Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue gay marriage licences

[Truck'n]

delete

 

[Mage]

I can accept her getting fired for not doing her job, but jailing her is pure facism and fearmongering from the gay lobby. What will come next? Will they jail priests who refuse to marry gays? Will they jail everyone who refuses to wear rainbow flag and suck a cock at work?

 

[Dr. Howard]

She is denying people's rights by not issuing them marriage licenses in accordnce with the law. Her religious views are immaterial.

Look at it from the other side; If she was allowed to do this, then the citizens of other counties could elect County Clerks to nullify the law of the land.

That would not end well.

Yeah, but jail !?

Agree.

Hotwheels, for a local example...no one tried to jail Scott Walker and...whats the name of the senate leader?...for allegedly breaking senate procedural law...they went ahead and tried to recall them. Though the Madison liberals would have loved it, it wasn't even an option.

The Dems in both houses ran and hid out of state to avoid being arrested for refusing to show up to "work" IIRC. (In WI a few years ago)

What other option is there other than jail for this broad? She refused to follow a judicial order.

I like her gumption, but she is wrong.

I think there were recall petitions on some of the Dems who fled the state but they never got enough signatures? Memory is foggy.

On the Kentucky clerk...its not that I disagree with her jail time, its that its an indefinite sentence. If the judge was like "30 days in jail, then another contempt charge if you don't change your mind or resign" that would have been much more rational than just locking her up until she recants on her beliefs.

 

[porscheguy]

No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

 

[Samseau]

No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Marriage isn't a right

 

[Goldin Boy]

As a government worker, you do not get to decline your duties due to the scripture of whatever spirit you whisper to. Everyone should be glad and relieved we live in a country with a mostly secular government. You may wish that wasn't the case, especially in situations like these, but you would quickly change your mind when the "wrong" religion gained power in your city, state, or even the country.

Totally agree. Allowing her to do this(not doing her job) with impunity would have set a bad precedent.

She either going to resign or be fired/impeached. Then another clerk who will perform the job will be elected and those same homosexuals she turned away will get their licenses.


So while I agree with her stance on gay marriage, she accomplished nothing. Resignation would've been the best course of action.

 

[porscheguy]

No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Marriage isn't a right

The ruling never said that it was a right. The ruling only said that the prohibition of same sex marriage was unconstitutional for the reasons I already stated. It does not grant people the privilege of getting anal married.

 

[Grodin]

Thank you for laying out the specifics and showing how horribly political and facist this imprisonment is.

There are so many paths that this scenario could take. There could be a hearing in which she was able to be legally represented. She could be impeached (although that would be a state procedure and not a Federal one). That particular county in Kentucky could lose its Federal funding that it receives for roads and schools. For fucks sake, there has not even been a grand jury or an indictment.

This is draconian.

If she broke the law, issue an arrest warrant and set bail. But just throw her in jail, WTF???

There's nothing draconian or fascist about this. If you are in a court case, and the presiding judge(with legal authority) tells you to do A, B, or C, and you do none of the above, you are in contempt. They may opt to give you a second chance, as they did with this woman (they gave her an alternative solution). However, if you still refuse to comply, you will eventually find yourself in jail.

What you just described sure sounds draconian to me. It may be the law of the land, but it's draconian. In a separate case, the same process was used to jail a man for 14 years without a trial (for failing to pay alimony that he claims he doesn't have the ability to pay). Draconian.

 

[Dr. Howard]

Thank you for laying out the specifics and showing how horribly political and facist this imprisonment is.

There are so many paths that this scenario could take. There could be a hearing in which she was able to be legally represented. She could be impeached (although that would be a state procedure and not a Federal one). That particular county in Kentucky could lose its Federal funding that it receives for roads and schools. For fucks sake, there has not even been a grand jury or an indictment.

This is draconian.

If she broke the law, issue an arrest warrant and set bail. But just throw her in jail, WTF???

There's nothing draconian or fascist about this. If you are in a court case, and the presiding judge(with legal authority) tells you to do A, B, or C, and you do none of the above, you are in contempt. They may opt to give you a second chance, as they did with this woman (they gave her an alternative solution). However, if you still refuse to comply, you will eventually find yourself in jail.

What you just described sure sounds draconian to me. It may be the law of the land, but it's draconian. In a separate case, the same process was used to jail a man for 14 years without a trial (for failing to pay alimony that he claims he doesn't have the ability to pay). Draconian.

Agreed, 8th amendment of the constitution is that the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime as an interpretation of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Putting this lady in jail for an indefinite time (now 18 months) for a 1st offence contempt of court is insane. For example, the MAX sentence for simple assault in Tennessee is a day shy of 12 months and/or a $2500 fine.

 

[Eirykr]

The fagscists have taken over.
God help us.

Whatever your views on the issue, it isn't civil disobedience when you actually are the State.
Bitch clearly doesn't understand how this works.

I love how the same people who want other government officials to disobey laws of their choice are now saying she should implement the so-called law anyway. This is the problem with societies. Should the Gestapo have enforced the roundups or should one officer somewhere look the other way and risk jail by violating bad laws? It is insane. If a law is bad, it should be disobeyed, not mindlessly enforced.

There's a fair bit of difference between giving some fags a marriage license and hunting down and exterminating a race of people. Let's be real here. And as others have said, if she really felt so strongly about it she could step down.

 

[TigerMandingo]

Americans have a cult-like devotion to "the law", that's why you are seeing extreme shit like this. It's hard to explain but you have to live here to understand it. I mean, just to give an example they expel college kids and ruin their employment prospects for some dumb shit like "academic dishonesty".

Also "I am just doing my job"....where have I heard that before?

Nuremberg.

 

[rw95]

Honestly, converting to Islam is looking better and better every day. The SJW fags don't even think of messing with them because they won't roll over and give in whenever someone attacks them. They fucking fight back.

 

[CaptainS]

Would a mayor be thrown in jail for not doing his job? Is Hillary in jail for ignoring 3 federal judges? Is Obama?

This I believe is considered a strawman argument. KY Hamplanet is not in jail for breaking the law, she's in jail for contempt of court.

This isn't a straw man because both Hillary and Obama are currently in contempt of 3 federal judges ordering them to comply with legal requests to produce documents and enforce laws - the exact same situation she is in. It only proves that there is more than one outcome of contempt. The first and only step needn't be jail time.

And she's not denying anyone their rights. In the event of a clerk not being available, ANY clerk or county judge can issue the license.

She most certainly is violating the rights of the fags in that county. The supreme court said anal marriage is OK, and she's not giving marriage licenses for anal marriage. She's denied their right to equal protection and due process under the 14th amendment. KY Hamplanet was given the option to allow her deputy county clerks to sign off on anal marriage, but she wouldn't hear of it. She doesn't want her name on any anal marriage document. But as the court clerk, her name is going to be on any official document the office issues. But none of this shit really matters because she's in contempt.

Would their rights be denied if she simply called in sick that day? Or was on vacation? No, because there are mechanisms in place to account for it. Same here, none of these fags are being denied a marriage license, they are refusing to follow the mechanism in place specifically to force her to go along with it and make some sick point. There is probably 1 fag couple looking to get married in Rowan county a year. This shouldn't be an issue at all, she should just direct them to the judge excutive's office as prescribed by procedure.

That should be the fix until she is impeached.

I get that she's in contempt. I get that she's refusing to let her clerks sign the license. But contempt doesn't always mean jail time and there are other ways for these fags to get a license.

And that's the exact thing the judge ruled today. The other clerks and judge executive can issue the license and Kim was released. Bunning (the judge) knows he overstepped, he knows there were other procedures to follow but he wanted to make an example out of her.


Edit: Looks like I'm wrong, she's still in jail for now. But the licenses are being issued.

 

[ElConquistador]

-She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
-The dissenting opinion for the gay marriage case stated that the decision had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses

-The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage; Nothing happens to him.
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law; Nothing happens to them.
-The President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and follow Federal Immigration law; Nothing happens to him.
-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution; Nothing happens to them.
-A little old woman follows her oath and refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper; She is imprisoned without due process.

Consensus: The branches of government are cowards for not using their checks and balances to go after these known traitors, but instead go against a little old woman. Due process and equality under the law are all but gone.
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a healthy respect for the law.

If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.

 

[GlobalMan]

I can accept her getting fired for not doing her job, but jailing her is pure facism and fearmongering from the gay lobby. What will come next? Will they jail priests who refuse to marry gays? Will they jail everyone who refuses to wear rainbow flag and suck a cock at work?

I think you're missing the main point in this specific circumstance. She is not working in a private business. She does not have a right to refuse service to anyone. She not running a restaurant. As a county clerk she must issue a license to anyone who has followed the correct procedure and is within the law. She is an agent of the State. She is obligated to do the duties of her job, impartially. Or she can refuse, and resign.

She wasn't just thrown in jail. She was ordered to follow the law, as she must in her position, and she refused- for quite a while. The issue went to court, it was affirmed she must issue licenses to anyone who qualify, impartially. She still refused, a court order no less. So, she's now in contempt of court. This is standard, fair procedure, all laws have been followed. Except by the clerk, repeatedly.

This is nothing even close to facism. The only hint of facism going on is the type of country the clerk would like- one where your religious beliefs determine whether you will get service from government workers. That is facism.

I don't care for gay marriage, just as most people here. But, it's now legal, and it became legal not by an Act of Obama, but a lengthy court process and a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Anyway, the bitch has been divorced THREE times..but of course that's not too much for her conscience to bear. :dodgy:

 

[Phoenix]

No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Porsche, are you actually one of the justices by any chance? Your tone reminds me of the way the bully's side kick talks in a kids cartoon.

I can't imagine why any one would have so much deference to the opinion of a panel of unelected lawyers, who frequently legislate from the bench based on their political desires. I suppose if they decided that 'hate speech' wasn't protected by the 1st amendment, or that possessing handguns wasn't protected by the 2nd (which nearly happened by the way, 4-5), you'd be vigorously declaring "the final word has been had! bend over and accept the 'interpretation' of your masters!".

 

[StudebacherHoch]

This is nothing even close to facism. The only hint of facism going on is the type of country the clerk would like- one where your religious beliefs determine whether you will get service from government workers. That is facism.

Exactly - calling this fascism makes about as much sense as this cunt's attorney/paid mouthpiece comparing the situation to Jews being exterminated in Nazi Germany. LAME.

 

[GlobalMan]

-She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling

Irrelevant. Are you trying to suggest you only have to follow laws in place the date of your election, and not new ones?

-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage

Doesn't matter what Kentucky thinks, its now Federal law. This has all been discussed, fought, in court, and now its over. Kentucky doesn't need to recognize it, its recognized as a right federally, and all states must comply.

-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution

Yes, and Kentucky must follow U.S. federal law, and thus the clerk must as well.

-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names

She doesn't get to refuse service to anyone based on her personal beliefs in her position as a government agent, and thankfully so. And no one at that office was able/willing to issue licenses with her there, so thats a bogus argument. It's only now that she has been removed from her position that the other clerks have been allowed to proceed.

-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses

She's refusing a lawful court order- that's contempt of court. The matter has already been decided, and she's refusing to comply. Jail for contempt of court is due process.

-A little old woman refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper and she is imprisoned without due process.

Jailed, not imprisoned, and with due process.

Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a respect for the law.

The only correct thing you've said. And thankfully the personal beliefs of some old lady aren't getting in the way of people following the law anymore.

I really, really do not understand how people don't see the very bad precedent that would be set had this government worker been allowed to refuse service to who she chooses, based on her personal beliefs. Thank God that is not the case.

If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.

Gay marriage is legal now, whether we like it or not, period. She's not refusing to follow "un-constitutional orders", she's refusing to follow lawful orders, because of the god she prays to. Next time will it be a muslim lady refusing to serve you? Thankfully this is stopped now, not later.

This is not comparable to our great soldiers refusing to follow bad orders, in any way at all.

 

[StudebacherHoch]

Precise rebuttal, GlobalMan.

 

[GlobalMan]

I think there's a lot of people being blinded by their dislike of gays and gay marriage, and are all too willing to throw out crucial components of protections we all enjoy because of this one issue.

I'm a gun owner, and a frequent gun carrier. Imagine a liberal shithole if you will, a "May Issue" state, where the anti-gun sentiment is strong, you can't get a permit to carry, and people are on the Brady train. A ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that all states must issue carry permits to any person legally allowed to own a gun. A soccer mom who happens to be the sheriff of a county in that state decides that issuing gun carry permits is "too much for her conscience to bear", and refuses to do so.

I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.