It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kim Davis - an $80k drag on the system

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Kim is an attention seeker. This is her big chance to get her 15 minutes of fame regardless of who she tramples on or what it costs the taxpayers. Her defiance of authority based on backwoods religion may play well to the locals who are religious right and don't particularly like authority of any sort. Maybe she figures that there are enough like-minded folks in her district that she will ensure her reelection; $80k for sitting on a local throne is hard to find. Unseating this queen will be tough unless she is convicted of a felony and made ineligible to run for office.
The gay community wants more than marriage licenses; they want acceptance and they want all to comply with the law. Any clerks behaving like this will be challenged anywhere with the same actions, even if a license could be readily had in a more compliant county.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

But a special session will cost the taxpayers a LOT of money! This is a poor state and this one woman is bleeding them out. All these lawsuits and court hearings, etc. aren't free.


It's their own fault. They voted her in. At least the county residents did. Her and her mother have held that office for close to 50 years total. That tells me that her and her mother share the same beliefs as the people in that county who keep voting her in with each and every cycle.

It's not just Kim Davis who is the backward hick. Look at those who vote her in. If this is the way they want to live..........It's America. You can't really stop them. If you don't like it, don't live there. If you don't like it, don't get married there because you or I sure as hell aren't going to change their ways.

America is a very diverse country and we have the freedom to pick and choose which area we want to live in that best suits our own personal way of life. Under those conditions, why would anyone want to associate with people, for example get married by certain people, whom they have little in common with?

True, Kim Davis needs to crawl in a hole somewhere and go with a whimper, but until she does, ignore her.
edit on 14-9-2015 by DeepImpactX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
I am speaking about the bigger picture, that we apparently have convinced ourselves that we require permits to cohabitate.


I don't know of anyone who actually thinks we need a government permit to live together. But society DOES generally believe that you "grow up and get married". Married meaning the legal union.

I don't have any thought on overturning the 16th as regards this case. I understand you're looking at a much bigger picture, though.



I think your attitude is normal and, I would dare say, healthy.

That said, abuse of power is the primary concern when tolerating government supervision, maintenance or husbandry of something and I can't think of a legitimate reason to expressly involve the state.

The special interest argument involves the benefits (or punishments, depending on whom you talk to) of "marriage" for income tax purposes so it is an example of self-justifying legislative creep but, that's why I mention the 16th when I hear legislative arguments in favor of special interest groups.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DeepImpactX

She was a registered Democrat that found religion a few years ago..born again baby!
Hard to say what the folks voted for back then.
I would guess her mother was a Democrat to but I have no proof just a guess.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I don't think that the judge even knows for sure the legality of the licenses that have been issued without her authorization, but, well, the longer this goes on, the more pressure will on the state to accept them as legal regardless of weather they are technically legal or not. I'd say just let the marriages be processed like there were while she was in jail, and leave it at that....
unless of course, all those marriages that had been processed are now sitting on her desk waiting for her signature or something.

thought the christians wanted people to get married?? what's she is doing is kind of undermining that desire isn't it? oh, well, do hope they come up with some more of those billboard designs though, I do like the one they have. I suggest they have one next of a spousal abuse victim next reminding people how they've redefined marriage in that way also.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: DeepImpactX

She was a registered Democrat that found religion a few years ago..born again baby!
Hard to say what the folks voted for back then.
I would guess her mother was a Democrat to but I have no proof just a guess.


The apple typically doesn't fall too far from the tree. Not in that part of the country at least. People over there typically don't take to change easily. Attitudes and views are relatively the same as they ever were.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
Her and her mother have held that office for close to 50 years total. That tells me that her and her mother share the same beliefs as the people in that county who keep voting her in with each and every cycle.


She worked in the office when her mother was clerk, but she was elected last year for the first time.



After her mother announced she would not run for re-election in 2014, Davis filed as a Democratic candidate for county clerk.[13][13] At a candidates' forum, Davis stated she felt she was best qualified for the position because of her 26 years of experience in the clerk's office.[14]

Davis won the Democratic primary,[13] advancing to the general election against Republican John Cox.[15] Although Cox made complaints of nepotism during the campaign, Davis prevailed in the general election.[16] After winning the race, Davis told the Morehead News, "My words can never express the appreciation but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter."[15][17][1]


Well, that promise was TOTALLY broken... Source

She is a recent convert into religion, and her mother didn't share her religion.



It's not just Kim Davis who is the backward hick. Look at those who vote her in. If this is the way they want to live..........It's America.


Even "backward hicks" in America have to obey the US Constitution.



America is a very diverse country and we have the freedom to pick and choose which area we want to live in that best suits our own personal way of life.


She is violating the 14th Amendment, not some podunk Kentucky law...



True, Kim Davis needs to crawl in a hole somewhere and go with a whimper, but until she does, ignore her.


I LOVE this stuff! I couldn't ignore it if I wanted to, which I don't.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


I do, too. If this is allowed to continue, other clerks employed by the government will take it as a signal that they can bring their personal beliefs in to work, to judge who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry... or have a dog... or get a driver's license...

Exactly. I know this has been posted a few times before, but I think it bears repeating, again and again...

“There are good reasons to try to allow people who have been in these jobs for a long time to be able to keep their jobs,” Wilson says. “That’s a really noble thing to do in our culture, especially at a time of deep division.”

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



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Honestly I hope the governor does move on this. Whether to get rid of her entirely or to reshape the legislation.


But a special session will cost the taxpayers a LOT of money! This is a poor state and this one woman is bleeding them out. All these lawsuits and court hearings, etc. aren't free.


You're quite right, legislative special sessions do not come cheap.

But then, who put Kentucky in this position to begin with if not the tax paying citizens of the state? If I'm not mistaken, somewhere around 54% of Kentucky's eligible voters turned out to pass their state's constitutional marriage amendment by a 75% margin.

Furthermore, I think it's pretty obvious that they did so in 2004, as a conscious effort to preempt and/or defy a SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage that everyone knew was inevitable and just like Kim Davis, they're now facing the consequences of their actions.

My brother is a ultra-conservative and he's always telling me that it's all about the choices we make and peoples circumstances are just a result of their choices. If anything, I'd say they're just getting a taste of their own medicine.

It may not seem fair to make everyone in the state pay for a decision made by the majority of half of their electorate, but the other 46% chose not to vote at all, so they too share the blame.

On another note, I'm not sure that a special session or a repeal of their marriage amendment is even required.

I think that what the SCOTUS decision did was to basically "strike down" or nullify their existing marriage amendment on the basis that it was "unconstitutional." So, if their marriage amendment has been nullified, same-sex marriage should already be legal.

That's just my two cents worth, but seeing how I'm not a lawyer, it may not be worth even that.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: wanderingman

She is now all over the news, before today I only seen her in the internets news and the articles here, now she got her moment of fame, like a movie star.

In the news she was showed preaching to her fans and audience.

It most be nice to preach while making 80k on state tax money.



I am sure that she will retire from her job with a nice pension and then become a preacher to make even more money.
edit on 14-9-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
I think that what the SCOTUS decision did was to basically "strike down" or nullify their existing marriage amendment on the basis that it was "unconstitutional." So, if their marriage amendment has been nullified, same-sex marriage should already be legal.


You are 100% right. Same-sex marriage is legal in KY and in every other state, regardless of previous bans.

I live in a poor state and I would HATE to have my taxes going toward this situation. But I do see your point. I just have sympathy for the state and the people who feel differently from the majority. I'm not much for majority rule.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Perhaps the cost of her stupidity to the state should be deducted from her pension.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Flatfish
I think that what the SCOTUS decision did was to basically "strike down" or nullify their existing marriage amendment on the basis that it was "unconstitutional." So, if their marriage amendment has been nullified, same-sex marriage should already be legal.


I live in a poor state and I would HATE to have my taxes going toward this situation. But I do see your point. I just have sympathy for the state and the people who feel differently from the majority. I'm not much for majority rule.


I share your sympathy, but I also view this as a microcosm of our current situation on a national scale and I'm not sure that the lack of voter participation isn't the biggest root cause.

For instance, I'd like to see a public accounting for how many tax dollars have been wasted by Congress in their 500+ futile attempts to repeal the ACA.

I'd like to have a public accounting for the cost of frivolous law suits filed against the POTUS, by Congress.

I could go on and on, but what's the use?

We currently have one party in Congress who has basically refused to do their jobs since January of 2009 by adopting a policy of obstructionism, which is fundamentally the same thing Kim Davis has been doing every since the SCOTUS ruling came down, just on a smaller scale.

Unfortunately, we're all paying the price and it's an awful waste of time and resources.

I'm just wondering how "in you face" this is gonna have to get before voters wake up to the reality of our situation and vote these lunatics out of office.

On a more positive note, I think people are indeed slowly waking up, not just here in America but across the globe as well.

Here in America, I think the Bernie Sanders campaign is a reflection of that awakening, but unfortunately, until then all we can do is to keep paying the bill.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Flatfish

Perhaps the cost of her stupidity to the state should be deducted from her pension.


Sounds fair to me, I'd definitely go for that!



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

We currently have one party in Congress who has basically refused to do their jobs since January of 2009 by adopting a policy of obstructionism, which is fundamentally the same thing Kim Davis has been doing every since the SCOTUS ruling came down, just on a smaller scale.



I agree the most Congressional damage occurred in 2009 and 2010.




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Flatfish

We currently have one party in Congress who has basically refused to do their jobs since January of 2009 by adopting a policy of obstructionism, which is fundamentally the same thing Kim Davis has been doing every since the SCOTUS ruling came down, just on a smaller scale.



I agree the most Congressional damage occurred in 2009 and 2010.



So you're agreeing with something I didn't say?

Go Figure!



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This silly woman just needs to be removed from her position.

She is a hypocrite that can't do her job.

This is getting beyond ridiculous now.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If they get married and those marriages turn out not to be illegal (I’m not a lawyer but) this might cause legal hassles for the people who have gotten those licenses if their marriages are voided in the future.

That what’s she’s doing trying to create havoc in those peoples lives just to get back at them.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
If they get married and those marriages turn out not to be illegal (I’m not a lawyer but) this might cause legal hassles for the people who have gotten those licenses if their marriages are voided in the future.

That what’s she’s doing trying to create havoc in those peoples lives just to get back at them.


Yes, it's disgusting and spiteful behaviour, more jail time would be a good idea as well as losing the job.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


That what’s she’s doing trying to create havoc in those peoples lives just to get back at them.

In the mind of extreme fundamentalists like Kim, LGBT's are the walking dead, and will be eternally tortured by god for their "abominations". She has no heart whatsoever toward them as human beings, deserving of the same respect and freedom she desires for herself, and her family.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join