If the clerk is the only person there that can sign marriage licenses, deputize the guy in the map room, the janitor, the mayor or whoever.
No one in the county has the authority to "deputize" anyone to do any such thing. There are two people authorized, by State statute, to sign marriage licences, Ms. Davis, and, in her absence, the county executive judge.
Ms. Davis is (or until recently, was) not "absent." The judge already ruled on that point; he doesn't have the authority to sign as long as Ms. Davis is still in the office. To deputize someone else would require amending the statues, and the legislature is not in session.
Truth be told, I'm honestly surprised this is the first we've heard of this sort of thing. That said, I imagine that a fair number of people with similar objections simply resigned quietly when the original SCOTUS order came down weeks ago, rather than try to keep their jobs and wait for a conflict to inevitably eventually occur.
No scandal, no news, no notice.
No one in the county has the authority to "deputize" anyone to do any such thing. There are two people authorized, by State statute, to sign marriage licences, Ms. Davis, and, in her absence, the county executive judge.
If the state actually cares about the religious rights of the individual clerks then they can change that statute.
She's not an individual clerk, she's the one in charge. Even if she doesn't sign herself, her name appears on the license so she has directed her subordinates not to sign.
Perhaps more to the point, without her authorization to sign, the clerks's signatures don't count.
Even the judge was unclear on this point at the hearing:
the other deputy clerks had reservations, some based on religion, as Davis has maintained, others with questions about their legal authority to sign off on forms without the elected official's consent.
Kim Davis' lawyers called into question whether any licenses issued in her absence would be legal.
But Bunning said couples would have to decide whether to take that risk on their own.
So.... I can get a marriage license, but it may or may not count? Gee, thanks, Your Honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one in the county has the authority to "deputize" anyone to do any such thing. There are two people authorized, by State statute, to sign marriage licences, Ms. Davis, and, in her absence, the county executive judge.If the state actually cares about the religious rights of the individual clerks then they can change that statute.
Not when the legislature's not in session, they can't. There's this little issue of "due process." Statutes don't rewrite themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
She could have directed them to sign if her only objection was doing it herself, but she apparently believes that is also against her religion, since she would still have the responsibility as the official in charge.
Well there goes my last bit of sympathy for her. Using your position as a boss to dictate other peoples actions because of a religious stance is the antithesis of freedom of religion, especially in a government institution.
She could have directed them to sign if her only objection was doing it herself, but she apparently believes that is also against her religion, since she would still have the responsibility as the official in charge.Well there goes my last bit of sympathy for her. Using your position as a boss to dictate other peoples actions because of a religious stance is the antithesis of freedom of religion, especially in a government institution.
Well, those other clerks are signing as an appointed representative of her and her office.
Apparently, after she was jailed 5 of her six deputy clerks agreed to begin issuing licences.Interesting. Do you have a link? What happened to #6?He is Kim Davis's son, Nathan Davis.
"I'll take 'Nepotism' for 400, Alex."
Nepotism isn't a bad thing unless it puts incompetent people in the job. No sign of that. He may just be more afraid of damaging his relationship with his mom than any legal consequences he may face, and if the others are willing to do it why should he piss her off?
Apparently, after she was jailed 5 of her six deputy clerks agreed to begin issuing licences.Interesting. Do you have a link? What happened to #6?He is Kim Davis's son, Nathan Davis.
"I'll take 'Nepotism' for 400, Alex."
Ms. Davis herself worked as her mother's deputy when her mother was clerk. The position became Ms. Davis's after her mother retired. Now she grooms her son for the same. The real reason she won't resign is pride. This is a family office to her, and she knows it would cease to be if she resigned.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nepotism isn't a bad thing unless it puts incompetent people in the job. No sign of that. He may just be more afraid of damaging his relationship with his mom than any legal consequences he may face, and if the others are willing to do it why should he piss her off?Apparently, after she was jailed 5 of her six deputy clerks agreed to begin issuing licences.Interesting. Do you have a link? What happened to #6?He is Kim Davis's son, Nathan Davis.
"I'll take 'Nepotism' for 400, Alex."
That's precisely why nepotism is bad, because it can create conflicts of interest exactly like the one displayed here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, those other clerks are signing as an appointed representative of her and her office.
No, they are appointed representatives of the state who are told how to represent the state by her. Big difference.
She not only wasn't given the task of not signing these papers, she was explicitly told to sign these papers.
She's not a policy maker but she's trying to act as one anyway. That's something she does on her own, not with the authority of the state and thus with no authority of her position.
Well, those other clerks are signing as an appointed representative of her and her office.No, they are appointed representatives of the state who are told how to represent the state by her. Big difference.
She not only wasn't given the task of not signing these papers, she was explicitly told to sign these papers.
She's not a policy maker but she's trying to act as one anyway. That's something she does on her own, not with the authority of the state and thus with no authority of her position.
Except thats not how the paperwork actually works. The paper they are actually signing has her name on it, under her authority. You can't legally sign under someone's name if they have explicitly said you don't have the authority to do so.
The judge apparently skipped the fines and sent her straight to jail.All's well that ends well.
but now she is a martyr for the bigots because she went to jail for her beliefs
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except thats not how the paperwork actually works. The paper they are actually signing has her name on it, under her authority. You can't legally sign under someone's name if they have explicitly said you don't have the authority to do so.
Hmmmm.. I think we may have gotten some wires crossed here. There's two issues to me.
Point 1 is my decision to decide if someone is being a complete and utter prat or someone holding to a misguided morality that they genuinely believe in. -I will stand for freedom of religion and use my religion to tell you what to do- is such rank, disingenuous hypocrisy that it catapults them into the deep end of prat.
Issue 2 is what to do about it legally, in the long run. I'm all for individual rights as long as they don't cause more trouble with other individual rights. Jokes to the contrary aside, public workers are still people.
A legal option to have conscientious objectors to signing forms by changing how the forms are filled out seems doable. I mean if her name is rubber stamped on the things before the clerks sign it, taking off the requirement for a rubber stamp seems to lead to a win win. They don't all have to go through a one person bottleneck and the clerk can say "let me get someone that can sign that for you"
If that's not how the paperwork works, then make it work that way.
Except thats not how the paperwork actually works. The paper they are actually signing has her name on it, under her authority. You can't legally sign under someone's name if they have explicitly said you don't have the authority to do so.Hmmmm.. I think we may have gotten some wires crossed here. There's two issues to me.
Point 1 is my decision to decide if someone is being a complete and utter prat or someone holding to a misguided morality that they genuinely believe in. -I will stand for freedom of religion and use my religion to tell you what to do- is such rank, disingenuous hypocrisy that it catapults them into the deep end of prat.
Issue 2 is what to do about it legally, in the long run. I'm all for individual rights as long as they don't cause more trouble with other individual rights. Jokes to the contrary aside, public workers are still people.
A legal option to have conscientious objectors to signing forms by changing how the forms are filled out seems doable. I mean if her name is rubber stamped on the things before the clerks sign it, taking off the requirement for a rubber stamp seems to lead to a win win. They don't all have to go through a one person bottleneck and the clerk can say "let me get someone that can sign that for you"
If that's not how the paperwork works, then make it work that way.
yes, the law could be changed. But that would take an act of the legislature, and the legislature is not available right now. Meanwhile, this issue needs to be solved right now.
|
but now she is a martyr for the bigots because she went to jail for her beliefs
There is a long history of bigots going to jail for their beliefs. It happened with inter-racial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, slavery, et cetera. There have always been these oh so very 'moral' people who held firm in their 'religious' beliefs. Do you remember the names of ANY of those people? Me neither.
How about Rosa Parks? Harvey Milk? Susan B Anthony? Frederick Douglas?
but now she is a martyr for the bigots because she went to jail for her beliefsThere is a long history of bigots going to jail for their beliefs. It happened with inter-racial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, slavery, et cetera. There have always been these oh so very 'moral' people who held firm in their 'religious' beliefs. Do you remember the names of ANY of those people? Me neither.
I can guarantee you the remnants of those whose causes they shared do, though.
I can guarantee you the remnants of those whose causes they shared do, though.but now she is a martyr for the bigots because she went to jail for her beliefsThere is a long history of bigots going to jail for their beliefs. It happened with inter-racial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, slavery, et cetera. There have always been these oh so very 'moral' people who held firm in their 'religious' beliefs. Do you remember the names of ANY of those people? Me neither.
Society: advancing forward one funeral march at a time.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two issues here:
First of all, assuming she did in fact take the oath of office as described in the Kentucky constitution (a fun read - makes you wonder why everyone was busy shooting one another back then), she has already violated an oath she swore to God - i.e., to faithfully execute her office "according to law." Her "Heaven or Hell" choice has already passed.
Second of all, the paperwork she's supposed to sign does not endorse or even permit any marriage to take place. It merely certifies that the couple in question has met the legal requirements of Kentucky law to become married. So her "religious freedom" is not being burdened - she is not required to endorse the marriage in any way. It's not compelled speech, and she's not saying she likes it; she's checking a box that basically says, "old enough, not already married, paid the fee." That's it. The reason her First Amendment defenses keep getting shot down is that they simply don't apply here.
Except thats not how the paperwork actually works. The paper they are actually signing has her name on it, under her authority. You can't legally sign under someone's name if they have explicitly said you don't have the authority to do so.Hmmmm.. I think we may have gotten some wires crossed here. There's two issues to me.
Point 1 is my decision to decide if someone is being a complete and utter prat or someone holding to a misguided morality that they genuinely believe in. -I will stand for freedom of religion and use my religion to tell you what to do- is such rank, disingenuous hypocrisy that it catapults them into the deep end of prat.
Issue 2 is what to do about it legally, in the long run. I'm all for individual rights as long as they don't cause more trouble with other individual rights. Jokes to the contrary aside, public workers are still people.
A legal option to have conscientious objectors to signing forms by changing how the forms are filled out seems doable. I mean if her name is rubber stamped on the things before the clerks sign it, taking off the requirement for a rubber stamp seems to lead to a win win. They don't all have to go through a one person bottleneck and the clerk can say "let me get someone that can sign that for you"
If that's not how the paperwork works, then make it work that way.
As Orfamay says, that requires changing the laws. Laws take time and impetus to change. Until very recently, there was no impetus, so, now that there may be, it will still take time.
First of all, assuming she did in fact take the oath of office as described in the Kentucky constitution (a fun read - makes you wonder why everyone was busy shooting one another back then), she has already violated an oath she swore to God - i.e., to faithfully execute her office "according to law." Her "Heaven or Hell" choice has already passed.
Not necessarily. In cases like this where the law conflicts with the orders of God (or a person/group's interpretation of such, if you prefer that wording), God's will is superior and the one to be followed.
For example, if a law was made that prohibited all travel on Sundays whatsoever, that required everyone to stay in their homes and for the streets to be permanently empty until X-o'clock Monday morning or whatever (Yes I know, ridiculous law that would never happen, just an example, work with me here), it would still be a moral obligation of a worshiper who believes in the "upon the first day of the week is the day we are required to gather for the acts of worship and services" to travel to wherever their local congregation chose to meet on Sundays to participate in the worship, even if that required them to break man's law.
It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.
Second of all, the paperwork she's supposed to sign does not endorse or even permit any marriage to take place. It merely certifies that the couple in question has met the legal requirements of Kentucky law to become married. So her "religious freedom" is not being burdened - she is not required to endorse the marriage in any way. It's not compelled speech, and she's not saying she likes it; she's checking a box that basically says, "old enough, not already married, paid the fee." That's it. The reason her First Amendment defenses keep getting shot down is that they simply don't apply here.
To keep this short: it's very regularly and commonly taught that "not obstructing" a sin is the same as "enabling" a sin. Thus, among people with this understanding, the fact that she's in a position to say "no" to something that they believe is morally wrong makes her morally obligated to do so.
I think there is really only one sound solution to this problem Since the problem is confined to a single county, let people go elsewhere to get their marriage licenses until the legislature can come back and fix the problem, and let Ms. David sit in jail until then. Do the same with any other county clerks who follow her example -- I doubt that enough will do so to pose more than a minor inconvenience until the state legislature can deal with the issue.
Any other approach would create more problems than it would solve.
The problem Kentucky has is that they gave one person in each county the authority to issue marriage licenses -- and thus the authority to gum up the works at any time for any reason. Does any other U.S. state do that? My guess is that there are a small handful that do so, and the other states with that setup have just been lucky so far.
Most likely it was because her county is relatively small and sparsely populated, I believe. (I could be wrong, I haven't researched it beyond reading a couple of the linked articles.) Thus a larger team of officials was likely thought unnecessary. Especially if the area is already fairly politically conservative and thus likely leaning away from approving making more government positions, a likely assumption for Kentucky.
Getting people in places like that, smaller counties likely only occupied by small towns, to agree to making more government jobs is going to be like pulling teeth from cosmic horrors.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is really only one sound solution to this problem Since the problem is confined to a single county, let people go elsewhere to get their marriage licenses until the legislature can come back and fix the problem, and let Ms. David sit in jail until then.
People are already allowed to go elsewhere.
The legal argument --- which the judge has covered in his preliminary ruling -- is that people should not be compelled to go elsewhere. The judge agreed, which is why he ruled that she must issue the licenses.
I doubt that enough will do so to pose more than a minor inconvenience until the state legislature can deal with the issue.
Yeah, funny, that. There are no "minor inconveniences" when one is discussing fundamental Constitutional rights. (O'Connor J, “[t]here are no de minimis violations of the Constitution")
Any other approach would create more problems than it would solve.
Actually, no. The problem at this point is not one of marriage license, but of the authority of an elected official to disregard a Federal injunction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.
It's interesting to me that breaking her own oath/vow/word is not considered at all immoral, as long as it can be conveniently rationalized with a post-hoc interpretation of what "God's will" currently is. Maybe that's why I can never fathom the religious mindset.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. This is a different situation than your hypothetical. The proper answer for her, if she believes her duty to God conflicts with her sworn oath to do her job is to leave her job. That would resolve the conflict. She would be in violation of neither.
Actually, she'd still be "not obstructing" a sin when she could actively obstruct it.
If she resigned, someone else would simply come along and issue those licenses --- which of course, is a sin (in her worldview). Therefore, she needs to remain in that job as an active obstruction for as long as possible. Her duty to God demands that she prevent sin, not simply watch it.
No. This is a different situation than your hypothetical. The proper answer for her, if she believes her duty to God conflicts with her sworn oath to do her job is to leave her job. That would resolve the conflict. She would be in violation of neither.Actually, she'd still be "not obstructing" a sin when she could actively obstruct it.
If she resigned, someone else would simply come along and issue those licenses --- which of course, is a sin (in her worldview). Therefore, she needs to remain in that job as an active obstruction for as long as possible. Her duty to God demands that she prevent sin, not simply watch it.
Yep. This is how I would see many people argue it.
It's actually pretty common, as I understand it. It's not that there's only one clerk signing forms, it's that the County Clerk in charge of the office refused to let her subordinates do their job.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding floating around. As I understand it....
1) County Clerk is NOT a rubber-stamp job. The County Clerk is responsible for making individual determinations (on a case-by-case basis) of whether or not two people are allowed to be married. (Peggy and Mike, yes. Sally and Jim, no, because Sally's underaged. Nancy and Ted, yes.... et cetera.) As is typically required in any organization, any time a decision needs to be made, there needs to be a single person who is ultimately responsible for making that decision, in part to facilitate there being "someone to sue" to make sure that the office itself is held responsible.
2) Kentucky has decided that this decision will be made by the County Clerk. Even the governor has no authority to decide that Peggy and Mike can get married. This could be changed, but it requires a change in the statutes and will not happen instantly.
3) Davis can delegate the authority to sign (physically) the paperwork, but not the responsibility for making the decisions. Furthermore, no one can compel her to delegate signing authority, and no one can relieve her of responsibility (short of removing her from office.) It's not going to happen this weekend, and is not within the authority of a Federal Judge.
4) Removing her from office is possible, but also politically-laden and time-consuming.
It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.It's interesting to me that breaking her own oath/vow/word is not considered at all immoral, as long as it can be conveniently rationalized with a post-hoc interpretation of what "God's will" currently is. Maybe that's why I can never fathom the religious mindset.
Any oath given by someone with this mindset comes with an implied "so long as it does not conflict with the scriptures" disclaimer. It's just rarely ever spoken of before such a conflict occurs.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer.
...and yet somehow she managed to bring herself to get divorced three times and have two children out of wedlock. Making 'God's law' seem a lot less inflexible in some circumstances than in others.
It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer....and yet somehow she managed to bring herself to get divorced three times and have two children out of wedlock. Making 'God's law' seem a lot less inflexible in some circumstances than in others.
Yeah, I can't defend that under any Christian belief system I'm familiar with.
I'm more just speaking from the basic mindset of the issue at hand, less the woman's individual history, from my familiarity with religious groups with similar beliefs and practices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer....and yet somehow she managed to bring herself to get divorced three times and have two children out of wedlock. Making 'God's law' seem a lot less inflexible in some circumstances than in others.
"[She's] not perfect, just forgiven."
Seriously, just because you're Christian doesn't mean that you can't make bad decisions. And one of the tasks that a lot of Christians set for themselves is precisely helping other people avoid bad decisions (such as getting into a marriage that is contrary to the laws of God).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The part that gets me is being married 4 times. A mistake or two I could see, but 4 times means she keeps making the same mistakes, yet still wants to judge others...It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer....and yet somehow she managed to bring herself to get divorced three times and have two children out of wedlock. Making 'God's law' seem a lot less inflexible in some circumstances than in others."[She's] not perfect, just forgiven."
Seriously, just because you're Christian doesn't mean that you can't make bad decisions. And one of the tasks that a lot of Christians set for themselves is precisely helping other people avoid bad decisions (such as getting into a marriage that is contrary to the laws of God).
"Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven." (Matt. 18:21-22) God's mercy is truly limitless....
As it was predicted, it seems that she was counting on this to make her "martyr".Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate (amusingly enough) on her behalf.
She believes in a God who will send her to Hell for endorsing gay marriage by issuing gay marriage licenses. The state has ordered her to do so anyway. She has 3 choices:
(1) Obey the state and issue the licenses. This is unacceptable as a fundamental violation of her faith.
(2) Avoid obeying the state by resigning. I can see her seeing this as a tacit acceptance of the state's orders. I can see her as thinking, "Why should *I* have to quit *MY* job when I'm in the right?" Either way (faith-based stance or selfishness), this was unacceptable as an option to her.
(3) Go to jail to stand up for her beliefs.
She chose (3), and as I said from the beginning, I don't want to discuss the morality of her decision, but I do feel she made the "right" choice for herself, not out of any sense of martyrdom, but out of a sense of, "This is the only option I have that allows me to uphold my faith."
I suppose that Option #4 - a sober reexamination of her personal faith through the lens of a shared understanding of common human decency - was too much to hope for, hm?
The part that gets me is being married 4 times. A mistake or two I could see, but 4 times means she keeps making the same mistakes, yet still wants to judge others...It's very easy, with that mindset, to see how that oath is irrelevant because - in her mind - she's being asked to do something under her oath to man's law that contradicts what God's law instructs and prohibits. In such a circumstance, coming from that position, breaking man's law is the only correct answer....and yet somehow she managed to bring herself to get divorced three times and have two children out of wedlock. Making 'God's law' seem a lot less inflexible in some circumstances than in others."[She's] not perfect, just forgiven."
Seriously, just because you're Christian doesn't mean that you can't make bad decisions. And one of the tasks that a lot of Christians set for themselves is precisely helping other people avoid bad decisions (such as getting into a marriage that is contrary to the laws of God).
i am guessing that she has completely forgotten the part in the bible about judging others is not her duty
I suppose that Option #4 - a sober reexamination of her personal faith through the lens of a shared understanding of common human decency - was too much to hope for, hm?As it was predicted, it seems that she was counting on this to make her "martyr".Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate (amusingly enough) on her behalf.
She believes in a God who will send her to Hell for endorsing gay marriage by issuing gay marriage licenses. The state has ordered her to do so anyway. She has 3 choices:
(1) Obey the state and issue the licenses. This is unacceptable as a fundamental violation of her faith.
(2) Avoid obeying the state by resigning. I can see her seeing this as a tacit acceptance of the state's orders. I can see her as thinking, "Why should *I* have to quit *MY* job when I'm in the right?" Either way (faith-based stance or selfishness), this was unacceptable as an option to her.
(3) Go to jail to stand up for her beliefs.
She chose (3), and as I said from the beginning, I don't want to discuss the morality of her decision, but I do feel she made the "right" choice for herself, not out of any sense of martyrdom, but out of a sense of, "This is the only option I have that allows me to uphold my faith."
common human decency is just like common sense, its not so common anymore
|
|
To be fair to her, she apparently converted/was born again/had the appropriate come to Jesus moment after all that. Her extreme religious convictions came after what I'm sure she now considers her sins.
Mmmm.... okay, so let's look at a more recent example. No doubt, now that she has 'found God' (was he hiding?), she has also 'refused to participate' in the sin of adultery being committed by people seeking a marriage license after a previous divorce. Right?