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: 35891
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 320.
#1. To: cranky, *Religious History and Issues* (#0)
Wonder if these same activists know that doctors cannot be forced into giving sex change operations or even performing abortions and prescribing birth control pills. If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses. I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. So why push someone to do something against their convictions?
So why push someone to do something against their convictions? They are doing it on principle, and they will certainly win too. The woman is a public official America is a secular, pagan state, with secular pagan laws, one of which is the legality of slaughtering babies in the womb, and another of which is the constitutional requirement to treat gay couples the same as any normal couple when it comes to marriage. She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar. If he conscience does not allow her to serve Caesar because of what Caesar demands of her, then she must stop taking Caesar's coin. She must resign her post and leave it. Before the issue was litigated before the Supreme Court, it was an open question, but now Caesar has spoken, very clearly. You cannot serve both God and Caesar on the matter of gay marriage. If you try to, you are breaking the laws of Caesar, and you will be punished by Caesar. Of course, Christians do not need to get married by the state at all to be married in the eyes of God. The state's license and sanction mean nothing, at all, in the court of God. Did a man and a woman consecrate themselves to the other before God, consummate the union, and keep to each other having no others? Then they are married. The state has all sorts of contracts and the laws that govern the relationship in its pagan ways, but Christians are not required by God to go through any licensing or formal ceremony to be married. You cannot serve both God and money, and you cannot serve both God and the American government either. There was a time when you could, sort of, but that time has passed. You cannot do so anymore, in the capacity of clerk. The proper answer is for her, and everybody else, to understand that state- sanctioned marriage is not marriage. Marriage is a spiritual union before God, a covenant that God consecrates. The state was permitted to come to that table, but the state has attempted to take over that table. In fact, neither the state NOR the Church is required to consecrate a covenant of marriage before God. All that is required is God and the two individuals who are marrying, and their following God's law of marriage. There is no marriage license requirement in God's law, and there is no requirement of a minister or a church service either. To the extent that the laws of men - both governmental and church - have become so oppressive as to try to cancel out the spiritual essence of marriage, those who follow God need to stop submitting to the laws of men - whether governmental OR ECCLESIAL - and marry before God. No witnesses are required either: that is a Christian and Jewish tradition only, not a commandment. That's the truth. Christians used to control American government. Trouble is, the Christians behaved very evilly - engaging in slavery, and in warfare, and in oppressive economic practices, all in violation of God's law. The Hypocritical Christian was (and is) the American standard, and hypocrisy utterly discredits the organized faith in the eyes of everybody. Those OUTSIDE the faith treat it as the joke that it IS, when it is hypocritical. And those WITHIN the faith make a public display but do as they please in public. Speak for Christ, actually QUOTE the law, chapter and verse, and Hypocritical Christians will scream at you. They will not be silent, repent and follow God. And so the Christian edifice rotted and lost power. Now, there is grasping at straws, trying to straddle an absurdity. Here's the truth: if a man and a woman who are virgins consecrate themselves to each other before God, in private, with nobody else present, and consummate the marriage sexually, and keep God's law, THEY ARE MARRIED. The Church says they are not, but God never ever gave the Church any authority to determine what a marriage is: THAT is established by God's law, not by human tradition. And the STATE has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. The proper thing for Christians to do today is to "shack up", in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of their churches, for life. No Church will marry people without a marriage license, but what the state gives is not a license to marry, for the state has no power to limit real marriage. Christians should ignore the state completely and get no marriage licenses. And that means that their Churches will not marry them, which is fine, because the Church marriage is nothing but a party and a ceremony. Christians should shack up for life and be faithful, wear rings and call themselves married, because THEY ARE. Play the game of licenses and churches, and you submit to Satan. And given this, the woman can keep her job, give out these fake licenses to anybody, but must herself hew to what "marriage" actually is - and it requires neither license nor ceremony. If she wants to immolate herself as a martyr, she can. The problem is that she is martyring herself for the principle that what the state offers is "marriage", and it is not. The state has no power to offer marriage. Marriage is a covenant between three: two people and God. Nobody else's permission is required, and nobody has to be present, or told about it, for it to exist.
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. If the county voters think she is doing poorly, they can vote her out of office in the next election. That's the "remedy", if one is needed.
We rejected such fascistic reasoning at Nuremburg.. Well put, and absolutely true. She could be 'impeached', I'd guess, but that would raise questions on the constitutionality of an impeachment over religious beliefs, that I doubt the courts would want to face.
Well put, and absolutely true. I saw this reply on another site. What is her crime? :----
Very good point
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..
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.
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?
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.
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 ?
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'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...
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God). Jefferson, that old felon, wrote truthfully when he said in the Declaration that people are apt to suffer wrongs as long as they're sufferable. People are wise to do so, because when it gets to the actual killin', that rapidly turns into the killin' AND DYIN' part, and most folks who are keen on "stringing the bastards up" are less keen on being front rank troops in the effort, because the front rank of such movements has a 90% or so death rate. Truth is, hardly anybody in America is willing to die for some abstract concept of "the Constitution". The "Claire Wolf" moment isn't going to come, at least not from white constitutionalists. My suggestion? Stop focusing on toy law and focus on real Law, which is God's law. It's shorter, has fewer procedures, and doesn't need anybody's assent. And the favors that come from following it often come fast.
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... Tell that to the millions of men that have died in America's wars, defending our freedoms. Thanks for displaying your true stripe once again, vicomte. It's refreshing to see a man tell the honest truth about himself, despite the fact that it is repugnant..
Tell that to the millions of men that have died in America's wars, defending our freedoms. Thanks for displaying your true stripe once again, vicomte. It's refreshing to see a man tell the honest truth about himself, despite the fact that it is repugnant.. He still hasn't learned that there is a difference between France and America...
Not all that much. Both are democracies. Both had revolutions. Both are middle-class Republics. Both have been allies in the two great struggles for American freedom: the American Revolution and World War II. Pretty tough for me to distinguish anything but cultural differences between France and America. And even the cultural differences are not all that different. The languages are a bit different, but quite close in concept and vocabulary. None of this is terribly surprising: France and England come out of the same people, and America came out of England. French bread is generally better than American bread. So yes, there are differences between France and America. No, they don't count for much.
One doesn't seem to care about living their lives they way they want to live them and the other (for the most part) still desires that freedom. And are willing to defend those freedoms not count on someone else to do it for them!!!
That America is an independent country at all, and not just another Scotland to Great Britain, is BECAUSE the French were willing to fight, bleed, die - and bankrupt themselves - making that happen. The French FOUGHT the Nazis in 1939 and 1940, and the Free French kept fighting them throughout the war. What were the Americans doing? Being neutral, while the world was devoured by Nazis, all the way until December, 1941. The Americans were NOT willing to fight the evil UNTIL the evil attacked them. The French declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. Where was America? Had the Americans done the right thing and declared war on the side of freedom in Fall 1939, Hitler would have been finished in the Spring of 1940, and all the rest of the horror would have never happened. Americans were exactly like the Soviets: they stayed out and LET the Nazis and the Fascists and the Japanese devour the free world all the way up to the point that, finally, the Nazis and the Japanese attacked THEM. The US didn't declare war on Hitler. Hitler declared war on the US. There is no heroism in what the US did. The US was attacked, like the USSR, and the USSR and USA, together, as allies, great big countries, finally stomped out Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini. France had 42 million people. Germany had in excess of 60 million, plus their Italian allies and the resources pillaged from Poland. Just how the hell were the French going to stand alone against the Nazi juggernaut? The Soviets were unable to also. It took an ALLIANCE to bring down Hitler. And the only people brave enough to see that Hitler had to be STOPPED, by force, were the British and the French - THEY declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. America didn't. Russia didn't. America won. So did the USSR. They won because they were big. They entered the war only because they were attacked. There was nothing heroic at all about America or the USSR sitting there in 1939 and 1940 and 1941 while Hitler conquered Europe. The French fought, and lost. The Poles fought, and lost. The British fought, and would have lost but for the water. The Americans and Soviets were cowards who refused to fight the evil. They only entered because the evil dragged them into it, and then they lost a lot more than they ever had to, because they let the Nazis grow to massive size.
The US was not going to sit out that war and you know it you just say that because a small percentage of Americans wanted to stay out of it. Roosevelt knew America was going to have to get involved in the war and started preparing for it. I wouldn't be afraid to say the oil embargo and freezing of the Japanese assets were meant to get Japan to attack the US so Roosevelt could come riding to the rescue in Europe...
The US DID sit out of the war, refusing to stand with the free world as it was devoured by the Nazis, country after country. The Czechs and Slovaks, the Poles, the Danes and Norwegians, the Dutch, Luxembourgeois and Belgians. Then the French. Then the Yugoslavs and Greeks. Then Russians. Britian was in terrible danger in 1940, and US ships were being torpedoed, but the US still did not stand up to fight Hitler. In the end Hitler declared war on the US, and dragged the US in. It is not heroic to stand by while the free world is butchered and bombed, to let the threat grow to titanic proportions, and then fight when the threat that you allowed to grow strong by your own fecklessness attacks you. That's what the US did. It was a good thing we were dragged into the war, lest the Nazis win. But the Nazis never should have gotten control of the Low Countries, let alone France or been able to burn down London. The US should have been there from the beginning. Had the US been there, Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been invaded. Or if it had been, Hitler would have been out of power before the first shot was fired in Poland.
Guess you aren't very familiar with what the House and Senate do/did. They are what kept the US from getting ready to help out in the war against Germany. In fact they passed legislature that declared we would not sell arms to anyone participating in the war or the actions leading up to it!!! (Which ended up being ignored). Now before you say they were only doing what the American public as a whole wanted well then you better think again, especially when you see what is currently going on and they have a 80 some percent disapproval rate from the American public!!!
Oooo they passed legislation. Britain, France, Canada - they were actually FIGHTING THE NAZIS. The Americans never declared war on them.
Oh BTW before I forget who was it that kept the Russian hordes from pouring thru the Fulda Gap all those years??? Need a hint? (It wasn't the French)...
Nuclear weapons. The Americans have them. The British have them. The French have them And the Russian nukes kept the West from rescuing Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, Nuclear weapons end conventional war between nuclear powers. The Americans spent a fortune on conventional forces that exceeded anything really needed. Nuclear weapons were always what kept the peace, and still do. If the Americans left, the French and British nuclear deterrent is sufficient to keep the Russians out.
#321. To: Vicomte13 (#320)
Believe me, I was there in '56, and it was the overwhelming strength of Russian armored forces that stopped us from a Hungarian rescue. Thanks to that evil leader in DC, Ike, our evil empire was stopped from starting WW III...
Really? Then what keeps Russia from doing a preemptive strike and destroying all their nukes?? The Russians wouldn't mind in the least sending their troops into areas that have been nuked. They are like every other European nation they have plenty of "disposable" people to do their dirty work for them. (That's why they keep the unemployment rate at 10% to ensure a adequate supply of disposable bodies)!! And I bet you think the VA is bad...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDavis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages.
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
(Edited)
I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
#7. To: Pinguinite, Y'ALL (#4)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
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. If the county voters think she is doing poorly, they can vote her out of office in the next election. That's the "remedy", if one is needed. --- Pinguinite.
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
#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.
#88. To: Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL (#86)
#93. To: tpaine (#88)
A point that her attorneys should be raising with higher courts.
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#93)
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied?
The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
#112. To: tpaine (#98)
Why do you support that arguably cowardly act?
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Support it? I think the whole circus is irrelevant.
#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..
#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.
#137. To: tpaine (#133)
Shakespeare was right. First, we should kill all the (fascistic) lawyers...
#146. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
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.
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God).
#169. To: tpaine (#146)
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God).
#179. To: CZ82 (#169)
He still hasn't learned that there is a difference between France and America...
#271. To: Vicomte13 (#179)
So yes, there are differences between France and America. No, they don't count for much.
#273. To: CZ82 (#271)
One doesn't seem to care about living their lives they way they want to live them and the other (for the most part) still desires that freedom. And are willing to defend those freedoms not count on someone else to do it for them!!!
#277. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
#288. To: CZ82 (#277)
#306. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
That's what the US did. It was a good thing we were dragged into the war, lest the Nazis win. But the Nazis never should have gotten control of the Low Countries, let alone France or been able to burn down London. The US should have been there from the beginning. Had the US been there, Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been invaded. Or if it had been, Hitler would have been out of power before the first shot was fired in Poland.
#310. To: CZ82 (#306)
#318. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
#320. To: CZ82 (#318)
Replies to Comment # 320. Russian nukes kept the West from rescuing Hungary in 1956 ---
#334. To: Vicomte13 (#320)
If the Americans left, the French and British nuclear deterrent is sufficient to keep the Russians out.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 320.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]