Mikee

Kim Davis jailed (finally)

Recommended Posts

Yes, I knew you were not a homophobe, as indicated by my link in #45.

How are you different from a Republican now?

Stephen:

Let's take this one step at a time.

Define Republican please, because I am not going to waste our time arguing about a concept that has a different meaning to both of us.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Good point. There is some leeway in what they favor and oppose. It's just that I don't ever recall you saying anything approving of a Democratic candidate (in fact pretty much scorn), and you have expressed some enthusiasm for Republican candidates now and then. On the issue of the Iran nuclear treaty, I gathered you were with the side on which the Republicans (and not the Democrats) very solidly lined up. I really cannot remember anything so nasty by way of name-calling you have said against Republican officeholders as against (chronically against) some prominent Democrats. Could be just failure of my memory, but that's my impression.

(That politics is the largest interest at this site and that it is overwhelmingly Republican is likely the impression any unawares visitor to it would have. I've gathered some here are more Libertarian than Republican, but that is a finer discernment from longer exposure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Good point. There is some leeway in what they favor and oppose. It's just that I don't ever recall you saying anything approving of a Democratic candidate (in fact pretty much scorn), and you have expressed some enthusiasm for Republican candidates now and then. On the issue of the Iran nuclear treaty, I gathered you were with the side on which the Republicans (and not the Democrats) very solidly lined up. I really cannot remember anything so nasty by way of name-calling you have said against Republican officeholders as against (chronically against) some prominent Democrats. Could be just failure of my memory, but that's my impression.

(That politics is the largest interest at this site and that it is overwhelmingly Republican is likely the impression any unawares visitor to it would have. I've gathered some here are more Libertarian than Republican, but that is a finer discernment from longer exposure.)

Fair enough, Stephen:.

I am ideally an anarcho-capitalist, however that is unicorn utopia turf.

I am certainly libertarian, however, I have serious disagreements with how the Libertarian Party totally mishandled the small mandate we helped build in the early '70s.

Stephen, we secured a permanent ballot line in NY State for the Libertarian Party which meant that our candidates did not have to collect "valid" signatures for every freaking office in the State. An annual job that saps an emergent party's money and limits their field organization's effectiveness.

My utter opposition to the "progressive" marxist centralized state with a hidden regulatory tyranny poses a clear and present danger to the path of this Republic's Constitutional balance of power.

Therefore, since the Democrats are running the big show over the last decade, with the assistance of what passes for a Republican opposition party, I have chosen to direct my aim at the most immediate threat which is Democratic.

Certain "social issues" take a lower priority in my field of problems that need to start being solved now.

This is probably why you perceive me that way and it makes some sense.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am better understanding Adam's issues with my opinions in this thread, after giving it some thought and writing/discarding a couple of omnibus comments.

I had asked him a couple of direct questions ... the hindmost being "What kinds of issues did I miss in my last analysis?"

This question followed my claim that Liberty Counsel were serving their client poorly, that she deserved a second opinion. In that post I also laid out the mechanics of counsel's tactics on the ticking timeline, and tried to illustrate the legal/moral crux: that Kim Davis might try to run round the court order by interfering with her deputy clerk Brian Mason's issuance of lawful marriage devices according to his conscience. The point being she was being pushed to demand obedience to her religious faith in his court-mandated work, since the judge is heretofore satisfied that an actual compromise is in place that separated Kim Davis from what she could not do in faith.

I think that ID of the crux is valid, but again my question to Adam, "What kinds of issues did I miss in my last analysis?"

So you really do not understand Christians and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?


I now interpret this charitably, peeling to the good faith pith. Question made more direct, without negations ...

So you really do not understand?
Do you really not understand?
Do you not understand?
Do you understand?

"Do you understand Christian s and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?"

to

"There is a Christian tradition (in America) of individuals/counsel acting in testament of religion, even if the end be (legal) 'martydom.' Do you understand?"


I still find the Liberty Counsel to be a nasty outfit of gay-hating fuckheads, with an odious history in Africa, but I can see that Liberty Counsel may be actually aiming Kim Davis at legal 'martyrdom.' I think that what Adam hopes I understand is that this is a tradition in America. As with the Dover trial, a mass of money and faith and organization can pay for losing cases, over and again. I had thought Liberty was incompetent or unethical to offer such legal legerdemain as their last motion -- a motion with a bizarre rationale and dishonest premise, doomed to fail to protect Kim Davis should she err this coming week -- but I can see that this may be exactly their own design.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning wrote that his mandate to issue licences applied to all couples, not only those who filed lawsuits. But Davis's lawyers allege that order was issued improperly and again have asked for a delay.

[...]

If the court does not respond before Davis returns to work on Monday, she will have to choose whether to allow her office to continue issuing licences or again disobey the judge who already sent her to jail.

Again, I think Kim needs a second legal opinion. The Liberty Counsel is maneuvering her into a dead end. I don't see any good sense coming from their legal/moral minds on Monday. Hopefully no one shows up for a marriage license and no one gets fired. It sounds like Kim is going to be okay with having the already-licensed couples register their marriage certificates as their partnerships are solemnized elsewhere.

So you really do not understand Christians and their tradition of acting in testament of their religion, even if martyred?

If I better understand your question now, I can better answer.

Yes, I understand a religious tradition that defies court orders and judgments on faith or moral grounds. Yes I understand that Kim Davis is in good faith announcing what is in her heart. Yes I understand that Liberty Counsel is following strategy that treats her as a 'martyr-able' pawn in a larger game to delegitimize gay people, despite the clear danger that their advice will put pawn again in jail. I can see that their seeming intent to put their client in detention serves a religious-moral agenda greater than her puny self. And I can call it how I see it, crazy, driven by irrational animus, contemptible in my moral universe.

The interesting case of contempt cited by Adam** may or may not be precedent to a thorny question of Bunning's errors (assumed by Kim's counsel), but it makes for good reading. This part helped me see the parallels and differences between the two situations.

But imprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in its character. Imprisonment in such cases is not inflicted as a punishment, but is intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do. The decree in such cases is that the defendant stand committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court's order.

For example: If a defendant should refuse to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance required by a decree for specific performance, he could be committed until he complied with the order. Unless there were special elements of contumacy, the refusal to pay or to comply with the order is treated as being rather in resistance to the opposite party than in contempt of the court. The order for imprisonment in this class of cases, therefore, is not to vindicate the authority of the law, but is remedial, and is intended to coerce the defendant to do the thing required by the order for the benefit of the complainant. If imprisoned, as aptly said in Re Nevitt, 54 C. C. A. 622, 117 Fed. 451, 'he carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.' He can end the sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do.


__________________

** According to Wikipedia, "Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911), was a ruling by the United States Supreme Court involving a case of contempt for violating the terms of an injunction restraining labor union leaders from a boycott or from publishing any statement that there was or had been a boycott."

I did not steal my earlier saying that Kim had the key to her jail cell, I swear. The decision above is much more delicious: Kim Davis carries the keys of her prison in her own pocket. If she fucks with Brian Mason she is fucking herself.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The interesting case of contempt cited by Adam** may or may not be precedent to a thorny question of Bunning's errors (assumed by Kim's counsel), but it makes for good reading. This part helped me see the parallels and differences between the two situations.

But imprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in its character. Imprisonment in such cases is not inflicted as a punishment, but is intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do. The decree in such cases is that the defendant stand committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court's order.

For example: If a defendant should refuse to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance required by a decree for specific performance, he could be committed until he complied with the order. Unless there were special elements of contumacy, the refusal to pay or to comply with the order is treated as being rather in resistance to the opposite party than in contempt of the court. The order for imprisonment in this class of cases, therefore, is not to vindicate the authority of the law, but is remedial, and is intended to coerce the defendant to do the thing required by the order for the benefit of the complainant. If imprisoned, as aptly said in Re Nevitt, 54 C. C. A. 622, 117 Fed. 451, 'he carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.' He can end the sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do.

Excellent William - contempt is one of the thornier problems that triers of fact face unless it is direct disrespect for the Court or the trier of fact.

One problem that Judge Bunning created was not setting a bail, or, bond.

I believe that he also decided to make an example of her. What I do not know yet, is whether her counsel argued that she had an inability to comply because of her fanatic devotion to the "voice of God" in her head which is a defense that can succeed.

A...

lotd more coming in this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may remember this case it was recent and famous:

WASHINGTON — A New York Times reporter was jailed Wednesday for refusing to submit to questioning by a special prosecutor investigating possible wrongdoing by the Bush administration, but a Time magazine reporter avoided jail at the last minute by agreeing to cooperate with the government.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordered Judith Miller, 57, imprisoned until she agreed to testify in an investigation into the naming of a CIA operative, declaring that the rights of journalists to gather news and protect confidential sources must occasionally yield to the power of prosecutors to demand testimony and investigate suspected crimes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/07/nation/na-reporters7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really glad this issue has come up.

We have always argued that both state and federal due process rights to a trial by a jury of your peers, counsel for an indigent and specifically with civil contempt, the absolute right, to argue, as a defense, the inability to comply.

I know of no jurisdiction that provide even the option of a trial by jury.

At the time of Fieock [great case], the inability to comply was the key issue.

We took a case all the way to the Supreme Court of NY State, one of our members was just swept up because there was a Family Court contempt warrant out and he was denied counsel, a "referee," not a Judge, found him guilty in a 30 minute hearing and marched him in handcuffs down the hall to a Judge and sentenced without an attorney to 6 months for willful contempt. Additionally, their were two other egregious due process statutory rights in the NY State Family Court Act.

So this is a specific area of interest and expertise of mine.

So I made a search and boom a very recent by SCOTUS time frames case from South Carolina:

But the Sixth Amendment does not govern civil cases. Civil contempt differsfrom criminal contempt in that it seeks only to “coerc[e] the defendant to do” what a court had previously ordered him to do. Gomper//s v. Bucks Stove & Range Co , 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911).

A court may not impose punishment “in a civil contempt proceeding when it is clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with the terms of the order.” Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 638, n. 9 (1988). And once a civil contemnor complies with the underlying order, he is purged of the contempt and is free. Id. , at 633 (he “carr[ies] the keys of [his] prison in [his] own pockets” (internal quotation marks omitted))

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears advice from Liberty Counsel led to a compromise with reality. Kim Davis spoke to the media before work today, saying she would not interfere with her deputy clerks' marriage-registering/licensing duties under order. Deputy Brian Mason later issued a marriage license.  Davis did not interfere. The license did not carry her name, but instead made notice of the court order.

 

Situation solved to the satisfaction of local gays and lesbians in search of matrimony ... ? (I think the state agency responsible for forms -- Kentucky's chief archivist/librarian -- will soon square the circle and normalize state-standard marriage devices to abide with 'religious liberty' accommodations.)

 

See the Davis video in this story at CNN: Kim Davis stands ground, but same-sex couple get marriage license
 

America's highest-profile county clerk, Kim Davis, returned to work Monday vowing to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But that didn't stop Carmen and Shannon Wampler-Collins from successfully walking out of the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk's office with a marriage license in hand.

 

[...]

Before starting her workday, Davis appeared defiant, saying she will not issue any marriage licenses that go against her religious beliefs -- but she left the door open for her deputies to continue giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as those documents do not have Davis' name or title on them.

The marriage license that the couple received said "pursuant to federal court order" on it, and instead of listing Davis' name and Rowan County, it says city of Morehead, the county seat.

Davis' work-around -- not to sign licenses but not to interfere with her deputies if they do so -- produced more questions than answers.

She acknowledged she is not sure about the legality of licenses altered in such a way.

On her first day back at work, Davis read a statement calling for state authorities to find a solution to accommodate her religious beliefs.

"Effective immediately, and until an accommodation is provided by those with the authority to provide it, any marriage license issued by my office will not be issued or authorized by me," Davis said.

In the meantime, she has offered what she considers an interim solution, but it is unclear if it passes legal muster.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning "indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage licenses even though he was not certain of their validity," Davis said. "I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid."


-- Kentucky's governor weighed in on the validity question. From ABCnews (a good report of the mechanics of the 'compromise' in Rowan County):
 

Kentucky's governor says the altered marriage licenses issued in Rowan County from the office of an embattled clerk are considered valid.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear said Monday that the licenses issued "are going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."

[...]

Kentucky state law requires that "every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures." But Beshear noted that the federal judge overseeing Davis' case has not raised any objections to the licenses. 

 

[...]

 

Brian Mason issued a license to a lesbian couple Monday, the first one granted since Rowan County clerk Kim Davis returned to work after being jailed for defying a judge. Davis says she won't issue or authorize licenses, but she also won't interfere with her deputies granting them. She questions whether they're valid without her authorization.

 

As attention on Mason grew, a man delivered a gift bag to him with bourbon balls and a candle. A Facebook support group was created for him.

 

Hecklers shouted "coward" at him, but he smiled at them and turned back to his work. He declined to detail his position on gay marriage or on Davis' defiance. But he remained calm, scrolling on his computer and chewing gum despite the scene before him. Cameras crowded around his counter, with some reporters climbing step ladders to get a better shot of him at his desk.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go, now everyone can continue to fund raise...

Before starting her workday, Davis appeared defiant, saying she will not issue any marriage licenses that go against her religious beliefs -- but she left the door open for her deputies to continue giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as those documents do not have Davis' name or title on them.

The marriage license that the couple received said "pursuant to federal court order" on it, and instead of listing Davis' name and Rowan County, it says city of Morehead, the county seat.

The Governor of Kentucky is a fool, this should have been solved just like this a while ago.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if this story had been reported differently...

In a courageous move, similar to Susan B. Anthony's arrest for registering to vote in Rochester NY and subsequently voting for President in 1872's election, a simple Kentucky county clerk was arrested for refusing to issue licenses to a gay couple.

In the year of the woman, with two women running for President, this simple clerk follows in the great activist positions that women have stood up for in America;

1) abolition of slavery;

2) full suffrage;

3) temperance;

4) abolition of the draft and war; and

5) worker and children's safety/unions.

Despite horrendous persecution by a male dominated culture they still stand up for their principles.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/laws/p/us_v_sba.htm

Importance of United States v. Susan B. Anthony:

The United States v. Susan B. Anthony is a milestone in women's history, a court case in 1873. Susan B. Anthony was tried in court for illegally voting. Her attorneys unsuccessfully claimed that citizenship of women gave to women the constitutional right to vote.

Dates of Trial:

June 17-18, 1873

Background to United States v. Susan B. Anthony:

Women in 10 states voted in 1871 and 1872, in defiance of state laws prohibiting women from voting.

Most were prevented from voting. Some did cast ballots.

Susan B. Anthony and 14 other women registered in Rochester, New York, in 1872, and voted in the presidential election on November 5, 1872. On November 28, the registrars and the 15 women were arrested. Only Anthony refused to pay bail; a judge released her anyway, and when another judge set new bail, the first judge paid the bail so that Anthony would not have to be jailed.

Outcome of United States v. Susan B. Anthony:

The jury found Anthony guilty, and the court fined Anthony $100. She refused to pay the fine and the judge did not require her to be jailed.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/trumps-moral-obligation/89289/

"The clerk is arguing right now in federal court that requiring her to issue such licenses under her own name is a religious test that would prevent Apostolic Christians such as herself from ever serving as clerks at Rowan County. She might be right, she might be wrong. But the Left wants that claim dismissed out of hand, without even a full due process in court, and the judge seems to be of a similar mind. Wouldn’t it be nice were at least one candidate to signal that he or she grasps the meaning of this clause to which all officers of America are morally obligated?"

I have begun to see that this issue is not a clearly defined as I thought. The Constitution states there cannot be a religious test to hold an office in the government. Kim Davis is claiming forcing her to perform actions contrary to her religious belief is a religious test the Constitution has forbidden. I think she's wrong, no one, office holder or not, has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to violate another persons lawfully given right to equal treatment. But she deserves her day in court. Perhaps that is the only way the Constitutional and moral principles involved can be clearly stated and understood. I would think that the glaringly obvious corollary to forbidding a religious test for office holders would be the office holders are forbidden to apply their personal religious tests to the performance of that office and to the individuals of the public they serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some interesting and puzzling stories emerged over the past five days. This CNN story below lays out some of the complex issues for Susan B Anthony Joan of Arc, Rosa Parks Kim Davis. I watched Kim's interview/story with ABC News's Good Morning America. She comes off as a sympathetic yet ignorant person. She said the thing that hurts her the most is that some have suggested "My God does not love me." I felt what I feel when a seriously deluded person gets emotional: sad, sad sad. Prepare for a lump in your throat (or a bone in your throat) on viewing this minute-long excerpt:
For the atheist super-majority here, there will probably be no extra sympathy for her ridiculous theology, but she seems as sincere as sincere can be. She is determined to fuck up the issuance of marriage licenses in 'her' county.
By Ralph Ellis and Laura Ly, CNN
Updated 8:47 PM ET, Sat September 19, 2015 (emphases added)

When Davis returned to work last Monday, she reiterated her opposition to gay marriage but said she wouldn't prevent her deputies from issuing licenses to such couples -- as long as those documents didn't carry her name or title.
Davis may have gone further than that, the lawyer for deputy Rowan County court clerk Brian Mason said in an update report Friday to a federal judge.
Davis replaced the old marriage license forms with forms that don't carry her name, the name of the county or any reference to a clerk or deputy clerk, said Mason's lawyer, Richard Hughes.
The new forms also require Mason to list his initials, instead of a signature, with a notarization beside the initials, Hughes said.
The same-sex couple that sued Davis for not issuing a marriage license said, in a separate court filing, that Davis is "requiring her clerk to issue licenses in his capacity as a 'notary public' rather than a deputy clerk. ..."
Hughes said: "Mr. Mason's concern is he does not want to be the party that is issuing invalid marriage licenses and he is trying to follow the court's mandate as well as his superior ordering him to issue only these changed forms. ..."
"It also appears to this counsel those change were made in some attempt to circumvent the court's orders and may have raised to the level of interference against court's orders," Hughes said.
[...]
The lawyer for Davis, Mat Staver, issued a statement Saturday saying, "there is no new development with this report."
"Kim Davis said Monday that her name and title would not appear on the forms and later that same day the Governor said the forms were valid," Staver said. "And Judge (David) Bunning's order releasing Kim Davis said a form altered by Brian the day after the contempt hearing while Kim was in jail was valid. ...
Mason's filing may reopen an emotional court battle over same-sex marriage in this rural north Kentucky county.
A couple sued Davis because she wouldn't give them a marriage license, despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage across the nation.
She said same-sex marriage violated her Christian beliefs.
Bunning found her in contempt of court and put her in jail. The judge released her September 8, saying he was satisfied her deputies had fulfilled their obligations in her absence.
But Bunning's new order said Davis cannot interfere with her deputies issuing marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.
Bunning noted that a license issued while she was behind bars had been "altered so that 'Rowan County' rather than 'Kim Davis' appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk."
Bunning said he had no objections to those changes. The judge didn't address the changes mentioned in Mason's filing, such as the notarization and the initials replacing the signature.
Gay couple has questions
Bunning hasn't responded yet to Mason's concern. He assigned lawyers to all the deputy clerks to provide updates on the cases, such as the one Hughes filed on Friday.
Mason, by mutual agreement, is the only person in the office issuing same-sex marriage licenses, Hughes said.
In another development, ACLU lawyers for the gay couple who sued Davis filed a brief urging the judge to allow the lawsuit to take class-action status.
Those lawyers also mentioned the changes to the form Davis made.
"These alterations call into question the validity of the marriage licenses issued, create an unconstitutional two-tier system of marriage licenses issued in Kentucky and do not comply with this court's September 3 order prohibiting Davis from interfering with the issuance of marriage licenses," they wrote.
At a minimum, Davis appears to be in violation of the judge's order of 9/11, which stated that "Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered."
Davis is interfering with the efforts of the Deputy Clerks to issue licences, by ordering Mason to amend the license form. I doubt anyone will (or should) care enough to try to have her held in violation of the order, but she is, indeed, violating it.
From Google News this minute:
Defiant clerk Kim Davis confiscated and altered all the marriage ...
National Post-6 hours ago
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is prepared to return to jail over her beliefs, according to an interview that aired Tuesday morning on “Good ...
Kim Davis's Gay Friends
International-The Atlantic-4 hours ago
Kim Davis May Be Heading Back to Jail
Blog-Slate Magazine (blog)-3 hours ago
Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William wrote: CNN story below lays out some of the complex issues for Susan B Anthony Joan of Arc, Rosa Parks Kim Davis.
end quote

That double cross was clever. If you were a fan of Christian or Muslim, morally religious government, or a proponent of unlimited religious freedom you would think it an apt comparison. Or if you think she is a bigot not doing her job you would think the cross outs leading to the name of Kracklin’ Kim Krusader were satiric. It’s time to give her the option of resigning or being impeached since she was voted into office. Or her Governor could simply remove her for malfeasance, and face the flak from her supporters.

Granted, it is still the same as the original situation, but if citizens are getting fed up it is time for her to comply or face new legal consequences. Each instance of deliberately not doing her job is another instance of breaking the law. What if Governor Christie continually blocked the lanes leading to a New Jersey City who’s mayor belittled (or bebiggled) the Governor? There was a scandal over one instance of roadway tie-ups , so in a similar way, Kim has driven past the conscientious resister exit and entered the chronic offender lane.
Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/trumps-moral-obligation/89289/

"The clerk is arguing right now in federal court that requiring her to issue such licenses under her own name is a religious test that would prevent Apostolic Christians such as herself from ever serving as clerks at Rowan County. She might be right, she might be wrong. But the Left wants that claim dismissed out of hand, without even a full due process in court, and the judge seems to be of a similar mind. Wouldn’t it be nice were at least one candidate to signal that he or she grasps the meaning of this clause to which all officers of America are morally obligated?"

I have begun to see that this issue is not a clearly defined as I thought. The Constitution states there cannot be a religious test to hold an office in the government. Kim Davis is claiming forcing her to perform actions contrary to her religious belief is a religious test the Constitution has forbidden. I think she's wrong, no one, office holder or not, has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to violate another persons lawfully given right to equal treatment. But she deserves her day in court. Perhaps that is the only way the Constitutional and moral principles involved can be clearly stated and understood. I would think that the glaringly obvious corollary to forbidding a religious test for office holders would be the office holders are forbidden to apply their personal religious tests to the performance of that office and to the individuals of the public they serve.

This is a misapplication of that section since it refers only to

Article VI also provides that both federal and state officials—including legislators and judges—must obey the U.S. Constitution (state officials have a duty to obey their own state constitutions and laws as well). To ensure freedom of religion, this article ensures that no public official be required to practice or pledge allegiance to any particular religion.

The Governor of Kentucky, in concert with the Kentucky legislature, should be passing an accommodation law to cover all it's citizens.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f citizens are getting fed up it is time for [Kim Davis] to comply or face new legal consequences. Each instance of deliberately not doing her job is another instance of breaking the law. 

 

It looks to me like public opinion has shifted, and shifted quite fast. At the beginning of the kerfuffle in Kentucky, public opinion was split almost fifty-fifty, with support breaking even for 'accommodation' and for 'do your job' ...

 

On Tuesday [a week ago], an ABC News/Washington Post poll revealed the most significant post-Davis data point yet—and the results don’t look good for Davis and her admirers. An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents believed that when a conflict arises between religious beliefs and equal treatment under the law, equality should win out. Moreover, 63 percent of respondents said that Davis should be required to issue marriage licenses despite her sincerely held religious beliefs. (That tracks an earlier Rasmussen poll, which found that 66 percent of Americans think Davis should follow the law and issue licenses.)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f citizens are getting fed up it is time for [Kim Davis] to comply or face new legal consequences. Each instance of deliberately not doing her job is another instance of breaking the law.

It looks to me like public opinion has shifted, and shifted quite fast. At the beginning of the kerfuffle in Kentucky, public opinion was split almost fifty-fifty, with support breaking even for 'accommodation' and for 'do your job' ...

On Tuesday [a week ago], an ABC News/Washington Post poll revealed the most significant post-Davis data point yet—and the results don’t look good for Davis and her admirers. An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents believed that when a conflict arises between religious beliefs and equal treatment under the law, equality should win out. Moreover, 63 percent of respondents said that Davis should be required to issue marriage licenses despite her sincerely held religious beliefs. (That tracks an earlier Rasmussen poll, which found that 66 percent of Americans think Davis should follow the law and issue licenses.)

Another reason why we have a Constitution that is still the rule book for our Republic is because the fever of the masses does not resolve the issue, there is a process.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update ...

On 9/3/2015 at 11:14 AM, Mikee said:

Kim Davis Ordered Jailed in Kentucky Gay Marriage Dispute

My question is why couldn't they just have fired her for not doing her job? [...]

... "they" eventually did fire her, as it turns out:

Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licences loses re-election

Quote

Bruce Schreiner, The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:14AM EST

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- The Kentucky clerk who went to jail in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples lost her bid for a second term on Tuesday.

Kim Davis, the Republican incumbent, was defeated by Democrat Elwood Caudill Jr . in the election for clerk of Rowan County in northeastern Kentucky. Caudill won with 4,210 votes, or 54 per cent, to 3,566, or 46 per cent, for Davis.

[...]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2015 at 2:14 PM, Mikee said:

Kim Davis Ordered Jailed in Kentucky Gay Marriage Dispute

My question is why couldn't they just have fired her for not doing her job? Why does this stupid person get to get in front of the Supreme Court? She took an oath to uphold the constitution, she violates that oath she's fired with no benefits. I hope she gets jail time and no pension.

She rebuffed a court order. That is contempt of court and that means jail time until the contempt charge is purged or dismissed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now