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: 26043
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 (1-72) not displayed.
.
.
.
#73. To: buckeroo (#71)
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.
Judge Bunning sought and received a status report wherein all Plaintiffs averred that they had received marriage licenses. The purpose of the suit was to obtain 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.
Yup. NOT discrimination if Davis is simply nixing ALL licenses. Moreover, the KY legislature for their part hasn't to my knowledge enacted on the legal minutiae of "gay" marriage. 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? Good points here. We still live in a representative republic and Davis has been elected to execute her job *as per job description.* If there's an issue with her performance, judgment, or failure to uphold her oath in the opinion of Davis' contituency, there's a process for remediation other than the kingly decree and ignorance of a judge.
No matter how many times you try to explain it away, her case is fundamentally one of discrimination. She never had a problem issuing licenses to straights over the years. I do note she is labeled as an "Apostolic Christian". Not entirely accurate as a Apostolic Pentacostal Christian does differ from Apostolic Christians. So that is a particular dimension that no one seems to have explored in these discussions. Their practices are charismatic and one of the few doctrine pages on their site is called 60 Questions on the Godhead, an obvious argument for modalism.
No one, not even Davis, is denying the reason why she stopped issuing licenses. It is because she objects to gay marriage. That is no secret and no one is pretending otherwise. But it's also true that because she stopped issuing them completely, it is not technically discrimination because everyone is still being treated equally. That this aspect of her defence makes people angry doesn't change that.
I won't even bother to examine this further. And no judge will either. It doesn't matter whether you "examine" this case further or hold your breath until the rest of us succumb to the over-officious edicts of a social gay activist judge. There are not only many eyes on this case, but many *legal* eyes stepping up to the plate on what is obviously NOT the goob's usual open & shut case of judicial edicts. So, no, "Rome has spoken" is NOT accepted and the entire can o' worms matter up for scrutiny. Bunning's clanging of pots and pans and media dog whistle that he was showing Christians and those who oppose fedgoob "absolute authoritah" exactly who was boss backfired spectacularly. We actually owe him a great debt of gratitude. Her [Davis] 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. "Depriving"?? Not quite. Those who desire a marriage license can mosey on over to the next county. "Motives" is an issue for you regarding Davis? REALLY?? (which btw have been anything BUT "coy"); How about Judge Bunning's "motives"? Curious at all? Who is he fronting for? What of his agenda? And judicial history? Uh-oh -- the other shoe falls off: The brief of the article. Federal District Judge David Bunning Judge Who Jailed Kentucky Clerk Has History of Imposing Homosexual Agenda in Public Schools By Jerry A. Kane -- Bio and Archives September 5, 2015 The federal judge who held Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt and ordered her to jail for refusing to sign marriage licenses has on two occasions denied Christian students in Kentucky public schools their First Amendment rights by ordering them to undergo re-education training promoting the homosexual lifestyle against their religious objections. In 2003, Federal District Judge David Bunning ordered Boyd County education officials to implement training, which mandated school staff and students undergo diversity education principally “devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.” A number of students objected to being forced to watch a gaystapo propaganda video denouncing Christian views that opposed homosexuality as wrongheaded and proclaiming homosexuality as a safe, healthy, and fixed lifestyle that cannot be changed. When it was discovered that students would be punished if they didn’t undergo the training their parents brought in the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal organization, which sued the Boyd County Board of Education. In 2006, the gaystapo tool was back at it. Once again he tried to force Christian students to watch a gaystapo propaganda video promoting the homosexual lifestyle, and denying Christian students the ability to opt out of the indoctrination training. Bunning ruled that an opt-out was unnecessary because the training didn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs. 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. Davis has exposed the fedgoob of short-cutting the legal process by exceeding the Mob on its degree of viciousness, spite, pretension, and methods of intimidation ("Gee, be a shame if you were audited, or anything to happen to your gubmint job, your pension, and your family's security."), as well as Bunning's Homofascist Agenda. No one is fooled by this. Not you, not nolu, nobody. We know exactly what she is doing and why. Guess what else? Sorry, your "TooConservative" moniker isn't fooling many. Only so many times can one bend over in support of and endorsing chronic fedgoob overreach, a government (and GOPe), and activist judiciary (HELLO, Judge Bunning) that routinely impose a Leftist-Statist agenda upon ALL of us. THEY DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS. How is it that as "Too Conservative" you don't care to see the same judiciary and government exposed as openly hostile to Christianity, the US Constitution itself, and conservative principles? OR...maybe you DO, and just happen to play for that team? Thanks to the fascist bluster and making an example of Kim Davis, now they will examine and RE_examine the circumstances of this case. Mole-hill meet MOUNTAIN. So beyond the clamor of Kim Davis' "coy" in-your-face rejection of handing out marriage licenses is the true and much greater crux of the matter of THIS case: UNACCEPTABLE TYRANNY.
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 I suspect that you are indeed right. And yes, the ramifications are far-reaching beyond what was assumed to be one more thuggish judge intimidating yet one more uppity peon "who knows their place."
No matter how many times you attempt to force discrimination into the case, the Court itself has stated the case is about 14th Amendment Due Process. Refusing to process any and all marriage licenses is not discrimination. The action is about the right to marry and the right to obtain a license to do so. It is not about discrimination against "teh gays." This case has been carefully crafted to not present a case of discrimination.
See my #100 for what Judge Bunning wrote in August in his ruling. This carefully crafted case deliberately does not present any opportunity for a discrimination argument. It is a 14A due process case about the fundamental right of all to marry. The Plaintiff's were two straight and two gay couples who were denied marriage licenses. Note that Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins also denied requests that he issue the licenses as the Clerk was not "absent" as that term was meant by the statute.
It remains: 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.
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. I know exactly whay you are trying to do. But it is not a case of discrimination, no matter how you contort and contrive your argument. There has not even been an an attempt to bring a case of discrimination. The court only has jurisdiction over CASES. Until a case is brought, a court has nothing to rule upon. No discrimination suit will be considered by the court because none exists. No court will not examine it further because there is no case of discrimination to examine. The court cannot make up its own cases. Nobody is fooled by anything about this. The Kim Davis case has been carefully crafted by lawyers to eliminate any viable claim of discrimination. That is precisely why the case was brought and considered only as a case of due process regarding the right of all to marry. The case is only about her actions, and her actions are not discriminatory. They are a failure to perform her duties, and a violation of the right of all to marry. The court stated the issues: 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.
The abruptness of her decision to stop issuing marriage licenses immediately after the Court decision, having issued thousands of licenses before the Court decision, allows no other conclusion than that her motive is directly related to the legalization of sodomy marriage. Unless you expect other county clerks in huge numbers to similarly refuse to issue licenses, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. Let's say she prevails. So Rowan County, KY will simply issue no more marriage licenses to residents as long as she is the county clerk, maybe for years to come? Is this your desired outcome?
Comments (114 - 191) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDavis 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.
#103. To: Stoner, A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#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.
#104. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative, Nolu Chan, stoner (#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.
#105. To: nolu chan (#100)
(Edited)
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.
#106. To: TooConservative (#105)
No matter how many times you try to explain it away, her case is fundamentally one of discrimination. She never had a problem issuing licenses to straights over the years.
#107. To: TooConservative, Pinguinite, Nolu Chan, redleghunter, stoner, A K A Stone (#91)
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.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/75044
#108. To: Stoner (#98)
(Edited)
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.
#109. To: TooConservative (#105)
No matter how many times you try to explain it away, her case is fundamentally one of discrimination.
#110. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative (#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.
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.
#111. To: Liberator (#107)
So beyond the clamor of Kim Davis' "coy" in-your-face rejection of handing out marriage licenses is the true and much greater crux of the matter of THIS case: UNACCEPTABLE TYRANNY.
#112. To: TooConservative, Pinguinite, Nolu Chan, redleghunter, stoner, A K A Stone (#91)
No, it's a stupid point that dismissed immediately in any federal court.
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.
#113. To: nolu chan (#109)
(Edited)
No matter how many times you attempt to force discrimination into the case, the Court itself has stated the case is about 14th Amendment Due Process. Refusing to process any and all marriage licenses is not discrimination.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]