Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[jrmasm]

I read today that Miss Davis' attorney wanted to talk compromise with the Governor of KY. Basically the proposal is to have designated County clerks who would handle same-sex marriage licenses, so that other County clerks who are opposed could have a legal carve-out for non-compliance.

But I think Americans and American Law are too far along for that to be allowed. It would be the same as separate-but-equal schools for whites/blacks. Heck, even at WDW we continue, today, to read posts from folks who want people with mobility equipment to have separate buses to take them to/from the parks. Because loading "them" on regular buses slows down the process. That sounds nice for folks who aren't handicapped, or families who aren't partial to black people -- but not so good for the people affected.

In the same way, a compromise of separate-but-equal access to same-sex marriage licenses would force aggrieved couples to search for which County to go to, and the added burden of travel time and expense that other couples aren't subject to. Not to mention, local folks in the Counties which allowed same-sex marriage licenses might harass these couples when they arrived in town, because they were winnowed out for "special handling." No, I don't think we're going back to that form of "keeping different people apart" again b/c the majority always wins and the minority population always loses.

No, just no. Do your job or resign.

 

[gwynne]

No compromise. Do your job or quit. I feel for her since she seems to be cracking and already has a few screws lose. But leaving jail likely isn't an option because her pastor, lawyer, Mike Huckabee etc. are depending on her to make their point while they remain free.

I think they smell financial opportunity. It's a quick, easy fund raiser. If so, I wonder if she'll get a cut.

 

[JimmyV]

I read today that Miss Davis' attorney wanted to talk compromise with the Governor of KY. Basically the proposal is to have designated County clerks who would handle same-sex marriage licenses, so that other County clerks who are opposed could have a legal carve-out for non-compliance.

But I think Americans and American Law are too far along for that to be allowed. It would be the same as separate-but-equal schools for whites/blacks.

It is a bit different, because with respect to schools, it was easily shown that the "equal" part was not true. The schools were not equal in any way, shape or form. With respect to handing out marriage licenses, it could be equal. The recipient has no vested interest in whether her license is signed by, and handed over by Mary, or by Fred. The license is the license. So "separate but equal" is not the problem here. The problems lie in the fact that the County cannot, and should not, set up a system that creates inherent humiliation due to sexual preference. A same sex couple should not suffer indignity at the hands of the state by having certain state workers turn their backs on them and refuse to help them. For Mary to say: "I refuse to help you. But Fred here will take good care of you" may seem like a solution for Mary. And Mary might think this is a good solution for the couple who wants the license. But it does not remove the feeling of humiliation that can ensue by having someone tell them that they are not good enough or worthy of the paid employee doing what she is supposed to do according to the law. In essence, she is saying, "I refuse to follow the law, but that's OK, because others will in my stead.

The other problem comes from the fact that a County could run into a situation where all of the clerks want to "conscientiously object". If the State allows for "opting out", and everyone opts out, what then?

 

[Wishing on a star]

This so-called compromise still does not resolve the issue of a government employee using their government office as a religious pulpit, and imposing their personal religious beliefs upon others. This might not apply in private business, but it most certainly applies to one in government office.

I think it is pretty clear that this would just be an easy way for this woman to barter herself out of jail, without anything really changing or being resolved.

 

[gwynne]

This so-called compromise still does not resolve the issue of a government employee using their government office as a religious pulpit, and imposing their personal religious beliefs upon others. This might not apply in private business, but it most certainly applies to one in government office.

I think it is pretty clear that this would just be an easy way for this woman to barter herself out of jail, without anything really changing or being resolved.

I agree.
Ya gotta admit it's gutsy. Many folks in jail might use the time for quiet reflection. She's ready to school the judge. Hope the judge is unimpressed.

 

[PlutoPony]

Really disappointing that a candidate for President is supporting and even advocating for a government employee not doing their job.

There's no shortage of govt employee bashing from candidates of all shapes and political persuasion. And it's usually because employees are perceived to not be doing their jobs or not doing them well.

So now we have one (or more) candidate actually supporting an employee willfully not fulfilling the obligations of their government position.

Elections are crazy times for ALL involved it seems.

 

[DisneyBabies]

Saw a brief blurb today about a flight attendant for Express Jet who has been suspended for refusing to serve alcohol because it's against her religion. She converted to Islam after taking the job and now has a problem fulfilling her duties. Initially she was able to work it out with other FA's so they did all the alcohol duties but another FA recently filed a complaint about her not doing all aspects of her job. The suspended FA is claiming she should not have to choose between her job and her religion.

I think you will see more of these type claims

This isn't actually a big deal. I've read up on the story and the airline made accommodations for the FA1 (which they are legally allowed to do) that stated other FA's could serve the alcohol. This woman not serving alcohol does not violate anyone's civil rights, so reasonable accommodation was an easy fix. It's not like she is trying to refuse for others to serve alcohol on her flights, just herself. Frankly, the FA2 who reported her doesn't have a leg to stand on and several lawyers familiar with the case said it would be dismissed or found in FA1's favor.

The two cases are completely different. Serving alcohol to passengers is not a huge part of a FA's duties; issuing a marriage license to anyone who legally has a right to one is a major part of a county clerk's job. The FA is not stopping her fellow FA's from serving alcohol to passengers; Kim Davis has repeatedly "forbidden" her deputies from issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

And for those who don't believe she is a hypocrite because she is refusing licenses to everyone, she only began refusing licenses when same-sex marriage became legal. According to her religion (yes, I looked it up. google is your friend) divorce is against God's order; therefore, if she was really God's servant as she says, and concerned about her conscience as she says, she should have been refusing marriage licenses to all those divorced people who came through her door asking for one (and yes, she would know if they were divorced since there is a question about it on the marriage license form).

Marriage is a civil/legal commitment; Holy Matrimony is a religious one. You do not need a marriage license to be joined in Holy Matrimony; but if you want to check that little box on your tax forms that says "Married Filing Jointly" that marriage license is the only requirement. One has nothing to do with religion and the other has to do with nothing but religion. Stop purposely confusing the issue.

If refusing to do a part of your job due to your religious convictions violates someone's civil rights, you need to find another job.

 

[Gracie09]

It is a bit different, because with respect to schools, it was easily shown that the "equal" part was not true. The schools were not equal in any way, shape or form. With respect to handing out marriage licenses, it could be equal. The recipient has no vested interest in whether her license is signed by, and handed over by Mary, or by Fred. The license is the license. So "separate but equal" is not the problem here. The problems lie in the fact that the County cannot, and should not, set up a system that creates inherent humiliation due to sexual preference. A same sex couple should not suffer indignity at the hands of the state by having certain state workers turn their backs on them and refuse to help them. For Mary to say: "I refuse to help you. But Fred here will take good care of you" may seem like a solution for Mary. And Mary might think this is a good solution for the couple who wants the license. But it does not remove the feeling of humiliation that can ensue by having someone tell them that they are not good enough or worthy of the paid employee doing what she is supposed to do according to the law. In essence, she is saying, "I refuse to follow the law, but that's OK, because others will in my stead.

The other problem comes from the fact that a County could run into a situation where all of the clerks want to "conscientiously object". If the State allows for "opting out", and everyone opts out, what then?

The USSC in Brown v BOE has stated separate is inherently unequal. The gay couples are told you are not good enough for me to give you a license, that person over there has to do it. The licenses may not be the same either. If the Clerk, as in this case, does not want her name on same sex licenses, they are on their face not equal. Its like when people said Civil Unions are really marriages. The same sex couples should be happy with those.

 

[Unas]

They already HAVE THAT!! That was one of her options that the Gov't. endorses, that she could step aside and allow the other clerks to issue licenses. She CHOSE NOT to do that, instead ordering the entire office to not hand out licenses to anyone. Argh, the more I read about this stupid broad the madder I get.

For Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake . . . Please stop the stupid bashing.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

No compromise. Do your job or quit. I feel for her since she seems to be cracking and already has a few screws lose. But leaving jail likely isn't an option because her pastor, lawyer, (name of political candidate edited. ) etc. are depending on her to make their point while they remain free.

Yeah. Notice all the grifters "standing with her." Oh really? If they were really standing with her, they would want to be in jail with her, not taking a one day trip for a photo op then leaving while they collect wads of cash.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

This so-called compromise still does not resolve the issue of a government employee using their government office as a religious pulpit, and imposing their personal religious beliefs upon others. This might not apply in private business, but it most certainly applies to one in government office.

I think it is pretty clear that this would just be an easy way for this woman to barter herself out of jail, without anything really changing or being resolved.

You nailed it. What her attorneys proposed isn't really a compromise at all. So she's looking for the governor to authorize precisely what she was doing before. Refusing to hand out marriage licenses. The judge gave her a chance at a compromise to let her staff hand out the licenses. She refused.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I don't know that someone failing to believe the same thing you do qualifies as "bashing".

This kind of attitude is why we can't have nice things here on the Dis.

The poster admitted her comment wasn't made in a "very nice way" and was "kind of insulting".

 

[Kimberlyann11]

The poster admitted her comment wasn't made in a "very nice way" and was "kind of insulting".

:confused2:

Yes, I think it was very kind of her to reflect and apologize.

I still don't think it was "bashing".

 

[TLSnell1981]

I still don't think it was "bashing".

I disagree.

 

[JimmyV]

The USSC in Brown v BOE has stated separate is inherently unequal.

I don't think "separate" applies here, unless people were required to go to a different facility to pick up their license. But if everyone goes to 100 Main Street for their license, and then goes to the same office for said license, I don't think there is a "separate". This is not the same thing as a separate school, or a separate movie theater, or a separate water fountain, or a separate restroom. The facility itself is the same. The issue is only one of "equal" and I think we are both in agreement on that one.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Yes, I think it was very kind of her to reflect and apologize.

I still don't think it was "bashing".

I think it was a far cry from "bashing" as well.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I was glad to see that posters explanation and apology.
I will accept that from her, and assume that she did not overtly mean to 'bash'.

Just by reading the one post, however, it would def. have qualified as bashing.
But, sometimes emotionally charged thoughts and feelings posted in haste can come off that way.

I don't judge people because they might believe or feel differently than I do.
I try to judge only by how one treats others.
I am glad that posters can explain and apologize and show respect!!!

 

[Hrhpd]

I think it was a far cry from "bashing" as well.

Me too. It was stated as the poster's belief or rather what she doesn't believe in, which she is entitled to, and then stated what this thread is completely about - it is about the law, not the religion. That is the part I "liked" on the post.

 

[Gracie09]

I don't think "separate" applies here, unless people were required to go to a different facility to pick up their license. But if everyone goes to 100 Main Street for their license, and then goes to the same office for said license, I don't think there is a "separate". This is not the same thing as a separate school, or a separate movie theater, or a separate water fountain, or a separate restroom. The facility itself is the same. The issue is only one of "equal" and I think we are both in agreement on that one.

even a separate line or a separate clerk would be separate. I can envision a time when the separate clerk that does same sex marriage is not there or helping a different couple so then the same sex couple has to wait or come back where a opposite sex couple wouldn't. The service is separate. Often the Black and White water fountains or entrances were near or next to each other. If Ms. Davis has her way, the license would be different and separate.
Ms. Davis was elected to do a job. The job, like many, has evolved. Ms. Davis has to accept it and either find a new one or do the job she was elected to do. My guess is she won't, at least not until after January. Once she passes the date her pension vests, I bet she decides to quit.

 

[Hrhpd]

This compromise her lawyers are suggesting, is it religion specific? Such as, only Christians can oppose something they don't believe in.

Because once that compromise has been made, the slope has been greased to make it extremely slippery. What if somebody who believes in the Spaghetti Monster and refuses all Italians or anybody with an Italian surname a license because they eat spaghetti? Or more seriously, again as this has been asked numerous times without any answer from Davis supporters - is it also ok for a Muslim to deny a license to a Christian because the Muslim's religions tells him/her that Christians are infidels. Because if an exception is made for Davis, that sets a precedent and anybody can then claim a religious exception. Unless of course, the exception is meant only for the Christian religion?