KY County Clerk could be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses

[leibowde84]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Now, after the SCOTUS refused to issue an injunction allowing her to keep on refusing to do her job, many want this county clerk to be held in contempt of court. I think this is EXACTLY what "contempt of court" was designed for ... those who refuse to follow direct orders from judges. Further, this is a government actor refusing to do her job, which is now legal discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, people should be able to believe what they want. But, once their beliefs cause harm, both monetarily and emotionally, to others, their right to religious liberty ends there. I think she should be given the option to either resign or do her job. If she refuses both options, she should be held in contempt.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

 

[Jainarayan]

This woman is really working my nerves. She's sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If she cannot do that, she needs to resign. She's not being prohibited from practicing her religion. She can practice it anywhere she wants, but not as a public servant under the US Constitution. The real Good News is that like all Special Snowflakes, she will melt away eventually.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Now, after the SCOTUS refused to issue an injunction allowing her to keep on refusing to do her job, many want this county clerk to be held in contempt of court. I think this is EXACTLY what "contempt of court" was designed for ... those who refuse to follow direct orders from judges. Further, this is a government actor refusing to do her job, which is now legal discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, people should be able to believe what they want. But, once their beliefs cause harm, both monetarily and emotionally, to others, their right to religious liberty ends there. I think she should be given the option to either resign or do her job. If she refuses both options, she should be held in contempt.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

Yes; Article VI, paragraphs two and three, of the US Constitution: "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States." The clerk is an executive officer of one of the states, and is therefore bound to support (which means in part to act in accordance with) the Constitution (paragraph 3), which is the supreme law of the land (paragraph 2). Whether she personally agrees or disagrees with the law, as an officer of the state, and therefore a holder of the public trust, she is obligated to follow the law. It appears she is attempting to insert a religious test into her office and public trust.

 

[Revoltingest]

We all know that life can be rough as a cob.
If you hate your duties & can't do your job
then don't carp & whine.
Just up & resign.
Cuz otherwise you'll be in jail with the mob.

 

[Father Heathen]

Apparently she claimed to be acting on "god's authority", which violates separation of church and state.

 

[suncowiam]

Absolutely!

Citing religious beliefs or any beliefs to commit acts against the law is WRONG.

So many obvious examples to point out on how WRONG this is.

I hope they fine her and put in jail.

 

[suncowiam]

I just want to add, if that clerk was gay and denied weddings to religious people due to his/her beliefs. I would feel the same way.

WRONG! This situation is seriously frustrating to see someone defy obvious logic to "uphold" a belief. This is a danger to society. Seriously.

 

[Nakosis]

If your duties conflict with your beliefs then you option is to resign. Not to continue to get paid for not doing your job.

Ah, it's an elected position... Like a little president issuing executive orders. Well Clinton was held in contempt so why not.

 

[Copernicus]

If your duties conflict with your beliefs then you option is to resign. Not to continue to get paid for not doing your job.

Ah, it's an elected position... Like a little president issuing executive orders. Well Clinton was held in contempt so why not.

It might take an act of the legislature to impeach and remove her. I'm not sure what the procedure is. Meanwhile, she can remain in office and continue to block anyone from getting a civil marriage license, which has nothing to do with her religious beliefs. This is just a case of an elected official failing to do what she was elected to do.

 

[Awoon]

This woman is really working my nerves. She's sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If she cannot do that, she needs to resign. She's not being prohibited from practicing her religion. She can practice it anywhere she wants, but not as a public servant under the US Constitution. The real Good News is that like all Special Snowflakes, she will melt away eventually.

Isnt this Lady a Christian? How do you Moderators get away with this name calling? " like all Special Snowflakes."

 

[Skwim]

Isnt this Lady a Christian? How do you Moderators get away with this name calling? " like all Special Snowflakes."

What is it with this need to stop what you consider name calling? Last time I heard anything like this was when I was on the playground in grade school.

In any case, it isn't because she's a Christian, but because she wants special treatment. "Let me interpret my faith the way I want even if it's against the law." And, it isn't so much name calling as simple labeling. Snowflakes require very delicate handling lest they go poof! She's sent the message that her faith is so delicate that unless it's treated like a snowflake it will suffer. AND, as Thorbjorn recognizes, like a snowflake she'll eventually disappear. Hopefully from further government employment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently she claimed to be acting on "god's authority", which violates separation of church and state.

I've a test.....
If God pays for her bail, & personally handles her defense, then let'r refuse to issue marriage licenses.


You're all invited to slap me now.

 

[Scott C.]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/ky-clerk-defies-court-refuiousses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Don't get me wrong, people should be able to believe what they want. But, once their beliefs cause harm, both monetarily and emotionally, to others, their right to religious liberty ends there. I think she should be given the option to either resign or do her job. If she refuses both options, she should be held in contempt.

She should be required to issue the licenses or be fired or held in contempt. One way or the other, the licenses must be issued. I'm not aware of any legitimate legal appeal. And it doesn't appear that she was ordered by superiors to withhold the licenses. If she's an elected official, then she needs to be forced through whatever legal process works best and fastest.

 

[idav]

She should be required to issue the licenses or be fired or held in contempt. One way or the other, the licenses must be issued. I'm not aware of any legitimate legal appeal. And it doesn't appear that she was ordered by superiors to withhold the licenses. If she's an elected official, then she needs to be forced through whatever legal process works best and fastest.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue and government officials must follow the ruling. I do really worry that over time, religious or other non-government people, will not be granted authority to perform marriages, unless they agree to marry gay couples. People say this will not happen, but we are heading that way one step at a time. I suppose if it happens, my church would simply stop performing marriages. They could perform the religious or priesthood ceremony, with no legal authority, and then send the couple to the courthouse for the legal part. But I'm going off topic.

Getting a county cert has no real godly authority like getting married in a Catholic Church or Mormon temple. Same as the religious rite has no legal standing to the state or Feds unless the preachers do the additional proper paper work. Feds can never say what people marry or don't marry in Churches and temples and same goes the other way.

 

[Scott C.]

Getting a county cert has no real godly authority like getting married in a Catholic Church or Mormon temple. Same as the religious rite has no legal standing to the state or Feds unless the preachers do the additional proper paper work. Feds can never say what people marry or don't marry in Churches and temples and same goes the other way.

Never say never. And I edited my post that you quoted, to stick more to the point of the thread.

 

[columbus]

They could perform the religious or priesthood ceremony, with no legal authority, and then send the couple to the courthouse for the legal part.

That is the way it is now, and has been for ages. The legal part is done by the government and the rest is just a personal thing.
You can have a big church wedding or do nothing else at all. You're just as legally married either way.
Tom

 

[Scott C.]

That is the way it is now, and has been for ages. The legal part is done by the government and the rest is just a personal thing.
You can have a big church wedding or do nothing else at all. You're just as legally married either way.
Tom

I'm not sure what you mean. The leaders in my church who perform marriages, have the legal authority as well as the religious authority.

 

[columbus]

I'm not sure what you mean. The leaders in my church who perform marriages, have the legal authority as well as the religious authority.

Really? Is that a special Mormon thing in Utah?
Around here you must have a state certificate to get married in any legal sense. Most churches won't even hold the ceremony if you don't have one.
Tom

 

[outhouse]

This woman is really working my nerves. She's sworn to uphold the US Constitution. If she cannot do that, she needs to resign. She's not being prohibited from practicing her religion. She can practice it anywhere she wants, but not as a public servant under the US Constitution. The real Good News is that like all Special Snowflakes, she will melt away eventually.

Hopefully they file charges against her.


Her excuse is just outright primitive, including her personal work around of not letting straights marry either.

Im not crazy about all the gay stuff, Im looing at this for the perspective and context of law.

 

[Scott C.]

Really? Is that a special Mormon thing in Utah?
Around here you must have a state certificate to get married in any legal sense. Most churches won't even hold the ceremony if you don't have one.
Tom

Wait... what I mean is... everyone has to get a marriage license from the state. Then for the marriage ceremony to be legally binding, it needs to be performed by someone who's authorized by the government to perform marriages. I don't know what it takes to get that authorization, but I know that Mormon bishops are get it.