John Corvino makes good points about Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds that doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
However, like most of the mainstream media coverage, the party on whose ticket Davis ran goes unremarked, which should have been a dead give-away. If someone is held in disdain, the mainstream media always lets you know if they’re a Republican. When it’s a guessing game, you can bet it’s otherwise.
More. To clarify, the original NY Times piece did not mention her party, but did so in subsequent, more recent reports.
And then there’s this: From the New York Times:
Correction: September 3, 2015
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated Kim Davis’s political affiliation. She is a Democrat, not a Republican.
And this from the Washington Post (via Instapundit).
Furthermore. Lesson learned? The Washington Post now reports:
Davis narrowly won a three-way Democratic primary in 2014. She cruised to victory in the general election, before same-sex marriage was on the radar, and many supporters of LGBT rights voted for her in November because she was the Democratic candidate.
(continued in next post)
Update: Many weeks into the controversy, Kim Davis switched her political affiliation from Republican to Democrat, following the support she received from GOP social conservatives. Despite the chortling from the peanut gallery, this in no way mitigates the point that when she was a Democrat, the press downplayed her party identification. Now that she’s in the GOP, that won’t be the case.
47 Comments for “When the Political Party Goes Unmentioned…”
posted by Jorge on
“But these analogies fall flat. Unlike the conscientious objector, Davis is not being drafted into service against her will.”
…
“She should not expect to keep her job, any more than a military commander would keep his job if he became a pacifist, or a surgeon would keep her job if she became a Christian Scientist and refused to perform surgery.”
No.
I don’t agree with Mr. Corvino’s reasoning at all.
If it were a situation in which she was aware the job responsibilities would entail giving marriage licenses to gay couples, she ran for the office, and then she claimed a religious objection, then the analogy would not hold.
This is the reverse situation: a bait-and-switch. When an employer changes the conditions of employment for an existing employee to such an extent that it is now violating that person’s religious beliefs, then you are drafting someone into a service against their will. That is not in any way, shape, or form the same as someone knowing the conditions of their employment in the first instance and then wanting to change them later. Resigning is not a feasible or reasonable option for someone who has vested whatever preparation they have into qualifying for and entering the job only to find that the conditions of employment have changed. It is simply not equitable to fail to give the worker the same opportunity to negotiate the conditions of their employment as the employer. That’s why a lot of people work under contract. So that they have protections from arbitrary, after the fact conditions of employment, protections that are enforceable in court.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act are the binding contractual provisions for Ms. Davis’s employment.
I believe at the very least Ms. Davis should be offered a very generous severance package.
Many have commented on the fact that Davis herself has been divorced several times. As a strategic matter, this makes her a rather poor poster child for “traditional Christian marriage”: Jesus himself treats divorce and remarriage as akin to adultery. But the point is not merely ad hominem: Davis’s willingness to impose a standard of marriage on gays that she does not apply to others, herself included, shows that she’s less interested in enforcing a consistent traditional Christian view than in singling out gays for disapproval.
That is an interesting argument, but I disagree. If she divorced due to domestic violence, for example, no one would fault her regardless of how she weighs gay marriage vs. divorce. But more to the point, the state doesn’t get to pick and choose how religious beliefs of a doctrine espoused by a third party get to be ranked by the person who is claiming injury.
It is certainly a disingenuousness of the highest order to claim, at a place and time when no one bats an eye at almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce yet barely 50% of the country consider gay marriage to be morally acceptable, that is hypocritical for a single person to stand their ground on gay marriage and look the other way on divorce. A certain snide segment of this country has been trying to play the hypocrisy card at a narrow group of people without recognizing that this is a very broad social judgment. They might want to question whether a reason other than theological dishonesty explains it.
Because I can tell you one thing. Nobody gets gay married out of betrayal or being the victim of a crime or because they find life unbearable. Gay marriage isn’t a “sin” about a lack of commitment or discipline in the face of adversity–if anything I think that describes when people don’t get married.
posted by Doug on
Why should this woman be offered a generous severance package for refusing to honor her sworn oath to uphold the laws of Kentucky and this country?
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Serious, in depth, investigative journalism is expensive. Its often been the victim of the botton line.
Granted the people who compete in local races – city, county, school board, etc. probably have a political party membership or peference.
Yet, local elections are often non partisan – even if most locals say it with a friendly wink and a nod.
Now, why cant the county clerk simply delegate the difficult task of looking at marriage paperworkv (processing it) to another county employee?
posted by Jorge on
Why should this woman be offered a generous severance package for refusing to honor her sworn oath to uphold the laws of Kentucky and this country?
You’re asking me a question I have already answered.
I reject the premise that she is refusing to honor her sworn oath. The terms and conditions of her oath changed without giving her a fair opportunity to determine whether to renew it or retire from it, and without reasonable notice thereof. That is why.
posted by Doug on
That is pure bullshit.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t know about pure, but you got the last part right.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I believe at the very least Ms. Davis should be offered a very generous severance package.
It won’t come from the County, but Ms. Davis will get “a very generous severance package” — look for at least $1 million in fund-raising on her behalf, and double that in speaker’s fees from the anti-gay Christian lecture circuit. She’s hit the Jesus jackpot, and don’t think she doesn’t know it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is certainly a disingenuousness of the highest order to claim, at a place and time when no one bats an eye at almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce yet barely 50% of the country consider gay marriage to be morally acceptable, that is hypocritical for a single person to stand their ground on gay marriage and look the other way on divorce.
Oh, bullshit. Unless Luke 16:18, Mark 10:12, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and the numerous other Christian Scripture condemnations of remarriage after divorce have been rescinded by public opinion in the United States, the woman is extremely selective about what does, and what does not, constitute “God’s authority”.
The fact that she selectively enforces “God’s authority” when it comes to gays and lesbians, but gives adulterers a pass — not her own tattered marriage history — is what demonstrates her anti-gay bias.
A certain snide segment of this country has been trying to play the hypocrisy card at a narrow group of people without recognizing that this is a very broad social judgment. They might want to question whether a reason other than theological dishonesty explains it.
Spiritual cowardice, for example.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act are the binding contractual provisions for Ms. Davis’s employment.
Only the First Amendment?
This is the oath of office Kim Davis took (Section 228, Kentucky Constitution):
Don’t fall into the conservative Christian trap, Jorge, reading the Constitution as selectively as conservative Christians read the Authorized Version.
posted by Jorge on
Very good, Tom. I’m not talking about Kim Davis’s Oath of Office, Tom. I’m talking about her bosses in the judicial and legislative branches. The First Amendment can be infringed upon in certain circumstances, but I do not think this is one of them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The First Amendment can be infringed upon in certain circumstances, but I do not think this is one of them.
How about a County Clerk to has a moral and religious objection to a divorced person getting re-married? Who about a County Clerk who has a a moral and religious objection to a Christian marrying a non-believer or a Jew (e.g. the Pauline and Petrine privileges) or a Mormon or a Catholic? How about a County Clerk who has a moral and religious objection to a white woman marrying a black man? And so on. Where does this end?
posted by Houndentenor on
The state legislature or Congress can change the laws concerning any of her duties at any time. So can the courts. No one is sworn in affirming that they will execute their office so long as they don’t disagree with any changes that come along.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, bullshit. Unless Luke 16:18, Mark 10:12, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and the numerous other Christian Scripture condemnations of remarriage after divorce have been rescinded by public opinion in the United States
Dudesir, that is exactly what I am arguing.
I don’t know about Ms. Davis’s religion, but in Catholicism, which labels itself as a “universal” church, the tenets of “Christian Scripture” can be modified by public opinion if the faithful come to a sincere understanding of how to uphold right behavior and the social order. Because each culture of a particular place and time encounters its problems in different ways, it is impossible for a universal religion not to allow for some kind of particularized discretion in how each culture, each family, each person meets their obligations.
Thus while the Catechism (and other writings of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict–my present source is his first volume of Jesus of Nazareth) will discuss the need to protect the social order, it reserves the question of how to do so to those from the local culture. “And the fact of the matter is that social order has to be capable of development. It must address changing historical situations within the limits of the possible, but without ever losing sight of the ethical standard as such, which gives law its character as law.” (Jesus of Nazareth, 124).
It gets worse when you leave the infamously hierarchical Catholic Church in which you’re theoretically not allowed to urinate in public without asking a priest’s opinion. Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the power of the priesthood has been broken in Christianity. In most of Christianity by doctrine, and even Catholicism in fact, the authority to read, understand, and interpret scripture lies with the general public.
What Mr. Corvino is arguing is that the structure of the way the courts understand the legal institution of marriage rescinds what “Christian Scripture” has to say over marriage. That’s not his, or anyone else’s, decision to make for Ms. Davis.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You better talk to a priest or theologian, Jorge, or at least read more deeply into Lumen Gentium, which made clear that sensus fedelium (the sense of the faithful) is distinct from and does not mean sensus laicorum (the sense of the laity alone). When the views of the laity are at odds with the teaching of the Church, sensus fedelium does not and cannot exist. At the very minimum, Holy Scripture is not, in Catholic theology, affected by sensus seculorum (the sense of non-believers).
posted by Jorge on
Well, the first version of my post was to say that the tenets of “Christian Scripture” can be modified by public opinion if a priest thinks it’s a good idea. But that didn’t make non-practicing Catholics look good, so I changed it. I am not the least bit ashamed of being scolded for it. I wouldn’t have things any other way.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I really didn’t want to comment on this, but since Jorge has once again gone off his meds… If you are a public servant who has sworn to uphold the rule of law and a higher legal authority has determined that your current position is in conflict – you have a choice: comply with the law or resign.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Someone needs to bake this woman a cake!
posted by Houndentenor on
Really? Did news reports fail to mention that Eliot Spitzer or Anthonoy Weiner were Democrats?
One day homocons like Stephen will care more about gay rights than they care about spewing right-wing talking points. I should live that long.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As Stephen notes correctly, the media hasn’t, for the most part, been identifying Kim Davis as a Democrat. Some have, of course, because I was aware that she was a Democrat, and wouldn’t have been otherwise.
And there does seem to be a pattern, too, as Stephen suggests.
The media hasn’t been reporting the party affiliation of Casey Davis, the Casey County, Kentucky, Clerk who has embarked on a cross-the-nation bike ride to support his “sister in faith”. And this guy is even worse (or perhaps more colorful) than Kim Davis, since he’s been all over the media saying that its his job to tell gays that they are going to hell, and that he’s willing to die before he issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
It is possible that Stephen is right — that the media is so uniformly and persistently biased against Republicans that it only mentions party affiliation in gay rights cases when Republicans are at fault. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, since the party affiliation of Kentucky’s Democratic Governor and Attorney General who opposed same-sex marriage during the recent litigation (Steve Beshear and Jack Conway) was, and continues to be, prominently reported.
So my guess is, that unless Stephen can come up with a statistical analysis that demonstrates media bias in situations involved county-level officials, that there must be another reason. It simply may be that the information is very hard to dig out, and the media is too lazy to do it.
Whatever the case, I just spent a half hour trying to find out Casey Davis’s political party affiliation. I read at least four dozen news reports. I searched a number of combinations using his name. I looked at Kentucky politics websites. I looked at the unofficial county website (there doesn’t seem to be an official one, which baffles me, but that seems to be true of many counties in Kentucky). I looked at State Board of Elections materials. I looked and I looked and I looked.
I finally found it, searching for “election results casey county ky 2014” — “Casey County Clerk Casey Davis 394 Hickory Lane Dunnville, KY 42528 Casey County Clerk Republican Party“.
If Stephen is right, and the media pounces on Republicans while giving Democrats a pass, why was Casey Davis’s political affiliation was so hard to uncover? And why hasn’t it been reported in the media?
posted by Kosh III on
“For I hate divorce, says the Lord.” Malachi 2:16
Unless a person hates gays, or is Ronald Reagan or New Gingrich etc &&&
posted by Don on
As a former reporter, I can tell you that it is more likely that her party affiliation is not reported because typically clerks of court (and very often mayors) are non-partisan races. Tried to look it up, but can’t figure out if the clerk’s position is non-partisan in that state. They are in Florida. As are judges, mayors, county commissioners, pretty much everyone at the local level. Oh they belong to a party. But they cannot advertise what party they are a part of and do not run in a primary.
So there may be no nefarious reason here. It is general practice not to mention party affiliation unless the elected official ran as such. This is why AL S.C. Justice Roy Moore is obviously a republican, but is never, ever mentioned as such.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Non major party candidates may have a discrimmibation claim to make (morally, if not legally).
However, its hard for me to buy that “the media” is out to get the Democratic or Republican party (with a few overtly partisan exceptions)
Most of the media is driven by lazyiness, the drive for ratings, and trying not to alienate big sponsors.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I reject the premise that she is refusing to honor her sworn oath. The terms and conditions of her oath changed without giving her a fair opportunity to determine whether to renew it or retire from it, and without reasonable notice thereof. That is why.
That borders on the ludicrous, Jorge.
She was elected in November 2014 and took office in January 2015.
By the time she was elected in November, federal District Courts all over the country and several Circuit Courts had decided in favor of marriage equality. The favorable decisions were appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court refused to grant certiorari in any of those cases in October 2014, a month before the election.
While a Supreme Court decision is never a done deal until the decision is rendered, after ceriiorari was denied in the marriage equality cases, even the conservative Christian right was openly talking about having lost the marriage battle, and everybody knew that it was just a matter of time, unless something really went off the rails.
The 6th Circuit was an outlier, to be sure, but she would have had to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples wouldn’t be part of the job, and damn quickly.
posted by Jorge on
Sorry, but I do not agree.
posted by JohnInCA on
A policeman swear an oath to uphold the law. Then a legislature passes some new laws, criminalizing some new things, legalizing others.
Does that policeman get a waiver on upholding the new laws? Is he expected to continue enforcing the now-nullified laws?
Of course not. His oath was to uphold the law. Not the law as it was at a specific (and now past) point of time, but the current law, whatever that law may be.
And if the law changes (as it always does) and he finds he cannot concioentiously uphold the law? The ethical choice is to resign and become a vigilante of the night. Sueing the government might be a stop gap, but once the legal process runs it’s course (and when you’re facing contempt charges, it’s run it’s course) you can either resign or perform the new job.
But if you take an oath based on the *law as it is* and expect that law to *always be*, then you’re an idiot. I have no reason to believe Ms. Davis is an idiot. Unethical? A bigot? Making an opportunistic ploy for some of that sweet bigot-martyr lucre? Sure. But nothing she’s done so far is overly indicative of being an idiot.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sorry, but I do not agree.
On November 4, 2014 the status of marriage discrimination cases was as follows: The Supreme Court had ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Numerous federal District Courts had ruled marriage discrimination unconstitutional. The Courts of Appeals for 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuits had ruled that marriage discrimination was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had refused to hear appeals of any of those Circuit Court cases. The District Court of the Western District of Kentucky had ruled marriage discrimination unconstitutional in two seperate cases, Borke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear. The cases were on appeal to the 6th Circuit, which had not yet ruled (the 6th Circuit ruling came on November 6, 2014, two days after the election).
That was the situation on November 4, the date of the election.
Are you arguing that a rational person, running for the office of County Clerk in Kentucky, elected on November 4, 2014, when Kentucky was under court order to end marriage discrimination, an order stayed pending appeal, with every single Circuit Court that had decided the issue to date having decided in favor of marriage equality and the Supreme Court having refused to hear appeals of those decisions, would have no reason to believe that the marriage equality train was coming down the track in Kentucky, horn blaring and headlight shining?
I’ll repeat what I said: Given the facts available on November 4, 2014, a person would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that County Clerks in Kentucky would not be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and in damn short order.
But let’s assume that Kim Davis was so busy running for office, or baking cookies, or cleaning up after the dog, or studying the Authorized Version, that she somehow missed the clear warnings that the law was about to change, and in short order, and was totally clueless on November 4, 2014. Did she otherwise have “… a fair opportunity to determine whether to renew it or retire from it, and … reasonable notice thereof”?
Consider some additional facts:
In February, 2015, shortly after taking over the office, she wrote a letter to several legislators asking for a law to allow her to avoid having to issue licenses to gay couples, should the Supreme Court overturn the 6th Circuit and declare marriage discrimination unconstitutional. She said she received no response.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court did just that — declared marriage discrimination unconstitutional.
On June 29, 2015, Davis announced that her office would issue no marriage licenses to any couple, straight or gay/lesbian. On July 2, 2015, the ACLU filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of four Rowan County couples who were denied licenses by Davis. The plaintiffs included two straight and two gay couples. On July 9, 2015, Governor Beshear issued a statement asking County Clerks, including Kim Davis, to either issue licenses or resign from the office.
Federal District Court hearings in the ACLU lawsuit began on July 13, and continued through the end of July. Kim Davis’s attorneys were present at the hearings and filed numerous motions during that period. On August 5, 2015, Davis’s lawyers filed a lawsuit against Governor Beshear, responding to his letter asking County Clerks to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or resign. On August 12, 2015, federal District Court Judge David Bunning issued an injunction ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On August 13, 2015, Davis’s attorneys filed a motion to stay Judge Bunning’s ruling with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and requested an appeal of the decision.
On August 26, the 6th Circuit refused to issue a stay of Judge Brunning’s order. On August 28, 2015, Davis’s attorneys filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to stay Bunning’s order. On August 31, 2015, the Supreme Court refused to issue the stay.
That’s where we stand. Even if Kim Davis was so clueless that she didn’t see the train coming down the track when she ran for office and was elected, she clearly understood that the train was coming by February 2015, when she wrote to the legislators. She wrote the letter more than four months before the Supreme Court decision on June 26. And even after the June 26 Supreme Court decision, which nailed the lid on the marriage discrimination coffin, Davis had an additional six weeks between the June 26 Supreme Court decision and Judge Brunning’s order of August 12, to make up her mind.
Four months. Six additional weeks. That’s more than enough time, by any reasonable standard, to constitute “a fair opportunity to determine whether to renew it or retire from it”, as you put it.
Kim Davis will appear before Judge Brunning today, September 3, to show cause why she shouldn’t be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with Judge Brunning’s order after all this. I somehow don’t think that the “Gee, I didn’t have fair warning …” will cut it, even if she is stupid enough to make the argument.
posted by Fritz Keppler on
According to a report this morning on NPR Morning Edition, before the election she told a man who prays with her every few days in her Office that she would not be able to issue to license, but she ran for office anyway.
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/03/437132842/why-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-wont-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples
posted by Mike in Houston on
I wonder if husband #4 knows she spends so much time on her knees with another man in the office…
posted by Lori Heine on
I think the woman is an opportunist. She wants to become a social right heroine. She’s eyeing that million-dollar book deal with Crackpot House. She sees a future for herself on Fox. She envisions a Kim Davis posable action figure on sale at Walmart.
Right wing crackpottery has become a lucrative industry. Her loud and histrionic martydom will make her more famous than Sarah Palin, she’s sure to think. If she hadn’t fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, she might have been right about that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think the woman is an opportunist. She wants to become a social right heroine. She’s eyeing that million-dollar book deal with Crackpot House. She sees a future for herself on Fox. She envisions a Kim Davis posable action figure on sale at Walmart.
Snort. Maybe she should grow a beard, like the Duck Dynasty boys.
Whatever her motivations (and whatever they might be, she is a superb showman playing it for all it is worth, hiding behind her office blinds until the mob calls her out, and then bravely confronting them with “God’s Authority”), Kim Davis has hit the Jesus Jackpot.
Media is falling all over itself to cover the story. Conservative Christians are up in arms about her martyrdom, her uphill battle to preserve Christian virtue in the face of mob action and death threats, and the like. The conservative Christian noise machine — Brown, Perkins, Fischer, Graham et. al — is holding her up with prayer and calls for “a million more like her”. The Liberty Counsel is right on top of it, filing appeals of appeals, keeping the show going as long as possible. Republican presidential candidates (most recently Huckabee) are fawning over her. The “fund me” dupes are rolling into action, and the conservative Christian lecture circuit is tuning up. Honest but unthinking dupes have become convinced that she couldn’t see this coming when she decided to run for office last fall, that it was a “bait and switch”, and that Judge Bunning’s order to comply with the Supreme Court ruling came as a surprise, five months after she wrote to legislators looking for a way to be “excused” from fulfilling the duties of her office after the Supreme Court ruled. Homocons like Stephen, not quite able bring themselves to get on the “conservative Christian public officials should be able to ignore the duties of their office” bandwagon, are creating specious spins about party martyrdom, no doubt in continued service of keeping the Republican coalition alive for one more round before it all collapses. The whole thing is political theater that verges on the absurd.
I have no doubt in my mind that Davis will get rich off it all, and that her fifteen minutes of fame will extend for several years on the Crackpot Circuit, as you suggest. She’s not Fox material (not pretty enough, too scowly, not pert, slim or blond enough) but she’s perfect for the Crackpot Circuit. She’ll come out of this just fine, like the Oregon baker-lady who is making it big time lecturing to large audiences that she is being “silenced”. If conservative Christians had the capacity to think, this show would play itself out in no time. I’m not counting on it.
An aspect of this that nobody has mentioned is that Kim Davis is not alone in her defiance of the Supreme Court. Two other Kentucky County Clerks are also refusing to issue licenses, as are Probate Judges in 13 Alabama counties, clerks in seven Mississippi counties, and a smattering of clerks in Texas and other states in the Old South. All of them have as good a claim to Christian martyrdom as Kim Davis, but none of them have the showmanship to milk it the way Kim Davis has been able to do, and their timing was off. Tough cookies for them. No media coverage to speak of, no conservative Christian noise machine, no big-city lawyers, no fawning from presidential candidates, no “fund me” campaigns gathering the bucks, no Crackpot Circuit. At best, all they will get is a contempt order and a fine.
I don’t feel sorry for any of them, least of all Kim Davis. I just keep in mind that “This too shall pass.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For what it is worth, here’s the latest Kim Davis statement, from an exclusive interview with Todd Starnes:
We’ll see what Judge Bunning has to say later today, I imagine. It looks like he will put Davis in contempt, and then work his way down the other clerks in the office until he finds someone willing to obey the law, and then issue an order requiring that clerk to issue marriage licenses according to the law (which would have the effect of giving that clerk the authority to sign the licenses, circumventing the requirement that Davis sign the license), and enjoin Davis from interfering.
It would be just too delicious if the clerk appointed to act in her stead was her son, Nathan Davis, who is an employee-clerk in the office, just as Davis was until January 2015, when her mother was the elected County Clerk. That would make for an interesting Thanksgiving at the Davis household.
It probably won’t happen, though. The Rowan County Attorney, Cecil Williams, has given an interview to the Kentucky Trial Court Review, in which he said that the employee-clerks are afraid to stand up to Davis, but are likely to do so when Davis is placed in contempt and effectively removed from office. So it is likely that Judge Bunning, going down the line of employee-clerks in order of seniority, will find an employee-clerk willing to uphold the law before he gets down to the relatively junior Nathan Davis. But we can always hope.
posted by Kosh III on
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/09/if-you-thought-the-kentucky-clerk-was-stupid-check-out-this-tennessee-judge/
It seems a Chancellor has refused to grant a divorce because of gay marriage.
How long will it take Miller or Sullivan to voice support of their GOP/Conservative fellow traveler?
Of course they may need a map to find this place since it’s not in their comfy blue enclave.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Andrew Sullivan has – to his credit – been more willingly to publicly critisize the GOP.
Sullivan brand of conservatism seems to be more influenced by the UK Tories then where a good chunk of the US GOP is on gay rights, immigration, science and health care
posted by Doug on
Ms. Davis is now in jail and I hope they throw the freaking key away.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Someone needs to bake this woman a cake with a file in it!
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
I would think that it wouldn’t be too hard to find somone at the Kentucky county office who could process the marriage applications.
I think that this probably would have happened, except that “Miss Religious Freedom” has apparently bullied the county workers into sharing her beliefs, or kiss their job goodbye
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Davis situation has become most interesting, both from a legal perspective and as an insight into the dark game being played by Davis and the Liberty Counsel lawyers who have been representing her.
Earlier today, Judge Bunning held Davis in contempt of court for refusing to comply with his order.
Saying that a fine was not sufficien because a fine could (read would) be paid by others (most likely from the million or two she’ll collect from “fund me” efforts), Judge Bunning ignored the request of plaintiffs and the ACLU not to incarcerate Davis, but issue a fine instead. Davis was ordered to be incarcerated until she became willing to comply with the court’s order to issue marriage licenses, and she was taken into federal custody.
Later in the day, as the hearing continued, Judge Bunning, as expected, asked the employee-clerks whether they would be willing to issue marriage licenses if authorized to do so. All except Davis’s son, Nathan Davis, indicated that they would issue licenses in compliance with the law.
Judge Bunning then asked Davis whether she would authorize the employee-clerks to issue marriage licenses, informing her that her willingness to do so would “purge the contempt” and end her incarceration. Through her lawyers, Davis refused, telling Judge Bunning that “she does not grant her authority nor would allow any employee to issue those licenses”.
So there it stands. Davis is incarcerated, and will remain so until Judge Bunning decides otherwise, or a higher court frees her.
With respect to the larger game:
(1) With respect to Davis herself, her refusal to authorize employee-clerks to issue the licenses gives lie to her position that this was just about “her and Jesus”, her personal religious beliefs.
(2) With respect to the Liberty Counsel, it is now clear that the Liberty Counsel, and its allied conservative Christian funding organizations, intends to use Davis and this case to provoke a direct confrontation with the Supreme Court.
(3) With respect to the political situation:
(a) A significant number of Republican presidential candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Paul so far, and probably others by the end of the day) are cooperating, at least implicitly, with the Liberty Counsel in making this a national issue. Huckabee’s most recent utterance was a comparison of Davis and Lincoln (with King, Mandela and Ghandi to follow, no doubt).
(b) The “religious freedom” issue being pushed by the Republican Party has escalated beyond “bakers, florists and photographers” and the fight will be over whether or not public officials can refuse, on religious grounds, to do their jobs as public officials.
(c) I don’t see how the issue can be defused in the Republican primaries. Presidential candidates will be asked about it, and will have to take a position. The issue will be a factor in the upcoming caucuses and primaries, splitting the party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Apparently, there is no way just to remove Davis from office for failing to carry out her duties.
Davis is an elected official and can be removed from office only if the legislature impeaches and convicts her. Won’t happen given the composition of the Kentucky legislature. She might be a Democrat, but as far as anyone knows, she “didn’t have sex with that woman”. In her case, its probably true.
posted by Jorge on
Earlier today, Judge Bunning held Davis in contempt of court for refusing to comply with his order.
Woooooow! Where have I been all day?
It says the Good Morning America article that Ms. Davis alleges she became a Christian in 2011.
1) Oh, great. More evidence for my co-worker’s belief that it’s the recent converts and faithful who are the most fanatical.
2) That tears a hole in the “four divorces” argument. At least I HOPE it does.
Okay, back to Woooooow!
I can’t say this bothers me overmuch. If the judge is committed to his order, that’s the logical outcome, and it’s one that, if he’s right (I think he’s wrong) is perfectly appropriate. And also, while I hate to agree with Mike Huckabee, I kinda share his relish over the “criminalization of Christianity” talking point. It’s like the argument in this article on the NFL losing vs. Tom Brady I just read: losing may empower us to take a real close look at the rules and change them so that this doesn’t happen in court again.
And also, frankly, the comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. is rather striking. I realize that romanticizing going to prison for the sake of civil rights is looking at things in rose colored glasses (nobody wants to go to prison), but religious people do self-sacrificial things like that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And also, frankly, the comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. is rather striking.
The more accurate comparison is to the numerous small-fry public officials of the era who followed George Wallace’s “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!” call to arms, refusing to comply with Brown v. Board. In those cases, too, the courts (particularly the 5th Circuit) had to use specific court orders, and both civil and criminal contempt, to force compliance.
We’ll probably see more examples of the “criminalization of Christianity” and “judicial tyranny” going forward over the next year, as defiant county clerks and Probate Judges in Alabama (11), Mississippi (7), Texas (4) and Kentucky (2 more) are brought to heel.
It is important to keep in mind that these people are not heroes, regardless of what the likes of Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul (and probably Ben Carson, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum soon enough) might have to say about it, but instead public officials willfully refusing to comply with a constitutional decision of the United States Supreme Court and specific orders of lower courts implementing that decision, and that Judge Bunning (and other judges to follow) are not exercising “Judicial tyranny” but instead deploying limited judicial tools in support of a well-established rule of law going back well beyond the founding of this country — no one, whether a government or an individual engaged in civil disobedience has standing to flout a lawful court order.
It is also important, I think, to keep in mind that resistance tactics of the kind we are now seeing were predictable and predicted, and that, notwithstanding the loud predictions about a populist uprising from the conservative Christian noise machine (Brown, Fischer, Perkins et al) in the immediate aftermath of Obergefell, defiance by a couple dozen small-fry public officials in a few states of the Old South is pretty minimal.
Yeah, it will be an uproar. We’ll hear the usual twaddle from the right wing nutbags (e.g. Ted Cruz yesterday: “I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.“), and we’ll be treated to all sorts of nonsense (the usual comparison of gays and lesbians to Hitler, Robspierre and the like), but it is all a tempest in a teapot. This too shall pass.
posted by Jorge on
(c) I don’t see how the issue can be defused in the Republican primaries. Presidential candidates will be asked about it, and will have to take a position. The issue will be a factor in the upcoming caucuses and primaries, splitting the party.
Ya think?
I hung a picture of Megyn Kelly alongside a picture of Rick Santorum in my cubicle a couple of weeks ago, and nobody knows what it means. But I remember!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, we’ll have to see how it plays out.
So far we’ve heard nothing from the two first-tier candidates (10% + RCP average), Donald Trump and Ben Carson, and only two of the second-tier candidates (5-10% RCP average), Ted Cruz (supports Davis) and Carla Fiorina (doesn’t support Davis), and four of the third-tier candidates (5% – RCP average), Chris Christie (does not support Davis), Mike Huckabee (does), Bobby Jindal (does) and Rand Paul (does).
A lot will depend on how the other second-tier candidates (Bush, Rubio, Walker) respond, whether or not Ben Carson goes on the warpath, and how Donald Trump responds. But I think that a line has now been redrawn in Republican primary politics, and the “baker, florist, photographer” issue is no longer the fight that will be had — the fight will be over public officials.
posted by Kosh III on
Trump might be supportive of gays or atl east more than the rest of the crowd of theocrat/plutocrats.
Carson may waffle but we know already that he shares the same hatred as the rest of the GOP/Conservatives/Teanuts. He told Hannity:
“CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. “
posted by Doug on
The deputy clerks in the Rowan County clerks office are now saying they were willing to issue marriage licenses but they were afraid of Davis. This goes way beyond ‘religious freedom’ and sounds like coercion or extortion.
posted by Doug on
The motives and MO of Davis, the religious right and Liberty Counsel have now been transparently exposed to the light of day and for the world to see. It is hatred of the LGBT community.
Still think your heroine deserves a fat severance payout, Jorge?
posted by Jorge on
The deputy clerks in the Rowan County clerks office are now saying they were willing to issue marriage licenses but they were afraid of Davis.
Well you have to obey your boss. That’s pretty standard.
I’ve changed my mind on this as I was writing my letter to the editor and looking at today’s internet news. Which is good for me because I really hate to agree with Huckabee.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
SUPPORT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM*
*May only apply to conservative Christians who are corporations or public employers