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.
Karen,
Yes she can be compelled to fulfill her legal duties through a writ of mandamus, but she’s also entitled to reasonable accommodation under Title VII.
Having her name removed from the marriage certificates by replacing it with “office of the county clerk” is not an unreasonable request.
Bob Stone,
Was the law deregulated under Loving V. Virginia? Or Brown V Board of Education?
Why is it ‘deregulated’ when a minority gains equality with you?
What is the procedure from removing her from office? Is hers an elected or appointed position? I am curious what the next steps are.
Max,
Seeing I’ve already addressed the arguments you’re repeating; I suggest you take a remedial reading course.
Bob Stone,
Deregulation… Best LOL of the day. Deregulation… Hahahahahaha… catching breath… HA!
I have long thought that there is no real reason for marriage laws, hence no need for a marriage certificate. I would just get rid of marriage licences.
“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.”
She should have resigned. She is not a small business owner refusing to bake a cake, where people can just vote with their wallets to go elsewhere. She’s the county clerk. She took the job swearing an oath to uphold the state constitution, and now she does not want to do that. That’s fine. She has the right to resign her position and seek another political office in which her beliefs will not interfere, or find another job.
Bob Stone,
Her religion or our Laws… pick and choose wisely.
She’s an ‘elected official’. Know what you defend.
Issuing MARRIAGE LICENSES is part of her job duty… Olly, pay attention.
Even the marriage licenses from Rowan County do NOT stipulate sex.
Get a clue.
Bob Stone,
Remember Black Lives Matter and the meme, “If these young men would just obey the law”?
Yep, truer words have yet to be spoken about Kim Davis. Follow the law, Kim.
If issuing SSM licenses were part of her job description when she took the oath then she would have little to argue about. For all those “majority” rules folks, does the majority in her county even support her on this issue? Would she have even ran for the office?
Max,
Delegation is not a recusal. Stop making noise and start attempting to comprehend the problem.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/11/n-c-legislature-overrides-veto-allows-government-employees-to-not-do-gay-marriages/
Annie,
She’s like that Souther voter registrar that refused to allow blacks their vote…
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sr8mFq_hQiY/VevYDH5EFfI/AAAAAAAAFNc/JV6vt6g6Jis/s400/Isis%2Band%2BKim%2BDavis.JPG
http://imgick.al.com/home/bama-media/width960/img/alphotos/photo/2013/06/-f55daa5dd789ed0f.JPG
Davis resembles this guy far more than she does MLK.
And the job changed after she was elected to it. So it is not like she knew what she was getting into.
Because…
https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/640258516859510784
Darren – if you said her job required her to select those members of the community to be eliminated by firing squad, would it ‘still just be the job.’? Thought we got past that with the Nuremberg Trials.
Bob Stone
“Nonetheless, Kim Davis is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the first amendment and there’s nothing wrong with providing such.”
= = =
Um, Bob, when she was called before the Judge and given the accommodation, “Would you allow your other clerks in your office to issue”… IT WAS KIM THAT REFUSED TO ALLOW THEM! Ergo, she’s now being accommodated from behind bars.
bfm
“What does a good conservative, religious fundamentalist get for a speech these days?”
= = =
Depends on how much work has to be performed. It’s like the sex industry…
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
Darren,
Your argument is bereft of principle.
Failure of a city official to carry out his/her lawful duty shall now result in imprisonment?
Granted that state officials lack the capacity to pick and choose which laws they will follow since they are not higher authorities than the laws themselves. Thus, Kim Davis can be compelled to fulfill her lawful duty under a writ of mandamus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
Nonetheless, Kim Davis is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the first amendment and there’s nothing wrong with providing such.
to wit: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/11/n-c-legislature-overrides-veto-allows-government-employees-to-not-do-gay-marriages/
And yet rather than simply allowing the Clerk to recuse herself and remove her name from marriage licenses by replacing it with the name of the office, you and your ilk are delighting in making an example of her in the name of a principle which you do not adhere to.
Where were the demands for strict formalism and merciless “justice” from liberals on these issues:
*”a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down a business such as Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage.
*entire cities across this country ignoring immigration laws; simply because they don’t like them and wish to create sanctuaries from law.
*And when Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, there were no calls to jail those officials who refused to enforce the law.
In fact, not one elected official was hauled off to jail for any of those stands. And yet, those officials were subject to the same exact obligation as Kim Davis.
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves; if such were possible.