Kim Davis claims its her religious principles that are behind her decision to stay in jail rather than issue the marriage licenses the law and her job require her to do or resign.
Her religious principles have nothing to do with it. She has always been free to resign if she felt that doing the job she is paid to do and required by law to do conflicted with her religious ideas.
So her argument and that of her lawyer, that the first amendment gives her the right to impose her
religious principles on the public office she holds and gives her a Constitutional right to deny the rights of others is both laughable and ignorant.
So either she or her lawyer don't understand the Constitution and Supreme Court and other court rulings, or its about something else. And it's about something else. And that something else is money. And nothing else.
Kim Davis makes $80,000 a year as the county clerk. That amount of money can go pretty far in the part of Kentucky she calls home especially when added to her husbands income. There is probably no other job Kim Davis can do that will pay her that kind of money. And when she said it was a " heaven and hell decision " for her she was right. Because hell would freeze over before she could find another job that would pay her that much money.
She has always had two choices: do the job she was paid to do and the law requires her to do, or resign (she can't be fired because she is an elected official, something that will come to an end anyway if her contempt conviction makes her ineligible to run again). But resigning means losing the $80,000 a year. So she wants to have it both ways -- refuse to do the job she took an oath to do and is paid to do, ( an oath by the way based on the same religious principles she now has no problem violating) and refuse to resign so she can continue to collect the salary the government pays her to do the job she refuses to do.
If her religious beliefs involved holding her nose and hopping up and down on one foot would she insist that those who want marriage licenses also hold their nose and hop up and down on one foot in the county clerks' office? Would her lawyer insist that is her right? Or does she believe it's her religious beliefs that supersedes everyone else's and the law?
Which is why she sits in a jail cell instead of doing the right and moral thing, which is, if the job conflicts with her religious ideas and she cannot carry out her job, resign.
She has refused to do that for only one reason. The money. The $80,000 a year she would rather sit in jail and collect and take her chances rather than give up.
If there was some legal way to force her to forefiet the money based on her contempt conviction, if the money was cut off never to be reinstated she'd be out of that jail faster than John Dillinger's first escape.
Her attorney Matt Staver said, " she's not going to resign. She's not going to sacrifice her conscience so she's doing what Martin Luther King wrote about it in his letter from the Birmingham jail which is to pay the consequences of her decision". Except Martin Luther King was not sitting in a Birmingham jail to defend his right to trash gay people or to force the taxpayers of Alabama to impose his religious views on others. King was in jail for intentionally violating a law that was unconstitutional and trying to force the government to enforce the Constitution and make it means what it says. King sat in jail to force those to uphold the Constitution. Davis sits in jail in contempt of it. And the court that put her there. If her lawyer thought comparing her to King was going to put her on some moral high ground it just made both of them look ignorant. Her lawyer cites King's Letter From the Birmingham jail. But for Kim Davis its more about paying the credit card bills from a Kentucky jail.
The only consequences Kim Davis cares about are the consequences involved with losing the $80,000 a year job if she resigns. That is the principle and the interest keeping her in jail by refusing to resign, not her conscience. What possible sacrifice of conscience could there be in resigning? None.
As for her claim that the marriage licenses being issued now to gay couples are void because she says so that is characteristic of the arrogance she has exhibited from the beginning when, if truly feeling she could not exercise all the duties she took an oath to perform she could have let her clerks issue them. Or resign. The licenses will be valid anywhere.
So either she or her lawyer don't understand the Constitution and Supreme Court and other court rulings, or its about something else. And it's about something else. And that something else is money. And nothing else.
Kim Davis makes $80,000 a year as the county clerk. That amount of money can go pretty far in the part of Kentucky she calls home especially when added to her husbands income. There is probably no other job Kim Davis can do that will pay her that kind of money. And when she said it was a " heaven and hell decision " for her she was right. Because hell would freeze over before she could find another job that would pay her that much money.
She has always had two choices: do the job she was paid to do and the law requires her to do, or resign (she can't be fired because she is an elected official, something that will come to an end anyway if her contempt conviction makes her ineligible to run again). But resigning means losing the $80,000 a year. So she wants to have it both ways -- refuse to do the job she took an oath to do and is paid to do, ( an oath by the way based on the same religious principles she now has no problem violating) and refuse to resign so she can continue to collect the salary the government pays her to do the job she refuses to do.
If her religious beliefs involved holding her nose and hopping up and down on one foot would she insist that those who want marriage licenses also hold their nose and hop up and down on one foot in the county clerks' office? Would her lawyer insist that is her right? Or does she believe it's her religious beliefs that supersedes everyone else's and the law?
So Kim Davis sits in jail rather than resign which is the other option given to her by the judge because Kim Davis not only wants to be able to violate the Constitution and other peoples' rights and beliefs she wants to be paid for it too.
Which is why she sits in a jail cell instead of doing the right and moral thing, which is, if the job conflicts with her religious ideas and she cannot carry out her job, resign.
She has refused to do that for only one reason. The money. The $80,000 a year she would rather sit in jail and collect and take her chances rather than give up.
If there was some legal way to force her to forefiet the money based on her contempt conviction, if the money was cut off never to be reinstated she'd be out of that jail faster than John Dillinger's first escape.
Her attorney Matt Staver said, " she's not going to resign. She's not going to sacrifice her conscience so she's doing what Martin Luther King wrote about it in his letter from the Birmingham jail which is to pay the consequences of her decision". Except Martin Luther King was not sitting in a Birmingham jail to defend his right to trash gay people or to force the taxpayers of Alabama to impose his religious views on others. King was in jail for intentionally violating a law that was unconstitutional and trying to force the government to enforce the Constitution and make it means what it says. King sat in jail to force those to uphold the Constitution. Davis sits in jail in contempt of it. And the court that put her there. If her lawyer thought comparing her to King was going to put her on some moral high ground it just made both of them look ignorant. Her lawyer cites King's Letter From the Birmingham jail. But for Kim Davis its more about paying the credit card bills from a Kentucky jail.
The only consequences Kim Davis cares about are the consequences involved with losing the $80,000 a year job if she resigns. That is the principle and the interest keeping her in jail by refusing to resign, not her conscience. What possible sacrifice of conscience could there be in resigning? None.
As for her claim that the marriage licenses being issued now to gay couples are void because she says so that is characteristic of the arrogance she has exhibited from the beginning when, if truly feeling she could not exercise all the duties she took an oath to perform she could have let her clerks issue them. Or resign. The licenses will be valid anywhere.
For all her claims of religious conscience she seems to be equally ignorant of the bible passage, " render unto Ceasar..". A passage which completely invalidates her position of refusing to issue licenses on religious grounds . So she is in violation of the Constitution, the law , a court order and her religion's teachings. She sits in jail to keep what Ceaser has been rendering unto her. Which is her $80,000 a year paycheck.
So it's not her conscience she doesn't want to sacrifice. No one was asking her to sacrifice her conscience, no one is compelling her to. And the first amendment which her lawyer likes to invoke is not about her religion or religious beliefs. Its about not allowing any religion including hers to have any government authority regarding any government business or activity that affects any of its citizens.The fact that she thinks her religion is the exception is exactly why Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Adams and the other Founders wanted to protect the U.S. government and its citizens from people like her.
So she sits in jail, not because it's her conscience she doesn't want to sacrifice,but the $80,000 a year from
the taxpayers of Kentucky she doesn't want to sacrifice. And what she
thinks would be hell for her if she did.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment