Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis found in contempt, going to jail

[porschegrl]

ETA: Apparently the judge is asking her workers if one of them will step up and be willing to issue the licenses. If not, they'll go to jail also.

Hmm, not sure how I feel about that one. I'm of course assuming the issuing of marriage licenses has never previously been part of their jobs. And if that's the case, that's a rotten position to put them in.

But, I may also be wrong in my assumption. It's also possible none of them have any objections making this a moot point.

According to one article I read (on an admittedly liberal website, so take it for what it's worth), her deputy clerks want to issue the licenses but Davis did not allow it: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...arriage-licenses-but-are-too-afraid-of-davis/

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Not one belief was forced on her. Not one. She's free to believe CW4d is a little green man from outer space if she wants to. And because I'm already married, she's free to deny me a marriage license. But she isn't free to deny others that aren't married and meet the requirements that same license.

 

[jrmasm]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, no one is being forced to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Turn the Page]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Asking the woman to perform her job as legally required is not forcing beliefs on her. As someone stated upthread, no one is forcing her to marry a woman. Therefore, no one is forcing their beliefs on her.

Your argument is completely without merit.

 

[Land Shark]

Here's some light reading... http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/IB176.pdf.

It's seems to go through the requirements and policies for impeaching someone in Kentucky.

ETA: Voters can not impeach anyone. The House impeaches and the Senate holds the impeachment trial (sound familiar?).

Voters would be able to vote her out of office, but I don't know when the next election for that office is.

Correct and the Kentucky Legislature only meets once a year (Jan - April). A special session can be called by the Governor at his discretion. He has previously stated he will not call one to address how the SC decision affects the duties of county clerks. I don't know if there has ever been a special session called for impeachment proceedings.

On the second point, I believe the voters would not vote her out of office. Only those in Rowan County could vote for that county clerk position and I'm afraid most support her.

 

[Turn the Page]

According to one article I read (on an admittedly liberal website, so take it for what it's worth), her deputy clerks want to issue the licenses but Davis did not allow it: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...arriage-licenses-but-are-too-afraid-of-davis/

You know, that brings up an interesting question. If her clerks wanted to issue the marriage licenses as per law and she was demanding they break the law, could her clerks ignore her and perform their jobs according to law?

I mean really, say I worked at the clerks office and a gay couple came up asking for a marriage license and they met all the legal requirements to get one. If my boss says "no, you can't do it, it goes against my beliefs" she is in effect demanding that I violate the law and several court orders. Would I be within my rights to ignore my boss' instructions and follow the law?

 

[gwynne]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Gosh, I don't think it's politics. I think many object to someone who steadfastly refuses to do her job, but greedily grabs her paycheck with both hands.
It's kind of....unreasonable? ridiculous? entitled? I guess folks can take their pick.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Those darn Supreme Court Justices and the decisions they make!

 

[Turn the Page]

I don't remember what the issue was but my ex FIL was complaining about some Supreme Court decision several years ago and stated "they didn't go with what the majority of the people want which is what they are supposed to do."

Ummmm....no, the SCOTUS interprets the constitution and determines what is and what is not constitutional. They don't take public opinion into account.....or they're not supposed to anyway but that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Wendy31]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

You have a valid point, but I actually think there is hypocrisy on both sides.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Good!!!!

No matter what one's beliefs on the topic at hand.
And she has every right to her beliefs.
But, our constitution states that their shall be separation of church and state.
So, while she has every right to her beliefs, she does not have a right to use any public office as a pulpit, or to be in violation of our constitution.

PS: I think she is one CRAZY insane lady.

 

[DebbieB]

Most likely there is someone (some group) behind her, pushing her. Like Politicians who claim to be religious while cheating on their wives. She's allowing herself to be a pawn for those who disagree with gay marriage.

 

[gwynne]

PS: I think she is one CRAZY insane lady.

I don't know if that is true. I will say this, she's not likely to ever have a wardrobe malfunction.

 

[NCRedding]

When she was sworn in, she took an oath of office, swearing that she would "well and truthfully discharge the duties of the office...... and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God".

She wasn't upholding her oath; she was ordered by court to do so, and she willfully refused to obey the court's order. She doesn't have to go to jail, she can purge herself of the contempt charge by either doing her job, as she swore she would, or by resigning if her convictions are steadfast.

It's exactly like the prior poster who talked about the religous pacifist signing up for the army, taking the benefits, and then refusing to fight.

I take my oath of office seriously, as should every person who is elected or chosen to serve the public.

 

[Wishing on a star]

No, I do not think that Mokat has a point, at all....
Nobody is forcing anyone to perform a marriage, or to be married to, anyone... no matter which gender.
NOTHING IS BEING FORCED ON ANYBODY.

If this CRAZY LADY was an officer in a church, her and her church would have every right to make this decision based on their religious beliefs. But, as a person who is in government office.... (and only as a person who holds government office) her personal beliefs mean NOTHING. Her duty is to perform the tasks of her office and to uphold the law. Period.

Nobody is FORCING her to do anything.
She willingly holds this position, and if she no longer feels that this is what is best for her, then she has every right to step down and go find employment elsewhere.

I don't care what religious, or sexual, political, or ANY persuasion one might be.
Everyone in our country should be very very very VERY concerned if there is a possibility that some person in government office might have the right to enforce their own beliefs, Especially when it is a violation of others civil rights to do so.

And, again... all I have to do is see a photo of this ladies face, and it is like GET SOME HELP. There is a very real break with reality with this woman.

 

[Turn the Page]

You have a valid point, but I actually think there is hypocrisy on both sides.

He does not have a valid point.

If Davis was being compelled to actually perform marriages she felt violated her beliefs he may have a leg to stand on with legal arguments but even then, the argument that if David doesn't want to perform the duties of her job she needs to resign holds true.

The only way Davis would be having liberal beliefs FORCED on her would be if someone was forcing her to marry a woman. And that is not the case.

I believe in the scientific theory of evolution. I'm not going to go get a job at the Creationist Museum (also in Kentucky) and then complain that the job violates my beliefs.

I realize that in Davis' defense the rules were changed on her after she had already held that position for several years but still, the rules changed, she has the option to follow them or resign.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Most likely there is someone (some group) behind her, pushing her.

The Liberty Council. Don't know whether they're pushing her or she is pulling them.

 

[3Gsandme]

But liberals certainly feel it's fine to FORCE their beliefs on everyone. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Here's the thing.

If you're going to stand yourself up as a bastion of Christianity and judge, jury and executioner for the Bible, you better make darn sure you have a clean house (metaphorically). Otherwise, yes. You look like a ridiculous hypocrite and hypocrites are actually something that Jesus actually actively spoke out about. Matthew 23. Great stuff there.

I like Matthew 6:1, too.

 

[experiment_6two6]

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...erk-kim-davis-contempt-gay-marriage/71573666/

Five deputies will issue the marriage licenses now, only one declined, and that was her son...