Jump to content

Menu

KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses


Moxie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do we as a nation want judges to have the authority to demand an elected official resign?

 

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard her on the radio today, when asked by a couple seeking a license why she wouldn't do her job, say that she would face her judgment just like they would face theirs on judgment day.  She is not doing her religion any favors with words and actions like that.  

 

Are there any WTM families in that area?  What's the local mood about it?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. So apparently her mom had the office before her, and her son is part of her staff. Yep, no nepotism there.  :001_rolleyes:

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yes. Google Kim Davis on Youtube. There is a nearly 13min video that shows the couple talking with her son and those in her office. They are told that one person would sign it, but has been forbidden to. At one point I think it even gets blamed on the attorneys. Another excuse is that the workers don't have the paperwork and don't have access to it. They are then handed the paperwork needed (probably obtained from online or elsewhere). It's taken and refused to be filled out. They also head down the hall to the judge's office, where they have been told that the judge can sign it. He's not in. They offer to wait. The secretary offers to call his cell for them. The judge basically claims that he either can't sign it or won't, because he wants to let it all play out in court FIRST. So, my guess is that this thing is bigger than just the Clerk. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard her on the radio today, when asked by a couple seeking a license why she wouldn't do her job, that she would face her judgment just like they would face theirs on judgment day.  She is not doing her religion any favors with words and actions like that.  

 

Are there any WTM families in that area?  What's the local mood about it?  

We live about an hour away.  Most people are fed up with her and want her either to resign or sign the marriage licenses.  There was a religious freedom rally recently and she was the main speaker.  I didn't hear much about that in the news though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live about an hour away.  Most people are fed up with her and want her either to resign or sign the marriage licenses.  There was a religious freedom rally recently and she was the main speaker.  I didn't hear much about that in the news though.

The ironic part is that she has been married 4 times. 

  • Like 4
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.

I agree. I just don't know how it should be done. One way is a recall election, but that is costly. A recall hasn't been mentioned in any articles so I don't know if that's a valid option for their area.

 

If she really wants to take the high road, then her resignation would be a good way to do that. Personally, I think that still drawing a salary while refusing to do a job is highly unethical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we as a nation want judges to have the authority to demand an elected official resign?

 

If someone flatly refuses to do the job they were elected to do, then yeah, I'm kinda ok with that.

 

ETA: I realize the implications of this are far reaching and not something I'm thinking clearly about (long day, my brain is fried) but I have absolutely no sympathy for this woman and she needed to get her ass out of office. She has no business being elected to do a job then deciding she doesn't like it and still pulling in a pay check. That's ridiculous and I don't care what her reasons are. I would have a little respect for her if she'd simply resign in protest. At that point, it's like, yeah, ok, you're against it, fine. Plus, she's a raging hypocrite.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is refusing to do her duty as described. She also, under the same conscience, decide not to sign any business licenses, etc simply because she is against alcohol and tobacco products (I believe she is UPC. Apostolic/United Pentacostal Church aka Oneness Pentacostals). She does not have this right as a secular servant. There IS a separation of Church and State to protect both. If she is allowed to run things under her beliefs, then it's treading upon the beliefs of others in the community that do not share her beliefs. This is why we have secular law. The law has declared that gay people are permitted marriage licenses and to marry. No one is forcing her church to marry them. She is merely providing the license on the behalf of the County/State in accordance to the law. That is her job. If she cannot uphold the law of the land, then she needs to step down. If she feels the law of the land is wrong, then she can fight it on her personal time and she can also step down if it's against her conscience to be part of carrying out that law. This is reality. I am thankful for it.

 

I agree with Mimm. I have more respect for those that have stepped down out of conscience than to stand in the office and play games, punish everyone, etc.

  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live about an hour away.  Most people are fed up with her and want her either to resign or sign the marriage licenses.  There was a religious freedom rally recently and she was the main speaker.  I didn't hear much about that in the news though.

 

Funny how "religious freedom" doesn't mean freedom for gay people, plenty of whom are religious.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it this way. There are people that still believe inter-racial couples should not be allowed to married. If one of those people were voted into office, should we allow them to refuse marriage licenses to inter-racial couples on matters of conscience? Should they be allowed to deny people of certain faiths? If it were denied to Christians, it would be called "persecution". Is it not the same when applied to others? Again, this is a matter of separation. No one is making any particular church or faith marry these men. The judge might have to, because he sits in a role of serving the ENTIRE public by upholding its law, regardless of whether he agrees with the law (and this happens in all sorts of cases). But there is the separation and there are good reasons we have that separation. If she is unable to recognise the difference or separate the two personally, then she is no longer qualified for the position she had been elected to. It is that simple.

 

*I wish I could finish my paralegal degree*

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has decided that a judge can remove an elected official from office?

 

No, the SCOTUS decided that they wouldn't hear her appeal.  Thus, they agree that she is in contempt of the lower court ruling.  She can be fined (heavily) and held in a jail, just like anyone else in contempt of court for any number of reasons.  

 

I don't know if the court can order her to resign or not.  They might say "resign or these sanctions will be imposed" or she might decide to resign to protect herself from significant fines or jail.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has decided the law. She is REQUIRED to carry out that law.

Again, I agree. She should either fulfill her commitments or resign, IMHO. What I don't agree with is advocating that judges should have the power to remove an elected official. When this is over, I hope the people of her town sue her for the wages that she received while not fulfilling her obligations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has decided that a judge can remove an elected official from office?

 

Have you read the woman's statement?

"It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience. I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned – that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking."

 

She is making a legal challenge in an effort to keep her salary and position while also being able to determine who can and cannot get a marriage license in her town based on her personal opinion.  I can't see how a judge having a say in this matter is inappropriate.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the solution is to not make things like city clerks elected positions so that once someone worms their way into the office, they can completely fail to do their job for years without any consequences whatsoever.  Or have multiple positions so that one person can't just shut everything down on a whim.

 

I mean really, having one person able to shut down a county's marriages, disallow any new businesses, etc. without any oversight is idiotic.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the solution is to not make things like city clerks elected positions so that once someone worms their way into the office, they can completely fail to do their job for years without any consequences whatsoever.  Or have multiple positions so that one person can't just shut everything down on a whim.

 

I mean really, having one person able to shut down a county's marriages, disallow any new businesses, etc. without any oversight is idiotic.

 

These people get paid good money and many counties can't afford more than one. Yes, something needs to change and I agree that the position should probably be divided between at least two. People will just have to deal with smaller paychecks in poorer counties (I'm not going to feel too much pity on that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOMEONE has to be able to remove her. However, it has been explained above. She may resign or face consequences (fines, jail). Facing consequences COULD, in essence, remove her from her position in an active manner. Someone else will have to fill in.

 

I read that the KY legislature would have to impeach her?  And they don't come into session for 4 months?  

 

Here city and county clerks can be fired by the people they report to- the mayor or county executive and the city and county councils.  But we don't elect the clerks.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOMEONE has to be able to remove her. However, it has been explained above. She may resign or face consequences (fines, jail). Facing consequences COULD, in essence, remove her from her position in an active manner. Someone else will have to fill in.

 

I wonder if the state legislature could somehow dissolve her position? Someone had to set things up so that her position was elected, for so many years, etc. Couldn't the legislative body that originally did all that undo it? Or add a second clerk? Or something?

 

I hope I'm making sense. I'm sick and I feel like yuck. :(

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this an elected position instead of being a local or state government employee?

 

 

Aren't judges supposed to have a lot of power?

 

Clerk is a high-paying municipal job and it's often an elected position to make sure it is someone who works for the people, not appointed by the mayor / town manager / whatever.  So that the person will be (1) competent, because it's a complex job (2) objective versus politically minded and (3) can't be fired if they irritate the powers that be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the SCOTUS decided that they wouldn't hear her appeal. Thus, they agree that she is in contempt of the lower court ruling. She can be fined (heavily) and held in a jail, just like anyone else in contempt of court for any number of reasons.

 

I don't know if the court can order her to resign or not. They might say "resign or these sanctions will be imposed" or she might decide to resign to protect herself from significant fines or jail.

Yes, this is correct. She's chosen her course of action, and it's in direct defiance of the law. She has to answer to the court for her contempt.

 

Again, I agree that her choices have consequences. What I don't agree with is the idea that a judge should have the power to remove an elected official from office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. It's the idea of allowing a judge to remove an elected official that I don't agree with. That's a lot of power to give to one person.

 

The judge having the power to send her to prison is giving him a lot of power AND costing tax payers even more money than simply firing her.

 

Again, I realize there are probably implications to this I'm not thinking through but in THIS case, where there is a very clear failure to do her job, along with a perfectly acceptable easy way for her to not "violate her conscious" (that is, resigning) then I'm not seeing the problem.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clerk is a high-paying municipal job and it's often an elected position to make sure it is someone who works for the people, not appointed by the mayor / town manager / whatever.  So that the person will be (1) competent, because it's a complex job (2) objective versus politically minded and (3) can't be fired if they irritate the powers that be.

 

Obviously that was a huge fail in this case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

County Clerk is a weird position to be elected to, any way. The job REALLY doesn't require much of any one character trait or set of skills, besides managerial stuff and paperwork. What does that campaign look like? "I've never lost a paperclip in my life and I know EXACTLY how to collate my copies. I'm yer gal!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clerk is a high-paying municipal job and it's often an elected position to make sure it is someone who works for the people, not appointed by the mayor / town manager / whatever.  So that the person will be (1) competent, because it's a complex job (2) objective versus politically minded and (3) can't be fired if they irritate the powers that be.

 

Whoops I see Rosie already made my point.

 

I don't think being an elected position goes with the second point here very well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clerk is a high-paying municipal job and it's often an elected position to make sure it is someone who works for the people, not appointed by the mayor / town manager / whatever.  So that the person will be (1) competent, because it's a complex job (2) objective versus politically minded and (3) can't be fired if they irritate the powers that be.

 

It sounds like 1 and 2 don't really work.

 

Why would such a position be appointed by the mayor or someone instead of advertised and interviewed by a panel like a normal job?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that the KY legislature would have to impeach her?  And they don't come into session for 4 months?  

 

Here city and county clerks can be fired by the people they report to- the mayor or county executive and the city and county councils.  But we don't elect the clerks.  

 

 

I wonder if the state legislature could somehow dissolve her position? Someone had to set things up so that her position was elected, for so many years, etc. Couldn't the legislative body that originally did all that undo it? Or add a second clerk? Or something?

 

I hope I'm making sense. I'm sick and I feel like yuck. :(

 

What LucyStoner said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

County Clerk is a weird position to be elected to, any way. The job REALLY doesn't require much of any one character trait or set of skills, besides managerial stuff and paperwork. What does that campaign look like? "I've never lost a paperclip in my life and I know EXACTLY how to collate my copies. I'm yer gal!"

 

This made me laugh. I honestly had no idea this was an elected position. It does seem like it should be simply appointed. Then, you don't wanna do the job? Ok, see you next never.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A judge can have a say in this matter and has. She is having to answer to contempt charges which could require a fine or jail time or both.

 

What I am against is the idea and/or precedent that a judge can single handedly remove an elected official from office.

 

I

 

I think what you are forgetting is that this would be UNDER CERTAIN SET CIRCUMSTANCES, not just willy-nilly on the judge's whim.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you are forgetting is that this would be UNDER CERTAIN SET CIRCUMSTANCES, not just willy-nilly on the judge's whim.

 

Like when they are breaking the law.

 

If a judge can't fire a county official for breaking the law, who can? Requiring an act of parliament (or whatever you call it) seems drastically expensive!

  • Like 3
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?

 

Then what is your solution?

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...