriage prior to the SCOTUS Ruling:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming and Washington DC.
States using a popular vote or legislation to legalize prior to Obergefell (rather than state or Federal court decision):
California (via a very roundabout way), Connecticut, Washington DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Ahtman wrote: The only people I feel bad for are the ones that do not agree with her idiocy but will be painted with the same brush i.e. Christians and Conservatives.
Psienesis wrote: Most of the country had laws allowing gay marriage prior to the SCOTUS Ruling:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming and Washington DC.
States using a popular vote or legislation to legalize prior to Obergefell (rather than state or Federal court decision):
California (via a very roundabout way), Connecticut, Washington DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
North Carolina never legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage was outlawed by state statute since 1996 and then when the state law was ruled to be inconsistent with the state constitution by a state judge the state passed a constitutional amendment in 2012 making the only valid domestic legal union being one between a man and a woman. Some cities/muncipalities in the state chose to recognize same sex domestic partnerships but in terms of the state legislature and state constitution gay marriage was never made legal here in NC. The US District Court ruled in October of 2014 that the state ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional so by judicial ruling gay marriage has been legal in NC for the last 11 months but no law or popular referendum was ever passed legalizing gay marriage here.
On June 18, 1996, the North Carolina State Senate passed a bill banning same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriage out of state by a vote of 41-4. That same day, the North Carolina House of Representatives voted 98-10 in favor of the bill. It was ratified and went into effect on June 20, 1996.[1][2][3][4]
On September 12, 2011, the North Carolina House of Representatives voted 75-42 in favor of North Carolina Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and any "domestic legal union."[5][6][7] On September 13, 2011, North Carolina State Senate voted 30-16 in favor of the bill.[8][9] On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the of the amendment by a vote of 61.04% to 38.96%.[10]
The amendment added to Section XVI of the North Carolina Constitution:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
North Carolina was the 30th state, and the last of the former Confederate states, to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage so as to exclude same-sex couples.[11]
On July 28, after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer held that Virginia's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced he would no longer defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. He said that because all judges in North Carolina were bound by the Fourth Circuit's precedent, "today we know our law will almost surely be overturned as well. Simply put, it's time to stop making arguments we will lose and instead move forward knowing the ultimate resolution will likely come from the United States Supreme Court."
Oath Keepers had a good foundation at one point, but it just seems like they are moving farther and farther into WTF territory with every opportunity to make themselves seem relevant.
Of course they were also claiming to hand out a bunch of guns to Ferguson protesters because they should have a right to be armed, and I don't think anything ever actually came out of those plans...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking of people who are never shy to seize the opportunity to promote themselves:
Mr.Church13 wrote: So a bunch of religious people are brandishing guns to scare people into doing what they want with threats of violence.
And it's not in a Middle Eastern Nation? The hypocrisy is strong with this group.
What gives you the impression the Oath Keepers consider themselves religious or are religiously motivated? Maybe you are confusing them with another group?
Mr.Church13 wrote: So a bunch of religious people are brandishing guns to scare people into doing what they want with threats of violence.
And it's not in a Middle Eastern Nation? The hypocrisy is strong with this group.
What gives you the impression the Oath Keepers consider themselves religious or are religiously motivated? Maybe you are confusing them with another group?
Because they have repeatedly referred to themselves as a Christian Patriot Militia.
Are oath keepers the christian version of black lives matter?
Nah, just another incarnation of the kind of idiots who flocked to the Bundy ranch 'cause the big bad government was enforcing the law. Or at least that is how it comes across when you side with Davis and call her incarceration illegal.
If they want to support people who have been illegally incarcerated then there's still some people in Guantanamo Bay.
Not exactly. They're a right-wing para-military organization that claims to be "defending the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". How they think they are protecting the Constitution in this situation is beyond me.
Mr.Church13 wrote: So a bunch of religious people are brandishing guns to scare people into doing what they want with threats of violence.
And it's not in a Middle Eastern Nation? The hypocrisy is strong with this group.
What gives you the impression the Oath Keepers consider themselves religious or are religiously motivated? Maybe you are confusing them with another group?
Probably the similarity in name to the Promise Keepers.
Coupled with the reliable Venn Diagram bingo of right wing anti-government fear and Christianity.
Mr.Church13 wrote: So a bunch of religious people are brandishing guns to scare people into doing what they want with threats of violence.
And it's not in a Middle Eastern Nation? The hypocrisy is strong with this group.
NO. thats not whats happening. good try to paint them with the same brush derp derp.
They've used weakly veiled threats of violence against the U.S. Government to get it to comply with their demands. There's no way this can be interpreted as anything but a domestic terrorist group.
Even if you leave off the religious connotations, because I'm pretty sure you don "have" to be religious to be a terrorist. It's really just a numbers game by association. They're still terrorists using fear and threats to Make points and Force their view on people.
Mr.Church13 wrote: So a bunch of religious people are brandishing guns to scare people into doing what they want with threats of violence.
And it's not in a Middle Eastern Nation? The hypocrisy is strong with this group.
NO. thats not whats happening. good try to paint them with the same brush derp derp.
They've used weakly veiled threats of violence against the U.S. Government to get it to comply with their demands. There's no way this can be interpreted as anything but a domestic terrorist group.
They are not a bunch of religious people. They are a bunch of antigovernment wackjobs. Different intent.
Whether or not you want to call them terrorists is another issue. They're just not religious as a baseline and motivation. But they do like to get their tacticool on.
I really loved the one Bundy scene with the guy in deep prone overwatch, with... a .22lr HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. My daughter shot a rifle like that and made bullseye when she was 8!
Mr.Church13 wrote: So a bunch of religious people are brandishing guns to scare people into doing what they want with threats of violence.
And it's not in a Middle Eastern Nation? The hypocrisy is strong with this group.
What gives you the impression the Oath Keepers consider themselves religious or are religiously motivated? Maybe you are confusing them with another group?
Because they have repeatedly referred to themselves as a Christian Patriot Militia.
Where?
Not on their website:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.
Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it. See below for details on how we do that. Oath Keepers also includes a membership program designated as “Associate Members”, which consists of patriotic citizens who have not served in uniform but who serve now by supporting this mission with their Associate Membership and volunteer activities. Oath Keepers welcomes our Associate Members and appreciates their support of our mission.
Maybe you're right maybe they aren't religious, I just keep seeing the words "heavily armed self-described Cristian Patriot militia" in news stories.
But like I said religious affiliation aside still a terrorist group. Honestly I hope they're smart enough to stay out of the way when Davis goes to jail again, because as someone said above terrorism doesn't have a very successful history as a tactic.
Kim Davis is definitely not worth their Waco moment.
Mr.Church13 wrote: Maybe you're right maybe they aren't religious, I just keep seeing the words "heavily armed self-described Cristian Patriot militia" in news stories.
But like I said religious affiliation aside still a terrorist group. Honestly I hope they're smart enough to stay out of the way when Davis goes to jail again, because as someone said above terrorism doesn't have a very successful history as a tactic.
Kim Davis is definitely not worth their Waco moment.
And really when it comes down to it...
Are they really going to shoot a US marshal, most likely on live television or at the very least recorded due to the media attention (to say nothing of bystanders with mobile phones) this story is getting, in cold blood for enforcing the law?
That is why I am questioning their involvement. If anyone in this situation needs the aid of those "sworn to defend the Constitution", it's the judge and those seeking marriage licenses.
Psienesis wrote: That is why I am questioning their involvement. If anyone in this situation needs the aid of those "sworn to defend the Constitution", it's the judge and those seeking marriage licenses.
I think we can all agree that a heavily armed vigilante group with intense political beliefs is the best thing to really calm down any situation.
Psienesis wrote: That is why I am questioning their involvement. If anyone in this situation needs the aid of those "sworn to defend the Constitution", it's the judge and those seeking marriage licenses.
Ah but in the eyes of these kinds of groups only the government does things against the constitution, never the individual
A Town Called Malus wrote: Ah but in the eyes of these kinds of groups only the government does things against the constitution, never the individual
Strictly speaking, the constitution only binds the government, with one specific exception: ownership of chattel slavery.
Of course, governments are made of people, but the reason she can deprive others of a constitutional right is not because she is acting as an individual, but as the a government official.
CNN wrote:Kim Davis, county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, returned to work Monday, saying she will not issue any marriage licenses that go against her religious beliefs -- but she left the door open for her deputies to continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as long as those documents do not have Davis' name or title on them.
Davis acknowledged that she is not sure on the legality of licenses altered in such a way.
Davis spent five days behind bars this month for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses -- something she is legally obligated to do under state and federal law.
On her first day back at work, she read a statement calling for state authorities to find a solution to accommodate her religious beliefs.
"Effective immediately, and until an accommodation is provided by those with the authority to provide it, any marriage license issued by my office will not be issued or authorized by me," Davis said.
In the meantime, she offered an interim resolution, but it is unclear if it passes legal muster:
If her deputies -- who had been issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples in her absence -- continue to do so, Davis said she will not stop them, but that those certificates must not have her name or title, and must instead state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning "indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage license even though he was not certain of their validity," Davis said. "I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid."
It's not clear how Bunning will respond to Davis' proposal.
"If Ms. Davis stops them from issuing licenses, then we are right back where we started," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, before Davis made her statement. "And Judge Bunning has made it quite clear, he will lock her back up."
Governor: No special session
Since being released from jail last week, Davis has been lying low and opening boxes of letters sent to her while she was in jail.
"I am deeply moved by all those who prayed for me," she said in a statement. "All I can say is that I am amazed and very grateful."
Davis' legal team has been busy on her behalf, filing motions that suggest her brief stint in jail did nothing to change her mind.
On Friday, for example, her defense attorneys asked Bunning for "injunctive relief," which essentially amounts to a request that she be exempt from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the matter is resolved by the Federal Court of Appeals. The judge denied the appeal.
Davis' attorney, Mat Staver, said a solution would be to remove not just Davis' name and office from the marriage licenses themselves but from the process entirely. Have the state issue them instead, he said.
Sounds simple enough, but under current Kentucky state law, the authority to issue marriage licenses rests solely with each of the state's 120 county clerks, meaning it would take an act of the legislature to transfer that authority. The legislature, however, doesn't convene until January 5, and Gov. Steve Beshear has said he has no intention of calling lawmakers back to Frankfort for an emergency session before then.
Legislation in the works
Kentucky state Senate President Robert Stivers told CNN last week that a legislative solution was in the works and it would likely pass quickly when lawmakers convene in January.
But that is still some three months away, three months in which Davis, who refuses to resign, will still have the authority to issue -- or to not issue -- marriage licenses in Rowan County.
"It's a very, very difficult decision that no one wants to have," said Staver. "Choose your job, or choose your faith."
She's trying to toe the line between being in contempt (and being jailed again) and "betraying" her faith. This should be more interesting by next week.
She's saying she doesn't think it's legal. By that logic she's still in contempt by refusing to issue legal licenses. I feel that she's either going to cave and do her job, or go back to jail. There is no middle grounds until January.
If those licenses are no good, think of the suits against the state for saying "go ahead"
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...
CNN wrote:Kim Davis, county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, returned to work Monday, saying she will not issue any marriage licenses that go against her religious beliefs -- but she left the door open for her deputies to continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as long as those documents do not have Davis' name or title on them.
Davis acknowledged that she is not sure on the legality of licenses altered in such a way.
Davis spent five days behind bars this month for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses -- something she is legally obligated to do under state and federal law.
On her first day back at work, she read a statement calling for state authorities to find a solution to accommodate her religious beliefs.
"Effective immediately, and until an accommodation is provided by those with the authority to provide it, any marriage license issued by my office will not be issued or authorized by me," Davis said.
In the meantime, she offered an interim resolution, but it is unclear if it passes legal muster:
If her deputies -- who had been issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples in her absence -- continue to do so, Davis said she will not stop them, but that those certificates must not have her name or title, and must instead state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning "indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage license even though he was not certain of their validity," Davis said. "I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid."
It's not clear how Bunning will respond to Davis' proposal.
"If Ms. Davis stops them from issuing licenses, then we are right back where we started," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, before Davis made her statement. "And Judge Bunning has made it quite clear, he will lock her back up."
Governor: No special session
Since being released from jail last week, Davis has been lying low and opening boxes of letters sent to her while she was in jail.
"I am deeply moved by all those who prayed for me," she said in a statement. "All I can say is that I am amazed and very grateful."
Davis' legal team has been busy on her behalf, filing motions that suggest her brief stint in jail did nothing to change her mind.
On Friday, for example, her defense attorneys asked Bunning for "injunctive relief," which essentially amounts to a request that she be exempt from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the matter is resolved by the Federal Court of Appeals. The judge denied the appeal.
Davis' attorney, Mat Staver, said a solution would be to remove not just Davis' name and office from the marriage licenses themselves but from the process entirely. Have the state issue them instead, he said.
Sounds simple enough, but under current Kentucky state law, the authority to issue marriage licenses rests solely with each of the state's 120 county clerks, meaning it would take an act of the legislature to transfer that authority. The legislature, however, doesn't convene until January 5, and Gov. Steve Beshear has said he has no intention of calling lawmakers back to Frankfort for an emergency session before then.
Legislation in the works
Kentucky state Senate President Robert Stivers told CNN last week that a legislative solution was in the works and it would likely pass quickly when lawmakers convene in January.
But that is still some three months away, three months in which Davis, who refuses to resign, will still have the authority to issue -- or to not issue -- marriage licenses in Rowan County.
"It's a very, very difficult decision that no one wants to have," said Staver. "Choose your job, or choose your faith."
She's trying to toe the line between being in contempt (and being jailed again) and "betraying" her faith. This should be more interesting by next week.
To quote the ghost programs from the Matrix Reloaded :
We are becoming annoyed.
Yes we are.
I couldnt have been the only one to see the Irony of an organization called Oath Keepers protecting a lady who's issue is essentially breaking an oath
5 lawyers in DC changed what she pledged her oath too though...so she never pledged an oath to what they thrust on her.
GG
She pledged an oath to only marry straights? Fascinating.
Or did she say this one?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
As well as this one?
I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the
duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
I couldnt have been the only one to see the Irony of an organization called Oath Keepers protecting a lady who's issue is essentially breaking an oath
5 lawyers in DC changed what she pledged her oath too though...so she never pledged an oath to what they thrust on her.
GG
Nope.
I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the
duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God
"will well and truly discharge the duties of the office..." One of her duties is handing out marriage licenses.
"will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality" huh, wonder what she's been doing?
"so help me God" She swore to God that she would do her job. Born again Christian she may be but she apparently hasn't gotten to the parts of the bible that talk about doing what you say that you're going to do.
And if she can't do her job anymore, it's her duty to step down. That's how this works. You can't not uphold the law just because it changed. Police aren't alowed to ignore new laws, because they came after their oath.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And if she can't do her job anymore, it's her duty to step down. That's how this works. You can't not uphold the law just because it changed. Police aren't alowed to ignore new laws, because they came after their oath.
I'm not disagreeing with you, if it were me,I probably would have resigned.
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.
If you can't understand that, we can't help you.
KK III
For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.
If you can't understand that, we can't help you.
KK III
For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.
Gg
Agreed, so now she has the option of resigning or letting her officers provide those certificates.
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.
If you can't understand that, we can't help you.
KK III
For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.
Gg
For the 2500th time, the proper thing to do in that instance is quit and find another job.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
Sorry, off-topic.
Paul wrote one of the Five Books of Moses?
Off topic, but if I were a gay man who had trouble with my pick-up game yet really, really wanted to get nailed, hard, whenever I went to the club, then that is the tattoo I would get to make it happen.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
Sorry, off-topic.
Paul wrote one of the Five Books of Moses?
Off topic, but if I were a gay man who had trouble with my pick-up game yet really, really wanted to get nailed, hard, whenever I went to the club, then that is the tattoo I would get to make it happen.
yeah goes to show that agnosto..doesn't know what he's talking about.
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
You pledge an oath to uphold the law of the land.
If you can't understand that, we can't help you.
KK III
For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.
Gg
But having to alter your oath every time the law changes would be a massive waste of red tape.
Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.
Then maybe they were cool with the gays!
For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).
Sorry, off-topic.
Paul wrote one of the Five Books of Moses?
Off topic, but if I were a gay man who had trouble with my pick-up game yet really, really wanted to get nailed, hard, whenever I went to the club, then that is the tattoo I would get to make it happen.
yeah goes to show that agnosto..doesn't know what he's talking about.
GG
Slow your roll, hombre, I admitted to getting two books of the bible confused in my head (point still relevant just reference was off) later on the same page. Have no idea why you're so hostile but maybe a keyboard break might help? I got bent out of shape in another thread a week or so ago so I know it happens.
On topic.
When someone takes an oath of office, they need not retake the oath every time a law or court interpretation changes the application of the law. If that were the case, police, judges, court officials and congress persons would forever be retaking oaths, laws and court decisions which affect the application of law occur very frequently.
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
According to your logic whenever any change is made in any aspect of the law, all the police officers and armed forces personnel in the USA, and all the air traffic controllers, border agency etc, have the right not to carry out whatever change in the law has just been made.
generalgrog wrote: For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.
Laws change. That doesn't change the content of her oath.
Jobs change. I don't get to stop doing my job because some aspect of it changed to something I don't like.
If some aspect of her job has changed, due to a change in the law, into something that she feels she can not do, then that job is no longer a suitable job for her to hold onto.
I mean, I'm all for the idea that I can just start telling all and sundry that my conscience won't let me do my job, while I carry on collecting a paycheck. That would be awesome.
But it woudl also be completely and utterly ridiculous. The day I'm no longer comfortable doing my job is the day I go and find another job.
Screw this bigot and her hurt religious conscience. I have searched every avenue i9n my heart to find sympathy, but there is none left.
She's a bigot standing up for her right to be a bigot. Religious convictions are secondary here to duty and basic human respect. In modern society, religious convictions should not trump duty and basic human decency for anyone who makes their living off the public dole when they are "in uniform".
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
You don't understand how oaths work. It isn't a pledge to uphold the laws as long as you still like those laws. If that's all it was then it wouldn't need an oath.
I mean, just read what you wrote - "circumstances have changed since she made that oath". It sounds like part of a movie speech when the weasel character announces he's betraying the good guys.
generalgrog wrote: Again...circumstances have changed since she made that oath. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
GG
You don't understand how oaths work. It isn't a pledge to uphold the laws as long as you still like those laws. If that's all it was then it wouldn't need an oath.
I mean, just read what you wrote - "circumstances have changed since she made that oath". It sounds like part of a movie speech when the weasel character announces he's betraying the good guys.
This deal is getting worse all the time...
But you know what, Lando had no love for the Empire yet he still did his job.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So latest news is she's still getting her 80k a year to do nothing? Your tax dollars at work folks
Not mine, she is a county official and I don't even live in her state. It is great campaign ad material for whomever decides to run agsinst her in the next election.
Psienesis wrote: More importantly? She makes $80K a year, her office staff are mostly her own relatives, and the median income in her county is less than $40K a year.
While $80k isn't a huge amount of money somewhere like NYC, LA or Seattle, it is apparently *mighty* fine living where she's at.
No gak. Her county should be embarrassed they pay their officials that much and the voters should be pissed.
Psienesis wrote: More importantly? She makes $80K a year, her office staff are mostly her own relatives, and the median income in her county is less than $40K a year.
While $80k isn't a huge amount of money somewhere like NYC, LA or Seattle, it is apparently *mighty* fine living where she's at.
No gak. Her county should be embarrassed they pay their officials that much and the voters should be pissed.
I wouldn't really like to work in a mindless, dead end job like hers... I guess that is why I am rewarded for 9 years of training and education with an enjoyable, worthwhile and challenging job that pays OK (but nowhere near 80K) I guess
For the third time...the law of the land changed to something beyond her conscience.Therefore the circumstances of her oath changed. I.e what she pledged her oath to changed.
Gg
I'm a Federal employee. I can tell you, straight out, that the "circumstances of her oath" flat out did not change. Even if they did (they didn't), that doesn't matter. Soldiers don't get to leave just because we enter a new war, public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client, government employees don't get to ignore their duties because the administration changed. It's bull and you know it.
public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,
Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.
Can they? Wow, I thought that wasn't allowed because otherwise you could end up with some criminals which nobody will represent which breaks the whole fair trial thing.
public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,
Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.
wow. I stand corrected on that one.
Presumably they are replaced by another public defender? I mean, what if every defender refuses to represent someone? They're entitled to representation, after all. OT I know.
Most states have ethical laws that allow an attorney to refuse to represent an individual that they find repugnant. People in the PD's office are going to have pretty specific, if any, lists of things they find deal breakers in a client, but I know in Ohio you really can't force an attorney to take a client.
public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,
Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.
Can they? Wow, I thought that wasn't allowed because otherwise you could end up with some criminals which nobody will represent which breaks the whole fair trial thing.
NO you can refuse to represent someone, else that would be what is called forced servitude.
Now if you are a public defender your services may no longer be needed, but thats up to the department I guess (don't know much about public defenders)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Most states have ethical laws that allow an attorney to refuse to represent an individual that they find repugnant. People in the PD's office are going to have pretty specific, if any, lists of things they find deal breakers in a client, but I know in Ohio you really can't force an attorney to take a client.
public defenders don't get to walk out because they don't like their new client,
Actually they can. But otherwise your point is correct.
Yeah but this woman didn't walk out, she just stuck to her well-remunerated job and refused to do it.
Agreed, and therein is the problem.
So, any update? Are they issuing licenses now? Kentucky should turn around and just abolish the whole thing, but thats bank, and those licenses gotta earn...
