Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, my agreement with that seems to be getting lost.

Yeah. It's just that they shouldn't have to accept defeat and go elsewhere where the other people don't have to.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

Yes, my agreement with that seems to be getting lost.

It's not getting "lost" mate, we just don't agree that the gay couples should have to go to another area to get their marriage license when they have a legal right to get it in their own county. It's the principle of the thing - and considering how LGBT people have been discriminated against for thousands of years I can understand that they wish to draw a line in the sand and not allow bigotry and hatred to rule over them any further.

I might agree with you if only one of the two in the relationships wanted to stand up for themselves and the other just wanted to get married and doesn't matter where - but it seems that it's a united stand.

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Arresting her, imo, was overkill. I don't understand why this became a police or criminal matter.

I'll explain. She is an elected official, so she can't be "fired". The Kentucky legislature could impeach her, but they're not willing to have a special session to do that, and their next scheduled session is in Jan or Feb of next year. She won't allow anyone in her office to issue marriage licenses (she's the boss).

The governor and the courts have informed her that she is required to do her job, or be held in contempt of court (disobeying a direct court order). She exhausted all appeals, taking her case to the Supreme Court. She lost, but still refused to comply with court orders. Contempt of court is punishable by fines or jail. The judge felt that fining her wouldn't be useful, as other people would likely support her financially and that wouldn't punish her, so he put her in jail.

The judge gave her the opportunity to get out of jail, if she would not interfere with her staff issuing marriage licenses, and she refused, preferring to stay in jail. She's had every opportunity to comply with the order AND keep her beliefs, but she refused. She's really left no choice but to keep her in custody, so her staff could do the job.

I think simply revoking her license and having her effectively fired would have
been quite sufficient.

They can't do that to an elected official. It's not a "license" she has, it's a government position. And I WISH they could have just fired her, but the law doesn't allow for it.

I hope that clarifies things.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

But someone has to make a fuss over this, or she will continue to do what she was doing. By demanding to get the marriage license in their own county, the same-sex couples are forcing the issue way more effectively then if they had just agreed to go elsewhere.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Why didn't the couples just avoid the stress and get their license in another county? If marriage is the intended goal, and these things have a time limit, they should just go to the next county.

And what if the next county refused? And the next and the next? What if ALL the counties in the South saw that it's OK to refuse and they ALL refused? What good is a marriage equality ruling if counties and states decide not to comply and no one forces it? We're back to marriage inequality.

The 14th amendment wouldn't permit even ONE county to treat citizens with inequity under the law.

The baptism of fire
When you are persecuted for your faith.
Jesus said that he was distressed about his baptism .
I don't blame him.
All who follows jesus will undergo this baptism.
It is the final Profession of Faith.
This is how martyrs are made.
What I don't understand is why they don't just sack her instead of jailing her.
I also don't understand why these homosexuals are claiming equal rights when they already have the same rights as any other man.More like extra rights for homosexuals.
It is the same tune with womens rights and the feminist movement who are calling for equal rights but we are not equal .
This reminds me of the story the emperor s new clothes .where everyone was too scared to tell the emperor he was naked.

The long march through the institutions
Google it people it is a real eye opener.
I too was once under the Marxist yoke.
A Marxist stooge and I was oblivious to it.
Free yourselves from this mind control.

www.reuters.com...

Kentucky clerk's office issues marriage license to gay couple, ending ban

The Kentucky clerk's office that had refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance of orders by a federal judge on Friday morning ended its resistance.

While Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was jailed on Thursday for refusing to follow the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning, her deputies processed a license for James Yates and William Smith, who had previously been denied one, after the office doors opened on Friday.

Yates and Smith paid $35.50 in cash for the license and deputy clerk Brian Mason shook their hands and congratulated them. It was the 100th marriage license issued by the clerk's office this year and the first one since the Supreme Court ruling. Last year, the clerk's office issued 214 marriage licenses.

So there we have it folks, reason and love has won out over bigotry and hatred - something I don't believe would have happened by now if these couples had simply cowtowed and gone to another county to get their license.

a reply to: piney

When you are persecuted for your faith.

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

-

No she wasn't being persecuted for her faith. Has her freedom of religion been denied? NO.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: dawnstar

I would have moved city hall to make sure I married my bride... if that's what it took.

I sympathise with the couples looking to get a license... but if I was denied, my urgency would be getting the damn license elsewhere, not making a point. My love first, all else secondary.

Interchange the couple for interracial. Still ok to slink off quietly and go elsewhere to avoid being discriminated against?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

It is a spectacle; a spectacle in-part created by the woman in question, that is, and the media.

Here's the thing, she's the boss, so why didn't she say "I don't want MY signature on these, but I have to do my job, so I'll deputize someone in the office to do marriage licenses for everyone, and I will keep my hands off them, while holding true to the vows of my elected office." Instead she said "No one can get licenses - I can't be charged with discrimination that way but I can prevent gay people from getting married."

She had choices and options, and she did not take them. The media became involved and she became, I think, more stubborn in that now she sees herself as taking a stand she can't back down from, and she's willing to be a martyr for her cause.

If circumventing a Supreme Court ruling on human rights was just as simple as saying "Hm. I don't like the ruling so I won't follow it," you have a breakdown of the rule of law, no? What if it was an interracial couple or a black couple and someone said "we don't serve your kind here, so we won't serve anyone, go away!" It is a slippery slope, SO.

If she didn't want to participate in certain aspects of her job now that the rules have changed, she can recuse herself from that aspect and deputize someone who is okay with it (or hire someone who is okay with it) to do it in her stead. If that is too much for her, she can resign.

peace,
AB

a reply to: piney

She's not being persecuted because of her faith, she is free to believe in whatever she wants, she is not free however to persecute others due to her beliefs. She is a government official and as such there is separation of church and government and that's the way it should be.

She is no different to ISIS wanting religious dogma to govern the masses rather than the secular.

She is a hypocritical adulterous slut whose using her religious beliefs to deny others civil rights. We are now seeing the end of organised MAN MADE religion and I hope i witness this in my lifetime and you can blame the likes of Kim Davis, WBC, ISIS and all the other fundamental nut jobs for making religion something most of society will want nothing to do with!!

A Scientist will read dozens of books in his lifetime, but still believe they have more to learn. A relgious person barely reads one book, and think that they know it all!

originally posted by: piney

What I don't understand is why they don't just sack her instead of jailing her.

Can you please explain why you have totally ignored the fact that, as an elected official, she could not simply be "fired"?

It's not as if that hasn't been pointed out MANY times in this thread alone, including on this very page.

I also don't understand why these homosexuals are claiming equal rights when they already have the same rights as any other man.More like extra rights for homosexuals.

You are kidding right? You HAVE to be kidding - I simply cannot believe a human being could be THAT ignorant.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace

I go two blocks down the street and I pass a church, go a few more blocks and there's two more, a couple more blocks and I find another, then another, then another. in all I think I pass maybe 15-20 churches everyday in a 15 minute drive...

that isn't intolerance!
what isn't being tolerated is the idea that religion gives a person free license to discriminate.

Exactly. I live in a town of 5500 people. There are almost as many churches in this town, as there are businesses. The religious in the U.S. have entitlement thinking. They feel they are the top of the food chain, and have rights the rest of us do not have. This clerk is just one example of how millions of evangelical Christians actually think if they were being honest about it. Thankfully, not every Christian is evangelical.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: dawnstar

I would have moved city hall to make sure I married my bride... if that's what it took.

I sympathise with the couples looking to get a license... but if I was denied, my urgency would be getting the damn license elsewhere, not making a point. My love first, all else secondary.

I see what you did there.

a reply to: Klassified

I see what you did there.

I would have moved city hall to make sure I married my bride... if that's what it took.

Aaaah I think I see it. Gotcha.

a reply to: Kryties

Don't forget, equal treatment under the law has also won.

originally posted by: Kryties

Kentucky clerk's office issues marriage license to gay couple, ending ban

The Kentucky clerk's office that had refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance of orders by a federal judge on Friday morning ended its resistance.

While Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was jailed on Thursday for refusing to follow the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning, her deputies processed a license for James Yates and William Smith, who had previously been denied one, after the office doors opened on Friday.

Yates and Smith paid $35.50 in cash for the license and deputy clerk Brian Mason shook their hands and congratulated them. It was the 100th marriage license issued by the clerk's office this year and the first one since the Supreme Court ruling. Last year, the clerk's office issued 214 marriage licenses.

So there we have it folks, reason and love has won out over bigotry and hatred - something I don't believe would have happened by now if these couples had simply cowtowed and gone to another county to get their license.

Article Link for those interested

This guy nails it:

If your love feels like hate then it is not love. If you are using God to denigrate and humiliate then it is not God.

- Paul Brandeis Raushenbush
Executive Editor Of Global Spirituality and Religion, The Huffington Post

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Of course there was. Her faith is being tested.

Not by the courts. They don't care about her faith. They don't care if her faith is real or not. They care if she's doing her job legally. And she is not.

Which law?

The constitution's 14th amendment. (Or, as you call it, the supreme law of the land). Yes she has freedom to exercise her religion, but not to deny others their constitutional protections.

A lesser law just introduced requires her office to act against the principles of her religion.

There was no "new" law introduced. The Supreme Court made a ruling based on the 14th amendment, which says that states cannot make laws that don't provide equal protection to ALL citizens. Marriage is a STATE LAW, and therefore must be made available to ALL citizens of the state.

She is being ordered to participate in an unholy act, to sanction behavior that her religion condemns
as an abomination, and to put her name and signatory to the deed.

Then she should resign her position. It's really simple. If I had a government job that required me to do something against my beliefs, I would give up the job. Her CHOICE.

If you love Jesus, you can't work here.

It's not about her religious beliefs or who she loves. "If you can't do the job, you cannot work here".

Now, why doesn't the government solve this problem a different way. Hire a gay person to marry gays,

You understand VERY little about this case. She's NOT being asked to marry gays.

Jail is just the judge being ignorant.

No. Davis didn't leave him much choice. The judge is a devout Catholic, and doesn't approve of gay marriage. He is a Republican judge appointed by George W. Bush. Here's what he said: S ource

“Personal opinions, including my own, are not relevant to today,” Bunning, a federal district judge, told Davis and the courtroom Thursday. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”
...
David Bunning has made it clear that he knew his decision to force the Rowan County clerk to follow the law put him at odds with the deeply held personal beliefs of a lot of Americans, himself included.

Kim Davis's personal opinions are not relevant. Obeying the Constitution is what matters. The first amendment does not give her the power to deny gay people their 14th amendment rights. She is still free to have her beliefs, worship as she wants, disapprove of gay marriage, and go to church, but it does NOT give her the right to disobey the law of the land.

If a Muslim in her position wanted to "kill the infidels" because it was his religion, would you support that? No, because murder is against the law. So is denying Constitutionally protected rights to citizens.

originally posted by: Klassified

Article Link for those interested

Woops, my bad - I meant to include the article link. I shall edit my post to add it, thanks for that