Kentucky County Clerk still Refuses to issue Gay Marriage License

[Meshugger]

Everyone is separated, but equal to one another.

[Raithe]

[Volourn]

I have no doubt George Takei had no problem preaching about breaking the law, etc. when it comes to pushing for his rights so he should stop being hypocritical about this.  It also isn't about cheering for her. She is a douchebag but that doesn't mean she should be punished worse than others.

 

\Wasn't long ago people were defying the law for other reasons and the same people whining about 'following the law' were happily breaking it or encouraging it. Stop being hypocritical.

 

\I also notice how someone who has a different opinion is 'un Amkerikan'. Last i check, freedom and free speech is supposed to be 100% Amerikan. LMAO

 

 

P.S.  She should have lost her job.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

I have no doubt George Takei had no problem preaching about breaking the law, etc. when it comes to pushing for his rights so he should stop being hypocritical about this.  It also isn't about cheering for her. She is a douchebag but that doesn't mean she should be punished worse than others.

 

\Wasn't long ago people were defying the law for other reasons and the same people whining about 'following the law' were happily breaking it or encouraging it. Stop being hypocritical.

 

\I also notice how someone who has a different opinion is 'un Amkerikan'. Last i check, freedom and free speech is supposed to be 100% Amerikan. LMAO

 

 

P.S.  She should have lost her job.

How is her refusing to issue marriage licenses an example of a lack of free speech?

 

And if you feel she should have lost her job then you must feel she acted inappropriately...but as has been explained many times before she couldn't be fired. So how do you suggest this situation should have been handled ...lets say " Volo is in charge "   

Edited September 9, 2015 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

Hmm, 50 years ago interracial marriage was wholly "un-American".

[Volourn]

"And if you feel she should have lost her job then you must feel she acted inappropriately...but as has been explained many times before she couldn't be fired. So how do you suggest this situation should have been handled ...lets say " Volo is in charge "

 

She would have been fired. No doubt politicians have moral/legal clauses in their contract that forbids them from breaking the law. She can be removed from office if she can't fulfill her duties. This myth that she can't be fired is ridiculous.

\

I've been stating from the start that she was acting inappropriately. I think someone who shoplifst also acts inappropriately but I wouldn't send him to prison under threat of being there forever either as punishment.

 

 

"Hmm, 50 years ago interracial marriage was wholly "un-American"."

 

Yup, and people broke the law fighting it and many enver got sent to jail even when 'breaking the law'. And,  that's a good thing.

[BruceVC]

"And if you feel she should have lost her job then you must feel she acted inappropriately...but as has been explained many times before she couldn't be fired. So how do you suggest this situation should have been handled ...lets say " Volo is in charge "

 

She would have been fired. No doubt politicians have moral/legal clauses in their contract that forbids them from breaking the law. She can be removed from office if she can't fulfill her duties. This myth that she can't be fired is ridiculous.

\

I've been stating from the start that she was acting inappropriately. I think someone who shoplifst also acts inappropriately but I wouldn't send him to prison under threat of being there forever either as punishment.

 

 

"Hmm, 50 years ago interracial marriage was wholly "un-American"."

 

Yup, and people broke the law fighting it and many enver got sent to jail even when 'breaking the law'. And,  that's a good thing.

Okay your point is fundamental to my view, my understanding she couldn't be fired ....check this link 

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027131312

 

I still dont really understand it but thats the law. So lets accept she cannot be fired ...what would you have done ?

[Volourn]

Please. She can be fired. It even states in the article that she can be. It is pure laziness that she still has her position. Governers, presidents, DAs, judges, premiers, , and senators cna all lose their positions but she can't? COME ON. Don't buy that bullcrap.

[Amentep]

As I understand it (I tried to find the actual provisions, but legislation isn't terribly intuitive if you don't know where what you're looking for lives), she can be removed through impeachment but that's by the Kentucky House of Representatives, which doesn't meet again until January, I believe.

[BruceVC]

Please. She can be fired. It even states in the article that she can be. It is pure laziness that she still has her position. Governers, presidents, DAs, judges, premiers, , and senators cna all lose their positions but she can't? COME ON. Don't buy that bullcrap.

 

 

As I understand it (I tried to find the actual provisions, but legislation isn't terribly intuitive if you don't know where what you're looking for lives), she can be removed through impeachment but that's by the Kentucky House of Representatives, which doesn't meet again until January, I believe.

 But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing?

[Amentep]

 

Please. She can be fired. It even states in the article that she can be. It is pure laziness that she still has her position. Governers, presidents, DAs, judges, premiers, , and senators cna all lose their positions but she can't? COME ON. Don't buy that bullcrap.

 

 

As I understand it (I tried to find the actual provisions, but legislation isn't terribly intuitive if you don't know where what you're looking for lives), she can be removed through impeachment but that's by the Kentucky House of Representatives, which doesn't meet again until January, I believe.

 But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing?

 

 

As I understand it, as an elected position, a county clerk found to be stealing would still have to be impeached by the Kentucky House of Representatives to be removed from office.  There may be an interim clerk put in while the legal proceedings...er...proceed, but it'd require the House to remove.

[Elerond]

 

As I understand it (I tried to find the actual provisions, but legislation isn't terribly intuitive if you don't know where what you're looking for lives), she can be removed through impeachment but that's by the Kentucky House of Representatives, which doesn't meet again until January, I believe.

 But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing?

 

 

Court could give her punishment according to law, but she would not lose her position as county clerk without impeachment procedure or until her time in office runs out and she isn't elected back. In my knowledge it is same for all elected officials in Kentucky and many other states in US (Also lots of other countries have similar protections for elected officials).

[Guard Dog]

Does anyone else wish this story would just go away yet?

[Elerond]

Does anyone else wish this story would just go away yet?

 

Yes, it has been especially confusing that Finnish press has given this story so much of their time.

[BruceVC]

Does anyone else wish this story would just go away yet?

Not yet, its still very interesting 

[ShadySands]

Does anyone else wish this story would just go away yet?

Yep

[Hurlshort]

 

"Hmm, 50 years ago interracial marriage was wholly "un-American"."

 

Yup, and people broke the law fighting it and many enver got sent to jail even when 'breaking the law'. And,  that's a good thing.

 

[Raithe]

I think the general historical viewpoint that people in the US take...

 

Is that to break the law in defence of liberty and freedom for yourself or others is viewed as American.

But to break the law on the basis of ensuring your "freedom" to prevent others having liberty or freedom is un-American.

 

Of course, that's always subject to re-interpretation every 20-30 years (possibly shorter).

[Volourn]

ie.  It depends if you agree or disagree with the person breaking the law.

[BruceVC]

ie.  It depends if you agree or disagree with the person breaking the law.

Volo this is  the Volo I know and remember, you are perfectly coherent, cogent and you making excellent points....I don't always agree but thats not the point

 

Now you can compare this to your " NAZI....SJW....EVIL"  paroxysms and rants  on other threads that  no one understands, you are far too bright to act like that . Sorry to raise this but I do care and you know I appreciate constructive criticism. Don't you prefer this type of debate?

[Volourn]

"you are far too bright to act like that"

 

\Your SJW nazi ignorance is showing again.

[Yonjuro]

ie.  It depends if you agree or disagree with the person breaking the law.

 

 

 Not exactly. You are missing one thing. In US law, a civil suit can only be brought by a plaintiff that has standing to sue. That is, a party who is hurt by something can sue over it.

 

  A recent suit against a high school was dismissed because the plaintiff had graduated before the case made it's way to court. The behavior of the school was deemed unlawful by the judge, but the case was dismissed because the plaintiff no longer had standing to sue.

 

 In the case of granting unlawful licenses to marry, no one is materially harmed so, no lawsuit. 

 

 In this case, the plaintiffs had been denied a license they were legally entitled to, so they sued and won. The clerk was found in contempt for not following the judges order to grant the license (or even to not interfere with her subordinates who were willing to do it). I don't like the idea of jailing the clerk, but judges tend to not have a sense of humor about people refusing a to follow a court order, so I'm not really surprised. I don't know if the (federal) judge had authority to remove an elected official (county level - the state legislature would need to do that), so there may not have been a better option for the judge. 

[BruceVC]

"you are far too bright to act like that"

 

\Your SJW nazi ignorance is showing again.

You see that's fine ...its the consistent usage of it in a paragraph that gets tiring 

[213374U]

As I understand it (I tried to find the actual provisions, but legislation isn't terribly intuitive if you don't know where what you're looking for lives), she can be removed through impeachment but that's by the Kentucky House of Representatives, which doesn't meet again until January, I believe.

 

From what I gathered digging into the KRS*, she would also lose her position if she was convicted of a misdemeanor related to her functions in some cases, a felony in any case, and specifically, in the event of a conviction for malfeasance in office. So yes, unsurprisingly, there is a way to remove government officials who interpret or ignore the law when they aren't supposed to.

 

Of course, going that route would undoubtedly take longer than simply throwing her in jail NOW to see if she breaks. That's due process for ya. "Contempt" is such bull****.

 

 

*yes, I have way too much time on my hands

[Wrath of Dagon]

I already explained the judge has no authority to do any of that. It would take the Kentucky legislature or a local prosecutor, all of whom are themselves elected and thus are likely to be sympathetic to the clerk. What the judge did it simply the same thing he would've done with anyone disobeying a court order.