Kentucky Must Pay $224,000 After Dispute Over Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

[jayem]

"A federal judge on Friday ordered Kentucky to pay more than $224,000 in legal fees and costs because one of its county clerks had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The order, handed down by Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court, moved the protracted case one step closer to conclusion, about two years after the Rowan County Clerk, Kim Davis, defied a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2015 and decided not to issue the marriage licenses..."

The case is old news. But the take home message is that fighting a losing battle against the federal courts has a cost. I wonder if KY taxpayers think it was worth it.

Kentucky Must Pay $224,000 After Dispute Over Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

 

[SolomonVII]

Kentucky could enact a state wide tax raised equally from all its citizens to pay for it.
Let the people decide if it is worth it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kentucky could enact a state wide tax raised equally from all its citizens to pay for it.
Let the people decide if it is worth it or not.

Sadly at less than a dollar per citizen they might think that it was worth it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Sadly at less than a dollar per citizen they might think that it was worth it.

If the fight is important to the people of Kentucky, then pennies certainly would be worth it for them.

There is nothing sad about democracy. Let the people know how much it costs to stick up for their principles, and let them decide if it is worth the cost.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If the fight is important to the people of Kentucky, then pennies certainly would be worth it for them.

There is nothing sad about democracy. Let the people know how much it costs to stick up for their principles, and let them decide if it is worth the cost.

Lawbreaking isn't democracy...Kentucky can continue to break the law and continue to pay an escalating cost for it, but at some point someone with some sense in their head should realize that a state cannot simultaneously enforce law and break it.

 

[SolomonVII]

Lawbreaking isn't democracy...Kentucky can continue to break the law and continue to pay an escalating cost for it, but at some point someone with some sense in their head should realize that a state cannot simultaneously enforce law and break it.

Law breaking is not democracy.
Paying the fine is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Law breaking is not democracy.
Paying the fine is.

And what example does that set? I would imagine gay couples in Kentucky running to the alter so they can cash in before the people of that state come to their senses.

Also...paying the fine is justice, not democracy.

 

[SolomonVII]

And what example does that set? I would imagine gay couples in Kentucky running to the alter so they can cash in before the people of that state come to their senses.

Also...paying the fine is justice, not democracy.

Being able to have your day in court is an aspect of justice in civil society, and people deciding whether or not it is worth the battle to decide the law is worth the cost to their own personal pocketbook is the aspect of democracy that I have been alluding to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Being able to have your day in court is an aspect of justice in civil society, and people deciding whether or not it is worth the battle to decide the law....<snip>

It seems then you don't understand either...the law has been decided, without the unnecessary approval of the people of Kentucky. They can now abide the law...or continue to pay fines. It's not stopping gay Kentucky couples from marrying.

 

[SolomonVII]

I understand the English of the OP well enough.

, moved the protracted case one step closer to conclusion,

'has been decided' and 'one step closer' are two very different terms.

And yes, the people of Kentucky can decide whether or not it is worth it to continue to pay fines. I in fact encourage that the tax be raised to demonstrate just how much those fines are costing them, make it real for them personally as individuals.

The below is also something that I understand well enough about civil society and democracy"

Civil disobedience
Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. Civil disobedience is sometimes, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I understand the English of the OP well enough.

, moved the protracted case one step closer to conclusion,

'has been decided' and 'one step closer' are two very different terms.

Which law are we talking about? The law which says gay couples can marry (which has been decided)? Or this particular case which appears to be in the phase where they are paying a gay couple for denying them a marriage license (which is against the law now)?

Which law do you think is "undecided"?

 

[SolomonVII]

Which law are we talking about? The law which says gay couples can marry (which has been decided)? Or this particular case which appears to be in the phase where they are paying a gay couple for denying them a marriage license (which is against the law now)?

Which law do you think is "undecided"?

I think I explained myself well enough already, including the bigger point about civil disobedience, which I believe to be a part of civil society and the related democracies that civil disobedience is associated with.

You either understand, or you don't at this point.
I am not really into arguing just for the sake of an argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think I explained myself well enough already, including the bigger point about civil disobedience, which I believe to be a part of civil society and the related democracies that civil disobedience is associated with.

You either understand, or you don't at this point.
I am not really into arguing just for the sake of an argument.

One clerk breaking the law isn't really in the realm of "civil disobedience". She wasn't acting as a civilian...she was acting as a clerk of the state. That's why the state lost.

 

[mala]

One clerk breaking the law isn't really in the realm of "civil disobedience". She wasn't acting as a civilian...she was acting as a clerk of the state. That's why the state lost.

meh it's not like it's her money.
so she probably felt okay with doing it.

 

[SilverBear]

I think I explained myself well enough already, including the bigger point about civil disobedience, which I believe to be a part of civil society and the related democracies that civil disobedience is associated with.

You either understand, or you don't at this point.
I am not really into arguing just for the sake of an argument.

and just how does discrimination fit into your "civil society"?

 

[SolomonVII]

and just how does discrimination fit into your "civil society"?

I don't really feel the need to answer loaded rhetorical questions.
I have already explained myself well enough. Carry on with your political agenda though.

 

[bhsmte]

If the fight is important to the people of Kentucky, then pennies certainly would be worth it for them.

There is nothing sad about democracy. Let the people know how much it costs to stick up for their principles, and let them decide if it is worth the cost.

Defying the law is not much of a democracy.

Defying the supreme court, usually will end badly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Kentucky could enact a state wide tax raised equally from all its citizens to pay for it.
Let the people decide if it is worth it or not.

Nope...that's sends the wrong message.

That message being "you either vote to support the values of conservatives, or if you don't, and there's a court battle, we're going to punish everyone economically".

States shouldn't be implementing "if anyone tells the teacher, everyone gets punished"-style systems.


Same Sex couples have every right to fight the state if they're running afoul of federal court rulings.

 

[SolomonVII]

...


Same Sex couples have every right to fight the state if they're running afoul of federal court rulings.

I never said they didn't.

 

[SolomonVII]

Defying the law is not much of a democracy.

I never said that defying the law was democracy.
I only said that the costs of what the their elected politicians are doing should be made fully apparent, so that they can decide what it costs them, and whether or not that is worth it to them.
If it is not worth it to them, then the can vote according to that.
That is democracy.
People don't seem to much read what I said though, so carry on with your own random musings.