Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: olaru12

She is a Democrat. Could this be a Republican Psy-op? Maybe they put one of their one in to make the Democrats look crazy?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Where do we draw the line between religious belief and mere claims to religious belief?

That's a question the courts are likely going to be forced to settle.

Good question. (I know it wasn't posed to me)

Like it or not, I think we have to 'act as if' people claiming religious exception are being genuine. Because legally, it shouldn't matter if they're genuine or not. In this case, it doesn't matter if her beliefs are genuine. If we found that they were, it wouldn't make any difference in the outcome. She STILL refuses to do her job, for WHATEVER reason, and so she shouldn't have it.

If it becomes apparent that her beliefs aren't genuine, she'd still be in jail for contempt.

People's personal beliefs (religious or not) don't give them ANY right to deny rights to others. But I think that's where the religious right is trying to go with cases like this. As harvestdog mentioned, nepotism is strong with this group and they have a mission to fill more government positions with religious people... for obvious theocratic reasons...

a reply to: xuenchen

Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem. The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judge’s orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News. “She has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well,” Staver said. “That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done. “I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

The problem with this^^^, is this...

One little-known and controversial practice might be behind some of this unexpected compliance. In Utah, North Carolina, Texas and other states, local governments are shifting responsibilities so that employees who object to gay marriage do not have to be involved with wedding licenses at all. In this scenario, the objectors’ co-workers or other government officials rotate to handle the task, allowing clerks who object to fade into the background and not participate.

But a group of Columbia University law professors argue in a recent memo that these kinds of exemptions create “conscience creep,” in which government employees can refuse to provide more and more services that violate their beliefs. And what happens when no one wants to provide the service? “The exemption proposals would make the efficacy of same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry contingent upon their being able to find a public official who has no objection to their having such a right,” they write.

Link
Post Link

It's the same kind of workaround. She's doing everything she can to skirt the law, and still keep her paycheck. It's time to boot her a$$ out.

a reply to: harvestdog

Yes.

Times change. She's not prepared to by her own choice. That's her problem. She's fine to have her belief, but not at the expense of other people and the law.

Yesterday her Liberty Council lawyer was saying that all she wanted was for her name (as clerk) to not be on the licenses.

Now her assistants are issuing licenses without her name on them and she is announcing through her lawyer that these aren't valid licenses.

Proof positive that this goes beyond her claims of being forced to do something that violates her personal beliefs. She wants to use the power of her office to impose her religious beliefs on others by dictating who can get a license even when she is off the hook as far as her personal involvement.

The best thing at this point would be for the media to find some other story to sensationalize and this one to fade away. Which is likely to happen anyway with America's short attention span anyway.

Right now she has a whole lot of attention being given to her and it's just adding to her already out of control pride in what she's doing. If that was to leave her and she started to see nobody gives a damn about what she thinks anymore and that she's going to be spending lots of alone time in jail, just her and her pride, reality would set in pretty fast.

Personally I think she deserves to sit and rot in there for while without any media exposure at all.

a reply to: Klassified

Yeah. More and more right wing religious extremists in government AND legal jobs, deciding whose beliefs and rights are more important than others'... and virtual theocracy, here we come!

It's "creepy" all right! To think that our republic could be systematically infiltrated and taken over by impassioned control freaks is about the creepiest thing I can think of!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neformore

Where do we draw the line between religious belief and mere claims to religious belief?

That's a question the courts are likely going to be forced to settle.

Why should the courts settle it?

She does not *have* to have that job.

If her beliefs are so strong and she has the power of her own convictions, she needs to walk away from it.

Oh, and just for the record, when I hear that we should gut the power of the Federal government and rely on local and State government, THIS is just the kind of nightmare scenario that I have in mind when I try to remind that is a bad idea.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Those Liberty Council Lawyers are using these people for their own crusade. They're the ones behind all of this stuff and they are backed by a whole team of Conservative Rich Christian Dominionists who have been working on this government coup to install theocracy for a couple decades at least.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: olaru12

She is a Democrat. Could this be a Republican Psy-op? Maybe they put one of their one in to make the Democrats look crazy?

It's definitely a possibility from a conspiracy angle.

But she's always been a Democrat I believe. Her Mother ? probably a Democrat.

But it's entirely possible she has been bought off for a purpose.

Interesting, and we are seeing an absence of her being a Democrat in the big MSM stories I think.

She Ran as a Democrat last Election

originally posted by: DelMarvel
Now her assistants are issuing licenses without her name on them and she is announcing through her lawyer that these aren't valid licenses.

This is scary... I mean it will all come out all right, but the couples married today may have to do it again in the future.

Marriage licenses in Kentucky usually have the elected clerk's signature on them; those handed out Friday lacked any signature. The Rowan County attorney and lawyers for the gay couples said they are legal and valid nevertheless. When the judge was asked if the licenses will be considered valid without Davis' authorization, he said it was up to the gay couples to take that chance.

I thought the deputy clerks would be signing them... This will be interesting to follow. Source

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

Kim Davis *IS* a government authority.

Soon to be *WAS*.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, and just for the record, when I hear that we should gut the power of the Federal government and rely on local and State government, THIS is just the kind of nightmare scenario that I have in mind when I try to remind that is a bad idea.

But the Federal government has been involved with this issue.

And still it fails.

Hmmm.

originally posted by: neformore

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neformore

Where do we draw the line between religious belief and mere claims to religious belief?

That's a question the courts are likely going to be forced to settle.

Why should the courts settle it?

She does not *have* to have that job.

If her beliefs are so strong and she has the power of her own convictions, she needs to walk away from it.

I don't disagree with you at all; in fact, I said virtually the same thing a few posts up.

What I am saying is that as the claims of "religious freedom" and "religious belief" are used to try to excuse every sort of prejudiced and inequitable treatment under the sun, the courts will have to devise some test to determine if such a claim is legally valid (and thus covered under the 1st Amendment) or not.

This matter was really settled for years, until the "Restoration of Religious Freedom Act" and similar bi-partisan attempts to muddle the separation of Church and State.

So now, since someone can claim a belief that isn't noted in the Bible, and in fact, whose actions are specifically AGAINST Bible passages VERBATUM ... a test is going to have to be devised that can be rationally and equally applied.

And that is why the Christians should have been happy with the ridiculous levels of freedom that they already enjoyed, because these new interpretations will cover (and justify) ALL religious beliefs, not just Judeo-Christian.

Sharia law, anyone?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Then why are they skipping the 1st Amendment and cherry picking 14? That was my point.

Also, yes, we want interpretation of laws but guns are different. It states clearly the right to bear arms. However, there is nowhere in the entire constitution that discusses same sex marriage.

The 15th Amendment was about race,citizenship and equal protection under the law. Not sexuality.

The SCOTUS gave an opinion. A 5-4 opinion. Not a law.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, and just for the record, when I hear that we should gut the power of the Federal government and rely on local and State government, THIS is just the kind of nightmare scenario that I have in mind when I try to remind that is a bad idea.

But the Federal government has been involved with this issue.

And still it fails.

Hmmm.

It fails in your opinion, who would view any and all actions of government as a "fail."

That's as regular as rain. Doesn't make it accurate.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: DelMarvel

Those Liberty Council Lawyers are using these people for their own crusade. They're the ones behind all of this stuff and they are backed by a whole team of Conservative Rich Christian Dominionists who have been working on this government coup to install theocracy for a couple decades at least.

Thanks for that heads up. Do you have any good links? I haven't looked into this much since Palin was on the GOP ticket.

originally posted by: mOjOm


Personally I think she deserves to sit and rot in there for while without any media exposure at all.

imo...

She will be released tomorrow on her own recognizance and immediately held up as a martyr by the Christian Right.

More fuel to their fire of being picked on and crucified in the media and public opinion. Kim's 15min of fame just got extended. She will now be interviewed on the 500club, Fox, Hannity, O,Rilley etc. and other Conservative Christian media outlets.

I hope she gets her hair done and some new duds.

a reply to: matafuchs

What part of "equal protection of the laws" is unclear to you in the Fourteenth Amendment?

The First Amendment is supportive of the jailing of Ms. Davis; no government is allowed to establish a religion.

Ms. Davis, in her capacity as Clerk, embodies government.