Clerk's office defies order; no same-sex marriage licenses

Some may remember this thread from July about a Rowan County, Kentucky clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to everyone, so she wouldn't have to issue them to gays, because it is against her religious beliefs. She's in the news again today for refusing to issue licenses to gay couples, defying a court order.

The fight in Rowan County began soon after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide in June. County Clerk Kim Davis cited her religious beliefs and decided not to issue marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight. Five couples sued in federal court, and legal experts likened the case to the resistance some local officials in the South put up five decades ago after the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage.

Now we have a Christian law firm advising them her...

Davis wasn't at her office Thursday(Today), but deputy clerk Nathan Davis said the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals.

The judge ruled against Davis yesterday, rejecting all of her arguments.

Judge Bunning said in his ruling Wednesday that Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."

The governor has now chimed in...

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has told the clerk to issue licenses or resign.

It's also worth noting, since another thread today has made the accusation that "The Christian purge has begun", that none of this woman's rights to practice her religion have been stripped from her. She has just been ordered to follow the law, as her beliefs do not excuse her from doing so...

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."

In my opinion, one thing this scotus ruling has done is shed light on those places in this country where religious bigotry has taken root in local government, and until now, has had free reign to oppress others. Hopefully, those days are coming to an end.
Article link

a reply to: Klassified

So, the question needs to be asked of this lady is this;

Do you issue marriage licences to Buddhists, Atheists, Muslims etc? All of those people getting married go against Christian belief too.

All I see is a bigoted dinosaur who does not represent true Christianity attempting to use her 'Jesus-ness' as an excuse to avoid doing something she doesn't want to because she is not a very nice person.

Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

Seems like a simple case. Not doing your job? You're fired. No one's forcing her to work there.

Goodbye bigots or goodbye federal funding, I'm good with either. Loving it.

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

I would have to agree. The judge ruled against her. So either issue licenses, or your employment is terminated.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

I would have to agree. The judge ruled against her. So either issue licenses, or your employment is terminated.

This will have to be done carefully in order to avoid a big backlash from those in Christianity who support her though.

Asking for her resignation (and getting it) works a lot better because she resigns of 'her own free will' and therefore there is little grounds for follow up legal action.

She can however be fired for refusal to follow reasonable instruction, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that this is the reason she has been let go so that the rest of her bigoted idiot fundie mates don't start a martyr cause with her.

She needs to be fired. If she can't carry out her state job, then what use is she?

I'm not defending this lady or any other person holding her views. However---the ignorance I see from some posters here nearly equals hers.
This woman holds elected office. She can't be "fired." Removal from office requires impeachment by the State Legislature. I'm fairly sure the governor isn't going to call a special session of the legislature to get these people out of office. She can be ordered jailed by the judge for contempt of court but he can't "fire" her.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

I would have to agree. The judge ruled against her. So either issue licenses, or your employment is terminated.

This will have to be done carefully in order to avoid a big backlash from those in Christianity who support her though.

Asking for her resignation (and getting it) works a lot better because she resigns of 'her own free will' and therefore there is little grounds for follow up legal action.

She can however be fired for refusal to follow reasonable instruction, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that this is the reason she has been let go so that the rest of her bigoted idiot fundie mates don't start a martyr cause with her.

Actually, you're over complicating things. All they have to say is "This is your job. If you don't do your job, you're fired. That's exactly what happens to everyone else who willfully doesn't do their job."

Constantly appeasing them when they're obviously breaking the law only encourages them. The best way to deal with that is with this swift & decisive response. They'll complain then move on to the next topic.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Removal from office requires impeachment by the State Legislature. I'm fairly sure the governor isn't going to call a special session of the legislature to get these people out of office. She can be ordered jailed by the judge for contempt of court but he can't "fire" her.

That is getting fired by any other name. The process may be different than a typical employer, but she can be removed and she can be done so for refusal to follow reasonable instruction,

I've got plenty of experience in getting rid of people from jobs and I can tell you, it is never a Donald Trump case of just saying 'sorry you're the weakest link, goodbye' There are complex processes involved in any termination to ensure that legal action will not ensue.

originally posted by: diggindirt
I'm not defending this lady or any other person holding her views. However---the ignorance I see from some posters here nearly equals hers.
This woman holds elected office. She can't be "fired." Removal from office requires impeachment by the State Legislature. I'm fairly sure the governor isn't going to call a special session of the legislature to get these people out of office. She can be ordered jailed by the judge for contempt of court but he can't "fire" her.

Just for the record.

May said he has been in contact with county clerks who are resisting the Supreme Court decision, advising them that Kentucky law states marriage licenses "shall be issued" by the county clerks and that KRS 522.020 could be used to prosecute the clerks for official misconduct, a Class "A" misdemeanor. A conviction could result in a judge ordering a clerk to be removed from office, May said.

Ky. clerk defends decision to decline marriage licenses

She can be fired for this. Different organizations have different methods for terminating someone's employment. Some workers can be fired on the spot, while others need an internal review or other procedures. Either way, it's still an employee having their employment involuntarily terminated by their employer, aka "firing" them.

And this doesn't say she needs impeachment from the State Legislature. It just says a judge can order a clerk removed. Though even if it did require impeachment, that would be easy to do.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Actually, you're over complicating things. All they have to say is "This is your job. If you don't do your job, you're fired. That's exactly what happens to everyone else who willfully doesn't do their job."

Constantly appeasing them when they're obviously breaking the law only encourages them. The best way to deal with that is with this swift & decisive response. They'll complain then move on to the next topic.

You are correct in that any reasonable human being would take the hint and move on, or just do their job.

However, this woman is already proving to be stubborn and belligerent. Most Christians have agreed to disagree on this matter and moved on with their lives, but there are some diehards still out there that refuse to give up and she is one of them.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

I would have to agree. The judge ruled against her. So either issue licenses, or your employment is terminated.

This will have to be done carefully in order to avoid a big backlash from those in Christianity who support her though.

Asking for her resignation (and getting it) works a lot better because she resigns of 'her own free will' and therefore there is little grounds for follow up legal action.

She can however be fired for refusal to follow reasonable instruction, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that this is the reason she has been let go so that the rest of her bigoted idiot fundie mates don't start a martyr cause with her.

Please cite your source for that information. How does one go about "firing" an elected official in Kentucky? Have I missed some important legislation?

Here are the statutes I suspect these folks may be using to take a legal stand on this issue...

KRS 402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998 History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.

KRS 402.020
Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
(d) Between members of the same sex;
(e) Between more than two (2) persons;
and
(....snipped for brevity)

And here is the statute that tells clerks that they must follow KY statutes.

KRS 402.990 Penalties.
(1)
Any party to a marriage prohibited by KRS 402.010 shall be guilty of a Class B
misdemeanor. If the parties continue after conviction to cohabit as man and wife,
either or both of them shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2)
Any person who aids or abets the marriage of any person who has been adjudged
mentally disabled, or attempts to marry, or aids or abets any attempted marriage
with any such person shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(3)
Any authorized person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage prohibited by this
chapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(4)
Any unauthorized person who solemnizes a marriage under pretense of having
authority, and any person who falsely personates the father, mother, or guardian of
an applicant in obtaining a license shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
(5)
Any person who falsely and fraudulently represents or personates another, and in
such assumed character marries that person, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
Indictment under this subsection shall
be found only upon complaint of the injured
party and within two (2) years after the commission of the offense.
(6)
Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by
this chapter from marrying shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and removed
from office by the judgment of the court in which he is convicted.
(7)
Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of his duty under
this chapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(8)
If any deputy clerk or any person other than a county clerk knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of this chapter, but not for a prohibited marriage, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and if he knowingly issues a license for a marriage prohibited by this chapter, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(9)
Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 402.090 shall be guilty of a
violation.
(10)
Any county clerk who violates any of the provisions of KRS 402.110 or 402.230
shall be guilty of a violation.
(11)
Any person failing to make the return required of him by KRS 402.220 shall be
guilty of a violation.
Effective: July 15, 1996
History:
Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 205, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1996.
--
Amended
1992 Ky. Acts ch. 463, sec. 45, effe
ctive July 14, 1992.
--
Amended 1982 Ky. Acts
ch. 141, sec. 114, effective July 1, 1982; and ch. 146, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1982.
--
Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 13, effective June 17, 1978; and ch. 384, sec.
519, effective June 17, 1978.
--
Ame
nded 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 273, sec. 2.
--
Amended
1972 Ky. Acts ch. 122, sec. 5.
--
Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 94.
--
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat
secs. 216aa
-
50, 1209, 1210, 2103, 2103a, 2104, 210
5a
-
2c, 2105a
-
5, 2107, 2109,
2110, 2111, 2112, 2114.
Note:
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 125 would have amended this section effective
July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts ch.
141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982.

www.lrc.ky.gov...

Again, this is not a defense of their actions...simply an example of the dilemma in which these elected officials find themselves as a result of the ruling. State statutes vs. federal ruling. It seems that the legislature will need to sort this out.

a reply to: diggindirt

It's plain and simple;

The SCOTUS ruling overrides State law. It is no longer legal nation wide to discriminate and disallow same sex marriage. If Kentucky were to take action against one of it's civil servants for performing same sex marriage, then they would be in breach of the SCOTUS ruling. The fact that they are allowing it everywhere else in the state shows that they already have the intention of complying with the ruling and have agreed that it overrides any current state legislation that may contradict it.

What you have provided are typical smoke in mirror arguments designed to stall and derail a simple process i.e. in this case, perform same sex marriage as ordered by SCOTUS or face the consequences. (Not having a go at you personally, but this is a typical practice of people like the lady in question)

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

I would have to agree. The judge ruled against her. So either issue licenses, or your employment is terminated.

This will have to be done carefully in order to avoid a big backlash from those in Christianity who support her though.

Asking for her resignation (and getting it) works a lot better because she resigns of 'her own free will' and therefore there is little grounds for follow up legal action.

She can however be fired for refusal to follow reasonable instruction, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that this is the reason she has been let go so that the rest of her bigoted idiot fundie mates don't start a martyr cause with her.

Constantly appeasing them when they're obviously breaking the law only encourages them. The best way to deal with that is with this swift & decisive response

Just curious is that your opinion of all law breakers or simply the breaking of this law?

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

I would have to agree. The judge ruled against her. So either issue licenses, or your employment is terminated.

This will have to be done carefully in order to avoid a big backlash from those in Christianity who support her though.

Asking for her resignation (and getting it) works a lot better because she resigns of 'her own free will' and therefore there is little grounds for follow up legal action.

She can however be fired for refusal to follow reasonable instruction, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that this is the reason she has been let go so that the rest of her bigoted idiot fundie mates don't start a martyr cause with her.

Constantly appeasing them when they're obviously breaking the law only encourages them. The best way to deal with that is with this swift & decisive response

Just curious is that your opinion of all law breakers or simply the breaking of this law?

Context.

A- They can't just fire her because the "fundies" that support her will be outraged.
Me- Yes they can. Don't appease them or it'll encourage them. Just do it & get it over with. Her "fundie" supporters will get mad for a while then move on.

And for the record, I would never follow a law if I thought it was against my religious views. However, I also don't have a job that required me to swear an oath to follow the law. That's literally the only reason I didn't join the military, because there was no way I'd accept being sent to kill Muslims for Cheney.

So I'm saying that if her beliefs are that strong, resign. And if she won't do her job, she should be fired/removed from her post. Because her job requires her to follow the law and she swore an oath to do that. Plus the judges already ruled on it. So she's either going to follow the law or they'll have to get someone else who will.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Interesting. Thanks

Her rights have been stripped from her by the government's law which forces someone to contradict their religion and do something immoral, but the government has already become so corrupted and deviant from morality, and ethics as well, then ignores rights and pretend the law can be anything it becomes without consideration of religion or any other rights the government now thinks can be terminated or granted based on a ridiculous pretense of legal superiority. Which just means the government has gone above all law themselves, and can make, grant, or revoke any kind of thing they choose, so it suites a political agenda, and then just claim it is all legal with added media support (which is also ridiculous). Just like Obama legislating war, new laws and taxes, whatever he wants, just like North Korea's retarded leader.

The government and it's judges have gone so far off the map following that Marxist model, they just make believe anything on a whim has legal power, without valid and constitutional legal documentation, or representation. Like Obama revoking powers of inspectors generals so they can't prosecute his crimes and the ones he is planning to commit, and like little girls having a pretend tea party complete with make believe guests along with serving invisible non existent cake and tea. It is the result of spoiled whiny children and poor and lax parenting, and a drug using president that America now has the sewer pipes of society all backed up and plugged, and the stink of it's immorality, smells to high heaven. Think it doesn't? It definitely does, and the joke is on you.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Her rights haven't been stripped from her. She can still be a Christian, she can still go to church, and she can still read the Bible.

However, she works for the government not a church or religious institution. She had to take an oath to follow the government's laws when she took the job. She's getting paid by the government to do a government job. That's all there is to it.

Would you say the same things if I, a Muslim, accepted her job position, took an oath to uphold US law, then refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone who didn't have an Islamic wedding?