KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Guest]

Wow. You really think it's okay for clerks to refuse to provide marriage licenses to interracial couples? If I was a county clerk and I refused to give marriage licenses to any Christians in the county, would you be perfectly fine with that, too? Or, and I'd bet this is more likely, would you be screaming about persecution and discrimination?

I've already had someone on my FB claim that if a Muslim clerk denied a Christian his rights, no one would bat an eye.

 

I want to scream "WTF PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON!!??!"

[Mergath]

The one I saw said, would it be religious freedom if there was a town where no gun permits would be issued because of a town employee's Quaker pacifism? Or anything based on Sharia law?

 

Also, Kim Davis can't have a GoFundMe account. The site forbids "Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts."

I'm sure Liberty Counsel or whatever it is will be happy to collect donations on her behalf. After deducting a hefty administrative fee, of course.

 

But kudos to gofundme for refusing to help support people like her.

[melmichigan]

I've already had someone on my FB claim that if a Muslim clerk denied a Christian his rights, no one would bat an eye.

 

I want to scream "WTF PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON!!??!"

:smilielol5:

[Joanne]

Your link isn't working for me.

Fixed it. If you want to edit.

[Rosie_0801]

The one I saw said, would it be religious freedom if there was a town where no gun permits would be issued because of a town employee's Quaker pacifism?  Or anything based on Sharia law?

 

You know, there's some good stuff in Sharia law. 

 

Husband has to pay all the bills.  :thumbup1:

Wife gets to keep all the money she earns and spend it how she likes.  :thumbup:

 

 

 

*I'm pulling your leg, People. Organise your household finances however works for ya.

[LucyStoner]

The one I saw said, would it be religious freedom if there was a town where no gun permits would be issued because of a town employee's Quaker pacifism? Or anything based on Sharia law?

 

Also, Kim Davis can't have a GoFundMe account. The site forbids "Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts."

How then did those awful Naughlers slip by?

 

There are many other platforms and ways to collect donor money though. Never fear, people will find a way to give her money.

[December]

Wow. You really think it's okay for clerks to refuse to provide marriage licenses to interracial couples? If I was a county clerk and I refused to give marriage licenses to any Christians in the county, would you be perfectly fine with that, too? Or, and I'd bet this is more likely, would you be screaming about persecution and discrimination?

 

No, I don't think it's okay!  I would find that abhorrent.  I am just uneasy about the idea of putting people in jail for it.  Something can be wrong without it be worthy of jail time.

 

If anyone knows the name of a clerk that was jailed over refusing to issue a license for an interracial couple, I'd like to know that person's name so I can research more about how it was handled.

[Rosie_0801]

No, I don't think it's okay!  I would find that abhorrent.  I am just uneasy about the idea of putting people in jail for it.  Something can be wrong without it be worthy of jail time.

 

They're getting jailed for contempt of court. We don't want to make contempt of court no big deal.

[BrookValley.]

No, I don't think it's okay! I would find that abhorrent. I am just uneasy about the idea of putting people in jail for it. Something can be wrong without it be worthy of jail time.

But she's not being put in jail for her beliefs. I agree, that would be problematic, regardless of how much I disagree. She's being put in jail for refusing to follow the law. There's a distinct--and big--difference.

[Mergath]

No, I don't think it's okay! I would find that abhorrent. I am just uneasy about the idea of putting people in jail for it. Something can be wrong without it be worthy of jail time.

 

If anyone knows the name of a clerk that was jailed over refusing to issue a license for an interracial couple, I'd like to know that person's name so I can research more about how it was handled.

 

If she won't follow a court order, won't let her employees do it, and won't resign, what else would you suggest the judge do?

[Corraleno]

How then did those awful Naughlers slip by?

 

They very quickly deleted the statement about the donations going towards legal fees and substituted a list of things they would buy for the children, like a laptop for each of the ten kids, and materials to build a house.  And then they closed the GoFundMe and put up PayPal buttons instead so no one would know how much they were raking in, or ask for accountability in terms of where it was spent (like on a hotel with A/C and a pool while the kids were in CPS custody).

[elegantlion]

I wonder if she swore her office oath on a bible?  :confused1:

 

So if you swear to God and country on a bible to do your job and uphold the law knowing full well you don't agree with some of it¹, then you violate that oath, shouldn't you be more concerned about the frickin' log in your own eye? ²

 

 

 

 

1: because I'm pretty sure no one agrees 100% with every law on their county's books. 

2: going for world's longest run-on sentence. 

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

No, I don't think it's okay! I would find that abhorrent. I am just uneasy about the idea of putting people in jail for it. Something can be wrong without it be worthy of jail time.

 

If anyone knows the name of a clerk that was jailed over refusing to issue a license for an interracial couple, I'd like to know that person's name so I can research more about how it was handled.

Jailing people for contempt is traditionally one of the tools that judges have in their toolbox to enforce court rulings. Without some enforcement mechanisms, subpoenas and court orders cease to carry any real weight. Without the weight of consequences for defiance, the judiciary becomes a nice little bit of theater with no real power. Our economic, political and social systems would cease to function in the absense of a stable and meaningful judiciary.

 

If you look up United States v. Brittain you can read about just one case in many of a court official (in this case a judge) refusing to comply with Loving vs. Virginia three years after the SCOTUS invalidated all remaining miscegenation laws nationwide.

[Haiku]

I am just uneasy about the idea of putting people in jail for it. Something can be wrong without it be worthy of jail time.

Just so we're clear here: she is in jail for being in contempt of court. She is NOT in jail for her religious beliefs. She is in jail because a court ordered her to carry out her duties as a civil servant, and she refused. It DOES NOT MATTER why she refused. It matters that she violated a court order. Contempt of court IS worthy of jail time.

 

This is a very important distinction that I don't think you're making.

[Stacia]

If anyone knows the name of a clerk that was jailed over refusing to issue a license for an interracial couple, I'd like to know that person's name so I can research more about how it was handled.

 

Not sure if this completely answers what you're looking for:

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/ 

 

Did NC actually pass this law? Anyone know???

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/02/north_carolina_law_lets_magistrates_refuse_marriage_licenses_to_gay_and.html 

[Stacia]

Hood County clerk’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers $43,000 

[Word Nerd]

If she won't follow a court order, won't let her employees do it, and won't resign, what else would you suggest the judge do?

This.

 

I don't think she belongs in jail either, but since she has refused to abide by her oath to uphold the law, won't let the deputies issue licenses, and won't resign, I'm not sure what else he could have done. She chose to go to jail and could get out now. She does have other options.

[Stacia]

It bugs me the way some people/places are wording the whole thing as this being an infringement of the clerk's religious liberties. It is not. She is free to practice the religion of her choice. She can talk about her religion, attend the religious services she wants, pray, hold religious meetings in her home, own religious texts, wear religious symbols as jewelry, dress per her religion's code, etc.... Nobody is making her give up her religion, or change religions, or have no religion at all. Her religious liberty is completely intact.

 

But, she is refusing to carry out her oath-sworn duties as a public servant of the government. She is denying the civil rights (which have been assured by the Supreme Court) of her fellow citizens. Because she is refusing a direct ruling of the Supreme Court, she is in defiance of the laws. People who defy the laws & get caught often have to serve a punishment, whether that is a fine, probation, or jail time. She is breaking the law. Period. 

 

Her religious liberty is not the issue at all here. To say that it is is just a smokescreen put up by certain interested groups who want to fan the flames of bigotry & hate & who don't like the laws currently on the books in the US. 

[Mergath]

It bugs me the way some people/places are wording the whole thing as this being an infringement of the clerk's religious liberties. It is not. She is free to practice the religion of her choice. She can talk about her religion, attend the church she wants, pray, hold religious meetings in her home, own religious texts, wear religious symbols as jewelry, dress per her religion's code, etc.... Nobody is making her give up her religion, or change religions, or have no religion at all. Her religious liberty is completely intact.

 

But, she is refusing to carry out her oath-sworn duties as a public servant of the government. She is denying the civil rights (which have been assured by the Supreme Court) of her fellow citizens. Because she is refusing a direct ruling of the Supreme Court, she is in defiance of the laws. People who defy the laws & get caught often have to serve a punishment, whether that is a fine, probation, or jail time. She is breaking the law. Period. 

 

Her religious liberty is not the issue at all here. To say that it is is just a smokescreen put up by certain interested groups who want to fan the flames of bigotry & hate & who don't like the laws currently on the books in the US. 

 

It's devious how the religious extremists in this country can twist things like this to try to make it look like there's some big attack on religion, isn't it?

[Stacia]

It's devious how the religious extremists in this country can twist things like this to try to make it look like there's some big attack on religion, isn't it?

 

I know. And I know it happens all the time. Media & political manipulation is the name of the game. I guess what I find distressing is how many people follow that tripe hook, line, & sinker. Sometimes the willful ignorance of the masses boggles the brain. 

 

Sigh.

[KarenNC]

Did NC actually pass this law? Anyone know???

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/02/north_carolina_law_lets_magistrates_refuse_marriage_licenses_to_gay_and.html 

 

Here's the bill history http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015&BillID=s2 

[mommaduck]

It is perfectly normal to be jailed for contempt of court. She's not in jail because of beliefs, but because she is in contempt of court. Even someone disrupting a court can be jailed in contempt, even if it's only for a couple of hours (jail is not prison...basically, they are being held).

[December]

If she won't follow a court order, won't let her employees do it, and won't resign, what else would you suggest the judge do?

 

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?  

 

I don't suppose a recall election was a possibility?  Though you always run the risk of people voting to keep her in, so then that wouldn't work either.  I never claimed to know what the solution is.

[Guest]

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?

 

I don't suppose a recall election was a possibility? Though you always run the risk of people voting to keep her in, so then that wouldn't work either. I never claimed to know what the solution is.

How much money should the tax payers spend to keep one woman out of jail?

[MrsBasil]

How much money should the tax payers spend to keep one woman out of jail?

Particularly a woman who has been given a generous compromise in being told her deputies can handle the licensing?

 

She's not trying to keep herself out of jail or work with the judge in any way that shows a willingness to do her job, so I don't know why the state or county would spend a bunch more tax money to do so.

[poppy]

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?  

 

I don't suppose a recall election was a possibility?  Though you always run the risk of people voting to keep her in, so then that wouldn't work either.  I never claimed to know what the solution is.

 

The clerk's office goal is (1) to determine whether people are eligible for a marriage license (2) to collect the fee (3) to inform license holders about relevant deadlines and regulations (4) to issue the license.  No where in there is "make sure the clerk gets to keeps her job", so I don't see any reason at all for the judge to order a  redesign of the license.

[mathnerd]

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?  

 

 

 

Are you serious?? Waste more taxpayer $$$ so that this woman who refuses to do her job can conveniently stay out of jail? Why would you suggest this? Why does this county require a special process for marriage licenses when the rest of the country has a different process? Why does this lady require extra special treatment and what is the justification for that?

 

And, btw, this lady has accepted paychecks that came from tax payer's $$$ and many of whom are homosexual taxpayers. Is she going to return all her past paychecks because accepting money that came from the homosexuals of KY is against her God? That would be an interesting question to pose to her and her supporters.

[zoobie]

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?

 

I don't suppose a recall election was a possibility? Though you always run the risk of people voting to keep her in, so then that wouldn't work either. I never claimed to know what the solution is.

Her government position requires her to issue marriage licenses to all people legally entitled to them. The state should not revamp its departments based upon the whims of its elected officials. She doesn't want to issue licenses that she has sworn to do as an officer of the state for a personal religious conviction. She wasn't randomly yanked out of her prayer closet by a government van and conscripted into this position. She voluntarily ran for office and swore an oath to carry out the state's laws. She doesn't get to decide which laws she follows or which citizens get access to government-issued licenses based upon her personal religious beliefs. Even if you agree with her, that type of crazed power grabbing by a government official in the name of her own religion should terrify you. This is why we have separation of church and state.

 

Recall elections are expensive and time consuming. And yes, the people could re-elect this wingnut or some other one. The citizens of her town should not be held hostage by her crazy. She was ordered to issue licenses based on the oath of office she took. She could resign or issue the licenses. She told the judge and all of the citizens of her town to go fly a kite, that she'd do exactly as she damn well pleased. She's now in jail for contempt of court. She's not in jail for having religious convictions. The state may be able to prosecute her separately for violating her oath of office.

[Corraleno]

It's devious how the religious extremists in this country can twist things like this to try to make it look like there's some big attack on religion, isn't it?

 

Like her lawyer claiming that she's been jailed for her Christian beliefs and won't be released until she's changed her beliefs:

 

"“Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,†Mr. Gannam said after a hearing that stretched deep into Thursday afternoon. “And she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what belief is.â€

 

I think that jail time is exactly what Davis and her supporters have wanted from the very beginning, so they could make ridiculous claims like the one above. And plenty of people will buy into it. Huckabee has already referred to the case as evidence of the "criminalization of Christianity."   :001_rolleyes:

[December]

It costs tax payer dollars to keep her in jail, so I don't know that a redesign would cost anything more. Honestly, I just don't want to hear all the people making her into a martyr because she's being jailed for adhering to her religious beliefs.  Just for that alone is seems not worth it, never mind the religious liberty aspect of it.

[Mergath]

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?  

 

I don't suppose a recall election was a possibility?  Though you always run the risk of people voting to keep her in, so then that wouldn't work either.  I never claimed to know what the solution is.

 

If the state could issue marriage licenses without the signature of the county clerk, don't you think they would have done that by now?

 

And honestly, the Kentucky state seal looks like a couple of dudes about to make out, so she probably wouldn't be okay with that either.

[zoobie]

It costs tax payer dollars to keep her in jail, so I don't know that a redesign would cost anything more. Honestly, I just don't want to hear all the people making her into a martyr because she's being jailed for adhering to her religious beliefs. Just for that alone is seems not worth it, never mind the religious liberty aspect of it.

It's not just getting someone to redo the form in Word. Changing who issues marriage licenses would require the legislature to reallocate that power from the Clerk to another government official. And change the budget to reallocate funds for the new office. And so forth and so on. The government cannot and should not do this based upon one individual's prejudices or personal preferences. If the individual cannot carry out his sworn office, his remedy is to resign his elected position. The remedy is not for the government to completely rewrite itself to make him happy.

[December]

Found this article: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-arent-there-more-kim-davises-128279486991.html Looks like there are a lot of officials opposed to gay marriage who are allowed to not be involved and still keep their jobs.

[Mergath]

Found this article: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-arent-there-more-kim-davises-128279486991.html Looks like there are a lot of officials opposed to gay marriage who are allowed to not be involved and still keep their jobs.

 

She was given that option, to simply have other clerks in her office handle the licenses for gay couples, and SHE REFUSED. She not only wouldn't do it herself, she also wouldn't allow anyone in her office to sign the licenses.

 

Please actually read some of these articles.

[zoobie]

She was given that option, to simply have other clerks in her office handle the licenses for gay couples, and SHE REFUSED. She not only wouldn't do it herself, she also wouldn't allow anyone in her office to sign the licenses.

 

Please actually read some of these articles.

Mergath, I think we are arguing common core math at this point. ;)

[LucyStoner]

It costs tax payer dollars to keep her in jail, so I don't know that a redesign would cost anything more. Honestly, I just don't want to hear all the people making her into a martyr because she's being jailed for adhering to her religious beliefs. Just for that alone is seems not worth it, never mind the religious liberty aspect of it.

Recall is not, as far as I know an option. Impeachment is, if the legislature would impeach. However, if they wanted to do that, they would have to call a special session.

 

The cost of both a recall election (ballots, polling places, staff to take and count) and special session of the legislature (staff, travel, legislative per diem) likely far exceed the cost of keeping her in county lockup for a few weeks. Even if she stays in jail a full year, the cost of her incarceration is likely less. Google says that the cost of a special session of the Kentucky legislature is $65k per DAY. Average incarceration cost is about $32-40k per inmate per year, often somewhat lower for local jails. It's not like she's headed to a maximum security prison or it's a very expensive state for incarceration. Honestly, the biggest cost she is bringing on Kentucky (besides damaging their reputation) is the cost of litigating this case at all.

[Mergath]

Mergath, I think we are arguing common core math at this point. ;)

 

:lol:

[December]

She was given that option, to simply have other clerks in her office handle the licenses for gay couples, and SHE REFUSED. She not only wouldn't do it herself, she also wouldn't allow anyone in her office to sign the licenses.

 

Please actually read some of these articles.

 

What article do you want me to read?

 

This is the part I found interesting because it's the first I've heard of her attempting to reach any sort of compromise: In June, North Carolina legislators overrode the Republican governor’s veto to establish that county magistrates who object to same-sex marriage can opt out of wedding licensing entirely and designate someone else to perform the function. (This is what Kim Davis wants to happen in Kentucky, according to a statement from her lawyer. She’d like another Rowan County agency to take over marriage licensing entirely.)

[zoobie]

She was given that option, to simply have other clerks in her office handle the licenses for gay couples, and SHE REFUSED. She not only wouldn't do it herself, she also wouldn't allow anyone in her office to sign the licenses.

 

Please actually read some of these articles.

Coming back to actually reply to this, I think this "compromise of conscience" is a steaming pile of horse poop. It's mollycoddling, kowtowing to an extreme religious majority. If you're an elected official or government employee, you should serve every single citizen who comes through your doors in the same manner. Are you 18, not related, and not currently married? Here's your certificate. Period. Your personal beliefs should have ZIP ZERO NO NONE WHATSOEVER place in carrying out your governmental role. If you can't treat all citizens equally, get out. One clerk won't give gay people certificates, one won't give interracial couples certificates, one won't give interfaith couples, one won't...NO! Just. No. If you meet the state standards for obtaining a license, every single person in that office should issue you one. You don't have to wait for someone to come back from lunch because only Suzy Bigot is at the desk. No. It should not work that way. Every citizen is equal under the eyes of the government. Period.

[Mergath]

What article do you want me to read?

 

This is the part I found interesting because it's the first I've heard of her attempting to reach any sort of compromise: In June, North Carolina legislators overrode the Republican governor’s veto to establish that county magistrates who object to same-sex marriage can opt out of wedding licensing entirely and designate someone else to perform the function. (This is what Kim Davis wants to happen in Kentucky, according to a statement from her lawyer. She’d like another Rowan County agency to take over marriage licensing entirely.)

 

Any of them. 

 

Kim Davis wants gay people not to marry in Rowan County. Period. She's made that pretty clear by refusing every single possible compromise that's been offered. 

[Mergath]

Coming back to actually reply to this, I think this "compromise of conscience" is a steaming pile of horse poop. It's mollycoddling, kowtowing to an extreme religious majority. If you're an elected official or government employee, you should serve every single citizen who comes through your doors in the same manner. Are you 18, not related, and not currently married? Here's your certificate. Period. Your personal beliefs should have ZIP ZERO NO NONE WHATSOEVER place in carrying out your governmental role. If you can't treat all citizens equally, get out. One clerk won't give gay people certificates, one won't give interracial couples certificates, one won't give interfaith couples, one won't...NO! Just. No. If you meet the state standards for obtaining a license, every single person in that office should issue you one. You don't have to wait for someone to come back from lunch because only Suzy Bigot is at the desk. No. It should not work that way. Every citizen is equal under the eyes of the government. Period.

 

:iagree:

 

Giving government officials the power to refuse to do any part of their job that they say conflicts with their beliefs (while still receiving full pay, of course) certainly isn't a slope I'd want to start down. 

[LucyStoner]

What happened in NC is an embarrassment, not a good model for what should happen elsewhere.

 

So, Kim Davis would like marriage certificates to be transfered to a different office to suit her end? Are the people in this different office all hunky dory with gay marriage? Is Kim Davis willing to accept less pay for less work? What if no public official in a given area would be willing to issue licenses to gay couples? Does that mean it's ok to tell them, sorry, you aren't welcome to do that here, try the next town? Why not just allow everyone to opt out of facing anyone and anything at work that might offend their religion?

 

Because we don't roll that way. We (ideally) treat everyone as equal under the law. We are civil in a civil society and don't try to force our religious beliefs on others. We are not living in a theocracy and that's, as Martha Stewart would say, a good thing.

 

ETA- if we let her do this, expect to see commissioners denying adoptions to same sex couples next. Who, exactly, is pro-family in all this?

[Frances]

Are you serious?? Waste more taxpayer $$$ so that this woman who refuses to do her job can conveniently stay out of jail? Why would you suggest this? Why does this county require a special process for marriage licenses when the rest of the country has a different process? Why does this lady require extra special treatment and what is the justification for that?

 

And, btw, this lady has accepted paychecks that came from tax payer's $$$ and many of whom are homosexual taxpayers. Is she going to return all her past paychecks because accepting money that came from the homosexuals of KY is against her God? That would be an interesting question to pose to her and her supporters.

And isn't she basically stealing from the taxpayers in her county by taking a paycheck and benefits and then not fulfilling the duties of her office? She was elected to do a job and now she's not doing it or allowing others to do it, but she's still accepting compensation. Surely stealing must be against her strongly held religious beliefs. Or is that another part of the Bible she's conveniently ignoring?

[Haiku]

never mind the religious liberty aspect of it.

There is no religious liberty aspect. Don't believe the hype. The only aspects of this case are denial of civil rights and refusal to provide equal protection under the law. Do you seriously want to mollycoddle a civil servant who wants to treat citizens unequally and with prejudice? THAT is the government you want to live under?

 

Because that type of government is terrifying.

[elegantlion]

How much money should the tax payers spend to keep one woman out of jail?

 

To add to this... as a country we have decided that jail is sometimes a punishment for breaking a law. It's not like going to jail is a death sentence. Lots of decent people who made poor choices end up in jail. It's not hell. She has decided that her beliefs are worth breaking the law for, the consequence of which is jail until she complies. She may change her mind while behind bars - she may end up having a "glorious revelation" from God. 

 

If you speed, you're breaking the law. If you get caught speeding, you'll get a ticket. If you speed and cause an accident that kills people, you'll probably end up in jail. Immunity from consequences doesn't happen just because you're a christian or you feel like you're taking a stand on a situation. This is no magic "out" button at the end of the ****storm, sometimes you have to wade through it and deal with it. 

 

She has decided to jump into the storm full force. She's a fool because it's unChristlike, it's a violation of the oath she took when elected, and the court has decided that jail may be the punishment for her crime. So it's not up to everyone else do what they can to keep her out of jail, it's her that needs to decide whether to comply or serve. She's been given a choice. I have no sympathy for her plight. 

[Joules]

To add to this... as a country we have decided that jail is sometimes a punishment for breaking a law. It's not like going to jail is a death sentence. Lots of decent people who made poor choices end up in jail. It's not hell. She has decided that her beliefs are worth breaking the law for, the consequence of which is jail until she complies. She may change her mind while behind bars - she may end up having a "glorious revelation" from God. 

 

If you speed, you're breaking the law. If you get caught speeding, you'll get a ticket. If you speed and cause an accident that kills people, you'll probably end up in jail. Immunity from consequences doesn't happen just because your a christian or you feel like you're taking a stand on a situation. This is no magic "out" button at the end of the ****storm, sometimes you have to wade through it and deal with it. 

 

She has decided to jump into the storm full force. She's a fool because it's unChristlike, it's a violation of the oath she took when elected, and the court has decided that jail may be the punishment for her crime. So it's not up to everyone else do what they can to keep her out of jail, it's her that needs to decide whether to comply or serve. She's been given a choice. I have no sympathy for her plight. 

It seems like the judge is offering her a pretty sweet choice now.  All she has to do is not interfere with the clerks who have agreed to sign the license.  So she can keep her 80k job and only do the parts she wants.  ALL she has to do is NOT stop the people who have agreed to pick up the slack.  

[Greta]

(This is what Kim Davis wants to happen in Kentucky, according to a statement from her lawyer. She’d like another Rowan County agency to take over marriage licensing entirely.)[/size][/font][/color][/i]

I didn't realize she wanted the entire county government to restructure itself, so that she can continue to receive a paycheck while not performing all the duties of her position. Wow, talk about a sense of entitlement! "Sure I got elected to do this job, but I don't want to do it anymore, so the citizens have to change my job to what I want it to be." WHAAA?

[Rebecca in KY]

I ask this sincerely...the Supreme Court ruled on one case that same-sex marriage is constitutional. However, the Court does not make laws. It only rules on confusing or unclear aspects of law, or on contested rulings from lower courts. It is then the legislative branch's job to repeal and pass laws in accordance with the judicial branch's rulings. So how is she breaking the "law of the land"? The laws have yet to be changed...unless I'm not correctly remembering the 3 branches and their separate roles.

[Ravin]

I ask this sincerely...the Supreme Court ruled on one case that same-sex marriage is constitutional. However, the Court does not make laws. It only rules on confusing or unclear aspects of law, or on contested rulings from lower courts. It is then the legislative branch's job to repeal and pass laws in accordance with the judicial branch's rulings. So how is she breaking the "law of the land"? The laws have yet to be changed...unless I'm not correctly remembering the 3 branches and their separate roles.

The rules of which laws are higher authority come into play here. The bans on same sex marriage in state law, whether state constitution or statute, ceased to have effect because the Supreme Court ruled that they were unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. If a law conflicts with it, that law ceases to have effect regardless of when or if it is taken off the books.

 

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. It is, however, the highest authority on interpreting the Constitution. It works as a check on the power of the other branches--by being able to tell them when they are exceeding the scope of what the Constitution says they can do. The Constitution is also a restraint on the power of State govenments.

[Pam in CT]

Hood County clerk’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage license costs taxpayers $43,000 

Yes, this is getting at what's interesting me.  A similar case in a different state, that was *settled* within a month, cost the taxpayers $43,000+.  This one has dragged on for three months, is nowhere close to any kind of resolution, the legal costs continue to escalate, jail costs are now piling on as well, and unless a solution is found this woman will continue to collect her $80,000 salary plus the county will have to expend the cost of benefits for three and a half more years.

 

$tick $tick $tick

 

 

Recall is not, as far as I know an option. Impeachment is, if the legislature would impeach. However, if they wanted to do that, they would have to call a special session.

 

The cost of both a recall election (ballots, polling places, staff to take and count) and special session of the legislature (staff, travel, legislative per diem) likely far exceed the cost of keeping her in county lockup for a few weeks. Even if she stays in jail a full year, the cost of her incarceration is likely less. Google says that the cost of a special session of the Kentucky legislature is $65k per DAY. Average incarceration cost is about $32-40k per inmate per year, often somewhat lower for local jails. It's not like she's headed to a maximum security prison or it's a very expensive state for incarceration. Honestly, the biggest cost she is bringing on Kentucky (besides damaging their reputation) is the cost of litigating this case at all.

Right.  And the articles I've read suggest that even if impeachment proceedings were initiated, the current legislature appears disinclined to go through with it.  

 

Which really is analogous to the environment after Brown v. Board of Ed, when legislative bodies in some areas did not have a majority in place who were willing to ratify compliance with the law.

 

 

This woman is not Rosa Parks.  This woman is George Wallace.