Kentucky clerk refused have same sex marriages license!

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlleyCat said:
You've got to be kidding me. Lusting over punishing a woman who deliberately violates a Supreme Court ruling? One that is an elected public servant bound to follow laws? And deliberately prevents the rest of her office from following the law? Contempt is fitting. Maybe you don't see that in Canada.
Click to expand...

punishment must fit the crime, as fairness is a facaulty of justice.

Im asking why the lust to continue to punish her, as the issue is resolved. She was not charged with a crime, nor convicted of one. She was held in contempt, and if you looked it up there is a legal difference that is clear.

If we wish to still punish her, then at least charge her with a crime, let her have her day in court,
Or is that no longer good enough?
 
Jezie said:
What about her rights?
Click to expand...

She need to find a job that can she exercise her rights while not forcing it onto other people . Live and let live ! I had to take care of people that were racist when I was a health aide , my client had a right to say what they wanted about Black people in their own home. I had to put up with it or find another job . My daughter is Black and so are my 2 sisters husbands and kids . I was not allow to call my clients a racist and I still had to wash their butts for them . I had to put aside my feeling and beliefs as a health aide and they're just as importance to me as Kim Davis beliefs are.
 
hoichi said:
punishment must fit the crime, as fairness is a facaulty of justice.

Im asking why the lust to continue to punish her, as the issue is resolved. She was not charged with a crime, nor convicted of one. She was held in contempt, and if you looked it up there is a legal difference that is clear.

If we wish to still punish her, then at least charge her with a crime, let her have her day in court,
Or is that no longer good enough?
Click to expand...


How was it resolved? Nothing was changed as far as the courts changing out her name on the marriage certificate. So she will either go back to work and accept it, or still refuse. The judge has said he'll throw her back in jail if that happens. So what was resolved, in her eyes? P.s she was charged with contempt.
 
Contempt of court - disregard the judge's order.

No crime committed, she defied the judge's order by refusing to give marriage license to GLBT couple.
 
AlleyCat said:
How was it resolved? Nothing was changed as far as the courts changing out her name on the marriage certificate. So she will either go back to work and accept it, or still refuse. The judge has said he'll throw her back in jail if that happens. So what was resolved, in her eyes? P.s she was charged with contempt.
Click to expand...

It has been resolved
Lisences are being issued=win
She has aggreed not to intervere=win (this is what the plm was, why she was held in contempt, once the paperwork for marrige has been issued, and she doesnt interfere, then there is no longer any contempt, hence her release)

P.s. She was charged with contempt, but in legalese contempt is not the same as being charged with a crime, nor convicted of one..."-)

The issue here for the judge was her behavoure, once contempt was issued and the office proceeded to issue the lisenses and her word given she wouldnt interfere..the issue has been resolved...as it stands

Unless she decides to renege, then so be it..until then the issue is resolved, i fail to see any valid reason to continue to punish her...or incarcerate her, neither does the judge.
If she has commited a crime, then have her charged and have her day in court.
 
Licenses were issued WHILE she was in jail. Because the judge ordered it so. She has not returned to work yet.

Sigh.
 
That will be the key- What will happen when she goes back to work?

Can't help but wonder if she will still think of a way to prevent her office from issuing them. I hope not and that Ms Davis fades into obscurity.
 
Oath Keepers are going to protect her from re-arresting by US Marshals.

Good luck with ATF and FBI. :aw:
 
AlleyCat said:
Licenses were issued WHILE she was in jail. Because the judge ordered it so. She has not returned to work yet.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Im not sure what the plm here in understanding eachother is
Sigh
Im going to go on a limb here. And ask a couple of simple questions to aid in an attempt at understanding
What was the fundimental issue in this case? Or more pointed why was she found in contempt? As in what was she refusing to do? And what was she doing?
 
DeafDucky said:
That will be the key- What will happen when she goes back to work?

Can't help but wonder if she will still think of a way to prevent her office from issuing them. I hope not and that Ms Davis fades into obscurity.
Click to expand...

Well, anyone can renege on their word to a judge and suffer the consequences.
But if she keeps her word, what is the plm then?
 
Foxrac said:
They could arrested or be shot for interfere with federal agents.

It is not okay to ignore the court system.
Click to expand...

But I thought it was a felony to made threats at anyone in the government , Oath Keepers made threat at McCain . Or is this called 'freedom of speech ' to threaten to kill a Senator ???
 
whatdidyousay! said:
But I thought it was a felony to made threats at anyone in the government , Oath Keepers made threat at McCain . Or is this called 'freedom of speech ' to threaten to kill a Senator ???
Click to expand...

You would think threatining to kill a senetor would be taken rather seriously.
If the state hasnt acted on it, its safe to assume other reasons are present, (state infiltrators, undercover agents in the groups ranks, eyes on bigger fish in the organization).
Charging over threats may not be the best long term strategy for the gov, and instead they are waiting for other actions or moves to cripple the group, rather then smacking it on the wrist.
Thats one way it can be looked at...given how incompetent the feds can be, who knows really
 
DeafDucky said:
That will be the key- What will happen when she goes back to work?

Can't help but wonder if she will still think of a way to prevent her office from issuing them. I hope not and that Ms Davis fades into obscurity.
Click to expand...


I hope so too. This was a far bigger deal than needed to be, and she made it that way.
 
Im going to go on a limb here. And ask a couple of simple questions to aid in an attempt at understanding
What was the fundimental issue in this case? Or more pointed why was she found in contempt? As in what was she refusing to do? And what was she doing?
Click to expand...
The fundamental issue---> She was refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after SCOTUS deemed the banning of gay marriage unconstitutional. She based her refusal on her own personal beliefs. She also directed everyone in her office to not issue licenses. The courts then ordered her to comply. She then tried to climb through a loophole and stopped issuing, and directed her staff to do the same, ALL marriage licenses. Ignoring the court orders was contempt of court- for that she received jail time. Supposedly she has agreed "to not interfere with the issuing of licenses"- I am assuming that while SHE herself will refuse to she will NOT interfere with her staff in doing so.

Well, anyone can renege on their word to a judge and suffer the consequences.
But if she keeps her word, what is the plm then?
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with your first statement.
I also agree that there isn't a problem if 'she keeps her word'. But I don't have a great deal of faith because she ignored them once before, what won't stop her from ignoring/defying them again? I do hope she does hold her word (as she may not like the idea of going back to jail- even though the Christian Right/Repubs (or many of them) will eat it up if she does.

Only time will tell I suppose and once she returns to work- guess on Monday?

Makes me want to say her salary ought to be reduced slightly if she is refusing to do part of her job as it is but I digress- likely not possible anyway.
 
DD, I think you explained it perfectly. Thank you.

I guess some here are going to pretend to ignore the obvious.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
But I thought it was a felony to made threats at anyone in the government , Oath Keepers made threat at McCain . Or is this called 'freedom of speech ' to threaten to kill a Senator ???
Click to expand...

Yes, only if it is credible.

Most threats are not credible.
 
[


DeafDucky said:
The fundamental issue---> She was refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after SCOTUS deemed the banning of gay marriage unconstitutional. She based her refusal on her own personal beliefs. She also directed everyone in her office to not issue licenses. The courts then ordered her to comply. She then tried to climb through a loophole and stopped issuing, and directed her staff to do the same, ALL marriage licenses. Ignoring the court orders was contempt of court- for that she received jail time. Supposedly she has agreed "to not interfere with the issuing of licenses"- I am assuming that while SHE herself will refuse to she will NOT interfere with her staff in doing so.
Click to expand...

Indeed the above is correct. So in the end unless im missing something, the issue is resolved..paperwork is bieng issued. She has given her word to the judge she wont interfere..
Until she reneges and does, i fail to see what the ongoing plm is in my posts not being understood by some, besides my typos and grammar..



DeafDucky said:
Yes I agree with your first statement.
I also agree that there isn't a problem if 'she keeps her word'. But I don't have a great deal of faith because she ignored them once before, what won't stop her from ignoring/defying them again? I do hope she does hold her word (as she may not like the idea of going back to jail- even though the Christian Right/Repubs (or many of them) will eat it up if she does.

Only time will tell I suppose and once she returns to work- guess on Monday?
Click to expand...

She never gave her word to the judge before that she wouldnt interfere then reneged, did she?
Seems its wise to me not to trust her sure, but until she actually does renege and interefere not much really the court can do. She like everyone else should be given the benifet of the doubt.

DeafDucky said:
Makes me want to say her salary ought to be reduced slightly if she is refusing to do part of her job as it is but I digress- likely not possible anyway.
Click to expand...

This makes sense. And is fair. It still respects all peoples freedom, and is still inclusive , while respecting choice, it also allows for factoring in what those choices incure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top