Kim Davis is in jail because her conscience, due to her religious beliefs, prevented her from issuing marriage licenses that she would attest to, when signing. Otherwise, she didn't want to officially attest to something she might not agree with, or was unconscionable.
Some gay couples wanted a license, so they sued in Federal Court. The judge ordered her to issue marriage licenses. When she wouldn't, he held her in contempt and sent her to jail.
Some side with judge, and think his actions were appropriate. They believe the judge acted correctly in demanding Kim Davis issue marriage licenses, and sign the document.
Some side with Kim Davis. They believe the judge acted beyond his capacity and violated her rights.
Personally, I think the entire mess could have been avoided. Kentucky could have changed the form, or gone through the process of removing Kim Davis from her elected office. Of course, that would have taken time, might have not yielded the intended results, and the problem would have continued. Still, it was the correct method and those that didn't like the method could have changed it through the legislative process.
Those wanting the license, could have gone to another county. The clerks in those counties were issuing licenses to same sex couples.
So, we now have Federal Judge holding a woman in jail, without breaking any law, and he won't let her out, unless she signs marriage licenses she refuses to sign. The judge, who I feel didn't have the wisdom or experience to hold his office, now can't back down, even if his contempt order is beginning to look like a petty, arbitrary decision.
How will this end? It's going to get ugly. The radical gay activists have thrown down the gauntlet, without thinking of the perception of the public. Their rights don't supersede the rights of others, and with a woman in jail for no other reason than refusing to sign a document, their platform is shaky and they are only a very small percentage of the population. The process required by the Constitution was bypassed, judicial activism is removing the rights of other individuals, and the public is becoming angry at the audacity.
So what is the real issue? The right of an individual to determine their heirs and the automatic right to benefits allowed to heterosexual couples. That was not asking much, but Social Security benefits, and many pensions, prevent such things. Instead of changing the wording for legal rights of individuals, the entire definition of marriage was changed. I call that foolishness, but apparently, foolish behavior is common with government officials.
In Case You've Wondered
My blog is where my wandering thoughts are interspersed with stuff I made up. So, if while reading you find yourself confused about the context, don't feel alone. I get confused, too.
If you're here for the stories, I started another blog: scratchingforchange.blogspot.com
One other thing: sometimes I write words you refuse to use in front of children, or polite company, unless you have a flat tire, or hit your thumb with a hammer.
I don't use them to offend; I use them to embellish.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
When the Real Issue is Avoided
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
As you said, there are simple solutions to these problems. But if common sense were used and these solutions were implemented, nobody could pound their chest, pull their hair out or weep about being discriminated against. Pathetic, really.ReplyDelete
Common sense dictates an equatable solution, but that's usually not important when money and power are at stake.Delete
While I sympathize with her beliefs, Kim Davis is choosing the wrong hill to die on. As a public servant she doesn't get the luxury of choosing which laws to follow as part of her job. She needs to find another job or, at the very least, find someone else in the office to sign the marriage licenses. Her energies would be much better spent defending her faith and her church from being forced to bow down and perform/recognize LGBT weddings and other actions counter to doctrine, which seems to be the next goal of the whole LGBT movement. Choosing to battle here has done nothing more than to paint her, and Christianity in general, as petty and intolerant.ReplyDelete
I don't know the originator of this:Delete
First, in 2004 the issue of gay marriage in Kentucky was PUT TO A VOTE and 70% of Kentucky voters stated they DID NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE IN THEIR STATE. That constitutional amendment stands, to this day and is the LAW OF THE LAND IN KENTUCKY.
Based on that referendum, the Kentucky CONSTITUTION was amended to read:
" Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
FROM THAT POINT ON, it is the LAW OF KENTUCKY that gay marriage is ILLEGAL and PROHIBITED.
In November of 2014, Kim Davis took an oath to Defend the Kentucky CONSTITUTION which PROHIBITS gay marriage.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS no power to create laws, nor do the federal courts. Only Congress has the right to create laws based on the US Constitution and THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
The federal government has NO BUSINESS telling STATES how to RUN THEIR GOVERNMENTS.
CONGRESS HAS NEVER PASSED A LAW WHICH DEFINES MARRIAGE OR THAT ALLOWS FOR GAY MARRIAGE.
Therefore, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE SUPREME COURT has overstepped their legal authority by claiming power to dictate to STATES and THE PEOPLE what they can and can not do.
I think she felt cornered, probably asked for guidance, and told to toe the line. After thought, she did what she felt was necessary, and probably didn't realize how far it would go.Delete
To me, the judge made the biggest mistake. Throwing around the power of contempt, when the matter is basically a small civil matter, leads to events that have no gracious solution. He has the power to keep her in jail, but he doesn't have the power to force her to sign documents.
In the end, the legislature will either allow her to stay in jail - which will make the matter fester - or call for a special, expensive session.
I think the judge attempted to pass the decision to the Supreme Court, but they refused to be mired in the mess they created.Delete
Now, the judge, due to a lack of experience, created an issue he can't rectify, without appearing ignorant.
Perhaps when liberals get upset that cities don't issue gun permits even though the Supreme Court ruled they should, then I might get upset about court officials not issuing gay marriage licenses.ReplyDelete
Liberals pick and choose when it comes to Constitutional rights. It's the law of the land, until it prevents the advancement of their agenda. Then, it becomes a living document to be interpreted by bizarre reasoning.Delete
If all went according to plan, the governor would have had her removed from custody.ReplyDelete
The SCOTUS has no enforcement authority.
Let the DOJ move.
Would've been great to watch.
Kim's rights were not violated because the constitution is based on separation of church and state. She can have her beliefs, but she cannot force those on others, and she certainly can't do so while in a courthouse. She was divorced, got pregnant, and married a man who wasn't the father of the children. If she wants to cast the first stone, she'd better be wearing a mouth guard. Being elected is tantamount to being tenured, and one cannot be fired. But if her beliefs mean that much to her, she is in the position of resigning the job and placing her god on top - but privately. I know Kentucky. There's got to be some snake handlers in the area who support her too.ReplyDelete
She was elected before the Supreme Court erred, and decided to meddle in state law and marriage. Even Scalia wrote of the lawlessness of the decision and predicted disobedience.Delete
Kim's rights were violated when the judge mandated an immediate change to an official signature, with full knowledge the Kentucky would not meet until next year. He also knew that homosexuals wishing to marry could go to another county and receive a marriage license from those that didn't have a religious problem with signing the license. Placing her in jail was in a fit of anger, a continuance of his political agenda, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
I don't think the judge will skate on this one. A huge amount of the country is beyond idle curiosity and now pissed off. While homosexuals once had many behind the for their rights, they'll now find they'll be ostracized by those that feel they are a threat. That's not good for people that provide less than 4% of the population.
But they can force theirs on her and the state of Kentucky?ReplyDelete
everything Ed said with numerous exclamation points. and lotta joy sounds like an oxymoron. I don't remember Kim ever stating her reasons included her sinlessness. but that's typical liberal speak. quit or be jailed. that's your solution, before making a lame parting insult? congratulations.ReplyDelete