• 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.

From Tupac to Rosa Parks: KY county clerk Kim Davis says "Only God can judge me now"

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ElectricBlanketFire

Member
Davis won the battle, but Cox won the war.

c_zps3yknjtqu.jpg
 
H

HariKari

Member
Damaniel said:
She willingly put herself in the middle of this discussion as a result of her bigoted stubbornness. Until she does the right thing (and not the 'right' thing as she sees it) she deserves whatever she gets.
Click to expand...

Probably a lot of sympathy and money from the Christians-are-being-prosecuted crowd. This whole situation won't change anything, sadly, just reaffirm beliefs.
 
G

Gordon Shumway

Banned
oti xero said:
As right as this is (she's just wrong, no question about it) I'm also a bit afraid that it could be a tad much for a single person to be in the centre of this nation wide discussion. I hope she won't suffer any long-term illness out of this.
Click to expand...
Folks go to jail for having half a joint on them..let us pray for all of their sanity. She knew what she was getting into..
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
phisheep said:
I take it to be obvious that "in the absence of the county clerk" would cover, for example, the county clerk being in jail.

So, there should be no legal grey areas for marriages in Rowan County starting from tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this earlier, but I think there's still a gray area: when the deputy clerks of a county are fulfilling the duties of the office, is the clerk "absent" within the meaning of the statute you cited? If not, then the Judge Executive still can't issue marriage licenses, and a cloud of uncertainty still hangs over the deputy-executed licenses.
 
T

Thequietone

Member
Veritigo_X said:
She was "born again" so anything before that point, including her divorces, is irrelevant as far as the church is concerned.
Click to expand...
Except Jesus said that if you get a divorce for any other reason than your wife/husband committing adultery and get remarried you are in fact committing adultery yourself. Doesn't matter if you are "born again" she is still "living in sin" every time she has sex with anyone other than her first husband. I dislike it when these high and mighty types pick and choose from the Bible when it suits them.
 
K

Krejlooc

Banned
lednerg said:
Oh, that's rich. lol

Her lawyers must be pissed. That was the only thing that she had going for her.
Click to expand...

She's never had anything going for her. All of her actions belie her claim that she just feels like it's her religious affliction that is preventing her from marrying gays. She isn't seeking to have her views protected, she actually wants to deny these people their civil liberty.

The solution to her convictions, were they real, is staring her in the face: resign. But those convictions were never really what this was about. This was always about her believing gay people shouldn't marry, period, by anybody. Not just by her own doing. This is outright bigotry.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Metaphoreus said:
Yeah, that's not true. Both Fiorina and Graham specifically stated that Davis should issue the licenses or resign. And most of the other candidates haven't so much "excitedly lined up behind her" (which really only describes Huckabee's reaction) as they have avoided the specific question by stating general support for balancing the rights of both the gay couples that want to marry and the government employees with religious objections.

Sorry to ruin your cheap shot, bud.
Click to expand...

You got me! They're not a bunch of pandering weirdos after all.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Very curious to see polling on this. It seems like this might be enough of a wedge issue to confuse or trip up people, some of whom already support gay marriage.

Personally I agree with the judge, obviously.
 
L

LegendofLex

Member
A friend of mine from the UK pointed out that what's missing from this sentence is actual justice. She's not a violent criminal, so jailing her just reinforces the problem of stuffing jails and prisons with non-violent offenders. She should instead be conscripted to do community service- for the people she otherwise refuses to serve.
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Metaphoreus said:
I mentioned this earlier, but I think there's still a gray area: when the deputy clerks of a county are fulfilling the duties of the office, is the clerk "absent" within the meaning of the statute you cited? If not, then the Judge Executive still can't issue marriage licenses, and a cloud of uncertainty still hangs over the deputy-executed licenses.
Click to expand...

I think the way it works is this:

The Clerk is an office-holder, and has the sole responsibility and duty for, amongst other things, issuing marriage licenses. The deputies are deputed to but cannot deputise for the Clerk. While the Clerk is still in post - and even if they are, say, off sick for a day - then the deputies can do whatever they do while still under the authority of the Clerk (and under the Clerk's instructions). But "in the absence of the Clerk" - including jail time I suspect, and probably also, death, duelling, space travel, and a myriad other things - the judge/executive (I'm not sure if that is one person or two) takes over all the responsibilities and duties of the office as if they were the clerk.

I can't see that it makes sense any other way, being as the deputies don't have any constitutional position.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Thequietone said:
Except Jesus said that if you get a divorce for any other reason than your wife/husband committing adultery and get remarried you are in fact committing adultery yourself. Doesn't matter if you are "born again" she is still "living in sin" every time she has sex with anyone other than her first husband. I dislike it when these high and mighty types pick and choose from the Bible when it suits them.
Click to expand...

It doesn't? But if it's so that:

2 Cor. 5:17 said:
if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new[,]
Click to expand...

then who are you to decide that her conversion doesn't annul the sinfulness (if any) of her current marriage? That interpretation doesn't strike me as so implausible that no one could legitimately adopt it. In the end, the charge of hypocrisy is weak when we don't know her specific beliefs on the question of divorce. More importantly, it's irrelevant. What she's doing is wrong for reasons that go beyond petty personal attacks.

phisheep said:
I think the way it works is this:

The Clerk is an office-holder, and has the sole responsibility and duty for, amongst other things, issuing marriage licenses. The deputies are deputed to but cannot deputise for the Clerk. While the Clerk is still in post - and even if they are, say, off sick for a day - then the deputies can do whatever they do while still under the authority of the Clerk (and under the Clerk's instructions). But "in the absence of the Clerk" - including jail time I suspect, and probably also, death, duelling, space travel, and a myriad other things - the judge/executive (I'm not sure if that is one person or two) takes over all the responsibilities and duties of the office as if they were the clerk.

I can't see that it makes sense any other way, being as the deputies don't have any constitutional position.
Click to expand...

But think about this: the deputy clerks are delegates of the county clerk's authority. To the extent of the delegation, the deputy clerks are, for all intensive porpoises, the county clerk. So, as long as a deputy of the county clerk is fulfilling the duties of the clerk, the clerk isn't "absent" for purposes of the statute, even when the person elected to that office is not, herself, present to fulfill the duties.

I don't know whether your reading or my reading is right, but that's why I say her jailing doesn't necessarily clear up the issues.

Oh, and apparently the "Judge/Executive" is one office, which is weird. (I thought it was "Judge Executive" based on the district court's August 12 order, in which it referred to him in that way.)
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Stinkles said:
You got me! They're not a bunch of pandering weirdos after all.
Click to expand...

Cruz has come out in her support as well. As the issue becomes more vocal more people will have to decide one way or another. Meta hasn't ruined your cheap shot yet. Kasich will probably comment. I would imagine Ben Carson as well.
 
F

freeofgreed

Member
LegendofLex said:
A friend of mine from the UK pointed out that what's missing from this sentence is actual justice. She's not a violent criminal, so jailing her just reinforces the problem of stuffing jails and prisons with non-violent offenders. She should instead be conscripted to do community service- for the people she otherwise refuses to serve.
Click to expand...

How would that work though? What kind of community service would she being doing? Also since they can't fire her, if she isn't in jail she'd just be back in her office refusing licenses.
 
Z

Zaphod

Member
Metaphoreus said:
It doesn't? But if it's so that:



then who are you to decide that her conversion doesn't annul the sinfulness (if any) of her current marriage? That interpretation doesn't strike me as so implausible that no one could legitimately adopt it. In the end, the charge of hypocrisy is weak when we don't know her specific beliefs on the question of divorce. More importantly, it's irrelevant. What she's doing is wrong for reasons that go beyond petty personal attacks.
Click to expand...

A Catholic county clerk would certainly be in the right to deny her a marriage licence based on her reasoning for denying a gay marriage licence.

Not that I think personal religious beliefs should be a part of the decision to issue a marriage licence.
 
V

vas_a_morir

Banned
LegendofLex said:
A friend of mine from the UK pointed out that what's missing from this sentence is actual justice. She's not a violent criminal, so jailing her just reinforces the problem of stuffing jails and prisons with non-violent offenders. She should instead be conscripted to do community service- for the people she otherwise refuses to serve.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a sentence. It's basically a way to force compliance with court system. Like if you kept calling the judge a "fucking retard" in court. Community service would be highly inappropriate considering she's not in violation of a particular statute. Just, she's refusing to comply. Like, what if she refused to do community service? Would you then sentence her to more community service? It's a totally different beast.
 
L

LegendofLex

Member
freeofgreed said:
How would that work though? What kind of community service would she being doing? Also since they can't fire her, if she isn't in jail she'd just be back in her office refusing licenses.
Click to expand...

vas_a_morir said:
Well, it's not a sentence. It's basically a way to force compliance with court system. Like if you kept calling the judge a "fucking retard" in court. Community service would be highly inappropriate considering she's not in violation of a particular statute. Just, she's refusing to comply. Like, what if she refused to do community service? Would you then sentence her to more community service? It's a totally different beast.
Click to expand...

Simple: handle it the way you handle community service for prison inmates. They have no real opportunity to dodge their service or refuse to comply because their service activities are supervised. She also doesn't get to be in her office because she's not allowed to resume her duties or exercise her authority until she complies (same thing as the current jail time scheme, except without going through the prison system).

We don't have anything in place to enforce such a scheme, but that's a problem with our justice system, not a limitation on what's possible.
 
F

freeofgreed

Member
LegendofLex said:
Simple: handle it the way you handle community service for prison inmates. They have no real opportunity to dodge their service or refuse to comply because their service activities are supervised. She also doesn't get to be in her office because she's not allowed to resume her duties or exercise her authority until she complies (same thing as the current jail time scheme, except without going through the prison system).

We don't have anything in place to enforce such a scheme, but that's a problem with our justice system, not a limitation on what's possible.
Click to expand...

Then why not just put her in jail at that point? Like Vas said if she refuses to do community service then what? Then she stays home, racks up donations, keeps her position and marriages are still in Limbo. That would be like the ultimate W for her.
 
S

slit

Member
The judge probably jailed her because he knew any fine would be offset by the religious sheep that will donate to her. They can't gofund her out of jail.
 
C

Christine

Member
LegendofLex said:
Simple: handle it the way you handle community service for prison inmates. They have no real opportunity to dodge their service or refuse to comply because their service activities are supervised.
Click to expand...

That's accomplished by imprisoning them, exactly the sanction you're trying to avoid.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Fenderputty said:
Cruz has come out in her support as well. As the issue becomes more vocal more people will have to decide one way or another. Meta hasn't ruined your cheap shot yet. Kasich will probably comment. I would imagine Ben Carson as well.
Click to expand...

Hold on, now. His cheap shot was claiming that they all lined up in support. Fiorina and Graham did the exact opposite. Thus, the cheap shot is ruined, regardless of what any of the rest of the candidates say. So, there.

Zaphod said:
A Catholic county clerk would certainly be in the right to deny her a marriage licence based on her reasoning for denying a gay marriage licence.

Not that I think personal religious beliefs should be a part of the decision to issue a marriage licence.
Click to expand...

I think the question on which I commented was one of hypocrisy, though, not of whether religion should be considered in issuing a marriage license. I agree it shouldn't be.
 
S

Sagroth

Member
B

Brashnir

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Kentucky has a Democratic edge in voter ID like a lot of southern states, but it's wildly irrelevant when it comes to state and federal races.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party
Click to expand...

The histories of the American political parties with regard to civil rights is really checkered and weird when viewed through a modern lens. There have been massive seismic shifts caused by a combination of specific events and general popular opinions. It's one of the more interesting subjects in US history - It's a shame so few people know about it.
 
Z

Zaphod

Member
Metaphoreus said:
I think the question on which I commented was one of hypocrisy, though, not of whether religion should be considered in issuing a marriage license. I agree it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

You made it sound like the adultery due to divorce was not a correct interpretation of the bible, yet one of the largest denominations disagrees. I also thinks it's fair to call her out on it since I don't think she'd be too happy if she had to drive from county to county to find a clerk who would judge her morals.
 
T

titiklabingapat

Member
The judge should also issue a gag order that she cannot spend any money she will get from this ordeal other than to fund her legal team. No gofundme, no book deals, no speeches, no Fox News deal. Because otherwise, this will set a bad precedent and you will have schmucks exploiting controversial subject and court rulings for profit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Homophobe Kim Davis in Romania to help ban gay marriage
2
50
8K
geomon replied
Lesbian couple win $10,000 damages from county clerk who called them an ‘abomination’
17
3K
hydrophilic attack replied
  • Locked
Kentucky changes law so Kim Davis doesn't have to sign marriage licenses
39
4K
BeardyChan replied
  • Locked
Pope had secret meeting with Kim Davis, Kentucky County Clerk
3 4 5 6 7
339
39K
Bowler replied
  • Locked
Kentucky Clerk denies same-sex couple marriage license for the third time
4 5 6 7 8
353
46K
Stumpokapow replied
Top Bottom