Kentucky clerk held in contempt, ordered to jail over same-sex marriage license controversy

Kentucky clerk held in contempt, ordered to jail over same-sex marriage license controversy: So government officials refusing to uphold the law can be put in jail now? If only Presidents were held to the same standards as lowly clerks.

This post was last modified on September 3, 2015

Kip Hooker:

View Comments (34)

  • I atually feel she is in the wrong. Stop throwing things at your computer screens. Here's the deal. Some of the sarcastic posts have noted that, for instance, if a Quaker refused you buying a gun, because they have a deeply held religious belief in pacifism. More to the point, what if your local DMV posted a sign that to honor Allah, and follow THEIR closely held religious beliefs, they would no longer issue drivers' licenses to women. You would be s-#=?+ a ring around yourselves. I don't think she should have been jailed. I think she should have been fired for cause, for not doing her job.

  • I have... what I think to be a very even handed position on this PARTICULAR issue. [The following being said SA_Rose makes an excellent point that in the end there is really no law is it?]

    1. She is a government agent/worker/contractor/elected official/named official, etc.

    1a. If someone/others in the office can create and sign the marriage certificates for EVERYONE including gays (etc) and she doesn't have to look at them, sign for them, etc. then that person should be assigned to take care of all licenses and she (and whomever agrees with her on this issue in her office) are to be exempt from even looking or touching such licenses.
    1b. If such a person does not work there, but it is possible for such a position to be created, then that person or those people should be hired immediately so they can handle the situation as per 1.
    1c. If such a position or person (or people) cannot exist within the parameters of that office then, that means that taxpayers who are gay (etc) cannot be accommodated according to the law and therefore she continues to be a government agent (etc) and complies with the law and provides the marriage certificates or

    2. She becomes a true and complete private citizen and does not accommodate other private gay (etc) citizens in her private entity/business/work space/etc.

    2a. 1's cannot in any way, shape nor form discriminate against [tax paying] citizens. [Tax paying] citizens are all equal under the law no matter what they look like, what they believe in and what they do in their personal lifestyles. Even though she has the right to believe what she wants as a 1 she doesn't have the right to discriminate or show partiality in her job. She is to treat all proven [tax paying] citizens the same, give them the same services and the same paperwork and have them pay the same taxes/penalties/fees as other citizens. Please understand that she can believe this is a disgusting law, but as a 1, she must comply or not and stop being a 1 and enter the private sector (and fight against the law if she so wishes).

    2b. As a PRIVATE citizen (2) she can be free to discriminate for whatever reason whomever she wants in her business, in her work, in her home, in her church, wherever she is and whatever she is doing. She can exercise her rights of speech, religious practices, press and free assembly with like minded people.She does not have to "marry" anyone she doesn't want to (as a pastor for example) nor provide services nor products to anyone that she doesn't want to. Butchers, Bakers, and Candlestick makers should be free to discriminate in their private business for whatever reason no matter how bigoted nor vulgar it is to others and express their positions widely and loudly (but not violently) in the streets.

    2c. Non-Government workers are not government drones, slaves nor property and thus the government in the form of judges and others who actually force and penalize private citizens to either become slaves to gays and the government or be penalized for not doing so is absolutely disgusting. THAT is what we need to be fighting against, those are the cases that we need to support.

    2d. There is a difference between 1's and 2's. We need to protect 2's all the way because if 2's rights are taken we are all doomed, however 1's have rights of course... however due to their statuses as 1's they have to understand that under the law, they must treat everyone the same.

    There is something that I don't understand: Nazis and KKK can rally and promote their bigotry openly in the public spaces and private spaces in the country as part of their free speech (Supreme Court), even if people believe that Christians are bigoted for their beliefs, why is it that the 1st amendment protection seems to protect (true hate speech) the speech of those who promote controversial racist ideology, but not protect those who promote religious ideology? Nazis aren't compelled to serve Jews in their businesses and KKK aren't compelled to serve Blacks... why must Christians be compelled to serve gays (etc)? ESPECIALLY if they and others believe that Christians are bigoted AND such speech is well protected by the First Amendment?

    Conclusion: I believe that she can believe what she wants to believe. I defend her right to believe it and exercise it. She needs to make accommodations in order to comply with the law, and she can STILL be against it and if possible speak up about it and support people and organizations that believes in what she believes in. She however needs to find accommodations for the tax paying citizens that come for the license and are able and willing to pay the state's fees/taxes. If she cannot do the accommodations because her position and/or her office cannot (not will not... cannot due to the nature of the position or office), then she needs to go lower in position or office or she needs to move away from the position or office, so someone else can accommodate the citizens, THEN she becomes a private citizen and if she opens a bakery she should discriminate all day long without a lawsuit and without the government forcing her to comply (based on ridiculous public accommodation stance which is stupid), or to pay fines or to close their business. 

  • She's simply following the example set by her Progressive brethren who have been ignoring laws they dislike with impunity.

  • I'm not sure where I stand on this one. She is an elected official and THE county clerk, not an hourly clerk manning a desk. So I think that is a very important distinction. She was sworn to uphold the laws of the state and county, not her personal interpretation of those laws based on her beliefs or religious convictions. She is the one bringing religion into an elected government position. I sympathize with her and applaud her for standing up for her beliefs, but in the end she is breaking the law she swore to uphold.

    • She has asked, simply, under what law is she authorized to issue same sex licenses. She has a point. Laws are produced by Congress. That's why they are thee L E G I S L A T I V E body. No congress of an state has passed any such law. Sincecwhen does the SCOtUS have thexauthority to legislate? All the did was render an opinionas to the constitutionality of same sex marraige.

    • "She was sworn to uphold the laws of the state and county..."

      Which laws happen to outlaw same-sex marriage. The only source for the opposite viewpoint is Anthony Kennedy, who decided for the first time in the nation's history that suddenly the Supreme Court should decide -- for everybody -- what state law -- all state laws -- on marriage should be. Anthony Kennedy and the Supreme Court on not in her chain of command, which highlights the fundamental unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court's ruling. The federal gov't cannot and should not be telling states what their marriage laws should be. She is right, not just morally but legally too. Unfortunately this is not a nation of laws anymore, so might will make right and she will go to jail.

      • I see where you are coming from, I'm just not sure any more what is what. I think she's breaking the law, but your statement supports that she isn't.

        The problem I see with your position is that she isn't denying licenses based on what is legal, she's not issuing them based on her religious convictions. Meaning to me, she agrees that the SCOTUS ruling makes gay marriage legal, but her religious beliefs are preventing her from upholding that ruling. Unless I'm missing something where she states otherwise. IMO, she's bringing church to the state and not questioning the constitutionality of the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage.

          • I listen to a.m. radio all day, I thought (thought!) I heard earlier she said she'd FILE them, she just wouldn't SIGN them so... is she saying you bring me a 'duly correct document' I'll file it, but I'm not putting my signature on your paper. Big difference.

            [edit] I've been way wrong before... is she saying, "you bring me correct papers, I'll file them".
            But don't come here and ask me to sign them so you can file, because I won't sign. Am I missing something?

          • I believe her deputies are able to rubber stamp them for her since she most likely doesn't even man the desk herself. As I understand it, she has forbidden those deputies from stamping them off in her name. So yes, I believe that ultimately she is the only person whose name is supposed to go on the licenses.

          • Ok so that is what I was asking.

            Even though they can stamp it, she has to "sign" it or else the stamp has her name. If this cannot be changed and have someone else's name appear then I go back to what I stated below in my long post.

            Thank you

  • Then they should jail every mayor of every sanctuary city since they're so focused on municipalities ignoring federal laws.

    • And every CLEO that won't sign a Form 4 or Form 1.

      When did Chicago and DC leaders face imprisonment after YEARS of flouting the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS opinions.

      Hello, sanctuary cities? Colorado and Washington flouting controlled substances laws.

      Piss of the GayKK and your ass is in jail within a week.

  • As a strategy, this action by the judicial system will not work. I wonder if the court realizes it. If this woman sticks to her convictions, the longer she's in jail the more of a martys she will become, the more of a cause célèbre, the more of a rallying point. She will win, if she sticks to her convictions. I hope she does. I would love to see her deputies stand with her and go to jail, too. That would be awesome.

    • All but one of her deputies said they will issue licenses. The only one that stuck with her is her son.

      • Which is good... that means that there are others who can do it... the question is does SHE have to interact with these licenses? If gays come in and say we want licenses, they can be kindly shown to the deputies who will do it... does she have to stamp them herself or sign them herself? that is the question .

    • Christian principles and convictions are now under attack. This lady has stood up for her beliefs and now Judge Bunning has decided to put her in jail. Wonder when the judge goes home for Thanksgiving dinner will he get a lecture from his father Jim. Yes the same Jim Bunning who stood up for the defense of marriage, the same Jim Bunning who is a retired US Senator and the same Jim Bunning that put his son up for a federal judgeship.

  • In addition to being frightening, this is fascinating because, if you remember, there were many and various clerks around the nation who, when the law explicitly forbade gay marriage, openly defied the law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway. I don't remember even one of them being imprisoned. Yet the first time a Christian defies the law in the other direction...

      • Yet one of the couple who has annoyed this particular clerk 4 times for a license state they would never impose their belief system on anyone else! 1) they ARE in fact imposing their beliefs on the whole country.
        2) if there are multiple other clerks giving out licenses, why do they keep returning to THE ONE CLERK who will deny them. Its about forcing others, not just getting a license.

        • If there are other clerks that can do the job and accommodate the gays without her even having to touch nor see the licenses, then yes this is persecution and this absolutely wrong.

        • I am all for her doing her job but if we going to apply that standard lets start doing it with cities that are refusing to respect the SCOTUS decision in the Heller gun rights ruling. After all if this clerk fails to issue a marriage license you just go to another location and get one. If you live in a city that unconstitutionally restricts your right to self defense the consequences are far more dire.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015