So my question, which is more of a GQ question: in all the news stories I’m reading about this asshole of a clerk, they’re all saying she either needs to rot in jail or issue SSM licenses. Am I missing something, or isn’t resigning from her job an option?
I think she’s make it clear that she’s not resigning, so it’s ruled out as an option.
Gotcha–thanks!
It’s not an option in the sense that she doesn’t want to lose her ability to preach God’s word, or words to that effect. There is no legal or physical impediment to her resigning.
She should be compelled to cite chapter and verse from the bible where it says not only shall you not commit homosexual acts, but you shall not endorse homosexuality by others.
Nah. If you’re gonna allow people to use their religion as an excuse, how are you gonna ask for proof within the religion? I mean, I don’t believe in her God, and I don’t believe in her Bible, and I don’t believe in her concept of sin or heaven or hell or angels or demons or magic ointments or prayer beads or church pews or saints or snakes or anything else that’s part of her religion.
Her holy book could include the verse, “Verily I sayeth unto you, she that holdeth the position of county clerk in Kentucky, if she stands fast against the forces of darkness and doth not issueth marriage licenseth, she shall sit at the right hand of God and play patty-cakes with him unto eternity.” And I wouldn’t give a crap, because it’s not about whether her religion that I don’t believe in is based on paper or something else. If her entire reason for not issuing these marriage licenses was that she was feeling gassy and pissy and her ex-boyfriend came out of the closet and seriously fuck those gays for taking her boyfriend, it’d mean exactly as much to me as whatever her current reason is.
What matters is that she was elected to do a job, she promised to do it, she’s refusing to do it despite the entire government including Tony freakin Scalia telling her to do it, and she’s refusing to resign so that someone else can do the job she promised to do. Her reasons for that refusal are completely, 100% irrelevant.
But why isn’t she being impeached?
Because KY’s Legislature is not in session until January. Then they’ll have to deal with that, if not otherwise mooted.
She could be, but the legislature (who is required for this) isn’t in session until January, and it’s very unlikely that the governor will call a special session just for that.
The governor (who is a Democrat, though Davis is too) who previously ordered all clerks to comply with Obergefell, could order them into special session.
ETA: ninja’d.
If by “it” you mean equal rights, not true. What you are taking away is more than equal rights that one group enjoys. In this case it is the “right” to impose her version of straight Christianity on others.
She should be compelled to read Romans 13 aloud in open court.
At this point, it sounds like the problem is solved for everyone except the clerk, and she can rot in jail until January, which is a win-win for everyone I care about. The contempt of court punishment should also include fines commensurate to any donations she gets. Could one of the couples whom she mistreated in her official capacity sue either her or her office? I believe public officials normally enjoy immunity from lawsuits, but given her explicit refusal to act according to her official duties, I wonder if that immunity applies.
Basically, I want her to enjoy no fruits of her labors here. Her salary should be refunded to the county backdated to when she first refused to follow orders, and any donations she receives for her illegal acts should go to her victims.
So now the religious right has their martyr in jail, and they will use her to rally the troops to commit more civil disobedience in the name of the lord. How many should we plan on imprisoning to prove our point? As I understand it, someone jailed for contempt is confined indefinitely until such time as the judge sees fit to let her out, with no due process to end the court order. This has the potential to become a serious problem for the left if there are dozens of Christians sitting in jail for prolonged periods.
I think we should argue with them, and show the rest of the country how unreasonably hypocritical they are. To simply conclude we don’t have to because we are right is foolish. I would rather win the argument on their terms than simply proclaim my atheism and declare victory. Unfortunately, the math is against us.
How many? As many as decide to break the law like she’s doing. Her reasons for breaking this law are immaterial. The only point we’re proving here is that the rule of law applies to everyone, including to the small subset of Christians who think their religion means they’re above the law.
She can get out of jail as soon as she resigns. If she finds jail preferable, let her rot.
We’re a country with millions of people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. I’m really not going to worry about throwing a few dozen elected officials in jail for refusing to either resign or do their damned job.
I’m not proclaiming my atheism and declaring victory. I’m proclaiming that we’re not a theocracy, in which government officials act on God’s authority rather than the authority of a secular government.
In this case, the numbers are on MY side.
Adore this.
As many as it takes.
The worst case: they escalate, meeting marshals at the door with guns (like the boob in Nevada) in which case we respond with force, until it spirals into a Civil War, which we will win, but at vast cost.
More likely… Two or three more, tops.
All she has to do get out of jail is to promise not to interfere with her deputy clerks issuing the licensees (5 out of 6 said they would & the refusenik is her own son), but she won’t even do that. She’s holing the keys to her cell in her hand.
A musical tribute for our oppressed crusader
I agree (as long as we’re not giving the government free reign to decide what is or is not a religious practice or belief). Unless she believes same-sex civil marriage per se is a sin, no one’s virtue hinges on the licences being issued. Not issuing the licence won’t make them straight, break up their relationship, or stop them from having sex.
Ok, without the word “equal” this would be incorrect, but since it’s there, this is gibberish.
Hint: “equal rights” isn’t just “rights” with more syllables.
I’m 100% against tossing Christians in jail.
People who knowingly, deliberately hinder fellow citizens in exercising their rights, in direct contravention of a Supreme Court ruling? Public officials who lie in their official capacity? I’m a little less sympathetic to them.