So after being in jail, her position is now that she will not interfere with marriage licenses being signed, but she herself will not sign them. There is question whether or not this is even legal still.

Do you think she is courageous for standing up for what she believes in? Do you think it was right for her to be jailed? Do you think she deserves to remain in jail? Do you think that this whole situation is setting us up for more people like her to stand in the way of acceptance of gay marriage?

What are the long term consequences of permitting this sort of behavior? Or do you think she's doing the right thing by standing up for what she believes in?

For example: If the Supreme Court decided tomorrow that child marriage was legal, and you were a court clerk, would you sign for a child to get married to an adult? By child I mean like....a 12 year old....

I don't know if I could do that, even if the Supreme Court said it's OK. So in some ways, that's the way Kim Davis sees this situation. Even though she's deluded, and we wouldn't be by being against permitting child brides to become the norm, the parallel still holds true....I think....

Maybe.

Views: 815

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think her employers should act. She could be moved to a different section or sacked for deliberately not performing her work. If she feels so strongly about it then she should quit or ask for a transfer. It has nothing to do with “religious freedom” which is just a cover name for discrimination based upon religious privilege.

I would even go as far to suggest that she is holding out for the money. I bet she will earn a fortune from this through “Oprah” type talk shows, the inevitable book on the persecution she has suffered and especially from the donations from like-minded Christians.

@Reg, County Clerk is an elected position in Kentucky.   Her "employers" are the people of her county who elected her to represent them, and I suspect she is doing just that given the demographics of the area.

I think she has courage for standing up for what she believes in to the point of going to prison. 

If the Supreme Court decided that child marriage was legal, and I was a court clerk, I would quit in protest and make my views known.  I wouldn't hang on in the job - that's hypocrisy, having your cake and eating it. 

I agree with Reg, I think Kim Davis' employers are pussies, and should move or sack her. 

I think Kim Davis' employers are pussies, and should move or sack her.

@Simon, County Clerk is an elected position.

We can argue that she should resign.   That in turn raises the interesting question of whether we want agreeing with the government to be a prerequisite for elected office.

She claims her religious freedom is being attacked by being forced to do something she doesn't believe in ... and yet she refused to allow her deputies to practice their own religious freedom (decide to give a certificate or not).

This is a classic example of a racist, homophobic hypocritical hate filled douche-bag. Throw her back in jail until she starts giving out certificates or quits.

Letting her go back because her deputies agreed to follow the law (while she ignored a court order) was an easy cop-out. Very disappointing.

The court could only jail her while her constituents were being harmed. The harm ended when her office started giving out the licenses anyway.  So they had to let her go.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said.

Yes...you are right. She wasn't ordered to do it herself but to not block others from issuing the licences (right?). 

It's a cliché argument...but basically imagine what would happen if a Mormon wouldn't issue licenses to anyone who wasn't a Mormon or a conservative Muslim who wouldn't issue licenses to women who weren't modestly dressed. We all know how quickly Kentucky-folk would re-evaluate religious freedom.

Well that's the whole hypocritical angle of this so called "religious freedom" angle.  If push came to shove, and it were a non-Christian goring a Christian ox, instead of a Christian goring a "liberal" ox, suddenly it wouldn't be a "religious freedom" issue.

One counter example used to try to get through to "them" has been a Muslim clerk refusing to issue driver's licenses to women (yes, many Xians of yestercentury had similar attitudes, but pointing that out in this context is counterproductive and creates a rabbithole for the argument to be diverted into).  Another has been a Quaker refusing to issue concealed carry (of a weapon) permits.  And you know what?  Sometimes that DOES get through to them, somewhat, in that they'll agree she was acting wrongly, though even then, many will still maintain she shouldn't have been jailed.

She was ordered not to interfere, directly or indirectly, with her subordinates issuing the licenses. It remains to be seen whether licenses without her signature are valid. If they're not, her refusal to sign them means she is indirectly interfering, which would make her still in violation of the court order.
Actually they can't sack her because she is an elected official. If they had been able to fire her, she would have been fired.

One of the judges involved in denying her relief from the judiciary system, made the point that she is not being asked to ratify any marriages. Her duty is simply to affirm that the information submitted on the application forms (for marriage) is true and correct. She has no part in 'authorising' marriages.

She has a team of lawyers out to milk the situation as much as they can, and I see her as a sad puppet of their machinations.

Evidently 'GoFundMe' has changed its rules to prevent mass funding for this kind of situation, so the easy money isn't there for her.

The thing is, she apparently has no problem ratifying forms for couples who wish to divorce. As we all know, the Jesus Chronicles have a lot more to say about divorce, calling it sinful adultery and so on.

So no, she is not holding up her faith, she's dancing to the strings that the puppet masters are pulling. Does anyone know what kind of oath she had to make to be sworn in in the first place?

Thank you for making the point (about her not being fire-able because she's elected).  I note the two people who demanded she be fired are not Americans and unfamiliar with the system (but all too familiar with the fact we sometimes elect dickheads, even female ones).

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court."

That's from here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

I do find it humorous in this connection that Kentucky's postal abbreviation is KY. 

I find it less humorous that there's an unconstitutional "so help me doG" in this oath.  (It's not part of the prescribed oath for the President of the United States, even if it's routinely tacked on.)

I'd say she violated the part about discharging the office without favor, affection, or partiality.  If I had my druthers, she'd still be rotting in jail.

Thanks Steve :)

RSS

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service