So there’s this county clerk in Kentucky who got thrown in jail for contempt of court because she didn’t want to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I haven’t followed the story, but I heard she was arrested yesterday and don’t understand. Is that an elected office or something? Used to be, if a company I worked for got a new job and I didn’t feel right about doing it, I quit or got fired. Nobody talked about jailing me. How come her boss didn’t can her and move on?
I think maybe this ‘local government’ thing has gotten pretty complicated, too. Huh?
Yep, elected position. Democrat.
She is an insignificant sanctimonious pipsqueak, and should be treated as such. Jailing her just makes her a martyr. Why not just remove her from the office for cause, appoint someone willing to do the job, and move on?
She is just one more petty bureaucrat who thinks she is a law unto herself. She has exceeded her allotted three minutes of fame. And frankly, I’m tired of seeing her face on TV.
They can’t fire her, there is no federal or state statute that she has violated, the only thing she did was refuse to do what a Federal judge ordered her to do, even though this could have been avoided had they just taken her name off the licenses as she requested. She is in jail for daring to exercise her Constitutional rights and the judge is trying to destroy her.
Dav343 – I hadn’t read the part about requesting her name be removed from the licenses.
However, I do believe if your personal morals will not allow you to do something on the job, you quit/resign/get reassigned. That’s what I always did.
I ain’t got a dog in this fight. I’m straight, been married & won’t again, don’t care what consenting adults do so long as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I have been hearing about this, because my radio works. I don’t much care, except to see how it goes. I’ve been hoping that some governor or another would tell the Supremes that he or she doesn’t care, that it’s up to the people of the state, not the Feds (not just on this issue, on 10th amendment grounds in many issues), but waiting on a governor with (at least metaphorical) balls is akin to waiting for my cats to bark.
One thing I have heard: she has said that she is following her oath, i.e., to obey the constitution of the Commonwealth of KY. It says marriage is between one man & one woman. Regardless of whether gay marriage is right or wrong, until the KY legislature changes the constitution, she feels that that oath is binding.
In the meantime, we munch our popcorn & see what each side does.
Joel, looking at this mess from the outside and not having any stake in the issue because I’m straight and married all I can do is offer this in explanation…
Take with with an internet grain of salt, but I’ve heard she had the job for over a decade and before that worked as an assistant to who mother who held the job. At this point her son is serving as her assistant and maybe hoping to get the job when she quits. Which, of course, isn’t going to happen now.
I don’t have a dog in the fight other than to despise officious bureaucratic twerps that want to take a little power trip at my expense. I did a search on her name and this showed up courtesy of Thestranger.com via 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.
I find of particular interest the father of her children. I’m sure this can all be tied to the parable about ignoring the plank in your own eye while complaining about the mote in your neighbor’s eye.
Mike — Her position is that she became a Christian after her sordid past life had all but broken her. She says the grace of the Lord has wiped her clean while she is still acknowledging the sin and wrong in her past life.
Not making excuses for the gal, just repeating what she had to say about her past.
It is my understanding that this couple sought out this clerks office because of her beliefs. They are making a statement. There will be a lot more of this as homosexual activists seek out Christians working in public offices. The goal seems to be to force acceptance or force the person out of office.
If people want to live this lifestyle it’s their choice. Why not just send her home for the day if she doesn’t want to be a part of this. The other clerks seemed willing to issue the license, so let them. However, I don’t think that was the goal. It doesn’t matter if you a public servant or private business( bakery, flower shop, pizza place). It is not enough to be left alone for the homosexual activists, they are seeking out anyone who is not ok with their lifestyle choice. The goal seems to be to force Christians to comply or punish them.
I believe God gave us all free will. If he wanted us to have this then who am I to take it away. However, your freedom and free will ends where mine begins. I’d like everyone to be free to live their life as choose, but I don’t think that’s the goal in this case.
Love your blog Joel.
At this point I’d like to see all laws relating to marriage repealed. No more licenses, no more tax benefits, no more discounts for anything. Treat “married” couples the same way you’d treat roommates, ie: ignore their relationship status.
If, as the SCOTUS has dictated, marriage is just a means of expressing love, then it serves no social function that the rest of us need recognize, let alone support, thus laws on the topic are a waste of resources.
Now if marriage were a social survival mechanism, whereby long-term, procreative, male-female pair bonds were recognized and encouraged (regardless of the orientations of the men and women involved), then there’d be a point in providing taxpayer-funded privileges to support it. Family-formation is how civil society propagates itself (as opposed to importing a new electorate, or subsidizing bastardy and the emotionally and psychologically crippled children that that produces), but apparently marriage now has nothing to do with family, so why should the rest of us pay for it?
Some answers to other commenters questions;the clerk in this case is an elected position, she can’t be fired or be made to resign.She can be impeached by the legislature,but they are in recess,and won’t be back in session for months .
The gay activists could easily have chosen a different county and be married by now,but that’s not their goal-they want to make a statement more than they want to be married.
The clerk could have avoided jail time by letting her assistants issue the licenses,but the license has her name on it because she’s the (capital C clerk dammit) ,and she’s in it to make noise,just like the gays.
The fact that she’s been married and divorced is ignored by her,because that’s not as bad as being gay (to her).
Just another sideshow by people who ignore my favorite common sense rule-Mind Your Own Business.
The clerk has said she is not discriminating against gays because she has stopped issuing licenses to every one, and has also refused to authorize her staff to issue them..
My understanding (from Volokh.com – a site full of law profs, lawyers etc) is that under Kt law you must get your license from the county of residence.
She must be removed by the Legislature. She has not been charged with a crime. She was jailed for Contempt of Court, which is not a criminal offense. She can obtain her release by complying with the Court’s order. She can resign.or authorize her staff to issue the licenses. She has options which would not violate her stated beliefs, but she has chosen to go hard line.
It does not matter what the KT Constitution or statutes say. The US Supreme Court says those are in violation of the US Constitution, which being the supreme law of the land, no state Constitutional Article, Amendment, nor state statute can stand in opposition to. Any oath to support, protect, enforce, etc any of these would therefore become invalid upon this ruling of the USSC. Sucks when the Courts don’t see things the same way you do, but government officials have to follow the rule of law even – and especially – when it sucks.
Her previous lifestyle and marriages are irrelevant. Her religious beliefs must be considered sincere by the courts unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt she is not sincere. People are still free to make whatever comments and pass whatever judgments their little hearts desire. It just doesn’t mean a damn thing is all. Just more noise. And no matter the sincerity of her beliefs, the Court can still jail her ass for refusing to comply with its Order. I believe the Court is pissed because she publicly defied its Order. Judges think they are demi gods, and opposing them is sure to visit hell upon your case.
Re:gojuplyr,I agree that you have stated some of the facts correctly,but I take issue with your comment,starting from your third paragraph.It DOES matter what the Kentucky statutes say.There are states rights,whether you like it or not,and if the Supreme Court renders a verdict that goes against the (accepted ) law of the land, their decision is irrelevant.Many states,and many members of Congress voted to acknowledge the ‘one man one woman’ idea ,and an activist court does not override that.
Liberals love to acknowledge activists such as Ghandi and MLK ,who both encouraged civil disobedience, except when the disobedience comes from a conservative direction.Now you say obey the courts.
Some say the courts are wrong in this case, and the people should decide.The voters should pick,and if you don’t like the results,you can move to a different neighborhood.
That’s not discrimination,that’s simply people wanting to live amongst people like themselves.
Yup,
been married too, and have no intention of doing it again. I’ve also been a witness at a gay marriage. They’re still together
I’ll add sheep and baboons to Budd’s list of what happens between consenting adults…
I’m not expressing any personal preference prejudice with that, merely stating that it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.
As for the bureaucrat. See page 18:
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pdf?file=1&type=document
“Thus ends the road to serfdom”
“Many states,and many members of Congress voted to acknowledge the ‘one man one woman’ idea ,and an activist court does not override that.”
The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under and equal application of the law. The votes of many states, and many members of Congress do not override that.
IF the government is going to acknowledge the institution of marriage, then it must acknowledge ALL forms of marriage, and cannot base its definition on any specific religious requirements. Which, admittedly, does start making things complicated, since marriage originated as a religious institution in the first place, but since there are religions that allow gay marriage, the government – state or federal – cannot Constitutionally prohibit gay marriage.
Remember, the Bill of Rights was intended* to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
“It is my understanding that this couple sought out this clerks office because of her beliefs.”
and
“The gay activists could easily have chosen a different county and be married by now,but that’s not their goal-they want to make a statement more than they want to be married.”
From what I’ve been able to find, only one of the two gay couples is not from that county, and the couple that isn’t has family ties there and wanted to be married there for that reason. The other two couples suing her are straight.
And saying they could just go to another county to get married is no different than the rulers in Chicago arguing that there was nothing wrong with banning shooting ranges in the city since people could just go to ranges outside the city limits to get the required training for their gun permits.
“this could have been avoided had they just taken her name off the licenses as she requested”
The form of the licenses is probably defined either in statute or regulations, so taking her name off the licenses would most likely require action by the legislature.
* The implementation, and the viewpoint of exactly which minorities were protected from which majorities, were terribly flawed when it was written. But that was supposedly the intent, and it was still far better than anything else existing at the time.
The US Constitution guarantees equal protection under and equal application of the law.
Which already existed before Obergerfell. Homosexuals had the exact same marriage “rights” (insofar as anyone can have a right to something that requires the active participation of someone else) as everyone else did. It wasn’t a question of “rights”, but of definitions.
IF the government is going to acknowledge the institution of marriage, then it must acknowledge ALL forms of marriage,
Twaddle. That opens the door to calling anything and everything, including a ham sandwich, a “marriage”. The traditional, Western, definition: one man and one woman, for the purpose of starting a family (ie: producing and raising children together), has proven superior for the society that recognizes and protects it to all other forms. It produces and socializes the next generation of society without producing a surplus of un-marriageable young men (ala polygamy) or placing significant financial burdens on the taxpayer (ala bastardy and the Welfare State). It protects women from sexual predators and the consequences of illegitimate motherhood, and it gives men equal parental status with women by restricting women’s sexuality to their husbands, thereby giving those men a significant personal interest in the long-term stability of the society and the welfare of the children so produced.
Same-sex relationships do none of that, and hence deserve no legal recognition at all. If gays want to get married so much, let them find someone of the opposite sex to commit to and to start families (ie: children) with. Marriage isn’t about love, any more than an automobile is about its paint job or it’s upholstery.