May be, but it also had the net effect of preventing a sympathetic deputy clerk from going rogue and approving a license.
May be, but it also had the net effect of preventing a sympathetic deputy clerk from going rogue and approving a license.
I hope she isn't won't be paid for sitting in jail. She could have had her staff do what they felt was right but she tried to force then all to do things her way. Now 5 of then are willing to do tier job and her son can sit with his mother in jail for all I care.
I know that many of you hate facts that ruin a good rant but if a staff member had issued a marriage license it would still have had her name on it and that was her objection. She asked the judge to allow the licenses to be issued without her signature but the judge did not allow that accommodation.
I blame Obama for the whole deal because he ignored so many laws thereby setting a bad example. Ace will be along shortly to back me up on that.
I blame Obama for the whole deal because he ignored so many laws thereby setting a bad example. Ace will be along shortly to back me up on that.
With respect, that is still crap. If she was worried about that then she needs to find a new job because putting her name on stuff IS the job. Are all legal matters in that county really going to be subject to what she does and doesn't determine to be 'morally right' based on her personal interpretation of religion?
How many other 'sins' has she willingly signed off on through her job?
Also, if her true worry is "heaven or hell" like she says then does she really think God wouldn't be able to tell the difference between her signing the paper herself or it 'having her name on it'? That God couldnt sort out the difference between her issuing the license and someone else doing it on a sheet of paper with her name on it?
This also gets back to my earlier question of what will she accept? If her whole stance is that no document should be issued with her name on it (again, a job requirement) that goes against her personal faith then she is holding the whole county hostage to her personal views. How would you ever know what part of her job she will and wont do? Could she refuse to file documents legalizing the adoption of a child to gay parents? How about documents recognizing survivor benefits to gay spouses?
Last edited:
She was ordered by a federal judge to do her job. Her job is, among other things, to issue marriage licenses. She is in jail, not because Kim Davis (her name is Kim, right?) refused to follow the law, but because the Court Clerk refused. It's called contempt of court, and if she thinks she's going to win some lawsuit over it, she's nuts.
If she can't in good conscience issue the licenses (and I get that), her remedy is to resign. The judge can't make Ms. Davis issue licenses, but he damn sure can make the court clerk do it. The fact that deputy clerks are now doing it hurts her even more.
In short, it's not a question of surrendering her individual rights. It's a question of fulfilling her obligations to every citizen of her county as part of her duty. If she don't wanna do it, she needs to quit. End of moral dilemma.
If she can't in good conscience issue the licenses (and I get that), her remedy is to resign. The judge can't make Ms. Davis issue licenses, but he damn sure can make the court clerk do it. The fact that deputy clerks are now doing it hurts her even more.
In short, it's not a question of surrendering her individual rights. It's a question of fulfilling her obligations to every citizen of her county as part of her duty. If she don't wanna do it, she needs to quit. End of moral dilemma.
When someone comes down with stone tablets with this ruling inscribed, she might
Since this was a federal contempt of court charge, I don't think KY criminal code is applicable statute (regardless of her Clerk status). I mean this not to sound snide or like an ass, but just matter-of-fact
If it were a state court, then that statute may be applied (if it applied to clerks, which I am unsure of myself but think it would be based on the definitions within KY 522: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19887).
RickN trolls at an expert level.
Rand Paul thinks the Kentucky court clerk shouldn't be forced to have her signature on a contract to which she has a religious objection. He also objects to the way in which the federal government forced the legalization of gay marriage.
Does that make him a bigoted homophobe?
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/rand-paul-on-kentucky-court-clerk-controversy-gop-loyalty-pledge/
Does that make him a bigoted homophobe?
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/rand-paul-on-kentucky-court-clerk-controversy-gop-loyalty-pledge/
Rand Paul's god is Aqua Buddha.
he might be a bigoted homophobe and he might not be. But neither necessarily change whether he is right or wrong.
I also agree that people should have some latitude in regards to contracts that they are a party to. However, the county clerk is required to 'sign' many things that never actually affect her personally. Its inherent to her job to be a signee, but that does not make her a party to the contract any more than an FFL is bound to a gun he or she sells because his or her name is on the background check paper.
If she cannot separate the job from her personal sense of self then she needs to find new work, which is true for all of us. Many of the people who are subject to her interpretation of religion do not always have the option of going someplace else to conclude their transaction, nor should they have to shop around for a public servant who is willing to fulfill his or her job description.
Why are all of the people in her county subject to her personal ideas of faith and God? If her job will put her in a situation her faith isn't comfortable with then the solution isn't to hinder everyone else's access to the system. It's find a new job.
Similar threads
