By Darren Smith Weekend Contributor
After the Rowan County Kentucky Clerk, Democrat Kim Davis, defied a court order to issue gay couples marriage licenses, and was subsequently arrested by the U.S. Marshal’s Service and jailed, her husband stated that she chose to remain in jail rather than compromise her religious beliefs by performing her statutory duty. Her contempt of court ruling will stand until she resumes issuing such licenses and thus in jail she shall remain.
And so it should.
The issue is not the content of her religious beliefs that are on trial. It is that of failure to perform her duty and denial of a civil right as mandated by the Supreme Court. For this reason she has two choices: being in contempt indefinitely; or resigning her position. For the near term it is as simple as that. If she continues her defiance, a third party must step up, show some leadership, and make the decision for her by ejecting her from office.
When a politician takes an oath of office upon their swearing in they affirm to uphold the constitutions of their respective states and that of the United States, and that they will discharge also their statutory and common law duties mandated by the legislature and the state’s courts. This is not an optional recommendation, it is conditional of receiving the position and taking salary and benefits. In this case Ms. Davis knew, as a second generation politician to her mother’s thirty seven year tenure as the former county clerk, what these duties encompass. The excuses she made to justify her failure to perform on her duty are 100% irrelevant whatever they might be, religious, personal or otherwise. Her authority does not include usurping the legislature and the courts to suit her own goals.
Ms. Davis, through her attorney, claimed that a compromise can be made by the removal of her name from the certificates of marriage granted to those couples she objects to. This also is completely unacceptable. The duality of this settlement offer is that she previously stated the certificates issued by her deputy clerks, in her absence, were void.
The authorization official charged with issuing marriage licenses is that of the County Clerk, and from working convention is usually performed by a deputy delegated and commissioned through this authority. If Ms. Davis chooses to remove her name from the form, the marriage license could be contested as being invalid since it was not assented to by the county clerk. For this reason she implored the governor to call the legislature into a special session to amend the statutory language to facilitate the compromise that would be agreeable to this one individual politician–at a cost of course of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The hubris and arrogance she exudes on that demand alone certainly should be enough cause for the legislature to impeach her or the voters to generate a recall. If this becomes necessary to remove her from office a failure to act upon this by either entity and allow this usurper to remain in office would be a true embarrassment to themselves in the eyes of a great many.
Anecdotally, all of us who have worked in an official capacity know that sometimes you cannot do what you like. We cannot legally make arbitrary actions that are outside the law. To do so leads straight to corruption and an erosion of the system and the liquidity of society. The result is almost always a patchwork of patronage and differing rules and the abandonment of trust in the public that ultimately grants the government its legitimacy. The controversy is this, we stop malfeasances of office now before they lead to worse.
Not only that but in addition to moneys wasted in salary payable to an incarcerated elected official–who is unable to perform her job–it is all but certain expensive lawsuits alleging violations of civil rights will result. It is an outcome frankly the county government deserves.
Ms. Davis clearly wants to have her cake and eat it too. She reportedly takes an $80,000.00 salary along with benefits. In addition, she has family members within the employ of her office. This is why I personally find political dynasties to be in direct conflict with democracy, because it almost always leads to nepotism at least and despotism at worse. The Rowan County Clerk’s Office seems a great family business for the Davis family because that is how she seems to choose to operate it. But as the Rolling Stones famously sang…
It is time that Kim Davis “gets what she needs”…termination of her employment.
By Darren Smith
Source:
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Anyone can say that anything is their religion — taking peyote, sacrificing animals, polygamy, killing those who belong to another religion, stealing land because god gave it to them. Religion, like all other freedoms is constrained when it impinges on the rights of others.
She should certainly be held accountable for not upholding the law…just like every mayor of a “sanctuary city”…
Darren – Can’t always get what you want.
Third Eagle’s tune sings the blues…..”Doom & Gloom” Video has prompter, so sing along.
All good points and I agree.
Darren did you write a similar impassioned column when Pres. Obama and AG Eric Holder chose not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?
We have a double standard wherein partisans only see their side of the argument.
This thread will deteriorate quickly.
And professor, your ignorance of our Constitution is duly noted and well documented on this blog. We get your not understanding the 2nd Amendment or the US.
Professor, Being an elected official she can’t be “fired” per se. She could be impeached or some other similar process where in the people who “hired” her, the voters, have a say. Often times the democratically elected legislature is given authority to remove someone from elected office. If Kentucky is a jurisdiction w/ that process, that can proceed since she is not in civil compliance.
Next in line, bakers who won’t make a wedding cake. This is not pro gay. This is anti religion. You just need look @ the people commenting already, getting up early for this one.
If she broke her contract she can be fired. If she didn’t she can’t.
She is entitled to her views as is Darren…..
Acting on them may be a different matter.
This illustrates how unworkable the American Legal System is…. how individual freedom of one can affect the freedom of another. How this notion is incompatible with the practicalities of Jurisprudence, Democracy and Nationhood. This situation was so predictable. I’m surprised it took so long to happen.
At the same time, America stands by and sees school children blown away with automatic weapons on a fairly regular basis and how this situation is tolerated by virtue the “Constitution” and “Amendments”.
Gavin Newsom, a Democrat elected official, breaks the law holding true to his conscience and is beatified. This woman does the same and is imprisoned. She’s not my cup o’ tea. But the heavy handed way this has been handled is curious. Rarely are people imprisoned on civil contempt. And, this judge is quite conservative. Either the judge was looking to create a martyr, or he is looking to squash any rebellion to this controversial law. Federal Judges are the kings in our democracy. It’s probably the latter.
Civil disobedience has its costs. Ms. Davis took an oath to obey the CIVIL law and she broke it. She should resign or be impeached.
She can obey gods law as a private citizen. The next time she marries…she shouldn’t marry a same sex partner. Don’t “believe” in gay marriage, don’t have one!
PS: Ms. Davis is not Martin Luther King. She doesn’t even come close.
Also, doesn’t one engage in civil disobedience with the expectation of punishment?
Civil disobedience in order to deny others of their civil right? That truly does not make sense. The concept of civil disobedience should not be misused, as she misused her authority as County Clerk.
Her prior marriages were before she was “born again” around four years ago. I’m not born again — I got it right the first time.
But I find it interesting that you won’t find any report referencing the fact that Ms. Davis is engaging in civil disobedience. You know…..like the people who refused to leave the lunch counters in the 60s.
Martin Luther King could have just gotten his lunch somewhere else…right? He didn’t write “Letter from a Birmingham Motel.”
She can operate under god’s authority all she wants, as a private citizen. It’s that simple.
Hypothetically I wonder whether Davis and the religious imbeciles supporting her would equally defend a Muslim school superintendent who bars all girls from receiving taxpayer-funded education by way of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
Let’s hear Hucksterbee defend that, for the sake of consistency and “religious liberty.”
“her husband stated that she chose to remain in jail rather than compromise her religious beliefs by performing her statutory duty.” John 4:18. “The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” So Who was that masked man?
But seriously, it is obvious that Ms. Davis doesn’t believe in the Bible or anything else. She believes that she has the right to determine the lives of other people based on her twisted belief that she knows the mind of god! She can believe what she wants but as someone who took an oath to uphold the law she is a dismal failure and should resign. Her place is in a pulpit not the Country Clerks Office.
As to the “compromise”. Absolutely NOT. It allows here to retain a position for which she is not suited. She has violated her oath of office and should resign or be impeached.
I think Ms.Davis would’ve been a better witness to her faith if she were to have just resigned her position. Her offer to have her name removed from the forms is duplicitous. Also in question is her claim of her sincere belief in the sanctity of marriage, considering this is her fourth marriage, with a history of adultery in previous marriages. What if a Muslim clerk refused to give marriage licenses to women who weren’t wearing a burka, or a Catholic clerk refused a marriage license to a divorced person? The judge was correct in giving her jail time for the contempt of court, as she had people and groups who were going to be paying fines for her. What lesson would she have learned from that? The Supreme Court ruled on same sex marriage, and as a public servant she can either do her job or resign. To demand an accommodation to deny others of their civil right based on one’s personal belief system is not Constitutional. As Darren said, you can’t have it both ways.
No, she’s been imprisoned for her Christian beliefs in that this wouldn’t have involved the courts if she wasn’t Christian. Instead, they would have followed the existent procedures for removing her from her position as Clerk.
Darren, you are a hypocrite. Not once have I seen you call for the resignation or impeachment of this lawless President or his previous Attorney General. Both have chosen to enforce only the laws they liked and ignore the ones they didn’t.
Completely agree. This woman is no martyr. And it’s not any surprise to hear of the nepotism in her office. Far too many public officials forget public service means service for the public, not making the public serve you.