• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kentucky Clerk denies same-sex couple marriage license for the third time

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
fatigues_gasolini said:
I thought the last time they directed people to their lawyers, who were some religious group. They may be holding steadfast with their dear leader or have been directed to close ranks and not know any better.
Click to expand...

BigDes said:
The deputies might be as batshit crazy as the clerk.
Click to expand...

I hadn't really considered the possibility that everyone working in the office is on-board with this appeal strategy, but that makes sense, I guess. It's just weird that everyone in this office and no one in any other clerk's office anywhere in the country including places more conservative than Kentucky were this obstinate about it. You know what I mean?
 
B

BigDes

Member
Stumpokapow said:
I hadn't really considered the possibility that everyone working in the office is on-board with this appeal strategy, but that makes sense, I guess. It's just weird that everyone in this office and no one in any other clerk's office anywhere in the country including places more conservative than Kentucky were this obstinate about it. You know what I mean?
Click to expand...

Well it might not be everyone in the office, just the few with the power to issue a marriage license.

Which unfortunately is enough to cause harm
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I know why the guys just don't go and get married elsewhere; they want to get married at home. I can completely empathize, as Jindal made us wait a while, too. There's something special about getting married in one's home town.

We all know how this ends. These guys are going to eventually win, even if they have to go through SCOTUS again (though I'm guessing cert denial after the 6th rules).

Since we're on the topic, I would like to know what the presidential candidates think on this issue.. 😇
 
RPGCrazied

RPGCrazied

Member
Well, they are breaking the law. I mean it is legal now in every state. I think its time to start suing these people that deny marrying gay people.
 
A

Aselith

Member
Just saw this story what an incredibly horrible thing to do to people. Step down for religious objections or do your job as the government.

I think this part especially crappy because many will see her as the first martyr of the United States' war on religious freedoms:

The judge could then order hefty fines or even put her in jail until she complies with the order.
Click to expand...
 
C

CTLance

Member
So apparently not doing your job and depriving others of various benefits, making them feel like shit and wasting their time is a misdemeanour. Kinda getting off lightly, there.

A maximum of twelve months jail time for one, ninety days for the other charge. Plus some pocket change. Not really all that frightening to be honest.

But hey, at least something's happening. Hooray!
 
S

Sir Abacus

Member
Random Painted HIghway said:
Can't fire an elected official. You can jail them for contempt.
Click to expand...

Alavard said:
If I'm not mistaken, this position is an elected one. Which means you'd need to go through a recall mechanism. Same as a Mayor.
Click to expand...

squall211 said:
The clerk could very well be an elected position. You'd have to vote them out I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

Elected officials that refuse to do their job can be removed by impeachment by the state legislature. But good luck finding enough politicians in Kentucky that want to stand up for gay marriage.
 
A

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8054238

I read this yesterday. I'm guessing you have some outside money pushing this agenda.

If the Supreme Court denies Kim Davis's stay the ball is back in a federal judge's court. Because she is an elected official, only the legislature can remove her in an impeachment, which no one expects to happen. But Daniel J. Canon, one of the attorneys for the couples who filed suit to get their marriage licenses, told me that "she could be removed if she were criminally prosecuted for something," which would mean the judge finding her in contempt of his order and possibly even sending her to jail (as unlikely as that might be).
That is exactly what Davis -- and the Republican Party -- would relish. At the rally over the weekend, Matt Bevin, a Republican running for the Kentucky governorship, cheered the crowd on, telling them that "religious liberties are being oppressed," and clearly seeing the issue as a great one for his campaign.

And that is true of the GOP presidential candidates, desperate to find issues to galvanize religious conservatives. "Religious liberty" is a term Jeb Bush has invoked several times in the context of gay rights, and Ted Cruz has been stoking the issue for months, claiming Christians are under attack. As I've written in weeks past, it's clear that the issue is being carefully developed by GOP leaders in Congress as a campaign issue to energize evangelical voters. A bill introduced by Republicans in the House and the Senate earlier in the year, the First Amendment Defense Act, proposes, among other things, to exempt people like Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

So, she wants to be a martyr?
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
Stumpokapow said:
I hadn't really considered the possibility that everyone working in the office is on-board with this appeal strategy, but that makes sense, I guess. It's just weird that everyone in this office and no one in any other clerk's office anywhere in the country including places more conservative than Kentucky were this obstinate about it. You know what I mean?
Click to expand...

I think it actually makes sense. "I'm willing to break the law to deny this," is an extreme viewpoint. Maybe <= 5% of people share it? So the probability of ALL the people in an office of say 20 having this viewpoint is something much less, 0.05^20. (although there's a wrinkle that the person doing the hiring is more likely to hire people with the same views, so they're not statistically independent). There are only 3143 counties in the US, so it's not unreasonable that only one has a county clerk's office made up entirely of people who are batshit crazy.
 
D

Diablos

Member
I wonder if this will lead to a SCOTUS ruling where, in effect, a. gay marriage is still legal nationwide but b. marriages can be denied by certain persons if they state it goes their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. So long as a state still generally adheres to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, people such as this KY clerk may still abstain from doing so, but it would have to be on an individual basis (i.e. a state or county as a whole cannot take a position of outright opposition to same-sex marriage); meaning, someone else would have to grant the license on the clerk's behalf if she is against it, mandated by such a ruling.
 
W

Wereroku

Member
NobleXenon said:
Fine the county $25,000 a day every day until compliance. Bleed these Red Counties/States dry.
Click to expand...

The county is trying to do something it's the state that won't impeach her. Fine the state and you might see things start to happen.

Diablos said:
I wonder if this will lead to a SCOTUS ruling where, in effect, a. gay marriage is still legal nationwide but b. marriages can be denied by certain persons if they state it goes their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. So long as a state still generally adheres to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, people such as this KY clerk may still abstain from doing so, but it would have to be on an individual basis (i.e. a state or county as a whole cannot take a position of outright opposition to same-sex marriage); meaning, someone else would have to grant the license on the clerk's behalf if she is against it, mandated by such a ruling.
Click to expand...

That would be a shit move. The elected position is non religious and shouldn't protect someones beliefs. Any future candidate will be running for the office with the full knowledge that they will be marrying gay couples.
 
S

Sir Abacus

Member
What religious people don't seem to get is that as soon as you're a government employee you're a state actor. You effectively become the state while you're on the clock. This means that you are restricted by the constitution, specifically the first amendment, that also restricts the federal government from fucking with religion.

You don't lose your first amendment protections. You can pray to whatever god you feel like. You just can't force your religion on other people on the clock and the government's dime.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Diablos said:
I wonder if this will lead to a SCOTUS ruling where, in effect, a. gay marriage is still legal nationwide but b. marriages can be denied by certain persons if they state it goes their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. So long as a state still generally adheres to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, people such as this KY clerk may still abstain from doing so, but it would have to be on an individual basis (i.e. a state or county as a whole cannot take a position of outright opposition to same-sex marriage); meaning, someone else would have to grant the license on the clerk's behalf if she is against it, mandated by such a ruling.
Click to expand...

Nope. The clerk's job is to certify the authenticity of the document, not "support" the actions the document causes. Their religious views are not being infringed.

ex: Notary publics put their name on stuff all the time that they don't personally agree with - but a notary stamp isn't "Jim McNotes supports the views of this contract", just "Jim McNotes has verified that the involved parties agree the piece of paper was what it looked liked when stamped, and that I've seen it with my own eyes"
 
D

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Diablos said:
I wonder if this will lead to a SCOTUS ruling where, in effect, a. gay marriage is still legal nationwide but b. marriages can be denied by certain persons if they state it goes their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. So long as a state still generally adheres to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, people such as this KY clerk may still abstain from doing so, but it would have to be on an individual basis (i.e. a state or county as a whole cannot take a position of outright opposition to same-sex marriage); meaning, someone else would have to grant the license on the clerk's behalf if she is against it, mandated by such a ruling.
Click to expand...

This woman is a public official, she was elected to do a job, and she refuses to do it. I'd put this on a far different level than the stories about bakers refusing to bake a cake. This seems far, far worse.
 
S

Sir Abacus

Member
What if it was a Catholic that wouldn't issue licenses because one of the couple had been previously divorced?

This is literally why the first amendment exists. To restrain government officials from injecting their religious beliefs into a secular process.
 
P

PhoncipleBone

Banned
Since she is seeking "asylum for her conscience" from SCOTUS, if it does go all the way to a case there it opens up a huge can of worms. Suddenly you will have clerks and others across the country trying to get the marriages they issued overturned since they were probably issued "against their will."
It would just make it easier for discrimination and prejudice to occur under the guise of religious freedom.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Looks like they are trying to fire her, but you know as soon as they do the Christian Right is going to get into some uproar about being prosecuted, again.

A Kentucky county clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite this summer&#8217;s Supreme Court ruling that such marriages are a civil right is now asking the high court to cut her a break.

Attorneys for Rowan County clerk Kim Davis are petitioning the Supreme Court for an emergency order protecting her from being fired until her lawsuit against Gov. Steve Beshear (D) is resolved. Earlier Friday, the Rowan County Attorney formally requested that the state government charge Davis with misconduct, the first step in ousting her from her post.

Davis&#8217; core argument is that granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple would violate her religious beliefs. Since this summer&#8217;s high court ruling on marriage makes it illegal to grant licenses to heterosexual couples while denying them to same-sex couples, Davis is simply refusing to issue them to anyone &#8212; and appealing every court decision that goes against her, perhaps in hopes of putting her religious liberty argument before the country&#8217;s ultimate legal arbiter.
Click to expand...

In previous lower court rulings, Davis has suggested that same-sex couples can either go to a neighboring county or seek the signature of a different Rowan County official. She has also suggested that the state could change the law about marriage license signatures, removing the requirement that she sign her name to couples she finds sinful. The lower-court judge has rejected all three arguments.
Click to expand...

Just fire the bitch. Honestly, she's wasting everyone's time and money.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wilsongt said:
Looks like they are trying to fire her, but you know as soon as they do the Christian Right is going to get into some uproar about being prosecuted, again.



Just fire the bitch. Honestly, she's wasting everyone's time and money.
Click to expand...

Religious beliefs should never get in the way of a governmental worker's duties. If the job goes against your beliefs, find a different job.
 
A

Aselith

Member
Diablos said:
I wonder if this will lead to a SCOTUS ruling where, in effect, a. gay marriage is still legal nationwide but b. marriages can be denied by certain persons if they state it goes their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. So long as a state still generally adheres to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, people such as this KY clerk may still abstain from doing so, but it would have to be on an individual basis (i.e. a state or county as a whole cannot take a position of outright opposition to same-sex marriage); meaning, someone else would have to grant the license on the clerk's behalf if she is against it, mandated by such a ruling.
Click to expand...

It will not. They're acting as agents of the government not as individual citizens. It doesn't matter what their sincerely held beliefs are if the task falls within their job responsibilties. An agent of the governement cannot act against the rule of law just because of a personal belief.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
gaugebozo said:
I think it actually makes sense. "I'm willing to break the law to deny this," is an extreme viewpoint. Maybe <= 5% of people share it? So the probability of ALL the people in an office of say 20 having this viewpoint is something much less, 0.05^20. (although there's a wrinkle that the person doing the hiring is more likely to hire people with the same views, so they're not statistically independent). There are only 3143 counties in the US, so it's not unreasonable that only one has a county clerk's office made up entirely of people who are batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

You almost got there. Your initial argument is wrong, but I think you can save it and thinking about it made me feel like this makes a little more sense than I originally thought.

Accepting your assumptions, to model the overall probability in America, we treat each county as a "trial". We run 3143 trials, and we wish to know what the probability of at least one "success" (i.e. presence of a county that satisfies our requirement) is, when the probability of success in an individual trial is (0.05^20). So the probability of failure in a trial is (1-(0.05)^20). The probability of the joint failure of all 3143 independent trials is (1-(0.05)^20)^3143. The probability of at least one success is 1 - P(failure). The probability of this occurring is thus 1-((1-(0.05)^20)^3143), which equals 2.9 * 10^-23--in other words, approximately 0.

But, let's attempt to model people hiring people with similar viewpoints, which you allude to but don't model. The first "employee" of the office is selected at random from the population (p=0.05 of wanting to die on the sword here). We assume that this employee has hiring power. Assume that if this employee is, like Davis, willing to do this, then she has a 80% chance of hiring someone else willing to do it with each hire. Ergo, the probability of having an office where everyone agrees is much higher; 0.05*(0.8^19) or 0.0007205759404. We would expect 1 in every 1387 counties to put up this kind of protest--so around 2.26 counties in the US. The probability of at least one county doing this in the US would be: 1-((1-(0.05*(0.8)^19))^3143)... about 90%.
 
C

CTLance

Member
statham said:
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/kentucky-same-sex-marriage/

Fantastic.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's great!

Now, who do I cheer for. The couple, for finally getting what they want, or her, so that we can experience her implosion and subsequent public tarring and feathering. I mean, I kinda hope she will stay stupid and stubborn, if only so that she can be ousted from her position. Then again, that poor couple has had enough stress and humiliation for a lifetime, so...
 
D

draetenth

Member
CTLance said:
Wow, that's great!

Now, who do I cheer for. The couple, for finally getting what they want, or her, so that we can experience her implosion and subsequent public tarring and feathering. I mean, I kinda hope she will stay stupid and stubborn, if only so that she can be ousted from her position. Then again, that poor couple has had enough stress and humiliation for a lifetime, so...
Click to expand...

Root for the couple. I think the Christian right-wing will just make the lady into a martyr (see the support the anti-gay bakers got).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Couple has ‘real feelings’ for $7K sex robot that saved their marriage
2
63
5K
RAL1992 replied
Homophobe Kim Davis in Romania to help ban gay marriage
2
50
7K
geomon replied
Lesbian couple win $10,000 damages from county clerk who called them an ‘abomination’
17
3K
hydrophilic attack replied
  • Locked
Texas Senate OKs bill setting new rules when clerks refuse to issue same-sex marriage
2
53
6K
Ithil replied
  • Locked
Kentucky changes law so Kim Davis doesn't have to sign marriage licenses
39
4K
BeardyChan replied
Top Bottom