njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,760
|
Post by njhoya78 on Sept 3, 2015 15:11:57 GMT -5
To clarify some of the discussion here, Kim Davis was elected to the position of Rowan County Clerk; it is apparently a legacy-type of position because her mother served in that capacity for decades before Ms. Davis ran for election. She cannot be fired; she can only be impeached by the Kentucky state Senate, which is highly unlikely.
Her prior marriages and alleged adulterous conduct are immaterial to these issues at hand. I do not know enough about evangelical Christianity to accept or rebuff her position that her "born again" status effectively wiped the proverbial slate clean or all of her prior sins, and I really don't care. She was elected to perform a ministerial function (i.e., the issuance of licenses to couples wishing to be married) and refused to do so, both in the face of federal law as set down by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then in direct violation of a federal court order. Judge Bunnng had no choice but to jail her.
She is free to follow her religious conscience if it is at odds with what her job requires her to do. In that event, and as others have above written, she should resign her position as county clerk.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 3, 2015 16:22:51 GMT -5
To clarify some of the discussion here, Kim Davis was elected to the position of Rowan County Clerk; it is apparently a legacy-type of position because her mother served in that capacity for decades before Ms. Davis ran for election. She cannot be fired; she can only be impeached by the Kentucky state Senate, which is highly unlikely. Her prior marriages and alleged adulterous conduct are immaterial to these issues at hand. I do not know enough about evangelical Christianity to accept or rebuff her position that her "born again" status effectively wiped the proverbial slate clean or all of her prior sins, and I really don't care. She was elected to perform a ministerial function (i.e., the issuance of licenses to couples wishing to be married) and refused to do so, both in the face of federal law as set down by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then in direct violation of a federal court order. Judge Bunnng had no choice but to jail her. She is free to follow her religious conscience if it is at odds with what her job requires her to do. In that event, and as others have above written, she should resign her position as county clerk. To be fair, Judge Bunning did have a choice. He didn't have to lock her up.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,760
|
Post by njhoya78 on Sept 3, 2015 19:51:03 GMT -5
True, kc. But do you really think that the imposition of a monetary fine buy Judge Bunning would be any more effective in compelling Kim Davis to do her job and issue marriage licenses? I don't think it would have mattered, and I did see one pundit postulate that a "Go Fund Me" page would have taken care of satisfaction of the fine in very short order. Unfortunately, incarceration may be the only way to get her attention.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Sept 4, 2015 11:41:46 GMT -5
True, kc. But do you really think that the imposition of a monetary fine buy Judge Bunning would be any more effective in compelling Kim Davis to do her job and issue marriage licenses? I don't think it would have mattered, and I did see one pundit postulate that a "Go Fund Me" page would have taken care of satisfaction of the fine in very short order. Unfortunately, incarceration may be the only way to get her attention. Unfortunately it might just make her more intransigent. She probably needs to be impeached.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 5, 2015 8:27:10 GMT -5
In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act stating marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage in June of this year, DOMA remained the law of the land. Despite that, several states attempted to legalize same sex marriage and started issuing licenses to same sex couples. Shouldn't those clerks issuing licenses to same sexes instead have resigned rather than disobeying the law of the land? Ed, the defense of marriage act was, as you note, a federal law. It permitted states to not recognize marriages from other states, but it didn't require them to do so. States were free to do as they wished. So, if a state legalized (not "attempted to legalize") same sex marriage, that was then the law of that particular state. And, therefore, a clerk was obligated legally to follow the law of that state. Those clerks never were in violation of federal law; DOMA simply didn't apply to them. Really, the better example (however implausible) is this: If a homosexual served as a county clerk in say, 1963, and a gay couple came to him (perhaps knowing his sexual orientation) and sought a marriage license, that clerk certainly may have thought that gay marriage was appropriate and should have been legal, but he nonetheless had to refuse to grant the license. Because the law required it, despite his personal views. The situation is really extremely simple: When you take a job in which the purpose is to issue governmental licenses in accordance with applicable law, you have to issue the licenses that the law requires you to issue. If you don't like it, resign. Sure, the law changed on her mid-stream, and in that sense, it's unfair that she should have to lose her job and paycheck when she took the job in a very different context, but it doesn't change the fact that she's simply not doing her job. And she's violating other's rights in the process. I have no doubt that some of this is financial: If she could afford to simply resign, she probably would. I stand corrected.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Sept 8, 2015 5:40:50 GMT -5
Can't wait to see what all those calling for "religious freedom" say when we find that Quaker state official who refuses to issue gun licenses because it violates his/her religious belief in non-violence...
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 6:51:16 GMT -5
Not to worry. Much like when Mario Cuomo repeatedly refused to sign death penalty legislation, it was a "matter of conscience".
Having said that, I am firmly in the camp that says Ms. Davis needs to resign. When conscience irreconcilably interferes with legal duty-- you give up the job.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2015 7:02:09 GMT -5
Not to worry. Much like when Mario Cuomo repeatedly refused to sign death penalty legislation, it was a "matter of conscience". That's a part-of-your job decision, not refusing to do your job.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 8, 2015 8:41:07 GMT -5
Not to worry. Much like when Mario Cuomo repeatedly refused to sign death penalty legislation, it was a "matter of conscience". That's a part-of-your job decision, not refusing to do your job. It's different, because Jesus would have told people to commit acts of civil disobedience in order to prevent gay couples from being married, but he was a strong supporter of the death penalty.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 8, 2015 13:14:23 GMT -5
Not to worry. Much like when Mario Cuomo repeatedly refused to sign death penalty legislation, it was a "matter of conscience". That's a part-of-your job decision, not refusing to do your job. Doesn't matter (at least according to Scalia).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2015 13:28:17 GMT -5
That's a part-of-your job decision, not refusing to do your job. Doesn't matter (at least according to Scalia). Incorrect. In his comments that reek of hypocrisy, Scalia condemns *judges* who fail to follow the law / precedence in appeals / sentencing and vote to overturn all death sentences en masse, because the death sentence is part of the law. Cuomo is part of the executive branch and in this case his decision is part of the lawmaking process - not part of upholding them or administering them. He's not obstructing the law by vetoing a bill, he's doing his job. If you want to bring up Blackmun, that's a decent example, but saying that Cuomo is somehow like Kim Davis in not signing capital punishment legislation is fundamentally not understanding the issue here.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 8, 2015 13:31:30 GMT -5
Doesn't matter (at least according to Scalia). Incorrect. In his comments that reek of hypocrisy, Scalia condemns *judges* who fail to follow the law / precedence in appeals / sentencing and vote to overturn all death sentences en masse, because the death sentence is part of the law. Cuomo is part of the executive branch and in this case his decision is part of the lawmaking process - not part of upholding them or administering them. He's not obstructing the law by vetoing a bill, he's doing his job. If you want to bring up Blackmun, that's a decent example, but saying that Cuomo is somehow like Kim Davis in not signing capital punishment legislation is fundamentally not understanding the issue here. No, it's still a difference without distinction. Also, what's hypocritical about Scalia's position (other than "Scalia doesn't follow the law when he takes a position I disagree with")?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2015 13:40:11 GMT -5
No, it's not.
From Scalia:
NY did not have a death penalty. Mario Cuomo in effect led a political campaign to keep the death penalty abolished by being elected Governor and vetoing a proposed law repeatedly.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 14:16:32 GMT -5
Perhaps a better example might be if we ever had a scofflaw President who refused to enforce immigration laws because he did not like them.
But that could never actually happen, could it?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 8, 2015 14:31:05 GMT -5
Perhaps a better example might be if we ever had a scofflaw President who refused to enforce immigration laws because he did not like them. But that could never actually happen, could it? www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/dobbs.july26/
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,204
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 8, 2015 15:05:41 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 15:46:43 GMT -5
This just in. Bush is no longer President. The man ignoring immigration laws as we speak is Mr. Obama
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 8, 2015 16:28:08 GMT -5
This just in. Bush is no longer President. The man ignoring immigration laws as we speak is Mr. Obama Well yeah, that's the point. Selective outrage.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 16:41:55 GMT -5
A close but not as pernicious cousin of the selective ignorance of the Left...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2015 17:01:45 GMT -5
A close but not as pernicious cousin of the selective ignorance of the Left... What about their annoying half uncle, the right wing troll?
|
|