Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.


GG

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.

Maybe Dan Savage is on Dakka?

 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!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:


Again how is it morally correct to deny an entire district the ability to legally marry?

Again...didn't I say that I was troubled over that ?

GG

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.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Again how is it morally correct to deny an entire district the ability to legally marry?

Again...didn't I say that I was troubled over that ?

GG

Understood, but thats why at least I consider her grandstanding. She's getting in the way of a fundamental covenant and blessing of God.

 generalgrog wrote:


The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings.

Are you for real?!?

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.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


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.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings.

Are you for real?!?

No ones required to follow the law technically.

Though they should be prepared for consequences if they dont.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

The crowdfunding is off to a slow start.

 Ouze wrote:
The crowdfunding is off to a slow start.

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.’

Steelmage99 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


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

The Gods. Where are they now?

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

And it continues:

http://m.newsok.com/attorney-clerks-contempt-hearing-was-charade-marriage-licenses-issued-friday-void/article/5444597

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".

I read the link. Huckabee is a POS too, and may God have mercy on the souls of any of you who vote for him.

It's frightening when Trump is the best republican candidate running right now.

Relevant statements, as Huckabee is meeting with Davis and building her a support rally. Those who support him (and Davis) are scumbags.

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.

I was reading other reports that her name and signature are already pre-printed on the forms anyways.

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.