She's an elected official. She could have resigned, but she didn't. So she was held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the court order.
I mean imagine a Quaker refusing to issue a concealed carry permit because it violates his conscious.
She was instructed by numerous courts that she had to issue marriage licenses as part of the duties of her office. She consistently refused, ultimately ignoring even the Supreme Court. The couples that had sued her asked that she be fined, but not imprisoned. A federal judge then decided that her contempt of court was not going to be curtailed by fines, and she would be jailed, just as anyone else found in contempt of court is liable to be. She wasn't sent to jail for her beliefs (though I do find it funny that a woman who's been married four times could cite beliefs in her case), her morals, her personal code of ethics, whatever. She was sent to jail because she took an oath of office, violated that oath, ignored numerous court decisions and ultimately, repeatedly, broke the law unapologetically.
Please consider as well that she was given the option by the judge of not issuing licenses herself, but instead agreeing not to interfere with her staff when they did. She rejected that idea. Technically, the judge could keep her in jail until she either agrees to issue marriage licenses to all couples or resigns/is impeached, but I don't quite see that happening. In fact, I think that that would be incredibly excessive and border on cruel and unusual punishment. I do believe that she should spend a week or so in the clink, long enough for the court to verify that her staff is actually issuing marriage licenses as they agreed to do, then be released with the understanding that if she chooses not to resign and still refuses to issue marriage licenses or interferes with her staff's duty to do so, she goes back to jail until she's recalled, resigns or is impeached.
I am sure the persecution nuts are stoked about having a martyr.
Quote:I am sure the persecution nuts are stoked about having a martyr.
She's as much a martyr as Martha Stewart was.
Quote:She's as much a martyr as Martha Stewart was.
It's only a matter of time before the people running for prez and the conservative media machine gets rolling on how she's being persecuted for her beliefs.
Quote:It's only a matter of time before the people running for prez and the conservative media machine gets rolling on how she's being persecuted for her beliefs.
It's already happened. Huckabee made a statement to that effect, and I believe Paul has also addressed it.
But yeah, I'm waiting on baited breath for Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Santorum, Walker, Graham and Dr. Carson to jump on board the persecution train.
Quote:She's an elected official. She could have resigned, but she didn't. So she was held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the court order.
I mean imagine a Quaker refusing to issue a concealed carry permit because it violates his conscious.
Or a Muslim refusing to issue a driver's license to women. Oh the spittle that would fly.
Quote:https://gma.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-kim...ories.html
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, can we all agree that this is excessive? why not try asking her to leave her post, or move her to another department? why?
Directly to your question, she is an elected official. They can't be fired or moved only impeached.
The judge did however offer to let her go if she agreed to not interfere with her deputies who want to issue the licenses. She refused to allow the deputies to just do their jobs.
Good she's been instructed by numerous authorities her religious beliefs can not interfere with her public work. She doesn't want to give gay marriage certificates fine give up that cushy state job and join the rest of us in the private sector.
Quote:Good she's been instructed by numerous authorities her religious beliefs can not interfere with her public work. She doesn't want to give gay marriage certificates fine give up that cushy state job and join the rest of us in the private sector.
No, this is a state's rights issue. The people of that area elelcted her to serve them, not the 9 Oligarchs in black.
Quote:Good she's been instructed by numerous authorities her religious beliefs can not interfere with her public work. She doesn't want to give gay marriage certificates fine give up that cushy state job and join the rest of us in the private sector.
Not only that, but the attorneys for the same sex couples she denied certificates to gave the option for her to just not interfere with her co-workers handling those licenses, and she refused.
To some she will be a martyr. She was given every reasonable opportunity. Those claiming this as 'persecution' are stupid.
Quote:No, this is a state's rights issue. The people of that area elelcted her to serve them, not the 9 Oligarchs in black.
She is not serving them nor is she upholding her oath to serve to the letter of the law.
Quote:She is not serving them nor is she upholding her oath to serve to the letter of the law.
I love America, the people running her pretty much suck.
Quote:I love America, the people running her pretty much suck.
Sure you do. You just hate the SCOTUS being the most recent group to try to bring you all to the modern age. Must be rough
Quote:She is not serving them nor is she upholding her oath to serve to the letter of the law.
The imposition of a law that the people who elected her dont agree with.
Quote:Sure you do. You just hate the SCOTUS being the most recent group to try to bring you all to the modern age. Must be rough
I hate their extra-Constututional usurpation of power from the legislatures of the sovereign states.
Quote:No, this is a state's rights issue. The people of that area elelcted her to serve them, not the 9 Oligarchs in black.
So tell me, when she was elected to serve everyone in Rowan County, did that include homosexuals?
If so, please explain how refusing to perform a basic county service for homosexuals in Rowan County is "serving" them.
Quote:So tell me, when she was elected to serve everyone in Rowan County, did that include homosexuals?
If so, please explain how refusing to perform a basic county service for homosexuals in Rowan County is "serving" them.
Kentucky law, that she was elected to uphold, forbade gay marriage. The SCOTUS decided they knew better what the law of Kentucky ought to be. The people's representative disputes that act of federal tyranny. Pretty simple stuff. If Kentuckians want gay marriage then let their legislature write it into law.
Quote:Kentucky law, that she was elected to uphold, forbade gay marriage. The SCOTUS decided they knew better what the law of Kentucky ought to be. The people's representative disputes that act of federal tyranny. Pretty simple stuff. If Kentuckians want gay marriage then let their legislature write it into law.
Why is every other county clerk in Kentucky issuing marriage certificates to gay couples?
Also, federal law supersedes local and state law. Federal court decisions supersede local and state court decisions, and a Supreme Court decision overrides anything and everything aside from the Constitution itself. That's how this crazy little thing we call the Constitution established American government, and when someone takes a government position, they agree to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. Don't like it? Canada's that way.
Quote:Why is every other county clerk in Kentucky issuing marriage certificates to gay couples?
Also, federal law supersedes local and state law. Federal court decisions supersede local and state court decisions, and a Supreme Court decision overrides anything and everything aside from the Constitution itself. That's how this crazy little thing we call the Constitution established American government, and when someone takes a government position, they agree to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. Don't like it? Canada's that way.
The USSC was not established to legislate, nor was it intended that they would be more powerful than any other branch. Judicial activism is a tool used by the proponents of big government to increase government's power, a dangerous tool used against freedom. That's why the Left had to kill federalism, if the states have the power to reject federal intrvention in local matters then big government cannot be all powerful.