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.
Well said, Darren. I couldn’t agree with you more.
SCOTUS can not legitimately create laws NEO.
And yet they persist, seeking their own powers outside of the Constitution for the United States of America. But then again, they don’t follow that version do they?
https://twitter.com/rachelheldevans
Rachel Held Evans Verified account
@rachelheldevans
No one’s being jailed for practicing her religion. Someone’s being jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion.
11:30 AM – 3 Sep 2015
So much for the pontification of the writer. I hope this woman has the resolve to remain incarcerated until hell freezes over if need be. The question of the legality of the Court’s constitutional right to its decision has been challenged and the opinions of the dissenting Justices deserve a re-read. The issue of ‘your rights end where my rights begin’ has yet to be fully resolved, particularly where religious freedoms are concerned. When the atheists come for Christmas Day, charging that, as a Federal Holiday, it violates the separation of church and state, it will finally hit the fan. In closing, let me say that Justice Roberts is a moron and the sooner we are free of him, the better.
Ignore My above post as I can not edit it with this POS comment software…..
Arne Rosenstock where your argument fails is that having the state marry you is not a right. That is a government granted permission that already has all sorts of stipulations, such as age, getting blood tests etc.
Of course this couple has a right to marry, but they do not need the state to do so. Marriages did not involved the state until fairly recently, historically speaking, and the state got involved for purely racist reasons.
Where are all the misinformed people that want to get rid of the confederate battle flag “because it is a racist symbol” when the institution of state marriage unarguably has racist roots? If these people had a brain, and were consistent, they would be demanding the elimination of the racist institution of state marriage. But then again they are just “useful idiots” for an agenda that they are oblivious to.
WooHoo! I can html again 🙂
I’m confused – does she perform a sacred religious ceremony or does she issue civil licenses? Seems to me that the license is important for insurance and tax reasons. Then you go to the religious institution of your choice and have the union “blessed” if it is important to you. She’s delusional if she thinks that piece of paper she issues has religious significance.
*I would like to see the “law” that she supposedly broke. I don’t think that it exists, and that the criminal charges are a farce at best.*
She’s currently in jail for violating a court order not a specific law. Official Misconduct charges have been referred by the local DA to the Attorney General. Sorry for the formatting; I can’t seem to blockquote here anymore.
InalienableWrightsI: “My question is, why is government in the business of getting involved in what used to be and should still be a private contract between 2 individuals?”
An excellent question. My take is by getting a marriage license through the state, you get all the benefits of legislative law, which in my view is minimal. However, this also gives the state permission to be a third party in all registered marriages. It has to do with their power.
I would like to see the “law” that she supposedly broke. I don’t think that it exists, and that the criminal charges are a farce at best.
Gay marriage being part of the the liberal agenda however means that no reason or logic will be applied. The logical action would have been to fire her for failing to do her job……. criminal charges are a hell of reach. If criminal charges can be applied for failing to do your job, then Obama should be sitting in a jail cell for sure. How many laws has he failed to enforce, and even worse, how many things has he done without the backing of law? I guess this new liberal tactic only applies to the little people…..
Now the problem appears to be “violating her conscience.” Is that the same as “practicing her religion”?
“And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were amazed at Him.” Mark 12:17
Well, we know she’s not practicing that part. Let’s try another.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death….” Leviticus 20:13.
Yep. That’s the one.
For a believer in the literal, inerrant Bible, it’s apparently a “violation of conscience” to not be able to “practice your religion” and kill gay people.
No wonder fundamentalists prefer speaking in vague and general terms. The specifics are often horrible.
SCOTUS could have legalized gay marriage by calling it a “Civil Union” having all the legal rights as a marriage rather than calling it a “Marriage” also. That would have probably defused a lot of the tensions between those who are “Religious” and those who are not. But then, that would not created the conflict that the Feds are after.
SCOTUS can not legitimately create laws NEO. We have had criminal presidents getting away with this crime for 60 years but that not not legitimize the crime.
Anyone that has looked at the state involvement in marriage knows that the primary reason for their involvement was to try and prevent blacks and whites from marrying. Why would anyone want to get within 100 yards of this dubious institution in the first place?
isaac,
Given the fact you believe all rights come from government and given the fact our constitution was written to secure rights that are legislated AND natural, I can hardly take anything you say regarding justice seriously.
My question is, why is government in the business of getting involved in what used to be and should still be a private contract between 2 individuals?
You are compromising that contract when you let the 3rd party in and have any say about it’s conditions.
I agree that she should not do anything that she finds morally repugnant as part of her job, but why does she think that the state is God and can marry people in ANY case?
Sure Lisa, As far as I’m concerned anyone who breaks the law should face the consequences. The executive branch accumulates power as long as the legislative branch allows it. There are too many members of Congress who are either weak, or who actually prefer that power accumulate the way it does.
No bankers in jail, no warmongers in jail, only dopers and poor people who couldn’t get good enough representations to get probation.
Olly
Spot on. The fact that she digs her heals in and transfers her religious beliefs through her office illustrates that she is more interested in self empowerment, for whatever reason, than doing the job for which she was elected. Davis is somewhere between ego centric to ego maniac. The President cannot and does not refuse to allow people to perform or benefit based on his religious beliefs. It has been many, many years since that sort of nonsense.
This President, past Presidents and scores of public and private officials have bent, twisted, and broken the law and their obligations. However, this is about the sacred cow of a tail that we have evolved out of having and the blatant refusal of a public official, citizen, person under the law, to do what the court orders.
“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.”
To our 3 branches of government: “YOU FIRST!”
@Steg – “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? ”
But that’s not the law of the land. The law that SCOTUS created was marriage is defined by 2 men and 2 women.
Nick,
I too am conflicted because I do not believe we check our conscience at the door when we go to work. SCOTUS ruled a new right now exists and all those government offices must now find a way to perform their “constitutional” duties without then infringing the rights of anyone else. I do not believe a law that infringes the natural rights of anyone is a just law. Our government has a duty to SECURE our rights EQUALLY and this new right does not trump others. If there truly was an interest in securing all rights equally then we wouldn’t be forcing people to resign, firing people, jailing people, fining people, forcing businesses to close as a means of securing this new right. If the only option for enforcement of a law is to jail someone that refuses to violate their constitutionally protected right of conscience then it’s not the right that needs to change, it’s the law itself.
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 without congressional approval and sold guns to Libya! By your standards, that includes Obama.
Let’s not forget Bill Clinton who shot cruise missiles in a baby formula factory in Pakistan. Shouldn’t he also be charged with war crimes!
The joys of iPhone – reposted