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: 23944
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
#1. To: cranky, nolu chan, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, soso, whitesands (#0)
So when are they going to arrest the prick judge for violating her rights under color of law? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be . . . imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.” By the way all of you folks who said she should resign are a bunch of pussies who run from battle.
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. You can't make this crap up. THIS is a priority?? Bunning believes he is a Czar....or Imam. With all the crime and injustice out there, Imam Bunning is demanding reports every 14 days? If anyone questions the political and financial clout of homofascists AND their agenda, this single Fatwa ought to solve that mystery.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 89 Filed: 09/08/15 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID: 1827 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-44-DLB APRIL MILLER, et al. PLAINTIFFS vs. KIM DAVIS both individually ORDER On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt and jailed her for her refusal to issue marriage licenses, directly or through her deputy clerks, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of August 12, 2015. After demanding Defendant Davis to the custody of the U.S. Marshal, five of her six deputy clerks stated under oath that they would comply with the Court's Order and issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. (Docs. #75; 78 at 121-170) On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report at the Court's behest. According to the Report, Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk's Office.1 The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent __________ 1 While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiff's marriage licenses have been altered so that "Rowan County" rather than "Kim Davis" appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court's finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court's Order. 1 - - - - - - - - - Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 89 Filed: 09/08/15 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID: 1828 with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Obergefell and this Court's August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court's prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith. 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. 2. CJA counsel for the five (5) deputy clerks who indicated they would comply with the Court's Order shall file a Status Report every fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order unless otherwise excused by the Court. Within those reports Counsel shall report on their clients' respective compliance with the Court's August 12, 2015 Order enjoining the Rowan County Clerk from enforcing her "no marriage licenses" policy, as well as its Order of September 3, 2015 requiring them to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples in compliance with the Court's prior Order. This 8th day of September, 2015. Signed By: G:DATAORDERSAshland Civil201515-44 Order lifting contempt sanction.wpd 2 - - - - - - - - - -
That ain't happening.
This 8th day of September, 2015. Is that the law?
If you could make a piece of paper 'even more' worthless the above adds to it. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
How many homos does he think lives in this county anyway??? Oh wait never mind he must believe the propaganda that says homos make up at least 50% of the population... I was one who said she should resign. I literally never ran from a battle. She should resign because her job now involves an overt evil enterprise. The only other option is for the State to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely. Then she can do the full job she was elected to do. I support her conscience decision. I will put up another article in a few which treats her conscience decision quite fairly IMO. I think now that those worthless pieces of KY paper don't have her name on them, she will do her other duties and not interfere with others who wish to embrace the evil forced on the states. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Oh wait never mind he must believe the propaganda that says homos make up at least 50% of the population... My thoughts exactly. KY has not been known for a large homosexual population. That's why I think Davis' county was targeted. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Aren't some states already contemplating that?? Kentucky Law Effective: History: - - - - - - - - - - 402.100 Marriage license -- Marriage certificate -- Confidentiality of Social Security numbers. Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license. This form shall provide for the entering of all of the information required in this section, and may also provide for the entering of additional information prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives. The form shall consist of: (1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of: (a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named; (b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and (c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license. (2) A marriage certificate which provides for the entering of: (a) A statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society authorized to solemnize the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed. The statement shall include the name and title of the person performing the ceremony or the name of the religious society solemnizing the marriage, the names of persons married, the date and place of the marriage, and the names of two (2) witnesses; (b) A statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony of his legal qualification under this chapter to perform the ceremony, such statement to include the name of the county or city where his license to perform marriage ceremonies was issued or, in the case of religious societies authorized by KRS 402.050(c) to solemnize marriages, the name of the city or county where the religious society is incorporated. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be construed to require the clerk of a religious society to be present at the marriage so long as the witnesses of the society are present; (c) A dated signature of the person performing the ceremony; and (d) A signed statement by the county clerk or a deputy county clerk of the county in which the marriage license was issued that the marriage certificate was recorded. The statement shall indicate the name of the county and the date the marriage certificate was recorded. (3) A certificate to be delivered by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony to the parties married. This certificate shall provide for the entering of: (a) A statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed. The statement shall include the name and title of the person performing the ceremony, or the name of the religious society performing the ceremony, the names of persons married, the date and place of the marriage, the names of two (2) witnesses, and the following information as recorded on the license authorizing the marriage: the date the license was issued, the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued, and the county in which the license was issued; and (b) A dated signature of the person performing the ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the ceremony. (4) A Social Security number shall be requested as a means of identification of each party but shall not be recorded on the marriage license or certificate. Other means of identification may also be requested if a party does not have a Social Security number. The Social Security number shall be forwarded to the appropriate agency within the Cabinet for Health and Family Services that is responsible for enforcing child support, and the number shall be stored by that agency with a nonidentifying numeric. The Social Security number shall not be available for public release. Effective: History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 101, sec. 1, effective July 12, 2006.
Thanks. As always you are on it.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Yes Alabama was one:
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Here's where the legal wheels fall off. The Kentucky law requires that the Clerk's name appear and that is "Kim Davis." The last I knew, the Federal court can hold a state law unconstitutional, but the judge can legislate a change to state law to authorize and bastardization of the marriage certificate. In short, the bastardized marriage certificates do not meet the requirements of Kentucky state law, and the judges proclamations and orders, and citing that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses does not make them valid. If Plaintiffs had that authority, they could have written their own certificates on toilet tissue and proclaimed them valid.
The crap is in the footnote. See my #11 and #14. Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 402.100(3)(a) requires, (a) A statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed. The statement shall include the name and title of the person performing the ceremony, or the name of the religious society performing the ceremony, the names of persons married, the date and place of the marriage, the names of two (2) witnesses, and the following information as recorded on the license authorizing the marriage: the date the license was issued, the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued, and the county in which the license was issued;
Never. She should write a thank-you note to him, given how lenient he was.
Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS 402.100(3)(a) requires, (3) A certificate to be delivered by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony to the parties married. This certificate shall provide for the entering of: (a) A statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed. The statement shall include the name and title of the person performing the ceremony, or the name of the religious society performing the ceremony, the names of persons married, the date and place of the marriage, the names of two (2) witnesses, and the following information as recorded on the license authorizing the marriage: the date the license was issued, the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued, and the county in which the license was issued; Saw it. So basically the county is handing out "Shirley Temple" or "Davey Crockit" certificates you could get saving up Ovalteen labels. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It's dicey for a federal judge to meddle quite so much in state laws like this but I expect that Bunning wrote some application of RFRA to remove her name but included in his ruling the stipulation that licenses issued with only the county name due to an RFRA exception must be granted equal standing to all other licenses issued in the state. Obviously, there are some delicate issues to tiptoe around. I bet Bunning consulted a number of experts and hit the books himself as well. BTW, this judge is Jim Bunning's son. So I suppose we have to consider that he is turning this case into a hand grenade and pulling the pin. His dad would do that on a routine basis in the Senate. It drove McConnell insane with rage. Which made old Bunning very happy and he wasn't shy about his feelings.
State law still says there is no such thing as same sex marriage. Judge Bunning ignored state law. He has no authority to order state authorities to act contrary to state law. He has authority to strike down state laws as unconstitutional. The state requirement to have the clerk's name on a license does not appear to be unconstitutional.
I think it is quite possible that a state court would find them invalid.
So we should expect more nuisance lawsuits from homofascists and their enablers/allies -- a homofascist-friendly, tyrannical judiciary. What of the "contempt" the judiciary has for the American people? Have We The People truly ANY representation?? WHOM shall or shall not make laws that infringe upon "Constitution" law that is selectively enforced by whim? Congress? The Supreme Court? The President? OR, the queerest, highest bidder? The "law" is now no different than street shell-game...run by agenda-driven tyrants and fascists.
I have to wonder why the Judge decided to release her? This whole issue, and putting her in jail has stirred up a whole lot of people. A lot of bad PR against the Fed Govt, and the Fed Judiciary. I know TPTB do not care what the people think. But just the other day, this Judge Bunning was so adamant. I have to wonder what, or who changed his mind? Si vis pacem, para bellum
When I heard this news earlier today I thought to myself, this judge is a pretty slick operator - he released her from the cage of martyrdom and stuck her in a box back in society. Are Huckleberry and Cruz going to still visit her?
Judge Bunning ignored state law. He has no authority to order state authorities to act contrary to state law. He has authority to strike down state laws as unconstitutional. The state requirement to have the clerk's name on a license does not appear to be unconstitutional. Worth repeating. But now that we've determined that Judge Bunning has indeed over-stepped his legal authority within the state of KY, whose toes is THIS fascist SOB stepping on, and shouldn't *they* step up to the plate and reprimand Bunning for his abuse of authority and over-officiousness? This End-Zone dance for a TD that's illegal has gone on far too long.
Stoner, I think you just answered your own question there.
HA! Why don't they just require a letter of recommendation from Martina Navratilova, Rosie O'Donut or the perverse militant queer, Dan Savage? In other words, further mockery of an absurd arbitrary law based on NO historical precedent, based on NO natural law, but instead based on contrived BS criteria, celebrity endorsements, and insane fantasies of "social justice" du jour. The tires of this republic haven't only fallen off; the rims and steering wheel have flown off as well.
I know TPTB do not care what the people think. But just the other day, this Judge Bunning was so adamant. I have to wonder what, or who changed his mind? Pressure. STRONG pressure. Blowback he never imagined. Along with his own scrutiny and others who backed him during an election-time cycle. Bunning -- from my understanding -- was NEVER qualified to be judge at this level. His constituency aren't exactly liberal northeastern Yankees. This whole issue, and putting her in jail has stirred up a whole lot of people. A lot of bad PR against the Fed Govt, and the Fed Judiciary. Those nitwits and pervs LOVE this attention and especially the spectacle of a Christian woman jailed for her beliefs -- be it opposing fake "Gay" marriage" charade OR opposing a goob which is operating lawlessly, without consent of the governed.
Really? I met the dad a few times at social events. I liked him.
I think it is quite possible that a state court would find them invalid. Of course...but it sounded so much better 'saying' it my way:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
More like the hustlers game of three card monte. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Good stuff. Thanks for again wading through all the minutiae for us and distilling what this authority and spectacle are based on: Homo-Voodoo.
She'll be able to tell her grandkids that she played Henry David Thoreau for a weekend. Now it's time for her to move on.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As I understand his order, the judge is satisfied that the office of the county clerk is issuing licenses to all eligible parties so he kicked her loose. But there are some strings attached. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Thinks she'll hang herself again with those strings?
It is, isn't it? The "law"...is now whatever "the authoritah" sez it is...on any given day. Yahoo News reports it, libs do their Touchdown Dance for a week. UNTIL the Replay Official steps in ;-)
How about court-ordered busing? Or court meddling in districting and elections. No state laws authorized any of those or plenty of other court mischief over the years.
No, he hasn't. He's a federal judge.
I don't doubt he's likable. He can also be a first-class a-hole. And enjoy it too.
Move on where? To the book or a movie? :-) Do you find this bizarre?? The nation is in flames, but denying flaming freaks a fake license to "marry" (as interpreted by rogue judges) remains headline news everyday, ALL week.
No, he hasn't. That's obviously quite arguable. He's a federal judge. I know just typing that aroused you, but it technically doesn't make him "King O'er The Land of KY", does it?
Of course not. He's only the king of the Eastern District of Kentucky. Kim Davis, the Supreme Clerk of Kentucky, can still appeal to the Sixth Circuit. And even to the Supremes if she feels like it.
What battle? For all of her inane protestations she hasn't changed a damned thing other than assuring that her County is now issuing licenses to gays according to the yet still law of the land - the one thing she said she was against. You may follow your false prophet here but she will lead you to the same dead end alley. She has changed nothing other than she is now living in a County that is issuing marriage licenes to gays. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That was between the Federal government and a state or local government. The government entity was held to be violating the constitution or a federal anti-discrimination law. In the instant case, the Judge ordered deputy clerks, not involved in any alleged violation of state or local law, who had no authorization to issue marriage licenses, or to issue unlawfully altered licenses, to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law. I suppose he could have ordered the Governor to have the county issue marriage licenses. Of course, the Governor could have replied that it required a change of law, and he lacked authority to do that, and the state lacked the money to call the legislature back into session. Ask again in January.
How does being a federal judge make his actions lawful? Judges can screw up.
You are assuming those bastardized licenses are good for something besides cutting up into 4-inch squares and using in the little reading room.
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I guess SCOTUS makes that call doesn't it? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I would imagine it's extremely easy to hide the bodies in all the forests and abandoned mines Kentucky has... You're overreaching. These clerks are all authorized to issue official documents in the event of Kim's absence due to illness or compliance training or other official absences or because Kim is spending quality time with the U.S. Marshals in the local pokey. (That probably cost us a few hundred grand alone.) I think Judge Bunning was weak and hoping she'd reconsider so he tried to accommodate her objection by having them sign "Rowan County" instead of simply using her name. You may object but it is not the authority of Kim Davis that issues these licenses. It is the authority of Rowan County as authorized by the laws and jurisprudence and federal obligations of the state of Kentucky. Kim Davis is not a pope and is not a Supreme Clerk entitled to overrule the laws or rulings of the Court. She is an employee of the county who wields no authority whatsoever other than the prescribed duties of a sworn and qualified county clerk of Kentucky. It appears her lawyer is indicating now that she will try to stop her office from issuing the licenses again. So I expect she will go back to jail, probably for a much longer period. Federal judges rarely are lenient twice.
Possibly because the effect of his order, that the office issue marriage certs, was being carried out, there was no longer any practical reason to keep Davis in jail. If he didn't release her now, then what would need to change for Davis to be released in the future?
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.
It certainly does seem the marriage licenses are not legally valid. But I suppose being a federal judge, he is not vested in authority in this case to judge whether the marriage licenses being issued are valid. His interest is in only servicing the complaints of the plaintiffs in a civil case, and if they're happy, he's happy. 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.
Evil, in this case is that there is a disparity of opinion. 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.
Fred,you have a PM at RR.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Received and backatcha.
She should resign because her job now involves an overt evil enterprise. Run, resign, retreat and let evil control everywhere? Have all the good people leave the government? That sounds like a recipe to make it even more evil and entrenched.
What "good" people are you talking about? Where are they? Oh, the ones that say they can fight within? The nation has continuously declined just about the tyme the CIA was created. Since that tyme (~circa 1948), the US government has increased the federal debt while increasing the CIA secret budget. Keep in mind, there is no accountability about the CIA. Even Congress does not know the CIA budget.
Homosexuals had to bust into the media attention. They were upstaged by The Donald for weeks. TC might like that tidbit:) quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
These clerks are all authorized to issue official documents in the event of Kim's absence due to illness or compliance training or other official absences or because Kim is spending quality time with the U.S. Marshals in the local pokey. (That probably cost us a few hundred grand alone.) 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. I think Judge Bunning overreached and reconsidered what he was doing. RFRA - Religious Freedom Restoration Act http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb/ §2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes (a) Findings The Congress finds that— (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests. (b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are— (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government. (Pub. L. 103–141, §2, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.) References in Text This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 103–141, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables. Constitutionality For constitutionality of section 2 of Pub. L. 103–141, see Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Appendix 1, Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States. Short Title Pub. L. 103–141, §1, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 1988 of this title and section 504 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees] may be cited as the ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’.” http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb-1/ §2000bb–1. Free exercise of religion protected (a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. (Pub. L. 103–141, §3, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb-2/ §2000bb–2. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity; (2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States; (3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and (4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title. (Pub. L. 103–141, §5, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1489; Pub. L. 106–274, §7(a), Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 806.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-42/chapter-21b/section-2000bb-3/ §2000bb–3. Applicability (a) In general This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993. (b) Rule of construction Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter. (c) Religious belief unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (Pub. L. 103–141, §6, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1489; Pub. L. 106–274, §7(b), Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 806.) = = = = = = = = = = KENTUCKY RFRA http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/HB279/bill.doc AN ACT relating to construction of the law. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 446 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 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.
Those false pieces of paper are as wrong as two men...oh wait that's what they do:) quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
At no time has the County refused to issue licenses to gays. The County Clerk has refused to issue, or have issued, licenses in her name to anyone. To refuse to issue to gays would invoke Federal anti-discrimination laws. She deliberately did not do that. This is not an accident. Try again. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that the KY courts may invalidate the invalid, bastardized licenses issued by deputies without the authorization of the Clerk. She has refused to perform a function of her job in Kentucky. There is clearly a Federal right to equal protection of the laws, but please show me a federal law providing that states must issue marriage licenses.
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.
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?
Kim Davis is free to hold that issuing such licenses is not possible in accordance with her moral beliefs. She cannot be forced to issue licenses. She may possibly be removed from her position for not doing so. She has not been changed with any crime by any authority.
I seem to remember reading that it is in Ky Constitution that marriage is between a man & a woman. Is that true?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Any court examining the timeline of when her refusal began will fail to discern her motive. I don't think this is a case about high legal principle. Of course, no one was ever expecting the Westboro Baptist clan to win their funeral protest case at the Supreme Court but they did win, representing themselves in court. So you never know. But I don't think she is just going to be allowed to refuse to issue all marriage licenses as long as she is Rowan County clerk.
Kim Davis cannot be charged with TooConservative's speculative conclusions about her actual actions. Regardless of why she did what she did, what she did was not discriminatory. I do not hope to achieve anything. What do you hope to achieve? Rowan County will issue marriage licenses. They may change the form, the law, or the Clerk. Do you think it is long passed the time the legislature should have gone back to work and addressed the issue and the laws that were struck down?
Are you going to charge her with impure motives? Or are you going to charge her with something she actually did?
Perhaps your ideal outcome is that county clerks (or deputies like her son who is 1 of five deputy clerks in Kim Davis's office) would have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses entirely and other deputy clerks who do not have religious objections will issue the marriage licenses and this will be the situation there for years to come. This seems to me like another Schiavo or Bundy case, to name a few examples. People are very fired up that this is a fight worth having.
Lawsuits and charges will come if she stops issuing licenses again. At present, her office is issuing them in her absence and will continue after she goes back to work tomorrow.
Yes, it is true that the Kentucky constitution, as well as statutes, state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Neither the constitution nor statutes have been changed since Obergefell have been changed. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/233A.htm Text as ratified on: November 2, 2004.
Not for discrimination.
My ideal outcome would be the U.S. Supreme Court not going where it does not belong.
Of course. That doesn't answer what to do since they did go there.
Kim Davis's job as a county official is to issue marriage licenses under the authority of the state. She can reject them if they are not qualified. She is not free to stop issuing licenses completely because she has a religious objection. No, nothing remains definitive in this case; Especially the extent and definition of Davis' obligations, duties, job description, or authority. You may perceive this case as simply a black and white matter of authority and obligation over issuance of marriage licenses (based on religious belief or otherwise.) However, it's clearly and obviously not. This case (and Kim Davis in particular) has become the match that's exposed the fedgoob and its judges as interpreting and shading the law as advocates of "social justice" and "gay" rights. It's also exposed just how our subversive fedgoob uses the judiciary as a sledgehammer to usurp the authority of States' Rights as well as We The People -- while steamrolling an agenda. This as they target Christians and conservatives, violating their 1A and 14A rights. Furthermore, this l'il ol' case has presented a spectrum of conundrum of technicalities for state and Fed gubmint authoritahs. The judiciary -- a tool of rampant fascist statism and "social justice" -- has been too busy punishing its "enemies" to pay attention to pesky protocol.
I wonder how many sought out damages from the school district. Yep, Bunning is on a sodomite Jihad against Christians. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
I suspect that before this is over, they will regret that they ever opened up this can of worms. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Yet it is my understanding that he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Great job boiling that down. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
You act like this suddenly happened but it has been moving steadily this way for the last few decades. And you think there is some great Silent Majority out there that is finally ready to rise up to defend their liberties? When you hear from them, let me know.
Does not surprise me. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
You guys haven't heard of Jim Bunning? He's one of a handful of famous athletes that went into politics.
That would be Senator Bunning. Not Justice David L. Bunning. Senator Bunning understands in the game of life there are pitchers and catchers.
quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
The have not figured out what to do with Roe yet. When SCOTUS short-circuits the political process, we get dissent. Justice Thomas explicitly forecast what would happen in his dissenting opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf [All Obergefell opinions at link.] Obergefell, THOMAS, J., dissenting at 2-3: Id. at 7: Id. at 9: Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of "liberty," that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. Id. at 10: Id. at 13: Id. at 15-16: The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation's tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for "religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice. Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court's constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. IV Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the "dignity" of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no "dignity" Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate.
I don't see that these arguments by Clarence Thomas moved any votes on the Court. The majority on the Court were unimpressed.
Yes, I have. Former Senator from Ky, and before that had been a US Representative from Ky. A conservative. He was also a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, and the Philadelphia Phillies. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Canada Free Press is notoriously unreliable on legal matters. Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, Kentucky, KYED (17 Feb 2006), BUNNING, District Judge - - - - - https://casetext.com/case/morrison-v-board-of-educ Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494, (6th Cir., 2007). Before: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; ADAMS. District Judge.The Honorable John R. Adams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ADAMS, D.J., joined. COOK, J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion. The Morrison decision of 2007 lasted until 2008 when it was reversed at a rehearing. - - - - - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0146a-06.pdf Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 521 F. 3d 602, (6th Cir., 9 Apr 2008), COOK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ADAMS, D. J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 9-21), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. In this appeal, Timothy Morrison (“Morrison”) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Morrison is a student at Boyd County High School (“BCHS”). He is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. He further believes that part of his responsibility as a Christian is to tell others when their conduct does not comport with his understanding of Christian morality. During the 2004–05 academic year, BCHS had a written policy prohibiting students from making stigmatizing or insulting comments regarding another student’s sexual orientation. Wary of potential punishment, Morrison remained silent with respect to his personal beliefs, but challenged in federal court the Board’s right to stifle his speech. After Morrison filed this lawsuit, the Board changed the BCHS policy, but Morrison’s litigation did not end. We must now decide whether Morrison’s claim for nominal damages premised upon a “chill” on his speech during the 2004–05 school year presents a justiciable controversy. We conclude that it does not, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board. - - - - -
The majority in Plessy was unimpressed by the dissent. The majority is never impressed with the dissent. When SCOTUS wades into the deep waters and short circuits the political process, dissent follows. Dissent is still following Roe v. Wade. A Court decision on a moral issue does not change people's morals. When nearly two-thirds of the states were overruled by a court on shaky ground and fuzzy logic, dissent and resistance is inevitable, as Justice Thomas predicted. Nobody can contest that his prediction was correct.
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
Yes, George III thought so too. He didn't know SCOTUS from a hole in the wall. But I guess there are those who think it will be useful to ask SCOTUS to rule again on gay marriages. They could use their time more productively by doing something like......oh, I don't know.......shoveling sand against the tide. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We have been done this road before. The Consitution started to get bent almost from Day 1 of Washington's administration. It was broken big time during Adam's administration and again by Jefferson. I will say this again and again and again, the only rights that one has are those that one can and will defend. We The People have allowed this to happen. We The People continue to elect the same Constitution muggers over and over and over again. And when We The People gets it in the ass, We The People squeal "Thank you ,sir. May I have another." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I'm 5/9ths certain that it did.
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
I'm 5/9ths certain that it did. Can you provide the textual change to the Constitution?
The biggest muggers of the Constitution get to be national heroes.
What I'd like to see in similar cases would depend on the details. In Davis' case, and those exactly or substantially similar, I'd like to see her serve some more jail time if she interfers with the Deputies issuing the licenses. If she merely returns to her office without asking for more "accomodations" and without challenging the validity of those licenses issued by the Deputies then I'd like to see her live out the rest of her life as a good, dutiful, faithful Christian. But my life experiences tell me that people that seek public office are rarely a good, dutiful, faithful Christian or earnest practicioner of any self-professed religion. Atheists may be true believers and act as such in bith their public and private life but I would not knowingly vote for an atheist. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thanks to We The People. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Name one.
Why is no senior authority in the STATE held responsible? When she was in jail for contempt, why was the STATE not ordered to cure the problem? Is nobody in the state responsible to do something about the problem? How about the governor? If the Federal court was going to act, why did it not act to levy a fine against the STATE until the STATE cured the problem. A very large and progressively larger fine until the governor got off his ass and acted. The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so.
Gee, only one. Abraham Lincoln.
Another Republican is GWBush. But, that startling FACT won't surprize you, will it?
Many of the legal arguments for the acts of GWBush were originated by the Lincoln administration.
You might say, it is in the veins of Republicans and their respective representative bloodlines. Now, a new monster rises: Jeb!
Wipe your chin... someone left some democrat on it. There must be a forum a little more left than this one that would suit your ideals better. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Well, it is true that it is not all the Republicans fault. But, then again, we have TRUMP!, don't we?
Say that about 5,000 more times on LF, JUST TO BE FUCKING FAIR... then maybe, just maybe I'll consider you a fed up non-libtard, fed up with BOTH parties that ran up 18 trillion in debt. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
ROTFL! You didn't catch the TRUMP! card that I mentioned. Here let me explain my perspective s-l-o-w-l-y: TRUMP! epitomizes a Democrat; in fact, he WAS a registered Democrat. See ... fair and balanced reporting ... brought by buckeroo.
She deserved a chance for redemption on her own - she didn't repent:) Besides the suit was filed in Federal court not the State court. I do not recall that anyone, including Davis, asked the State to intervene once the suit was filed or even before. It was only after her ass was put in jail did Davis ask the State for an accomidation - which she received pretty quickly. Further, the Governor did state that the licenses issued by the Deputies are valid. Had he not done so I doubt that she would have gotten out of jail. So if Davis continues her antics and attempts to interfere with the issuing of the licenses in any way I hope that she goes directly back to jail and takes Huckabee with her. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Trump, if you would stand still long enough, would jam an illegal all the way up your Commie Sanders loving ass... he'll step all over the lazy welfare... and Commie Sanders ain't gonna do either. And that's why all you democrats are shitting your adult diapers... because you hate the rich, love the illegals and you love the lazy poor. So suck that forked tongue back in your closet libtard mouth. Your nose is growing. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I take it you "do not recall" because you never made the effort to find out in the first place. All your contentions are inaccurate except that the suit was filed in Federal court -- against Kim Davis. Actually, it starts with Obergefell and Governor Beshear's letter of 26 June 2015 to Kentucky County Clerks, the April Miller et al lawsuit filed 2 July 2015, followed by the Kim Davis' letter of 8 July 2015 to Governor Beshear. There was also Davis' request for reasonable accomodation to Judge Bunning. To be sure, County Clerk Kimberly Davis notified Governor Beshear that the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses by her office was contrary to her deeply held religious beliefs. Governor Beshear had a duty to make some provision for the issuance of marriage certificates in Rowan County, Kentucky in the very foreseeable event that the office of Kim Davis would not issue them. Even when the office stopped issuing marriage licenses, it appears that Governor Beshear did nothing and waited for a Federal judge to do his job for him. Governor Beshear could have called the legislators into session. He did not. As accomodation, the law could have been tweaked to permit the County Judge to issue such licenses as the religious convictions of Kim Davis did not permit. If one is to presume that the Deputy Clerks can lawfully issue licenses on the say so of a Federal judge, then it would seem they could do so on the say so of a Governor as an emergency measure until the legislature could change the law or impeach and remove Kim Davis, and she could be replaced. It is not the duty of Federal courts to do the Governor's job for him. He did nothing to provide for the issuance of licenses, even when the clerk's office stopped issuing them. He did nothing when the County Clerk was in jail. He sat on his ass and waited for the Federal judge to do his dirty work for him. Governor Beshear letter of 26 June 2015 to County Clerks: Steven L. Beshear June 26, 2015 Dear Kentucky County Clerks: Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision regarding the constitutionality of states' bans on same-sex marriage. The Court struck down those laws, finding that they were invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky - and all states - must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act. Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use. You should consult with your county attorney on any particular aspects related to the implementation of the Supreme Court's decision. While there are certainly strongly held views on both sides of this issue, I know that Kentuckians are law-abiding people and will respect the rule of law. After all, the things that unite us as a people are much stronger than the things that divide us. Thank you in advance for the valuable services you continue to render to the people of the Commonwealth. Sincerely, Steven L. Beshear The litigation began in District Court on 2 July 2015 as: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/kentucky/kyedce/0:2015cv00044/78171 Case Number: 0:2015cv00044 Filed: July 2, 2015 Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court Office: Ashland Office County: Rowan Presiding Judge: David L. Bunning Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights Cause of Action: 42:1983 Jury Demanded By: Both Kim Davis' letter of 8 July 2015 to Governor Beshear: 600 West Main Street July 8, 2015 The Honorable Governor Steve Beshear The recent Obergefell decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has not only impacted Kentucky's same sex marriage ban, but has put numerous County Clerks' moral and religious beliefs at odds with their current required duties. Many Clerks firmly believe that forcing County Clerk offices to issue same-sex marriage licenses when it is against their deeply held religious beliefs and traditions is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution s First Amendment This dramatic and sudden change has caused some Clerks to go as far as to halt issuing marriage licenses to anyone rather than compromise their deeply held religious convictions. This position has ignited litigation and it is foreseeable that it may invite more lawsuits. It appears the only timely and reasonable solution to this conflict is a legislative one. So for that reason, I respectfully request that you immediately call an extraordinary session of the General Assembly to address the issues that have been caused in this transition from traditional marriage being re-defined to include same-sex couples. Legislators and Clerks of many political stripes working alongside other third parties have been drafting commonsense legislation that would modify Kentucky's marriage laws to satisfy the concerns of the majority of Clerks, while still abiding by the Obergefell ruling. It is my belief that our proposal could be passed by the General Assembly in an expedited timeframe of the absolute minimum of five days. The potential cost to calling a special session is easily justified by the alleviation of future potential lawsuits and relieving the concerns of many County Clerics who serve their local communities. I ask that you not just consider the current litigation, but what litigation could be invited after the 2018 County Clerk elections are concluded, if the status quo is to remain in place. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Davis "Thank you for the opportunity to serve Rowan County" 12 August 2015, Judge Bunning MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, page 13: This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unable to do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties. Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.
The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so. I think the KY legislature is recessed for the season. I don't see what the governor could do. He probably lacks statutory authority to act. Maybe the AG, a Dem named Conway, could have acted, probably only to remove her from office. This seems the only legal remedy immediately available. A malfeasance charge of some kind would be the likely result. Conway has ambitions, perhaps to run against Rand Paul again, so maybe he would not want to prosecute Davis, a fellow Dem. KY is a state with 57% Dems, 37% GOPs as I recall. Depending on KY laws, the KY SoS might have had some limited authority to act. When the Court struck down miscegenation laws, there was a similar opposition in a lot of states but I don't know if any county clerks in the South refused to issue licenses.
I hadn't read that. We really don't have much reporting on the governor, AG, SoS and any statements they have made. They're all Dems, I think. I had assumed they all want to stay away from it.
This dramatic and sudden change has caused some Clerks to go as far as to halt issuing marriage licenses to anyone rather than compromise their deeply held religious convictions. This position has ignited litigation and it is foreseeable that it may invite more lawsuits. It sounds like Davis thought she wouldn't be alone in opposing. I don't recall other clerks ceasing to issue marriage licenses as Davis did. But she thought there would be others apparently. Bunning could have jailed her until she complied or resigned. This would make her office legally vacant which would have allowed Judge Blevins to issue licenses. Alternatively, another deputy clerk, the senior or most qualified in the office, would become interim acting clerk. This would be harsher because it might lead to Davis sitting in jail for months and losing her office and income.
I notice DailyMail has an extensive article on Davis and her husbands, the twins and two older daughters from the first husband. Also, photos of her 4 marriage licenses which do give a bit more detail on what a KY license/certificate looks like, e.g. the blank for the clerk's name and the blank for the deputy clerk's name and written initial which tells us more about how these deputy clerks are signing these licenses now.
'Good' tyrants love doing so. quotquot autem receperunt eum dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius
She did not ask for an accomodation until AFTER she was jailed. She did ask the Governor to call an emergency session of the State legislature. As apparently no other County Clerk made the same request the Governor had no obligation, legal or moral or otherwise, to take that action. Apparently no- one in the State Legislature asked or encouraged the Governor to act on the basis of a request from one County Clerk with a dubious cause of action. The June 26 letter from the Govenor to all County Clerks made it quite clear what the law requires of the State and its County Clerks - and it was quite timely. The State had no obligation whatsoever to take extraordinary actions to deal with one outlier County Clerk. She could have just as easily asked for a leave of absence until the State legislature acted in the ordinary course of business. She created an emergency situtaion out of whole cloth. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I hadn't read that. Governor Steve Beshear says Rowan Co. marriage licenses are legal "Kim Davis' attorney claims the marriage licenses her deputy clerks issued while she was in jail are not legal because they do not have Davis' signature on them. Beshear said that's not the case. "Those marriage licenses are legal. Our tax department is already recognizing marriages of same-sex couples because the Supreme Court said that we should," Beshear said. "We're changing all of those kinds of law. The federal government is going to recognize it." Beshear reiterated that he would not call a special session. "I never have wanted and would not call a special session and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money when we had 117 out of 120 clerk who were complying with the law and doing their duty," the governor said. Kentucky law says county clerks issue marriage licenses, and Beshear said there is nothing he can do to change that, but lawmakers can. "If the legislature wants to come in January and change the process for issuing marriage licenses, they're free to do so." I wasn't aware that 3 of the 120 County Clerks were not complying with the law. How come we only hear about Davis and not the other two? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So there were two other clerks who weren't complying at the time? I know Davis's letter indicates there were others but I hadn't heard anything about them. We'll probably hear about it if they refuse like Davis did.
One must assume that they haven't refused else we would have heard about that from the Davis camp or the likes of Huckabee et.al. or the so-called press. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I don't see what the governor could do. He probably lacks statutory authority to act. I hope you are joking and not serious.
No. The matter has been thoroughly covered. Impeachment is the means of removal. The AG of the Federal government could not remove a sitting President.
I did. It is legally meaningless. When a court says it, that will be meaningful.
Bunning could jail her on contempt. That does not make anyone else the Clerk, it does not give anyone the power to issue licenses, nobody claimed to possess such power, and nobody issued licenses using said imaginary power until order to do so by a judge. Then the Deputy Clerks changed the only recognized form of issuance. Being held in contempt does not make Davis' office vacant. She was always the Clerk, and upon release, she is going back to the office as the Clerk. Your fine pronouncements would sound better if you could quote any provision of Kentucky law which permits them.
I gave you positive proof to the contrary at my #160, if you would read it. What is your claim based on? This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unable to do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties. Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses. How could Judge Bunning deny her request for accomodation on August 12th, it she had not made any request prior to August 12th?
I'm aware that the executive says the bastardized forms issued without proper authority are legal. GW Bush said that the targeted killing of an American citizen, with charge, trial, or any due process, was legal when authorized by an anonymous secret star chamber group. Richard Nixon famously said that if the President does something, it's legal.
There were pesky judges. 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.
There is that Deputy in Davis' office who stated he would not issue licenses to same-sex couples. No problem.
Likely because no couples have filed any federal suit complaining about not getting licenses. And there are a couple possible reasons for that: 1) the clerks are handing out licenses to married couples only, and no gay couples have yet applied. 2) Gay couples have applied and been refused, but decided to just go to a different county for a license rather than have their relations become a subject of national attention.
Your fine pronouncements would sound better if you could quote any provision of Kentucky law which permits them. I think Bunning's solution will hold for the interim and the legislature will then enact changes with retroactive provisions to keep the Rowan County licenses legal. In the meantime, the KY AG will run interference and stall if necessary until the new legislation is enacted on an emergency basis sometime next spring. It would be the no-fuss solution. And Davis would keep her office. The legislature does have other options. They could also allow a clerk from a neighboring county to travel to a courthouse with an objecting clerk like Davis to write a license or record a certificate. If the applicants don't want to wait a few hours or so for the other clerk to arrive, then they could just go to a neighboring county. Dislike it as much as you want but Bunning's way seems to be the least harmful since Davis won't lose her office and Kentucky's political scene won't get disrupted for the interim.
Her son, the male twin, works for her. Just as she worked in the office when her mother was Rowan county clerk. Davis doesn't believe in sodomy marriage but a little nepotism doesn't ruffle her feathers.
Bunning's solution may be challenged tomorrow if Davis returns to work. There is nothing the KY AG is empowered to do now that he could not have done when the problem arose. The Federal judge cannot bestow State powers on anyone. How can you refer to a congressional session 9 months after the problem arose as an "emergency basis." They are scheduled to return in January. The Governor can call them into session at any time. July might have been a good time to resolve this issue without the fuss and bother. It would have been a no fuss solution in July and no need for lawsuits. I don't know about a Clerk acting outside of his/her jurisdiction. The amount of gay marriages is low enough it could have been passed to the County judge. Had the Governor done his job in July, there would be no need for litigation. Davis is still in office, nothing has been resolved, and it is not known if there will not be another disruption. As for the political scene getting disrupted, the Governor did nothing as he is well aware that the people amended their Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and it is very widely opposed in the state. Predicting there will be no further political disruption is like a post-Roe assessment that the Court had put the issue of abortion to rest.
Her son, the male twin, works for her. Just as she worked in the office when her mother was Rowan county clerk. How is he exempt from the law? And I have yet to hear a reason why the judge did not come down on the State for not making any provision for the issuing of licenses after they ceased in Rowan county. A withholding of all Federal funds from the State until the State complied with the ruling in Obergefell might have inspired an accomodation.
What's a few ruffled feathers just as long as a GOPe judge isn't indicted as a social activist and Trojan Horse Dem, right? "Nepotism" you say? Let's have Davis ask former Senator Jim Bunning about his unqualified son's magic appointment as a Leftist-Activist Judge. FOR LIFE. Suspiciously, GOPe 0buma-Enabler, Senator Mitch McConnell gave the Bunning the younger a ringing endorsement. Funny, huh? During a Dec. 10 hearing on the nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, David Bunning received some criticism. He was rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association's judiciary committee, which determined Mr. Bunning didn't have the experience to serve as a federal judge.... .... Mr. McConnell said Mr. Bunning distinguished himself during his testimony before the committee. “Without a single note and in a situation of some tension, David Bunning showed great skill and great intelligence,” Mr. McConnell said. “He will be an outstanding federal district judge.” http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/03/28/loc_judge_bunning_takes.html
You don't know that, there are always succession plans or contingency plans (e.g. - the incumbant gets hit by a truck or is shot dead or dies from eating peanuts or runs off to Argentina with a lover or simply formally or informally walks away from office). No government operates as to leave a vacuum of power or authority to cove the just in case scenario. The fact that no deputy immediately came forward on their own does mean squat to your agrument. BTW, is it your contnetion that she could execise the power and authorities of the office from the jail cell? "Under state law, the only times when someone other than a county clerk can issue a marriage license in Kentucky is when there is a vacancy in the clerk’s office or if the clerk is absent: Does being incarcerated in jail by a Judge of competent jusrisdiction constitute being absent, even though she was still getting paid by the county (just as she would receive sick pay or on leave? It certainly would not be an excused absence, or would it? The work of the Clerk's Office does not come to a screeching halt because the Clerk doesn't show up for work for a few days. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Revivisting a previous reference to KY law re: Duties of Elected County Officials. "Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990). Any county clerk who violates any of the provisions of KRS 137.115 relating to county license taxes, or any regulation of the Department of Revenue, shall be fined $50 to $1,000 for each offense (KRS 137.990)." Do you really believe that the Deputy Clerks are putting their ass on the line by issuing marriage license for the County? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Do you really believe that the Deputy Clerks are putting their ass on the line by issuing marriage license for the County? FYI 402.020 reads in part as follows: "(1) Marriage is prohibited and void: .................................. (d) Between members of the same sex;" Also FYI. "Staver {Davis' attorney} said the licenses deputy clerks issued to same-sex couples last week are not valid because they were not given under Davis’ authority. But the Kentucky attorney general’s office said it believes otherwise. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
A solution far more drastic than Bunning's. Even in cases like forced busing, judges didn't try to go that far.
It's a fact. The County Judge ruled she was not absent from office as his reason to not issue licenses. The other clerks did not issue licenses until under court order to do so.
What, telling the governor to get off his ass and do his job or the state will have money withheld until he does, is far more drastic than throwing a lowly clerk in jail? Now, that is what I call a value judgment.
No. They issued the licenses under court order but did not put the clerk's name on them. See the appeal the just sent to the Sixth Circuit for lots of details about what went on with Judge Bunning. It is quite informative and interesting.
What would you have the governor do? In most states, a governor can't do much in these cases. I'm not sure what Kentucky's laws would allow him to do.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
Bunning says he is satisfied that Davis’s staff has so far adhered to his order to issue marriage licenses to all qualified applicants.
#3. To: cranky, Liberator, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#0)
(Edited)
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
AT ASHLAND
and in her official capacity, et al.
DEFENDANTS
David L. Bunning
United States District Judge
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
So when are they going to arrest the prick judge for violating her rights under color of law?
#5. To: nolu chan (#3)
2. CJA counsel for the five (5) deputy clerks who indicated they would comply with the Court's Order shall file a Status Report every fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order unless otherwise excused by the Court. Within those reports Counsel shall report on their clients' respective compliance with the Court's August 12, 2015 Order enjoining the Rowan County Clerk from enforcing her "no marriage licenses" policy, as well as its Order of September 3, 2015 requiring them to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples in compliance with the Court's prior Order.
#6. To: cranky, nolu chan, CZ82, liberator (#0)
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.
#7. To: Liberator (#2)
Every 14 days
#8. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, liberator (#1)
#9. To: CZ82, liberator (#7)
How many homos does he think lives in this county anyway???
#10. To: redleghunter (#8)
The only other option is for the State to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely.
#11. To: cranky (#0)
402.110 Marriage license to be uniform and completely filled out. The form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout this state, and every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures provided in the form prescribed by that section. In issuing the license the clerk shall deliver it in its entirety to the licensee. The clerk shall see to it that every blank space required to be filled by the applicants is so filled before delivering it to the licensee.
July 13, 1984
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 3, effective July 13, 1984.
--
Recodified
1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2103a.
July 12, 2006
--
Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 621, effective June 20, 2005.
--
Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch.428, sec. 1, effective July 14, 2000.
--
Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 220, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1994.
--
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 2, effective July 13, 1984.
--
Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 15, sec. 1.
--
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2103. Legislative Research Commission Note. This section was amended by 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 158, and 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 2, which are in conflict and cannot be compiled together. Pursuant to KRS 7.123, the amendment in ch. 279, sec. 2, the nonrevisory Act, prevails.
#12. To: nolu chan (#3)
#13. To: CZ82 (#10)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Is that the law?
1 While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiff's marriage licenses have been altered so that "Rowan County" rather than "Kim Davis" appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court's finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court's Order.
#15. To: redleghunter, cranky, CZ82, liberator (#6)
If you could make a piece of paper 'even more' worthless the above adds to it.
(3) A certificate to be delivered by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony to the parties married. This certificate shall provide for the entering of:
#16. To: A K A Stone (#1)
So when are they going to arrest the prick judge for violating her rights under color of law?
#17. To: nolu chan (#15)
The crap is in the footnote. See my #11 and #14.
#18. To: nolu chan (#15)
(Edited)
and the following information as recorded on the license authorizing the marriage: the date the license was issued, the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued, and the county in which the license was issued;
#19. To: TooConservative (#18)
It's dicey for a federal judge to meddle quite so much in state laws like this but I expect that Bunning wrote some application of RFRA to remove her name but included in his ruling the stipulation that licenses issued with only the county name due to an RFRA exception must be granted equal standing to all other licenses issued in the state.
#20. To: redleghunter (#17)
So basically the county is handing out "Shirley Temple" or "Davey Crockit" certificates you could get saving up Ovalteen labels.
#21. To: nolu chan, cranky, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#3)
#22. To: cranky (#0)
#23. To: cranky (#0)
#24. To: nolu chan (#19)
State law still says there is no such thing as same sex marriage.
#25. To: Stoner (#22)
I have to wonder why the Judge decided to release her? This whole issue, and putting her in jail has stirred up a whole lot of people. A lot of bad PR against the Fed Govt, and the Fed Judiciary.
#26. To: redleghunter, nolu chan (#17)
So basically the county is handing out "Shirley Temple" or "Davey Crockit" certificates you could get saving up Ovalteen labels.
#27. To: Stoner (#22)
I have to wonder why the Judge decided to release her?...
#28. To: TooConservative (#18)
BTW, this judge is Jim Bunning's son.
#29. To: nolu chan (#20)
So basically the county is handing out "Shirley Temple" or "Davey Crockit" certificates you could get saving up Ovalteen labels.
#30. To: Liberator (#21)
The "law" is now no different than street shell-game...run by agenda-driven tyrants and fascists.
#31. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#14)
In short, the bastardized marriage certificates do not meet the requirements of Kentucky state law, and the judges proclamations and orders, and citing that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses does not make them valid. If Plaintiffs had that authority, they could have written their own certificates on toilet tissue and proclaimed them valid.
#32. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, liberator (#8)
#33. To: Stoner (#22)
I have to wonder why the Judge decided to release her?
#34. To: cranky (#33)
But there are some strings attached.
#35. To: redleghunter (#30)
More like the hustlers game of three card monte.
#36. To: nolu chan (#19)
Judge Bunning ignored state law. He has no authority to order state authorities to act contrary to state law. He has authority to strike down state laws as unconstitutional. The state requirement to have the clerk's name on a license does not appear to be unconstitutional.
#37. To: Liberator (#24)
But now that we've determined that Judge Bunning has indeed over-stepped his legal authority within the state of KY...
#38. To: Fred Mertz (#28)
Really? I met the dad a few times at social events. I liked him.
#39. To: tomder55, redleghunter, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#32)
She'll be able to tell her grandkids that she played Henry David Thoreau for a weekend. Now it's time for her to move on.
#40. To: TooConservative (#37)
(But now that we've determined that Judge Bunning has indeed over-stepped his legal authority within the state of KY...)
#41. To: Liberator (#40)
I know just typing that aroused you, but it technically doesn't make him "King O'er The Land of KY", does it?
#42. To: A K A Stone, cranky, nolu chan, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, whitesands (#1)
By the way all of you folks who said she should resign are a bunch of pussies who run from battle.
#43. To: TooConservative (#36)
How about court-ordered busing? Or court meddling in districting and elections.
#44. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#37)
No, he hasn't. He's a federal judge.
#45. To: SOSO, A K A Stone, cranky, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, whitesands (#42)
What battle? For all of her inane protestations she hasn't changed a damned thing other than assuring that her County is now issuing licenses to gays according to the yet still law of the land
#46. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, cranky, tomder55, redleghunter, tooconservative, whitesands (#45)
You are assuming those bastardized licenses are good for something besides cutting up into 4-inch squares and using in the little reading room.
#47. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, Liberator (#44)
How does being a federal judge make his actions lawful? Judges can screw up.
#48. To: redleghunter (#9)
KY has not been known for a large homosexual population. That's why I think Davis' county was targeted.
#49. To: nolu chan (#43)
In the instant case, the Judge ordered deputy clerks, not involved in any alleged violation of state or local law, who had no authorization to issue marriage licenses, or to issue unlawfully altered licenses, to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law.
#50. To: Stoner (#22)
I have to wonder why the Judge decided to release her?
#51. To: CZ82 (#10)
The only other option is for the State to stop issuing marriage licenses entirely.
Aren't some states already contemplating that??
#52. To: nolu chan (#14)
#53. To: redleghunter (#8)
She should resign because her job now involves an overt evil enterprise.
#54. To: Fred Mertz (#34)
#55. To: sneakypete (#54)
#56. To: redleghunter (#8)
I was one who said she should resign. I literally never ran from a battle.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Have all the good people leave the government?
#58. To: Liberator, CZ82, tomder55, TooConservative (#39)
Do you find this bizarre?? The nation is in flames, but denying flaming freaks a fake license to "marry" (as interpreted by rogue judges) remains headline news everyday, ALL week.
#59. To: TooConservative (#49)
You're overreaching.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (2012)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 (2012)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2 (2012)
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3 (2012)
UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 09/08/15 -- 13 REG. SESS. -- 13 RS HB 279/VO
#60. To: nolu chan, CZ82 (#45)
You are assuming those bastardized licenses are good for something besides cutting up into 4-inch squares and using in the little reading room.
#61. To: SOSO (#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?
#62. To: nolu chan (#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.
#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.
#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.
#114. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#111)
She is not free to stop issuing licenses completely because she has a religious objection.
#115. To: nolu chan (#110)
#116. To: nolu chan (#112)
The Kim Davis case has been carefully crafted by lawyers to eliminate any viable claim of discrimination.
#117. To: TooConservative (#113)
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.
#118. To: TooConservative (#116)
Any court examining the timeline of when her refusal began will fail to discern her motive.
#119. To: nolu chan (#117)
Rowan County will issue marriage licenses. They may change the form, the law, or the Clerk.
#120. To: nolu chan (#118)
Are you going to charge her with impure motives? Or are you going to charge her with something she actually did?
#121. To: Stoner (#115)
I seem to remember reading that it is in Ky Constitution that marriage is between a man & a woman. Is that true?
Section 233A. Valid or recognized marriage - Legal status of unmarried individuals. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.
#122. To: TooConservative (#120)
Lawsuits and charges will come if she stops issuing licenses again.
#123. To: TooConservative (#119)
Perhaps your ideal outcome....
#124. To: nolu chan (#123)
My ideal outcome would be the U.S. Supreme Court not going where it does not belong.
#125. To: TooConservative, Nolu Chan (#111)
(Edited)
It remains:
#126. To: Liberator (#107)
Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
#127. To: Liberator (#125)
" state and Fed gubmint authoritahs "
#128. To: redleghunter (#126)
" Bunning is on a sodomite Jihad against Christians. "
#129. To: nolu chan, liberator (#112)
At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party’s rights. You would like it to be a case of discrimination. That would be so much easier to argue. It is no accident that it isn't.
#130. To: Liberator (#125)
This case (and Kim Davis in particular) has become the match that's exposed the fedgoob and its judges as interpreting and shading the law as advocates of "social justice" and "gay" rights.
It's also exposed just how our subversive fedgoob uses the judiciary as a sledgehammer to usurp the authority of States' Rights as well as We The People -- while steamrolling an agenda. This as they target Christians and conservatives, violating their 1A and 14A rights.
#131. To: Stoner (#128)
Yet it is my understanding that he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative.
#132. To: Stoner, redleghunter (#128)
...he was appointed by Bush Jr, and that his father was a conservative.
#133. To: TooConservative (#132)
(Edited)
#134. To: TooConservative (#124)
Of course. That doesn't answer what to do since they did go there.
By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue "beyond the reach of the normal democratic process." Brief for Petitioners in No. 14-562, p. 54. But the result petitioners seek is far less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a "bare majority" of this Court, ante, at 25, is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only "due process" is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process.
Even assuming that the "liberty" in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.
Whether we define "liberty" as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it.
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of "liberty," they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State's imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of "liberty" that the Framers would have recognized.
In a concession to petitioners' misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners' suit as a quest to "find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex." Ante, at 2. But "liberty" is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment. The majority's "better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define . . . liberty," ante, at 19,—better informed, we must assume, than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our Constitution is a "collection of 'Thou shalt nots,'" Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not "Thou shalt provides."
Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will "have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty." Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
#135. To: nolu chan (#134)
#136. To: TooConservative (#132)
" You guys haven't heard of Jim Bunning? "
#137. To: Liberator, TooConservative, Pinguinite, redleghunter, stoner, A K A Stone (#107)
Bunning’s decision was overturned in October 2007 by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that a Christian student could seek damages from the school district because the training Bunning imposed had “chilled” the student’s ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the “Board”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to reconsider our previous holding, and as a result we vacate and amend Sections III and IV of the prior opinion. We now affirm the district court’s decision and set forth our opinion, as amended, below.
#138. To: TooConservative (#135)
I don't see that these arguments by Clarence Thomas moved any votes on the Court.
#139. To: TooConservative, Liberator (#130)
You act like this suddenly happened but it has been moving steadily this way for the last few decades.
#140. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator (#95)
guess SCOTUS makes that call doesn't it?
#141. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, Liberator (#139)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#142. To: nolu chan (#139)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#143. To: SOSO (#140)
But I guess there are those who think it will be useful to ask SCOTUS to rule again on gay marriages. They could use their time more productively by doing something like......oh, I don't know.......shoveling sand against the tide.
#144. To: TooConservative (#142)
Did the Constitution change in the last few decades to create a constitutional mandate for same-sex marriage? Did the Constitution morph to include a right that was never there before?
#145. To: SOSO (#141)
#146. To: TooConservative (#143)
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
#147. To: nolu chan (#145)
The biggest muggers of the Constitution get to be national heroes.
#148. To: nolu chan (#145)
#149. To: TooConservative, SOSO (#143)
I can't seem to get anyone to say exactly what they would prefer to have happen in this case and similar ones.
#150. To: buckeroo (#148)
Name one.
#151. To: nolu chan (#150)
Gee, only one. Abraham Lincoln.
#152. To: buckeroo (#151)
Another Republican is GWBush. But, that startling FACT won't surprize you, will it?
#153. To: nolu chan (#152)
#154. To: buckeroo (#153)
it is in the veins of Republicans and their respective representative bloodlines
#155. To: GrandIsland (#154)
(Edited)
#156. To: buckeroo (#155)
Well, it is true that it is not all the Republicans fault.
#157. To: GrandIsland (#156)
(Edited)
Say that about 5,000 more times on LF, JUST TO BE FUCKING FAIR... then maybe, just maybe I'll consider you a fed up non-libtard, fed up with BOTH parties that ran up 18 trillion in debt.
#158. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#149)
The STATE should have acted to remove Davis from office. The Court should have provided encouragement to do so.
#159. To: buckeroo (#157)
(Edited)
TRUMP! epitomizes a Democrat
#160. To: SOSO (#158)
She deserved a chance for redemption on her own - she didn't repent:) Besides the suit was filed in Federal court not the State court. I do not recall that anyone, including Davis, asked the State to intervene once the suit was filed or even before. It was only after her ass was put in jail did Davis ask the State for an accomidation - which she received pretty quickly.
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Office: of the Governor
700 Capitol Avenue
Suite 100
Frankfort. KY 4060) April Miller, Karen Ann Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, L. Aaron Skaggs and Barry W. Spartman, PLAINTIFFS
v.
Kim Davis and Rowan County, Kentucky, DEFENDANTS Kim Davis
Rowan County Clerk
Room 102
Morehead, KY 40351
700 Capitol Avenue Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601 However, Davis asks the Court to deem her “absent,” for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.
#161. To: nolu chan, SOSO (#149)
Why is no senior authority in the STATE held responsible? When she was in jail for contempt, why was the STATE not ordered to cure the problem? Is nobody in the state responsible to do something about the problem? How about the governor? If the Federal court was going to act, why did it not act to levy a fine against the STATE until the STATE cured the problem. A very large and progressively larger fine until the governor got off his ass and acted.
#162. To: SOSO (#158)
Further, the Governor did state that the licenses issued by the Deputies are valid.
#163. To: nolu chan (#160)
Davis: The recent Obergefell decision by the Supreme Court of the United States has not only impacted Kentucky's same sex marriage ban, but has put numerous County Clerks' moral and religious beliefs at odds with their current required duties. Many Clerks firmly believe that forcing County Clerk offices to issue same-sex marriage licenses when it is against their deeply held religious beliefs and traditions is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution s First Amendment
Bunning: However, Davis asks the Court to deem her “absent,” for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.
This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office.
#164. To: SOSO, nolu chan, sneakypete, Liberator, redleghunter (#158)
#165. To: TooConservative (#163)
This would be harsher because it might lead to Davis sitting in jail for months and losing her office and income.
#166. To: nolu chan (#160)
It appears the only timely and reasonable solution to this conflict is a legislative one. So for that reason, I respectfully request that you immediately call an extraordinary session of the General Assembly to address the issues that have been caused in this transition from traditional marriage being re-defined to include same-sex couples.
#167. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#162)
Further, the Governor did state that the licenses issued by the Deputies are valid.
#168. To: SOSO, nolu chan (#167)
Beshear reiterated that he would not call a special session. "I never have wanted and would not call a special session and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money when we had 117 out of 120 clerk who were complying with the law and doing their duty," the governor said.
#169. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#168)
We'll probably hear about it if they refuse like Davis did.
#170. To: TooConservative (#161)
I think the KY legislature is recessed for the season.
#171. To: TooConservative (#161)
Maybe the AG, a Dem named Conway, could have acted, probably only to remove her from office. This seems the only legal remedy immediately available.
#172. To: TooConservative, SOSO (#162)
I hadn't read that.
#173. To: TooConservative (#163)
Bunning could have jailed her until she complied or resigned. This would make her office legally vacant which would have allowed Judge Blevins to issue licenses. Alternatively, another deputy clerk, the senior or most qualified in the office, would become interim acting clerk.
#174. To: SOSO (#166)
She did not ask for an accomodation until AFTER she was jailed.
12 August 2015, Judge Bunning MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, page 13:
However, Davis asks the Court to deem her “absent,” for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.
#175. To: SOSO (#167)
Governor Steve Beshear says Rowan Co. marriage licenses are legal
#176. To: TooConservative, SOSO (#168)
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
#177. To: SOSO, TooConservative (#169)
One must assume that they haven't refused else we would have heard about that from the Davis camp or the likes of Huckabee et.al. or the so-called press.
#178. To: SOSO (#167)
I wasn't aware that 3 of the 120 County Clerks were not complying with the law. How come we only hear about Davis and not the other two?
#179. To: nolu chan (#173)
Being held in contempt does not make Davis' office vacant. She was always the Clerk, and upon release, she is going back to the office as the Clerk.
#180. To: nolu chan (#177)
There is that Deputy in Davis' office who stated he would not issue licenses to same-sex couples. No problem.
#181. To: TooConservative (#179)
I think Bunning's solution will hold for the interim and the legislature will then enact changes with retroactive provisions to keep the Rowan County licenses legal. In the meantime, the KY AG will run interference and stall if necessary until the new legislation is enacted on an emergency basis sometime next spring.
It would be the no-fuss solution. And Davis would keep her office.
The legislature does have other options. They could also allow a clerk from a neighboring county to travel to a courthouse with an objecting clerk like Davis to write a license or record a certificate. If the applicants don't want to wait a few hours or so for the other clerk to arrive, then they could just go to a neighboring county.
Dislike it as much as you want but Bunning's way seems to be the least harmful since Davis won't lose her office and Kentucky's political scene won't get disrupted for the interim.
#182. To: TooConservative (#180)
There is that Deputy in Davis' office who stated he would not issue licenses to same-sex couples. No problem.
#183. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#180)
(Edited)
Davis doesn't believe in sodomy marriage but a little nepotism doesn't ruffle her feathers.
Mr. Bunning and Kentucky's other U.S. senator, Republican Mitch McConnell of Louisville, recommended that President Bush nominate [35 year old] David Bunning for the federal bench.
#184. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#173)
Bunning could jail her on contempt. That does not make anyone else the Clerk, it does not give anyone the power to issue licenses, nobody claimed to possess such power, and nobody issued licenses using said imaginary power until order to do so by a judge.
#185. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#175)
#186. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#185)
Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990).
#187. To: nolu chan (#182)
A withholding of all Federal funds from the State until the State complied with the ruling in Obergefell might have inspired an accomodation.
#188. To: SOSO (#184)
You don't know that, there are always succession plans or contingency plans (e.g. - the incumbant gets hit by a truck or is shot dead or dies from eating peanuts or runs off to Argentina with a lover or simply formally or informally walks away from office).
#189. To: TooConservative (#187)
A solution far more drastic than Bunning's. Even in cases like forced busing, judges didn't try to go that far.
#190. To: SOSO (#185)
Do you really believe that the Deputy Clerks are putting their ass on the line by issuing marriage license for the County?
#191. To: nolu chan (#189)
What, telling the governor to get off his ass and do his job or the state will have money withheld until he does, is far more drastic than throwing a lowly clerk in jail?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]