Carly Fiorina sums up my position on the issue fairly well. She can either execute her duties or she can resign. What is not a viable option is continuing to hold her $80,000/year job, and refuse to do the work her job requires.

She and her supporters have argued that those seeking marriage licenses are free to go to another county to get their licenses. To which I would respond, they shouldn't have to. They have a County Clerk who is charged with issuing licenses but won't do it. Why should they go somewhere else? Moreover, why should the County Clerks in counties neighboring Rowan have to take up her slack? Why shouldn't they have the right to refuse residents in counties other than their own?

In contrast to Fiorina's stance on the Kim Davis issue, other Republicans, like Ted Cruz, are coming down firmly on Kim Davis's side.

The argument is that Kim Davis has been jailed for "living according to her faith," as Cruz put it. I can't agree with this stance. Kim Davis is free to live according to her faith, just like anyone else (except, of course, when the practice of their religion conflicts with U.S. law). What she is not permitted to do is force an entire county of residents to live according to her beliefs.

No one is stopping Kim Davis from being against, even speaking against, gay marriage. And she isn't being asked to give her approval, participate in gay marriages or perform the ceremony. She's merely being charged with making sure that two people who come to her seeking marriage licenses meet all the requirements according to law.

I don't like this lady even a little bit, but this looks hypocritical to me at a glance.
How come when our U.S. Attorney General (Holder)refuses to execute a federal law-that is OK?
The AG of Pennsylvania chose not to prosecute state laws-also on the gay marriage issue -she kept her job. Guess it is OK as long as you support gay rights. (Although Dems probably now wish she had not...she is embroiled in a scandal in PA...and her husband-and source of campaign funding, as he is from a wealthy family in Scranton- is divorcing her after rumors of her affair...this is getting ugly).
When citizens see this level of hypocrisy they can lose respect for the law. Maybe that is what some folks really want?

I am pro gay marriage, by the way. Have been since the 80's. But the optics here look like a (dumb) clerk getting bullied in the backwaters of KY.

Is she being prosecuted for her religion? NO. She is being prosecuted for violating the oath of office she took, to uphold the law.

Doesn't she have freedom of religion? YES. That does not include the freedom to refuse to do (part of) her job, especially being a government employee.

How does an employee who refuses to do their job end up in jail? When they (1) refuse to follow the legal orders of their superiors (the judge is technically her boss), and (2) cannot be terminated from their job (she is an elected official and must be impeached, voted out, or resign).

She has three legal choices.
1. Do your job, including giving marriage licenses. A county clerk issuing licenses is not "condoning" the marriage, just doing paperwork.
2. Resign your position, if you absolutely feel that your religious beliefs do not allow you to do your job.
3. Find yourself in contempt, as you are now. It's not a religious thing, it's a legal thing.

But pompous asshats seem to think here's something to hang a campaign on, and too many sheeple are agreeing.

Politicians who see this as some travesty of the Constitution should be exempted from serious consideration to continue to hold any kind of office, here in the USA, a nation of laws.

Is being jailed even much of a punishment? This is bumfuck nowharesville. Her mother held this job and her son will probably hold it after her. Her brother probably runs the jail. Depending on how unpopular she is for that location she might get time off to run to the grocery store for snacks whenever she wants.

Some are claiming that the SCOTUS ruling is invalid because SCOTUS cannot make laws.

This is incorrect, by the way. SCOTUS did not do anything that the Constitution does not allow them to do. Or at least since their legendary power grab in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison.

This is not to say, however, that I agree with their decision. Having read the ruling, I find that their decision relies on emotion rather than the finer points of law.

Yes, I have sympathy for the man (Obergefell) who had to leave Ohio with his terminally ill partner to get married in Maryland, only to not be placed on his spouse's death certificate when his spouse died three months later when they returned to Ohio. I agree with SCOTUS that this and other situations described in the ruling are intolerable burdens.

But I still find myself asking, was it really the prerogative of SCOTUS to solve these problems?

I'm reminded of the decision of Minor v. Happersett, in which suffragette Virginia Minor, represented by her husband Francis, argued that the 14th Amendment (specificially, the Privileges or Immunities clause) gave women the right to vote. SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the Constitution does not give the right to vote to anyone (that is the prerogative of the states), and therefore it is not one of the privileges or immunities protected by the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS conceded that the law was probably wrong and should be changed, but that the power to do so does not rest with SCOTUS.

The same argument applies to marriage. The Constitution does not give the right to marry to anyone; it's the prerogative of the states. In legalizing gay marriage, the SCOTUS basically stomped on the rights of the states.

So, I view this ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges as the right thing done the wrong way.

The government licensing marriages:

People deciding whether other people should be allowed to marry, who other people should be allowed to marry, what the terms and conditions of other peoples' marriage relationships should be.

What a bad idea.

Government is force - people forcing their will on other people. If the government had never been involved in defining, licensing and regulating marriage, gays would have been marrying, committing adultery, and getting divorced just like everyone else 100 years ago - no one would have had the means to stop them. And there never would have been some redneck county clerk in Kentucky deciding who can and can't get married. And there never would have been Christians, Muslims, African Americans and Mormons getting all bent out of shape about gays being allowed to marry, because they never would have known a time when it was any other way.

The obstinate county clerk Kim Davis should resign. And nobody should take her place.

Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of marriage. There should be a wall of separation between marriage and state.

Davis is the worst kind of bigot in my opinion; a recent religious convert who wants everyone else to act as she believes they should.

Those that are supporting her should realize that if she were granted a religious exemption than that would open the door for a whole lot of other crap.

Yes, this is also about her $80,000/year job. Her mother held the position before her and Davis was under her. Now she is in the position and her son works for her.

If the folks in that county want to continue to vote in nepotism than they are entitled to do so; but, she CANNOT refuse to perform her duties as required by law.

To claim that "well, the law is different from when she was elected," I can only say, so what? What difference does that matter? Do laws never change? Does a government official, elected or appointed, get to choose to ignore any law?

Well, we know that some folks get away with ignoring laws or even breaking them. But, that doesn't mean we should just allow everyone to ignore laws they don't agree with.

She does belong in jail. period.

I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling, but I also disagree with Davis taking it upon herself to ignore ruling she doesn't like.

As we tell jurors, follow the law even if you disagree with it. Fight for change, vote for change, but don't appoint yourself ruler.

I agree Charles. She belongs in jail. Along with the entire police departments of Washington, D.C., New York City, Jersey City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Santa Ana, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland, Salt Lake City, Houston, Detroit, Chicago, Salinas, California, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), New Haven, Somerville, Cambridge, and Portland (Maine). Or is it different when it is immigration law?

In fact, as I saw somebody say on Twitter, she's in jail for -- basically -- demanding that everyone conform to her religious beliefs.

That's exactly what she's doing. Religious conservatives love to bleat and whine about the legalization of same-sex marriage being something that is "forced on them." But this legalization doesn't force any straight religious conservative -- or any straight religious liberal or strait person who isn't religious -- to marry someone of the same sex. We straight people are as free as ever to marry a person of the opposite sex.

The reality is that it is religious conservatives who have always been the ones doing the forcing. They've been the bullies. They have forced their belief that there should be no same-sex marriage on gays and lesbians, supporting laws that, until recently, prevented them from getting married to the person they love.

I also love the irony of all these Republicans supporting the right of a government employee to not do her job and still get paid for it.

Hey, Ben, which court has ordered those cities to start enforcing immigration laws?

Question: If Kim Davis can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples for religious objections, does that mean a Jewish County Clerk doesn't have to license a pig farm? Or any store or restaurant that serves pork? Or any restaurant that serves meat and dairy in the same meal?

Religious objection!

Would a Catholic County Clerk be able to refuse marriage licenses to divorcees, citing a religious objection to divorces?

How about a Mormon County Clerk? Can they refuse all alcohol and tobacco licenses since they have religious objections to tobacco and alcohol use?

What if there were a Muslim County Clerk? Could he refuse to issue liquor licenses, licensing a pig farm, refuse to license dogs or issue driver's licenses to women?

Why not? This is all religious objections?

So, are we accommodating all religious objections for County Clerks, or just Christian objections to gay marriage?

Don't know if any court has Patrick. But as Charles put it "Does a government official, elected or appointed, get to choose to ignore any law?". When it comes to immigration law it happens all the time. And as you point out, she isn't in jail for ignoring the law. She is in jail for contempt of court.

I don't give two flying figs for Kim Davis. As I said above I doubt that being jailed is even that big of an imposition. Especially since she has a get out of jail free card any time she wants to cash it in, by resigning. I'm just pointing out the weak arguments. So far the process is working exactly as designed.

Amy, in reference to your additional comment linking to the article by Peter Wehner (I think it is on the wrong original post though):

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/09/06/christmas_futur.html#comments

I totally agree; she is making a big mistake by selecting this as the "hill to die on."

Further, the politicians getting behind her are also going to isolate themselves further; they are simply going to accomplish nothing more than making sure the "swing voters" go for the Democrats and we all will end up with Clinton, or Sanders, or Joe the big joke Biden as President. Shit!

If I wore a tin hat I'd think this was really a MSM conspiracy to accomplish just that - Take the heat off of Clinton's scandals by focusing on some hillbilly bigot.

And, Patrick, yep, couples are free to go to another county to get a marriage license and shouldn't have to; Davis is just as free to give up her $80,000 a year job - and she damn well should!

I understand why Davis is in jail. I don't understand why Obama, who picks and chooses what laws he likes to enforce, isn't.

As I asked earlier (but that was in another thread / And besides, the wench is dead), would everyone have been cheering if Gavin Newsome had been jailed for violating what was then California law in issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples and having City Hall marry them?

Or is this reverence for the law only for laws with which they agree?
________________________________________

As I posted in an earlier thread, The only honorable thing for Kim Davis to have done would have been to resign - as she could no longer in good conscience carry out the duties of her office.

Whatever happened to the concept of honorable public servants who resigned instead of holding themselves up in public as victims when they didn't get their way?

Even Edward VII, as big a blithering idiot as ever sat on the Throne of England, understood that.

Sorry, the blithering idiot was Edward VIII.

Conan: Sorry, the blithering idiot was Edward VIII.

Oh, is that why he abdicated? I always thought it was because he wanted to marry that screeching harridan Wallis Warfield.

Yes., Patrick, and the law said he couldn't. So, he abdicated so he could marry her. He didn't marry her any way and whine publicly about it. He resigned and whined publicly about it.

Conan,

I think you have awfully high expectations for our public servants. There are a lot of elected officials out there. Expecting every single one to be honest and honorable is just not realistic. Heck, at least 30% of them are morons. Several percent are corrupt and get sent to jail for bribery. Sending one to jail for being an attention whore shouldn't make the national news.

Uh, Conan, he did marry Wallis. And they enjoyed a thoroughly tempestuous relationship.

Uh, Conan, he did marry Wallis. And they enjoyed a thoroughly tempestuous relationship. ~ Posted by: Patrick at September 7, 2015 5:58 AM

Yes, Patrick, the sentence was "He didn't marry her anyway.... suggesting that he married her in defiance of the law and then spent his reign whining about it.

He resigned - about the only decent thing Edward the Nazi sympathizer ever did.

Damn it. That should have been "He didn't marry her anyway.... suggesting that he married her in defiance of the law and then spent his reign whining about it.

I think you have awfully high expectations for our public servants. There are a lot of elected officials out there. Expecting every single one to be honest and honorable is just not realistic. Heck, at least 30% of them are morons. Several percent are corrupt and get sent to jail for bribery. Sending one to jail for being an attention whore shouldn't make the national news. ~ Posted by: Ben at September 7, 2015 4:56 AM

I think the real naivete is expecting the public to hold politicians to a standard of conduct. The prevailing public opinion seems to be "Yeah, he's a dirtbag, but he's our dirtbag" - and that seems acceptable to the public at large.

Clinton is allowed to remain president despite being a rapist and sexual predator because as Nina Burleigh so eloquently put it, "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." So, come down on the "right" side of politics and you can get away with anything.

Thanks for the clarification, Conan. I was confused. I took it to mean that he had abdicated because he couldn't marry Wallis Warfield, and ended up not marrying her anyway. But we both know, he did marry Wallis. He seemed to have a thing for being dominated by shrewish women.

And they spent their retirement doing almost nothing, except trying to wrangle more money out of the government and trying to secure an official title for Wallis, which the Crown flatly refused to do.

And I agree. Good riddance to the Nazi sympathizer.

"She has three legal choices.
1. Do your job, including giving marriage licenses. A county clerk issuing licenses is not "condoning" the marriage, just doing paperwork.
2. Resign your position, if you absolutely feel that your religious beliefs do not allow you to do your job.
3. Find yourself in contempt, as you are now. It's not a religious thing, it's a legal thing.

But pompous asshats seem to think here's something to hang a campaign on, and too many sheeple are agreeing.

Politicians who see this as some travesty of the Constitution should be exempted from serious consideration to continue to hold any kind of office, here in the USA, a nation of laws."
Posted by: DrCos at September 6, 2015 5:06 AM

Sorry, but that's not how the laws in this country work. Religious accommodation is the law of the land, rightly or wrongly. Eugene Volokh has a great breakdown in the Washington Post here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

Some examples that he gives where religious objectors have received an accommodation (and weren't forced to choose between violating their conscience, quitting their job, or going to jail) include:

• Nurses who had religious objections to being involved in abortions (even just to washing instruments that would be used in abortions);
• Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;
• A Jehovah’s Witness employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;
• An IRS employee who had religious objections to working on tax exemption applications for organizations that promote “abortion, … homosexuality, worship of the devil, euthanasia, atheism, legalization of marijuana, immoral sexual experiments, sterilization or vasectomies, artificial contraception, and witchcraft”;
• a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership.

You can argue that you don't agree with our religious accommodation laws, but you look like a "sheeple" if you spout on about the law without knowing what the law really is.

I should have guessed when I didn't see a party affiliation with Kim Davis's name, she is a democrat.

Archer; I've read that article before; but, it is missing one BIG part. Those cases it cites are not the only employee able to perform those jobs; there are other co-workers able to fill in the job duty that the religious-exempt employee cannot/won't do.

While it might be an inconvenience for their co-workers the public isn't denied service. Yes, someone else can hand out those burger coupons besides the Vegan. Yes, someone else can audit the tax returns of abortion providing organizations. Yes, someone else can handle the draft forms or raise the flag.

BUT, in Davis' case not only did she refuse to issue marriage license, she didn't allow other clerks in her office to issue marriage licenses either. She objected to her name being on them; thereby denying everyone who wanted a license the ability to get a license. This caused NO marriage licenses to be issued in that county; denying this public service to the public. A service the public is entitled to receive since their taxes and fees paid for it.

In my opinion "reasonable" accommodation should be somewhat two-way. Davis wasn't very accommodating herself. Throwing her in jail was the only option the judge seemed to have. (as an elected official, she cannot be fired)

And, while I have nothing against religion or most deeply religious folks, it really pisses me off when someone says that I will be "punished by God" for having different beliefs than they do - that is exactly what Davis said to those gay folks she was denying marriage licenses to.

Did any of those cases cited in that article have those religious exemption folks tell others they will face God's judgment because they believed differently?

That makes her, and I don't use this word lightly, a bigot. period.

Lastly, now there are Republican candidates rallying around her. Idiots! This is NOT the issue that they should choose to fight for. While standing up for her might help these Republican candidates win the far right votes; it will in the long run push swing voters (and they need those swing voters) who dislike be told that they are "damned by God" to vote for Democrats.

In short, these republican candidates have chosen a f&cking stupid hill to die on.

How about not putting her name on the license? Would that have satisfied Davis? I don't know. A minor clerical change seems like a reasonable accommodation.

Though jail works for me too.

Historian Richard Shenkman had a fun piece on Edward and Wallis in his 1993 book "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History." In it, IIRC, he implied that Edward was actually glad to have an excuse to abdicate - even if he likely expected to be reinstalled as king, later on.

Quote:

"For one thing, Edward hadn't enjoyed being king anyway. He didn't like reading cabinet papers and he didn't like the ribbon-cutting stuff. For another, he wasn't exactly the right king for the times. He liked Germany under Hitler a bit more than was desirable in an English king. Of course, England wasn't yet at war with Germany, so his behavior wasn't treasonous. But when he publicly approved of Hitler's decision to remilitarize the Rhineland he got a few good hard looks."

"I should have guessed when I didn't see a party affiliation with Kim Davis's name, she is a democrat. "

Because if anything screams "Democrat", it's standing up against gay marriage rights.

I should have guessed when I didn't see a party affiliation with Kim Davis's name, she is a democrat.

Entering "Kim Davis "Democrat" into Google News returns 652,000 results, dating back to last month.

It's not a closely held secret or conspiracy.

Doesn't that make it all the more news worthy, Gog? The times erroneously reported her as a republican even though they knew she was a democrat. There was a retraction. Thankfully for them they caught it on the web version before it went to print.