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: 25946
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 (1-61) not displayed.
.
.
.
#62. To: nolu chan (#59)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence. Assistant and deputy clerks all over the country do official clerk business when the clerk isn't in the office. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Are you saying nolu is wrong on his technicality angle? Say it ain't so.
Just between me and you, sometymes chan gets caught up in a comma or two without realizing that appropriate designated delegates fulfil the role & responsibilities of a given government office in their absence. You are correct, GI.
He does not want that because it would be his admission that no licenses would issue, and he would be embarrassed. He ordered the clerks to issue licenses, They followed his order and issued licenses without fraudulently asserting a grant of authority of Kim Davis that they knew they did not have. Both sides are playing a legal game. It's going on elsewhere as well. Judges are making some obstinate decisions and they are not in jail. SCOTUS invited this stuff. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-judge-gay-marriages_55e9e757e4b03784e275d182 The judge says marrying gay couples would violate his religious freedom. Mollie Reilly http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/allen-mcconnell-toledo-refuses-gay-marriage By Katherine Krueger An Ohio judge refused to conduct a same-sex marriage in his court this week, the latest instance of local officials refusing marriages on religious grounds in the weeks after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell, who was in the midst of a three-week stint performing civil ceremonies, refused to marry Carolyn Wilson and her partner on Monday. “I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” McConnell said in a statement. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.” Jeffrey Atherton says US supreme court has deemed Tennesseans ‘incompetent to define’ marriage as attorney accuses him of ‘unnecessary grandstanding’ A Tennessee judge has denied a divorce petition because of the US supreme court decision allowing gay marriage, leaving a couple married against their wishes. Hamilton County chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the couple’s divorce petition last week, claiming the national marriage equality ruling had marred Tennessee’s ability to determine what constitutes divorce. Atherton’s reasoning to deny the petition was that the supreme court had not clarified “when a marriage is no longer a marriage”, the Times Free Press reported. “With the US Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the US Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage,” Atherton wrote in the order. “The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the US Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,” Atherton wrote.
No, your fascist fantasy will NOT come true, statist freak. David Barton (Wall Builders): By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything. Significantly, the Founders -- and thus the Constitution -- did not give power to the Judiciary to enforce any of its decisions -- they deliberately made it powerless in this regards. They made the Executive Branch alone responsible for enforcement. So while Judge Bunning can (and did) issue his personal opinion regarding Kim Davis, his personal opinion does not have the force of law. (By the way, check any civics book: a law must originate as a measure proposed in the House or Senate, be passed by both, and then signed by the president. Only then and by this means does anything become law.) Bunning must thus ask (not order) the Executive Branch to enforce his opinion, and if it agrees, it can order its marshals to do so, but the Judicial Branch may order no such thing. Sadly, not only did the Judicial Branch first take on itself the role of the Legislative Branch by issuing its ruling in the homosexual-marriage decision, but now it has assumed the role of the Executive Branch by attempting to enforce its own opinion. The Founding Fathers vehemently objected to this practice. As George Washington warned: "[T]hose entrusted with its [the nation’s] administration [must] confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism." James Madison similarly charged: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves." Samuel Adams agreed: "In all good governments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are confined within the limits of their respective departments. If therefore it should be found that . . . either of the departments aforesaid should interfere with another, it will, if continued, essentially alter the Constitution, and may, in time, . . . be productive of such convulsions as may shake the political ground upon which we now happily stand." Thomas Jefferson thus admonished that we must "cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [i.e., the Constitution] has established" and that if we ever move away from its separation of powers that "we shall be in danger of foundering." Perhaps political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu -- a favorite of the Founders, and the most-cited human source in the political writings of the Founding Era -- said it best when he declared: "There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." So while the Kim Davis travesty continues, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the entire controversy is that Judge Bunning personally ordered her to jail, thus blatantly violating one of the Constitution's most important provisions for securing the liberty of the entire people". The over-official Judge Bunning: NOT the "King" of any part of KY. Perhaps just a Princess. He just blinked for good reason. OR several.
And you were a cop with a badge and a gun. And if you were told to hand over your badge and gun by a senior police official, you were no longer authorized to carry them. The deputies can be stripped of their authority at will by the elected official. When Kim Davis decided that there would be no licenses issued under her authority, the deputies lost their authority to issue licenses.
On the surface your suggestion seems an easy solution, but at the same time suggests surrendering the language, Webster's Dictionary, and Nature to a bunch of anarchists, freaks, and fascists.
Who cares? Davis is free to stop you from marrying yukon and that is all I really care about. I can't take any liberator clones mixed with yukon. It could cause a lot of problems for LF.
Apparently homofascists, Christians, and the sane. On whose side are you coming down on? Davis is free to stop you from marrying yukon and that is all I really care about. I can't take any liberator clones mixed with yukon. It could cause a lot of problems for LF. Gimme time to absorb that scenario....and write a script for a New Twilight's Zone episode.
Davis has the smallest background in the Universe to suggest that she "speaks for the Lord." So, my take isn't for her side.
You are correct, GI. Absolutely not. The instant Kim Davis advised the deputies that no licenses could be issued by her authority, they had no authority to issue any license, and they ceased issuing all licenses until the Federal judge gave a contrary order, and then expressed their doubts that it was legal. Any authority of the deputies must be granted by Kim Davis. It is blatant and notorious that she ordered them to cease issuing licenses.
She became a Believer 4 years ago according to sources, so why can't she "speak for the Lord"? She's taking more of a stand than lifetime "Christians" and some Pastors. AND...she's taking a stand against goob fascism and homo-fascism so you ought to laud her efforts.
You don't understand, Nolu; Feral Judges wear CROWNS and sit in THRONES!
Would the author claim that all ordered jailings for contempt breach the separation of powers? By what authority does any judge order anyone jailed for contempt? I do feel like there is a breach of separation of powers here, by way of attempting to force an elected official (exec branch) to proactively do things related to the office, but not related to the judge ordering federal marshals to jail her.
To agree to let the other clerks issue licenses under her grant of authority to do so. Why doesn't the judge order the State/Governor to take action to have marriage licenses issued in that county? The judge's biggest problem is that he does not have a case of discrimination before him.
Don't forget the robes, and maybe they can bring back whigs.
I reckon he's focused only on this case. By what authority does any judge order anyone jailed for contempt? Good question. Does this specific case open up a retroactive can o' worms for over-officious judges who've ignore proper protocol? Hmmm... I do feel like there is a breach of separation of powers here, by way of attempting to force an elected official (exec branch) to proactively do things related to the office, but not related to the judge ordering federal marshals to jail her. Agree. This situation appears to indeed challenge and/or usurp what is a separation of powers for good reason. Bunning yielded, knowing full well the word had already come down: The deck was stacked against him and he word be reprimanded AND embarrassed. The homo-fascist Fatwa would also face a set back. So...Even incompetent judges whose daddies were Senators are not above the lawful application of protocols.
HEH! The long flowing robes and powdered wigs -- the best part! And maybe even a sledgehammer instead of a gavel.
Only by the narrowest possible reading of Kentucky law. Judges can be more expansive in applying the law, in this case, a fundamental right to marry. He had to have ordered it. Or perhaps the attorney general of KY, a Dem named Conway who was defeated by Rand Paul in his 2010 Senate race. A key issue: standing. Can you name a single party that any state or federal court would grant standing to? I can't think of one. Not the people applying for marriage licenses or rejected (they can just go to the next county). Not those who got married and later want a court to annul their marriage so they don't have to get a divorce, not the attorney general of the state, KY's state or federal legislators, etc. In fact, I don't think the federal courts, and certainly not the Supremes, would ever grant anyone standing to challenge the validity of licenses issued in the name of Rowan County, Kentucky instead of the name Kim Davis. Who can demonstrate they have been harmed by the lack of Kim Davis' name on their marriage license? I think anyone trying to challenge would get punished by being drawn into a long and expensive series of legal roadblocks. And get nowhere with their effort. nolu does have a point as far as reading the statutes of Kentucky. But the rights of the Supreme Clerk of Kentucky is never going to outweigh the newly established right to marry from the Supreme Court. And the courts don't have to rewrite all those statutes. Bunning just jumped to the desired outcome and imposed it while warning Davis from trying to use her office to deny anyone their fundamental right to marry.
I think Judge Bunning overreached and reconsidered what he was doing. Don't be silly. Sodomy marriage was imposed, ultimately, as a result of the Supremes declaring a fundamental right to marry and that states that did not recognize sodomy marriage must comply under the full faith and credit clause, namely, that states recognize each other's marriages (and other legal instruments) as valid. On that basis, Kentucky's marriage laws were altered, just as the Court struck down Kentucky's miscegenation laws that dated back to the 18th century. If you get married in Kentucky and divorce (or receive benefits or rights) in another state, it is the state of Kentucky whose marriage authority is involved, not the Supreme Clerk of Rowan County (who may have left office or died in the meantime). But Kim Davis is the one who is withholding benefits (fundamental right to marry) from Teh Gays and even from the normal couples that she had been issuing licenses to for years, in the thousands. This actually compounds her offenses with the courts in that she is depriving all persons of a right to marry including those she had never had a problem issuing licenses to previously. It is refusing to issue to the straights that is most likely to really hang her. You are insisting that Kim Davis has a right to refuse marriage licenses on any religious whim. What if she doesn't like race mixing? Or Asians? Or Catholics? Will those be the next excuse she uses to refuse to do her job and issue licenses? At some point, she'll lose her office and, likely, be required to pay back her salary for having refused to perform her job. And possibly serve time in prison. I know people don't like to be reminded of other similar "heroic stands" but how well did this work out for a Lt. Col. Lakin, a military doctor, when he refused to deploy after receiving orders from his superiors because he wanted to challenge Oblowme's birth certificate? ABC: 'Birther' Dismissed from Army for Refusing Deployment, Sentenced to Six Months in Prison I suppose this current outbreak of obstinate and pointless dumbassery will continue with all the True Believers ready to do-or-die for the Supreme Clerk of Rowan County until the hammer falls on her. Then, just as with Lakin, they will all disappear as soon as anyone mentions that person they egged into ruining their lives in a pointless quest to frustrate the federal leviathan. Because that is certainly what happened to Lakin when he tried to refuse lawful orders from his superiors because he wanted to challenge Obama's BC. And that is likely to happen in short order to Kim Davis.
I think Bunning will return to deny them standing to invalidate those marriages in any such attempt. And just who do you think will try to stop him? Name these parties who will be granted standing by Bunning, the Sixth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. You're beating a dead horse.
What? Doesn't all county business slam to an abrupt halt if any county clerk goes on vacation or misses work for a sick day. Or, God forbid, if a county clerk should die, then no taxes can be collected, marriage licenses issued, etc. until they elect a new one? It's like arguing that all law enforcement must stop because the chief of police is out with the flu. You realize you're arguing with dumbasses. Of course the clerks and treasurers have deputies. They are required to be trained to exercise the duties of the office by the actual elected clerk. There are some certification procedures that only an elected clerk (or officially designated acting clerk) can perform and normally issuing a marriage license falls into that category. But it doesn't have to.
I don't consider the clear requirement that it bear the signature of the elected county clerk to be the "narrowest possible reading" of the law. What I meant was he ordered the office to issue licenses, but did he order any particular signature to appear on it? I don't think so. This is true. In order to have standing, the gay or other couples would have to present the licenses they have to appropriate parties for specific legal purposes, and have those parties refuse to recognize them because they do not have the sig of Davis on them. This could be a hospital looking for medical POA or financial institutions doing the same, which may not happen for another 50 years. And given the publicity and fear of incarceration as Davis received, most people in key positions are less likely to refuse to honer them. So... end result is, as is often the case in the heavily bureaucratic USA, the licenses are, in fact, technically invalid, but since everyone honers them, they are de facto valid.
You're always thinking of others. ; )
As an elected official, she should have the exclusive power to decide whether to issue licenses or not issue them. Since she's not issued them to anyone, it's not legally defined as discrimination. As such, the judiciary has extended it's power into the executive realm by ordering and elected officer to perform certain duties, which I feel is a violation of separation of powers. The proper remedy, if the conduct of Davis should be found lacking, is her being voted out of office or impeached according to KY constitutional law. That's simply the right way to do it. Sure it will take months or years, but that is the legal remedy, if one is to be had, that I see. And if KY is happy with her stand and wants her to continue, then the matter is settled.
It's a safe bet that she's not granted any such authority. Davis is simply supposed to stay out of the way and forget about the fact that she is an elected officer of her county. The clerks are simply acting on their own under direction from a federal judge, apparently realizing they cannot act on the authority of Davis, which is why the licenses are illegitimately signed as they are. Whether these deputies realize they are illegitimate or not, or whether they even care apparently does not sway them. Like so many Americans, they are simply doing what they are told, trusting the system.
Well, when the Supreme Court grants an anonymous poster at LF standing to challenge their rulings, you'll surely win. But you do have the same standing to challenge as Kim Davis does. Namely, none. He ordered it or he worked something out in consultation with the KY AG or SoS. I expect it was Bunning acting alone after some consultation. Exactly so. Even if a public official is later discovered to have held the office illegally, for instance Kim Davis was an illegal alien who served for decades as a county clerk. I don't believe her official acts would ever be invalidated and the marriage licenses annulled as a result of Kim being an illegal alien and unqualified for the office. In the end, the licenses are issued under the authority of Rowan County's clerk and recorded by the clerk (or deputy), not the personal authority of any particular clerk or deputy acting under the office's legal authority to issue and record licenses.
And if she doesn't want to issue licenses to Catholics or interracial couples, that's fine too? Where does the authority of the Supreme Clerk of Rowan County end? It is her legally prescribed duty to issue those licenses and record those marriages to qualified applicants. And the Supreme Court has dictated that no state or agency can discriminate (or even recognize) any difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. BTW, she has no problem recording the marriages, only to putting her signature on the licenses. But this mostly shows how stupid she is because it is not the license being issued that is the marriage. It is the recording of the marriage that gives it legal significance once the marriage vows are legally solemnized in a ceremony by a recognized officiator with two witnesses present. She could get re-elected for decades as the Supreme Clerk. Kentucky has a lot of obstinate voters. So you're saying the Supreme Clerk should have the right to refuse licenses to anyone (or everyone) for any reason at all during all those decades and still receive her full salary as a county clerk ($80K)?
If it is discrimination, I could see that. But it's not discrimination since she's refusing to all. It's an important legal point that Nolu pointed out and I agree with. As far as salary goes, if this is what the voters in her county vote for, by what right would you or I not allow it? Again, this is an elected office. If the county clerk duties required no real judgement, why is it not just some employee hired job instead?
No, it's a stupid point that dismissed immediately in any federal court. She issued thousands of licenses for years as required. The moment a same-sex couple shows up, she suddenly refuses all licenses on religious grounds. I won't even bother to examine this further. And no judge will either. Her motives and coy attempt to avoid discrimination charges are patently obvious. In attempting to avoid charges of discrimination, she refuses to issue licenses to straight couples now even though she has issued thousands previously. So she is depriving those straight couples of their right to marry which she does support so she can avoid signing a same-sex couple's license. No one is fooled by this. Not you, not nolu, nobody. We know exactly what she is doing and why. Are you seriously suggesting that county clerks should be allowed sole arbitrary authority to grant (or withhold) marriage licenses (and therefore the state and federal benefits attached to them) solely on the basis of their personal religious whims? Nothing in Kentucky law suggests she has such power. She is not the Supreme Clerk. So you would have no problem if Kim Davis decided tomorrow that only members of her own church should be allowed to have a marriage license because only her church is legitimate? And that would be fine as long as she keeps getting re-elected in Rowan County?
They are just an employee hired to do a job. But they are chosen by the voters, not some other group of outsiders. A county official exercises authority under the laws of the state because the county has no substantial legal existence outside its incorporation as an element of the state. And the state itself has substantial but limited legal authority as an element of the United States and its government. A county clerk has many legally prescribed duties but these do vary somewhat by state. Some typical examples: when a jury is needed, the clerk (or her deputy) selects the jury pool to be called for the judge and handles the notifications. When elections are held, the clerk is responsible for placing notices, taking county/local candidate applications for the ballot, receiving and recording voter registrations, publishing sample ballots, etc. County clerks are often responsible to attend and record and publish the meetings of the board of county commissioners or board of supervisors. A county clerk in states where they are also the county assessor can have some leeway in tax assessments. This is an example of legal authority possessed by an individual county clerk which can only be exercised by that elected clerk. They typically have a limited range of taxation with which they must comply. And they cannot be higher or lower on property tax selection than allowed by the local/regional or state equalization board limitations. The tax level selected by the clerk must fall within the range dictated by a multi-county or regional equalization tax board and that board is itself answerable to a state equalization board. This is done to prevent perverse outcomes in property taxation in property adjacent to each other, like properties on a county line. But this kind of independent authority by a clerk is quite limited in the modern era. In nearly everything they do, a county clerk is implementing state law and policy, sometimes with restrictions attached by federal law. They don't get to pick and choose based on their religious fancies.
I don't recall if you posted any image of Bunning's decision but noticed this one at NRO.
Bunning should eat some broken glass.
Yes, George III thought so too. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
Her 'employer' had no issues with how she conducted business. The state did not arrest her but federal marshalls did. Her 'boss' is not the federal district court. No Davis is not "Queen." It was just that two 'queens' wanted to get hitched in her county. Who made the Supreme Court the 'Supreme Being.' Cuts both ways. "The Supreme Court...doing the work of George III since John Marshall." quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
But she didn't. All of the above would be one man and one woman marriages. That is the premise of her protest. Using the racial and denominational 'example' is the very thing the leftists do to muddy the issue at hand. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
I find it odd, that this Judge Bunning just last week was so adamant about putting her in jail for not bending to the "courts ruling", has now backed off & released her. It appears that a huge number of people have come out of the woodwork in support for her. I saw a man interviewed on CNN at the court house saying that "it was not over they have awakened a sleeping giant". I have heard & read a lot of comments about people being pissed at the overreach of the Fed Govt, and judiciary. The reaction from the religious right, and anti federal movement I think has been larger than they anticipated. The reaction appears to be big in Kentucky, but I do not know about other states. I suspect that TPTB have decided that this situation is like they have kicked a hornets nest. And decided to let a sleeping dog lay for awhile, and they have pressured the judge to back off. There are a lot of political ramifications to this situation. Presidential, State Governorships, US Senators, US Representatives, etc, etc. No matter how anyone looks at at this, I suspect that most of the Davis supporters will blame Democrats for this mess. Federal Judges & bureaucrats may think they are god, but a lot of peons do not. I may be wrong, but I suspect I am right Si vis pacem, para bellum
I don't see that. The purpose of jailing for contempt is not so much to punish, but to simply get things done. Now that the office is issuing licenses, albeit without a lawful signature, the desired things are "getting done", so there's no more need for her being jailed. Keeping her in jail because she *might* interfere would potentially keep here there for the rest of her life, and not be an appropriate reason to keep someone jailed for contempt. Having said that, there may well be sizeable popular backlash that's not being reported.
If you get married in Kentucky and divorce (or receive benefits or rights) in another state, it is the state of Kentucky whose marriage authority is involved, not the Supreme Clerk of Rowan County (who may have left office or died in the meantime). But Kim Davis is the one who is withholding benefits (fundamental right to marry) from Teh Gays and even from the normal couples that she had been issuing licenses to for years, in the thousands. This actually compounds her offenses with the courts in that she is depriving all persons of a right to marry including those she had never had a problem issuing licenses to previously. It is refusing to issue to the straights that is most likely to really hang her. Read the earlier decision from the District Court. Below is from the August 12, 2015 court decision. Please note that this case is not, and never has been, a discrimination case. At law, it is not about teh gays. The Federal court claim to jurisdiction is the "fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," equally to the plaintiffs -- two gay and two straight couples. It has nothing to do with the Full Faith and Credit clause. Note that couples went to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins, and he stated he did not have that authority as Davis was not absent within the meaning of the statute. Judge Bunning sought and received a status report wherein all Plaintiffs averred that they had received marriage licenses. Judge Bunning averred that the licenses, as issued, met with the satisfaction of his Court. The case is moot. He has no continuing claim to jurisdiction regarding the case that was before him. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-44-DLB APRIL MILLER, et al. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - - - - - I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to any couples. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Davis, an Apostolic Christian with a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, specifically sought to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples without discriminating against them. Plaintiffs now allege that this “no marriage licenses” policy substantially interferes with their right to marry because it effectively forecloses them from obtaining a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs’ right to marry, which is justified by the need to protect her own free exercise rights. 1 - - - - - The Court held preliminary injunction hearings on July 13, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier were represented by William Sharp of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) and Daniel Canon. Jonathan Christman and Roger Gannam, both of the Liberty Counsel, and A.C. Donahue appeared on behalf of Defendant Kim Davis. Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins and Jeff Mando represented Defendant Rowan County. Official Court Reporters Peggy Weber and Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Court submitted the Motion pending receipt of the parties’ response and reply briefs. The Court having received those filings (Docs. # 28, 29 and 36), this matter is now ripe for review. 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. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to samesex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative. II. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts have been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years. (Doc. # 21 at 25). After hearing about the Obergefell decision, they went to the Rowan County Clerk’s Office and requested a marriage license 2 - - - - - from one of the deputy clerks. (Id. at 25-26). The clerk immediately excused herself and went to speak with Kim Davis. (Id. at 28). When she returned, she informed the couple that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office was not issuing any marriage licenses. (Id.). Plaintiffs Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez, a committed opposite-sex couple, had a similar experience when they tried to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office. (Id. at 36). Both couples went straight to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins and asked him to issue their marriage licenses. (Id. at 30-32, 36). Blevins explained that, under Kentucky law, a county judge executive can only issue licenses when the elected county clerk is absent. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.240. Because Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, Blevins concluded that she was not “absent” within the meaning of the statute. (Id.). Therefore, he did not believe that he had the authority to issue their marriage licenses. (Id.). [snip] 3 - - - - -
Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine. Si vis pacem, para bellum
I thought it was typical. Judges quite often lock them up, try to obtain some promise of good behavior and release them in less than a week.
Comments (103 - 191) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNO THEY ARE NOT. They get any authority they have only from Kim Davis. Why were they not issuing any licenses before the Judge's order? They are issuing bastardized STATE licenses on the authority of an order of a FEDERAL judge. The State courts may find those licenses invalid.
#63. To: GrandIsland (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence.
#64. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence. Assistant and deputy clerks all over the country do official clerk business when the clerk isn't in the office.
#65. To: Pinguinite (#52)
If this judge did not order the deputy clerks to specifically sign the licenses with the county name, then it wasn't his doing.
Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
Deputy Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/04/2015 03:39 PM ED Ohio Judge Refuses To Marry Same-Sex Couple
Published July 8, 2015, 2:54 PM EDT Tennessee judge denies straight couple divorce, citing gay marriage ruling
#66. To: SOSO, nolu chan, A K A Stone, cranky, tomder55, redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#46)
Are you seriously suggesting that the County will not issue licenses to gays to marry? Are you seriously suggesting that the KY courts will not uphold the licenses issued by the Deputies? I am seriously suggesting that if Davis chooses to continue to make a BFD out of her refusal to obey the law of the land she will see her bastardized Christian ass back in jail again.
"Perhaps the single most important issue in the Kim Davis situation (the County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses) -- an issue about which most observers and commentators have been completely silent -- is the flagrant violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers.
#67. To: GrandIsland (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence.
#68. To: Pinguinite (#51)
States might find it much more palatable to retitle "Marriage License" to "Civil Union License" or "Civil Union Certificate". Remove the word "marriage" from it. Leave the word "marriage" to churches and such.
#69. To: Liberator (#66)
#70. To: buckeroo (#69)
Who cares?
#71. To: Liberator (#70)
On whose side are you coming down on?
#72. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#64)
Just between me and you, sometymes chan gets caught up in a comma or two without realizing that appropriate designated delegates fulfil the role & responsibilities of a given government office in their absence.
#73. To: buckeroo (#71)
Davis has the smallest background in the Universe to suggest that she "speaks for the Lord." So, my take isn't for her side.
#74. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#44)
How does being a federal judge make his actions lawful? Judges can screw up.
#75. To: Liberator (#66)
By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything.
#76. To: Pinguinite, Stoner (#50)
If he didn't release her now, then what would need to change for Davis to be released in the future?
#77. To: Liberator, TooConservative (#74)
Feral Judges wear CROWNS and sit in THRONES!
#78. To: Pinguinite (#75)
(Edited)
Would the author claim that all ordered jailings for contempt breach the separation of powers?
#79. To: nolu chan (#77)
#80. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan, redleghunter (#52)
It certainly does seem the marriage licenses are not legally valid.
If this judge did not order the deputy clerks to specifically sign the licenses with the county name, then it wasn't his doing.
If the plaintiffs come back and complain they aren't valid because they lack Davis' signature, then maybe he'll take further action ordering Davis to sign, she'll refuse and be sent back to jail.
#81. To: nolu chan, buckeroo, redleghunter (#59)
NO THEY ARE NOT. They get any authority they have only from Kim Davis. Why were they not issuing any licenses before the Judge's order? They are issuing bastardized STATE licenses on the authority of an order of a FEDERAL judge. The State courts may find those licenses invalid.
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
#82. To: nolu chan (#61)
Yes, I am seriously suggesting that the KY courts may invalidate the invalid, bastardized licenses issued by deputies without the authorization of the Clerk.
#83. To: GrandIsland (#62)
I'm telling you, once she's elected, she swears her deputy clerk in to serve as clerk in the clerks absence. Assistant and deputy clerks all over the country do official clerk business when the clerk isn't in the office.
#84. To: TooConservative (#80)
It certainly does seem the marriage licenses are not legally valid.
Only by the narrowest possible reading of Kentucky law. Judges can be more expansive in applying the law, in this case, a fundamental right to marry.
If this judge did not order the deputy clerks to specifically sign the licenses with the county name, then it wasn't his doing.
He had to have ordered it.
A key issue: standing. Can you name a single party that any state or federal court would grant standing to? I can't think of one.
#85. To: buckeroo (#69)
Who cares? Davis is free to stop you from marrying yukon and that is all I really care about. I can't take any liberator clones mixed with yukon. It could cause a lot of problems for LF.
#86. To: TooConservative (#81)
You are insisting that Kim Davis has a right to refuse marriage licenses on any religious whim.
#87. To: nolu chan (#76)
If he didn't release her now, then what would need to change for Davis to be released in the future?
To agree to let the other clerks issue licenses under her grant of authority to do so.
#88. To: Pinguinite (#84)
I don't consider the clear requirement that it bear the signature of the elected county clerk to be the "narrowest possible reading" of the law.
What I meant was he ordered the office to issue licenses, but did he order any particular signature to appear on it? I don't think so.
This is true. In order to have standing, the gay or other couples would have to present the licenses they have to appropriate parties for specific legal purposes, and have those parties refuse to recognize them because they do not have the sig of Davis on them. This could be a hospital looking for medical POA or financial institutions doing the same, which may not happen for another 50 years. And given the publicity and fear of incarceration as Davis received, most people in key positions are less likely to refuse to honer them. So... end result is, as is often the case in the heavily bureaucratic USA, the licenses are, in fact, technically invalid, but since everyone honers them, they are de facto valid.
#89. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#86)
As an elected official, she should have the exclusive power to decide whether to issue licenses or not issue them.
The proper remedy, if the conduct of Davis should be found lacking, is her being voted out of office or impeached according to KY constitutional law. That's simply the right way to do it. Sure it will take months or years, but that is the legal remedy, if one is to be had, that I see. And if KY is happy with her stand and wants her to continue, then the matter is settled.
#90. To: TooConservative, Nolu Chan (#89)
And the Supreme Court has dictated that no state or agency can discriminate (or even recognize) any difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples
So you're saying the Supreme Clerk should ..... still receive her full salary as a county clerk ($80K)?
#91. To: Pinguinite (#90)
If it is discrimination, I could see that. But it's not discrimination since she's refusing to all. It's an important legal point that Nolu pointed out and I agree with.
Again, this is an elected office. If the county clerk duties required no real judgement, why is it not just some employee hired job instead?
#92. To: Pinguinite (#90)
Again, this is an elected office. If the county clerk duties required no real judgement, why is it not just some employee hired job instead?
#93. To: nolu chan (#77)
#94. To: TooConservative (#93)
#95. To: SOSO, nolu chan, liberator (#47)
I guess SCOTUS makes that call doesn't it?
#96. To: buckeroo (#53)
I suggested she should resign because she is working for an employer that does not share her sense of ethics. Who knows, maybe she will resign and save a lot of us further opinion on how she imposes her will on the People. She isn't a queen.
#97. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#81)
What if she doesn't like race mixing? Or Asians? Or Catholics? Will those be the next excuse she uses to refuse to do her job and issue licenses?
#98. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#99. To: Stoner (#98)
I find it odd, that this Judge Bunning just last week was so adamant about putting her in jail for not bending to the "courts ruling", has now backed off & released her.
#100. To: TooConservative, buckeroo, redleghunter (#81)
Don't be silly. Sodomy marriage was imposed, ultimately, as a result of the Supremes declaring a fundamental right to marry and that states that did not recognize sodomy marriage must comply under the full faith and credit clause, namely, that states recognize each other's marriages (and other legal instruments) as valid. On that basis, Kentucky's marriage laws were altered, just as the Court struck down Kentucky's miscegenation laws that dated back to the 18th century.
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 43 Filed: 08/12/15 Page: 1 of 28 - Page ID#: 1146
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
AT ASHLAND
vs.
KIM DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al. DEFENDANTS
#101. To: Pinguinite (#99)
" I don't see that. "
#102. To: Stoner (#98)
I find it odd, that this Judge Bunning just last week was so adamant about putting her in jail for not bending to the "courts ruling", has now backed off & released her.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]