Kentucky Clerk’s Office Defies Court Order to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

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.

**Kap'n Krump**

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.

**agnosto**

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.

**Polonius**

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.

**Frazzled**

agnosto wrote:
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.

**Prestor Jon**

agnosto wrote:
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**

Polonius wrote:
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)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

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.

**Kap'n Krump**

Frazzled wrote:

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.

**CptJake**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
but this is Kentucky, not new York or California we're talking about here

California? As in the California that put Proposition 8 up for a vote and passed it? That California?

**Frazzled**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

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.

Exactly.

**Polonius**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

I thought one or two but I too could be in error.

**Psienesis**

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.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

**Xenomancers**

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.

Yah me too.

**A Town Called Malus**

Survivor are apparently pretty annoyed that Davis and Huckabee used Eye of the Tiger at a rally without permission.

Hope they sue them both.

**Lt. Coldfire**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Survivor are apparently pretty annoyed that Davis and Huckabee used Eye of the Tiger at a rally without permission.

Hope they sue them both.

Society should be suing Survivor for punishing us with Eye of the Tiger for the last three decades.

**Ensis Ferrae**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Survivor are apparently pretty annoyed that Davis and Huckabee used Eye of the Tiger at a rally without permission.

Hope they sue them both.

I guess they have burning hearts

**A Town Called Malus**

Lt. Coldfire wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Survivor are apparently pretty annoyed that Davis and Huckabee used Eye of the Tiger at a rally without permission.

Hope they sue them both.

Society should be suing Survivor for punishing us with Eye of the Tiger for the last three decades.

Blasphemy!

You're obviously just jealous that you can't rock tight jeans and strut down a street as good as them

Spoiler:

**Ouze**

So this is getting a little more interesting; perhaps. Right now all the posts on the left-hand side of the derposphere are claiming that the Oath Keepers are sending an armed detail to protect Kim Davis from US Marshals, as they claim her jailing was unlawful. This lines up with previous posts that claimed she would again forbid any of her clerks from issuing licenses when she returns.

**Prestor Jon**

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.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_North_Carolina#Statute

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
So this is getting a little more interesting; perhaps. Right now all the posts on the left-hand side of the derposphere are claiming that the Oath Keepers are sending an armed detail to protect Kim Davis from US Marshals, as they claim her jailing was unlawful. This lines up with previous posts that claimed she would again forbid any of her clerks from issuing licenses when she returns.

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:

http://news.yahoo.com/mike-huckabee-thinks-black-people-123110888.html

**Mr.Church13**

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.

**CptJake**

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**

CptJake wrote:
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.

**Xenomancers**

Ouze wrote:
So this is getting a little more interesting; perhaps. Right now all the posts on the left-hand side of the derposphere are claiming that the Oath Keepers are sending an armed detail to protect Kim Davis from US Marshals, as they claim her jailing was unlawful. This lines up with previous posts that claimed she would again forbid any of her clerks from issuing licenses when she returns.

Are oath keepers the christian version of black lives matter?

**A Town Called Malus**

Xenomancers wrote:
Ouze wrote:
So this is getting a little more interesting; perhaps. Right now all the posts on the left-hand side of the derposphere are claiming that the Oath Keepers are sending an armed detail to protect Kim Davis from US Marshals, as they claim her jailing was unlawful. This lines up with previous posts that claimed she would again forbid any of her clerks from issuing licenses when she returns.

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.

**Psienesis**

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.

**Kanluwen**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Ouze wrote:
So this is getting a little more interesting; perhaps. Right now all the posts on the left-hand side of the derposphere are claiming that the Oath Keepers are sending an armed detail to protect Kim Davis from US Marshals, as they claim her jailing was unlawful. This lines up with previous posts that claimed she would again forbid any of her clerks from issuing licenses when she returns.

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.

"Incarnation"?

Oathkeepers were there, bro!

Apparently they were also present at the Pacific Northwest mine disputes this year.

**A Town Called Malus**

Kanluwen wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Ouze wrote:
So this is getting a little more interesting; perhaps. Right now all the posts on the left-hand side of the derposphere are claiming that the Oath Keepers are sending an armed detail to protect Kim Davis from US Marshals, as they claim her jailing was unlawful. This lines up with previous posts that claimed she would again forbid any of her clerks from issuing licenses when she returns.

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.

"Incarnation"?

Oathkeepers were there, bro!

Apparently they were also present at the Pacific Northwest mine disputes this year.

Well there you go!

They definitely have the best interests of your constitution and country at heart with that kind of record!

**Frazzled**

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.

**Polonius**

CptJake wrote:
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.