Well said.I'm married to a wonderful woman and consider myself the luckiest man on the planet. The notion that allowing same-sex couples to marry has any effect at all on the meaning of my or anyone else's marriage is just insane.
The fact that anyone in America thinks that one's private religious beliefs exempt them from performing required tasks central to their government jobs demonstrates just how low government hiring standards have fallen.
The wacked-out right and religious nut-cases like this Rowan County Clerk had better accept reality or get out of the way. Because if they don't they're going to find themselves squashed by the semi-truck of reality roaring down the road.
10 years from now, people will be ashamed to admit that they were once so small-minded and ignorant that they opposed same-sex marriage.
I'm willing to go as low as $60k as long as I can telecommute from Tennessee. I am confident that no one can issue fewer marriage licenses than can I just because they are actually in Kentucky. That's just discrimination against the differently located, and discrimination's bad, m'kay?If the great state of Kentucky is looking to replace her, I too have failed to issue a single marriage license in Kentucky in the wake of SCOTUS' gay marriage ruling, and I'm willing to continue that trend for a mere $70,999.99 a year, a savings of over one thousand dollars. You can't beat that!
I'm willing to go as low as $60k as long as I can telecommute from Tennessee.
If this is the same woman I was reading about last night. She isn't issuing any marriage license's. I'd bet the next court action will be a daily & escalating fine on the county for not complying. She won't see any punishment (legal punishment).
Keep in mind marriage licenses are being issued to residents of this county by other counties and if I remember correctly a judge in a close by location can issue them.
Its not like people in that county can't get married gay or straight. They do have to go somewhere else besides the clerks office.
Interesting quote here:
"Religious liberty certainly does not allow public officials to deny government services to the public based on their personal beliefs," Sharp wrote in a statement. "All that Davis is required to do in her official capacity as clerk is issue a form. In no way is she being forced to endorse anyone's marriage or beliefs."
**speculation ** I believe I previously read that she earns 72k per year for her position so its really about how long will the county tolerate paying someone to not work.
stupid bitch needs to be fired. now.
also look at charges for denying people rights.
$60k? Well now you're just half-assing refusing to do your job. You've got to pay good money for quality failure to perform the most basic of duties in your job description!
The legislature would have to remove her.
I say contempt of court and sit in jail until she agrees to comply or the state relives her of her duties. Whichever comes first.
The only way she can be removed from office (it is an elected office) is to be voted out in the next election or impeached by the state legislature. The latter option seems unlikely as the state legislature is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives.
She can quit or be fined into bankruptcy. Maybe conservative religious groups can raise money to keep paying her fines which I hope the judge makes escalate rapidly for continued non-compliance.
I still say a daily escalating fine on the county is appropriate.
Keep in mind people are still able to get marriage licenses with what appears to be minimal effort.
I still say a daily escalating fine on the county is appropriate.
Keep in mind people are still able to get marriage licenses with what appears to be minimal effort.
Whereas liberals were perfectly happy leaving abortion at "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."These people are scum. Don't expect this ruling to settle this issue. Just look at Roe v Wade, it's been 40 fucking years and the conservatives are still trying the same arguements that got shot down at the Supreme Court.
Whereas liberals were perfectly happy leaving abortion at "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The legal skirmish, and others like it nationwide, reveal a quiet evolution in the nation’s abortion battle. Increasingly, abortion opponents are pursuing personal and medical information on women undergoing abortions and the doctors who perform them. They often file complaints with authorities based on what they learn.
Abortion opponents insist their tactics are generally not aimed at identifying women who have abortions, but are meant to uncover incidents involving patients who may have been harmed by poor care or underage girls who may have been sexually abused. They say they are trying to prevent situations like the one involving Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted in 2013 of murdering three babies after botched abortions and of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman.
“This is about saving the lives of women,” said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, which is based in Wichita. “A lot of people don’t understand that. It’s a systemic problem within the abortion industry today for abortion providers to cut corners on patient care.”
The county has no control. As an elected official, she is replaced by voters or legislators.
A contempt of court fine is the best option.
Roe v Wade came down on the "to the people" part of that statement. In response, I don't see righties attempting to get a case before the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Rather, they're passing laws and filing lawsuits in the name of "protecting women's health," which oh-so-coincidentally make it more and more difficult for women to obtain aborations.
If Roe v. Wade came down on the "to the people" part of that statement, then that argues against any laws not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Given that state laws were overturned by the decision, that position requires that everything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution should be up to the people in the form of personal decisions. Thus traffic laws should be mere suggestions, fraud should be caveat emptor, and murder should be a personal choice.Roe v Wade came down on the "to the people" part of that statement. In response, I don't see righties attempting to get a case before the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Rather, they're passing laws and filing lawsuits in the name of "protecting women's health," which oh-so-coincidentally make it more and more difficult for women to obtain aborations.
Jail time hopefully.
Marriage means nothing any more.
These people are scum. Don't expect this ruling to settle this issue. Just look at Roe v Wade, it's been 40 fucking years and the conservatives are still trying the same arguements that got shot down at the Supreme Court.
Normally I'd agree, but as has been pointed out she holds an elected office and those who can impeach her are highly unlikely to do so. Therefore jail seems to be the best compromise.As much as I am in favor of gay folk being able to get married and be as miserable as the rest of us, she shouldn't get jail time she should simply be fired immediately.
Roe v Wade was decided using the due process clause from the 14th amendment, not the 10th.Whereas liberals were perfectly happy leaving abortion at "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Understood and agreed. My point was that it's massively stupid to rage at the other side for legislating an issue that your side spent decades legislating.Roe v Wade was decided using the due process clause from the 14th amendment, not the 10th.
The issue regarding the county clerk in Kentucky is fairly straightforward. While she, as a citizen and a person, is entitled to protections under the Constitution, an elected government official while acting in that capacity has no Constitutional protections.
The arguments coming from her supporters are quite disturbing IMO as they are unwittingly supporting the notion that the government itself has rights. It has none.
If she continues to refuse to uphold the law, and the legislators of Kentucky decline to impeach or she declines to resign, then she should be jailed for contempt.
I would be of this exact same opinion in any event when any elected official refused to uphold the law, in which the law was clear and a court had so ordered. Government officials, while acting in their official capacity, do not have rights. They must uphold the law or resign.
Understood and agreed. My point was that it's massively stupid to rage at the other side for legislating an issue that your side spent decades legislating.
I actually do believe that government officials do have Constitutional protections, and should. I do not believe that an official could be forced to, say, not be Buddhist. I just don't believe that such protections extend to not doing your job if you disagree with that particular law.
I should also point out though that this is fundamentally no different from President Obama deciding not only to not enforce immigration law but actually rewarding with benefits the people he legally should deport. (Of course, I have some moral flexibility myself; I applauded him for not enforcing DOMA. It's almost as though my own views have some sort of weird effect on how I judge others' behavior . . .)
If Roe v. Wade came down on the "to the people" part of that statement, then that argues against any laws not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Given that state laws were overturned by the decision, that position requires that everything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution should be up to the people in the form of personal decisions. Thus traffic laws should be mere suggestions, fraud should be caveat emptor, and murder should be a personal choice.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.