FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage (Page 14)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
do we still have any hilarious holdout stories in places like podunk, misserssippi
Posts: 15380 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
do we still have any hilarious holdout stories in places like podunk, misserssippi

http://gawker.com/one-brave-county-defies-law-refuses-gay-couples-right-1723879511
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.

Aside from the practicality issues of figuring out if someone has been having premarital sex or been divorced?

Let's say one of the side effects of premarital sex was the appearance of a big "F" on your forehead. Do you think there would be no clerks to ever refuse to perform a marriage on them?

In another 10 years when this becomes an issue of the past you'll be able to reuse this argument for the next issue.

"I wonder why county clerks are refusing to perform polygamous marriages when there aren't any who refuse to perform gay marriage."

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So it doesn't matter *what* the sin is, just how visible it is. Because that's what's important. Got it.
Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is that argument intended to be serious, stiles? Because for one, the state could easily track who has had a divorce and who hasn't. No one is interested in *that*, even the people who disapprove on religious grounds, those so very interested people.

And of course there have been clerks who knew themselves that the parties were or had been unfaithful. There was no heroic stand on religious principle in those cases, were there?

It was almost as though as county employees they work for the government and for us and not for their goddamn bibles or churches.

Of course later, when say a group of employees wants to start a union or objects to a given labor practice, or something, all of this heroic stance of conscience garbage will dry right up among far right conservatives, right, stiles?

Posts: 17149 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because for one, the state could easily track who has had a divorce and who hasn't.
Yes but I doubt that County Clerk Kim Davis has the man power or ability to cross reference divorce record databases from all states with current marriage license applicants and name change databases.

It's not exactly I would call easy for the lone county clerk trying to get her moral outrage on.

Besides, the divorce and fornication battle was fought long ago.

quote:
And of course there have been clerks who knew themselves that the parties were or had been unfaithful. There was no heroic stand on religious principle in those cases, were there?
Can you prove that Kim Davis knowingly married divorcees against her religious convictions?

Before you dog pile into thinking I'm a bigot who agrees with Kim and the lot I don't. I fully agree with this statement here.

quote:
It was almost as though as county employees they work for the government and for us and not for their goddamn bibles or churches.
Or in other words, yes it is their job to marry people as the state orders them to. If they don't like it, then they should resign. Though I was disappointed to read an article where someone did resign and that decision was mocked as well. But that's facebook comments for you.

But do you really think that there is 100% equivalence between gay marriage and divorce remarriage? Like there is no difference whatsoever between those two? You can't come up with any differences at all?

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce, for starters. (See Matthew 19)
Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must be missing something because it would appear that you are being willfully obtuse.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Matthew 19 the one where he talks about putting aside wives? Which really looks like an endorsement of polygamy if you parse the language closely enough?

Biblically speaking, the only difference between gay marriage and remarriage after divorce is that one is sodomy and the other is fornication (and maybe sodomy). If it's really about religious principles then I don't see much relevant difference.

I don't see why someone should be allowed to argue that their religious principles don't apply because it's too hard to be sure that they're being transgressed. Or because previous generations have failed to keep those principles mainstream?

Posts: 184 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't see why someone should be allowed to argue that their religious principles don't apply because it's too hard to be sure that they're being transgressed. Or because previous generations have failed to keep those principles mainstream?
Who are you talking to? No one has argued that.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes but I doubt that County Clerk Kim Davis has the man power or ability to cross reference divorce record databases from all states with current marriage license applicants and name change databases.

It's not exactly I would call easy for the lone county clerk trying to get her moral outrage on.

And
quote:
Besides, the divorce and fornication battle was fought long ago.
I was also suggesting that those were some of the differences between gay marriage and remarriage. It is harder to tell if part of a couple is remarrying and it is more acceptable to object to gay marriage than to remarriage after divorce.
Posts: 184 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stiles, what *is* the difference between homosexual marriage and divorce in this respect then? The objections against both are religious in nature. The state does not choose to involve itself in the private family affairs of two people in one case-divorce-but did until recently in the case of another, homosexual marriage.

Hat is the difference? Few joy by suggesting that there is a difference it really seems you are being the obtuse one.

Posts: 17149 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.
This is what I was responding to.

There is a difference between knowingly conducting a ceremony that at least to you makes it seem as though you are giving your stamp of approval (even though it is the states stamp not yours) and having an intellectual knowledge that someone who is getting married might have had sex previously to the ceremony.

Also, the bible doesn't say that if you have had sex before marriage you can't get married ever. Nor does it say if you have had a divorce you can't ever remarry. It says don't have sex before marriage and don't get divorced. Not, if you do either of these things it is a sin to get married.

NH,

I didn't argue anywhere that Kim should be able to "argue that their religious principles don't apply because it's too hard to be sure that they're being transgressed." I simply argued that there is an easy to determine difference between marrying gay people and marrying people who have fornicated.

Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd have to double-check the exact words, but the traditional interpretation of the relevant passage has been that a marriage after divorce is not a marriage (a good selection of the Fathers of the Church were pretty dubious about second marriages, period [yes, I'm referring to first millenium theologians, go early or go home, damn it.]). Like, the sacramental effects don't happen and thus any sex is fornication (unless you get divorced because the woman committed adultery). So, it does say you can't get remarried after a divorce.

There may be a similar problem if the woman is not a virgin. But since I'm remembering that objection by way of a source which argued sex=marriage, one should probably take it with a grain of salt.

There might be an easy to determine difference, but it makes her "religious principles" look rather cheap if the possibility of a little willful ignorance is all she needs to slip past them.

Posts: 184 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
there's still a lot of religious wankery going on these days about what you can and can't do involving divorce. Orthodox judaism has the super dumb super patriarchal terrible get thing and let us not forget that while most catholics simply conveniently ignore it, catholicism expressly does not permit divorce. You have to plead to the church for a retcon, which they can decide to give or not.
Posts: 15380 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:

Also, the bible doesn't say that if you have had sex before marriage you can't get married ever. Nor does it say if you have had a divorce you can't ever remarry. It says don't have sex before marriage and don't get divorced. Not, if you do either of these things it is a sin to get married.

Yes it does. Why do you think I mentioned Matthew 19? (I'll give you a hint, it wasn't to be obtuse) Jesus very clearly and explicitly condemns men who divorce and remarry.

Whereas there is no place in the bible that even mentions gay marriage. For that matter, Jesus never mentions homosexuality at all, and the subject comes up a total of 2 or 3 times total. Once in Leviticus, once as an aside about the current culture in Romans. I don't remember any other mentions, but I can't rule it out.

My point is most "religious objections" to gay marriage are actually cultural objections, since the Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage at all but sure talks about other parts of marriage plenty.

Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 11809

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Point DB. I think we're done here. Resume your gleeful mockery. Sorry for interrupting.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dogbreath, to be fair, the bible is pretty explicit about the whole opposite sex thing for marriage.
Posts: 184 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does it explicitly condemn it? Just curious, a serious question.

-----

Stiles, this clerk-and frankly just about all who oppose ssm-do so on biblical grounds. The state shouldn't allow it because the bible says so. Therefore it is worthwhile and totally, 100% relevant to discover what else the bible permits and disallows with respect to marriage, and if there turns out to be an enormous glaring hypocritical contradiction, that's fair game. Which means the only question is: is DB right or not? Does that biblical verse say what he claims, stiles?

As for mocking those who resigned, while its not something I would do (mocking them) just for that, much depends on what else they did. Like if they've got a history of talking about who god hates and how this is a Christian nation and all of that bull-most especially if they've been a strutting, arrogant mocker themselves when they had power and are only now discovering a concern with minority rights-I might make fun of them.

But then as you say, Internet comment pages are always able to disappoint.

Posts: 17149 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
Resume your gleeful mockery.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Seriously, I read through the past several pages of this thread to be sure, and I can't find anything I posted that can be reasonably interpreted as "gleeful mockery."

Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh sure dogbreath, rub it in with your sneering contempt
Posts: 15380 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
as a dignified liberal elitist, the most I can offer is a raised eyebrow and a slight twitch of the upper lip. Maybe a flared nostril, if you're lucky.

If you want to see the rest come out, you should drop in on the wine and cheese party I'm hosting at my ivory tower later. We'll be reading from Ulysses. (James Joyce, of course. None of that Tennyson garbage)

Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
I wonder why county clerks like this never refuse to marry people for having premarital sex, or for being divorced and remarried, or other things like that.

So funny story: County Clerk Kim Davis has been divorced three times. It gets better. Husband #3 fathered her kids while she was married to #1. Husband #2 and #4 are the same guy.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to the discussion on sakeriver, her marital history occurred before her conversion. It doesn't make her actions correct, but it takes a little of the bite out of the hypocrisy, IMO.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
https://store.tedcruz.org/product-category/sabo/
ok
Posts: 15380 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What...
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, found the thread on Sake (that's where you all went...I keep for getting this place exists). I get points for finding it in a thread labelled ISIS, right?

Apparently, the woman started being "serious" about religion four years ago, at age 45. The zeal of a recent convert? IF this was all 20 years ago, that's one thing. It's not, really.

Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
https://store.tedcruz.org/product-category/sabo/
ok
Wrong thread, Samp.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
nuts
Posts: 15380 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
Okay, found the thread on Sake (that's where you all went...I keep for getting this place exists). I get points for finding it in a thread labelled ISIS, right?

Apparently, the woman started being "serious" about religion four years ago, at age 45. The zeal of a recent convert? IF this was all 20 years ago, that's one thing. It's not, really.

More of the magical thinking that we are all expected to embrace simply because she does: that she is permitted to be a moral authority to everyone else, even those who do not share her faith, simply because her faith allows her a reset button which affords her a cover to ignore her incredibly hypocritical past on this particular topic.
Posts: 17149 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think a "reset button" applies only to her faith. There are ideologies that I believed in the past that I no longer agree with. If I heard someone else espousing those beliefs I would explain why I think they're wrong. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite just because I used to think/do something that I would now argue with.

She's wrong in this case for logical and ethical reasons. I don't think she needs to be called a hypocrite because she did things that she no longer believes in.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm trying to imagine myself in a similar situation.

Let's say Ted Cruz gets elected POTUS. You're working in a public assistance program. Word comes down from the feds that you now have to drug test and refuse benefits to anyone that fails. Would you ignore it, fight it, or resign?

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...

I would do the job that I was getting paid to do. If I happened to think drug testing was somehow immoral (I don't, I just think it's inefficient and not very helpful), then I would resign and seek employment elsewhere.

Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would make the people pee in a cup. It is my job, and it isn't like I am being asked to do anything unethical or illegal*. I am sure my job is to deny people who need money but do not qualify for whatever reason all day. We are just adding one more reason. If I want to make the laws, I should be a politician, or speak in front of them about why it is humilitating.

Fortunately very few people fail, so much so that it isn't cost effective.

This analogy breaks down if you consider that people want the city clerk to marry them, but don't necessarily want to be tested. Personally, I found the experience thrilled my inner twelve year old, as I don't do drugs, and was quite curious about just how much specemen I could make at once, as it is not something I generally measure. Think Tom Hanks in a League of Their Own.

Now imagine that everyone *wanted* to participate in the government-sponsored pissing contest, and your job was to take samples, but your religion didn't permit you to touch other people's pee, even in cups. That is a more apt analogy.

*Employment drug testing is illegal in my city. Not my company, which has HQ out of state, and they are happy to drug test us there. It was a condition of my employment.

[ September 03, 2015, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]

Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
narrativium
Member
Member # 3230

 - posted      Profile for narrativium           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or you just thought pee was icky, even in cups. Which is an even more apt analogy.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Word comes down from the Feds" as a policy decision is different than a court order. Even after the Supreme Court decision, she would not have gone to jail except that there was a lawsuit and an injunction specifically ordering her to issue the licenses. She defied that court order.

If people can just ignore the outcome of court cases that they don't agree with the judicial system becomes meaningless.

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alright, it was a poor analogy. I just meant that it's hard for me to sympathize with her because I emphatically disagree with her opinion on gay marriage, but I was trying to imagine if I would feel differently if my job required me to do something that I was strongly morally opposed to.

"If people can just ignore the outcome of court cases that they don't agree with the judicial system becomes meaningless."

I think that's the best answer to this. Her being a hypocrite seems like a point that should be ignored, because even if she had sterling personal life and she followed every biblical rule to a T, she would still be wrong.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Civil disobedience's role is to highlight the unjust nature of a law.

I wonder if she would similarly resist stamping papers on a predatory mortgage.

Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/christian-science-pharmacist-refuses-to-fill-any-p-9645
Posts: 15380 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samp: [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
If people can just ignore the outcome of court cases that they don't agree with the judicial system becomes meaningless.

Yes. Exactly. I mean, they can do so, but not just so, which brings us to:

quote:
Originally posted by Foust:
Civil disobedience's role is to highlight the unjust nature of a law.

Exactly. The point of classic civil disobedience tactics is to voluntarily endure the unjust or unmerited punishment for breaking a law in order to highlight its injustice. If you don't voluntarily submit to the penalty, that's like trying to get a tax refund for something you never purchased.

[ September 06, 2015, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: CT ]

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who is a county clerks boss and why aren't they in any sort of trouble? If some new policy comes down and I refuse to do it, my boss will fire me and replace me with someone that will do it. If I'm the boss and a subordinate refuses to do it, I fire them. If I refuse to get my subordinates to do it, again I get fired by someone even higher up the food chain.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She's an elected official. Her boss is the people she represents. She can't be fired, only impeached.
Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, that makes sense then. Shows how much attention I have been paying to local elections. [Big Grin]
Posts: 890 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, while I do pride myself on researching every candidate before every primary and election, county clerk has been one of the ones that I didn't think much about until now. ("oh, that's a thing? Well, she seems nice and doesn't have a criminal record... I guess I'll vote for her")
Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me, the most outrageous thing about the Kim Davis situation is that a county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky (population 23,333 in 2010) is paid $80,000 a year.
Posts: 10176 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is pretty high when you consider the fact the median income for the county is $23,000/year, with 21.3% of the population below the poverty line. But it's a managerial role, right?

What is strange is that the mayor of the principle town there - Morehead - gets paid $53,000/year. She makes substantially more money than her mayor. (who presumably has a much more difficult and time consuming job)

Posts: 2218 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The mayor in my city is just a commissioner and I'm almost certain it's just a part-time job. The city manager is the top dog with all of the responsibility. Maybe they have something similar.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I may not have known that clerks were elected but I do know that elected officials, even seemingly low ranked ones have certain abilities that appointed ones do not. Some of the things I used to do between the state and the feds could not be authorized by a town manager or chief of police but a sheriff would do quite nicely. It used to be funny when a sheriff would send in a document that he had spent days trying to get a town manager's signature on only to have me tell him it was no good but he could sign it himself. [Big Grin]
Posts: 890 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tertiaryadjunct
Member
Member # 12989

 - posted      Profile for tertiaryadjunct           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
What is strange is that the mayor of the principle town there - Morehead - gets paid $53,000/year. She makes substantially more money than her mayor. (who presumably has a much more difficult and time consuming job)

It's not strange, you're just looking at it backwards. The county clerk's jurisdiction is the entire county, of which the city is only a portion. County clerks are typically the closest thing you get to a mayor at the county level. They're responsible for not only all the record keeping, ID issuing, and registrations and licensing (including marriage licensing), they're responsible for handling elections (voter registrations, choosing and setting up the voting machinery, running the election, and recording the results), zoning permits, tax assessments and collections, and all sorts of other little stuff pertaining to the running of the county government.

It is a rather significant job with big responsibilities. Which makes it all the more terrible that she refuses to do it correctly.

Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2