Jump to content

Menu

KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses


Moxie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I can't answer for KY, but in our state many previously appointed positions were made elected positions in the early 1990's. The reasoning was that it would do away with the " good ole boy" system.

 

Funny, because it sounds like she's living the high life of just that. Mother held the position. She was able to hire her son under her. I'm willing to bet some of the office workers are friends.

 

FTR, I live in a good ole boy system state. I'm related to two known politicians. One is passed away and held office in a neighbouring state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, when someone claims 'religious freedom', I can kind of see both sides. This case is just dumb. She isn't being asked to marry them. She is being asked to hand over a piece of paper that says that they have paid the fee and are welcome to go find someone else to marry them. Does she really think God will hold her accountable?? I doubt it.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is your solution?

As I said upthread, I'm not sure of the solution. My preferred method in this particular case is for her to resign. She's clearly refusing to do her job that she agreed to do. She's chosen not to give out any marriage licenses so a religious defense can't explain her actions.

 

A recall election would be an expensive way to get rid of her, even if the recall was successful. Allowing her to draw a salary while not doing her job is ridiculous. Unfortunately, that may be the county's only option at this point. Contempt charges and consequences may or may not hasten her resignation.

 

Maybe this situation will cause town governments to rethink their structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She refuses to resign. She is breaking the law. She is refusing to carry out her duties. Someone has to be able to remove her under these circumstances. Out of all the options, yes, a judge removing her seems to be the best solution. It may not be the ideal solution, but it is the best. If he can't outright fire her, then consequences can remove her, but she will still collect a salary. From what I have read, they have no intention of jailing her, but simply fining her...meaning that she may continue to break the law for the rest of her term. I'm sure there will be a gofundme for her fines. Yeah, I'd take a judge firing her.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said upthread, I'm not sure of the solution. My preferred method in this particular case is for her to resign. She's clearly refusing to do her job that she agreed to do. She's chosen not to give out any marriage licenses so a religious defense can't explain her actions.

 

A recall election would be an expensive way to get rid of her, even if the recall was successful. Allowing her to draw a salary while not doing her job is ridiculous. Unfortunately, that may be the county's only option at this point. Contempt charges and consequences may or may not hasten her resignation.

 

Maybe this situation will cause town governments to rethink their structures.

 

The ACLU is urging the court " to impose financial penalties "sufficiently serious" to compel her immediate compliance without further delay." (source)  Is this a good way to get rid of elected officials? No.  But she has already (in effect) stolen so much of her community's money by refusing to do her job WITHOUT refusing the paycheck.  It's as good an option as any, I suppose.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She refuses to resign. She is breaking the law. She is refusing to carry out her duties. Someone has to be able to remove her under these circumstances. Out of all the options, yes, a judge removing her seems to be the best solution. It may not be the ideal solution, but it is the best. If he can't outright fire her, then consequences can remove her, but she will still collect a salary. From what I have read, they have no intention of jailing her, but simply fining her...meaning that she may continue to break the law for the rest of her term. I'm sure there will be a gofundme for her fines. Yeah, I'd take a judge firing her.

 

Maybe they could set it up so that a judge could remove her from office if the city collects so many signatures to that effect, sort of like with a recall election? That way a single grumpy judge couldn't fire people at will, but you wouldn't have the expense of a recall election. And whoever falls behind her seniority-wise could just fill in until the next regular election. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She refuses to resign. She is breaking the law. She is refusing to carry out her duties. Someone has to be able to remove her under these circumstances. Out of all the options, yes, a judge removing her seems to be the best solution. It may not be the ideal solution, but it is the best. If he can't outright fire her, then consequences can remove her, but she will still collect a salary. From what I have read, they have no intention of jailing her, but simply fining her...meaning that she may continue to break the law for the rest of her term. I'm sure there will be a gofundme for her fines. Yeah, I'd take a judge firing her.

Yes, she is refusing to carry out her duties. Yes, I can agree that she should be gone from her position. No, I can't agree that a judge should be able to remove an elected official.

 

She doesn't agree with the current Supreme Court rulings governing marriage, but she has accepted the salary and position of the person who hands out the licenses. IMHO, she doesn't have the right to withold those licenses any more than one judge has the right to remove her from office. In one case, it's a clerk voiding the decision of the Supreme Court. In the other, it's one judge voiding the votes of the people. Both are violating the system of checks and balances that we have in our country,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think of it as willy-nilly. Based on news reports, I think there are adequate grounds for her removal from office. Again (sounding like a broken record ), giving judges the ability to remove an elected official is an unwise proposition. What do we do when the case is not so cut and dried?

 

Judges hear cases all the time that aren't cut and dry. And again, they have the power to put people in jail. That seems like a much bigger deal than being fired. And also cheaper than putting her in jail. Seems win/win to me. Seeing as how I'm not actually in favor of throwing people in jail for every little thing.

  • 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?

Just wanted to address this with a homeschooling-related parallel.  In my state, there is no such thing as a cover school or umbrella school.  If you're enrolled in a private school, you're supposed to attend in-person, full time - 5 days a week.  However, there has been at least one private school which allowed their students to attend part time and school at home the rest of the time - say, 3 days of school a week.  Illegal in theory.  But if the parent is OK with it, and the private school is OK with it, and (this is key) the school district is OK with it, then there is no one to enforce the 5-day rule.  Here's how it works: each party - parent, school, district - can interpret the law any way they want.  The district is in charge of dealing with truancy.  If they interpret the law to say that 3 days a week attendance is just fine (or if they play don't ask, don't tell and just look at enrollment rather than attendance), then they aren't going to charge truancy, and there is no one else to do it. Assuming the school and parents don't raise a fuss (which clearly they have no reason to do), then everything is "under the radar" and there are no truancy issues.   (And since sometimes the kids in such programs would be expensive or difficult for the district to educate due to special needs of one kind or another, and the parents, being independent sorts, might get uppity about one thing or another, there is considerable incentive for the district to look the other way.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACLU is urging the court " to impose financial penalties "sufficiently serious" to compel her immediate compliance without further delay." (source) Is this a good way to get rid of elected officials? No. But she has already (in effect) stolen so much of her community's money by refusing to do her job WITHOUT refusing the paycheck. It's as good an option as any, I suppose.

Ask said upthread, I hope the people of her county sue her for the salary she collects while not doing her job. If she is elected in good faith and then realizes that she can no longer fulfill her obligations (ie issuing same sex marriage licenses ) then IMHO she should resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, she is refusing to carry out her duties. Yes, I can agree that she should be gone from her position. No, I can't agree that a judge should be able to remove an elected official.

 

She doesn't agree with the current Supreme Court rulings governing marriage ( and FTR neither do I ), but she has accepted the salary and position of the person who hands out the licenses. IMHO, she doesn't have the right to withold those licenses any more than one judge has the right to remove her from office. In one case, it's a clerk voiding the decision of the Supreme Court. In the other, it's one judge voiding the votes of the people. Both are violating the system of checks and balances that we have in our country,

 

I don't understand how you can keep supporting checks and balances that harm rather than help. It is not a checkered balance if it is a policy that allows people to draw large wages without doing jobs, and won't let anyone fire them without costing a small fortune. That's not a protective mechanism, that's a messed up system that costs a lot of money and inconvenience for everyone except the person behaving badly.

 

Who should be allowed to fire someone if not a *judge?* Judges are supposed to tidy up legal messes. Would you prefer the state governor fires her?

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judges hear cases all the time that aren't cut and dry. And again, they have the power to put people in jail. That seems like a much bigger deal than being fired. And also cheaper than putting her in jail. Seems win/win to me. Seeing as how I'm not actually in favor of throwing people in jail for every little thing.

But isn't there a difference in just firing someone and removing/firing an elected official?

FTR I wish this gal would take the cheaper option and just resign.

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 it in a nutshell for me.  Frankly, it's just not a good "look."  The 4 marriages just adds to it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask said upthread, I hope the people of her county sue her for the salary she collects while not doing her job. If she is elected in good faith and then realizes that she can no longer fulfill her obligations (ie issuing same sex marriage licenses ) then IMHO she should resign.

 

So they should spend money paying her salary (instead of firing her) then spend money trying her for contempt, then spend money jailing her, then spend money dealing with the lawsuit.

 

Or... you could just give the judge the power to fire her.

 

This seems like a no brainer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't there a difference in just firing someone and removing/firing an elected official?

FTR I wish this gal would take the cheaper option and just resign.

 

Is there? It's not like when the judge fires her, the people won't be able to elect someone else. So it's not like they lose their voice there. And no one is advocating that a judge be able to do this at his whim, but in cases where a person is refusing to fulfill their clearly outlined duties.

 

No, I don't see a difference. I think firing her is in every way preferable to jailing her and spending more money dishing out consequences, which aren't even the natural consequences of failing to do your job. The natural consequences would be... firing her.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to keep supporting our system of checks and balances because it works. I am totally against this gal's position. I think she should resign. What I can not support is the idea of a judge (one person ) being able to allowed to override an entire communty's vote. The community elected her and unfortunately,they have to deal with the consequences of her failure to do her job. That's part of the risk we assume as a community of voters in a democracy.

 

Um, this is the opposite of it working.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nepotism in public offices is a very common problem here. We live about an hour from Morehead, KY. I'm amazed she is still allowed being allowed to keep her office and continue to draw a salary. $80, 000 is a very good salary in that area.

 

I'm hoping this ends soon. Ky has enough negative publicity. No need to add to it.

80k!?!?!?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's violating the rights of every couple who applies for a license, gay and straight.  

 

I don't think she just owes the people of her county her $80K salary.  

 

She owes each and every couple damages for the harm and potential financial loss she is causing them.  I doubt your average straight couple who was planning their September 2015 wedding 6-12 months back knew one lady would unilaterally place a moratorium on them getting a license when they were paying the deposits on their photographers, caterers and ballrooms.  I doubt a person who was planning to marry this summer will be amused when they can't get on their would be spouse's health plan or be moved with their would be military spouse.  These are just a few possible scenarios.  I say, start adding it up and start filing suit.    

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also don't approve of any reasonable means of removing her should she refuse to resign and still break the law. 

 

Yup. It's not "one person" / one judge removing her.  It's someone filing a complaint, it getting heard, she appealed, the appeal was considered..... many steps and many people involved in this process.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also don't approve of any reasonable means of removing her should she refuse to resign and still break the law.

Not true, I totally approve of a recall election.

 

I also approve of contempt charges that would most likely cause her financial consequences and might require her incarceration which would most likely curtail her re-election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one woman is keeping the executive branch of government from performing one of its duties mandated by the legislative branch. It seems to me that having the judicial branch step in to stop her from doing that would be an excellent example of checks and balances working. She has already betrayed the people who voted for her by not doing what they elected her to do. The executive branch needs to be able to fulfill its role.

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some already established back up plan when an official is unable to do their job? Granted I have Battlestar Gallactica in my head where the Secretary of Education is the highest on the totem pole when the cylons go nuclear on humanity, but the principle seems applicable to me. There has to be a system in place already for when an official is incapacitated or dies.  Why hasn't that kicked in yet? If this woman had slipped into a coma someone would be legally allowed to issue marriage licenses in her place, right?   Line them up and ask each one in turn if they are willing to do the job and keep going until you get someone who will.  This is a clearly defined job requirement and US law addressed by SCOTUS, not some weird legal grey area that caught us unawares because we've never dealt with anything like it before.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some already established back up plan when an official is unable to do their job? Granted I have Battlestar Gallactica in my head where the Secretary of Education is the highest on the totem pole when the cylons go nuclear on humanity, but the principle seems applicable to me. There has to be a system in place already for when an official is incapacitated or dies.  Why hasn't that kicked in yet? If this woman had slipped into a coma someone would be legally allowed to issue marriage licenses in her place, right?   Line them up and ask each one in turn if they are willing to do the job and keep going until you get someone who will.  This is a clearly defined job requirement and US law addressed by SCOTUS, not some weird legal grey area that caught us unawares because we've never dealt with anything like it before.

 

I don't think issuing marriage licenses is something you need a line of succession for. ;) Well, at least we didn't before...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't most city officials issue licenses?  I recall mayors stepping in and celebrating equal marriage by personally issuing licenses at midnight just for the fun of it and so all hands would be on deck during the rush.  

 

Apparently the Judge could also (?), but the Judge stated that he wanted to "wait for the courts to settle the issue". (the video I posted upthread has it) Again, I suspect she is only the frontline of several in that courthouse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Catholic, I cannot support gay marriage. However, it is the law of the land and she ran for an office serving people who qualify under the law for marriage licenses. She should do her job or go away. 

 

FTR, I'm against the HHS mandate being applied to religious organizations that have clear teachings against contraception...but this is stupid. If they were forcing a priest to perform the marriage I would be outraged, but this is not that. 

 

Given the judicial climate in this country, I'm not in favor of letting judges remove elected officials. We have measures in place for removal. No, they aren't efficient, but they really aren't supposed to be. They are supposed to be thorough and fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think her 'fine' will be equal to or greater than her entire salary, plus court costs, plus a goodly amount on top per day. I don't believe there's personal immunity from liability for the actions she's taking right now so it could be a significant sum. There are ways to push people out.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this.  This woman needs to do her job, and if she won't, I find it hard to believe there is *no one* in that county that can issue a marriage license.  If that's the case, change the law in the county so that several positions can issues licenses.  This case has unnecessarily dragged on; that county should be able to find a way to flat out circumvent this woman, but it's clear both parties don't want accommodations for all, but prefer to obstruct.

Can't most city officials issue licenses?  I recall mayors stepping in and celebrating equal marriage by personally issuing licenses at midnight just for the fun of it and so all hands would be on deck during the rush.  

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there needs to be some way to replace an elected official who refuses to do specific jobs duties.  Like I asked above, what if the county clerk just doesn't bother showing up for work? How is this really any different from that?  No one is getting marriage licenses right now and that's a pretty big deal. It's the government's job to make sure that is happening and if an elected official isn't doing it, then they need to be replaced.

 

It may have been answered but the answer is impeachment.    She has to be impeached. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think her 'fine' will be equal to or greater than her entire salary, plus court costs, plus a goodly amount on top per day. I don't believe there's personal immunity from liability for the actions she's taking right now so it could be a significant sum. There are ways to push people out.

I only hope that the total is significant enough that her supporters will not be willing or able to pay it. Being a Christian martyr can be very lucrative these days.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our federal government is set up such that even the POTUS can be impeached.

 

Judges can be impeached.

 

I'd be very surprised if the same thing couldn't be done to a county clerk.

 

Whether or not the KY legislature wants to get off their collective behinds and do it is another matter.  If they choose not to, then I think the scope of the inconvenience being caused by this person is enough grounds for a judge to step in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading about how much power this one elected official has to disrupt certain government-mandated functions, it seems to me that the new strategy for the anti-government-allowed-gay-marriage crowd should be to get their people elected as county clerks in conservative parts of the country and then have them refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.  They can easily fund this and since it appears that we have no quick and simple mechanism for getting rid of elected officials who aren't doing specific job duties, then they can cause a lot of problems for a long time.  Civil disobedience at its finest.   :rolleyes:

 

How can we have no recourse except impeachment which is not a quick and simple process when an elected official won't do her job?

  • Like 1
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.

Yes, I can get this point. As a Mormon I wouldn't make artisan beer for a living. The only difference is this ruling was made after she was already on the job. I still think this will not end well for her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I can get this point. As a Mormon I wouldn't make artisan beer for a living. The only difference is this ruling was made after she was already on the job. I still think this will not end well for her.

 

Except that according to the articles I've read she was just (narrowly) re-elected last November.  So she would (or should) have known that it was likely coming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the only way she can be removed from office is if she is impeached.  She has been married four times.  She had twins five months after divorcing the first husband but they were fathered by the third husband.  She got the second husband to adopt them.  We aren't supposed to talk about all of that because she found God and now she has been wiped clean.  What she didn't seem to find was love, or acceptance, or humility.  She also needs to read the "judge not lest ye be judged" part!  

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that according to the articles I've read she was just (narrowly) re-elected last November.  So she would (or should) have known that it was likely coming.

 

And even if she didn't, if your job description changes to require something legal that you don't want to do, then you'll need to find another job if you refuse to do it. I can think of a lot of examples where this might happen and my employer wouldn't wait to fire me if I refused to do the new job requirements and didn't come up with a reasonable compromise that worked for both sides, if one exists.

 

I think that it's important to allow reasonable religious accommodations when possible, but this implied religious accommodation would seem to result in no one getting marriage licenses in the county and that is clearly not reasonable. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said upthread, I'm not sure of the solution. My preferred method in this particular case is for her to resign. She's clearly refusing to do her job that she agreed to do. She's chosen not to give out any marriage licenses so a religious defense can't explain her actions.

 

A recall election would be an expensive way to get rid of her, even if the recall was successful. Allowing her to draw a salary while not doing her job is ridiculous. Unfortunately, that may be the county's only option at this point. Contempt charges and consequences may or may not hasten her resignation.

 

Maybe this situation will cause town governments to rethink their structures.

I would prefer she resign too, but she is refusing.  How long should this be allowed to drag out?  Hopefully, there will be a resolution when she goes to court Thursday.  The Supreme Court has decided gay marriage is legal.  She is refusing to allow that to happen in Rowan County.  If she refuses to do her job, she should be removed.  She has continued to draw a tax paid salary of $80,000 while NOT doing her job.  A gay and straight couple have both sued her.  I hope this ends soon.

  • Like 4
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

×
×
  • Create New...