Interview on CNN just claimed that her objection is to issuing the licenses as currently written, because the paperwork states that it’s based on her authority. Said interview claimed if they rewrote the licenses to more that part, stating it in the name of the state or some such, then she would resume processing them.
That woudl at least be a little more respectable to me…although you still don’t get to choose which laws to enforce at that level.
You can still have local civil servants (professionals employed by the local authorities), as we do for registration of births, marriages and deaths, among many other functions, rather than elected amateurs with their own ideological axes to grind. There were one or two local registrars who tried the same sorts of argument here, and got short shrift from the courts.
I can see the logic, but there’s a real difference between her authority *as the office-holder *and her personal authority.
Yes, but it’s not like someone stopped to consider it that way back when it first got started. In much of the US historically there was not only decentralization but also relative isolation. It made sense if many offices were filled by a community member selected by their neighbors, and in smaller communities that office, heck that official himself, be charged with a wide variety of tasks you needed handled. It was only much later that things got to the point you could muster a staff of career public servants for these purposes using a standardized procedure mandated from above, and by that time the concept of the certificates and licenses being “issued by” the elected official “under his authority” had become just the way things were done.
Yeah, cause I’m assuming she denies licenses to divorced people too - as that’s in the bible too.
This is just boilerplate wording that shouldn’t really matter, but kinda does, but not really - and no court is going to end up ruling that she gets to decide who gets married - anything that comes through that state will be held up - as what matters is if the person actually gets married - she’s just giving (or supposed to be giving them) a license to marry.
Let’s just hope delusions of grandeur don’t strike Jacob Lew - or the stock market will go to zero tomorrow. He has as much (eventual effective) authority on our money supply as she does on Kentucky Marriages.
She’s just saying those words as a stalling tactic and to make things more difficult/ make a protest/ get attention/ whatever.
Her name appears on all kinds of things that are against her religion - she’s a court clerk.
There were 2 ways this could have been resolved:
In Kentucky (like many states) you can get a marriage license from any county, and have the actual marriage in a different county. (It’s common for a couple to get a license in the county where they live, but hold the ceremony in the bride’s hometown, at her parents church, for example.) So the gay couple could have just traveled to another county, to get their license there. (Just like in years back, when interracial couples could have traveled to northern states without miscegenation laws to get a marriage license.) But they were making the point that they should not have to go to that effort – legally, they are entitled to equal treatment, despite the clerk’s personal opinions.
The deputy clerks could have just issued the license, and signed it with the rubber stamp of the clerk’s signature. Something they do every day on such documents.
(And which is what they eventually did, under court order.) They didn’t do this earlier, because she ordered them not to, and they were afraid for their jobs if they did so. (Also, it appears that she hired friends & even relatives for these public jobs! If I was the deputy clerk that eventually issued this license, I’d have my resume up-to-date – I expect she’ll figure out some way to get rid of them once she’s out of jail.)
So it was quite possible for this to have been settled without all this controversy. But both sides were somewhat stubborn, and wanted to stand up for their rights.
ISTM ***one ***of the sides was standing for their rights. The other side was standing for the sense of entitlement that she was elected to that office to run it the way she sees fit regardless of higher court orders.
I do hope the judgements to come include an injunction against her taking any sort of measure to punish the staff for abiding by the court order and disobeying her unlawful instructions.
And refuse to issue business licenses to restaurants that serve pork or shrimp.
Only if it’s a buffet restaurant.
Well, I agree. but I was trying to keep this comment more neutral, being in GQ.
Not likely, as she’s gone thru 3 divorces herself. Apparently those Bible parts (words from Jesus himself!) don’t apply any more. Or not to her.
She is in the custody of Federal Marshals.
The United States doesn’t have a tradition of a civil service that is independent of politics. Almost every civil bureaucrat ultimately answers to an elected official of some kind if you keep following the chain of authority.
And the Marshal Service turned her over to the Carter County Detention Facility, which is a county jail.
I don’t know why they did this. Perhaps there is no federal correctional facility in the area and they contract with the county to hold their prisoners.
Distance is a factor, but usually, the county jail is just cheaper than a federal lockup. Especially for a non-violent prisoner, whom they don’t expect to be there very long.
For example, here in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Federal prisoners are often kept temporarily in the county jail, even though there is a Federal lockup in Sandstone, MN. But it’s 4 hours to travel there and back with a prisoner, while the county jail is about 2 blocks from the Federal Courthouse. Just easier & more convenient, and much cheaper.
But does that mean they actually handed over responsibility for her? I actually have no idea how the US Marshal service works.
Responsibility in what sense? She was taken into custody by the US Marshals and then turned over to the county jail, which will house her and provide medical and other services. The Marshals Service is responsible for paying the county jail to house her, and is responsible for providing a secure escort and payment if she needs care at an outside medical facility. She is legally in the custody of the Marshals service, though, and they could in theory move her from the Carter County facility to another detention facility with which they have an agreement . The Marshals Service is also responsible for providing a secure escort and payment if she needs care at an outside medical facility and for transporting her between the detention facility and the court.
I think this should have been her ultimate test of faith. Should should have been stoned to see if god would protected her for her beliefs. Works for me.
You are right, it doesn’t make sense. It’s a huge problem with local government offices where most positions are appointed by whoever is in power. It should be a regular job with a job description, and the next Mayor shouldn’t be allowed to fire everyone and bring in their own staff just because they won the election. Imagine if companies did something so stupid. Every time there was a new CEO, he/she fired everyone and brought in their friends they went to school with as if this was a normal activity.
She knew this was coming. She could have easily resigned in protest and gotten another job instead of not doing what she was paid to do. I still think stoning her would have been a much better test of her faith to see if she was right and god protected her. But we will never know, because they took the easy way out and put her in jail.
For those outside the US, KY is considerrf a backwards place to begin with. So this isn’t a surprise this occurred there. The educational attainment of the population in KY compared to the rest of the US is low. OK is another place I suspect this could have happened too.
Ok, that’s kind of what I thought. If the US Marshall thinks for whatever reason the County lockup is not providing an appropriate form of custody they would move her. And they still personally transport her when needed. (remember this was in relation to a post asking if county officials were letting her conduct business from within the jail or giving her special benefits while imprisoned, I am certain the US Marshal would not allow either of those things despite the fact that the County is in physical custody).