KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Rivka]

From US News and World Report:

 

The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. 

The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008.

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.

 

 

[Haiku]

Unfortunately, her children shouldn't have their history dragged into this. It's not their fault their mother is a spectacle.

[Home'scool]

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.

 

 

I'm thinking God will hold her accountable ..... for being such a judgmental person that she feels it necessary to try and cause sorrow and shame in other people's lives. 

[Ravin]

But then who would decide if you're following the law or not? This case may have easily established parameters but what about other elected officials? What about other elected judges? Senators? Representatives? State governors? The president? What about our system of checks and balances?

This is why impeachment proceedings are part of the system of checks and balances. Except, apparently, in Kentucky?

[mommaduck]

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. 

 

A reasonable accommodation is that she's permitted to allow someone else in her office sign off on the paperwork. Unless things are rubberstamped with her name anyhow, then it should not be a problem for her. 

 

Usually, reasonable accommodations include things like headscarves/religious cap (male or female), permission to wear a skirt instead of pants or vise versa (depending upon circumstances), wearing a small religious item around one's neck, a man not cutting his hair (but pulled neatly back), having a beard when a beard is not the norm, etc. Even then, there are exceptions to these exemptions. I've experienced some of them. If you work in a factory, you WILL have to wear pants for safety reasons. I know plenty of Pentacostal women that have bought pants for factory jobs. A headscarf might need to meet certain criteria (company colours...I could tell that one place was not comfortable with my scarf, but didn't know how to legally bring it up, so I saved them that and came up with a plan ahead of time. I showed them a snood in the company's most neutral colour, black. They approved it and everyone was happy. Based on the job, I KNEW that accommodations for the company would have to be made to meet my own religious accommodations). A Jewish lawyer would wear a small black cap and not something flashy and not a shawl (I'm reaching outside of my zone for terms and it's early in the morning, so please forgive me if I worded any of that wrong, but I think the picture I'm attempting is there). There are compromises that come with accommodations in order to keep reasonableness.

[justasque]

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.    

 

 

I believe they can get a license in another county, so while they have clearly been inconvenienced, they haven't been completely shut out, so that would reduce the potential damages quite a bit, I'm guessing.

 

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. 

 

 

I find it difficult to believe she's the only person in that county who can sign licenses. She may be the face (and the mouth) of the spectacle, but I doubt she's the only one involved.

As I understand it, there is at least one employee under her who would be willing to issue/sign the licenses, but she has commanded them not to, so they'd be risking their job to do it.  Because she's an elected official, she doesn't have a "boss" per se, who could make reasonable accommodation arrangements by having another willing clerk provide the licenses.

 

I have to wonder, given her chaotic history, whether she entirely understands the legal ramifications for her actions, and whether those who are urging her on will be there for her when the cameras leave and she's facing possible jail time.  I have to wonder whether she is getting accurate legal advice, especially given her choice to give no licenses at all.  (Does she think that will make a difference in a legal proceeding?)  The county is very rural and she has lived there all her life.  (The median household income, according to wiki, is $33K - significantly less than her salary in this job.)  An article said "she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders."  I assume that fear - for her eternal salvation - is real and serious. 

[mommaduck]

I believe they can get a license in another county, so while they have clearly been inconvenienced, they haven't been completely shut out, so that would reduce the potential damages quite a bit, I'm guessing.

 

 

 

As I understand it, there is at least one employee under her who would be willing to issue/sign the licenses, but she has commanded them not to, so they'd be risking their job to do it.  Because she's an elected official, she doesn't have a "boss" per se, who could make reasonable accommodation arrangements by having another willing clerk provide the licenses.

 

I have to wonder, given her chaotic history, whether she entirely understands the legal ramifications for her actions, and whether those who are urging her on will be there for her when the cameras leave and she's facing possible jail time.  I have to wonder whether she is getting accurate legal advice, especially given her choice to give no licenses at all.  (Does she think that will make a difference in a legal proceeding?)  The county is very rural and she has lived there all her life.  (The median household income, according to wiki, is $33K - significantly less than her salary in this job.)  An article said "she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders."  I assume that fear - for her eternal salvation - is real and serious. 

 

They should not have to go to another county. If they are fairly rural and poor as a county whole, then there are quite possibly many without transportation and no public transit. If I were single right now, I would not be able to go to another county to get a license. I CAN walk up to the courthouse though and deal with such. Also, the people of THAT county pay her salary. They should NOT have to be sent to another county to have someone do the job she has done. No, I don't think another county being or not being available should reduce potential damages.

 

Since she is going to court based on conscience, she has to prove how far she is willing to slide down that hill. Legally, she is also breaking the law by discrimination if she issues licenses for straight couples and not LGBT couples. So she is legally not discriminating. She will use that in court. Also, she is continuing to be in comtempt in effort to prove such. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.

[Ravin]

The problem is the precedent that would be set by allowing a judge to remove an elected official from office. We can't just look at this case and not add the decision to case law.

Actually, you can. Not all decisions, even on appeal, are published for citation as caselaw.

[kiana]

I have to wonder, given her chaotic history, whether she entirely understands the legal ramifications for her actions, and whether those who are urging her on will be there for her when the cameras leave and she's facing possible jail time.  I have to wonder whether she is getting accurate legal advice, especially given her choice to give no licenses at all.  (Does she think that will make a difference in a legal proceeding?)  The county is very rural and she has lived there all her life.  (The median household income, according to wiki, is $33K - significantly less than her salary in this job.)  An article said "she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders."  I assume that fear - for her eternal salvation - is real and serious. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if she believes "God will provide" and doesn't care about the potential legal ramifications. It's unfortunate for everyone around but also for her. 

[justasque]

They should not have to go to another county. If they are fairly rural and poor as a county whole, then there are quite possibly many without transportation and no public transit. If I were single right now, I would not be able to go to another county to get a license. I CAN walk up to the courthouse though and deal with such. Also, the people of THAT county pay her salary. They should NOT have to be sent to another county to have someone do the job she has done. No, I don't think another county being or not being available should reduce potential damages.

 

Since she is going to court based on conscience, she has to prove how far she is willing to slide down that hill. Legally, she is also breaking the law by discrimination if she issues licenses for straight couples and not LGBT couples. So she is legally not discriminating. She will use that in court. Also, she is continuing to be in comtempt in effort to prove such. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.

Oh, I completely agree that she is in the wrong here.  People are very much being harmed, and I don't mean to trivialize that.  Just speculating on how it is going to play out.

 

She's not discriminating per se - singling out a particular group - because she's not issuing to any flavor of couple, but it's clearly driven by religiously-based animus towards same-sex couples, so I don't think it's going to make a difference, from a legal perspective.  

[Word Nerd]

Regardless of public opinion, the judge can't just remove her from office. Why keep arguing about it?

[justasque]

I wouldn't be surprised if she believes "God will provide" and doesn't care about the potential legal ramifications. It's unfortunate for everyone around but also for her. 

 

It brings to mind, for  me, situations I've seen where a naive homeschooler is encouraged to resist various "grey area" aspects of reporting to the state, not keep CYA records, etc., then is left high and dry when they end up facing serious legal proceedings (which can then cause all kinds of problems within their marriage, create financial issues, etc.).  I hope I am wrong and she fully understands the potential earthly consequences of her actions (especially because she is apparently acting from fear for her eternal soul).

[LMD]

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.

I say this to dh all.the.time. I was just working up the energy to have a shower, seriously, gimme some of that energy pls!

[Haiku]

she is apparently acting from fear for her eternal soul

 

Based on the things she has said to the gay people who have applied for marriage licenses, I honestly think it is less about her soul and more about her bigotry. You don't have to actually degrade and be rude to people to protect your soul.

[LucyStoner]

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.

The job changing isn't any different than her beliefs changing on the job. Which presumably they have since she's not just a divorcee/biblical adulteress, but also literally committed adultery as well.

 

So in my fish and game job example, say it's my job to issue fishing and hunting licenses because I work at the state office which does that. Then say I become 7th Day Aventist or something and become vegan as a result. My beliefs have changed, my job has not. If I won't issue hunting or fishing licenses or allow my coworkers to do so, I shouldn't have that job. Similarly, now say I've always been a vegan for religious reasons and I just happen to work for a hiking and nature store as a manager. Say the store owner decides to contract with the state to start issuing hunting and fishing licenses. It *may* be reasonable for me to ask that my co-workers take care of that whenever feasible so I don't have to. It would absolutely NOT be reasonable for me to, as the store manager, defy what my boss has now made a part of the job and refuse to allow any hunting or fishing licenses to be issued. My boss could, and should, fire me straight out.

[Guest]

Based on the things she has said to the gay people who have applied for marriage licenses, I honestly think it is less about her soul and more about her bigotry. You don't have to actually degrade and be rude to people to protect your soul.

Seriously.  "I was brought to Christ when an angry woman yelled an insult at me" said no one, ever.

[poppy]

The obvious parallel is clerks who were forced to issue marriage certificates to interracial couples. It was slightly more ambigious then (1960s) because states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books.  Which were, no question at all, religiously inspired. The clerks did not succeed then, and neither will this one.  It's all the same, just hate masquerading as piousness.

[mommaduck]

Based on the things she has said to the gay people who have applied for marriage licenses, I honestly think it is less about her soul and more about her bigotry. You don't have to actually degrade and be rude to people to protect your soul.

 

If you watch one of the videos of the day she's wearing the blue jumper, a close up video shows her smirking at the gay man. A bit of "haha, you can't stop me". 

[Haiku]

Seriously.  "I was brought to Christ when an angry woman yelled an insult at me" said no one, ever.

 

Fer reels!

[justasque]

If you watch one of the videos of the day she's wearing the blue jumper, a close up video shows her smirking at the gay man. A bit of "haha, you can't stop me". 

 

Government employees, paid (very well) by their neighbors to serve those very neighbors, should not be smirking at anyone (most especially those neighbors) while on the job.

[Haiku]

If you watch one of the videos of the day she's wearing the blue jumper, a close up video shows her smirking at the gay man. A bit of "haha, you can't stop me". 

 

Yep. It's gross. She's such a vile woman.

[Pam in CT]

I'm with the ACLU on this one (shocking, I know).  If I were the judge, I'd slap her with as high a fine as I could dream up a justification for -- the full wages that have been paid out to her the full time she's been refusing to do her job, PLUS the cost of benefits during that time, PLUS any and all court related expenses throughout this circus, PLUS any known or expected damages that might result claims for problems like Katie raised:

 

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.    

Plus, plus, plus... (perhaps a taxi service to ferry license applicants over to the neighboring county...)

 

 

 

... and then I'd look to GARNISH HER WAGES until the fine were paid in full.  

 

And let the GoFundMe times roll.

 

(It'd held balance the budget too.)

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

The obvious parallel is clerks who were forced to issue marriage certificates to interracial couples. It was slightly more ambigious then (1960s) because states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. Which were, no question at all, religiously inspired. The clerks did not succeed then, and neither will this one. It's all the same, just hate masquerading as piousness.

Loving vs. Virginia was in 1967 so that is when the anti-miscegenation laws became moot. Much as Kentucky's ban on gay marriage was rendered moot this summer. The legally invalid miscegenation related laws in some states stayed on the books until quite recently. I have no doubt the same will happen with the state defense of marriage laws and some states will be sheepishly taking them off the books in 40 years to catch up with the times and not look ridiculous.

[justasque]

The obvious parallel is clerks who were forced to issue marriage certificates to interracial couples. It was slightly more ambigious then (1960s) because states still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books.  Which were, no question at all, religiously inspired. The clerks did not succeed then, and neither will this one.  It's all the same, just hate masquerading as piousness.

 

In an interesting parallel, in 2009 a Louisiana justice of the peace denied a marriage license to an interracial couple.  The judge, an elected official, eventually resigned.

 

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2½ years.

 

[LucyStoner]

In an interesting parallel, in 2009 a Louisiana justice of the peace denied a marriage license to an interracial couple. The judge, an elected official, eventually resigned.

Was he refusing the license or refusing to officiate himself?

 

Eta- read the article. That's really awful.

[Guest]

In an interesting parallel, in 2009 a Louisiana justice of the peace denied a marriage license to an interracial couple. The judge, an elected official, eventually resigned.

I have an uncle who tried to convince me that he isn't racist, he just doesn't think interracial couples should be allowed to have kids. For the kid's sake, you know. It was one of those moments where you literally hear your brain squeak as it tries to compute WTH was just said.

[mommaduck]

I have an uncle who tried to convince me that he isn't racist, he just doesn't think interracial couples should be allowed to have kids. For the kid's sake, you know. It was one of those moments where you literally hear your brain squeak as it tries to compute WTH was just said.

 

Even worse...had one person tell me that it was more disgusting for a black man to be with a white woman than a white man to be with a black woman. I was a young teen when I heard that one and I was WTH?! 

[BrookValley.]

I have an uncle who tried to convince me that he isn't racist, he just doesn't think interracial couples should be allowed to have kids. For the kid's sake, you know. It was one of those moments where you literally hear your brain squeak as it tries to compute WTH was just said.

 

 

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who feel this way. They just don't generally talk about it unless they think they are in like-minded company. And like your uncle, they somehow think it's "not racist." The mental gymnastics necessary to arrive at that conclusion must be mighty impressive.  :confused1:

[Guest]

Even worse...had one person tell me that it was more disgusting for a black man to be with a white woman than a white man to be with a black woman. I was a young teen when I heard that one and I was WTH?!

Well, white women are so precious and must be protected like the delicate flowers that they are. Duh.

[LucyStoner]

When someone says in earnest "I'm not racist, I just________", dollars to doughnuts WHATEVER they say after "just" will be jawdroppingly racist and outrageous. Nothing good, nothing at all, ever follows that chain of 5 words.

[LucyStoner]

Even worse...had one person tell me that it was more disgusting for a black man to be with a white woman than a white man to be with a black woman. I was a young teen when I heard that one and I was WTH?!

This is rooted in the racist and patriarchal notion that all women are for men's pleasure. From the very day the transatlantic slave trade started, white men were using black women for their own sexual gratification. These racist assholes might dress it up as concern for white women but really, it's about them being able to do whatever the heck they want while telling others what they can and can't do.

[mommaduck]

Well, white women are so precious and must be protected like the delicate flowers that they are. Duh.

 

Ikr? Ugh! 

[Greta]

When someone says in earnest "I'm not racist, I just________", dollars to doughnuts WHATEVER they say after "just" will be jawdroppingly racist and outrageous. Nothing good, nothing at all, ever follows that chain of 5 words.

Yes! Just yesterday I was thinking the same thing about the five words, "Not to be sexist, but . . . " :lol:

[BrookValley.]

When someone says in earnest "I'm not racist, I just________", dollars to doughnuts WHATEVER they say after "just" will be jawdroppingly racist and outrageous. Nothing good, nothing at all, ever follows that chain of 5 words.

 

EXACTLY. 

[mommymilkies]

Oh, I completely agree that she is in the wrong here.  People are very much being harmed, and I don't mean to trivialize that.  Just speculating on how it is going to play out.

 

She's not discriminating per se - singling out a particular group - because she's not issuing to any flavor of couple, but it's clearly driven by religiously-based animus towards same-sex couples, so I don't think it's going to make a difference, from a legal perspective.  

But she is.  She's singling out a particular group to punish everyone for the law changing.  It's like when a teacher punishes a class for something one student does that isn't even bad.  She's abusing her authority to punish everyone because of her hatred of a single group.  She sure didn't do this before marriage legalization which means she's not totally opposed to marriage (hence her four marriages) but to gay marriage. 

[HRAAB]

When someone says in earnest "I'm not racist, I just________", dollars to doughnuts WHATEVER they say after "just" will be jawdroppingly racist and outrageous. Nothing good, nothing at all, ever follows that chain of 5 words.

 

I can't tell you have many times I've heard my dear mil say that.  "I'm not prejudice, but ......."  It's right after the 'but' that I quit listening.  Of course, compared to her mother, she seems accepting and open.  Somehow her kids did not pick up those prejudices that she claims she doesn't have.  One of the best things that ever happened are some of her kids and grandkids marrying into other ethnic groups.  Too bad there's one or two still missing.

[Frances]

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

According to her strict Biblical beliefs, I don't understand how she has been wiped clean. She's still divorced and remarried. Finding God didn't change that. Isn't she still living in sin?

 

Please note that I don't believe this way, I'm just trying to understand her belief system.

[kiana]

When someone says in earnest "I'm not racist, I just________", dollars to doughnuts WHATEVER they say after "just" will be jawdroppingly racist and outrageous. Nothing good, nothing at all, ever follows that chain of 5 words.

 

relevant cartoon: http://imgur.com/gallery/6sPrzhY

[Renthead Mommy]

I know she's being sued by two couples.  Is it just to get their license?  Are they suing for money lost?  I mean you spend 6-12 months planning a wedding, which cost tens of thousands of dollars.  Suddenly you can't be married? So you are out depositis, fees, expenses.  Plus emotional damage.  And that's just the couples.  Why are photographers and bakeries not bringing suits against her? She is taking away business from them.  Plus why isn't the town sueing her for not doing her job while they pay her?  She only makes 80,000 a year.  Three to four destroyed weddings could run that much.  

[Word Nerd]

I know she's being sued by two couples.  Is it just to get their license?  Are they suing for money lost?  I mean you spend 6-12 months planning a wedding, which cost tens of thousands of dollars.  Suddenly you can't be married? So you are out depositis, fees, expenses.  Plus emotional damage.  And that's just the couples.  Why are photographers and bakeries not bringing suits against her? She is taking away business from them.  Plus why isn't the town sueing her for not doing her job while they pay her?  She only makes 80,000 a year.  Three to four destroyed weddings could run that much.  

 

They could still get a marriage license in another county, so I'm not sure if she has actually destroyed any weddings. People shouldn't have to go out of county for a license, of course, and she should be held accountable for refusing to perform her job duties. 

[justasque]

 

 

...

Since she is going to court based on conscience, she has to prove how far she is willing to slide down that hill. Legally, she is also breaking the law by discrimination if she issues licenses for straight couples and not LGBT couples. So she is legally not discriminating. She will use that in court. Also, she is continuing to be in comtempt in effort to prove such. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.

 

 

 

...
She's not discriminating per se - singling out a particular group - because she's not issuing to any flavor of couple, but it's clearly driven by religiously-based animus towards same-sex couples, so I don't think it's going to make a difference, from a legal perspective.  

 

 

 

But she is.  She's singling out a particular group to punish everyone for the law changing.  It's like when a teacher punishes a class for something one student does that isn't even bad.  She's abusing her authority to punish everyone because of her hatred of a single group.  She sure didn't do this before marriage legalization which means she's not totally opposed to marriage (hence her four marriages) but to gay marriage. 

 

Sorry - I wasn't clear.  Let me try again.  I think she is thinking - 

I don't want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, because I fear that if I do, I'm risking my eternal soul.  I know that if I just refuse the gays, but issue to straight couples, then that is going to be considered discrimination, and I know I can't do that and get away with it legally, even if my actions are for religious reasons.  But if I refuse to issue to *anyone*, then they can't say it's discrimination, and I can have my right to religious freedom upheld.

But the court isn't stupid.  When exceptions for religious reasons are granted by the courts, they are usually very narrowly drawn - the least restrictive solution (like you described with the black snood).  And the court is skeptical of so-called religious reasons that are actually driven by animus (hate) towards a protected group.  So her strategy is unlikely to result in support from the courts (or the court of public opinion, especially given her own background with marriage and adultery), even if it can, on the surface, be described as "not discriminatory".

I have to wonder what her long-term vision is?  Is her plan to keep the job but not ever issue a marriage license?  That seems less than ideal, especially if she is not allowing *anyone* in her office to issue them.  Does she think she's starting a movement, which other clerks will join, and eventually it will be so hard to get a license that the courts will change their minds and ban same-sex marriage just so that straights can get licenses?  

This is not going to end well for her.  She is likely getting very, very bad legal advice.

[mommaduck]

According to her strict Biblical beliefs, I don't understand how she has been wiped clean. She's still divorced and remarried. Finding God didn't change that. Isn't she still living in sin?

 

Please note that I don't believe this way, I'm just trying to understand her belief system.

 

There are different views on this.

 

Some believe that ANYTHING that happened before you are "saved" doesn't count, only what happens after. So if her marriages, affair, etc all happened before her fourth marriage, then it "doesn't count".

 

Now, some will say that if she was "saved" before her fourth marriage, then she should not have remarried her fourth and some will say it's fine. I got the impression that she was referring to her fourth MIL and therefore her being "saved" was after the fourth marriage. If his mother was UPC and he was UPC, he technically should not have married her. However, I have not found a lot of consistency in such with UPC acquaintances I've had.

 

There are those that believe that if one has been divorced and remarried and is now "saved", then they should separate from their current spouse and remain celibate (divorce is not allowed, but continuing the marriage is not permitted either). 

 

Either way, she's been in a muck. Yes, I believe people can change. Either way, she has a past and she's holding her not just herself to her new faith, but everyone else as well. She is not separating herself in a professional manner. There are ways that one can and there are issues where one cannot. As a professional, the appropriate thing is to act like a professional or remove herself. She's doing neither. Bringing up her marriages just shows that her life has not been exemplary and she should not be standing in judgment of those around here. They are obeying the law and they are asking her to do the same or allow someone else that is able to obey the law to do so. Given what I can see of her personality, what I know of her beliefs or types of beliefs, and that there are people that are just antsing to be "persecuted for their beliefs", I don't hold out a lot of hope for her being reasonable and I think this is a combination of factors with her. She needs to be removed. 

[Stacia]

I think at this point, she is being driven as much by her local & media 'fame' as she is by her so-called religious convictions.

[MomatHWTK]

If you begin reading at Section I.A Background here you can get some idea of the remedies available to private individuals who suffer a civil rights violation. 

[Laura Corin]

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.

 

I do find the number of elected positions in US towns strange.  Here we have an independent judiciary, but the person in charge of weddings (the Superintendent Registrar) is a civil servant, a government employee hired through the normal candidate search.  If s/he does not do the job, then s/he can be fired.  I don't see that it is a political job where election is important.

 

Maybe I don't understand the full nature of a clerk's position: she's the town administrative manager, is that right?

 

Here's a lower level registrar's position:

 

http://www.cv-library.co.uk/job/202754023/Registrar-West-London?s=100244&utm_source=Indeed&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Indeed

[mommaduck]

A lot of times, people don't even know who these people running are. The only reason they get voted in is that they are 1) the only ones running, so it's a default. 2) those that vote are part of their crowd. 3) those that vote and don't know who the heck they are just check a box.

 

Honestly, there was voting for a Senator yesterday. Do you know when I found out about it? Thursday. That was not enough time to get my voting card found or resent. I received a last minute phone call. Not a thing was on any of the newspaper sites. No signs were up in town, even though there had been a meeting up at the county museum. I had no clue until a call for one of the candidates was made to my home, late Thursday night. 

[Pawz4me]

I do find the number of elected positions in US towns strange.  Here we have an independent judiciary, but the person in charge of weddings (the Superintendent Registrar) is a civil servant, a government employee hired through the normal candidate search.  If s/he does not do the job, then s/he can be fired.  I don't see that it is a political job where election is important.

 

Maybe I don't understand the full nature of a clerk's position: she's the town administrative manager, is that right?

 

Here's a lower level registrar's position:

 

http://www.cv-library.co.uk/job/202754023/Registrar-West-London?s=100244&utm_source=Indeed&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Indeed

 

I'm a little fuzzy on how the term "clerk" is being used regarding her.  All I've seen are references to her being the "county clerk."

 

Some of the smaller towns here have clerks, and yes -- they're like administrative managers.  My sister in law is employed as a town clerk.  She mainly keeps the books balanced, collects water bills, cuts checks to pay approved town expenses, takes and prepares the minutes from the town council meetings, etc.  It's a job one applies and interviews for just like any other job.  And depending on the town either the mayor or the town council (or both) would have the ability to fire a town clerk who wasn't fulfilling her duties adequately.

 

But when one wants a marriage license here one goes to the office of the clerk of superior court for the county in which one is planning on getting married.  Those are elected positions.  I don't know of any other "county clerk" position here.  If I do a search on my county's name (or any of the surrounding counties) and the word "clerk" all I get are hits for the clerk of superior court of that county.

 

I think maybe things are a bit different in Kentucky (and since the issuance of marriage licenses is a state matter, that's not unusual).

[Stacia]

I like this article. It highlights some of the couples who have tried to get marriage licenses from that clerk's office:

Battle to marry in Kentucky: 6 couples, gay and straight, one purpose 

[Orthodox6]

I think the clerk should resign from her post. There are jobs that I could not hold because of my strongly-held values, so I would not even begin working at one of them. Decades ago, I held an office job (one of the many jobs during college) for a sales company. When I realized the lies and tactics being used by the telephone sales staff, I quit and moved on to other work. If this woman is the one-and-only clerk for that county office, I believe she should leave the job. If, on the other hand, there is at least one other clerk who does not object to the task, I feel at ease with allowing the clerk in question to exercise her rights of conscience. I don't have the impression that this particular county office has lines of customers for this kind of a license wrapped around ten city blocks. Tolerance is supposed to be bi-directional. So long as the particular task is fulfilled, and EVERYBODY refrains from nasty comments, I genuinely see no problem.

[Mimm]

ast one employee under her who would be willing to issue/sign the licenses, but she has commanded them not to, so they'd be risking their job to do it.  Because she's an elected official, she doesn't have a "boss" per se, who could make reasonable accommodation arrangements by having another willing clerk provide the licenses.

 

I have to wonder, given her chaotic history, whether she entirely understands the legal ramifications for her actions, and whether those who are urging her on will be there for her when the cameras leave and she's facing possible jail time.  I have to wonder whether she is getting accurate legal advice, especially given her choice to give no licenses at all.  (Does she think that will make a difference in a legal proceeding?)  The county is very rural and she has lived there all her life.  (The median household income, according to wiki, is $33K - significantly less than her salary in this job.)  An article said "she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders."  I assume that fear - for her eternal salvation - is real and serious. 

 

Does she fear for her eternal salvation if she quits her job? Yeah, I have zero sympathy for this woman. She has a perfectly acceptable way out that would NOT damage her conscious but she won't do it because her pocketbook would take a hit. 

 

Based on the things she has said to the gay people who have applied for marriage licenses, I honestly think it is less about her soul and more about her bigotry. You don't have to actually degrade and be rude to people to protect your soul.

 

Bigotry and money. Mostly money. But the bigotry is important too.

 

I have an uncle who tried to convince me that he isn't racist, he just doesn't think interracial couples should be allowed to have kids. For the kid's sake, you know. It was one of those moments where you literally hear your brain squeak as it tries to compute WTH was just said.

 

My sister after moving here was at work and commented off hand to a coworker, "I notice a lot more interracial couples in this area than where I moved from."

 

Her coworker said, "Yeah, it's disgusting isn't it?"

 

My sister just looked at her and said, "My son is 1/4 black, 1/4 Mexican."

 

The girl apparently turned bright red and looked horrified. Why would someone just assume everyone around them agreed with their bigotry? ;)

 

When someone says in earnest "I'm not racist, I just________", dollars to doughnuts WHATEVER they say after "just" will be jawdroppingly racist and outrageous. Nothing good, nothing at all, ever follows that chain of 5 words.

 

http://i.imgur.com/qvXcwME.jpg

 

That made me laugh. :)