|
CommieGIR posted:ULC was started in response to pushes to make it ONLY possible to get married through priests, which was an attempted end run around gay marriage. Nah, though the church would probably prefer if you believed that. Started late 50s as an ordination mill.Before the Internet you had to send a "donation" to get your papers. People thought it'd let them duck out of Vietnam as well, but it didn't. They're not bad people, and my own officiant was ordained through them, but they're explicitly a business masquerading as a church.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
So like most religions then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:She's an elected official and can't be fired anyways. Is there any reason she hasn't been jailed already? She's made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of obeying the law, so why hasn't she been arrested yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Is there any reason she hasn't been jailed already? She's made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of obeying the law, so why hasn't she been arrested yet? The court who issued the order has to issue a show cause order ("get your rear end over here and give me a good reason why I should not do X, which I am seriously considering doing") for why she shouldn't be held in contempt, give her a chance to say why not, then hold her in contempt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Is there any reason she hasn't been jailed already? She's made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of obeying the law, so why hasn't she been arrested yet? I suspect it might be because the optics on jailing a noble christian for her beliefs are terrible and no matter how rightly she deserves to be jailed doing so right now could push a fair number of loonies over the edge. The christian right is foaming at the mouth with terror and rage right now and I would not be surprised if the slow actions of the court here are influenced to some degree by recognizing the political situation in the country at the moment. Its a curious situation because any action with teeth that is taken against her right now could provoke all sorts of bizarre responses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
What's the going rate on a government official's personal liability per day per couple, I wonder? If I were a gay couple in that county, I'd be hitting up the office every day on my way to work and documenting it, getting ready for a slice of her assets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Not sure the chain of command, but I do know that the Ky governor made a statement when this all began the clerks needed to either do their jobs or lose their jobs. (Swear it is so weird moving from ga, where the governor was literally the platonic ideal of corruption, to Ky where the governor seems like a pretty decent dude.) Based on my halfassed and extremely uninformed reading of the Kentucky Revised Statues, my best guess is that he's basically saying "a willful refusal to do your duty as an elected official is going to get your rear end impeached, and I'm not going to do a drat thing to defend you when it happens".
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I see no reason not to remove her from the position and let people sue her bigoted rear end in to the ground. If she wants to be a martyr and likely try to beg for some sweet Bigot Bucks(tm) then her victims should at least get compensated for their suffering. In other words, this clerk stands to make much more money as a Fox News martyr than any gay couple could ever hope to recover in court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I suspect it might be because the optics on jailing a noble christian for her beliefs are terrible and no matter how rightly she deserves to be jailed doing so right now could push a fair number of loonies over the edge. The christian right is foaming at the mouth with terror and rage right now and I would not be surprised if the slow actions of the court here are influenced to some degree by recognizing the political situation in the country at the moment. Its a curious situation because any action with teeth that is taken against her right now could provoke all sorts of bizarre responses. However many "loonies are pushed over the edge" is completely irrelevant to the enforcement of the law, though, right? I mean, this is an issue of a state official refusing to obey the Supreme Court, which is illegal. Other concerns shouldn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:There's not much "suing into the ground" that can be done. When you file a lawsuit, you can seek declaratory relief ("The judge says you have to marry us"), actual damages ("I had to drive to the next county over to find a clerk to marry me, and that cost me gas money"), and punitive damages (the famous "pain and suffering"). Punitive damage awards are always tough to get and are frequently reduced on appeal. You'll read headlines like "GAY MAN GETS $900 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MCDONALD'S BECAUSE THEY WON'T SELL A PINK BURGER" but you rarely hear how that amount gets reduced to $5 a year later on appeal. Pain and suffering is compensatory not punitive. Punitive is just that, punishment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:There's not much "suing into the ground" that can be done. When you file a lawsuit, you can seek declaratory relief ("The judge says you have to marry us"), actual damages ("I had to drive to the next county over to find a clerk to marry me, and that cost me gas money"), and punitive damages (the famous "pain and suffering"). Punitive damage awards are always tough to get and are frequently reduced on appeal. You'll read headlines like "GAY MAN GETS $900 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MCDONALD'S BECAUSE THEY WON'T SELL A PINK BURGER" but you rarely hear how that amount gets reduced to $5 a year later on appeal. Punitive damages aren't frequently reduced on appeal: headline generating punitive damages are, because they generate headlines by being massively disproportionate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
jivjov posted:However many "loonies are pushed over the edge" is completely irrelevant to the enforcement of the law, though, right? I mean, this is an issue of a state official refusing to obey the Supreme Court, which is illegal. Other concerns shouldn't matter. In a better world, political considerations wouldn't come before enforcing the civil rights of LBGTs. This is not a better world. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
It seems like it's going through the courts at a reasonable pace? As always, justice is seldom swift.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:There's not much "suing into the ground" that can be done. When you file a lawsuit, you can seek declaratory relief ("The judge says you have to marry us"), actual damages ("I had to drive to the next county over to find a clerk to marry me, and that cost me gas money"), and punitive damages (the famous "pain and suffering"). Punitive damage awards are always tough to get and are frequently reduced on appeal. You'll read headlines like "GAY MAN GETS $900 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MCDONALD'S BECAUSE THEY WON'T SELL A PINK BURGER" but you rarely hear how that amount gets reduced to $5 a year later on appeal. One thing I've never understood is how people like this clerk or the bakery assholes don't immediately get that money seized via Son of Sam laws. What the clerk is doing is illegal and if they hit the talk show circuit and profit then they're profiting off of the publicity of their crimes. I can understand the pizza place keeping theirs because they never committed a crime in saying "we don't want to serve gays" but this person, like the bakery, is actively discriminating and in the clerk's case they're doing it after the SCOTUS has settled the matter. Even if the clerk's actions aren't criminal, getting sent to jail for contempt of court is, right? Basically it'd be nice if being an attention-whoring bigot wasn't profitable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:One thing I've never understood is how people like this clerk or the bakery assholes don't immediately get that money seized via Son of Sam laws. What the clerk is doing is illegal and if they hit the talk show circuit and profit then they're profiting off of the publicity of their crimes. I can understand the pizza place keeping theirs because they never committed a crime in saying "we don't want to serve gays" but this person, like the bakery, is actively discriminating and in the clerk's case they're doing it after the SCOTUS has settled the matter. Because no son of sam law comes close to authorizing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Basically it'd be nice if being an attention-whoring bigot wasn't profitable. But unfortunately this is taking place in the home of the brave 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
The Rowan County Attorney's Office has referred a charge of Official Misconduct against Rowan County Clerk, Kim Davis to the Kentucky Attorney General's Office. I think this will be fruitless in the end but good for them for trying it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even if the clerk's actions aren't criminal, getting sent to jail for contempt of court is, right? Basically it'd be nice if being an attention-whoring bigot wasn't profitable. I wish I were morally-ambiguous enough to jump on the gravy train.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:There's not much "suing into the ground" that can be done. When you file a lawsuit, you can seek declaratory relief ("The judge says you have to marry us"), actual damages ("I had to drive to the next county over to find a clerk to marry me, and that cost me gas money"), and punitive damages (the famous "pain and suffering"). Punitive damage awards are always tough to get and are frequently reduced on appeal. You'll read headlines like "GAY MAN GETS $900 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MCDONALD'S BECAUSE THEY WON'T SELL A PINK BURGER" but you rarely hear how that amount gets reduced to $5 a year later on appeal. I might be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that since this is a government official denying what's now a federally established civil right, we're in section 1983 territory where the denial of the marriage license and the ability to get married in and of itself is actual damages she can be held liable for. The damages suffered are denial of civil rights, however one wants to convert that into a dollar amount.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
 Kim Davis thinking the Supreme Court is going to issue a stayShe can't be fired quote:The AP noted that Davis, who pulls in an $80,000 salary as chief clerk, can't be fired from that post because she is an elected official. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-scotus-gay-marriage-licenses
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Can she at least be fired out of a cannon? That would be an agreeable compromise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Can she at least be fired out of a cannon? That would be an agreeable compromise. Repeat after me: Furturama is just a cartoon. We do not punish people by firing them out of cannons. Much as that would improve this country in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Suck it, Kim Davis. Transgender couple got marriage license in Rowan County in February
Pot Pie fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
Could the courts order her to step down if this keeps up? And what would happen to her job if she were to wind up behind bars for contempt of court? Does the county have some procedure for replacing elected officials in situations like that, or would her position just stay empty for the duration of her sentence (or until the next election)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Could the courts order her to step down if this keeps up? There would be strong pressure on her to resign, but unless her state has statues requiring elected officials convicted of felonies to resign (most do not), she would not have to do so if convicted. If she decided to remain in her position, some effort might be made to permit her to continue her duties while behind bars (refer to the tragicomic case of Virginia Delegate Joe Morrisey), but otherwise they would shift to subordinates. There might be a mechanism for calling a special election or recalling her, but again, that comes down ultimately to the state in most cases. Courts cannot typically oust elected officers, as the courts do not have power of review over the public in its function as electorate. (Even in Bush v Gore the court was reviewing an administrative decision regarding recounts, not the actual election.) This is actually a big problem on the local level, where corruption of elected officials is far from uncommon. A county treasurer in my general region was convicted of embezzlement after literally falling for a Nigerian Prince scam and there was some embarrassment when at first she refused to resign, because there was no mechanism to remove her. Quorum fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
So I was doing some research into Kentucky's specific laws on the matter, because I have no life, and it turns out that county constitutional officers can be impeached, but only by the state legislature, using the same procedure as in the federal government. And indeed it turns out the Kentucky legislature has been asked to do just that. If you really want you can follow my nerd-links but the gist is that it requires a simple majority of the Democratic-controlled House (a possibility) and a two-thirds majority in the Republican controlled Senate (  ).Fun fact! The other two things that can get you kicked out of office? Being convicted of "abuse of public trust" under a state statute, and being caught dueling. Quorum fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Someone should challenge her to a duel then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Fun fact! The other two things that can get you kicked out of office? Being convicted of "abuse of public trust" under a state statute, and being caught dueling. Is there any way this could happen? Turning into a blubbering baby and refusing to do your job at all sure sounds like abusing the public's trust.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Abuse of public trust seems more of a fiscal thing, like embezzling or using your office for personal profit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Abuse of public trust seems more of a fiscal thing, like embezzling or using your office for personal profit. Bingo. This situation is the sort that should, in a just world, be covered by impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Bingo. This situation is the sort that should, in a just world, be covered by impeachment. But that particular state legislature is never going to do anything to attack HER RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Deuce posted:But that particular state legislature is never going to do anything to attack HER RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS Good thing that making her do her job wouldn't do that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
The Kentucky clerk in question signed off on the marriage of a trans man to a pan woman in February, with no complaint or religious conflict. So it turns out her sincerely held religious beliefs are just as poo poo as her previous marriages were.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:The Kentucky clerk in question signed off on the marriage of a trans man to a pan woman in February, with no complaint or religious conflict. congrats to the couple in question for holding documents that said M and F and for passing for each, i guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
I wonder if she will call in sick tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:The Kentucky clerk in question signed off on the marriage of a trans man to a pan woman in February, with no complaint or religious conflict. In theory, it's possible to be entirely accepting of trans people as their proper gender while still considering homosexuality sinful, though I haven't really heard it happen outside of Iranian policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
point of return posted:In theory, it's possible to be entirely accepting of trans people as their proper gender while still considering homosexuality sinful, though I haven't really heard it happen outside of Iranian policy. I've seen it a couple times with individual Christians struggling to reconcile conflicting beliefs. It's possible that's what's going on here, but I suspect it has more to do with the right-wing flash in the pan gravy train.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
One of the earliest hospitals in the United States that had programs for transitional treatment was a Baptist institution. Heck the heads of the program had publicly stated "If Jesus Christ were alive today, undoubtedly he would render help and comfort to the transsexual as he did the leper, the blind and the lame". Naturally the Baptist General Oklahoma Convention shut them down after they had already treated a few dozen women.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
The thing about people who do these things and their supporters is they don't understand the Establishment Clause at all. They can't differentiate between belief and practice of belief. One is Constitutionally protected and one is not. Federally, same-sex marriage was recognized and made legal. There's no law saying you can't believe that same-sex marriage goes against your religious beliefs. However, a government employee discriminating against same-sex couples seeking a marriage licence due to these beliefs is an illegal act. Refusing a federal court order to desist engaging in these discriminatory practices is a crime. A Republican SCOTUS already ruled unanimously that religious beliefs are not a defense against a criminal action (practice) with Reynolds v. United States. She's basically trying to argue the same thing. That she should be allowed to break the law because of her firmly held beliefs. Precedent was set nearly 150 years ago, and she has no legal leg to stand on. I just don't get how it's made it this far. It's not like Reynolds is an obscure case. Even their own argument about marriage rights being a slippery slope was covered in Reynolds. Currently, polygamy is illegal in the US, which means it's illegal to get multiple marriage licenses. It IS legal for a man or woman to live in a polygamous household, but only one marriage is federally recognized. Reynolds was convicted of polygamy, which is illegal, and Reynolds v. United States ruled that no matter how strong his beliefs were in polygamy, it's still a crime, and they upheld his conviction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
So Kim Davis has to the end of the day to start issuing licenses. Her only hope is that the Supreme Court issues a stay, otherwise contempt of court charges Prayer vigil this morning outside her office 
Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:16
|
|