KY County Clerk could be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses

[jeager106]

Don't think she should serve jail time. When they lock up all the Bishops, Cardinals and the rest of the clergy who 'knew' and covered up the sexual molestation cases of the priests they presided over, then maybe....but, there are far worse situations where no one serves jail time, but she should lose her job. That should be a given. Sometimes, I wonder if people like her though will just pull stunts like this to gain attention for themselves. Hard to say.

Why is this act on her part a "stunt"?
Who are you to indicate she isn't a person of strong religious
conviction??????
You are being quickly presumptuous of someone you don't know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why is this act on her part a "stunt"?
Who are you to indicate she isn't a person of strong religious
conviction??????
You are being quickly presumptuous of someone you don't know.

I agree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean you tell others not to do what you have done.

That is the very definition of hypocrisy. She wants to refuse marriage certificates to homosexual couples, yet she herself has violated the very laws she claims to uphold by having four marriages. According the "authority" she is acting on behalf of, she should have never remarried, or she should have been stoned (not too mention that in the picture of her she was probably wearing mixed fabrics). She is a hypocrite.

She isn't a hypocrite for simply holding to her beliefs in this way.

What makes her a hypocrite is saying "I don't have to do this because I am acting on behalf of God's authority," when in fact she herself has so crudely violated the same laws of the same God. If she wants to deny homosexual marriage because of "God's authority," then she should perhaps take a moment to consider how her second, third, and fourth marriage also are a violation of God's law.
Stone her!....say's the Bible.

At this point the vote is Yes 26, No 0. That would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. Not bad ...

For someone I have describe to the noobs here as a grumpy old man, it seems something that I agree full-heartedly with you on two back-to-back posts. But, it is not bad that, as of now there are 27 yes and 0 no, I find that number to be rather dishonest, as obviously some members have not been voting.

 

[Cephus]

According to the judge, a fine will not be as strong of a message as jail that oaths mean something. But, I have to agree, jail time is not suitable. It isn't a violent offense, there is no reason she should be separated from the public, thus jail time does not seem appropriate. I think impeaching her would be more than a sufficient punishment, as that alone shows that oath breakers will not be tolerated.

The only reason she is getting jail time is because a fine wouldn't hurt her a bit, there are people already lined up to pay her fine for her. They cannot go to jail for her.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be blunt, obviously some ovy all haven't been voting and this poll, I know for a fact, is not representative of what we have here.
If that lonely kid who kept to herself reading books while in high school can vote, I know y'all can vote on the options. There has never been such a one-sided vote, so y'all should start voting, except for the 27 who votes yes...which lets be honest now, it can probably be deduced who thinks yes and who thinks no by this point in time.
Go vote, dammit! LOL!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only reason she is getting jail time is because a fine wouldn't hurt her a bit, there are people already lined up to pay her fine for her. They cannot go to jail for her.

While that is true, she does not seem to pose a threat to anyone, or herself, so why should she be set aside, put away, and housed in a place where we keep those who we don't want to be around others because they pose a serious risk to the well being of others?
Jail time is excessive. She didn't cause physical harm to another, she didn't steal from anyone, she didn't even pretend to hex the marriage, and she did not put anyone -anyone else or herself - at any risk of damage or harm. Removing her from office and making sure she will never serve in another public office again, as well as those who would put their faith before the public, would be sufficient.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

That is the very definition of hypocrisy. She wants to refuse marriage certificates to homosexual couples, yet she herself has violated the very laws she claims to uphold by having four marriages. According the "authority" she is acting on behalf of, she should have never remarried, or she should have been stoned (not too mention that in the picture of her she was probably wearing mixed fabrics). She is a hypocrite.

Wrong. Notice I used the past tense. It is hypocritical, often, to tell people not to do what you are doing, but not necessarily what you have done. Can someone who drove drunk and killed someone never give a talk to teenagers on the dangers of drink driving? It would be hypocritical to look down on others, or to hide what you have done, or to keep doing it, but just because you have sinned, it doesn't mean you can never stand up for your moral views.

Besides, as others have said, it isn't necessarily the case that believing in the legitimacy of divorce means you have to believe that marriage should not be between a man and a woman.

What makes her a hypocrite is saying "I don't have to do this because I am acting on behalf of God's authority," when in fact she herself has so crudely violated the same laws of the same God. If she wants to deny homosexual marriage because of "God's authority," then she should perhaps take a moment to consider how her second, third, and fourth marriage also are a violation of God's law.
Stone her!....say's the Bible.

The stone her bit is your caricature of Christian teaching. I'm not sure how it helps actually discovering if she is a hypocrite. Some would do well to look harder at the motes in their own eyes.

I don't see why someone who has done wrong - and she apparently did it before her conversion - cannot then stand up for her beliefs if she is forced to in her position of authority.

I will say that those baying for this woman's blood who support sanctuary cities or the legalised cannabis of certain states strike will me as hypocrites, unless they can make a very good argument to the contrary.

For someone I have describe to the noobs here as a grumpy old man, it seems something that I agree full-heartedly with you on two back-to-back posts. But, it is not bad that, as of now there are 27 yes and 0 no, I find that number to be rather dishonest, as obviously some members have not been voting.

I haven't voted, but I believe she should be held in contempt. But this has little do with my views on SSM. I don't believe in SSM and agree with the two dissenting opinions of the US Supreme Court in the recent decision. I'm even sympathetic to a degree with this woman. But in the end the rule of law needs to be upheld. She should be punished.

 

[jeager106]

I voted "no" but only because the "no" column looked so bare
and lonesome.
( Kim is obviously in Contempt of Court.)

 

[columbus]

Removing her from office and making sure she will never serve in another public office again,

It has been pointed out several times, but I'll repeat it.
You can't fire an elected official. It is just not legally doable. And the judge has no way to discipline her except jail. Any fines would just get paid by her many supporters.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong. Notice I used the past tense. It is hypocritical, often, to tell people not to do what you are doing, but not necessarily what you have done.

She is literally saying she will not sign the marriage certificates of homosexual couples, even though she herself has been married multiple times, which is a violation of the same law she claims to be standing for. Why does she not set an example, divorce, and preach the wrongness of her own ways rather than condemn the ways of others? She is literally saying 'my own marriage, which violates God's will, is none of your concern, while these marriages, which violates God's will, is a concern of mine."

Can someone who drove drunk and killed someone never give a talk to teenagers on the dangers of drink driving?

They would be in a better position to speak out against it. I've never drove drunk, I've never killed anyone, so I cannot speak with the authenticity and soul tormenting pains of having killed someone while I was drunk driving and killed someone.

Besides, as others have said, it isn't necessarily the case that believing in the legitimacy of divorce means you have to believe that marriage should not be between a man and a woman.

That is irrevlavent. She claims to act on "God's authority," yet she contradicts that same authority and the same laws by having multiple marriages herself. She is literally saying "my own shortcomings do not matter, but yours do." She is divorced. According to the laws she claims to be standing up for, she should never remarry, and if she does, she should be stoned. That is the law she claims to be standing for.

The stone her bit is your caricature of Christian teaching. I'm not sure how it helps actually discovering if she is a hypocrite. Some would do well to look harder at the motes in their own eyes.

It isn't a caricature. Many Christians believe OT and Paul are worthy of upholding as law. Clearly this woman does. She should be stoned for her abominable acts of remarriage, but not just one time remarrying, but three times she has been remarried. By her own laws, she should be put to death.

I don't see why someone who has done wrong - and she apparently did it before her conversion - cannot then stand up for her beliefs if she is forced to in her position of authority.

She is/was an elected official. She swore to uphold Constitutional law. She failed to uphold this law. Not only that, she stood defiant of this law by refusing same-sex marriage certificates. That is what this whole thing is about. She refused to uphold the oath that she took. She is an oath breaker. She failed to uphold this oath. She took an oath that she failed to uphold. She gave her word to uphold this oath, but apparently her word is more worthless than the dead skin cells I walk upon.

I will say that those baying for this woman's blood who support sanctuary cities or the legalised cannabis of certain states strike will me as hypocrites, unless they can make a very good argument to the contrary.

Who is "baying for this woman's bloood?" What does pot have to do with this? (Nothing, in case you are wondering) She took an oath, she failed to uphold this oath. Normally, this is something I would praise (I do actually give her credit for standing on principle), but because she is demanding that others be held to her own private religious beliefs, she is lower than the occasional pile of dog **** I step on. Not everyone believes as her, this is obvious. There are no laws in America that state others should be held to her own private religious views.

I voted "no" but only because the "no" column looked so bare
and lonesome.

Or did you vote because people have mentioned the rather peculiar of a 100% yes? I can't say. I don't know. But I can say that it does seem suspicious that someone votes "yes" only after it has been pointed out.

It has been pointed out several times, but I'll repeat it.
You can't fire an elected official. It is just not legally doable. And the judge has no way to discipline her except jail. Any fines would just get paid by her many supporters.
Tom

That is why she must be removed from office, and it must be stated that personal religious views interfering with the law will not be tolerated. JFC, I would get nowhere if I claimed pot was a part of my religion, so just ignore any positive drug tests because the Lord says I should partake in that sacrament, and this view should be upheld consistently. She is not violent. She is not a threat. Remove her from office, send a message that oath breakers will not be tolerated, and save some jail space for the criminals that do pose a threat to the general public.

 

[columbus]

That is why she must be removed from office,

By who?
The impeachment process is very complex and long. And it might not work if she has enough supporters. She does have a lot of them.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

While that is true, she does not seem to pose a threat to anyone, or herself, so why should she be set aside, put away, and housed in a place where we keep those who we don't want to be around others because they pose a serious risk to the well being of others?
Jail time is excessive. She didn't cause physical harm to another, she didn't steal from anyone, she didn't even pretend to hex the marriage, and she did not put anyone -anyone else or herself - at any risk of damage or harm. Removing her from office and making sure she will never serve in another public office again, as well as those who would put their faith before the public, would be sufficient.

This isn't about physical harm, this is about punishment. It is the only form of punishment that is applicable in this situation. Once she resigns from her office, she will be let out. Nobody can fire her. She has to resign.

 

[suncowiam]

Her sins don't matter. People have some very strange idea about hypocrisy means, even some hypocritical ideas. Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean you tell others not to do what you have done. It means you hide what you have done or hold yourself higher than others for what you have done. She isn't a hypocrite for simply holding to her beliefs in this way.

But she is breaking the law, though so are those who refuse to enforce other federal laws and provisions, from immigration to marijuana, so she shouldn't be singled out.

Let's play the definition game, why don't we?
hy·poc·ri·sy
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Actually, I don't see how your definition comes close to this. You can define your own meanings but declaring others as strange is quite misleading as you did not correctly rebase the meaning.

She is a hypocrite in the sense that she did not obey all of gods commands. Yet she easily commands others to do so. Uhm, what part of that is hard to comprehend concerning hypocrisy?

 

[Skwim]

This isn't about physical harm, this is about punishment. It is the only form of punishment that is applicable in this situation. Once she resigns from her office, she will be let out. Nobody can fire her. She has to resign.

Well, there are other possibilities.

"The Kentucky Legislature could impeach her, The New York Times reported, but that seems unlikely given the fact that each party controls one chamber. In fact, to illustrate the implausibility of such an outcome, the president of Kentucky’s Republican-controlled state Senate added his voice to the chorus of Davis’ supporters on Wednesday evening, saying that the concept of marriage as between a man and a woman “is so interwoven” into Kentucky law that Davis “cannot reasonably determine her duties” until the law is clarified.

Another option would be to charge Davis with official misconduct, a misdemeanor that could result in a court order removing her. The office of the state’s Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway, who is running for governor, said it was looking into the matter, according to the Times."
source
​

My money's on misconduct.

.....................Hang in there Kim.
.........I think you've found your calling ​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This isn't about physical harm, this is about punishment. It is the only form of punishment that is applicable in this situation. Once she resigns from her office, she will be let out. Nobody can fire her. She has to resign.

An impeachment is the first step in firing her. Granted it would be outside of the power and reach of the voters, but she poses zero threat as a danger to anyone, so I do not see the justification in locking her up in jail. Fines would be paid for by those who are sympathetic, most likely, but no matter how you look at it she does not deserve jail time. She is not dangerous and she is not a threat. Oaths mean something, but being confined should be reserved for those who are dangerous. She did break her oath - an oath to uphold constitutional law - but her breaking that oath is putting no one in danger. She should be punished. She should face some consequences of her failure to uphold her oath. However, jailing her and reducing her to a "common criminal" is not the answer. The very fact that this incident became such a huge event on its own merit speaks volumes for the way the judges, even from conservative states, take their oaths. The message has already been sent - don't break your oaths. Removal from office sends a clear message. However, to send her to jail, a place that ideally would only house those who pose a risk to others, is excessive. Maybe send her to remedial Sunday School, definitely make sure she can not serve in any public office, but why jail? I can see no reason why she should be separated, and further more put on display in such a manner, just because she stood on her religious convictions. Overall, it really does nothing more than to reinforce the "doomsday" scenario that many churches go on about because here is a clear example of someone going to jail for standing on her Christian convictions. The punishment just does not seem to equal the offense. She isn't "crazy," she isn't a danger, she isn't a threat, thus there is no valid reason to send her to jail to separate her from the general public for the benefit/protection of the general public. Remedial courses in ethics and government, yes, but why send her to a place that is best suited for rapists, murderers, thieves, and other violent offenders?

 

[ChristineES]

I just got a civics lesson. I should have paid more attention in Civics class in high school. There isn't any law for that woman to break. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, only congress makes laws. All the Supreme Court did was make a ruling.

 

[JoStories]

Agreed. It's so ironic too that she has been divorced 3 times.

If the woman is not Catholic, does it matter to the protestant faith? I see so many of that faith that are more lax in the tenets. Just wondering here.

 

[JoStories]

Divorce does not negate that a true marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Sometimes it doesn't work out. She should be commended that she kept trying despite it not working out for her in the past.

I would say that the legal system of Kentucky disagrees with you since, if I am not mistaken, she is in jail. She has done nothing to be commended for.

 

[JoStories]

Not only a bigot but a hypocrite concerning her marriages. Even the Westboro church dinged her on her past marriages.

I guess all is forgiven when you repent and born again. That gives her the right to condemn others that have not. I get the logic now.

This is the part about the Christian faith that really gets me. That one can commit any type of 'sin' including murder and once one accepts this born again nonsense, they get a free pass. Why not just do anything one wants an entire lifetime and then right before death, convert or accept, etc. Its free range hedonism with a twist.

 

[Sees]

This is the part about the Christian faith that really gets me. That one can commit any type of 'sin' including murder and once one accepts this born again nonsense, they get a free pass. Why not just do anything one wants an entire lifetime and then right before death, convert or accept, etc. Its free range hedonism with a twist.

Assuming in that Christian's theology God is a very gullible/stupid salvation robot. I don't think most intelligent Christians see it like that.