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: 28939
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 (1-211) not displayed.
.
.
.
#212. To: nolu chan (#211)
It isn't. But it's a mere detail. If it becomes a means by which the will of the Supreme Court is resisted on the matter, then issuing the license will end up BECOMING stare decisis, because the Court will keep on bulldozing until they achieve compliance with their orders.
It appears a county judge/executive may issue a license in the absence of the clerk. Whether the clerk is considered absent while jailed for contempt is another question. It appears no county judge/executive has volunteered to incur all the responsibilities of the county clerk. The KY statutes appear not to have changed following Obergefell and the KY legislature is not due to come back into session until next year. For all of this and what you cite, who do you think will prevail, Davis or the Fed? Do you think any gay marriage under a license issued by a Deputy will be overturned or declared invaild? What gets Davis out of jail? When? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I suppose she swore an oath (or affirmed) to faithfully execute the duties of her office, but at a time when said duties did not include condoning same-sex marriage, something her moral standards will not permit her to do.
The Fed can bulldoze all it wants and not acquire the authority to issue state licenses. The Fed can punish and sanction until the state complies, but the Fed authorizing state officials to issue state licenses without state issued authorization will not enter into it. Defiance will eventually bring a rain of pain. That will be stare decisis.
She can always resign and even seek another office. She, and anyone else, including local and state governments are on the losing side of the issue. I guess it is possible the states can defy the Fed and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays while they continue to issue such licenses to straights - welcome to the next potential civil war (which Christians will lose). потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You do not know as a matter of fact. Why would the Judge accept the issuance of the license under the ausices of a Deputy if the Judge know or had serious reason to believe that he was condoning a fraudulent act? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That depends on how you define the word "authority". To me, authority is the power to force people against their will to accomplish an objective defined by the one with the authority.
The Fed, of course.
I didn't see it. Flurry of questions from many. I'll go look now, and answer it next.
Fed. Going up against the Fed, the only consideration is raw power. Yes. I fail to see how these fraudulent documents can be legally defended. Bending to the will of the court or resigning, or being impeached and removed from office. Dunno. If she is still in jail next year, the state might choose to impeach her when the legislature comes back into session. It may also be a matter of how long the Fed wants to keep the deputies churning out fraudulent documents, knowing they can be invalidated by a state court, returning to square one and maing the Fed court look silly. The documents will purport to have her authorization while she can be documented as being in jail for refusing to give her authorization. It is not clear how the Fed forces the state to issue gay marriage licenses where it chooses to issue no marriage licenses to anyone. If all but gay marriage licenses were issued, there could be drastic sanctions against the state for violation of the constitutional rights of gays. I suspect this is not a lone lady resisting, but an organized resistance effort. It appears to have been too carefully tailored to evade any federal charges for that to be accidental. I suspect many folks saying she must comply with the Constitution or the law or the court, probably would argue that the Fugitive Slave Clause deserved to be violated, or do not condemn the states or individuals who violated it. How many would say that Dred Scott (7-2) did not deserve compliance? For consideration, contains several suggestions: Roger Severino / September 04, 2015
Because he can. He wants licenses issued. He cannot issue them or grant anyone authorization to issue them. The Fed does not tolerate defiance. If Kim Davis can do it (or not do it) so can other clerks.
Why would the Judge accept the issuance of the license under the ausices of a Deputy if the Judge know or had serious reason to believe that he was condoning a fraudulent act? Because he can. Then he is knowingly committing a fraudlent act from his bench. IMO he would be in serious legal trouble for doing that. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Or the clerks can issue fraudulent licenses at Federal direction, and the state can invalidate them later. This is only one county, not the whole state. It cannot issue licenses selectively without invoking a whole bunch of Federal anti-discrimination sanctions. But it can just stop issuing licenses at all, and not discriminate against any group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Texas Same Sex Marriage in Texas
He is a federal judge doing what is wanted. He will face nothing.
I don't think so. Issing of licenses by the Office Clerk is what the state authorizes and requires that office to do. The Clerk cannot willy nilly based on personal preferences stop issuing licenses to anyone which she knew before she took the job was a function of that office. What would be the basis for her to stop issuing licenses to straight couples or anyone that is entitled to a license by state law? HOw can she willy nilly decide to punish or inconvenience others that are entitled to the license? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Why is that? Demographics. War is a young man's game. The median age of the US Hispanic population is 27.5 - prime military age. The median age of the US White population is 42. Every year the median age of whites gets older. Every year the median age of Hispanics gets younger. In 1990, 70% of the young people in America were white. In 2010, 53% were. In ten years, between 2000 and 2010, the total number of white children declined by 4.3 million. With a median age of 42, and rising, the white population is mostly already past the age of fertility. Some 42 year olds have a child, but very few. The older the population, the more white. 73% of the population over age 50 is white. 79% of the population over 65. But when one looks at the under 20 population, half of it is non-white. White numbers are plunging, and the white fertility rate is far below replacement. Given economic conditions, and the median age of the white population, there is no possibility that white fertility will pick up either. The white population is spiralling downward. The black population is slowly declining. The Asian population is growing rapidly. And the Hispanic population is young, fertile and surging. There is nothing on the horizon that suggests that white demographic decline is slowing. Rather, it is accelerating. Whites are aging, dwindling in numbers, and have a declining fertility rate. The median age of whites is 42, but only 5.6% of the military is over 42. In 1995, 10% of the military officer corps was minorities. Today, 22% is minority, and 32% of the enlisted. The whites are aging out, and the military forces are being replaced by minorities, mostly Hispanic, just like the rest of the population at large. The same thing is true of the police forces. In 1987, they were 15% minority. In 2013, that was up to 29%, and the trend is accelerating as whites age out and retire. So, you have an aging population of whites, having few children, moving towards retirement age or already in retirement. Social Security and Medicare are locked-in programs. Taxes will be increased on the rich as necessary to pay for that. Old people don't rebel in arms anyway, and old people who have basic security in retirement certainly don't. So, who is going to do the rebelling? An aging white middle class of the age that has families, obligations, mortgages and jobs? Rebellions come from the youth (see Ferguson), and white youth are already matched by minority youth, with that balance steadily shifting in the direction of minorities. And the military and police forces that would respond to a white rebellion are more and more and more Hispanic and young. So, who is going to rebel? Old people? No. That's never happened anywhere, and it's not going to happen here either. Who, then? Middle class whites with families and obligations? No. That doesn't happen either. People with families emigrate from problems. The young rebel. War is a young man's game. Where is the "white youth movement"? Young whites are the most tolerant and egalitarian. There is never going to be a substantial rebellion of white America. If there were, it would be middle aged crackpots, and the young, professional, large, well-armed, heavily minority police and military forces will crush the rebellion, and that will be that. That's why that is. And that's a good thing anyway. Christians should not be contemplating shedding blood. They should, rather, focus on having God's law memorized, conforming to it, and cooperating economically with others who follow God's law, following God's economic template. That's the only way to actually reverse the birth rate decline.
Or the clerks can issue putatively valid licenses at federal direction, which the state will ratify or lose federal funds and suffer other retaliatory measures. Nobody is going to fight this the way that the racists fought desegregation. The racists were numerous - even majoritarian in their areas - and they still lost. The only proper response is for Christians to turn back to the Law of God, refresh their understanding of it so that they cease to take foolish and suicidal political stances, and instead live as a growing and prosperous community apart, one that will have many advantages over the secular community.
IMO he would be in serious legal trouble for doing that. He is a federal judge doing what is wanted. He will face nothing. So we are back to where I always been, i.e. - a law is not enforced is de facto not a law. Also, the only rights that anyone de facto have are the ones that one can defend. We will soon be living in a live in a lawless land under the boot of the Emperor and his thugs in DC. A scoiety in whcih might makes right. Which of the bullies will be the first to physically wipe his ass with the U.S. Constitution? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We always have. Since first settlement. It's just that in the past, that lawlessness and brutality favored the white WASP majority that made up the power base back then. The whites are no longer a majority of young people, and Christianity has faded because of its own internal evils, hypocrisies and moral compromises. So the people who were always accustomed to winning before are starting to lose as the wheel turns. But the ways they are losing are the ways that others were already losing before.
LOL! Scared you are going to start wearing dresses in public? BTW,Religious doctrine is NOT law. 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 shortage of tv cameras and lawsuits. 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 didn't realize Illustrious Leader was deleting my posts with prejudice. I wonder if they were making him start wearing a bow in his hair? 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 think the "office" not only has the authority,but has the obligation. If you work there,you can do the deed. 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)
Me,too. She seems to be determined to be a martyr. It should be interesting to watch this shake out. 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)
Probably when he started playing dress-up and listening to Cher records. 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'm sure it was never her intention to do so,but when it became apparent that was what was going to be happening,she should have either just resigned or stood aside and let someone else do it who wasn't bothered by it. 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 should be interesting to watch this shake out. Yeah, I'll bet Las Vegas probably has an over/under betting line by now on how long she'll be in the pokey. Between her and Trump who needs real news any more. Entertainment!
Don't the words "As shrewd as serpents" and "Freewill" also apply to your interpretation...
Just the usual, you disagree with his view of rights for homos...
I think he meant to "flippantly" swear an oath (like most of those in office nowadays) and I would say the term "false deities" also applies here... You know it's kinda funny that the women's rights groups haven't gotten involved in this, for the obvious reason she is an anatomically correct woman and also a Democrat!!! Talk about being thrown under the bus for ignoring plantation policies... No doubt about that one. Gamblers are junkies that need their gambling fixes. They will bet on anything. 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 whole gender identity thing has their heads spinning so fast they have no idea which side to jump in on. Should they side with the original female that will be losing her job and maybe going to jail in a show of "You go,GURL!",or should they side with the new female with the fresh surgery scars,or maybe even with the pretend female with all the original males parts with no bolt-ons? Decisions,decisions,decisions! Trying to figure out which is the PC Pick might make their little heads explode. 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)
Following Jesus alone is not enough, because if you are not merciful and do not forgive other men your sins, Jesus has said your are not forgiven. "Following Jesus" -- isn't it a bit more than that? Isn't it our belief in Jesus' promise that our sin is covered by His blood along with our repentance as the sinners that we ALL that we're promised Eternal Life? That's called "Grace." If anyone believes they are at any second or minute in their lives "sinless" by their own volition, they are believing a lie. EVEN IF we accept your premise that we will NOT "forgiven" by Jesus because we haven't "forgiven others," what about all the other sins still cluttering our tab? Sin is sin. You're presuming a categorical criteria of sin as "acceptable/non-acceptable" before the throne of Judgement. As Red has already pointed out -- as believers in the blood of Jesus -- we are either forgiven by the Grace of Jesus for the entire tab...or aren't. At the moment we expire, the flesh remains filthy in the eyes of the Lord without being washed in the blood of the lamb. I understand this desire to see a status: I've converted, and therefore. But Jesus makes it clear to converted, baptized Churches that salvation is only for those who continue to do the deeds he's required. Otherwise, spewed out of the mouth. ARE there some whose walk in Christ is done so haphazardly? Seemingly hypocrites? Of course. But I won't presume to know their heart or judge that "status" -- that's up to the Lord. "Log/eye" applies here. The Faithful are not concerned with status" other than growing as a Christian and knowing that Jesus has indeed reserved a room at our Father's "mansion." As to deeds, we've debated this countless times...now +1; NO number of "required" OR "good deeds" will EVER equal nor supersede what is ONLY the Grace of God that washes away the sin of man. That's not some sins, but ALL, brother.
Not issuing licenses at all is not discrimination against any one class. It is not willy nilly selectively based on personal preferences. It is failure to perform the duties of her office. It does not invoke Federal jurisdiction for discrimination. It can bring impeachment.
Only when it is someone, or an entity that is defying the Fed. OTH, Feds are free to do whatever they want. After all, who is going to stop them? Kinda like what the Founding Fathers experienced with King George, and soldiers/agents of the British Crown. Si vis pacem, para bellum
We can only hope... The world would be a much better place if that happened... Where is a federal constitutional requirement for states to issue marriage licenses. If a state chooses not to issue marriage licenses, where is the federal jurisdiction to require them to do so? Suppose, hypothetically, that the great state of Kentucky chose to make the issuance of marriage licenses optional by county. They could be issued to all, or nobody, at the county option. What is the Federal jurisdiction? What offense has the state committed to incur Federal sanctions?
They only have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS. Besides wanting to re-phrase your opening salvo, YES homosexuals DO have "rights" that the rest of us don't. There are indeed special laws that SPECIFICALLY and ADDITIONALLY apply ONLY to and on behalf of homosexuals...like "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes." These same laws also apply to so-called "minorities." This specially and un-equally created law enforcement confers an altogether different and preferential status for ALL homosexuals, as well as for minorities. The point and facts aren't even up for debate so save it.
All are equal, but some are more equal than others. An unelected, anonymous group can approve the targeted killing of an American citizen without due process or any charge being brought. Torture is legal if they call it enhanced interrogation. John Adams gave the Constitution a wipe. Abraham Lincoln took a four year dump on it.
Comments (253 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIssuing a state license of any type without state authority to issue it is not stare decisis.
#213. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#209)
The stuff from the cited page 74 is quoted at my 164.
#214. To: redleghunter (#202)
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions.
#215. To: Vicomte13 (#212)
If it becomes a means by which the will of the Supreme Court is resisted on the matter, then issuing the license will end up BECOMING stare decisis, because the Court will keep on bulldozing until they achieve compliance with their orders.
#216. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#214)
I suppose she swore an oath (or affirmed) to faithfully execute the duties of her office, but at a time when said duties did not include condoning same-sex marriage, something her moral standards will not permit her to do.
#217. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13, SOSO, redleghunter (#211)
If the documents indicate they were authorized by County Clerk Kim Davis, it would appear they are fraudulent.
#218. To: nolu chan (#215)
The Fed can bulldoze all it wants and not acquire the authority to issue state licenses.
#219. To: SOSO (#213)
For all of this and what you cite, who do you think will prevail, Davis or the Fed?
#220. To: Stoner (#210)
You never did answer my question in # 193
#221. To: SOSO, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#213)
For all of this and what you cite, who do you think will prevail, Davis or the Fed?
Do you think any gay marriage under a license issued by a Deputy will be overturned or declared invaild?
What gets Davis out of jail?
When?
How Kim Davis Can Be Released From Jail Without Agreeing to Violate Her Conscience
#222. To: SOSO (#217)
Why would the Judge accept the issuance of the license under the ausices of a Deputy if the Judge know or had serious reason to believe that he was condoning a fraudulent act?
#223. To: nolu chan (#222)
#224. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#216)
I guess it is possible the states can defy the Fed and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays while they continue to issue such licenses to straights
After the Obergefell ruling, nearly all counties started issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. As of 1 August 2015, Irion County is the sole remaining county in the country that overtly refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples while continuing to license to opposite-sex couples. However, two other counties (Loving, with 82 residents, as of August 7 and Mills as of August 21) also refuse to license same-sex couples, claiming to have delayed implementation while they update paperwork or software. As with similar cases in Kentucky, it is suspected that this may be a tactic to refuse to issue licenses while avoiding lawsuits.
#225. To: SOSO (#223)
IMO he would be in serious legal trouble for doing that.
#226. To: nolu chan (#224)
But it can just stop issuing licenses at all, and not discriminate against any group.
#227. To: Stoner (#193)
" It's never going to happen in white America. "
#228. To: nolu chan (#224)
Or the clerks can issue fraudulent licenses at Federal direction, and the state can invalidate them later.
#229. To: nolu chan, vicomte13, redleghunter, A K A Stone, liberator, GarySpFc, sneakypete, TooConservative, All (#225)
#230. To: SOSO (#229)
We will soon be living in a live in a lawless land under the boot of the Emperor and his thugs in DC. A scoiety in whcih might makes right.
#231. To: A K A Stone (#171)
Now stay the fuck off these threads. We don't need you spreading your pedophile philisophy.
#232. To: Stoner (#173)
What prevents these gays from simply going to the next county and getting a license. Or, having a lawyer draw up an agreement where they will have inheritance rights, etc?
#233. To: CZ82 (#187)
I managed to read your reply before it got "ZOTTED"
#234. To: redleghunter (#189)
Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority?
#235. To: Stoner (#192)
I suspect this situation is far from over.
#236. To: tpaine (#199)
Just where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"?
#237. To: redleghunter (#202)
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions.
#238. To: sneakypete (#235)
Me,too. She seems to be determined to be a martyr.
#239. To: Vicomte13 (#208)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#240. To: sneakypete (#233)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#241. To: Vicomte13 (#177)
In that Bible Jesus commands Christians to never swear oaths.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#242. To: All (#0)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#243. To: Fred Mertz (#238)
Yeah, I'll bet Las Vegas probably has an over/under betting line by now on how long she'll be in the pokey.
#244. To: CZ82 (#240)
#245. To: CZ82 (#242)
You know it's kinda funny that the women's rights groups haven't gotten involved in this,
#246. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#203)
If you do not follow Jesus, you are not forgiven your sins. If you do not forgive others their trespasses, you are not forgiven your sins.
#247. To: SOSO (#226)
Issing of licenses by the Office Clerk is what the state authorizes and requires that office to do. The Clerk cannot willy nilly based on personal preferences stop issuing licenses to anyone which she knew before she took the job was a function of that office.
#248. To: nolu chan (#222)
" The Fed does not tolerate defiance. "
#249. To: sneakypete (#245)
might make their little heads explode.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#250. To: Vicomte13 (#228)
Or the clerks can issue putatively valid licenses at federal direction, which the state will ratify or lose federal funds and suffer other retaliatory measures.
#251. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#244)
At the risk of sounding anal,I want to be clear about this. Homosexuals do NOT have any rights that the rest of us don't have.
#252. To: SOSO (#229)
So we are back to where I always been, i.e. - a law is not enforced is de facto not a law.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]