Go Back   Fratching! > General > Church and State

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #21  
Old 09-06-2015, 08:10 PM
jedimaster91's Avatar
jedimaster91 jedimaster91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kheldarson View Post
The judge can't start impeachment. That's not his role. He can advise it, but the legislature is out of session, and the governor seems disinclined to spend the money needed to call a special session. So they won't meet until next year. So she'll be in jail for contempt until she stops being in contempt by either agreeing to do her job or being removed from her job.
Ah, ok. I wasn't sure how all that worked. On one hand, I kinda like that the governor doesn't want to waste taxpayer money on this. On the other, the leeway given to judges for contempt charges is a bit frightening.

And, gee, I sure wish I could have the kind of hours legislators have and get paid like they do. Work a couple months out of the year and even then not really do anything, reap massive benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kheldarson View Post
Only changes the number of couples with a legit beef. A big part of the issue is that if you're paying taxes at home, why should you have to go elsewhere to be given your government recognized rights?
Assuming the rumor is true just for argument's sake, why would you travel out of state and kick up a fuss if you already have those rights where you currently reside and no one trying to circumvent them? The story would have broken eventually regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
The good news is that there IS a limit- basically, to throw someone in jail on a contempt charge, a judge must explain exactly why jail is necessary to force compliance. (in Davis's case, it was because the judge felt it likely that any fine would be paid by her supporters)
Hopefully she wouldn't have been relying on that GoFundMe page or whichever crowdfunding site she used. As I recall, it didn't do so well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
actually, one of the reasons the judical power to jail people for contempt of court w/o a trial is controversial is because it's been ruled in the past that you can, in fact, be held indefinitely in jail on a contempt charge. <snip> I'm not sure I agree with how much latitude judges have in contempt cases- I personally think it should require a second judge to agree that the person is in contempt and that the proposed punishment is actually necessary- but it is true enough that courts need SOME way to enforce their decrees.
Yeah, like I said at the beginning of the post, it's a bit frightening. Contempt charges can be levied for just about anything if the judge is in a bad enough mood and without some kind of check and balance, you're kinda screwed.
Reply With Quote

  #22  
Old 09-06-2015, 08:36 PM
Kheldarson Kheldarson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimaster91 View Post

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure how all that worked. On one hand, I kinda like that the governor doesn't want to waste taxpayer money on this. On the other, the leeway given to judges for contempt charges is a bit frightening.
Maybe, but it's the only weapon they have to make you comply. And I'm pretty sure you can appeal it as well.


Quote:
Assuming the rumor is true just for argument's sake, why would you travel out of state and kick up a fuss if you already have those rights where you currently reside and no one trying to circumvent them? The story would have broken eventually regardless.
Notoriety? Involvement in the news? Why do folks try out for reality TV?

And I'd bet, if it's true that one of the couples is from out of state that they were planning to get married in the county anyway. Kabe and I were living in WV but married in my parent' county, so that's where our marriage license is from.
__________________
I has a blog!
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 09-07-2015, 01:00 AM
Kara_CS Kara_CS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazedclerkthe2nd View Post
Also of note: There's a LOT of nepotism in that office. I believe she's the third generation of her family to hold the job without any gaps (passed straight form her grandparent to her mom to her) and some of her deputies are relatives as well.
Yep, she was elected after her mother retired, and her son is the lone deputy clerk who is now refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragarthiel View Post
This bothers me. When she took the job, she didn't know that she would eventually have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Her job requirements changed while she was there, and she objects to the new requirement. This muddles things a bit, IMO. Where it went wrong was that she did everything in her power to make sure these couples couldn't get married. Even now, from jail, she is saying that the marriage licenses that have been issued in her absence are void, since they have her name on them. I'm sure a marriage license has NEVER been issued while she was on vacation or taking a day off.
Others have pointed out how her job description hasn't changed and how the nature of the government she worked for remained the same, but there's something else here worth discussing. Here in Utah, we obviously have people who want to cite religious objection to filing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The LDS made a compromise deal when it was legalized here that if someone objects to dealing with a gay couple, someone who doesn't object will step in and take care of them. Davis had this option, she has 5 or 6 deputy clerks. But she ordered them to refuse to issue the licenses because she objected to it. She was forcing her employees to violate the law and act in accordance with her own personal beliefs, which is all kinds of illegal (and most of the clerks are fine with granting the marriages, even though a couple disagree because of their beliefs because they understand the law better than their boss). Not only that, the judge who found her in contempt did something unprecedented. He gave her multiple opportunities to comply before he finally had her arrested. He tried to work with her, he tried to compromise. He went so far as to say that if she would just allow her deputies to file the marriages, he would drop the case even though she would technically still be in contempt of court. But she refused, she had already made up her mind that she wanted to try and nail herself to a cross. And now her husband and her "attorney" (I have a hard time accepting a law firm that promotes itself as a "ministry" as a legitimate firm) are comparing her to Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks.

Last edited by Kara_CS; 09-07-2015 at 01:04 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 09-07-2015, 04:00 AM
wolfie wolfie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
She is a miserable, ignorant, hypocritical woman and deserves the cell she's in. -.-
Got to disagree with you there. She doesn't deserve the cell she's in, however due to standards regarding size, cleanliness, and facilities, it's illegal for an American prison to have the kind of cell she deserves.
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 09-07-2015, 05:37 AM
Racket_Man's Avatar
Racket_Man Racket_Man is offline
stressed broke pizza guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kara_CS View Post
are comparing her to Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks.
Ya know I was wondering when Rosa Park's name would pop up in this situation.

NO friggin comparison as the two situations are miles apart. One (and several women before her) was trying to end discrimination and the other one who is trying to impose discrimination.
__________________
I'm lost without a paddle and I'm headed up sh*t creek.

I got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the Twilight Zone.
The Fools - Life Sucks Then You Die
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 09-07-2015, 01:03 PM
protege protege is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket_Man View Post
Ya know I was wondering when Rosa Park's name would pop up in this situation.
Actually, there's a reason they're comparing her to Rosa Parks. Think about it, they were both trying to take away the majority's right to persecute the minority

That's the only comparison I can get from it...and I don't know how I typed out all that crap with a straight face.
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 09-07-2015, 03:12 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket_Man View Post
Ya know I was wondering when Rosa Park's name would pop up in this situation.

NO friggin comparison as the two situations are miles apart. One (and several women before her) was trying to end discrimination and the other one who is trying to impose discrimination.
There is a clear direct comparison. Davis is the bus driver trying to kick Parks off the bus.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 09-08-2015, 10:47 PM
Shangri-laschild Shangri-laschild is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 362
Default

Well she's not a prisoner anymore. They let her out and it sounds like she still has no intention of following the law or letting her clerks follow it either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us...iage.html?_r=0
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 09-09-2015, 01:42 AM
Herebecause Herebecause is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by protege View Post
Actually, there's a reason they're comparing her to Rosa Parks. Think about it, they were both trying to take away the majority's right to persecute the minority

That's the only comparison I can get from it...and I don't know how I typed out all that crap with a straight face.
And can you give me something to help justify why her lawyer is now comparing her situation to Nazi Germany? Because last I looked she wasn't having her baby thrown up in the air and shot in front of her just because she and the baby are Christian; she isn't being forced into hard labor with little to no food or clothing; she isn't at risk of being gassed in an oven. But you know, I'm totally open to hearing how her being told to follow a law that forbids discriminating against others is like being in Nazi Germany.

The thing about her is that I usually strongly support people who stand up for their religious beliefs. There are clerks across the country struggling with how to do their job and follow their beliefs, but they are finding ways to make it work without making waves or causing problems. She is trying to find a way to become famous.
Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 09-09-2015, 06:21 AM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shangri-laschild View Post
Well she's not a prisoner anymore. They let her out and it sounds like she still has no intention of following the law or letting her clerks follow it either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us...iage.html?_r=0
We'll see how long it lasts. Her office is to be audited every 14 days to make sure its still in compliance else she goes back to jail. The only reason she was let out is because the other clerks began issuing licenses in her absence. If she stops them again she'll be in jail again in 2 weeks. >.>
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.