There's no state law saying that clerks have to ring up bacon.   


Not to mention that the state law was ruled unconstitutional.  States can't have laws that are unconstitutional.  That'd be a pretty stupid thing to suggest that they can.

 

The idea that a 200 year old law is suddenly unconstitutional because the USSC said so is the heart of the issue for me. Such a radical change should not occur by judicial fiat, but instead by the legislative process. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The idea that a 200 year old law is suddenly unconstitutional because the USSC said so is the heart of the issue for me. Such a radical change should not occur by judicial fiat, but instead by the legislative process. 

 

It's not a radical change at all, and gay marriage hasn't been illegal for 200 years..  The law in Kentucky didn't come into place until 1998.  They didn't put in place their constitutional amendment until 2004.  Not to mention why the [BAD WORD REMOVED] should it matter how old the law is?  If a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It's not a radical change at all, and gay marriage hasn't been illegal for 200 years..  The law in Kentucky didn't come into place until 1998.  They didn't put in place their constitutional amendment until 2004.  Not to mention why the [BAD WORD REMOVED] should it matter how old the law is?  If a law is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.  

Because SCOTUS ruling something in unconstitutional doesn't count if you don't agree with it. Law does not matter if you don't like it. 

 

Their position is consistent with their old world beliefs that discrimination should be legal and that different groups of people deserve different rights. I am sure they really do love the constitution though. /s

---

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?

 

I for one think that this is excessive.  The bottom line is that she needs to be removed from her position, and it should not be by incarceration.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Having not actually done any research on this topic, what law did she break in order to be sent to jail? Is the law she broke typically a jailable offense?

---

I for one think that this is excessive.  The bottom line is that she needs to be removed from her position, and it should not be by incarceration.

She can't be legally removed from her position, though, except by recall or impeachment. Recall's not going to happen, and impeachment isn't likely either. She's already said she won't resign.

 

She was only sent to jail after the judge gave her the option of not issuing licenses herself, but only agreeing not to interfere with her staff doing so. She refused and said that she would not allow her staff to issue marriage licenses. Sending her to jail might seem excessive, but when you sit back and think about it, she had willfully violated the law and court orders repeatedly, and had just told a judge that she would continue to do so. In order to uphold the law and make sure licenses were issued as they legally had to be, he had no choice but to keep her out of work. The only way for him to do that was to incarcerate her.

 

I suspect she'll be out of jail within a week, and anything more than that certainly would be excessive, but she was standing in the way of the law being carried out. That's more than reason enough to hold someone in contempt of court and jail them. I mean, what other choice did he have? Tell her, once again, to issue licenses, then act surprised when she, yet again, refused to do so or allow her staff to?

---

Having not actually done any research on this topic, what law did she break in order to be sent to jail? Is the law she broke typically a jailable offense?

Supreme court ruled anti gay marriage laws are unconstitutional. She is refusing to issue licenses and was order to do so. Not doing so is putting her in contempt with while seeming extreme is a jailable offense. Judge offered to let it go if she wouldn't stop her deputies from issuing licenses but she refused.

---

I for one think that this is excessive.  The bottom line is that she needs to be removed from her position, and it should not be by incarceration.

 

It's contempt of court. One cannot refuse to do their job while defying a court order and not expect retribution.

 

Imagine the reaction if she refused to issue a gun permit or hunting license due to her personal beliefs.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

She can't be legally removed from her position, though, except by recall or impeachment. Recall's not going to happen, and impeachment isn't likely either. She's already said she won't resign.

 

She was only sent to jail after the judge gave her the option of not issuing licenses herself, but only agreeing not to interfere with her staff doing so. She refused and said that she would not allow her staff to issue marriage licenses. Sending her to jail might seem excessive, but when you sit back and think about it, she had willfully violated the law and court orders repeatedly, and had just told a judge that she would continue to do so. In order to uphold the law and make sure licenses were issued as they legally had to be, he had no choice but to keep her out of work. The only way for him to do that was to incarcerate her.

 

I suspect she'll be out of jail within a week, and anything more than that certainly would be excessive, but she was standing in the way of the law being carried out. That's more than reason enough to hold someone in contempt of court and jail them. I mean, what other choice did he have? Tell her, once again, to issue licenses, then act surprised when she, yet again, refused to do so or allow her staff to?

 

So where is the legal action?  A judge sending her to jail doesn't seem appropriate to me given this circumstance.

 

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the people that elected her should have the power to lobby their State Government to either start impeachment or recall proceedings.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So where is the legal action?  A judge sending her to jail doesn't seem appropriate to me given this circumstance.

She is actively refusing to comply with the law as her position of public office requires. That, by itself, is enough to justify a finding of contempt, but only enough to warrant a fine.

 

The reason she's in jail is that she told the judge that should would actively impede the efforts of her staff to comply with the law. At that point, the judge has two options:

1. Fine her, then allow her to go back to work the next day and continue breaking the law and preventing her staff from carrying out their lawful duties.

2. Put her in jail for a few days to allow her staff to carry out their lawful duties without her interference.

 

It's not a petty thing, and it's not something done to prove a point. It's something done because she told the judge that should would actively prevent her staff from carrying out their lawful duties. At that point, in order to make sure those lawful duties are carried out, the judge had no option but to remove her from her workplace, and the only way he had available to him to do that was to put her in jail.

---

It's contempt of court. One cannot refuse to do their job while defying a court order and not expect retribution.


Imagine the reaction if she refused to issue a gun permit or hunting license due to her personal beliefs.

Excellent analogy! Damn it I just sided with rj in a political argument.

---

It's a bunch of baloney that it's her beliefs. She's been married and divorced so many times. She doesn't like gays and I'm going to assume she's probably racist too. She's pretty much a crappy human being. I really don't care of I'm not debating appropriately. So glad she was put in jail.

---

It's a bunch of baloney that it's her beliefs. She's been married and divorced so many times. She doesn't like gays and I'm going to assume she's probably racist too. She's pretty much a crappy human being. I really don't care of I'm not debating appropriately. So glad she was put in jail.

I don't know her personally so I can't argue about her character. I just know the precedent it would set that government employees can disregard laws based on personal beliefs is something I find horribly dangerous.


That said one can support equal marriage laws and not support homosexuality personally. Some of us are able to separate beliefs and politics. I was raised that separation of church and state was a liberal conspiracy to oppress religion. As I grew older and studied history both here and in other countries I realized the separation of church and state is very real and it's there to protect both institutions. The worse and most dangerous times in history have been when the state and religion merge in power.

---

It's a bunch of baloney that it's her beliefs. She's been married and divorced so many times. She doesn't like gays and I'm going to assume she's probably racist too. She's pretty much a crappy human being. I really don't care of I'm not debating appropriately. So glad she was put in jail.

All we know is that she's said that her religious beliefs prevent her from marrying homosexuals. She's said nothing about hating them (although it's not a stretch to believe that she pretty strongly disapproves of their way of life), and certainly nothing about being racist. Don't put words in her mouth.

---

Excellent analogy! Damn it I just sided with rj in a political argument.

Maybe this will get some of the Republicans off her side...?


She's a Democrat.


I wonder if it were Sharia Law she was using to justify this if the same people would be on her side.  It's not as if she weren't given every opportunity to comply -- including the option to let others sign the marriage certificates for gay couples.  Part of me wonders if her lawyers didn't give her crappy advice just to try to further their cause.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Maybe this will get some of the Republicans off her side...?


She's a Democrat.


I wonder if it were Sharia Law she was using to justify this if the same people would be on her side. It's not as if she weren't given every opportunity to comply -- including the option to let others sign the marriage certificates for gay couples. Part of me wonders if her lawyers didn't give her crappy advice just to try to further their cause.

I had a good laugh this morning when I heard that she was a democrat on the radio.

---

I had a good laugh this morning when I heard that she was a democrat on the radio.

Shes just a confused Republican like the libertarians are confused anarchists.

---

Shes just a confused Republican like the libertarians are confused anarchists.

Nah, those are just anachro-libertarians.  They think everything should be privatized.  Including police, fire fighters, schools, libraries, and in some cases the military.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

All we know is that she's said that her religious beliefs prevent her from marrying homosexuals. She's said nothing about hating them (although it's not a stretch to believe that she pretty strongly disapproves of their way of life), and certainly nothing about being racist. Don't put words in her mouth.

 

Like I said, I am completely fine passing judgement on her. It's not hard to patch the story together, especially when you've seen shots of her facebook page prior to all this stupid junk. I suppose I'm just weary of all of this.

 

Just be honest about your disgust for people lives. To continue to use religion is so incredibly annoying to me espcially coming from someone who is perfectly fine marrying and divoring like it's her job! It's a bunch of crap! I would respect that witchy woman so much more if she just said, I find it gross.

 

I find it utterly hilarious how some "pick and chose" which sin's are OK (and I am not admitting to being a sinner for being gay), ala the Duggars! Bunch of hypocrytes!

---

Like I said, I am completely fine passing judgement on her. It's not hard to patch the story together, especially when you've seen shots of her facebook page prior to all this stupid junk. I suppose I'm just weary of all of this.

I kind of wish she'd just go away. I don't want her to become a martyr looked back upon fondly by anti-gay activists for decades to come, and I certainly don't want the history books remembering her as a key figure in the gay rights struggle. I generally refuse to use her name, because the sooner she returns to being an anonymous, ridiculously well-paid county clerk in backwoods Kentucky, the better.

---