Today Kim Davis will go into work. If she stays the course she has
committed to, she will defy the United States Supreme Court and take what ever
comes.
What is so important that Mrs. Davis, a pudgy middle aged
women with two failed marriages and a job as a low level elected county
bureaucrat in a backassward state like Kentucky willing to risk arrest for?
She is unwilling to:
Call darkness, light;
Call bitter, sweet;
Call evil, good.
Kim Davis holds elected office as a county clerk. Her job traditionally involves, among other
things, issuing marriage licenses.
Earlier this year SCOTUS decided they would follow their
activist predilections and call same sex cohabitation marriage. For the record, at least 2 of the so
called justices were performing SSM (Same Sex Marriages) prior to ruling on the case where they created
the right to SSM.
Why they are allowed to keep their bar licensees and haven t been
impeached for ethics violations is another story.
In response, Kim decided that she would not issue any marriage
licenses to anyone, straight or gay. She
isn't discriminating against anyone.
Nobody can get a marriage license from her office.
Hundreds of homosexuals have decided that they absolutely
must have a marriage license issued to them in Rowan County
Kentucky. Many, if not most of the applicants, don't actually live in Rowan
County, or even Kentucky. No matter,
they are having their civil rights violated because Kim Davis won't condone
their lifestyle choices.
It doesn't matter that the applicants she refused drove by other county courthouses that they could have received a marriage license from. It doesn't matter that they could have gotten a license in their home town or state even. The only marriage license that will properly solemnize gay love, celebrate and sanctify same sex marriage is one that Kim Davis is unwilling to issue. She has magic marriage licenses.
It doesn't matter that the applicants she refused drove by other county courthouses that they could have received a marriage license from. It doesn't matter that they could have gotten a license in their home town or state even. The only marriage license that will properly solemnize gay love, celebrate and sanctify same sex marriage is one that Kim Davis is unwilling to issue. She has magic marriage licenses.
The collective butt hurt is unimaginable. These people know about butt
hurt. Mostly they like it. What they don't like is someone who isn't
willing to go along with their version rainbows and unicorns.
This is why they are willing to drive all the way from
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other places in and outside of Kentucky, so
they can have their civil rights violated by someone they never knew or cared
existed.
Tuesday September 1, 2015, Kim Davis went into work and ....
May God bless Kim Davis, keep her strong and fight this
battle on her behalf.
May America realize:
Conformity isn't diversity,
Political correctness isn't a substitute for personal
virtue, Violating one person's conscience diminishes everyone s liberty.
If Kim Davis is in the wrong, the solution is to vote her
out of office, not force her to compromise her conscience.
UPDATE
Kim Davis staying the course.
UPDATE
Kim Davis staying the course.
Best post ever, friend. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMay God bless Kim Davis, keep her strong and fight this battle on her behalf.
ReplyDeleteMay God bless Kim Davis, keep her strong and fight this battle on her behalf.
Can't say that often enough!
Governments are not evil or good, people are. Individual people.
Now THIS is why I love to come by daily. Excellent post Res.
ReplyDeleteI could buy her argument about deeply-held religious beliefs against marrying gay couples if not for that fact that I am sure she has contrarily issued re-marriage certificates for divorced people.
ReplyDeleteBarring that, she should either do the job she is being paid to do, or step down to protect her conscience.
WB,
DeleteKim Davis is herself a divorced and remarried women. While I find myself in general agreement with the "till death do they part" aspect of Biblical marriage, I believe you are confusing two distinct issues. Marriage has been defined as a union between male and female participants. The expectation is that the union can/should produce children.
I do not know what Kim's belief set or logical paradigm is, so I won't comment on it specifically, but marriage has been defined as a heterosexual relationship for so long that it is ridicules to expect everyone in the USA to change their mind just because 5 out of 9 political appointees approve of homosexuals playing house.
When Kim Davis was elected, their was no conflict between her duties and her beliefs as it was impossible to get a SSM license, because no such document existed. The voters in Rowan County are the ones that should decide if they want Kim to keep this job, not activists that don't even live there.
Res Ipsa: "When Kim Davis was elected, their was no conflict between her duties and her beliefs"
DeleteFalse. Unless she believes that all divorce is Biblically permitted for any reason whatsoever...which is also false.
It may be that SSM was not possible when she was elected, but it was for divorced people to get married. Since divorce is only Biblically endorsed in limited circumstances, and I doubt she interviews every previously-married person applying for a marriage license, she is cherry-picking which sins she will allow through and which she will not.
Not only that, but by issuing licenses to certain of those divorced people, she is actively abetting the act of adultery. So much for her "conscience".
In the meantime, she is drawing a paycheck for not doing her job. Where's the integrity in that? This is why I said she should step down voluntarily -- it should not have to come down to a voter recall.
Why should the topic of divorce and remarriage be the controlling paradigm through which SSM is viewed?
DeleteIt isn't -- it's the paradigm through which Kim Davis herself is justifying her refusal to perform her duty, by invoking "God's Authority". Well, God has also spoken in regards to divorce and adultery, yet she chooses to ignore His Authority in those cases.
DeleteShe also said, through her lawyers, that the "searing act of validation [of gay marriage] would forever echo in her conscience". Apparently, abetting adultery -- repeatedly -- somehow leaves no such echo.
If this were truly about Principle, she would never have taken the position in the first place.
I wonder what the reaction would be in any jurisdiction where a clerk refuses to issue concealed carry permits because he is a Buddhist pacifist and weapons of violence are against his deeply-held religious beliefs?
ReplyDeleteInteresting rhetorical similitude.
Delete1. Was issuing the permits part of the job when the clerk accepted the position?
2. Did the clerk express concern over that aspect of the job prior to taking the job?
3. Is there some form of alternative process in place for permit seekers to obtain that permit through a different person?
1. No -- the law changed after he was hired.
ReplyDelete2. There was no reason to, since CCW was not allowed at all at the time.
3. Irrelevant -- why should people be forced to travel to a completely different jurisdiction just to accommodate the personal beliefs of a single government employee, who is hired/elected to perform a service for eligible citizens?
I imagine that in some states like for instance Illinois that would be a possibility.
DeleteYou are incorrect about the relevance. If the permit is obtainable through other means, the test becomes one of reasonable accommodation. For instance if a permit seeker can get the permit from another clerk in that office then making the first clerk do it is pointless. Your point about traveling to another jurisdiction would be stronger if it wasn't for the fact that in the Davis case people are traveling to her town just so she will tell them no. However, if I wanted the permit, I'd get in my truck and go to the next town and get it from them. I'd not waste time talking about how humiliated I was because this was the 5th time they turned me down. I wouldn't cry and claim the interaction was particularly hurtful because everyone in the country saw it on TV, when I was the person who hired a camera crew to come in to film the event in the first place.
In DC and Illinois what your CCW scenario is happening. Why aren't people screaming for fines and jail time for those elected protesters?
Res Ipsa: "If the permit is obtainable through other means, the test becomes one of reasonable accommodation. For instance if a permit seeker can get the permit from another clerk in that office then making the first clerk do it is pointless."
DeleteReasonable accommodation that would involve another clerk in the same location issuing the license is fine, but that's not what's happening in the case of Kim Davis, is it? Nobody in that jurisdiction is permitted to sign the license except her. Therefore, forcing someone to go to a different location is not "reasonable".
"Your point about traveling to another jurisdiction would be stronger if it wasn't for the fact that in the Davis case people are traveling to her town just so she will tell them no."
Which I do not agree with, at all. If the only people involved were those who lived in that county, this wouldn't have blown up as big as it has. But attention-seekers gotta seek attention, n'est ce pas?
On the other hand, if Kim Davis had stepped down in the first place after she was ordered to issue them by the State, it wouldn't have blown up, either. Her conscience could still be intact (she apparently did inadvertantly issue one to a transgender person), and the citizens of Rowan County would be properly served. All of them.
Regardless of how invasive the proponents of gay-marriage have been in this case, however, that still does not justify her continuing to accept taxpayer dollars while refusing to provide the service she is being paid to do.
"However, if I wanted the permit, I'd get in my truck and go to the next town and get it from them."
That's because you're reasonable. ;)
"In DC and Illinois what your CCW scenario is happening. Why aren't people screaming for fines and jail time for those elected protesters?"
Not sure I follow you.......?
The police dept in DC refuses to issue permits to citizens even though they are required to do so. In Illinois the state has been court ordered to change the law to allow for the issue of permits but is not doing so.
DeleteIn both cases there are people in positions of government claiming the right to use their personal judgment in denying the permits.
Are these CCW laws written in such a way as to allow subjective judgements? If so, they need to be rewritten. Whether or not someone is a felon is not subjective. Whether or not someone has a restraining order against them is not subjective. Etc, etc, etc.
DeleteTo simply say that somebody should not pose a threat to the public is subjective, and easily manipulated. Anyone doing that should also be fired/impeached/charged with misconduct.
I would say that she appears to be rejecting the re-definition of marriage, not homosexuality per se (i.e., no word of any trouble of this sort with civil unions). Clearly, the same-sex marriage decision was the proximate cause of her rebellion. She's also not issuing "standard definition" marriage licenses either, apparently out of some (IMHO, misguided) sense of fairness.
ReplyDeleteI think it's worth pointing out that the folks looking for same-sex marriage licenses are not local, and they can obtain the licenses from other clerks. She's being singled out.
I very much agree with her actions. The decision to allow same-sex marriages was forced upon the population by diktat - it was a reliable loser at the ballot box. Thus, there does not appear to be any relief available other than civil disobedience.
Bill: "I would say that she appears to be rejecting the re-definition of marriage, not homosexuality per se"
DeleteAgreed, and she has said as much. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of SSM, so it is the law of the land as far as Government is concerned. She is a government employee, therefore she is covered by the law.
"She's also not issuing "standard definition" marriage licenses either, apparently out of some (IMHO, misguided) sense of fairness."
At the risk of sounding too cynical, I would venture that it's an attempt to prevent discrimination lawsuits against her and/or the county. However, it points out even more how starkly how she's accepting a paycheck while not performing her duties to any citizen.
And it undermines her case. If she was only acting on her conscience against SSM, she would still issue licenses to heterosexual couples, lawsuits be damned.
"I think it's worth pointing out that the folks looking for same-sex marriage licenses are not local, and they can obtain the licenses from other clerks. She's being singled out."
Again, agreed. As before, rabble-rousers gonna rouse rabble. That still doesn't change the legal situation, however.
"The decision to allow same-sex marriages was forced upon the population by diktat - it was a reliable loser at the ballot box."
Bingo! Yet here we are....
"Thus, there does not appear to be any relief available other than civil disobedience."
For a private citizen, I would agree. However, I disagree when it comes down to public employees in the performance of their duties.
Well, Waterboy, we may just have brace ourselves to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteOf note is that in Kentucky a traditional marriage amendment won by 75%, so there is, to put it mildly, strong support for the traditional definition of marriage. If she gets in trouble, and can make it to a jury trial, I like her odds (I'm sure this is factoring into the discussion at the level where folks can do something). Where she lives is an extremely conservative area (to the point where even I would probably have to move), they don't sell alcohol in most of the county (deal breaker for me). So, she'll probably get re-elected as her views no doubt reflect 90% of her compatriots.
As a really big believer in local rule, I support her decision, and as a conservative, I support her decision. I don't think she's an activist, she's had this job for years and the ground shifted under her feet. Like a great many people I'm sure she feels betrayed by the Supreme Court ruling, and I have to say, this is a much better response than violence.
"we may just have brace ourselves to agree to disagree."
DeleteAgreed. 8)
"If she gets in trouble, and can make it to a jury trial, I like her odds"
Unfortunately, a jury trial may not necessarily be in her favor...or even in her stars.
The first judicial peril facing her is fine and/or jail time for Contempt of Court, for disregarding the judge's order. This is not a triable offense.
The second hurdle is a vote in the state legislature to impeach her. This is slightly more likely to succeed than a local trial, since it involves other areas of the state than just her conservative zone (the state overall is nearly 53% Democrat). But it's more likely to fail if a vocal portion of Kentucky citizens threaten to recall any representatives who vote for impeachment.
Finally, the third hurdle is possibly a trial since the county attorney referred charges of "Official Misconduct" against her to the state Attorney General. Unfortunately, this won't necessarily be a local trial either, since it will be in a State court. Then it's probably going to come down to a question of jury annulment, and you're going to see a strict voir dire on the part of the state.
"I don't think she's an activist, she's had this job for years and the ground shifted under her feet."
I don't think she's an activist, either, but she only got elected last November, taking office in January of this year. Though she did have the benefit of working in the Clerk's office for 27 years before that, a decision like this was never hers to make...until now.
I have kind of mixed feelings about government employees deciding as a matter of taste which laws to follow. This is a favorite tactic on the left, and has resulted in thousands of deaths locally here in DeeCee and in Baltimore when extremely violent criminals are set free with "time served" (two days in local lock-up) by activist judges. But, I also don't view this particular law as legitimate. Of all people that should follow straight conventional law, it should be the Supreme Court. There are very few options open to people with strong views when the Supreme Court upends the system - this is a very different thing than your state reps deciding to do something you disagree with (and something that 75% of your neighbors disagree with).
ReplyDeleteHere's a good view of what happened in Baltimore, the mechanics of how the current Politburo seized power. This resulted, very directly, in the recent riots. I mean, once you intentionally abandon the rule of law, what do you get?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjMjqXEMxw
FWIW:
ReplyDeleteShe isn't an employee of the government, She is an elected official put in office to preform certain duties to the best of her understanding/duty.
She is doing that.
"She isn't an employee of the government, She is an elected official"
DeleteAn elected official is considered an employee of the government for whom that person serves.
From the IRS:
Government Officials as Employees
Generally, any individual who serves as a public official is an employee of the government for whom he or she serves. Therefore, the government entity is responsible for withholding and paying Federal income tax, social security and Medicare taxes, and issuing Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, to a public official.
Public Officials and Public Officers
Although there is no precise definition for the term "public official” or “public officer,” the courts have generally held that anyone who exercises significant authority pursuant to public laws is a public officer. This includes any official who administers or enforces public laws, whether the individual is elected by the public or appointed to an office.
The regulations for section 1402, addressing the applicability of self-employment tax, indicate that holders of “public office” are not in a trade or business and therefore not subject to self-employment tax. These regulations state that the performance of the functions of a public office does not constitute a trade or business. An exception applies for certain public officials paid solely on a fee basis. All other holders of public office, paid on a salary basis, are excepted from self-employment tax and are presumed to be employees receiving wages.
Generally, if there is any provision in a public law that authorizes the employment of the individual, and the individual is hired or elected under this authority, the individual is considered an employee of the state or political subdivision to which the provision applies.
"put in office to preform certain duties to the best of her understanding/duty.
DeleteShe is doing that."
No, she isn't.
The oath she swore upon taking office contains this line:
"...I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." – Kentucky Code, 30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
By choosing to not issue any licenses at all, she is not "faithfully executing" her duties at all. And by only excluding SSM applications, she would be showing partiality -- again contrary to her oath.
Either way you slice it, she is not fulfilling the duties of the office to which she was elected. Which, interestingly enough, she swore to God to do.
I think you could build a case that she's not in violation of her oath. Same-sex marriages are still on the books in Kentucky as being illegal. Laws don't pop into existence just because a court rules on something, there's all kinds of procedural things that have to follow. I think she could argue this pretty successfully.
Delete402.005 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"
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464
The fact that the law remains on the books until repealed (the Alabama laws against miscegenation remained in place until 2000, though SCOTUS had deemed them unconstitutional in 1967) does not mean they are still enforceable. On the contrary, the SCOTUS ruling that laws against SSM are unconstitutional immediately invalidated all such provisions in all states.
DeleteThis is not in legal dispute, whether you personally agree or not. This is the way our judicial system works. I personally disagreed with SCOTUS on the Kelo decision, too, but that has absolutely zero effect on whether or not the city can take my business property if someone else can pay more in taxes on it.
Furthermore, Kim Davis's oath also contained a clause to "support the Constitution of the United States"...an oath which she would also be violating by enforcing a law which has been ruled judicially as unconstitutional.
Finally, when Gov Beshear ordered all state clerks to issue licenses to gay couples also, she filed a lawsuit in Federal court asking for an exemption on religious grounds. Had she actually thought she could still enforce the law as it was because it was still in force, she would not have sued for an exemption. She knew that the law was no longer valid and she could not enforce it without that exemption.
Kim Davis is not arguing that the Kentucky law is still valid -- why are you?
WB,
ReplyDeleteDefining how her compensation for federal income tax and social security purposes is calculated and then using that definition to try to make a case that she isn't doing "her job" is stretching it a bit.
Kim Davis was voted into office. If she is doing "the job" the voters elected her for is for them to determine. If the voters in her county don't like what she is or is not doing, they get to vote on it again. Normally I'd be in favor of kicking a democrat out of office for "not doing the job". If we are going to use that as a test, or not keeping their oath of office, we could fire every last one of them. Which is an idea whose time has come in any event.
As this applies to Kim Davis, they may very well vote her out, or they may want to keep her. That should be the call of the folks that live in Rowan county.
Res Ipsa: "Defining how her compensation for federal income tax and social security purposes is calculated and then using that definition to try to make a case that she isn't doing "her job" is stretching it a bit."
DeleteNo, the definition was to differentiate between public and private. But if you want to go with the semantical angle, just substitute "public official" for "government employee" and the rest of the argument still applies.
Or are you trying to argue that an elected official is in the private sector, instead?
"If she is doing "the job" the voters elected her for is for them to determine. "
They did. And some of them filed a lawsuit against her because they determined that she wasn't doing it.
" That should be the call of the folks that live in Rowan county."
As I previously noted, that decision was taken from them by the actions of Kim Davis herself. Not only has she subjected herself to disciplinary action in Federal court, but also in the State legislature and the State court.
It's too late for what you propose.