Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

[Ifreann]

I kinda think it's bad that Kim Davis didn't immediately realise that her personal views about the morality of gay marriage should have no bearing on whether people legally allowed to get married should be able to get a license from her office.

And I think it's bad that county clerks have the immunity of elected office. They are quite simply civil servants, ie government officials, with a role in government so constrained by law that there isn't any good reason for them to have a direct mandate from 'the People' which allows them to disobey the law as handed down by state and federal courts.

It's quaint I guess. I see that there was a time far in the past, with slow and unreliable communications from the federal and state courts to local government officials, when it might have made sense to have such locally elected plenipotentiaries of the law.

But now it's just silly. In Kentucky alone there are 120 counties, thus 120 elected county clerks.

I can get behind that. I'm a big fan of democratically elected governments, but electing people to file paperwork really isn't necessary.

Beyond silly, into the realm of frighteningly stupid, is they also elect Sheriffs. Local police are directed, hired and fired, by an elected official who becomes Sheriff of their local police force. There is no recourse of State or Federal police to over-ride the decisions of the Sheriff. Sometimes there is provision for a recall election (by a petition) and always some means of impeachment ... by other elected officials. Not ever, as far as I know, any mechanism for the judiciary to dismiss an elected Sheriff. They could jail the Sheriff for murder, but the motherfucker would still be Sheriff.

Elected clerks, elected judges, elected sheriffs, and yet people insist that America isn't a democracy.

[Deuxtete]

I kinda think it's bad that Kim Davis didn't immediately realise that her personal views about the morality of gay marriage should have no bearing on whether people legally allowed to get married should be able to get a license from her office.

And I think it's bad that county clerks have the immunity of elected office. They are quite simply civil servants, ie government officials, with a role in government so constrained by law that there isn't any good reason for them to have a direct mandate from 'the People' which allows them to disobey the law as handed down by state and federal courts.

It's quaint I guess. I see that there was a time far in the past, with slow and unreliable communications from the federal and state courts to local government officials, when it might have made sense to have such locally elected plenipotentiaries of the law.

But now it's just silly. In Kentucky alone there are 120 counties, thus 120 elected county clerks.

Beyond silly, into the realm of frighteningly stupid, is they also elect Sheriffs. Local police are directed, hired and fired, by an elected official who becomes Sheriff of their local police force. There is no recourse of State or Federal police to over-ride the decisions of the Sheriff. Sometimes there is provision for a recall election (by a petition) and always some means of impeachment ... by other elected officials. Not ever, as far as I know, any mechanism for the judiciary to dismiss an elected Sheriff. They could jail the Sheriff for murder, but the motherfucker would still be Sheriff.

Every place I've ever lived elected the county sheriff, the local police commissioner appointed by mayor. Police Department =/= Sheriffs Department. State police generally have absolute jurisdiction.
Federal authorities can be called in by the state.

[Eol Sha]

I'm aware of why she was put in jail, but she was actually arrested. Not detained, arrested.

That's what they do when you're found in contempt... So you have a problem with everyone being held in contempt or just this broad? Because the contempt charge wasn't an indictment of her faith.

Like I said earlier, there's no ideological or philosophical reasoning why I don't like the fact that she was arrested. Just a gut feeling.

I'm aware of why she was held in contempt of court. I refer you to this post for further answers.

[AiliailiA]

And I think it's bad that county clerks have the immunity of elected office. They are quite simply civil servants, ie government officials, with a role in government so constrained by law that there isn't any good reason for them to have a direct mandate from 'the People' which allows them to disobey the law as handed down by state and federal courts.

It's quaint I guess. I see that there was a time far in the past, with slow and unreliable communications from the federal and state courts to local government officials, when it might have made sense to have such locally elected plenipotentiaries of the law.

But now it's just silly. In Kentucky alone there are 120 counties, thus 120 elected county clerks.

Beyond silly, into the realm of frighteningly stupid, is they also elect Sheriffs. Local police are directed, hired and fired, by an elected official who becomes Sheriff of their local police force. There is no recourse of State or Federal police to over-ride the decisions of the Sheriff. Sometimes there is provision for a recall election (by a petition) and always some means of impeachment ... by other elected officials. Not ever, as far as I know, any mechanism for the judiciary to dismiss an elected Sheriff. They could jail the Sheriff for murder, but the motherfucker would still be Sheriff.

If I've learned anything about this country, its that tradition is one of the hardest things to break.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

--Sinclair Lewis, a character written by Sinclair Lewis, or possibly a paraphrase of either.

"When fascism comes to America, it will vomit in the bassinet and cite the First Ammendment"

--Me, Ailiailia, now.

[Deuxtete]

That's what they do when you're found in contempt... So you have a problem with everyone being held in contempt or just this broad? Because the contempt charge wasn't an indictment of her faith.

Like I said earlier, there's no ideological or philosophical reasoning why I don't like the fact that she was arrested. Just a gut feeling.

I'm aware of why she was held in contempt of court. I refer you to this post for further answers.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVERYONE HELD IN CONTEMPT OR JUST THIS WOMAN?
I direct you back to the question asked.
Also if its not philosophical, ideological, or reasoned, then its called irrational.
Your "gut" isn't any type of reasoning, thus you disliking it is entirely irrational, and by your own admission without reason.

[Eol Sha]

Like I said earlier, there's no ideological or philosophical reasoning why I don't like the fact that she was arrested. Just a gut feeling.

I'm aware of why she was held in contempt of court. I refer you to this post for further answers.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVERYONE HELD IN CONTEMPT OR JUST THIS WOMAN?
I direct you back to the question asked.
Also if its not philosophical, ideological, or reasoned, then its called irrational.
Your "gut" isn't any type of reasoning, thus you disliking it is entirely irrational, and by your own admission without reason.

Probably just this woman and the specific circumstances surrounding her arrest. Actually, more the circumstances of her arrest rather than whatever political/religious beliefs Kim Davis says she has. Beyond her being a discriminatory bigot, I could care less about Kim Davis' beliefs or Kim Davis herself.

Am I not allowed to hold irrational beliefs and opinions?

[Ethel mermania]

She wasn't arrested, she was held in contempt of court.

I'm aware of why she was put in jail, but she was actually arrested. Not detained, arrested.

The article is incorrect. She has no arrest record because of this, no one booked her, no bail hearing is heard. She was held in contempt of a federal judges order

[Grenartia]

I hope so.

Seconded.

Well.. thirded.

As much as I feel her fear that simply having her signature on the licenses will cause God to send her to Hell is fucking stupid, much less her insistence on completely refusing to not say anything, and even to keep saying shit that's stirring up shit, as long as licenses are being issued by the county, I fail to see the need to put her back in jail.

[TomKirk]

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVERYONE HELD IN CONTEMPT OR JUST THIS WOMAN?
I direct you back to the question asked.
Also if its not philosophical, ideological, or reasoned, then its called irrational.
Your "gut" isn't any type of reasoning, thus you disliking it is entirely irrational, and by your own admission without reason.

Probably just this woman and the specific circumstances surrounding her arrest. Actually, more the circumstances of her arrest rather than whatever political/religious beliefs Kim Davis says she has. Beyond her being a discriminatory bigot, I could care less about Kim Davis' beliefs or Kim Davis herself.

Am I not allowed to hold irrational beliefs and opinions?

Of course you're "allowed" to hold irrational beliefs, but spouting them on a board devoted to discussion is rather a nuisance. If you have no reasoning to offer, what are you attempting to accomplish?

[Eol Sha]

Probably just this woman and the specific circumstances surrounding her arrest. Actually, more the circumstances of her arrest rather than whatever political/religious beliefs Kim Davis says she has. Beyond her being a discriminatory bigot, I could care less about Kim Davis' beliefs or Kim Davis herself.

Am I not allowed to hold irrational beliefs and opinions?

Of course you're "allowed" to hold irrational beliefs, but spouting them on a board devoted to discussion is rather a nuisance. If you have no reasoning to offer, what are you attempting to accomplish?

The only thing I am doing is answering people's questions and explaining why I feel the way I do. If you don't like it then don't respond or get involved. No one is forcing you to read this thread or my comments.

[Eol Sha]

I'm aware of why she was put in jail, but she was actually arrested. Not detained, arrested.

The article is incorrect. She has no arrest record because of this, no one booked her, no bail hearing is heard. She was held in contempt of a federal judges order

Given my unfamiliarity with the law I'll defer to you.

[Philadelphic]

Probably just this woman and the specific circumstances surrounding her arrest. Actually, more the circumstances of her arrest rather than whatever political/religious beliefs Kim Davis says she has. Beyond her being a discriminatory bigot, I could care less about Kim Davis' beliefs or Kim Davis herself.

Am I not allowed to hold irrational beliefs and opinions?

Of course you're "allowed" to hold irrational beliefs, but spouting them on a board devoted to discussion is rather a nuisance. If you have no reasoning to offer, what are you attempting to accomplish?

Agreed, unless the word "allowed" has changed from my understanding. Nobody's going to throw you in jail for having an irrational belief. Nobody has enough time, interest or jail-space for that malarkey. Are you under the impression that allowed means that everyone on the internet has to approve of what you think? Because seriously, don't ever have a baby, because all actions and non-actions will automatically be disapproved of by vast armies of highly opinionated people.

[AiliailiA]

I'm aware of why she was put in jail, but she was actually arrested. Not detained, arrested.

The article is incorrect. She has no arrest record because of this, no one booked her, no bail hearing is heard. She was held in contempt of a federal judges order

Arrest record shouldn't count against anyone, anyway.

Knowing as we do that an "arrest" could be ordered by one of the tens of thousands of pipsqueak elected Sheriffs in the US, who have no requirement to have studied law and have no standing whatsoever as members of the judiciary.

Elected cowboys, can't even handle a cow.

[AiliailiA]

Of course you're "allowed" to hold irrational beliefs, but spouting them on a board devoted to discussion is rather a nuisance. If you have no reasoning to offer, what are you attempting to accomplish?

Agreed, unless the word "allowed" has changed from my understanding. Nobody's going to throw you in jail for having an irrational belief. Nobody has enough time, interest or jail-space for that malarkey. Are you under the impression that allowed means that everyone on the internet has to approve of what you think? Because seriously, don't ever have a baby, because all actions and non-actions will automatically be disapproved of by vast armies of highly opinionated people.

That's a very opinionated FIRST POST. Don't you ever have a baby, because you're way too confident, you'll have a bad baby I promise you.

Mainly I'm replying to make clear that you are not me.

[Ethel mermania]

The article is incorrect. She has no arrest record because of this, no one booked her, no bail hearing is heard. She was held in contempt of a federal judges order

Arrest record shouldn't count against anyone, anyway.

Knowing as we do that an "arrest" could be ordered by one of the tens of thousands of pipsqueak elected Sheriffs in the US, who have no requirement to have studied law and have no standing whatsoever as members of the judiciary.

Elected cowboys, can't even handle a cow.

Really, you want a babysitter for your kids who was arrested for child abuse?

[Ifreann]

Arrest record shouldn't count against anyone, anyway.

Knowing as we do that an "arrest" could be ordered by one of the tens of thousands of pipsqueak elected Sheriffs in the US, who have no requirement to have studied law and have no standing whatsoever as members of the judiciary.

Elected cowboys, can't even handle a cow.

Really, you want a babysitter for your kids who was arrested for child abuse?

Rather depends, doesn't it? There was a story on the news here a little while ago about an Irish woman working as a nanny in the US facing murder charges relating to the death of a child in her care. Specifically the story was about her being released after two and a half years in jail and the charges being dropped because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Does the fact that she was arrested for murder make her unsuitable as babysitter?

[The Black Forrest]

You haven't heard of sex cults? California had a big one about 10 or so years ago. That's is the point. If the Religion says it's ok the by your argument, the goverment can't do anything about it.

You keep talking about the 1st Amendment, but your examples are not showing you understand it. Hint: It's not just about a national religion.

Ftfy

Always looking out for me

[Ifreann]

Ftfy

Always looking out for me

Like a fairy godmother.

[AiliailiA]

Arrest record shouldn't count against anyone, anyway.

Knowing as we do that an "arrest" could be ordered by one of the tens of thousands of pipsqueak elected Sheriffs in the US, who have no requirement to have studied law and have no standing whatsoever as members of the judiciary.

Elected cowboys, can't even handle a cow.

Really, you want a babysitter for your kids who was arrested for child abuse?

Really, I don't have kids.

It is disgraceful that police issue the names of persons arrested. For whatever charge. There should be no secret arrest, yes that is important for individual liberty: but the release of the name should be only if the arrested person wants it made public.

Arraignment (the bail hearing, where a judge decides if the arrest warrants a trial) is where the judiciary enters the picture. There I would say the suspect's name should be released (with or without their consent) only if they are arraigned. If the judge orders them released, it should not be public unless the suspect wants it so.

You have said yourself that arrest can "ruin a persons life" so why would you leave that power to police before any judge has ruled on whether the arrest was legally justified?

[Ethel mermania]

Really, you want a babysitter for your kids who was arrested for child abuse?

Rather depends, doesn't it? There was a story on the news here a little while ago about an Irish woman working as a nanny in the US facing murder charges relating to the death of a child in her care. Specifically the story was about her being released after two and a half years in jail and the charges being dropped because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Does the fact that she was arrested for murder make her unsuitable as babysitter?

Conviction requires beyond a reasonable doubt, not even a most like did it. So to answer your question, no I would not hire her, or allow her anywhere near my kid unsupervised. You of course are free to do what you want.

[Ethel mermania]

Really, you want a babysitter for your kids who was arrested for child abuse?

Really, I don't have kids.

It is disgraceful that police issue the names of persons arrested. For whatever charge. There should be no secret arrest, yes that is important for individual liberty: but the release of the name should be only if the arrested person wants it made public.

Arraignment (the bail hearing, where a judge decides if the arrest warrants a trial) is where the judiciary enters the picture. There I would say the suspect's name should be released (with or without their consent) only if they are arraigned. If the judge orders them released, it should not be public unless the suspect wants it so.

You have said yourself that arrest can "ruin a persons life" so why would you leave that power to police before any judge has ruled on whether the arrest was legally justified?

1. Arrests can be expunged, so there is a mechanism for removing arrests from a record.

2. I think "night and fog" arrests argues against your point, but I think your point is a fair one.

[TomKirk]

Of course you're "allowed" to hold irrational beliefs, but spouting them on a board devoted to discussion is rather a nuisance. If you have no reasoning to offer, what are you attempting to accomplish?

The only thing I am doing is answering people's questions and explaining why I feel the way I do. If you don't like it then don't respond or get involved. No one is forcing you to read this thread or my comments.

"explaining why" is precisely what you aren't doing.

[Eol Sha]

The only thing I am doing is answering people's questions and explaining why I feel the way I do. If you don't like it then don't respond or get involved. No one is forcing you to read this thread or my comments.

"explaining why" is precisely what you aren't doing.

Except I have. You may not agree with what I've said, but I've explained my thoughts to the best of my ability.

[AiliailiA]

Really, you want a babysitter for your kids who was arrested for child abuse?

Rather depends, doesn't it? There was a story on the news here a little while ago about an Irish woman working as a nanny in the US facing murder charges relating to the death of a child in her care. Specifically the story was about her being released after two and a half years in jail and the charges being dropped because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Does the fact that she was arrested for murder make her unsuitable as babysitter?

Two and a half years in jail, without a conviction?

She should get half a million bucks, compensation for the law fucking her around.

Seriously. I could do away with the jury process, all trials by a judge of bank of judges, demote the judges who are overturned on appeal too often, and to hell with that whole element of "democracy" in trials.

Just give me this: anyone imprisoned for a crime who is later found Not Guilty at trial, should have monetary compensation for the time they spent in jail. At least the minimum wage, seven days a week, for the time they spent in jail.

The judiciary (judge and/or jury) can fuck a person's life up. That's understood. It's justified, if the person is guilty of the crime. If they're not, there remains a crime committed against them and most plain in the public records: illegal imprisonment. They should be compensated.

[Cannot think of a name]

Agreed, unless the word "allowed" has changed from my understanding. Nobody's going to throw you in jail for having an irrational belief. Nobody has enough time, interest or jail-space for that malarkey. Are you under the impression that allowed means that everyone on the internet has to approve of what you think? Because seriously, don't ever have a baby, because all actions and non-actions will automatically be disapproved of by vast armies of highly opinionated people.

That's a very opinionated FIRST POST. Don't you ever have a baby, because you're way too confident, you'll have a bad baby I promise you.

That's not what that cat was saying. Eol Sha seems to be under the mistaken impression that being questioned or disagreed with means that he is 'not allowed' to have a stupid opinion. This here newcomer is suggesting that if being disagreed with or having someone disapprove of his positions is such a hardship then having a baby will expose him to an overwhelming raft of disagreement and disapproval that will leave him a crippled mess since everyone has an impassioned opinion on what you should and should not be doing as a parent. It's not about confidence, in fact he's suggesting that Eol Sha's confidence is so lacking that the wave of contrary opinion will knock him on his ass.


EDIT: MOTHERFUCK...wrong dude. I'm...not good with names.