-
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.
Kentucky Clerk denies same-sex couple marriage license for the third time
- Thread starter Macho Madness
- Start date
- Status
thenight11
Member
@AP: BREAKING: Gay couples ask judge to fine Kentucky clerk, give no jail time over marriage-license denials.
Interesting approach
Interesting approach
br0ken_shad0w
Member
But just like Civil Rights and racism, bigots will never stop being bigots, they'll just be more discreet about it.
I'm sure the gofundme for the fines will be very successful.
She still has a boss though right? She can't just do whatever the hell she wants and have no consequences just because she was elected?
The fines should be donated to Planned Parenthood, just to really fuck with their reality.
Pizza Booty
Banned
I'm in agreement with no jail time. I'm firmly for prison reform and I don't think using the penitentiary system for this is necessary.
I want to see her sued. Every person that she denied a marriage license should be able to bring a case against her.
Pisses me off her legal fees will be paid for by all the crazies
Because she is an elected official she does not technically have a "boss." A recall election can occur or she can be held in contempt, but there is no one single person with the power to fire her. It would take the Kentucky legislature to vote on her removal. Given the politics of Kentucky, that seems unlikely as well.
Being held in contempt sees to be the best course of action against her.
I think the judge should give her 4 months of community service, in a very gay community.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Considering there might not be a recall system or the time for it has run out, there might not be a way to remove her from office except by throwing her in jail.
She's denying people basic civil rights as a government representative. Perfect use for jail if there ever was one.
This is always mentioned in cases like these, but it is worth pointing out that while those defying the courts may get financial assistance in the most prominent cases, that they cannot possible get it in all cases. There just isn't the money out there to support hundreds or thousands of people who try to deny couples their rights.
Inevitably, a few will get money, most will not, and driven by the unavoidable economics of the situation will either comply with the courts or leave their jobs. All that is necessary is that people continue to challenge those who try and discriminate against others.
Send her to WeHo.
Walter White Walker
Member
I'd imagine even the conservative Supreme Court judges aren't going to stand for this - ignoring the Supreme Court isn't going to be allowed to stand.
Fenderputty
Banned
I think we've found a possible relative here:
This image is so flyover country.
Grimm Fandango
Member
That sounds good but she needs to be removed from office.
Netherscourge
Banned
The US Attorney General will probably be stopping by to arrest them in a few days.
Religious bigotry is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment in a public setting, like a STATE office that handles marriage certificates.
You can only be a religious bigot in a private setting, like a church or your own house.
Church <-> State
That separation is the LIMIT of the 1st Amendment and prevents Religious Bigots from imposing their will publicly.
Religious bigotry is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment in a public setting, like a STATE office that handles marriage certificates.
You can only be a religious bigot in a private setting, like a church or your own house.
Church <-> State
That separation is the LIMIT of the 1st Amendment and prevents Religious Bigots from imposing their will publicly.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Gofundme's are taxable income, right?
Also, because she is an elected official, I wonder what if any, are the consequences for a gofundme for such a person who claims that she is acting under the color of law. I'm guessing that hasn't been litigated yet.
Pizza Booty
Banned
I'm usually against jail time for nonviolent crimes but I am warming up to the idea of her being incarcerated
The long denim skirt wearing, always-obese people that belong to the Old Regular Baptists (huge religion in Morehead) are everywhere and this is a normal view of the people there...
If she accepts the gofundme money, isn't that basically bribery to perform illegal activities since she is a public servant?
They don't want her turned into a martyr. The lady probably would love jail time, to become a figurehead sacrificial lamb.
Pizza Booty
Banned
yeah wtf is up with this fashion trend? why do evangelical women always wear long denim skirts? it's fucked up.
Pizza Booty
Banned
thing is there will probably be a huge gofundme or some rich evangelical will just pay for all her court fines.
they're also not allowed to have "trendy" hair so they often just let it grow.
it's because they're not allowed to show their ankles or dress in a way that is "defiant" of being a woman (i.e. slacks, pants, etc).
basically... sharia-law light for white southerners/Appalachians.
Fenderputty
Banned
You mean those bangs aren't trendy?
Which is fine, more money shuffled amongst those slobs and no GoFundMe will cover the hellstorm of fines and shit the government can bring down on this lady and her community.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Smart approach. If she were imprisoned, the story would be a Christian thrown in jail for refusing to compromise her faith. Plus, by only asking for fines, rather than imprisonment, the gay couples look more like people who really just want to get married already, and less like anti-religion zealots.
lmao who knows
there's a few of these types of women close to the office where i work. they're always binge eating because they're not allowed to: A) consume alcohol B) watch popular movies C) listen to popular music D) live a normal human life
the selective nature of what they can and can't do is really something.
Sir Abacus
Member
Being ordered by a federal judge to issue licenses she now knows her actions are deliberately unconstitutional. This will result in her losing qualified immunity and being personally liable for a civil court civil rights action. The county and state can't protect her.
I'm not quite sure she knows what she's doing because she's playing with motherfuckin fire here. Either that or she's getting really bad legal advice or just ignoring good legal advice. The wrong vindictive person can take her for absolutely everything she has.
I'm not quite sure she knows what she's doing because she's playing with motherfuckin fire here. Either that or she's getting really bad legal advice or just ignoring good legal advice. The wrong vindictive person can take her for absolutely everything she has.
I agree. She needs to resign. She's still taking a paycheck from her job but she's refusing to do the duties that she is getting paid for. I have no problem with someone refusing to do something because of their religious beliefs but in this case she needs to step down and find a different line of work.
Having a job is a blessing, not a given. She's treating the position like she deserves to be there (yes I know she was elected but she was elected to perform certain tasks which she is now refusing to do) and as if it were her personal soapbox. It's the wrong way to go about it, in my opinion.
Isn't it against TOS for gofundme to be used to cover the costs of illegal activities, a la the Oregon bakers also trying to raise money against their estimated fines and court costs?
Of course, she could get direct donations or something.
What i've learned during this debacle is that the Contempt of Court powers are used to force an individual to comply. For instance, if a journalist goes to jail to protect their sources in defiance of a court order, but still refuses to divulge, they'll eventually be let out because it's clear that the punishment isn't having the intended effect of compelling compliance.
In her case, the likelihood of wingnut welfare negating any financial damage, the judge *should* push for jail.
Her lawyers have been advising her to defy the court orders, yes. One would think that would be grounds for disbarment.
Of course, she could get direct donations or something.
What i've learned during this debacle is that the Contempt of Court powers are used to force an individual to comply. For instance, if a journalist goes to jail to protect their sources in defiance of a court order, but still refuses to divulge, they'll eventually be let out because it's clear that the punishment isn't having the intended effect of compelling compliance.
In her case, the likelihood of wingnut welfare negating any financial damage, the judge *should* push for jail.
Her lawyers have been advising her to defy the court orders, yes. One would think that would be grounds for disbarment.
Fenderputty
Banned
Agreed. I think I would be going for blood, but I wouldn't be a rational person either.
In theory, couldn't the judge fine her for contempt by the day? I'm sure she could raise enough to cover the first few days, but eventually it would dry up.
Yeah. As an elected official any use of funds from contribution/donation would be open to extreme scrutiny and possible legal action.
Zoe
Member
It's a singular, elected position that covers the entire county.
I don't know the demographics of the area, but people rarely know who they're voting for when they vote for a county clerk (assuming they vote at all). The county attorney has already filed charges.
Well, the thing is, if she is locked up, the fringe right can still continue to insist that her rights are not being respected, but a unanimous SCOTUS refused her request for a stay. It is significant because previously, Thomas and Scalia had openly dissented when the same-sex marriage legality issue was still unresolved. Now that it is resolved, all nine justices recognize that an elected officials duties are required to be fulfilled. She swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution. I assume Kentucky law requires clerks to issue marriage licenses. By not issuing marriage licenses, she is abusing the fundamental rights of both heterosexual and same-sex couples seeking to have their union recognized by the state.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Just coming out now. She will have a contempt of court hearing this Thursday to answer why she is still refusing the order to issue licenses.
Here: http://www.aclu-ky.org/articles/breaking-contempt-motion-filed-against-rowan-county-clerk/
Here: http://www.aclu-ky.org/articles/breaking-contempt-motion-filed-against-rowan-county-clerk/
Agreed. Beliefs or not. You have a job. Do it.
I can't go get a job at McDonald's and say it's against my religion to do any of the work required. She should refill out her application and check the box that says she's not capable of fulfilling her duties.
Grimm Fandango
Member
Nice I'm glad it's coming up this quick.
Fenderputty
Banned
Awesome.
If you were elected democratically to your job at McDonalds and it was a state or city facility it wouldn't be so simple.
As in this case.
AngmarsKing701
Member
Right. This has to happen quick, and not just for this case. This woman is essentially breaking the law of the United States Constitution and hiding behind her religious belief to do so.
So...
"Yes officer I ran the red light because stopping is against my religion."
"Yes I stole money from the register because God authorized it."
"Yes I shot a bunch of people because there's all kinds of killing in the bible."
There's a slippery slope here that we don't want to go down. State and Church are separate. If you can't ENACT THE LAW then step down from your position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UECkFbE56MY
CNN interview today with the Casey County clerk, the other kentucky county clerk refusing to issue licenses. I thought for a second there that he was saying he would adhere to his oath, but then he says that the Kentucky constitution bars same-sex marriage, blahblahblah. He said that there is no higher power that can overrule that constitution. What that means, is that the people of Kentucky (or its elected officials) could amend the Kentucky constitution to ban interracial marriage, or make slavery legal, and that nothing in the US Constitution could stop that from occurring.
Fucking hell. These people need to be locked up.
CNN interview today with the Casey County clerk, the other kentucky county clerk refusing to issue licenses. I thought for a second there that he was saying he would adhere to his oath, but then he says that the Kentucky constitution bars same-sex marriage, blahblahblah. He said that there is no higher power that can overrule that constitution. What that means, is that the people of Kentucky (or its elected officials) could amend the Kentucky constitution to ban interracial marriage, or make slavery legal, and that nothing in the US Constitution could stop that from occurring.
Fucking hell. These people need to be locked up.
TheOctodad
Member
At the end of the day, this is why early Christians really had a lot of resistance to followers of Jesus being a part of the military or government. When you swear an oath to the state and it goes against your beliefs you have to be willing to compromise one.
This is where I get frustrated the most. I am perfectly fine with you believing what you want, but your very beliefs should prevent you from swearing allegiance as a government official.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked