Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MrWendal

No it isn't.
Rights are very important and you are saying no harm done?.
Despite what you think harm was done and rights were denied.

I never said no harm was done. Please quote that from anything I have said on the issue.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can...

Yes a crime was committed.

Yes people's rights were violated.

Putting this women in jail does NOTHING to solve the problem.

and YES she can be removed from Office using the same legalese BS that every day citizens have been dealing with for decades.

a reply to: MrWendal

How many times do we have to tell you...she was given every opportunity to either quit or just issue the licences.
You keep saying It doesn't matter, she shouldn't goto jail but she broke the law and did not do her Job.
Real victims...all the people she denied marriage licences.
Those not real enough for you?.

Also what problem? what is there to solve?.
She fought the law and the law won...it is that simple.

originally posted by: MrWendal

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MrWendal

No it isn't.
Rights are very important and you are saying no harm done?.
Despite what you think harm was done and rights were denied.

I never said no harm was done. Please quote that from anything I have said on the issue.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can...

Yes a crime was committed.

Yes people's rights were violated.

Putting this women in jail does NOTHING to solve the problem.

and YES she can be removed from Office using the same legalese BS that every day citizens have been dealing with for decades.

Are you familiar with how Contempt of Court works? When a Judge has jurisdiction, makes an order, and that order isn't followed to the Judge's satisfaction, they can (and do) jail any citizen at any time until that citizen complies. Yet another reason for distributed powers of government, but I digress.

As to the elected official deal, you're right in as far as she COULD be removed, but it would take a special session of Kentucky's legislature.

a reply to: MrWendal

Kim Davis was sued for refusing to issue the marriage licenses. The judge ruled against her and ordered her to either start issuing the licenses or resign. She refused the court order. The judge ruled her in contempt for disobeying the court order. The punishment for contempt is either fines or jail.

To be fair, the parties who sued, asked the judge to fine her instead of jail her, but the judge felt that Davis would just get her followers to pay it and she would go free without ever having paid any penalty.

Plus, it is the state's constitution that determine exactly how an elected official can be removed from office. It varies state to state, and by position, but usually you have to have a congress in session to hold impeachment proceedings, then you have a trial to actually remove the person. It takes a while, and the Kentucky congress isn't even in session now. Meantime, Davis would just keep withholding those marriage licenses in her county for months. The judge putting her in jail was the fastest way of "removing" her from her position.

By the way, the judge is a conservative Catholic who is personally against same sex marriage, but he strongly believes in the laws (unlike Kim Davis apparently).

a reply to: boymonkey74

How many times do we have to tell you...she was given every opportunity to either quit or just issue the licences.

You can tell me as many times as you like, but the point is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because she can be removed from Office for failing to follow the oath she took for that Office. I have given 2 examples to exact on how such a thing is possible.

You keep saying It doesn't matter, she shouldn't goto jail but she broke the law and did not do her Job.

Agreed. At no point in time have I said anything different from this. The only thing we actually disagree on is that I think she can be removed from her position as I stated above.

Real victims...all the people she denied marriage licences.
Those not real enough for you?.

No they are not.

"Victims" is defined as...

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

No one was killed. No one was injured. "harmed" is really a matter of interpretation. I would argue that no one was harmed, but they were inconvenienced. The reality of the situation is that she told people "no I will not allow you to get married". If that is the worst thing that happens to you in the course of your life, than I would suggest you are getting off easy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes I am VERY familiar with how contempt of court works. At no point in time have I argued the legality of why she is being jailed.

And yes it would take a special session of the Legislature. And?? The Governor claims there is no money for that, but as I countered in a previous post (the post with a link), I say there is money. They can take the money from the millions and millions of unreported dollars the Police departments have taken from across the entire State under Asset Forfeiture Laws.

a reply to: MrWendal

I agree that she shouldn't be sitting in jail, that the legislator should have been the ones to take care of this but well, that didn't happen and she is in jail...

because something had to be done!
and I disagree that there was no real victims when the entire country had to travel to other counties if they wanted to get married, heterosexual or homosexual didn't make a difference. the distance between the morehead county and the nearest other county office, unless they have serveral scattered throughout their counties is around 25 miles.
so well, someone who might live right next door to the clerks office now has to travel 25 miles.
if that person has environmental concerns and has arranged his life so that he can bike everywhere he has to go, well, hasn't his beliefs now been forced to be compromised if he wants to be married also or well, spend half a day possibly biking the 25 miles?
I've been enjoying a nice summer of not really having to do much driving, and well, my feet have been rather nice to me during those months and letting me sleep. But well my son relies on me for transportation to college, which really isn't that far. College has started up and I've been woken up every night since with inmovable toes that are cramped in very painful positions. I can see where adding those extra miles onto someone's drive could cause a little bit of pain, I am sorry. and what about those who were hoping for a wedding on a nice summer drive that would have had to wait till next year to get married because they don't have the transportation needed to get to the next county. the extra time off work, ect.

people assume that everyone has easy access to transportation and that isn't true. you kind of sound like having everyone wait around till january or whenever the politicians get their crap together, or travel the extra miles to the next county if they want to get married is an acceptable solution. It isn't!

a reply to: MrWendal

Pkay I deny you your human rights and you think you can not be a victim because those rights were denied? .
Stop being so obtuse they are victims whether you think no harm done or not.

a reply to: kaylaluv

The judge putting her in jail was the fastest way of "removing" her from her position.

Yes it was, but it is also the least effective.

A move like this just makes this women a martyr for her cause. It will be viewed as an attack on her religion and her religious beliefs. Just look at the statements her attorneys are already putting out there.

a reply to: MrWendal

Let's take away your rights and find out if you feel the same way then.

Why don't we take away your 2nd amendment right and see if you feel like a victim then. While you cry and moan about your precious guns I'll be sure to remind you that you need to be injured to be a victim.

a reply to: MrWendal

Okay, so why do you keep droning on about "she shouldn't be in jail"?

I don't mean to be rude, but, what does your PERSONAL opinion have to do with the State of Kentucky? You "say" there is money ... so what? The Governor "says" there isn't. Like the Judge "says" that Kim Davis will be in jail as long as she is in Contempt.

To summarize, you understand what Ms. Davis did wrong, you understand what Contempt is, you understand why she's in jail (not her beliefs), you understand what the Governor said and why he said it, and yet, you still continue to repeat the same things over and over.

Sounds more than a little like empty posturing to me, no offense.

originally posted by: MrWendal
a reply to: kaylaluv

The judge putting her in jail was the fastest way of "removing" her from her position.

A move like this just makes this women a martyr for her cause. It will be viewed as an attack on her religion and her religious beliefs. Just look at the statements her attorneys are already putting out there.

Impeaching her would also be viewed as an attack on her religion by her followers. The only way out of that is to allow her to keep doing what she was doing, which ain't gonna happen.

and, well, to keep the pot of discontent stirring, there's another case, this time a judge is refusing to marry people, because well, he doesn't like the idea of marrying same sex couples.

Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said. When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday. Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said. "He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," Korten said.

abcnews.go.com...

so, I guess we can wait and see how this one turns out.
he is referring people to other judges though. so well, if those other judges are in the same area, it's not as extreme in my views as the county clerk who's actions made it that no marriage licenses at all were issued in an entire county.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MrWendal

Okay, so why do you keep droning on about "she shouldn't be in jail"?

Droning on? I did not realize that responding to direct comments put towards me was considered "droning on". If you do not want me to reply, then why are you addressing me?

I don't mean to be rude, but, what does your PERSONAL opinion have to do with the State of Kentucky? You "say" there is money ... so what? The Governor "says" there isn't. Like the Judge "says" that Kim Davis will be in jail as long as she is in Contempt.

You are on a website that is all about people posting their personal opinions on various topics and you are really asking me what my personal opinion has to do with it?

To summarize, you understand what Ms. Davis did wrong, you understand what Contempt is, you understand why she's in jail (not her beliefs), you understand what the Governor said and why he said it, and yet, you still continue to repeat the same things over and over.

Sounds more than a little like empty posturing to me, no offense.

No offense taken.

I am in a bit of a position to have to repeat myself over and over again since people do not seem to understand what it is I am actually saying which is clearly evidenced by the way some have suggested that I said there was no crime committed, etc etc. All of which I had to address over and over and over again.

a reply to: MrWendal

Im just don't understand how you think there were no victims in what she did.

a reply to: dawnstar

I think this is a non-issue, as the judge is not legally required to perform weddings. If he was performing straight weddings but not same-sex weddings, that might be a problem, but that's not what he's doing. It would be like a baker who says they won't do ANY wedding cakes for gay or straight - that's okay.

The difference with Kim Davis is, part of her duty IS issuing marriage licenses for her county, so she has to do her duty.

a reply to: dawnstar

people assume that everyone has easy access to transportation and that isn't true. you kind of sound like having everyone wait around till january or whenever the politicians get their crap together, or travel the extra miles to the next county if they want to get married is an acceptable solution. It isn't!

No where in your entire post did I see anything tragic.

25 miles?? That's it?? People in this Country drive farther than that to go to the mall and buy crap they don't need with money they don't have. The extra drive is not what I call life threatening. It is however pretty inconvenient to say the least.

Feet hurt?? Sorry that is one area you will not get much sympathy from me. I need to have surgery on both feet as I suffer from Ledderhose's disease, also known as plantar fibromatosis and yet I still work over 40 hours a week- all time spent on my feet. If I can do that to make ends meet, I think I can manage to deal with it for the "love of my life" and the person I want to marry.


And I am sorry to say a completely hypothetical biking scenario is not a very compelling argument.

Getting to the part of your post that I quoted, I am not calling making people wait an acceptable solution. I am calling it not the end of the world. We are talking about marriage. Supposedly the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Waiting a few months is longer is not exactly a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

That being said- The Kentucky State legislature is in session between 30-60 days a year. Think about those salaries and how little they actually "work" for the people of their State. So yes... call them in. It's the LEAST they could do. So many people seem to think their State legislatures are working every day at what they are elected to do.... they don't.

a reply to: kaylaluv

ya, that's what i think, although he may be disqualified for sitting on any cases relevant to homosexual issues.
there's another judge, I believe in the same building that is willing to do them also, so well, it's not like he's hanging anyone out to dry, he's referring people to others who will do it.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: MrWendal

Im just don't understand how you think there were no victims in what she did.

I thought I was pretty clear in it.

I even posted the dictionary definition of the word "victim". What part are you having trouble understanding? I'd be happy to try and explain it again.

Messed up stuff happens to people every day, but not everyone who has messed up stuff happen to them is a victim.

a reply to: MrWendal

I suppose Rosa Parks was only being slightly inconvenienced when ordered to give up her seat on the city bus... but you see it isn't just about the physical inconvenience. It is a larger issue of being treated like a second-class citizen. The "equal protection under the law" clause is there for a reason. ALL citizens deserve to be treated equally under the laws - and any citizen who isn't being treated equally under the law IS a victim.