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.
DavidM2575: “PEOPLE NEED TO DISOBEY THE SUPREME COURT ON THIS ISSUE IF THEY LOVE THEIR CONSTITUTION!”
Yeah, that’s what we need to do (as someone who loves his Constitution). (<em Please read as sarcasm)
Thank you, this serves as all the proof I need to know that you have very little understanding of the law. Or the Constittution.
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2487/8196/original.jpg
Bob Stone: I haven’t really formed much of an opinion on “sanctuary cities”. You seem to think they are significant and somehow relevant to Kim Davis and the issue of gay marriage and religion. I do not.
Try again. Stick to the issue.
I understand that Ms. Davis has a right to her opinion and personal, obviously very deeply held religious beliefs, but when you are being paid to complete a task clearly outlined in your job description, those thoughts and feelings are left at the door. I don’t think jailing her is going to change her position, she should face disciplinary action that could include suspension without pay, even termination of employment. That being said, there was a Muslim female who took a job with an air line who made very clear that serving alcohol was part of her outline job duties, she like Ms. Davis does not agree with this and refused to serve alcohol, thus facing suspension, which led to termination. Currently, the ACLU is suing the airline for refusing to respect her religious right to not serve alcohol. While these do not match on the seriousness scale, I think it speaks to a broader problem at hand. Why are we picking and choosing which religious rights are acceptable and unacceptable?
nicky – I think it has been stated on here several times that Ms. Davis is in an elected office. As such, short of conviction of a felony, it is hard to get them out of office. It might be possible to recall her, but it could be that the county voters stand behind her and not the judge. Just getting enough signatures in time can be difficult.
Thanks for the clarification
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN_aIjzWEAAlnnW.png
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2487/5920/original.jpg?w=600&h
Nick
“The very foundation of our Constitution is protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.”
= = =
Tell us oh wise fool, by denying others their INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, what laws protect Kim?
p.s.
Annie, did Congress ever CODIFY Loving, Vs. Virginia into law as the Huckster said they should do?
sorry, forgot the video… ‘Cuz you know it ain’t real if it ain’t on video.
Take it Mike…
Annie,
What the gnashing of teeth is all about is the Loving Vs. Virginia decision.
Now THAT was some Christian oppression. For gawds sake the scriptures they quoted to make their case. You would have thunk that the Huckabee would have supported a clerks ability to deny then that Right, too. But NO… he couches it as homo-sex-you-all marriage. See, he’s not opposed to a county clerk denying homo-sex-you-alls marriage licenses because of his gawd’s ways/laws like he would a county clerk denying a mixed race couple their marriage so long as they aren’t homo-sex-you-alls… Same situation, different players with different outcomes. So you see, it isn’t about race, it’s about sin… Christian sin found in their buybull.
Why do conservatives like David M hate Equal Protection and Due Process?
Annie wrote: “Why do conservatives like David M hate Equal Protection and Due Process?”
I do NOT hate equal protection and due process. I love these concepts. I agree with them. What I hate are how some people twist and misinterpret these concepts to invent new laws through the court system.
The very first Article of the Constitution plainly says, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Now that either has meaning or it doesn’t.
When I read the Fourteenth Amendment, I fully agree with it. However, when I read how some jurists interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, inventing the right of the federal government to force States to allow the murder of unborn children, and inventing the right of the federal government to force the States to dissolve the institution of marriage, I am horrified. That is tyranny.
The Supreme Court has made the Constitution of no effect by its constant revision of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Shorter Bob Stone:
“The Government needs to adopt some accommodations for Sharia Laws”
Bob, why “just” Christian accommodations?
Respect the First Amendment or, as davidm would put it, support the Constitution and ignore the it’s First Amendment. Yea, that’s the way… ignore the parts you disagree with and stand behind the parts that you agree with, like the Second. Just like Christians do to their faith and buybull…
And, here, Clinton aids defy a court order to hand over all documents:
http://www.examiner.com/article/hillary-clinton-and-aides-defy-court-orders-despite-threat-of-perjury-charges
Good luck repealing the Fourteenth Amendment. Won’t happen.
Sorry for the typo w/ your name.
Here is another example. Obama has defied a court order to rescind amnesties it wrongly issued:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/29/three-year-amnesties-not-fully-rescinded/?page=all
Is he going to jail for contempt of court?
I have to say that this has been a really interesting discussion, at least part of the thread. I absolutely believe that Kim Davis should step down or be removed. But there have been very interesting points raised about the inequality of her treatment, and the options of accommodating her religious beliefs (like giving other people the authority to go around her and issue the licenses).
Karen S wrote: “I absolutely believe that Kim Davis should step down or be removed.”
Aren’t you being a little premature? Before she resigns, give the State legislature a chance to decide how the laws will change in Kentucky because of Obergefell.
If we Americans do not stand up to the Supreme Court on this issue, then we have lost liberty completely. Just show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to define marriage for all the States. IT DOES NOT EXIST. I don’t care about their Sophistry in Obergefell about the Fourteenth Amendment. Don’t fall for it.
The way you are thinking now, Karen, there is no check of powers for the Supreme Court. We are supposed to give Congress and the States the ability to react. What if the Fourteenth Amendment is repealed? What will that do to the Obergefell decision?
Kaqren, Great comment @ 7:37p.
The very foundation of our Constitution is protecting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. That’s how we became the GREATEST democracy in the history of civilization. Again, the lack of just basic FACTS is astounding. This creeping socialistic meme makes me even more happy about the 2nd Amendment.
Nick:
Good point about Gavin Newsom. I found this quote from Huckabee online pointing out the unequal treatment of Liberals and Conservatives who ignore the law:
“You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage, Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as major, performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail? He most certainly did not. You had Barack Obama and Eric Holder when he was Attorney General, they ignored the rulings of DOMA, did they get put in law for ignoring the law? They most certainly did not. So when do liberals get to choose which laws they support but a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail because she acted on her conscience and according to the only law in front of her.”
I believe that any government official who cannot follow the law in good conscience needs to resign, and there needs to be equal consequences if they will not. I think Kim Davis needs to resign, and if she won’t, the process to remove her should begin. I also think the same rule should apply to every official who refuses to follow the law, and that it is hypocrisy that it is not applied equally. Apparently, some people feel it’s OK to break the law if it agrees with their politics.
I do not think such actions should be viewed through political glasses.
It is entirely accurate to point out a double standard exists, and that we need to strive for equal consequences for everyone from Kim Davis to Hillary Clinton.
Olly
Our rights come from where ever one wishes to imagine. Some believe they are handed down from some god. Some believe they are ‘natural’. You can believe anything you want. The fact is that they are protected by the government, society, or whatever under the scrutiny of the society to prevent people like Davis from imposing her private and unique beliefs on the ‘everyman’. Idiots walking around armed to the teeth is the result of rights protected by individuals.
The semantics of the argument are all that some have. It is what it is. If you live alone in the mountains and never see or contact anyone then yessiree you give yourself your rights or your god gives you your rights and you pays your money, buys your ticket, and takes your chances. However, if you haven’t noticed, it might be the time to take a peek, we live in a society, under the umbrella of laws to protect us all, not just religious fanatics.
issac wrote: “The fact is that they are protected by the government, society, or whatever under the scrutiny of the society to prevent people like Davis from imposing her private and unique beliefs on the ‘everyman’.”
Kim Davis is looking out for the people who voted the law into place in Kentucky. She believes in government with the consent of the governed. Who is going to protect her from the private and unique beliefs of homophile Justices on the Supreme Court? Two of the Justices had already performed gay marriages and should have recused themselves because of their bias. If they had, the decision would have been different from what it was.
So do you really think that the opinion of two female justices who officiated over same sex unions should be superior in law over the millions of voters who established the law in Kentucky that Kim Davis is protecting?
If you side with the Supreme Court on this issue, then you no longer support the concept of us being governed by the rule of law. The Constitution no longer has any legitimate meaning if this Court is respected when they make foolish decisions like they did in Obergefell.
Every patriot will disobey the Supreme Court and every federal judge who follows them in violating the Constitution. Nobody is above the Constitution. Not the President, and not the Supreme Court Justices.