United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Claire Valofaro
Post Date: 2015-09-01 10:04:38 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 28796
Comments: 339
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" - this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her. On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis was in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant the licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt of court, which can carry steep fines or jail time. As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold to leave her office after they were denied a license Tuesday morning - the couple's fourth rejection. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras. "We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said. "Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him. From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground." Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job." Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience." Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. After Tuesday's denials, the rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that the attorneys file that day to have Davis held in contempt. Shortly after Davis' remarks in her office, the sheriff's office cleared the room and building of those gathered to support both sides of the issue. The two groups lined up on the lawn, on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters have told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job." Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail. "But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said. Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting. "I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-94) not displayed.
.
.
.
#95. To: A Pole (#68)
And your point is what? That Pilate had the power to decide Jesus' fate? We all know that.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up. They need to attack on multiple fronts. This is a clear violation of the constitutions religions test clause. They are forcing a religious test on her which is unconstitutional. The religious test of today is to make you disavow your religion. Still a religious test though.
Yes you are sneaky. You're also a hypocrite. You want special rights for fags because you have lots and lots in your family. You like all commies support the equal rights amendment. You're a foolish old man.
I am unaware of any federal law in regards to marriage licenses since DOMA was struck down by SCOTUS. Perhaps you can also explain what law SCOTUS has enacted in regards to marriage licenses that is being defied. I was unaware that SCOTUS could enact Federal or State legislation as I understand that it is not part of their Constitutional authority. A point that her attorneys should be raising with higher courts. It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. We know that. Why do you support that arguably cowardly act? And, why do you support the alleged power of a judge to jail opponents for 'civil contempt' -- without a trial?
Stoner, I said that because I watch what is happening in this country. The woman made a principled stand and was squashed like a bug. Whether I agree with her stand or not is immaterial. I predicted the obvious.
I knew that all along, Pebbles. See, I can post bogus quotes too.
Where would all the Commie Sanders agenda posters be, without you defending them? You are a hero. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
And you're one of the biggest jagoffs on this web site.
Sorry, here's the link - see bottom of page.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain. Silly faggots, dicks are for chicks. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
AKA -- " I am pro-homosexual" --- Yes you are sneaky. You're also a hypocrite. ---- You want special rights for fags because you have lots and lots in your family. --- You like all commies support the equal rights amendment. You're a foolish old man. The only thing true is the last comment. -- I too am a foolish old man, -- and it's getting real tiresome to see you misquote and mischaracterize old Pete. Get some new lines, preferably ones with a bit of veracity.
The opinion of a Commie Sanders supporter is no real dig at me. I expect you to be lost, weak and hate the stronger person.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Don't call him old pete, he might bite your head off. Other than that, well said.
Come on, let's be honest, Pete's so old he probably donates blood every time he pees. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Speak for yourself.
I'm older than he, so I have special dispensation regarding these matters of foolishness. Hell, I may be the oldest fool here, since gatlin left..
Support it? I think the whole circus is irrelevant. Truth is, marriage is defined by God as being between a man and a woman deciding to couple for life, and then having sex. No minister, No license. No state OR church involvement. A marriage is created when a man and a woman decide their married and have sex. That's a marriage before God. God holds them to it: if they divorce and have sex with others, they are adulterers, and God throws them into hell at final judgment. So, marriage is perilous stuff. But the state ande the Churches have nothing to do with it. BECAUSE the Churches usurped power in this area millennua ago, the state then had purchase for its bogus "license".. The proper way out of all of this nonsense is for Christians to knock off the charade of needing either a marriage license OR a church ceremony. The clergy won't marry anybody without the state's license, because that's "against the law" and they don't want to lose their tax exempt status. All a bunch of moral compromise over a non-existent requirement. Christians need to simply avoid all of that, shack up for life, be married and act that way, and that is that. Let the gays go get the piece of paper.
No Because we have had a difference of opinion on marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. You think we should not discriminate and let gay people be miserable too! LOL The reality is we all have our biases,but our personal opinions are of no real importance to anyone but ourselves. What is important is the answer to the the questions "Is it Constitutional? Does it violate the Bill of Rights?" Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. We know that. Why do you support that arguably cowardly act? And, why do you support the alleged power of a judge to jail opponents for 'civil contempt' -- without a trial ? Then why did you answer in support of the Supremes? You're not being truthful, old boy.. Why is that ?
Very true. It's the old "divide and conquer" principle put into motion. Too much of that "reasoning stuff" starts going on,and pretty soon we would all be looking at what the gubbermint does to us and focus on that more than what we do to each other. The professional pols and their paymasters just couldn't stand that kind of heat. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Most likely. And many I am sure will rejoice. After all, she violated The Law, and she ignored a FEDERAL JUDGE. She is lucky she did not get the firing squad. Screw the feral judge,as well as the horse he rode in on. This,like marriage itself,is a STATE issue,not a federal issue. It would be a federal issue if the state legislature or Governor decided to bar marriage between homosexuals,but this is just a case of a state employee violating her oath of office because any homosexuals who were refused a marriage license by her were free to go to the next town and get one. I have no idea of violating your oath of office is a crime that rates jail time in that state or not,but I think it is irrelevant because I suspect the state is going to satisfy itself to drop that hot potato by just removing her from office and maybe giving her some sort of suspended sentence. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The feds sent in US Marshals to throw her in the klink. So, I think you're wrong here.
The feral government getting involved in a case that is a states rights issue like marriage is Un-Constitional itself. Yes,violating the rights of homosexuals is a federal issue,but IMHO ONLY if the state legislature or the Governor is the one behind it,making it an approved act of the state. One employee out of who knows how many hundreds is no legitimate concern of the feral government. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You're also a hypocrite. You are delusional. You want special rights for fags because you have lots and lots in your family. You like all commies support the equal rights amendment. You're a foolish old man. As well as being a liar. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just out of curiouslty,what do you usually pay for that service? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The clergy can conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone. However, when they do so without a state license being issued to the couple that ceremony has no weight with the state. Just as some states recognize a marriage without any solemnozation ceremony. "{A} marriage may be solemnized by a judge of a court, a retired judge, a court magistrate, a public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages, a Native-American tribe official, clergy, or you and your intended spouse. Clergy from out-of-state do not need to be registered in Colorado". Of course, the church will not recognize a state licensed and a state or self performed marriage ceremony as a marriage within its faith. Either way, from the state's point of view a church ceremony is vitually meaningless. Those that get their panties in a bunch over gay marriage should understand this. The only significance of a church performed ceremony is to those within the church community. A church perfomed ceremony adds nothing to the civil issued license and recognition of the marriage. ALL state recognized marriages are civil unions, nothing more, nothing less. The state does not recognize any religious, spiritual or sacramental aspects of a church marriage ceremony - all marriages are equal. The church should get out of the business of marriage and into to the business of holy union (preferably with the issue of a state license for the civil union of marriage to assure state recognition of the marriage of the couple). The church then will have no problem in dealing with a state sanctioned civil unions. And no-one can force the church to perform/sanction holy unions to non- members of the church or those that are not members in good standing with the church. It is of no business of the state if a church wishes to grant holy union status to a gay couple or not, polygamists or not, brother and sister, brother and brother, sister and sister, mother and son, etc. "Christians need to simply avoid all of that, shack up for life, be married and act that way, and that is that." Not likely as most states impose/recognize common law marriage. So in the end it still becomes a civil union. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So, I think you're wrong here. Hell,they sent snipers and a freaking tank in at Waco,Texas. That doesn't mean it was the right,or even the legal thing to do. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I am always truthful. It's just that I really place very little stock in the Constitution, or the law, or the concept of the Rule of Law. Those are just totems and tokens. I am interested in The Law, the REAL law, the one we're all answerable too. Obviously that Law inevitably comes to play through the medium of our laws and courts and all of that, but I don't have a whole lot of patience for the actual inside baseball of our system. I know the rules of our legal system. I know it's a game. I get paid well for playing that game, but I don't believe that the game has virtue. I think it's a rigged casino from the get go, and always was. So, am I SUPPORTING the Supremes? No. I'm just saying what they are going to do, and why, the logic of it, how the game will grind out in its inevitable way. MY view? Christians should stop playing the legal marriage and church marriage game, neither of which are required by or really have anything to do with God's law. Instead, by the hundred milllion strong, Christians should marry, for good, by shacking up for life and saying their are married - because they are. No ceremony, no papers. And then when somebody tries to block them from something, sue. Christian marriage is partnership for life - the approval or licensing from some state entity, for a fee, is irrelevant to marriage, and the whole requirement should be ignored by all Christians. Since the Churches are all morally compromised and have created the false tradition that a church wedding is required, they won't marry without the state's license. Which means that church wedding traditions also need to go: they are false from the get go. A very salutary thing comes from this. By being true to the actual LAW of God, and ceasing to fight over mere traditions, Christians can find themselves much freer than they thought, and in that freedom, find great strength.
Less than you pay for adult diapers. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Common Law marriage is perfect, because the Christian couple doesn't have to DO anything to "get" it. It's just a status that is recognized at a certain point. So, the Christians are true to God's law, and they stop playing the game of paying for a license from the state to do what any couple can do by pleding each other's troth and having sex before God. Nothing more. The Churches, having compromised themselves now should be forced by Christians to either perform weddings without the licenses, or Christians should simply disregard the Churches on the matter. If the Churches want to weaken themselves by becoming lapdog enforces of a state taxing and regulation scheme, Christians should exercise their liberty in God to marry God's way, and ignore the made-up traditions of men. The individuals, of course, should ALWAYS assert their marriage, as a matter of fact, without comment. They ARE married. That the state gets around to admitting that through Common Law is fine, but that's the state's business.
Who in hell in the executive branch authorized US Marshals to enforce a questionable civil contempt decree from the judicial branch? This 'assumption of authority' bullshit is getting serious, sportsfans. It may be 'time', in the Claire Wolf sense...
Try to find one who will do it without a marriage license.
For who? To do what?
Most likely the Head Homeboi at the alleged Justice Department. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Contempt is a matter of equity, not law. When the judge issues and order, he intends to be obeyed. When somebody defies him, he throws that person in jail. There are no further proceedings, or trial, or anything, until the jailed person obeys the judge. That's equity for you. Always has been that way.
It may be 'time', in the Claire Wolf sense... "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolf
Yep. Our elected and unelected officials ignore laws daily. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. Yep, that's one of the reasons we declared our independence from despots that use "equity" to ignore our inalienable rights. Shakespeare was right. First, we should kill all the (fascistic) lawyers...
She can't be fired. She is an elected official. The only way to remove her is to impeach her in the Kentucky House of Representatives and convict her in the Senate. I heard (have not confirmed) the KY legislature was out of session and there were no plans at this time to recall them. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/IB176.pdf IMPEACHMENT IN KENTUCKY
Contempt of court.
Comments (136 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#96. To: nolu chan (#81)
She refused an agreement to be released if she would authorize subordinates to issue the licenses. It's the same moral question.
#97. To: sneakypete (#79)
I am pro-homosexual
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#93)
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied?
The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
#99. To: Stoner (#87)
" This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it. "
#100. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#97)
I am pro-homosexual
#101. To: Fred Mertz (#100)
Sneakypete
#102. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#81)
I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up.
#103. To: GrandIsland (#101)
You are a hero. lol
#104. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#102)
#105. To: SOSO (#102)
but five of her deputies agreed to issue the licenses themselves,
#106. To: A K A Stone (#97)
sneakypete (#79) --- Is it because you believe all that nonsense spouted by A K A Stone that I am pro-homosexual because I insist on ALL Americans being treated equally by the government
#107. To: Fred Mertz (#103)
#108. To: tpaine (#106)
#109. To: Fred Mertz (#108)
Don't call him old pete, he might bite your head off.
#110. To: GrandIsland (#109)
#111. To: Fred Mertz (#108)
Don't call him old pete, he might bite your head off
#112. To: tpaine (#98)
Why do you support that arguably cowardly act?
#113. To: Justified (#80)
Is it because you believe all that nonsense spouted by A K A Stone that I am pro-homosexual because I insist on ALL Americans being treated equally by the government?
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Support it? I think the whole circus is irrelevant.
#115. To: Dead Culture Watch (#84)
The death of a wedge issue is never good for the ruling class.
#116. To: Stoner (#87)
This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it. "
#117. To: sneakypete (#116)
This,like marriage itself,is a STATE issue,not a federal issue.
#118. To: A K A Stone (#96)
They are forcing a religious test on her which is unconstitutional.
#119. To: A K A Stone (#97)
Yes you are sneaky.
#120. To: GrandIsland (#105)
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain.
#121. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
The clergy won't marry anybody without the state's license, because that's "against the law" and they don't want to lose their tax exempt status.
#122. To: Fred Mertz (#117)
The feds sent in US Marshals to throw her in the klink.
#123. To: tpaine (#114)
#124. To: sneakypete (#120)
Just out of curiouslty,what do you usually pay for that service?
#125. To: SOSO (#121)
Not likely as most states impose/recognize common law marriage. So in the end it still becomes a civil union.
#126. To: Fred Mertz, Y'ALL (#117)
The feds sent in US Marshals to throw her in the klink.
#127. To: SOSO (#121)
The clergy can conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone.
#128. To: tpaine (#126)
t may be 'time', in the Claire Wolf sense...
#129. To: tpaine (#126)
Who in hell in the executive branch authorized US Marshals to enforce a questionable civil contempt decree from the judicial branch?
#130. To: tpaine (#114)
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt..
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#128)
For who? To do what?
#132. To: Stoner (#87)
Okaaaay. If we are going to have this situation, I say we go after the President & Congress for the laws they violate or ignore; all the bureaucrats that ignore or violate laws; all of the city officials that operate "sanctuary cities", all the people at Planned Parenthood that sell baby parts, and a lot of other "law breakers". Yes, lets apply the law evenly, and with the same amount of enthusiasm.
#133. To: Vicomte13 (#130)
Contempt is a matter of equity, not law. When the judge issues and order, he intends to be obeyed. When somebody defies him, he throws that person in jail. There are no further proceedings, or trial, or anything, until the jailed person obeys the judge. That's equity for you. Always has been that way.
#134. To: Justified (#83)
Yes. She should be fired, by the people or be removed from office by local government but not jailed.
Legislative Research Commission, Frankfort, KY
#135. To: tpaine, Pinguinite, Vicomte, nolu chan (#85)
What is her crime?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]