Jailed for Contempt (Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis)


RMGuy
 Share

Recommended Posts

As an elected official she is subject to laws and rulings over her. I would be real surprised if she didn't know this going in to it.

Didn't that also apply to Jerry Brown, who as Attorney General of California had a legal duty to defend Prop 8 when it was challenged in federal court--but chose not to because he personally disliked the law?  Do you support sending him (and his successor, Kamala Harris) to jail, too?

 

Admit it, Omegaseamaster.  This has nothing to do with rule of law.  It's all about two-bit thugs who get their kicks and giggles by seeing people who disagree with them, perp-walked on national television and chucked behind bars as an example to the rest of the country.

 

I love Joseph Smith, but lets not pretend that he was a Martyr to the last and an innocent victim in everything. He went to carthage jail because he violated the 1st amendment and destroyed a printing press. Events that occurred after that were religiously based and unfortunate.

 

Uh . . . by modern standards, the Expositor was "hate speech"--speech intended to incite violence towards a particular person or group of people (at the time of its publication it proprietors were involved in a conspiracy to have Joseph Smith murdered, and Smith knew this via at least two separate informants).  Under the jurisprudence of the day the Nauvoo City Council was within its rights to order the paper shut down and the printed copies destroyed (they debated the measure all night, and consulted volumes of Blackstone--a leading legal authority of the day).  Smith had this carried out because, as Mayor, he was tasked with executing the decisions of the Council. 

 

The Nauvoo city officials probably did exceed their authority by actually destroying the printing press itself; but if you think about it--it's bat-shizzle crazy for, say, Emeryville to try to put someone on trial for burning a car in San Francisco; and fundamentally that's what Carthage was trying to do. 

 

Nevertheless, Smith voluntarily subjected himself to the Carthage proceeding after a) having been granted a writ of Habeas Corpus in Nauvoo (which, under Illinois law in conjunction with the state-appointed charter, left him legally free), and b) after having successfully escaped into Iowa territory, where the Illinois authorities couldn't have touched him anyways.  And, once in Carthage he successfully posted bail on the riot charge and should have been free to leave--but was re-incarcerated because Magistrate Robert Smith trumped up a new treason charge and retroactively worked that charge into the doctored minutes of the initial bind-over hearing.

 

She was married, fathered twins with some other guy, got divorced, remarried, new guy adopted kids, they divorced, she married the baby daddy.

Yeah, sounds like she *really* treats marriage as sacred there. She needs to do her job and issue licenses. I'm not on her side.

 

Yes, but she didn't convert to Christianity (at least, her current sect thereof) until after her most recent marriage.  Does the law recognize converts as a sort of lesser-class of religious adherents?

 

And she could have made a more impressive 'stand' by resigning...  Resigning doesn't carry stigmata of being to worried about the things of the world (aka having a job)..  Or in other words we could just a easily say her 'worldly' concerns show that she was trying to serve two masters...  And that never ends well.  It make the stand she did take less effective

 

I'm not convinced we have a moral obligation to go quietly into the night of legal dhimmitude that the progressives and libertines believe to be our Christian birthright.  Last time I checked, Article VI of the Constitution said you couldn't bar people from public office on the basis of their religion.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>signature on the marriage license

 

I have one very simply question for her--- is same sex marriage legal? 

 

Let us suppose, for example, that a man and woman applied for a license, and she knew the man to be a dangerous felon who beat and abused his previous wife -- she almost died at his hand.  But the female applicant, fully aware of his past actions, wants to marry him.  She's in "love" with him.

 

Would she refuse to issue the license even though she feared for the very health and safety of the woman?

 

Should she now put herself into a position of judging each couple that applies for a license.  Same sex marriage is legal, but she is now putting herself in a position of judging the individuals who are applying for the marriage license.

 

I suggest that her signature represents, not approval, but an acknowledgement that they meet the legal requirements for the license.

 

I admire her religious beliefs and her courage, but, as an official representative of the state, she is misguided.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>signature on the marriage license

 

I have one very simply question for her--- is same sex marriage legal? 

 

Let us suppose, for example, that a man and woman applied for a license, and she knew the man to be a dangerous felon who beat and abused his previous wife -- she almost died at his hand.  But the female applicant, fully aware of his past actions, wants to marry him.  She's in "love" with him.

 

Would she refuse to issue the license even though she feared for the very health and safety of the woman?

 

Should she now put herself into a position of judging each couple that applies for a license.  Same sex marriage is legal, but she is now putting herself in a position of judging the individuals who are applying for the marriage license.

 

I suggest that her signature represents, not approval, but an acknowledgement that they meet the legal requirements for the license.

 

I admire her religious beliefs and her courage, but, as an official representative of the state, she is misguided.

 

The "I'm just following orders" or "I'm just one little cog in a giant machine" defense didn't work at Nuremberg, and I think a Christian is justified in at least suspecting it won't work at Judgment Day either.  Moreover, if county clerks were merely supposed to rubber-stamp applications, we wouldn't bother making it an elected office because there would be no significant exercise of individual judgment involved and an appointed bureaucrat could do the job just fine.  (The whole idea of a license is that it constitutes permission to do something one would otherwise be legally barred from doing.  If there truly is an inalienable right to marry, then there's no point in state actors' issuing marriage licenses anymore.)

 

Let's make a different supposition:  Say that, thirty years from now, the mainstream progressive position is that the STD and rape epidemic in this country is best addressed by making sure that, at the age of sixteen, teenagers have are required to enroll for "safe sex" training at a local county health clinic; and that an actual sexual experience with a partner in a controlled, observable environment is a necessary portion of that training.  Let's say the county health board, the state legislature, and the courts all back the practice up. 

 

Does a nurse at the local county health clinic have a constitutional right to refuse to be assigned to that section of the clinic while still keeping her job?

 

If so--how do you distinguish that nurse's case from Kim Davis' case, except by making your own subjective moral judgment about the relative evils of issuing marriage certificates to gay couples versus the evils of government compelling young teenagers to have sex?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a nurse at the local county health clinic have a constitutional right to refuse to be assigned to that section of the clinic while still keeping her job?

 

If so--how do you distinguish that nurse's case from Kim Davis' case, except by making your own subjective moral judgment about the relative evils of issuing marriage certificates to gay couples versus the evils of government compelling young teenagers to have sex?

 

 

Here is what a person should do if they find an aspect of their job that clashes with their deeply held beliefs (which can be anything)..

 

1st discuss it with your boss(es).  See if you can find alternative methods or work loads that work for the both of you.  This is basic part of being an adult in a job.  This ideally should solve the problem.  However if it doesn't will quite clearly establish that your boss(es) are paying you to do that which you find unacceptable/offensive.  This leaves you with a few options.

 

Option A:  You can buckle under.  This can be understandable, jobs and earning money is a big deal.  But you show that when push come to shove your deeply held beliefs were not really all that deep.  You are ok for now but how are you going to be in the future when your lack of faith catches up with you?

 

Option B: You can resign/quit.  Gusty move, respectable move, principle over profit. Ideals over ease.  Life might be very hard without that job, but it is a huge sign of faith.

 

Option C: Be neither hot nor cold, don't quit, but don't do the work clearly expected of you either.  Try to keep a foot in both worlds without having the courage to commit fully to either one.  You try to keep both your job and principles.  This works until you (or your employer) realize that accepting payment for services without rendering the expected service is thief.  And stealing from your employer is neither principled or helpful for continued employment.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Option C: Be neither hot nor cold, don't quit, but don't do the work clearly expected of you either.  Try to keep a foot in both worlds without having the courage to commit fully to either one.  You try to keep both your job and principles.  This works until you (or your employer) realize that accepting payment for services without rendering the expected service is thief.  And stealing from your employer is neither principled or helpful for continued employment.   

 

I generally agree with you, but in this case it's not like Davis was sitting and collecting a paycheck for doing no work.  County recorders also handle judicial/land records, voter rolls, managing elections and collecting property tax.  Davis was apparently willing to do all of that except marriage certificates; and the state/federal governments seem to have refused to allow Davis to opt out of the (legally and professionally novel) responsibility of issuing gay marriage licenses or arrange for some alternate channel of administering those licenses.

 

I think there are a lot of progressives who see this issue as a hook to drive conservatives out of elected office across the board (since in most states pretty much any elected/judicial officer can solemnize marriages); and IMHO it needs to be fought.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Clerk of Courts approves or denies an application for marriage license. The Clerk's signature indicates that she approved the marriage. The Clerk also performs the marriage when asked to do so. This is way beyond selling Steve and Joe a hammer. It is giving Steve and Joe approval to use the hammer to bash someone's head in (let's say for the sake of theoreticals that bashing heads with hammers was made legal after she was elected) and selling them the hammer.

But this particular clerk is not stopping these people from getting marriage licenses. They can get licenses anywhere.

 

By the way Anatess, I love your posts. This is just a rare time that I do not agree. 

 

Can you clarify what you mean by  "approve or denies" actually entails? How does she approve or deny of a marriage? I assume this doesn't meant she actually approves (EG "I've known you for years and this is a good decision" or "I read up on your past and notice that you are abusive, so I don't approve this marriage") that they should get married, but that she signs documents based on a list of set requirements set by the state. What things are checked before she approves the marriage? 

 

I just want to see where directly her religious beliefs are challenged. Let's say you work in the mortgage industry. I underwrite a loan requested by a couple that state they are married. Their names are Jim and Leslie and their genders are Male and Female. They qualify under the guidelines to get a loan so I give them a loan. Now the same scenario, but the couple on the application, although identical in every way on paper, says the name Leslie and Margie. They have both put their gender and female. How can I in good conscience, being a God fearing person approve this loan. Are my religious beliefs being challenged? Am I taking a direct part in what I believe is immoral? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally agree with you, but in this case it's not like Davis was sitting and collecting a paycheck for doing no work.  County recorders also handle judicial/land records, voter rolls, managing elections and collecting property tax.  Davis was apparently willing to do all of that except marriage certificates; and the state/federal governments seem to have refused to allow Davis to opt out of the (legally and professionally novel) responsibility of issuing gay marriage licenses or arrange for some alternate channel of administering those licenses.

 

I think there are a lot of progressives who see this issue as a hook to drive conservatives out of elected office across the board (since in most states pretty much any elected/judicial officer can solemnize marriages); and IMHO it needs to be fought.

 

And in the case of Davis it is clear that she was still in the very first step.. aka talking with your bosses to adjust things.  because that is what happened.  Now admittedly getting thrown in jail (even for a short time) is an extreme negotiation tactic.  And full kudos for her enduring that.

 

But that is not how her story gets presented. Her story gets presented as "Christian Martyr currently rotting in Jail for beliefs"  Her real story is "Christian get an incredible fright but holds fast to what is right and pulls through"

 

Now please tell me what is wrong with the second story?  Why try to turn it into something its not?  What is to be gained by the deception when the real story is pretty darn good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Estradling:  I'm afraid I don't quite follow you.  Can you rephrase?

 

@ EJ:  I can see at least two differences. 

 

First, the mortgage house is not a state actor like the county government is; so the First Amendment doesn't apply to the mortgage house's employment practices.  (Other doctrines or statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 might; but it's not a constitutional issue.)  I'm pretty libertarian on this sort of thing; I would submit that the mortgage company owners' individual right to free association and to pick their employees at will should come up trumps.

 

And second, the entire point of working at a mortgage broker is to make mortgage loans.  If I'm a general service financial institution and the employee is an otherwise good employee who is willing to work in some other department, and I won't make an allowance--frankly, I'm just a bigoted jerk-face who's out to ruin the livelihood of anyone who disagrees with me.  I submit that individuals should be free to be that way, at least in running their own business enterprises; because I believe that the free market of ideas (and commerce) will ultimately sort it out.  But when governments act that way; we've got a problem because there is no competing institution or free market to offer recourse.  (Oh--and, because the government has the power to imprison and kill people.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Estradling:  I'm afraid I don't quite follow you.  Can you rephrase?

 

Its a more general question then one direction to you.

 

Read the very first post...

 

Then read this post http://lds.net/forums/topic/57769-jailed-for-contempt-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis/page-2#entry834824

 

 

Which story is it?  Is jail time pending for her or was it just a tactic and now things are settled?

 

Because they are not the same story... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Clerk of Courts approves or denies an application for marriage license. The Clerk's signature indicates that she approved the marriage. The Clerk also performs the marriage when asked to do so. ..

 

She's obstructing for 2 reasons: 1.). Her signature is still going to be on the paper even if the deputies issue the licenses. 2.) the deputies expressed that they didn't want to do it either, they are doing it to get her out of jail. Well, one of the deputies is her son, another is a preacher's daughter.

 

So it appears that you and I agree she is obstructing.  Obstructing is against the law of Kentucky pertaining to the County Clerk.  Therefore, she is breaking the law.  You appear to find that acceptable for her reasons, and I do not.  So that's an important point of disagreement.

 

Now, unless I'm mistaken Ms Davis is not a Clerk of the Courts, she is a County Clerk and they aren't the same thing.  She does not have authority to perform a marriage.  And approving an application is not the same thing as approving of the marriage.  The differences are important.  So I think the actions taken against her are appropriate, and I am not convinced that she is sincere in her claim on religious belief grounds.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Can you clarify what you mean by  "approve or denies" actually entails? How does she approve or deny of a marriage? I assume this doesn't meant she actually approves (EG "I've known you for years and this is a good decision" or "I read up on your past and notice that you are abusive, so I don't approve this marriage") that they should get married, but that she signs documents based on a list of set requirements set by the state. What things are checked before she approves the marriage? 

 

I just want to see where directly her religious beliefs are challenged. Let's say you work in the mortgage industry. I underwrite a loan requested by a couple that state they are married. Their names are Jim and Leslie and their genders are Male and Female. They qualify under the guidelines to get a loan so I give them a loan. Now the same scenario, but the couple on the application, although identical in every way on paper, says the name Leslie and Margie. They have both put their gender and female. How can I in good conscience, being a God fearing person approve this loan. Are my religious beliefs being challenged? Am I taking a direct part in what I believe is immoral? 

 

Yes, I think these points cut to the heart of the matter.  And I think they are important because they pertain to a larger scope than simply Ms. Davis' case.  Opponents of gay marriage have often cited a slippery slope argument to justify their opposition.  Well, I think this case illustrates a more realistic potential for a slippery slope in the other direction.  I think the potential for more abuses of civil rights and individual freedoms exists at the hands of more and more absurd claims in the name of religious freedom and religious belief.  

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Estradling:  I'm afraid I don't quite follow you.  Can you rephrase?

 

@ EJ:  I can see at least two differences. 

 

First, the mortgage house is not a state actor like the county government is; so the First Amendment doesn't apply to the mortgage house's employment practices.  (Other doctrines or statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 might; but it's not a constitutional issue.)  I'm pretty libertarian on this sort of thing; I would submit that the mortgage company owners' individual right to free association and to pick their employees at will should come up trumps.

 

And second, the entire point of working at a mortgage broker is to make mortgage loans.  If I'm a general service financial institution and the employee is an otherwise good employee who is willing to work in some other department, and I won't make an allowance--frankly, I'm just a bigoted jerk-face who's out to ruin the livelihood of anyone who disagrees with me.  I submit that individuals should be free to be that way, at least in running their own business enterprises; because I believe that the free market of ideas (and commerce) will ultimately sort it out.  But when governments act that way; we've got a problem because there is no competing institution or free market to offer recourse.  (Oh--and, because the government has the power to imprison and kill people.)

No dispute from me. It is hard to find another example that would be a perfect match, and I do admit that my comparisons have flaws. My parallel is however, that each one checks off a list. There is nothing on the list to check off that when approving something that  says "Do you personally think these two should get... [a loan/get married]?"

 

And, I say all of this supporting marriage between a man and woman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It was at this point that I stopped reading your post. 

 

Too bad, 'cause it was pretty good if I say so myself.  :D

 

Your post seemed to suggest that, even if a person is told to do something (s)he considers morally abhorrent--the beginning and end of the issue really boils down to what the law ostensibly requires.  With apologies to the good Dr. Godwin, I think that sort of argument does call for a reminder of certain events that occurred seventy years ago in the name of "obeying the law".

 

The best way to avoid having one's argument countered by references to statist regimes that oppressed religious freedom, is to avoid making statist arguments for the sake of repressing religious freedom.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are starting your argument with an assumption that simply insults my intelligence.  It will be difficult, but I will try to help you understand by giving you an example -->>

 

"Joseph Smith was a con man, a pedophile, an adulterer, he lead the Danites to kill and murder his enemies, etc etc.  Now let's now have that discussion about Mormonism."

 

There is nothing to talk about, we have no common ground for a discussion.  He sees that anything I say is just trying to defend the indefensible. 

 

-->> whenever you inject the nazis into a discussion, that is the end of any intelligent discourse.  

"I am on the side of the angels, and if you disagree with me, you are defending the Nazis."

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

omegaseamaster75 said: "I love Joseph Smith, but lets not pretend that he was a Martyr to the last and an innocent victim in everything."

 

Neurotypical said: "If Joseph Smith wasn't a martyr, how did this guy make it into the big book of them?"

 

omegamaster75 said: "I never said he wasn't a martyr"

 

*shrug*  Ok.  Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Kim Davis... is an idiot. She definitely misunderstands what it means to have her name listed as the county clerk on a marriage certificate. The county clerk's office role is to record various things that happens in her county, not to 'approve' or 'disapprove'. They record births, deaths, marriages, divorces, new businesses, etc. Her name on a marriage certificate simply means that she is the one in office when the marriage was recorded. It does not mean that she 'approved' or 'disapproves' of any marriage - which is what I think she keeps asserting. If she wants to 'disapprove' of any marriage, she needs to attend that marriage... and when asked, simply state that 'I object to these two people being wed'. Other than that, she is simply the elected official who should be carrying out the duties of her office. And if she cannot do so because of 'her conscious'... she needs to step down and let someone else do it, or find other ways of carrying out the duties of her office without doing it directly herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose my one "like" in this thread pretty much stakes out my position, so I'll just leave it at that. 

 

What I'd like to comment on is the blatant hypocrisy of those on the left (and no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here since most of you probably won't disagree).

 

The current leftist argument is predominantly that she has an obligation to either obey the law or resign. The law is the law, and it doesn't matter in the least that she disagrees with it; she must either abide by it or resign!!

And yet most (if not all) of these same individuals have turned a blind eye to the POTUS blatantly ignoring Immigration law, ACA law, Welfare law, etc. ---not so much as a peep from any of them suggesting that Obama should either obey the law or resign. 

These hypocrites are only concerned with the law when it's a law they're in favor of. Whenever they discover a law they aren't in favor of, they oh so conveniently forget about the "rule of law".   :annoyed:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share