In a jail cell she loses freedom, and makes money. Outside she retains freedom and makes money, and can continue to act in contempt of court. That's the difference. Personally I would prefer she wasn't in jail because I'm not sure what that achieves, but that is the procedure and the alternative is not really a punishment or deterrent in this case as has been said.
-
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"
- Thread starter mj1108
- Start date
- Status
we knew this would happen. This is why people didn't want her to go to jail, because she'd become a symbol. And election season is here, so of course conservatives want to make her a posterchild for Defending God's Will.
We as a country know these things happen and seem to prefer to let them run their course.
LostCaress
Member
She'll make money regardless. Maybe fine her more then. But use that money to fund gay weddings. Maybe that's a bigger punishment to her.
(I'm only kidding, it's not acceptable that homosexuals would have to go somewhere else to get married)
KingHenrik30
Member
I think one of the best quotes I've seen so far he been "As a public official, she is free to disagree with the law but she is not free to disobey the law."
I love seeing stupid people like this get owned.
I love seeing stupid people like this get owned.
So be it. Until January, when she'd be impeached. Then valid certificates for everyone. Plus all the fines she'd have to pay.
Like others have said, I don't see what putting her in jail achieves beyond immediate satisfaction. Justice would've been served if only a certain judge had some patience.
^justice is being served now with a decent chance that people will be able to get their marriage licenses before the end of impeachment proceedings.
A contempt of court argument that involves NAMBLA.
Shut her down folks.
I miss when the Daily Show did the acronym "...or NAMBLA" jokes.
A contempt of court argument that involves NAMBLA.
Shut her down folks.
I miss when the Daily Show did the acronym "...or NAMBLA" jokes.
I think whether or not this is actually "good PR" for one side or the other requires some consideration. Right, yeah, she's a "martyr" for the people against gay marriage. But, like, she's also someone who so can't stand the idea of some people getting married that she's not letting anybody get married, who's in such obvious violation of the law of the land that she got sent to jail, and who's insisting on her right to apply religious law as an elected official (with a colorful past that makes for an easy hypocrisy angle). People who are really against gay marriage are going to side with her, but they weren't going to be won over anytime soon regardless. I suspect that probably the more this incident gets talked about the more that people in the middle will perceive the anti- marriage equality crowd as being all about imposing their religious bigotry on everybody else. She's not a sympathetic figure. The conscience argument her defenders are making just looks kind of ridiculous; this is several steps sillier than "baking a gay wedding cake is participating in a religious ceremony".
Edit: And to the extent that this becomes a big national thing such that Republican candidates for president are forced to side with Davis, that's terrible for Republican political prospects, which is probably a plus for many of the people happy with the outcome here.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Nope. If she wants to inconvenience people, then she too can be inconvenienced.
Protip: Don't break the law here, you don't go to jail.
If she feels that strongly about her beliefs, resign. This is obviously not the line of work for her.
She could be doing this because her cat told her to. It doesn't matter. Her beliefs are irrelevant. What is relevant is her defying the law.
I do wonder if you would be as understanding if the issue effected you personally. Say you wanted to get licensed in your own home town and could not because the clerk didn't approve of your relationship for whatever reason.
This is ignoring the fact that an impeachment is not a guarantee and her term doesn't end until 2019.
So refusing a marriage license is the same as shooting someone? Ok. :
I guess you missed my point about severity. Can't blame you for going along with the crowd, though.
Then what IS the limit, Blue5? Accepting a tax return from a chinaman? Granting parental visits to a dwarf? What's the line? Hmm?
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
You don't see what it achieves? showing others that they can't do this or they will end up in jail.
Which is great, keep her in jail until January, it's disgusting that she still earns money but I'm glad she's at least locked up.
You know they're issuing marriage licenses now, right?
Well, it wouldn't effect me personally. I think marriage is a joke, which may be influencing my opinion on this a bit, but alas: that's what I believe.
Regardless, I don't believe she should sit in jail receiving her paycheck, that defeats the purpose of the punishment I think. She has a temporary lack of freedom, but is that enough? This woman, if she must be in jail, should not be receiving a paycheck or compensation of any form.
CornBurrito
Member
No I saw your point. But I'm a Bible believing Christian and the Bible says that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord. A rape is a murder is a theft is a refusing to render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's.
So first jail is too severe and now it's not enough? Are you just arguing for argument's sake?
Gay marriage is legal right now. Why should we be patient and let this woman deprive others of their legal marriage certificates?
In her county, a gay couple has been refused a marriage license five times by her. Even though the marriage was legal
CornBurrito
Member
Ah so because the punishment is not severe enough for you, you'd rather she not be punished at all until January when she is impeached.
I get it. A man who raped my 3 year old daughter was only going to serve 20 years in prison thanks to a plea bargain. That wasn't nearly enough time imo so I told the judge "ayy lmao just let him go."
Cool, it's really great that we have weird unempathetic robots in our midsts
It's definitely acting as a wake up call to many about taking public office and what the responsibilities are. I would argue that it's furthering the ongoing education that government granted rights aren't as broad and far-reaching as people seem to think they are.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Yes, as I said a couple days ago though either way she's still going to be a symbol.
I'm pretty sure there's a limit that the fine could be.
No, jail is still too severe imo. But if she is sitting in jail she should not be collecting a paycheck, or do you think that's ok? The alternative was continue with fines, which would have essentially negated her paycheck. What I mean is: I think there is a double standard here.
They should all be stoned to death, if you know what I mean.
metalslimer
Member
I always love when someone jumps to the I don't really care about blank ____ after arguing about it.
Wasn't it clear since his first post? When he pupousely ignored the FAQ in the OP?
I think that blue5 needs to seriously engage with respect to how their suggestions for structural change affect the balance of power between appointed and elected government bodies. The court does not have a choice between firing her and jailing her. It can do nothing, fine her, or jail her. She herself has said that fining would be the same as doing nothing. To enforce its orders, the court jails her. To not do this is to raise the question of why we would even bother to have a judiciary.
Jail should be for serious crimes, not disputes based around personal beliefs. All I'm suggesting is perhaps a "who watches the watchmen" scenario. There should be an immediate way to deal with renegades like this, instead of simply jailing them and wasting tax payer dollars while they still continue to receive a paycheck. There should be a system in place that impeaches offenders of her caliber immediately. She is a clerk, for God's sake, not a president. What was the purpose of the FAQ, exactly? To prevent questions and discussions from cropping up? To essentially fill up this thread with the same exact sentiment across the board? All I'm suggesting is that the punishment she is currently receiving is simply a band-aid on the issue, and that a change needs to happen in order for nonsense like this to become irrelevant quickly. We shouldn't have to wait 4 months for her to lose her job. Change comes from discussions usually, and that's what I'm trying to have here. A discussion.
Count Dookkake
Member
False dichotomy.
Non sequitur.
Count Dookkake
Member
Nope.
Link
The Autumn Wind
The Kentucky legislature will be enthusiastically opening that can come January.
No, it followed quite directly.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
It should be, however, this woman was given every opportunity to avoid jail. She could have resigned like other clerks in the country who had religious conflicts with the Supreme court decision. The judge even gave her an out by allowing her to give her deputies permission to issue the licenses. While I would have like to see fines purely to drain some fundraising coffers, it would not have changed her mind. Jail was not just handed down at the drop of a hat.
Oh come on, you're being obtuse. The reason for the faq is so that people stop asking the same question over and over again: "Why don't they just fire her". The answer is that they can't and you know this. It's not to stop discussion. What you are arguing is something completely different. You are arguing for the laws to be changed which has nothing to do with why they can't fire her.
We agree though that jail should only be for violent or serious crimes, but that's really off topic, because that is not the system we have in place. I hope you vote for a progressive if you want that kind of change eventually.
I agree, which is why the FAQ is irrelevant in this discussion.
Who watches the watchmen? We already have a system in place for that. Several, actually.
If you don't like what the judge has done, read your Constitution, and look-up who has check over judicial power. If you don't like it, you're free to seek amending it.
If you don't like what the local official has done, again, read Kentucky's constitution, and look-up who has check over local officials. If you don't like it, you're free to lobby Kentucky's officials.
If you don't like that citizens have the freedom to seek redress via the judiciary, again, seek to change the system.
When you see these, you cannot deny that there are indeed established methods of "watching." I've given you your answer; now go ahead and ignore it.
You lost me. The faq is relevant in informing people on a very common question they have. Simply firing her is not an option and her being in jail is. You'll have to explain to me why that is not a relevant bit of information.
darkazcura
Member
Well this is a totally different argument. I think most people would agree that there should probably be better actions avaliable to the judge in potential cases like these, but there currently is. They are doing what they can, and that's really all there is to it right now.
It's also your viewpoint that this isn't a serious crime..personally I think using your power to essentially oppress a group of people is a fairly serious crime. As someone who isn't Christian or doesn't even come close to identifying with the religion in my heritage, it is scary to think there is a government official who thinks they can force their views on a segment of the population. If she isn't jailed and taught to understand that the law of the country supercedes the law of her religion, where does it end? What is the next thing she will decide to try to enforce based on her beliefs? What will another government official with even more power decide to do in the future if they agree with her behavior and she is 'let free' with a slap on her wrist? This is definitely a serious crime/civil case the more I think about it.
It's not relevant toward a discussion about changing the way the system works.
Couldn't you make the same argument but in reverse? Isn't it scary how the government can force same sex marriage despite the fact that it goes against a large portion of our population's views? Just saying.
googleplex
Member
Holy shit....
Denying a citizen their protected right under the Constitution of the United states of American is not a serious crime?
I I can only imagine how horrifying this conversation would be during the Civil rights Movement and Jim crow.
You really, really need to take a remedial civics class.
She's denying people their rights, discriminating against a specific group of individuals for their sexual orientation. This is absolutely a serious crime.
You're right. But that's not what the thread is about. The thread is about this lady being arrested for defying court orders by not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Count Dookkake
Member
I tried above, but - big fucking shocker - you've conveniently ignored it. We have watchers for the watchmen.
darkazcura
Member
And 50 years ago a large part of the population had issues with integration. Just because a large amount of the population is incredibly ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted doesn't mean we should be bending to their will. Their viewpoint is objectively wrong regardless of their beliefs. It's discrimination, and if they want to hide behind the beliefs card, then they can be dealt with through the law.
This isn't the same thing in reverse at all and that you think that is particularly scary.
Thaedolus
Member
I, for one, welcome the same sex partner I was forced to marry. My wife was getting a bit boring anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked