Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)

[kylie]

      Davis, the county clerk somewhere in Kentucky who has been pleading religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses (and has since stopped issuing any licenses but is getting sued for that too, apparently didn't realize that she issued a license to a couple including a transguy.  I would feel more clear about the report if anyone has gotten Davis to comment on the matter, although I doubt it would necessarily be in her best interest to do so (given the ongoing legal proceedings).  So if one assumes her definition of 'man and woman' would be about medically assigned sex [setting aside, most people don't understand med-sex particularly in the assignment is not really based on strictly objective evidence itself]...  Then she would seem to have unwittingly breached her own principle. 

      There's a possibly somewhat more precise (if brief) recounting of Davis' role in that marriage here:

Camryn Colen and his wife Alexis said that it was another county staffer that issued the license, but that Davis is allegedly the one who said she didn’t need to see Colen’s birth certificate, which still identifies him as female.

       ...  Not that it stands to reason that unwittingly breaching a principle is going to always lead someone to change.  But umm in a logical world (knock on wood): It should make people think a little bit more about...

     1) whether the Bible she claims to be concerned about was actually concerned about sexual relations or social gender roles (and I believe it was more the latter than the former, particularly in those Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages so often raised),

     and 2) how society generally is so often happy to mark love and family in public life very often by the visuals of what a couple does (everything from simple hugging and sharing time/labor to umm, still too often terribly segregated gender roles which often helps people like Davis see "just a straight couple in love" for those trans who can "pass") -- but it's usually not by making close inspections of chromosomes, medical histories, or the space between anyone's legs. 

[Jag]

      Davis, the county clerk somewhere in Kentucky who has been pleading religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses (and has since stopped issuing any licenses but is getting sued for that too, apparently didn't realize that she issued a license to a couple including a transguy.  I would feel more clear about the report if anyone has gotten Davis to comment on the matter, although I doubt it would necessarily be in her best interest to do so (given the ongoing legal proceedings).  So if one assumes her definition of 'man and woman' would be about medically assigned sex [setting aside, most people don't understand med-sex particularly in the assignment is not really based on strictly objective evidence itself]...  Then she would seem to have unwittingly breached her own principle. 

      There's a possibly somewhat more precise (if brief) recounting of Davis' role in that marriage here:

       ...  Not that it stands to reason that unwittingly breaching a principle is going to always lead someone to change.  But umm in a logical world (knock on wood): It should make people think a little bit more about...

     1) whether the Bible she claims to be concerned about was actually concerned about sexual relations or social gender roles (and I believe it was more the latter than the former, particularly in those Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages so often raised),

     and 2) how society generally is so often happy to mark love and family in public life very often by the visuals of what a couple does (everything from simple hugging and sharing time/labor to umm, still too often terribly segregated gender roles which often helps people like Davis see "just a straight couple in love" for those trans who can "pass") -- but it's usually not by making close inspections of chromosomes, medical histories, or the space between anyone's legs.

I live near Rowan county. Not in it, but near. This is something I can't avoid. It's talked about all over town and at work. Currently, there is a small protest growing in the city about 15 minutes from my house. There is a preacher out on the sidewalk calling for the saving of Davis and how the city needs to band together to cover any fines or bail money she might need. She's becoming a martyr in their eyes.

As for her issuing the license to the transguy, it was briefly brought up in a video I saw when a gay couple tried to go get their license for the 4th or 5th time. She didn't answer it directly, cause they also hit her with the question on if she would issue one to a biracial couple. Her only response was that "So long as it's a man and a woman". But she is only judging this 'man and woman' based on physical appearances. So for her, so long as the couple is 'passable', she apparently hasn't been asking for birth certificates.

She is currently in court along with her office staff. They are having a hearing to determine if she is going to be held in contempt of court. If so, she will either suffer a fine or jail time. Many of the people against her are asking for heavy fines, as sending her to jail would only fire up her supporters even more. Many are asking that she be fined for every day she refused to issue a license.

As far as I'm concerned, she doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. She swore an oath to uphold the laws of the state and government. She is only picking same sex marriage licenses to deny, even though her religion is against divorce as well (she's been married 4 times, by the way). Her religious freedoms are not being affected in any way (she can still go to church, she can still pray, she can still do whatever she wants on her private, non-taxpayer funded time).

My thoughts are that the judge wants her whole office there and is going to just line them up starting with her and ask if they are going to start complying with his orders. I imagine she will say no, get her fines or jail time, and each one after her will likely state that they will do their duties and were simply following her orders or were under threat of losing their jobs (which would likely add to her charges). The local judge has already stated that if she goes to jail, he is more than willing to start issuing the licenses in her absence.

[Cycle]

Kim Davis irritates me greatly. 

She's only an office holder.  Those marriage licenses do no belong to her.  They belong to the State of Kentucky.  She is just a tool to effectuate the State's obligation to its citizens.  Like any other tool, if she can't accomplish the task, she needs to be replaced. 

[Jag]

...she needs to be replaced.

Sadly, it is not that easy. If they could just fire her, they would have.

[Cycle]

*nods*  I did read that it'll take impeachment to remove her from office.  Too bad.

At least now she'll have plenty of time to reflect on her decision.  Off to the big house you go, Ms. Davis...

[LisztesFerenc]

  Umm....they cannot sack her, but they can send her to jail? Shouldn't it be harder to send someone to jail than to sack them?

[Cycle]

Different "theys."

The "they" that can fire her is basically the Kentucky State Legislature, I believe.  The Legislature needs to impeach her to "fire" her.

The "they" that is jailing her is a Federal Judge.  She had been ordered by said Judge to issue the licenses.  She disobeyed the order.  That Judge then has to power to hold her in contempt of court.  The penalty for contempt can be monetary fines, or jail time, or both.  In this case, he chose to toss her in jail until she decides to comply.

[eBadger]

  Umm....they cannot sack her, but they can send her to jail? Shouldn't it be harder to send someone to jail than to sack them?

It's an elected position, so not simply up to the discretion of a superior whether she keeps it or not.  She's not just some hired clerk or something. 

[LisztesFerenc]

It's an elected position, so not simply up to the discretion of a superior whether she keeps it or not.  She's not just some hired clerk or something.

  So is the position of president. Are you telling me it would be easier to jail Obama than to impeach him?

[Oniya]

I recall reading that impeachment procedures have been instigated, but she's using every avenue open to her to delay that.

[eBadger]

  So is the position of president. Are you telling me it would be easier to jail Obama than to impeach him?

The president is obviously a somewhat special case, considering the political ramifications and issues of enforcement against a sitting head of state (particularly as he could simply pardon himself, or use his authority to effect his own release from enforcement).  But yes; any judge could render a sentence against Obama.  It would take congressional impeachment proceedings (including a supermajority of the Senate) to remove him from the presidency. 

For a larger and more accurate reference, only 8 federal office holders have been impeached in the history of the US. 

[Dashenka]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1


So she's going to prison for denying gay people to get married basically?

What happened there? From no rights to this? In no time at all....

The US keeps amazing me This time in a good way.

[eBadger]

What happened there? From no rights to this? In no time at all....

It was the same court ruling: that all states must recognize same sex marriage and treat it equally.  She refused to do so, and is therefore being jailed for not carrying out the law as she is required to by virtue of being in a government position.  It's not an escalation, it's just enforcement - without which the ruling would mean nothing. 

Note that she could have simply quit her position to avoid all of this. 

[Jag]

Note that she could have simply quit her position to avoid all of this.

But then she wouldn't be a martyr, be on TV, or possibly get a book deal.

[LisztesFerenc]

The president is obviously a somewhat special case, considering the political ramifications and issues of enforcement against a sitting head of state (particularly as he could simply pardon himself, or use his authority to effect his own release from enforcement).  But yes; any judge could render a sentence against Obama.  It would take congressional impeachment proceedings (including a supermajority of the Senate) to remove him from the presidency. 

For a larger and more accurate reference, only 8 federal office holders have been impeached in the history of the US.

  Interesting. What is the reason for this set up, or is it common place and I just never heard of it? Is it to allow people to protest laws they deem unjust by not enforcing them without losing their job and thus being unable to exercise political change as effectively? I.e. exactly what this lady was doing, only this is a bad example, where as there are genuinely unjust laws that could potentially be challenged this way.

[Oniya]

It's more of a difference between an elected position and a hired position.  In essence, there is no 'supervisor' who has the power to terminate her employment, other than the Kentucky State Government.

more detailed description here.

[eBadger]

  Interesting. What is the reason for this set up, or is it common place and I just never heard of it? Is it to allow people to protest laws they deem unjust by not enforcing them without losing their job and thus being unable to exercise political change as effectively? I.e. exactly what this lady was doing, only this is a bad example, where as there are genuinely unjust laws that could potentially be challenged this way.

Impeachment proceedings?  To prevent some small fry judge from jailing the president for a parking ticket and shutting down the government whenever he doesn't like national policy.  It's actually pretty fundamental. 

Also, impeachment is separate from conviction.  One can be removed from office without being sent to jail, or vice versa. 

[Oniya]

Also, impeachment is separate from conviction.  One can be removed from office without being sent to jail, or vice versa.

Impeachment actually only refers to the process itself.  One can be impeached without even ending up out of office (case in point, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached and acquitted.)

[LisztesFerenc]

Impeachment proceedings?  To prevent some small fry judge from jailing the president for a parking ticket and shutting down the government whenever he doesn't like national policy.  It's actually pretty fundamental.

Impeachment proceedings are the only things stopping that from happening? I find that hard to believe. Doesn't the state first need to decide to pursue the issue before a judge rules on the matter? Does all European countries have similar requirements?

[eBadger]

Impeachment actually only refers to the process itself.  One can be impeached without even ending up out of office (case in point, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached and acquitted.)

*Nods* I've been using it in the popular manner, but yes, legalistically read that as "a vote supporting impeachment (does that even have a term?) is different from judicial conviction". 

Impeachment proceedings are the only things stopping that from happening? I find that hard to believe. Doesn't the state first need to decide to pursue the issue before a judge rules on the matter? Does all European countries have similar requirements?

I suppose you'd need a traffic cop as well.  But yes, politicians are subject to the law, too.  If a congressman kills his wife, he'll go to jail.  He could just continue to be a congressman there until the impeachment concludes. 

This wiki is informative, although I don't think it includes all of the countries with such laws.  Our system is based on the British one. 

[Cycle]

The President of the United States actually enjoys considerable immunity to judicial action.  Read this. 

So while Davis, a County Clerk, could be sued and subjected to an injunction to do X (e.g., issue marriage licenses), you can't do that to President Obama (e.g., you cannot sue him to stop him from affirming the Iran Nuclear Deal). 

The powers of his office are vastly different than the one Davis holds.  Comparing them is like comparing apples to Lamborgihinis.

[eBadger]

Follow up on the Davis stuff; first, and I believe most important, the judge used the word "shenanigans," which I think makes him officially awesome.  I have this wonderful image of a small town hick judge sporting overalls beneath his robe as he supports gay marriage in the most awesome way.  I'm not sure I dare google what he actually looks like lest this destroy my mind image. 

Second, licenses are now being handed out!  Apparently all the other employees at the office were fine with it except for Davis' son. 

Also some clarification on the jail time: it's not just for refusing to do the licenses.  There was also some contempt of court, apparently, which courts tend to get grumpy about. 

Finally, if you haven't seen any of the Sitnexto Kim Davis tweets, they're worth a read. 

[Cycle]

Let's be clear here.  Kim Davis can get out of jail at any time. 

All she needs to do is (a) agree to issue marriage licenses, (b) resign her position as County Clerk so someone else can do the job, or (c) agree not to interfere with the five Deputy County Clerks when they issue marriage licenses.

Her refusal to accept option (c) pretty much rips through her sham "you can't make me violate my religion" defense.  At this point, she's just sitting in jail for personal gain.

[Lustful Bride]

Follow up on the Davis stuff; first, and I believe most important, the judge used the word "shenanigans," which I think makes him officially awesome.  I have this wonderful image of a small town hick judge sporting overalls beneath his robe as he supports gay marriage in the most awesome way.  I'm not sure I dare google what he actually looks like lest this destroy my mind image.

That is awesome, I can only picture him as Fred Gwynne,

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Mithlomwen]

Her refusal to accept option (c) pretty much rips through her sham "you can't make me violate my religion" defense.  At this point, she's just sitting in jail for personal gain.

Pretty much.  All it is is her being a martyr. 

I heard on the news this morning that the judge can keep her in jail for up to 18 months. 

Not sure how much of this can be substantiated, but if it's true....hypocrite much?