News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[92tide]

I'm still curious as to the moral obligations of government workers. If you are the magistrate judge after Dred Scott, the train conductor on the way to a German death camp, or a bus driver in 1950s Montgomery, does morality require you to simply step aside and let someone else do the thing you find morally reprehensible, or does it require you to take a stand? I still think that is the interesting question out of all this. For better or worse, the actual issue of gay marriage is settled.

and i still think you are using poor analogies to make your point about morality. in each of your examples, the person is expected to do the government "bidding" of directly taking away liberty and/or life from someone. very clear and stark issues of morality.

that is not even remotely the case in what is happening in kentucky.

 

[92tide]

Characterizing it as a battle of religious freedom makes a mockery of actual issues of religious persecution.

not only that, i go so far as to say (fwiw) that this is in direct violation of the third commandment not to take the lord's name in vain, jmho of course

 

[92tide]

No, I'm trying to explore the standard for judging these kinds of actions. The "do your job or resign" crowd just ignores that there may be situations--such as the one you just described when the lawful requirements of someone's job requires them to take the liberty or life of another--where we would expect and praise someone for not doing their job because of their moral convictions.

i understand the point you are trying to make. but the underlying premise of your argument is that slavery, the holocaust, and jim crow are morally analogous to the situation we have in kentucky and that these examples will serve to enlighten us.

your examples and the davis situation in kentucky are not the same kinds of actions for which you are exploring a judging standard and the moral convictions from your examples are not the same as we are seeing in kentucky.

 

[cbi1972]

No, I'm trying to explore the standard for judging these kinds of actions. The "do your job or resign" crowd just ignores that there may be situations--such as the one you just described when the lawful requirements of someone's job requires them to take the liberty or life of another--where we would expect and praise someone for not doing their job because of their moral convictions.

I'm probably a bigger believer in normative moral relativism than you are, but that seems to be the road you're going down here.

 

[Jon]

i understand the point you are trying to make. but the underlying premise of your argument is that slavery, the holocaust, and jim crow are morally analogous to the situation we have in kentucky and that these examples will serve to enlighten us.

your examples and the davis situation in kentucky are not the same kinds of actions for which you are exploring a judging standard and the moral convictions from your examples are not the same as we are seeing in kentucky.

it feels like a pretty lame way to invoke Godwin's law to me

 

[92tide]

it feels like a pretty lame way to invoke Godwin's law to me

or a brilliant way to invoke poe's

 

[TRUTIDE]

I'm still curious as to the moral obligations of government workers. If you are the magistrate judge after Dred Scott, the train conductor on the way to a German death camp, or a bus driver in 1950s Montgomery, does morality require you to simply step aside and let someone else do the thing you find morally reprehensible, or does it require you to take a stand? I still think that is the interesting question out of all this. For better or worse, the actual issue of gay marriage is settled.

The liberal judges behind this decision have no concern for morality, judicial ethics or the institution of marriage (as it has been defined in this country).

I am concerned that the govt would require someone to abandon certain religious beliefs to be able to hold a government job. Will this make this elected position only available to people without religion? How would the wording be on this job description? I do not have strong feelings about what is happening in KY. There is still a lot to play out there on both sides. The notion that we would throw someone in jail because they stand up for their religious beliefs is not a path we should be exploring as a nation. She took the job under a established job description and it changes into something that goes against her religious beliefs. There were several different ways this could have played out but jail should not have been one of them. This 5 judge ruling has/will cause much harm to the religious freedoms and state's authority provided by our constitution.

 

[chanson78]

The liberal judges behind this decision have no concern for morality, judicial ethics or the institution of marriage (as it has been defined in this country).

I am concerned that the govt would require someone to abandon certain religious beliefs to be able to hold a government job. Will this make this elected position only available to people without religion? How would the wording be on this job description? I do not have strong feelings about what is happening in KY. There is still a lot to play out there on both sides. The notion that we would throw someone in jail because they stand up for their religious beliefs is not a path we should be exploring as a nation. She took the job under a established job description and it changes into something that goes against her religious beliefs. There were several different ways this could have played out but jail should not have been one of them. This 5 judge ruling has/will cause much harm to the religious freedom and state's authority provided by our constitution.

I somehow doubt that the job description before the SC decision had anything related to "issue marriage certificates except to homosexuals." Time and again you have made the point that this job is requiring her to give up her religion. If anything it has allowed for more expression of her religion. An elected person who has refused to do their job, can now let their underlings do the actual work out of respect for the fact that it goes against her fairly recent religious beliefs.

As soon as you make the argument that even allowing her underlings to issue the marriage certificates is going against her religion, you have stepped over the boundary of "freedom of religion" and into the realm of "freedom to impose religion." No matter how you frame it, in the end it is about a very small person seeing their chance at getting their voice heard on a very large stage. Recently her contention has been that since she didn't issue the licenses they are not valid. This issue has strayed so very far from being about her ability to do her job and maintain her religious beliefs that it isn't funny. This is emblematic of many on the right who believe you should be able to legislate morality. This is just one of the few remaining barriers that remained, so the furor is all the more compact and frenetic.

 

[Jon]

I somehow doubt that the job description before the SC decision had anything related to "issue marriage certificates except to homosexuals." Time and again you have made the point that this job is requiring her to give up her religion. If anything it has allowed for more expression of her religion. An elected person who has refused to do their job, can now let their underlings do the actual work out of respect for the fact that it goes against her fairly recent religious beliefs.

As soon as you make the argument that even allowing her underlings to issue the marriage certificates is going against her religion, you have stepped over the boundary of "freedom of religion" and into the realm of "freedom to impose religion." No matter how you frame it, in the end it is about a very small person seeing their chance at getting their voice heard on a very large stage. Recently her contention has been that since she didn't issue the licenses they are not valid. This issue has strayed so very far from being about her ability to do her job and maintain her religious beliefs that it isn't funny. This is emblematic of many on the right who believe you should be able to legislate morality. This is just one of the few remaining barriers that remained, so the furor is all the more compact and frenetic.

slow clap, nicely put

 

[crimsonaudio]

I somehow doubt that the job description before the SC decision had anything related to "issue marriage certificates except to homosexuals." Time and again you have made the point that this job is requiring her to give up her religion. If anything it has allowed for more expression of her religion. An elected person who has refused to do their job, can now let their underlings do the actual work out of respect for the fact that it goes against her fairly recent religious beliefs.

As soon as you make the argument that even allowing her underlings to issue the marriage certificates is going against her religion, you have stepped over the boundary of "freedom of religion" and into the realm of "freedom to impose religion." No matter how you frame it, in the end it is about a very small person seeing their chance at getting their voice heard on a very large stage. Recently her contention has been that since she didn't issue the licenses they are not valid. This issue has strayed so very far from being about her ability to do her job and maintain her religious beliefs that it isn't funny. This is emblematic of many on the right who believe you should be able to legislate morality. This is just one of the few remaining barriers that remained, so the furor is all the more compact and frenetic.

Nailed it.

 

[Catfish]

I somehow doubt that the job description before the SC decision had anything related to "issue marriage certificates except to homosexuals." Time and again you have made the point that this job is requiring her to give up her religion. If anything it has allowed for more expression of her religion. An elected person who has refused to do their job, can now let their underlings do the actual work out of respect for the fact that it goes against her fairly recent religious beliefs.

As soon as you make the argument that even allowing her underlings to issue the marriage certificates is going against her religion, you have stepped over the boundary of "freedom of religion" and into the realm of "freedom to impose religion." No matter how you frame it, in the end it is about a very small person seeing their chance at getting their voice heard on a very large stage. Recently her contention has been that since she didn't issue the licenses they are not valid. This issue has strayed so very far from being about her ability to do her job and maintain her religious beliefs that it isn't funny. This is emblematic of many on the right who believe you should be able to legislate morality. This is just one of the few remaining barriers that remained, so the furor is all the more compact and frenetic.

 

[TRUTIDE]

I somehow doubt that the job description before the SC decision had anything related to "issue marriage certificates except to homosexuals." Time and again you have made the point that this job is requiring her to give up her religion. If anything it has allowed for more expression of her religion. An elected person who has refused to do their job, can now let their underlings do the actual work out of respect for the fact that it goes against her fairly recent religious beliefs.
.

I have not looked at the actual KY wording for the requirements one must meet to recieve a license but most states do/did have "man and woman" in there somewhere. Most even go as far as to have "same sex" specifically pointed out as not being allowed. I am sure KY is the same. This is the whole point.

I cannot attest to the woman's authenticity. The attacks on this woman are ridiculous. We seen the same for the baker, the caterer etc. I am aware that some will always resort to this but putting the woman in jail? That is where this whole thing turns ugly.

 

[Jon]

I have not looked at the actual KY wording for the requirements one must meet to recieve a license but most states do/did have "man and woman" in there somewhere. Most even go as far as to have "same sex" specifically pointed out as not being allowed. I am sure KY is the same. This is the whole point.

I cannot attest to the woman's authenticity. The attacks on this woman are ridiculous. We seen the same for the baker, the caterer etc. I am aware that some will always resort to this but putting the woman in jail? That is where this whole thing turns ugly.

and the "do/Did" "man and woman" part was ruled unconstitutional

curious would you defend a county clerk denying a marriage license to an inter racial couple in Alabama in 1999? And if so would you have a problem with that person being arrested for not allowing anyone under him to issue the license? Recall that in 1999 it was still illegal in the State of Alabama for a white to marry a black even though the supreme court deemed that unconstitutional in 1967

 

[chanson78]

I have not looked at the actual KY wording for the requirements one must meet to recieve a license but most states do/did have "man and woman" in there somewhere. Most even go as far as to have "same sex" specifically pointed out as not being allowed. I am sure KY is the same. This is the whole point.

In an effort for transparency, you are correct. Kentucky expressly prohibits same sex marriages. On the other hand, you made mention of the fact that her job description changed from the one that existed when she was hired. Public officials experience this at least once a year as new legislation comes out, old legislation dies off or is removed. In this one instance however, she chose to invoke religious reasons for not being malleable enough to shift with the new requirements.

Just for the record, as part of the official laws that her office is subject to as part of the Kentucky Revised Statute 522.200:

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.

That part of the statute hasn't changed since she took office, so even if she did sign on to be the county clerk with the express intent of never letting homosexuals marry, she had to know, or maybe at least should have known, that there was a chance a law could be passed or judged to be illegal, that would cause her to not be able to do her duties.

On all counts, whether or not she thinks "teh gays" are ickky or not, the USSC has made it illegal to deny gay people the right to marry, which makes it illegal in the US, Kentucky, and yes Rowan county. At the end of the day, she was not doing her job.

I cannot attest to the woman's authenticity. The attacks on this woman are ridiculous. We seen the same for the baker, the caterer etc. I am aware that some will always resort to this but putting the woman in jail? That is where this whole thing turns ugly.

For the record, being put in jail is not the same as an attack. It is the legal consequence of ignoring a legal order from the court to do her job.

Regarding personal attacks, yes, they are petty and do nothing but fan the flames of rhetoric and fanaticism on both sides. It is a lot easier to dismiss someone if you think they are a "dumb hick" or a "religious nutjob." But I guess the same could be said by generalizing liberal judges as having "no concern for morality, judicial ethics or the institution of marriage."

Jailing her was the cheapest and most expedient means to an end. If they had fired her, which they absolutely should have done, that county would have ended up (and may still) bankrupt due to fighting the civil EEOC cases that were/are likely to be filed.

 

[chanson78]

and the "do/Did" "man and woman" part was ruled unconstitutional

curious would you defend a county clerk denying a marriage license to an inter racial couple in Alabama in 1999? And if so would you have a problem with that person being arrested for not allowing anyone under him to issue the license? Recall that in 1999 it was still illegal in the State of Alabama for a white to marry a black even though the supreme court deemed that unconstitutional in 1967

Don't forget theres even a biblical reason to support denying the marriage!

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

 

[Jon]

Jailing her was the cheapest and most expedient means to an end. If they had fired her, which they absolutely should have done, that county would have ended up (and may still) bankrupt due to fighting the civil EEOC cases that were/are likely to be filed.

snipping out this to reply but another great post

my understanding is that she could not be fired as she holds an elected position. I suppose she would need to be impeached then. I could be wrong

the judge also chose to not fine her as the fines would simply have been paid by her supporters and would not have resulted in licenses being given to those who legally are entitled to them.

Jail was the only recourse left and it clearly worked

 

[Jon]

Don't forget theres even a biblical reason to support denying the marriage!

you really think I forgot that ?

 

[TRUTIDE]

and the "do/Did" "man and woman" part was ruled unconstitutional

curious would you defend a county clerk denying a marriage license to an inter racial couple in Alabama in 1999? And if so would you have a problem with that person being arrested for not allowing anyone under him to issue the license? Recall that in 1999 it was still illegal in the State of Alabama for a white to marry a black even though the supreme court deemed that unconstitutional in 1967

I doubt I would have cared much in 1999. I don't equate racial issues with sexual preference but I would have to see the case to really opine.

 

[chanson78]

snipping out this to reply but another great post

my understanding is that she could not be fired as she holds an elected position. I suppose she would need to be impeached then. I could be wrong

the judge also chose to not fine her as the fines would simply have been paid by her supporters and would not have resulted in licenses being given to those who legally are entitled to them.

Jail was the only recourse left and it clearly worked

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

 

[TRUTIDE]

In an effort for transparency, you are correct. Kentucky expressly prohibits same sex marriages. On the other hand, you made mention of the fact that her job description changed from the one that existed when she was hired. Public officials experience this at least once a year as new legislation comes out, old legislation dies off or is removed. In this one instance however, she chose to invoke religious reasons for not being malleable enough to shift with the new requirements.

Just for the record, as part of the official laws that her office is subject to as part of the Kentucky Revised Statute 522.200:



That part of the statute hasn't changed since she took office, so even if she did sign on to be the county clerk with the express intent of never letting homosexuals marry, she had to know, or maybe at least should have known, that there was a chance a law could be passed or judged to be illegal, that would cause her to not be able to do her duties.

On all counts, whether or not she thinks "teh gays" are ickky or not, the USSC has made it illegal to deny gay people the right to marry, which makes it illegal in the US, Kentucky, and yes Rowan county. At the end of the day, she was not doing her job.



For the record, being put in jail is not the same as an attack. It is the legal consequence of ignoring a legal order from the court to do her job.

Regarding personal attacks, yes, they are petty and do nothing but fan the flames of rhetoric and fanaticism on both sides. It is a lot easier to dismiss someone if you think they are a "dumb hick" or a "religious nutjob." But I guess the same could be said by generalizing liberal judges as having "no concern for morality, judicial ethics or the institution of marriage."

Jailing her was the cheapest and most expedient means to an end. If they had fired her, which they absolutely should have done, that county would have ended up (and may still) bankrupt due to fighting the civil EEOC cases that were/are likely to be filed.

It is my understanding that she had went to the state prior to the ruling to be relieved of that duty if the law was passed. This is suppose only a small part of her duties.

So would you say that every federal official that does not follow the law or does not do their job should be jailed?what about judges. Should they officially participate in activities that are directly related to cases they are about to rule on?