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: 36224
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 (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: cranky (#0)
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
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 also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. Or if this PUBLIC SERVANT is all that concerned with violating her religious beliefs,she could step aside and let one of the other clerks issue the license. She didn't want to do that because she wanted to become a martyr and a public figure. 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)
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
Lies and pedophile propaganda deleted.
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
Lies and Obama pedophile propaganda deleted.
Elected officials are state employees. 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)
Lies and pedophile propaganda deleted.
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)
Deleted contained lies and pedophile propaganda.
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)
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate her willingness to take a stand. But it's sort of like the folks taking a stand against illegal aliens by trying to ignore the 14th Amendment: you have to choose your weapon carefully pick the ground on which you decide to fight. Taking a knife to a gunfight, or choosing to fight with a flamethrower in a barn full of dry straw is below-average headwork. The right answer to all of it is for Christians to return to a correct definition and understanding of marriage as God made it, which requires neither state OR church to make it real, and which cannot be dissolved at all. And what "enforces" marriage? God. Break your marriage vows and you are an adulterer. Die unrepentant, and you are thrown into the flames at judgment. No chance to cheat - and place for human law to surveil or gain purchase. So, what is all of this business of marriage "licensing"? You are purchasing, for a modest fee, a permanent reduced tax status. And you're purchasing the entitlement to your co-contractant's Social Security survivor benefits. You're purchasing the right to certain forms of confidential access, and a specific legal privilege that makes what you say to each other immune from questioning in court. The state affords certain major benefits to those who purchase this license. But it has nothing to do with God. If the state wants to accord that to gays, or bestials, or whomever, that is their business. It is not "marriage", in the divine sense, no matter what the state calls it. And as far as the Church marriage goes - there is no such thing required by God. It is a tradition that arose among men. There is nothing wrong with the tradition, as such, but it became the earlier form of the marriage license back in earlier times. There were no states back then with staff to do this. But the Church handled family law, and charged fees, and ran the marriage courts. So, the usurping nature of the state in matters of marriage is merely the latter, secular-day evolution of the earlier usurpation of the Church in the same matter, for it was the Church that converted the religious celebration OF a marriage into an obligatory, fee-paid rite to CREATE a marriage. Christians have to shed the baggage of the secular state AND their own rotten religious tradition which pretends, without any authority from God, to make the Church the CREATOR of marriage. Neither the Church NOR the state are required, in any capacity, to form a true marriage. That is formed, in the only form that exists, between one man, one woman, and God. It is a three-way covenant, and there is no role for the clergy in it. It is a custom to include the clergy - a custom which became mandatory when the church became the state. That move was always illegitimate, and today we're bearing the bad fruit of it. Now, to this woman, and to many many Christians, she is suffering martyrdom for refusing to back down on a matter of religious principle. However, Christians need to understand that the principle on which this sacrifice is being made is merely the principle that an old Christian tradition - which is not commanded by God - is being supplanted by a new secular state tradition. No assault is being made on actual marriage itself, which can only be formed between a man, woman and God, and in the creation of which neither Church nor State have any role whatever, for God never gave one single role to any priest of Israel or Apostle of the Church to the creation of marriage. The only role Jesus himself performed at a marriage was to be a guest who performed a miracle there, with wine. Leviticus describes how to gut and skin and burn animal parts for myriad rituals, but there is no ritual of marriage in the Torah. Jewish marriage, also, is an entirely human tradition with no Scriptural basis. That's the truth. If Christians grasp the nettle of the truth, their faith will be purer, and the foolish, mad gyrations of secular society and church politics on the issue will be clearly seen to be as irrelevant and spiritually inconsequential as they in fact are. But that's hard learning. It's easier to just be pissed, on both sides, because one's tradition isn't being respected.
Marriage existed long before the birth of Christ. The Son of God was present at the first marriage. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It's not prosecution. It's being held in contempt. Legally a very different thing.
She could be re-elected even from jail. And if her stand is popular with the county, impeachment might not be a viable political option. And even in jail, she still has authority to run her office, and can still refuse to issue licenses. Will she pay a high price? Very possible. Will she win in the end? Probably not in the eyes of the world. Will she hold her head high, standing by her conscience? It seems yes, she will.
If I understand correctly, she is refusing to issue all marriage licenses, not just gay ones, so equal treatment is not an issue. If I understand the issues correctly.
The only thing she'd be jailed for is contempt. She is not in any danger of prosecution. No crimes are involved with contempt, as I understand the terms.
Yes they get paid, but removing an employee from service is absolutely not the same thing as removing an elected official.
Kim Davis - thrice divorced, is invoking "her" religious beliefs.... What would be the reaction if she were Muslim? What a circus. "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
Will she pay a high price? Very possible. Will she win in the end? Probably not in the eyes of the world. Will she hold her head high, standing by her conscience? It seems yes, she will. Perhaps. But the judge probably will not target her liberty only. He will start to fine her, and drain away her personal assets. Which means that when she leaves jail, she will be left homeless and destitute. Nobody takes on the federal government head to head, defies the federal courts, and wins. Nobody. Ever. The government can be defeated in court, but once the court decides, it enforces its will, and it never lets anybody get away with thwarting it. There was some guy in New York who sat in jail for, what was it?, 14 years, for contempt, without having ever been tried, because the judge jailed him for contempt until he complied with an order. This lady is taking a courageous stand, but she is quite doomed. She cannot win this fight - it's too public, against too strong a foe, who will be determined. And her position is not perfectly right. She's mixing religion and public office in a way that it does not HAVE to be mixed - meaning that Christians CAN see a way around this mess. I've already written about it. So it will come down to a test of power. On the one side there will be a determined federal government - in particular, a determined federal judiciary. There will be a lot of determined public support for the gays. On the other side will be a minority that backs her, including Christians who think there really is a way through this without the head on confrontation she has chosen. It reminds me of the choice many people are insisting upon: to fight the anchor baby phenomenon by simply disregarding the 14th Amendment and pretending it says what it does not say. That is bad ground. It's a battleground on which the fight cannot be won. This woman is fighting the secular state over the performance of secular duties in a secular job. She considers it to be a religious principle for which she is fighting, and many do, but all of the religious - myself included - do not agree that it really IS a religious principle. Marriage is not, in fact, something that requires the state or a church at all. So she is not going to get some sort of unified Christian backing...because when you get right down to it, she's wrong both legally and theologically. It is painful to see her destroy herself like this. She should resign. But if she will not, then she's going to be pounded to pieces by the law and made a terrible example of, and in the process, the weakness of the Christian response will demonstrate the real weakness of traditional Christianity in American government, and result in further losses. That may be salutary. Because of our own hypocrisy, we Christians lost control of the culture. We are not going to wrest back control by destroying ourselves trying to defend traditions, and traditions of control, that do not in fact have their roots in Biblical truth. We have got to turn our eyes to the actual LAW of God, and be CONSISTENT (for once) about insisting on all of that. And frankly, the law of God does not set well at all with American marriage traditions, or with American economic traditions, or with American traditions about law enforcement and punishment and trials, or with American traditions of military assertiveness. Our American traditions are at odds with what God said in the Bible in so very many ways, so we cannot, in fact, rely upon His aid in fighting battles for our traditions, because our traditions are, in fact, heavily adulterated with evil. We are finding ourselves now in a time of great sorting, and the Christians who deluded themselves into believing the America was some sort of "New Israel" with some sort of special relationship with God are going to find their traditional beliefs destroyed, because they are not true. America is nothing more than another Gentile state, so unimportant in God's eyes that it is never mentioned in any prophesy. It's been evil - in a Christian law sense - for its entire history, and it deserves the judgment it is getting. One cannot serve both America and Christ. Time was that Americans deceived themselves into believing they could, because it was easy then, there was fat in the land. But that was burnt up by immorality, including hard-minded and closed-minded Christian hypocrisy about money, peace and the fair treatment of others. A monstrously unfair and bloody state became powerful, but had no discipline, and is now decaying around us. To the extent that Christianity tied itself to it, Christianity must now dissociate itself from America, for America is proceeding with a will to formally dissociate itself from Christianity. Faced with the choice between Christ and God's law and America, Christians must scrape off America like shit off a boot and remain with God, or simply melt into the Gentiles and fade with the fading of this never-ever-truly-Christian nation. A Christian nation does not obtain its land through genocide. A Christian nation does not enslave a quarter of its population. A Christian nation does not impose racial apartheid. And all of that was during the period when America was overwhelmingly self- identifying as Christian. A Christian nation does not kill 2 million babies per year. Was America still "Christian" in 1973? A Christian nation does not engage in endless imperial wars. America has called itself a Christian nation, but that was an insult to Christ. It has NEVER been a Christian nation, at any point in its existence. It was a Gentile nation that, for most of its history, was populated by Christian hypocrites who trammeled on the most basic of God's laws in open, violent and horrific ways. Indeed, the nation itself was ACQUIRED by crimes against humanity and against God. We have a tradition of hypocritically CALLING OURSELVES a Christian nation, and then wrapping Christ in the American flag. But those days are done. Christians have always been divided, and Christian principles have never ruled. And today, the non-Christians are unwilling to even allow the symbols of Christianity to remain over the state. So this poor, deceived, deluded woman will stand for a principle regarding marriage licenses that, in fact, doesn't really have anything to do with God and his laws - which she and others have merely confused in their minds with God's law because of history and tradition. But in taking on the very real and very determined power of the US federal judiciary, she will be destroyed. And those who rally for her cause will see a stinging defeat. Unfortunately for her, those who rally to her cause will not, after she is stripped of everything, dig down into their own financial resources and the resources of their churches to buy her a replacement house for the one she loses when she fights this fight to the end and is left destitute. She will be a martyr for a cause that she and they imagine is Christian, but is really related to a national tradition, and when she is financially destroyed by it, the Christians will follow their national tradition of Christianity and not deplete their own wealth to reimburse her for having fought the fight. She will lose, and the sagging credibility of hypocritical Christianity will suffer a further devastating blow, because nobody else will be willing to stand up to the government on such principles again, seeing how this poor woman is wiped out. Really want to stand up for Christian truth? Then stop going to the state to get married. Marry by taking two to the Church and presenting yourselves, without a marriage license, to be blessed - and when the Church will not marry you because it does not have the sanctioned license of the state - see starkly that the Church is not in fact serving Christ and God, but is compromised by its traditions into serving the state instead of God. Shake the dust off your sandals and "shack up" in the eyes of the compromised "Christian" church and the state, be truly married, by lifelong fidelity and childrearing, without ever having the "approval" of a Church that ought to bless the marriage without respecting any state licensing "requirement". THAT is where the fight should be fought. The Churches - every Christian Church - should stand up and refuse to demand a marriage license for marriage, perform the marriage, issue the Church certificate, and leave the matter of civil marriage to the state. If the state wants to remove the tax immunity, let it. Christianity build massive real estate edifices which, to maintain, requires tax deductions which, in turn, require the Church to comply with state dictates that violate the Law of God. When people come to Church for the blessing of their marriage, no minister should ever be asking for a marriage license. They all do, because "The law" requires them to. THAT is where the Christian Churches should be fighting - by universal defiance of the marriage licensing laws: marriage is by God between two individuals, and Christian Churches have no right to allow the state to impose a payment and a licensing requirement. Civil marriage licensing is a choice - to obtain tax benefits. The Churches should all stand right there - universal Christian disobedience, at the institutional levels, of all state laws. The Vatican should order that. The Churches will not, because they are hypocritical Christians, and follow their traditions, which tie them - fatally - to the secular states. That is why the Christians Church, writ large, is dying out. What will remain is a remnant. If Christians want to make a statement, they should "shack up" in the eyes of the church, without a license, if no priest or minister will marry them. The Christian churches should be forced, by Christians, to break the law - universally - in order to uphold the law of God. THAT is where the test should be falling, on the instutional churches themselves, not on some poor woman in Tennessee taking a hopeless stand against the government, being destroyed, losing her property, and not being reimbursed her losses by the Christian churches for which she took the hopeless stand. Organized Chrisitianity, standing up en masse as Churches, COULD break the strangehold of the seculars. But the Churches are compromised. They would lose money and property, and you cannot serve both God and money. So they serve money. Which is why Christians should shack up in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of their churches, but be married in the eyes of God.
A man sat in a cell for 14 years for contempt. Another sat for 7. Without a trial, and without appeal. When in jail for contempt, you sit there until you submit to the judge's will and do exactly what he says. There is no trial. There is no trial clock. The judge has the authority to jail you, for life, without trial, and without process, until you comply with his order. He can also issue fines. And of course if you're sitting in jail and not working, your financial affairs go to ruin and you lose everything. That is not a taking. No individual is going to stand up to the federal judiciary and win on this battlefield.
Here in Washoe County, the county clerk's office handles just about all of the county's public records. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Them Catholics are always screwing things up aren't they??? Thanks for your post. I read enough of it to have a better understanding of your Christianity and your thoughts. I have been wondering about these things.
No she isn't. Someone should beat your fag relatives until they change their mi mind. You belong in a mental institution. Stay off threads where you have to spout faggot propaganda. You're acting like a pedophile trying to tell kids it is ok to be a faggot. Just because some relative of yours is a fag.
Yes ... she is. She is NOT acting as a church representative. She is acting as an official of the state.
This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it.
She could have made grievance to the county. BUTT NOOOOOO, she took the power of the state in her own hands acting as God's pre-eminent mouth piece.
Not really. Public officials have to swear an oath to obey the Constitution as well as the state and local laws. If anything,an elected official is under a bigger burden to obey the law than a mere employee. 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)
IMHO,this is one of the few things they did right. There was virtually no one else around that was literate and trustworthy enough to maintain marriage and birth records,and both helped to establish citizenship as well as settle inheritance claims. Thanks to the Catholic Church (and later the other ones) everybody understood who got what,and it probably saved a lot of lives. You can't have civilization without order,and marriage and birth certificates helped establish civilization. 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)
Really? I suppose you were there and copied the guest list? 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 not,but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be charged. 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)
These days it is safer and easier. 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)
One of us does. You ain't within email range of rational. BTW,I am sure it will please your Christian self to no end to know that my known homosexual relatives are now dead. 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 really looking forward to the day when one of your homosexual relatives runs up and sticks about a foot of wet tongue in your ear. My best bet is you would instantly drop a load. 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 that might happen. LOL!
It's like eating at Friendlys. Always a happy ending. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
And Obama won't secure the borders, but no one's dragging him in front of a court threatening contempt.
Comments (59 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#20. To: redleghunter (#1)
If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#22. To: Pinguinite (#4)
#23. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government...
#24. To: tpaine (#3)
#25. To: Pinguinite (#4)
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key.
#26. To: tpaine (#7)
#27. To: redleghunter (#9)
#28. To: tpaine (#17)
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#23)
#30. To: sneakypete (#21)
#31. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#27)
Blah,blah,blah,BullBush squared.
#32. To: tpaine (#8)
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
If she continues to defy the orders, she will spend more time in jail. Ultimately either her term will expire or she will be removed by the legislative or executive action of some higher authority in her state.
#34. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government that is tasked with the OBLIGATION to treat all citizens equally IS tasked with doing exactly that.
#35. To: sneakypete (#22)
She is committing no crime.
Of course she is. She is not only discriminating against a group of American citizens,she is also violating her oath to serve the public interest as well as denying them their freedom of association.
#36. To: sneakypete (#26)
Elected officials get paid by the state,have state retirement plans,and swear to obey all the laws of the state.
#37. To: cranky (#0)
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority"
#38. To: Pinguinite (#33)
(Edited)
She could be re-elected even from jail. And if her stand is popular with the county, impeachment might not be a viable political option. And even in jail, she still has authority to run her office, and can still refuse to issue licenses.
#39. To: Pinguinite (#35)
The only thing she'd be jailed for is contempt.
#40. To: redleghunter (#1)
If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses.
#41. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#38)
America has called itself a Christian nation, but that was an insult to Christ. It has NEVER been a Christian nation, at any point in its existence. It was a Gentile nation that, for most of its history, was populated by Christian hypocrites who trammeled on the most basic of God's laws in open, violent and horrific ways. Indeed, the nation itself was ACQUIRED by crimes against humanity and against God.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
#43. To: sneakypete (#22)
Of course she is.
#44. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#43)
No she isn't.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)
#46. To: Fred Mertz (#45)
#47. To: Fred Mertz (#23)
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
There is nothing wrong with the tradition, as such, but it became the earlier form of the marriage license back in earlier times. There were no states back then with staff to do this. But the Church handled family law, and charged fees, and ran the marriage courts.
#49. To: redleghunter (#31)
The Son of God was present at the first marriage.
#50. To: Pinguinite (#34)
#51. To: Pinguinite (#35)
She is not in any danger of prosecution.
#52. To: Pinguinite (#36)
Yes they get paid, but removing an employee from service is absolutely not the same thing as removing an elected official.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#43)
(Edited)
No she isn't. Someone should beat your fag relatives until they change their mi mind. You belong in a mental institution.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#43)
You're acting like a pedophile trying to tell kids it is ok to be a faggot. Just because some relative of yours is a fag.
#55. To: sneakypete (#54)
#56. To: buckeroo (#44)
(Edited)
#57. To: sneakypete (#53)
BTW,I am sure it will please your Christian self to no end to know that my known homosexual relatives are now dead.
#58. To: sneakypete (#50)
Not that it really changes the basic claim that she is refusing to do her duty as a public official.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]