Kim Davis retroactively removes her name from Kentucky marriage licenses

[NightHawkeye]

... thus voiding them.
Attorney: Kim Davis Just Broke The Law AGAIN | Daily Caller

Davis allegedly removed her name and the county’s name from the licenses.
...
The attorney ... says this makes the licenses void and thus violates the court order.
...
Davis has tried to get an accommodation for her beliefs, even saying the licenses could be issued under the authority of the governor or a court order, but so far she has had no luck.​

 

[Honey Parallel]

Well done madam. Well done!

 

[amanuensis63]

Now if only someone would void her marriages based on biblical principals. How many Biblical rules does she get to break and maintain her Biblical position here?

Just curious. I bet she's happy that the Bibles rules against adultery are not as "real" as her rules against gay marriage!

 

[amanuensis63]

If atheists want to show Christians in as poor a light as humanly possible they could not have found a better person than Kim Davis. Hypocrite for Jesus.

And the funny thing is: so many Christians will support her and find her to be a martyr for God.

What sickness.

 

[AceHero]

If atheists want to show Christians in as poor a light as humanly possible they could not have found a better person than Kim Davis. Hypocrite for Jesus.

And the funny thing is: so many Christians will support her and find her to be a martyr for God.

What sickness.

It's people like Davis that turn people off to Christianity. Unfortunately, she and prominent theocrats like Huckabee and Santorum seem to be the loudest ones in the room.

 

[NightHawkeye]

In Kim Davis's defense, it deserves to be mentioned that for some weeks, perhaps months, she repeatedly offered, even asked, for the state to take over providing the marriage licenses ... just so long as her name was not on the certificates.

To a thinking person that doesn't seem like an unreasonable request ... given that at the time of her election the duties of the clerk did not include issuing marriage licenses to other than conventional marriage partners. For some incomprehensible reason no one, absolutely no one else wanted their name on the certificates ... despite the many people throughout the state's political and federal judicial systems who continued to decry her actions.

Personally, I don't blame her. I believe she has at the very least an actionable civil case which can be made ... against the hypocrites currently persecuting her.

 

[AceHero]

In Kim Davis's defense, it deserves to be mentioned that for some weeks, perhaps months, she repeatedly offered, even asked, for the state to take over providing the marriage licenses ... just so long as her name was not on the certificates.

To a thinking person that doesn't seem like an unreasonable request ... given that at the time of her election the duties of the clerk did not include issuing marriage licenses to other than conventional marriage partners. For some incomprehensible reason no one, absolutely no one else wanted their name on the certificates ... despite the many people throughout the state's political and judicial systems who continued to decry her actions.

Personally, I don't blame her. I believe she has at the very least an actionable civil case which can be made ... against the hypocrites currently persecuting her.

If it's that much of a burden for her she should just resign.

 

[NightHawkeye]

If it's that much of a burden for her she should just resign.

Why?

The job duties were changed after she was elected to the job. She has indicated a willingness to let somebody else provide the certificates ... under somebody else's name. Why doesn't the governor, for instance, if he believes it worth doing simply attach his name to the certificates instead of Kim Davis's?

 

[Honey Parallel]

Why?

The job duties were changed after she was elected to the job. She has indicated a willingness to let somebody else provide the certificates ... under somebody else's name. Why doesn't the governor, for instance, if he believes it worth doing simply attach his name to the certificates instead of Kim Davis's?

Now there you go sounding like a Christian.

Well said brother!

 

[AceHero]

Why?

The job duties were changed after she was elected to the job. She has indicated a willingness to let somebody else provide the certificates ... under somebody else's name. Why doesn't the governor, for instance, if he believes it worth doing simply attach his name to the certificates instead of Kim Davis's?

Now there you go sounding like a Christian.

Well said brother!

As a public official, she can't let her personal beliefs get in the way of her job. Sure, if the state can change whose name is on the form that's be okay, but there'd be a lot less hassle if the person in charge of approving marriage licenses would simply do her job.

 

[Maren]

In Kim Davis's defense, it deserves to be mentioned that for some weeks, perhaps months, she repeatedly offered, even asked, for the state to take over providing the marriage licenses ... just so long as her name was not on the certificates.

To a thinking person that doesn't seem like an unreasonable request ... given that at the time of her election the duties of the clerk did not include issuing marriage licenses to other than conventional marriage partners. For some incomprehensible reason no one, absolutely no one else wanted their name on the certificates ... despite the many people throughout the state's political and federal judicial systems who continued to decry her actions.

Personally, I don't blame her. I believe she has at the very least an actionable civil case which can be made ... against the hypocrites currently persecuting her.

She has no case. While you can argue the state should change the way licenses are issued, it would require passing a bill by the legislature -- and it is not in session. Additionally, her signature is not "approving" gay marriage, or even facilitating it, merely verifying that the couple has met the legal marriage requirements.

It has nothing to do with other people not wanting their name on the certificates but rather that the law requires her name on the certificates.

 

[amanuensis63]

In Kim Davis's defense, it deserves to be mentioned that for some weeks, perhaps months, she repeatedly offered, even asked, for the state to take over providing the marriage licenses ... just so long as her name was not on the certificates.

And that makes her less of a hypocrite how? She certainly has a right to have her name NOT on these certificates and that is very easy to do. SHE COULD QUIT HER JOB.

... given that at the time of her election the duties of the clerk did not include issuing marriage licenses to other than conventional marriage partners.

When she decided that others could not break Biblical Rules but she could she gave up any religious position she had in the matter. She is now just arbitrarily demanding that she doesn't have to do certain things in her job. NOT because she believes in the Bible (otherwise she'd follow ALL the rules not just the ones she likes).

For some incomprehensible reason no one, absolutely no one else wanted their name on the certificates ... despite the many people throughout the state's political and federal judicial systems who continued to decry her actions.

That is their problem. In the end apparently some official's name needs to be on it. If she wants to be out of this game she is NOT being forced to do the job.

Personally, I don't blame her. I believe she has at the very least an actionable civil case which can be made ... against the hypocrites currently persecuting her.

What is her "Case"? That she disingenuously uses the Bible to avoid doing parts of her job?

She gave up any sort of 'case' for her "religious convictions" the minute she started being an adulteress and having multiple marriages. So her 'case' is that she simply chooses to not do certain aspects of her job for no real consistent reason.

UNLESS her case is that she doesn't like gay people because they are gay at which point she is a bigot pure and simple.

I don't think the law says "You can avoid doing part of your job if you're a bigot". But it's been a long time since I lived in Kentucky so I don't know the law there so well.

 

[amanuensis63]

Why?

The job duties were changed after she was elected to the job.

ALERT: Everyone who is in any job for more than a few months has this happen. I have found that my job has changed significantly over the years. Do I have a right to tell my boss that I want to continue doing my job and get paid but NOT do these new things? (Hint: NO)

She has indicated a willingness to let somebody else provide the certificates ... under somebody else's name.

At which point she is no longer wanting to do this job. Bravo for her. NO ONE IS FORCING HER TO DRAW A SALARY AND RETAIN THE TITLE.

Why doesn't the governor, for instance, if he believes it worth doing simply attach his name to the certificates instead of Kim Davis's?

ONLY IN AMERICA do we have Conservatives saying a woman should be able to draw a salary for NOT doing a job so long as she fakes allegiance to Jesus.

If it were a poor black woman this conversation would be over.

 

[NightHawkeye]

She gave up any sort of 'case' for her "religious convictions" the minute she started being an adulteress and having multiple marriages.

Oh, give us a break.

The Bible has long allowed for women to opt out of bad marriages with divorce. It's not even an arguable point otherwise.

 

[AirPo]

Why?

It's a resonable accomidation!

The job duties were changed after she was elected to the job. She has indicated a willingness to let somebody else provide the certificates ... under somebody else's name. Why doesn't the governor, for instance, if he believes it worth doing simply attach his name to the certificates instead of Kim Davis's?

The job duties did not change. When changed was who she has to serve. At that really didn't change since gays have always been part of the public.

 

[NightHawkeye]

ALERT: Everyone who is in any job for more than a few months has this happen. I have found that my job has changed significantly over the years. Do I have a right to tell my boss that I want to continue doing my job and get paid but NOT do these new things? (Hint: NO)

You are an "at will" employee. Your employer can dismiss you at any time.

Kim Davis was elected to her job ... with very specific assigned duties. She can only be dismissed for egregious violations of the law ... or if the voters decide to throw her out.

Noting that to date, there have been no attempts by either state or federal officials to remove her from the job. Similarly, there has been no news that voters are attempting to recall her because they don't like the way she is performing her job. Instead, she was jailed by a pious judge in what was likely an unconstitutional action.

 

[Albion]

It's people like Davis that turn people off to Christianity. Unfortunately, she and prominent theocrats like Huckabee and Santorum seem to be the loudest ones in the room.

I think that falsely calling someone a "theocrat" merely for having a religious faith should concern us more than the fact that some people DO have religious convictions.

 

[JustOneWay]

I think that falsely calling someone a "theocrat" merely for having a religious faith should concern us more than the fact that some people DO have religious convictions.

I think a religious hard liner like Davis, not doing her job reqired by law is the greatest concern. But it is interesting to see you take greater offense to a word, than Davis breaking the law,

 

[AirPo]

Good

I think that falsely calling someone a "theocrat" merely for having a religious faith should concern us more than the fact that some people DO have religious convictions.

Good thing that is not happening!

 

[Audacious]

I think that falsely calling someone a "theocrat" merely for having a religious faith should concern us more than the fact that some people DO have religious convictions.

But the problem isn't her religious faith -- it's the fact that she is not fulfilling the requirements of her job. Religious faith has nothing to do with signing marriage licenses.

If she wants, she can always go and quit her job because she can't perform it due to religious convictions. There are some county clerks that have done this.