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: 28733
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 (1-80) not displayed.
.
.
.
#81. To: Fred Mertz (#74)
I think so. They can't fire here, she's elected. My impression is she has the support of the state and local government. If they had a sense of urgency, they could act to remove her from office. She refused an agreement to be released if she would authorize subordinates to issue the licenses. It's the same moral question. I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up.
She can't be fired. She was never hired, she was elected. It does not appear to me that the in-state authorities are in any hurry to remove her from office. It seems issuing gay marriage licenses is not high on their to-do list. It is contempt of court. I believe it is also her good faith religious beliefs preventing her compliance.
Yes. She should be fired, by the people or be removed from office by local government but not jailed. That way people can go after those who do not do the peoples will in that locality. It always seems that the progressives always get their way laws be damned. If we don't start pushing back we will get pushed right into the ocean. In my opinion she should be low man on the list of priorities. When they get done with Hillary Klinton then I say let them worry about her. ;) It is contempt of court. I believe it is also her good faith religious beliefs preventing her compliance. Yes its the heavy hand of government.
The death of a wedge issue is never good for the ruling class.
Well put, and absolutely true. I saw this reply on another site. What is her crime? :----
Very good point
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. 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. If any here want to ignore the ones I mentioned, while crucifying this lady, I look forward to hearing who, and the rationale. ;) Si vis pacem, para bellum
Very good point 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..
Ping to # 87 Sorry, I inadvertently failed to ping you Regards, Stoner Si vis pacem, para bellum
If any here want to ignore the ones I mentioned, while crucifying this lady, I look forward to hearing who, and the rationale. ;) No problem on the ping, -- that's why I use (Y'ALL) all the time.. And dont hold your breath waiting for 'rationale' from the crusifiers on this forum.
Oh, I'm not. In fact, I am going to have a couple shots of Ky Bourbon and go to bed. Been cutting firewood about all day. I will check in next AM and see what the circus is up to. Have a good evening! Si vis pacem, para bellum
Thanks to you, DCW, and a fine merlot, I will.. It's good to see that there are still a few of us around here that give a damn about basic constitutional principles.
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Contempt of court. The court has equitable powers. It has used them on her. Now the end-game will be: the clerks issue the licenses, and she stays in jail until she either (a) agrees not to interfere with them or (b) resigns.
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)
Comments (121 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWill she still be on the payroll?
#82. To: Justified, sneakypete (#76)
Actually she should be fired.
Its evil of government to jail someone in a case like this. What they are saying is you either bend to our ways or be punished.
#83. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#82)
She can't be fired. She was never hired, she was elected. It does not appear to me that the in-state authorities are in any hurry to remove her from office. It seems issuing gay marriage licenses is not high on their to-do list.
#84. To: nolu chan (#82)
She can't be fired. She was never hired, she was elected. It does not appear to me that the in-state authorities are in any hurry to remove her from office. It seems issuing gay marriage licenses is not high on their to-do list.
#85. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#7)
Pinguinite --- She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key. She is responsible for duties on the authority derived directly from the people of her voting district (county) and it seems to me that any judge that would jail her would violate the separation of powers, undermining the will of the majority of county voters. The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge. --- She is committing no crime.
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied? 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.
#86. To: tpaine (#85)
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied? 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.
#87. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, Redleghunter, BobCeleste, Sneakypete, All (#45)
" This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it. "
#88. To: Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL (#86)
#89. To: tpaine (#87)
#90. To: Stoner (#89)
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.
#91. To: tpaine (#90)
" dont hold your breath waiting for 'rationale' from the crusifiers "
#92. To: Stoner, Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL (#91)
Have a good evening!
#93. To: tpaine (#88)
A point that her attorneys should be raising with higher courts.
#94. To: tpaine (#85)
What is her crime? :
#95. To: A Pole (#68)
#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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]