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.
“I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave,” she said. “And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.”
In other words: “Look at me! Look at me! I’m a martyr!”
A martyr for attention.
Olly, That’s where I start being conflicted. I would have been more sympathetic if this woman resigned her office rather than violate her conscience. I want all the focus to be on the baker who takes a righteous stand. That’s where, I hope, the people of this country say, “ENOUGH,” if a Federal Judge jails a small business owner for holding to his/her conscience. I will follow that baker to war, not Kim Davis.
@Nick: ” I would have been more sympathetic if this woman resigned her office rather than violate her conscience. I want all the focus to be on the baker who takes a righteous stand.”
Where ever one might come down on this, I think it is possible to distinguish a government official who in their official capacity is acting for all of us and an individual or small business owner acting in their own self interest.
One might even make a case to distinguish a small business and a large business or corporation – but that is a refinement that may not be convincing to many.
Clearly government officials have responsibilities and duties that are far different from those of us who are ordinary citizens.
Resignation by Davis would be in the highest traditions of protest. That is what responsible officials do when they can no longer carry out their sworn duty.
this case has *nothing* to do with freedom of religion (or, as it is now sometimes called “religious liberty”), and anyone who makes such argument doesn’t know the law nor the facts of the case.
under the first amendment to the constitution, davis is completely free to practice whatever religion she wants, in her personal life. but her personal life is not her official life. davis, in her official capacity as county clerk, is simply not allowed to inflict her own newly-acquired beliefs about marriage upon anyone.
the supreme court made a ruling known as “obergefell.” even the goofiest of goofballs, donald trump, has admitted that the rulings of the supreme court constitute “the law of the land.” the (very conservative) federal district court judge (appointed by dubya in 2002) issued an order specifically directing davis to obey the law of the land and issue marriage licenses. davis refused to do so, and appealed to the circuit court of appeals. but she lost her application for a stay pending appeal, when the circuit court stated that her appeal has little or no chance of success on the merits. davis then applied for a stay of enforcement of the district court order from the supreme court (yes, the very same court that decided “obergefell.”). the application was referred by justice kagan to the full court, and was denied in a ruling of exactly one sentence.
the district court judge then even asked davis if she would allow other clerks in her office to issue the licenses. she refused, and the district judge found her in contempt of court. she is not in jail because of her religion; she is in jail because she has deliberately and intentionally defied a valid court order directed specifically at her.
“How do you reconcile that position with sanctuary cities?”
Get a court order.
So far as I know sanctuary cities, aside from moral suasion, mostly have to do with the way local LE cooperate with federal agencies such as ICE.
If LE or other government agencies in sanctuary cities are not in compliance with existing legislation or case law then get a court order.
Nick,
To prove this issue has nothing to do with the rule of law, why not ask these legal minds to come up with a solution that would allow the clerk to perform her duties without violating her conscience?
The formula is simple. If you are liberal and defy the law via sanctuary cities or granting marriage licenses when they WERE illegal, you are a saint. If you are conservative and defy the law you are Satan. Got it, folks!!
It’s late morning and still pretty civil. Kudos.
BFM,
How do you reconcile that position with sanctuary cities?
” 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. ”
So exactly which are the cases where this administration has refused to obey a ruling by the supreme court? In what case has the administration refused to obey a federal court order which has not been stayed pending appeal to a higher court?
Name them. Tell us where this administration has refused to obey the courts interpretation of the law?
Show us where this administration has flouted a court ruling for any reason?
When Davis gets a stay of the courts order or gets to SC to reverse it self – more power to her – that is the way it is supposed to be done. Until she gets the stay or until she convinces the SC to reverse itself, let her obey the law or resign. That is our system. That agreement to obey the law is the thin shield we have against anarchy and tyranny.
Lisa N – Like Tennessee, I think the government should abolish issuing marriage licenses and just issue all human couples a ‘union recognized by government’ certificate, or something. That would get rid of this whole controversy, right? You go get married in a church of your choice, and then if you feel like doing a government binding, you go do that.
Olly was spot on at 9:21. I heartily second that comment.
PhilkyT – What war crimes? As I recall, all of congress including Hillary Clinton voted to go to war!
What about Obama, he sent troops into Libya with congressional approval and sold guns to Libya! By your standards, that includes Obama.
Let’s not Bill Clinton who shot cruise missiles in a baby formula factory in Pakistan. Shouldn’t he also be charged with war crimes!
“I don’t think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living. I shouldn’t have to choose between one or the other because they’re both important.”
This woman KNEW and AGREED to take a position that required she violate her faith…yet she took it anyway. Do you support that?
Rowan County is a majority democrat county, including this clerk, she is a Evangelical Christain democrat. Democrats just wrote them off their voter list.
But if you think about the legal aspect of the marriage law SCOTUS created, there’s no law that defines marriage between a man and a woman. Just one that defines marriage between 2 men and 2 women. This how screwed up this law is and can affect millions of people. One state of Tennessee is in the mindset not to issue anymore marriage licenses between men and women.
If someone says that’s being ridiculous, but you can’t claim that this clerk pick and choose what law to uphold and so neither can any state who doesn’t say marriage between a man and woman is illegal now. Thank you SCOTUS for your political activism and creating this conundrum. It’s time to invoke Article 5 and let the states take over. It’s obvious the federal government and Supreme Court are impotent and feckless.
I am an Eighth Day Dog Adventist. We dogs were put here on Earth by God on the 8th Day to give guidance to humans. One of my religious duties is to poop in the yard of the Catholic House where the pedophile priest lives. At night I poop on the sidewalk so that he might slip and fall. This is God driven duty.
Here’s a refresher for those interested in the definition of terms.
“BIGOT: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)”
It WOULD be bigoted and hypocritical of her to refuse to perform her licensing duty for those she “hates” or “dislikes”. I am unaware of any statements from her that indicated that was the case. I have seen plenty of comments reflecting bigotry and hypocrisy from those that want this woman out of office. For them, the rule of law should be enforced only on matters that further their agenda.
Nicely done!
Sure Lisa, right after Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Addington, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Wolfowitz, W., Feith, and all the rest get perp-walked at The Hague for war crimes. Ruined economy, millions of lives lost, 9/11, massive deficits. Quite the legacy.
She was put in jail for contempt of court. Contempt of court could be for creating chaos in a courtroom, refusing to do as directed by the court-obtain a license to drive instead drive without a license, etc.
The law of the land was specifically laid out to be separate from the church. The freedom of religion contains the freedom from religion. The court is a higher authority than the god of any religion. This is the religion of the US.
She is in contempt of court like any other person. She should either go to jail or resign. The proof is in the Constitution and the continuity of the legal system. Freedom of religion gives no individual power over another. The law does.
She is in the same boat with that idiot from Florida that caused the deaths of six UN health workers by threatening to burn a koran. To empower herself in the name of some mumbo jumbo she will harm others.
When a politician takes an oath of office upon their swearing in, they affirm to uphold the Constitution of the United States and that they will discharge also their statutory and common law duties mandated by the Constitution. If the government didn’t pick and choose what laws to follow and not follow, this man is the one who should be in jail.
http://i0.wp.com/moralmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NaziObamaSexOffenderwar-750×350.jpg
Her religion has nothing to do with it. She calls herself a christian, but she is just one of those people who pick and choose which parts of the bible she wants to believe in and thinks that gives her the right to enforce that on others. No martyr here, just a bigot and a hypocrite. Only a handful of republicans are supporting her, and that’s because they are desperate to get traction in the race against Trump.
She doesn’t perform her sworn constitutional duty and it affects perhaps 1.5% of the population. Elected officials in sanctuary cities violate federal law and it affects the 100% of the population. And as we already know, in the latter people die as a result.
If this were about the law then the outrage is wildly misplaced. This is about religion, nothing more. If she were Muslim people would be tripping over themselves trying to accomodate her faith.