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....
Legally, it might be argued that since she attested in her oath of office to fulfill her duties, as long as she's in office her assent is legally implied to any document issued by her office with or without her signature.
Since Kim Davis is an elected official and was voted in by like minded people, it may be a problem to have her recalled in a special election.....Since she disobeyed Federal Law, maybe that can be used to supersede state law.....In any case, she should be in jail while this plays out.....
She didn't disobey federal law. This was a Supreme Court ruling, not an act of the legislature.
The situation would become simplified if Kentucky chose to amend its laws to make gay marriage legal in the state of Kentucky; then as a Kentucky official she would not be following the laws of the state, and the state officials could prosecute her for that and remove her from office upon conviction.
This is best viewed as an interesting separation of powers / checks and balances case.
I disagree Dr Bob.....The Supreme court is the court that gives the final say whether the Constitution is being followed...They do not make the law, they interpret the law.....When they make a decision it is final....The legislative branch of government can try to skirt their decision, only by an amendment to the constitution.....There is separation of Powers, but each branch of government has equal say, and in this case, the Executive and Judicial branches are in sync....therefore, this particular ruling will most likely win the day...
Oh, I agree that this ruling will likely win the day, but only because of the general views of the populace that this isn't an issue that's worth getting upset over.
I think SCOTUS should have deferred judgment and allowed this to play out through legislative action across the states, which would have won marriage equality more firmly for people. Like Roe v. Wade, when the Supreme Court tries to short-circuit democracy it only leads to decades of polarization and anger which is damaging to the country.
Again Dr Bob, you are supporting religious views over secular views.....We all know that Kim Davis is taking a stand on her religious views, which is improper in her position as a civil servant ,representing people of all faiths and lack thereof....If a government employee feels they can not uphold the law, then they should resign ....This is why religion has no place in Politics....
Was there any religious statement at all in my post, @Freethinker?
I was making an argument based on public policy in a democracy. It's best in a democracy to resolve disagreements on public policy democratically, by convincing our fellow citizens.
How has Roe vs Wade been damaging to our country? It is a law supporting Pro Choice, where a woman can actually make decisions on her own, without government interference....How is that not Democratic? The polarization is with the religious who want a say in the decisions "all" women make on this issue, which is not at all democratic...
How has Roe vs Wade been damaging to our country? It is a law supporting Pro Choice
It's a judicial opinion, not a law, which has blocked state laws that try to protect unborn children even in the third trimester where you agree that they are fully human and viable.
It's been damaging to our country because it's been one of the chief drivers of the ideological polarization of the political parties and the rise of the heavy influence of the "religious right". It's cost billions of dollars in lawmaking, lobbying, and litigation across the country, led to decades of protests and occasional violence. Even now it is still dividing the country.
Public policy disputes in a democracy are best resolved by convincing our fellow citizens, not by trying to beat them in court. When they are resolved by voter ballots or legislative vote, they are generally more lasting and less contentious.
I am luvin’ this but not enough to ever watch it!!