United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kim Davis, Prisoner of Conscience: RELEASED!
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... isoner-or-conscience-released/
Published: Sep 8, 2015
Author: Austin Ruse
Post Date: 2015-09-08 15:07:08 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 25945
Comments: 191
Judge David Bunning jailed Davis last Thursday after she repeatedly refused to grant any marriage licenses from her office as long as they had to include same-sex couples. Davis cited her religious beliefs in refusing to issue the licenses, even though the Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage on the country last June 26. In his order issued today Bunning said, “Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.” Bunning says he is satisfied that Davis’s staff has so far adhered to his order to issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants. He has ordered that Davis’s office report to him every 14 days to demonstrate that the office is continuing to follow the order to grant licenses to same-sex couples. He notes that the reports so far have shown the Office of County Clerk of Rowan County no longer puts Davis’s name on marriage liceneses but instead uses “Rowan County” where her name is supposed to go. Davis’s attorney Matthew Staver of Liberty Cousel issued the following statement: “We are pleased that Kim Davis has been ordered released. She can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell, where she was incarcerated like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions. She is now free to return to her family, her coworkers and the office where she has faithfully served for the past 27 years. We will continue to assist Kim and pursue the multiple appeals she has filed.” There is no word on whether Davis intends to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses in her office in defiance of the court order. 
After five days in jail, Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis is being freed by the judge who put her there.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-123) not displayed.
.
.
.
#124. To: nolu chan (#123)
Of course. That doesn't answer what to do since they did go there.
Kim Davis's job as a county official is to issue marriage licenses under the authority of the state. She can reject them if they are not qualified. She is not free to stop issuing licenses completely because she has a religious objection. No, nothing remains definitive in this case; Especially the extent and definition of Davis' obligations, duties, job description, or authority. You may perceive this case as simply a black and white matter of authority and obligation over issuance of marriage licenses (based on religious belief or otherwise.) However, it's clearly and obviously not. This case (and Kim Davis in particular) has become the match that's exposed the fedgoob and its judges as interpreting and shading the law as advocates of "social justice" and "gay" rights. It's also exposed just how our subversive fedgoob uses the judiciary as a sledgehammer to usurp the authority of States' Rights as well as We The People -- while steamrolling an agenda. This as they target Christians and conservatives, violating their 1A and 14A rights. Furthermore, this l'il ol' case has presented a spectrum of conundrum of technicalities for state and Fed gubmint authoritahs. The judiciary -- a tool of rampant fascist statism and "social justice" -- has been too busy punishing its "enemies" to pay attention to pesky protocol.
I wonder how many sought out damages from the school district. Yep, Bunning is on a sodomite Jihad against Christians. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
I suspect that before this is over, they will regret that they ever opened up this can of worms. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Yet it is my understanding that he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Great job boiling that down. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
You act like this suddenly happened but it has been moving steadily this way for the last few decades. And you think there is some great Silent Majority out there that is finally ready to rise up to defend their liberties? When you hear from them, let me know.
Does not surprise me. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
You guys haven't heard of Jim Bunning? He's one of a handful of famous athletes that went into politics.
That would be Senator Bunning. Not Justice David L. Bunning. Senator Bunning understands in the game of life there are pitchers and catchers.
quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
The have not figured out what to do with Roe yet. When SCOTUS short-circuits the political process, we get dissent. Justice Thomas explicitly forecast what would happen in his dissenting opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf [All Obergefell opinions at link.] Obergefell, THOMAS, J., dissenting at 2-3: Id. at 7: Id. at 9: Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of "liberty," that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. Id. at 10: Id. at 13: Id. at 15-16: The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation's tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for "religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice. Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court's constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. IV Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the "dignity" of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no "dignity" Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate.
I don't see that these arguments by Clarence Thomas moved any votes on the Court. The majority on the Court were unimpressed.
Yes, I have. Former Senator from Ky, and before that had been a US Representative from Ky. A conservative. He was also a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, and the Philadelphia Phillies. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Canada Free Press is notoriously unreliable on legal matters. Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky, KYED (17 Feb 2006), BUNNING, District Judge - - - - - https://casetext.com/case/morrison-v-board-of-educ Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494, (6th Cir., 2007). Before: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; ADAMS. District Judge.The Honorable John R. Adams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ADAMS, D.J., joined. COOK, J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion. The Morrison decision of 2007 lasted until 2008 when it was reversed at a rehearing. - - - - - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0146a-06.pdf Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 521 F. 3d 602, (6th Cir., 9 Apr 2008), COOK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ADAMS, D. J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 9-21), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. In this appeal, Timothy Morrison (“Morrison”) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Morrison is a student at Boyd County High School (“BCHS”). He is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. He further believes that part of his responsibility as a Christian is to tell others when their conduct does not comport with his understanding of Christian morality. During the 2004–05 academic year, BCHS had a written policy prohibiting students from making stigmatizing or insulting comments regarding another student’s sexual orientation. Wary of potential punishment, Morrison remained silent with respect to his personal beliefs, but challenged in federal court the Board’s right to stifle his speech. After Morrison filed this lawsuit, the Board changed the BCHS policy, but Morrison’s litigation did not end. We must now decide whether Morrison’s claim for nominal damages premised upon a “chill” on his speech during the 2004–05 school year presents a justiciable controversy. We conclude that it does not, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board. - - - - -
The majority in Plessy was unimpressed by the dissent. The majority is never impressed with the dissent. When SCOTUS wades into the deep waters and short circuits the political process, dissent follows. Dissent is still following Roe v. Wade. A Court decision on a moral issue does not change people's morals. When nearly two-thirds of the states were overruled by a court on shaky ground and fuzzy logic, dissent and resistance is inevitable, as Justice Thomas predicted. Nobody can contest that his prediction was correct.
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
Yes, George III thought so too. He didn't know SCOTUS from a hole in the wall. But I guess there are those who think it will be useful to ask SCOTUS to rule again on gay marriages. They could use their time more productively by doing something like......oh, I don't know.......shoveling sand against the tide. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We have been done this road before. The Consitution started to get bent almost from Day 1 of Washington's administration. It was broken big time during Adam's administration and again by Jefferson. I will say this again and again and again, the only rights that one has are those that one can and will defend. We The People have allowed this to happen. We The People continue to elect the same Constitution muggers over and over and over again. And when We The People gets it in the ass, We The People squeal "Thank you ,sir. May I have another." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I'm 5/9ths certain that it did.
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
I'm 5/9ths certain that it did. Can you provide the textual change to the Constitution?
The biggest muggers of the Constitution get to be national heroes.
What I'd like to see in similar cases would depend on the details. In Davis' case, and those exactly or substantially similar, I'd like to see her serve some more jail time if she interfers with the Deputies issuing the licenses. If she merely returns to her office without asking for more "accomodations" and without challenging the validity of those licenses issued by the Deputies then I'd like to see her live out the rest of her life as a good, dutiful, faithful Christian. But my life experiences tell me that people that seek public office are rarely a good, dutiful, faithful Christian or earnest practicioner of any self-professed religion. Atheists may be true believers and act as such in bith their public and private life but I would not knowingly vote for an atheist. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thanks to We The People. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Name one.
Why is no senior authority in the STATE held responsible? When she was in jail for contempt, why was the STATE not ordered to cure the problem? Is nobody in the state responsible to do something about the problem? How about the governor? If the Federal court was going to act, why did it not act to levy a fine against the STATE until the STATE cured the problem. A very large and progressively larger fine until the governor got off his ass and acted. The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so.
Gee, only one. Abraham Lincoln.
Another Republican is GWBush. But, that startling FACT won't surprize you, will it?
Many of the legal arguments for the acts of GWBush were originated by the Lincoln administration.
You might say, it is in the veins of Republicans and their respective representative bloodlines. Now, a new monster rises: Jeb!
Wipe your chin... someone left some democrat on it. There must be a forum a little more left than this one that would suit your ideals better. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Well, it is true that it is not all the Republicans fault. But, then again, we have TRUMP!, don't we?
Say that about 5,000 more times on LF, JUST TO BE FUCKING FAIR... then maybe, just maybe I'll consider you a fed up non-libtard, fed up with BOTH parties that ran up 18 trillion in debt. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
ROTFL! You didn't catch the TRUMP! card that I mentioned. Here let me explain my perspective s-l-o-w-l-y: TRUMP! epitomizes a Democrat; in fact, he WAS a registered Democrat. See ... fair and balanced reporting ... brought by buckeroo.
She deserved a chance for redemption on her own - she didn't repent:) Besides the suit was filed in Federal court not the State court. I do not recall that anyone, including Davis, asked the State to intervene once the suit was filed or even before. It was only after her ass was put in jail did Davis ask the State for an accomidation - which she received pretty quickly. Further, the Governor did state that the licenses issued by the Deputies are valid. Had he not done so I doubt that she would have gotten out of jail. So if Davis continues her antics and attempts to interfere with the issuing of the licenses in any way I hope that she goes directly back to jail and takes Huckabee with her. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Trump, if you would stand still long enough, would jam an illegal all the way up your Commie Sanders loving ass... he'll step all over the lazy welfare... and Commie Sanders ain't gonna do either. And that's why all you democrats are shitting your adult diapers... because you hate the rich, love the illegals and you love the lazy poor. So suck that forked tongue back in your closet libtard mouth. Your nose is growing. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I take it you "do not recall" because you never made the effort to find out in the first place. All your contentions are inaccurate except that the suit was filed in Federal court -- against Kim Davis. Actually, it starts with Obergefell and Governor Beshear's letter of 26 June 2015 to Kentucky County Clerks, the April Miller et al lawsuit filed 2 July 2015, followed by the Kim Davis' letter of 8 July 2015 to Governor Beshear. There was also Davis' request for reasonable accomodation to Judge Bunning. To be sure, County Clerk Kimberly Davis notified Governor Beshear that the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses by her office was contrary to her deeply held religious beliefs. Governor Beshear had a duty to make some provision for the issuance of marriage certificates in Rowan County, Kentucky in the very foreseeable event that the office of Kim Davis would not issue them. Even when the office stopped issuing marriage licenses, it appears that Governor Beshear did nothing and waited for a Federal judge to do his job for him. Governor Beshear could have called the legislators into session. He did not. As accomodation, the law could have been tweaked to permit the County Judge to issue such licenses as the religious convictions of Kim Davis did not permit. If one is to presume that the Deputy Clerks can lawfully issue licenses on the say so of a Federal judge, then it would seem they could do so on the say so of a Governor as an emergency measure until the legislature could change the law or impeach and remove Kim Davis, and she could be replaced. It is not the duty of Federal courts to do the Governor's job for him. He did nothing to provide for the issuance of licenses, even when the clerk's office stopped issuing them. He did nothing when the County Clerk was in jail. He sat on his ass and waited for the Federal judge to do his dirty work for him. Governor Beshear letter of 26 June 2015 to County Clerks: Steven L. Beshear June 26, 2015 Dear Kentucky County Clerks: Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision regarding the constitutionality of states' bans on same-sex marriage. The Court struck down those laws, finding that they were invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky - and all states - must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act. Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use. You should consult with your county attorney on any particular aspects related to the implementation of the Supreme Court's decision. While there are certainly strongly held views on both sides of this issue, I know that Kentuckians are law-abiding people and will respect the rule of law. After all, the things that unite us as a people are much stronger than the things that divide us. Thank you in advance for the valuable services you continue to render to the people of the Commonwealth. Sincerely, Steven L. Beshear The litigation began in District Court on 2 July 2015 as: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/kentucky/kyedce/0:2015cv00044/78171 Case Number: 0:2015cv00044 Filed: July 2, 2015 Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court Office: Ashland Office County: Rowan Presiding Judge: David L. Bunning Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights Cause of Action: 42:1983 Jury Demanded By: Both Kim Davis' letter of 8 July 2015 to Governor Beshear: 600 West Main Street July 8, 2015 The Honorable Governor Steve Beshear The recent Obergefell decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has not only impacted Kentucky's same sex marriage ban, but has put numerous County Clerks' moral and religious beliefs at odds with their current required duties. Many Clerks firmly believe that forcing County Clerk offices to issue same-sex marriage licenses when it is against their deeply held religious beliefs and traditions is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution s First Amendment This dramatic and sudden change has caused some Clerks to go as far as to halt issuing marriage licenses to anyone rather than compromise their deeply held religious convictions. This position has ignited litigation and it is foreseeable that it may invite more lawsuits. It appears the only timely and reasonable solution to this conflict is a legislative one. So for that reason, I respectfully request that you immediately call an extraordinary session of the General Assembly to address the issues that have been caused in this transition from traditional marriage being re-defined to include same-sex couples. Legislators and Clerks of many political stripes working alongside other third parties have been drafting commonsense legislation that would modify Kentucky's marriage laws to satisfy the concerns of the majority of Clerks, while still abiding by the Obergefell ruling. It is my belief that our proposal could be passed by the General Assembly in an expedited timeframe of the absolute minimum of five days. The potential cost to calling a special session is easily justified by the alleviation of future potential lawsuits and relieving the concerns of many County Clerics who serve their local communities. I ask that you not just consider the current litigation, but what litigation could be invited after the 2018 County Clerk elections are concluded, if the status quo is to remain in place. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Davis "Thank you for the opportunity to serve Rowan County" 12 August 2015, Judge Bunning MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, page 13: This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unable to do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties. Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.
The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so. I think the KY legislature is recessed for the season. I don't see what the governor could do. He probably lacks statutory authority to act. Maybe the AG, a Dem named Conway, could have acted, probably only to remove her from office. This seems the only legal remedy immediately available. A malfeasance charge of some kind would be the likely result. Conway has ambitions, perhaps to run against Rand Paul again, so maybe he would not want to prosecute Davis, a fellow Dem. KY is a state with 57% Dems, 37% GOPs as I recall. Depending on KY laws, the KY SoS might have had some limited authority to act. When the Court struck down miscegenation laws, there was a similar opposition in a lot of states but I don't know if any county clerks in the South refused to issue licenses.
I hadn't read that. We really don't have much reporting on the governor, AG, SoS and any statements they have made. They're all Dems, I think. I had assumed they all want to stay away from it.
This dramatic and sudden change has caused some Clerks to go as far as to halt issuing marriage licenses to anyone rather than compromise their deeply held religious convictions. This position has ignited litigation and it is foreseeable that it may invite more lawsuits. It sounds like Davis thought she wouldn't be alone in opposing. I don't recall other clerks ceasing to issue marriage licenses as Davis did. But she thought there would be others apparently. Bunning could have jailed her until she complied or resigned. This would make her office legally vacant which would have allowed Judge Blevins to issue licenses. Alternatively, another deputy clerk, the senior or most qualified in the office, would become interim acting clerk. This would be harsher because it might lead to Davis sitting in jail for months and losing her office and income.
I notice DailyMail has an extensive article on Davis and her husbands, the twins and two older daughters from the first husband. Also, photos of her 4 marriage licenses which do give a bit more detail on what a KY license/certificate looks like, e.g. the blank for the clerk's name and the blank for the deputy clerk's name and written initial which tells us more about how these deputy clerks are signing these licenses now.
Comments (165 - 191) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest My ideal outcome would be the U.S. Supreme Court not going where it does not belong.
#125. To: TooConservative, Nolu Chan (#111)
(Edited)
It remains:
#126. To: Liberator (#107)
Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
#127. To: Liberator (#125)
" state and Fed gubmint authoritahs "
#128. To: redleghunter (#126)
" Bunning is on a sodomite Jihad against Christians. "
#129. To: nolu chan, liberator (#112)
At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party’s rights. You would like it to be a case of discrimination. That would be so much easier to argue. It is no accident that it isn't.
#130. To: Liberator (#125)
This case (and Kim Davis in particular) has become the match that's exposed the fedgoob and its judges as interpreting and shading the law as advocates of "social justice" and "gay" rights.
It's also exposed just how our subversive fedgoob uses the judiciary as a sledgehammer to usurp the authority of States' Rights as well as We The People -- while steamrolling an agenda. This as they target Christians and conservatives, violating their 1A and 14A rights.
#131. To: Stoner (#128)
Yet it is my understanding that he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative.
#132. To: Stoner, redleghunter (#128)
...he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative.
#133. To: TooConservative (#132)
(Edited)
#134. To: TooConservative (#124)
Of course. That doesn't answer what to do since they did go there.
By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue "beyond the reach of the normal democratic process." Brief for Petitioners in No. 14-562, p. 54. But the result petitioners seek is far less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a "bare majority" of this Court, ante, at 25, is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only "due process" is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process.
Even assuming that the "liberty" in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
Whether we define "liberty" as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it.
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of "liberty," they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State's imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of "liberty" that the Framers would have recognized.
In a concession to petitioners' misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners' suit as a quest to "find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex." Ante, at 2. But "liberty" is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment. The majority's "better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define . . . liberty," ante, at 19,—better informed, we must assume, than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our Constitution is a "collection of 'Thou shalt nots,'" Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not "Thou shalt provides."
Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will "have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty." Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
#135. To: nolu chan (#134)
#136. To: TooConservative (#132)
" You guys haven't heard of Jim Bunning? "
#137. To: Liberator, TooConservative, Pinguinite, redleghunter, stoner, A K A Stone (#107)
Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the “Board”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to reconsider our previous holding, and as a result we vacate and amend Sections III and IV of the prior opinion. We now affirm the district court’s decision and set forth our opinion, as amended, below.
#138. To: TooConservative (#135)
I don't see that these arguments by Clarence Thomas moved any votes on the Court.
#139. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#130)
You act like this suddenly happened but it has been moving steadily this way for the last few decades.
#140. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator (#95)
guess SCOTUS makes that call doesn't it?
#141. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, Liberator (#139)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#142. To: nolu chan (#139)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#143. To: SOSO (#140)
But I guess there are those who think it will be useful to ask SCOTUS to rule again on gay marriages. They could use their time more productively by doing something like......oh, I don't know.......shoveling sand against the tide.
#144. To: TooConservative (#142)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#145. To: SOSO (#141)
#146. To: TooConservative (#143)
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
#147. To: nolu chan (#145)
The biggest muggers of the Constitution get to be national heroes.
#148. To: nolu chan (#145)
#149. To: TooConservative, SOSO (#143)
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
#150. To: buckeroo (#148)
Name one.
#151. To: nolu chan (#150)
Gee, only one. Abraham Lincoln.
#152. To: buckeroo (#151)
Another Republican is GWBush. But, that startling FACT won't surprize you, will it?
#153. To: nolu chan (#152)
#154. To: buckeroo (#153)
it is in the veins of Republicans and their respective representative bloodlines
#155. To: GrandIsland (#154)
(Edited)
#156. To: buckeroo (#155)
Well, it is true that it is not all the Republicans fault.
#157. To: GrandIsland (#156)
(Edited)
Say that about 5,000 more times on LF, JUST TO BE FUCKING FAIR... then maybe, just maybe I'll consider you a fed up non-libtard, fed up with BOTH parties that ran up 18 trillion in debt.
#158. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#149)
The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so.
#159. To: buckeroo (#157)
(Edited)
TRUMP! epitomizes a Democrat
#160. To: SOSO (#158)
She deserved a chance for redemption on her own - she didn't repent:) Besides the suit was filed in Federal court not the State court. I do not recall that anyone, including Davis, asked the State to intervene once the suit was filed or even before. It was only after her ass was put in jail did Davis ask the State for an accomidation - which she received pretty quickly.
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Office: of the Governor
700 Capitol Avenue
Suite 100
Frankfort. KY 4060) April Miller, Karen Ann Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, L. Aaron Skaggs and Barry W. Spartman, PLAINTIFFS
v.
Kim Davis and Rowan County, Kentucky, DEFENDANTS Kim Davis
Rowan County Clerk
Room 102
Morehead, KY 40351
700 Capitol Avenue Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601 However, Davis asks the Court to deem her “absent,” for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.
#161. To: nolu chan, SOSO (#149)
Why is no senior authority in the STATE held responsible? When she was in jail for contempt, why was the STATE not ordered to cure the problem? Is nobody in the state responsible to do something about the problem? How about the governor? If the Federal court was going to act, why did it not act to levy a fine against the STATE until the STATE cured the problem. A very large and progressively larger fine until the governor got off his ass and acted.
#162. To: SOSO (#158)
Further, the Governor did state that the licenses issued by the Deputies are valid.
#163. To: nolu chan (#160)
Davis: The recent Obergefell decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has not only impacted Kentucky's same sex marriage ban, but has put numerous County Clerks' moral and religious beliefs at odds with their current required duties. Many Clerks firmly believe that forcing County Clerk offices to issue same-sex marriage licenses when it is against their deeply held religious beliefs and traditions is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution s First Amendment
Bunning: However, Davis asks the Court to deem her “absent,” for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.
This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office.
#164. To: SOSO, nolu chan, sneakypete, Liberator, redleghunter (#158)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]