Jump to content

Menu

KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses


Moxie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been wondering what will happen to her. Someone suggested that since the Supreme Court tossed out her argument in the blink of an eye, that the final recourse is that she will have to go to jail because she'll be in contempt of court. But that article implied she will likely only be fined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She apparently is an elected  official and can't be fired till next legislative session. She has been ordered into court and faces fines/jail time.

 

I hope they lock her up.

 

If she does go to jail, I wonder if someone else in her office will take over her position temporarily? Preferably someone who's actually willing to do the job for which they're being paid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say it again.  This is not about religious freedom, Ms. County Clerk. No one is forcing you to do anything against your religious beliefs by requiring you to issue marriage licences to gay couples.  If you were required to take the job in the first place, then it would be a problem.  But since you can quit, you have a choice to either meet the job requirements or find another job that you are comfortable with.

 

There are jobs that I am not morally comfortable with and I won't work in those and no one makes me.

 

 

Yes.  This.  I am puzzled by her reasoning of this situation.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think her reasoning has more to do with all the money she expects to rake in from the inevitable gofundme page and less to do with actual reason. Martyrdom is profitable these days.

I can't ever figure out where people get the energy to be a martyr. Just thinking about it makes me tired. But it clearly appeals to some.
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd support her if she also refused to issue licenses to gluttons, gossips, divorced people, people who sin in anger, people who exasperate their children, who don't feed the poor or help the widow.

Not me. Her job is to issues licenses. That's it. Stamp the paper and move on!

 

(I know you weren't being serious.)

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48

 

If I had a job that required I do something against my faith, I would quit. What this woman is doing is not drawing people closer to Christ.

This is what I was thinking. She's not doing this for God but for herself. If it was for God, she could quit or look for a job in a different department that doesn't issue marriage licenses. She's all caught up in being a martyr for a cause.

 

I know it is not easy to quit a job and find another one while playing bills and supporting a family, but this is the exact answer I was given when arguing over the HHS contraceptive mandate: quit and find another job where the owner doesn't have a moral issue against contraception.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd support her if she also refused to issue licenses to gluttons, gossips, divorced people, people who sin in anger, people who exasperate their children, who don't feed the poor or help the widow.

 

:lol:

 

What she is doing is as unacceptable as it would be for an Amish person to take a job at the DMV and refuse to issue driver's licenses or for a dry Baptist to start working at a liquor store and refusing to sell liquor.  Won't do the job?  Don't take the darn job.  

 

I have a serious moral objection to gambling and to making money off of people who are addicted to something so destructive.  You will not see me submitting applications to the local casinos, card rooms or the state lottery.  

  • Like 40
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she does go to jail, I wonder if someone else in her office will take over her position temporarily? Preferably someone who's actually willing to do the job for which they're being paid.

I saw an article which mentioned that she & all her deputy clerks are due in federal court on Thursday.

 

So, does that mean all her underlings have also been refusing to issue marriage licenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an article which mentioned that she & all her deputy clerks are due in federal court on Thursday.

 

So, does that mean all her underlings have also been refusing to issue marriage licenses?

I would imagine so. The question is whether or not their refusal is at her direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd support her if she also refused to issue licenses to gluttons, gossips, divorced people, people who sin in anger, people who exasperate their children, who don't feed the poor or help the widow.

The nuttiest thing about this case is that she refuses to give any couple, gay or straight, a marriage license. I guess that's what opponents meant when they said that gay marriage would destroy all marriage.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

What she is doing is as unacceptable as it would be for an Amish person to take a job at the DMV and refuse to issue driver's licenses or for a dry Baptist to start working at a liquor store and refusing to sell liquor. Won't do the job? Don't take the darn job.

 

I have a serious moral objection to gambling and to making money off of people who are addicted to something so destructive. You will not see me submitting applications to the local casinos, card rooms or the state lottery.

Hear, Hear!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nuttiest thing about this case is that she refuses to give any couple, gay or straight, a marriage license. I guess that's what opponents meant when they said that gay marriage would destroy all marriage.

 

I actually think that it's her attempt at "Look! I'm being fair to everyone! I'm not discriminating! NOBODY gets a license!"

 

And as long as we're on her topic, she's been married FOUR times. 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think that it's her attempt at "Look! I'm being fair to everyone! I'm not discriminating! NOBODY gets a license!"

 

And as long as we're on her topic, she's been married FOUR times. 

 

I'd be interested to hear how many of those were "Biblical" divorces and remarriages and how many weren't. Not because it makes a difference, but just because the hypocrisy is ridiculous enough to be a little entertaining.

 

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she were to become too sick to perform her job or died in an accident they would have to find a temporary replacement before the next election.  It seems that her refusing to do the job and potentially being in contempt of court is a really good reason to remove her.  Can she just decide to take a month of vacation and not be fired either? If the two choices are jail and fines, I'd prefer the fines, but I think Kentucky needs some more flexibility in removing people who aren't doing what they were elected to do when there are specific job requirements like issuing marriage licences.

 

If she wants an "asylum for her conscience," she should probably find one quickly or someone else might find one for her in jail where she doesn't have to do her job at all. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to hear how many of those were "Biblical" divorces and remarriages and how many weren't. Not because it makes a difference, but just because the hypocrisy is ridiculous enough to be a little entertaining.

 

 

I'm having this amazing image of some clerk denying her a marriage license for the second, third, or fourth marriage and it's making me chortle at my computer.

 

(not that I think that that would be legitimate. But it would be funny). 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It made my day to read that there is a contempt hearing scheduled for Thursday. I was literally grinning as I sat at the computer checking the news. :D

 

It made my day when I read an article about how this same clerk accidentally granted a marriage license to a transgender man and his pansexual wife earlier this year.  :lol:  What is it that some Christians think they have, where they can magically sense sin or whatever? Discernment? Apparently her discern-o-meter was broken that day. 

 

Or it could be that LGBTQ couples really are just like other couples and aren't actually sin-filled monsters.

 

I wonder if she'll try to have her name removed from their marriage certificate or whatever now.  :001_rolleyes:

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait she's been married four times? I wish I could put that little factoid in reply to all the Facebook posts defending her - but I am too polite to do so. But the support does baffle me, this one is legally unambiguous .

 

I've seen people bring that up in a lot of the FB posts today. And the bigots, without any sense of irony, always proceed to yell, "How are her marriages any of YOUR business?"

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And as long as we're on her topic, she's been married FOUR times. 

 

She mentions that her "godly" MIL turned her to the church etc. which made her come to the decision against gay marriages. If I were a reporter, I would ask her which of her FOUR MIL's she was referring to as "godly" - mostly because I find the news that she is on her FOURTH biblical marriage entertaining too :) 

 

There is a reason that there are supreme courts, legislation etc. If she does not like them, she can move out of this country and live where she can impose her laws.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my fb friends just shared an article about her, implying that this is the beginning of Christian persecution in America. I blocked him. Before anyone fusses, I have wanted to block him for a lonnnnnnnnnng time, but this just pushed me over the edge.

 

I think if she has to do jail time, that's really going to get people on her side more "riled up." But no, she's definitely not being persecuted. She's just refusing to do her job.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about this. First of all, let me say that I don't think she has the right to decide not to do her job and uphold the law. But I'm curious why sanctuary cities are allowed to selectively choose to not uphold the law. I get that the mayors don't agree with the law but why aren't they forced to resign or uphold the law like I think this clerk should be forced to do?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about this. First of all, let me say that I don't think she has the right to decide not to do her job and uphold the law. But I'm curious why sanctuary cities are allowed to selectively choose to not uphold the law. I get that the mayors don't agree with the law but why aren't they forced to resign or uphold the law like I think this clerk should be forced to do?

 

I don't really think it's comparable. The push-pull of federal vs state vs local law is ongoing on many areas of law. Abortion is the most visible one, probably; abortion protections don't matter when state laws making finding a medical provider nearly impossible.  Another example is states that refused to expand Medicare due to dislike of Obamacare. It's massively frustrating for those who feel like they aren't being served, but it is not comparable to what this individual has chosen to do: simply refuse to do her job because of her personal opinions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48

 

If I had a job that required I do something against my faith, I would quit.  What this woman is doing is not drawing people closer to Christ. 

 

Exactly. An Amish man against driving cars shouldn't be allowed to be a chaffeuer that won't drive. Don't have a job that requires you to do things day in and day out that violate your beliefs. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think it's comparable. The push-pull of federal vs state vs local law is ongoing on many areas of law. Abortion is the most visible one, probably; abortion protections don't matter when state laws making finding a medical provider nearly impossible. Another example is states that refused to expand Medicare due to dislike of Obamacare. It's massively frustrating for those who feel like they aren't being served, but it is not comparable to what this individual has chosen to do: simply refuse to do her job because of her personal opinions.

I appreciate your answer but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. (I have three kids running around so I assume it's my fault)

It's my understanding that sanctuary cities are not upholding state laws - like abortion or Medicare. They are defying federal immigration laws. So their law enforcement officers are choosing not to detain potential criminal illegal immigrants and notify immigration because they do not believe that is right even though it is the law. Isn't that what the clerk is doing? Would it be ok for Medicare docs to refuse to prescribe contraceptives becasue they didn't believe it was right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your answer but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. (I have three kids running around so I assume it's my fault)

It's my understanding that sanctuary cities are not upholding state laws - like abortion or Medicare. They are defying federal immigration laws. So their law enforcement officers are choosing not to detain potential criminal illegal immigrants and notify immigration because they do not believe that is right even though it is the law. Isn't that what the clerk is doing? Would it be ok for Medicare docs to refuse to prescribe contraceptives becasue they didn't believe it was right?

 

As far as I know, the sanctuary cities are within the bounds of the law, with some gray areas. For example, the federal government requires city governments to share immigration status with them if they know someone is in the country illegally, so the cities have policies to not ask in the first place so they don't have that info to share.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question about this. First of all, let me say that I don't think she has the right to decide not to do her job and uphold the law. But I'm curious why sanctuary cities are allowed to selectively choose to not uphold the law. I get that the mayors don't agree with the law but why aren't they forced to resign or uphold the law like I think this clerk should be forced to do?

 

The county clerk has a very specific, clearly delineated job.  There is one mission:  issue and process certain permits, licenses and paperwork. She is not in a policy making or, really, any legislative or executive decision making role.  Her use of her own judgment is limited to if the people coming before her are eligible according to the laws she is supposed to work from.   

 

A mayor and a city council are not immigration agents and they have a lot of latitude to set local law.  The police force works for them, or in some cases the county, not the federal government.  

 

I would say that the clerk is not at all in a gray area but a city wishing to set their own policies on where they will allocate their financial resources is in a gray area.  If the federal government passed a law which required city officials to be immigration enforcement officers, then we'd be looking at a different situation and there'd be some dicey legal issues in doing that anyways.  If the city fomented armed rebellion and defied immigration officers when they were doing their federal jobs (ie, chased off ICE agents making an arrest at gun point), then we'd be looking at a different situation.  Cities and states with policies that are diametrically opposed to the sanctuary cities are generally going above and beyond what the federal law requires, which is also well within their jurisdiction (such as letting ICE know the immigration status of all detained individuals).  Interestingly, municipalities are afforded discretion here that states are legally not.  

 

In short: it's complicated.  

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/2015/07/13/Why-Its-Difficult-Crack-Down-Sanctuary-Cities

 

I would say that the clerk's situation is more akin to an immigration enforcement officer who, due to religious conviction or otherwise, up and decides one day that it is wrong to arrest any immigrants.  Such an agent should clearly not be paid to do that job.  

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the sanctuary cities are within the bounds of the law, with some gray areas. For example, the federal government requires city governments to share immigration status with them if they know someone is in the country illegally, so the cities have policies to not ask in the first place so they don't have that info to share.

That makes sense. They are skirting by on kind of a technicality. But would it be ok if this clerk just kept finding administrative (non-religious) reasons to deny homosexual marriage licenses as long as she didn't ask? I guess I just see it as the law is the law. You either abide by it or deal with the consequences. So conscientious objectors could refuse to be drafted but then went to jail. The clerk can refuse to issue licenses and then lose her job. (though I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign.) If cities disagree with federal law they should push and lobby to change it. How are they able to advertise the fact that they are skirting the law and not have consequences?

 

Lucy- you and I were posting at the same time. Going to read your post but didn't want you thinking I was ignoring it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m a conservative Christian. She should just resign.  The government has said homosexual marriage is the law of the land in the US.  As a Christian she has to submit to the law by handing out the marriage licenses as the law states because itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s her job.  If she canĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t or wonĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t do it then she should resign and look for another type of work that doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t conflict with her conscience. ThatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s the only acceptable way to play the martyr in her situation. 

 

I agree that if sheĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s going to apply Biblical rather than legal standards for handing our marriage licenses, she has to apply all of them.  She canĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t give out a marriage license to anyone divorced for unbiblical reasons because remarriage in that situation is causing people to commit adultery.  Those commands are given to believers in churches not civil governments.  If we decide everything in civil government has to match the Bible then freedom of religion is out the window because worshiping a false god(s) is a sin. No thanks!  ThatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s tyranny and doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t advance the cause of Christ.

  • Like 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense. They are skirting by on kind of a technicality. But would it be ok if this clerk just kept finding administrative (non-religious) reasons to deny homosexual marriage licenses as long as she didn't ask? I guess I just see it as the law is the law. You either abide by it or deal with the consequences. So conscientious objectors could refuse to be drafted but then went to jail. The clerk can refuse to issue licenses and then lose her job. (though I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign.) If cities disagree with federal law they should push and lobby to change it. How are they able to advertise the fact that they are skirting the law and not have consequences?

 

Lucy- you and I were posting at the same time. Going to read your post but didn't want you thinking I was ignoring it.

 

Lots of conscientious objectors served in other capacities like being medics on battlefields.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are they able to advertise the fact that they are skirting the law and not have consequences?

 

Because skirting is not the same as breaking. :)

 

I don't want to get too far off topic, but there are constitutional issues with using city jails to hold illegal immigrants and limits (currently, could change) on what the federal government can make local officials do. If a city decides they are not going to spend their resources asking everyone's immigration status, right now that is their prerogative. That may change in the future, not only because of proposed changes to federal law but because of liability issues. You can read more about the lawsuits filed by the parents of a woman who was killed by an illegal immigrant in SF. If cities are found to be financially liable for losses created by unreported illegal immigrants, they may change how they do things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In short: it's complicated.

 

[

Yep, the more I read about this, the more I agree with you. In short, it's complicated. It seems like each legal scholar offers a different reason why sanctuary cities are or are not legal. Also saw that a certain loud mouthed real estate mogul with a fantastic toupee was discussing sanctuary cities. Um, please do not read my questions as trying to advance that position. ;)

I have to go pick up my kids and might. be off line for a couple of days. Didn't want anyone thinking I was bailing from discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. An Amish man against driving cars shouldn't be allowed to be a chaffeuer that won't drive. Don't have a job that requires you to do things day in and day out that violate your beliefs. 

 

Which is funny in and of itself as there are many Amish that have driver's licenses and do drive ;) (there are many loopholes :) )\

 

But, yes, when I applied for a job, I was asked if I had an issue selling alcohol or tobacco (I wore a headscarf, so they weren't sure about me). My response is what got me the job: if I had a problem with it and it's obvious that they sell it, then I would have no business even applying.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why doesn't she just resign? Can a judge not order her to resign? If you don't want to do a job, don't do it.

 

She doesn't want to. She gets paid. Her mother had the job. Her son and friends are hired under her. She's in "control" right now. Even the judge in the same building wouldn't go against her. The one person willing to sign, couldn't because she was threatened with her job (basically, it would be going against her superior's orders to not issue licenses and thus could cost her her job).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the more I read about this, the more I agree with you. In short, it's complicated. It seems like each legal scholar offers a different reason why sanctuary cities are or are not legal. Also saw that a certain loud mouthed real estate mogul with a fantastic toupee was discussing sanctuary cities. Um, please do not read my questions as trying to advance that position. ;)

I have to go pick up my kids and might. be off line for a couple of days. Didn't want anyone thinking I was bailing from discussion.

 

Just to give another perspective on sanctuary cities- we bought our first house in an area with a lot of immigrants.  Many families were of mixed legal status.  There were a number of serious housing code violations in one particular apartment and there were drug dealers and even more concerning a rather brisk street sex trade, including a very violent "lady pimp" operating in the area knowing that people who lived there WOULD NOT call the police about anything, ever either out of concern for themselves or others.  When the law changed, more of my neighbors felt they could report things that were making parts of the area unsafe for children and unsafe for families.  The year after or thereabouts, the violence was gone as was that awful pimp.  Police presence in the area picked up and in general things got better.  I appreciated that, as a mother and a homeowner.  To be fair, I am sure the new homeowners in the area helped and such, it wasn't all the sanctuary policy but I do think it helped.  Criminals felt they could act with impunity in front of people who could never speak up.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She doesn't want to. She gets paid. Her mother had the job. Her son and friends are hired under her. She's in "control" right now. Even the judge in the same building wouldn't go against her. The one person willing to sign, couldn't because she was threatened with her job (basically, it would be going against her superior's orders to not issue licenses and thus could cost her her job).

 

I don't know the details of this case. Are you saying that Kim Davis ordered everyone else in her office NOT to issue the marriage licenses? If so, then she wants the privilege of following HER conscience, but doesn't want her employees/coworkers to have the same privilege??? I must be misunderstanding you.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense. They are skirting by on kind of a technicality. But would it be ok if this clerk just kept finding administrative (non-religious) reasons to deny homosexual marriage licenses as long as she didn't ask? I guess I just see it as the law is the law. You either abide by it or deal with the consequences. So conscientious objectors could refuse to be drafted but then went to jail. The clerk can refuse to issue licenses and then lose her job. (though I think the honorable thing to do would be to resign.) If cities disagree with federal law they should push and lobby to change it. How are they able to advertise the fact that they are skirting the law and not have consequences?

 

Lucy- you and I were posting at the same time. Going to read your post but didn't want you thinking I was ignoring it.

 

Would it be OK- not at all, that's flat out discrimination. Would she get caught and reported, that's a different story, since that kind of discrimination certainly happens every day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...