Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

a reply to: dawnstar

but well, let's go with the idea that there are new forms, why is an army showing up to protect her then if all is well and good?

Because it's Kentucky and they are idiots. Ask yourself this why would a group that sworn to uphold the Constitution want to rush in and protect someone who willfully violated said document?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Bluntone22
She's out of jail because the judge violated the law not her.

That's factually untrue.
Please stop lying.

She is out of jail because her staff decided to do the RIGHT THING and issue licenses to all those legally permitted to marry, without bigotry and without discrimination.

Actually, her staff began issuing licenses to all those legally permitted to marry AFTER the forms were changed, per Ms. Davis' legal right to reasonable accommodations for her religious belief.... which could have and should have been done without sending anyone to jail. The judge had a legal duty but refused to protect Ms. Davis' legal rights under the law.

Kim Davis refused to allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses while she was present and the forms were not changed when she got locked up.

The only thing that changed was that her deputies were indeed willing to issue the unchanged certificates in her absence and without her approval and that's why she and her attorneys are still claiming that those licenses issued in her absence are invalid.

If changes were made, why would she now be claiming that those licenses are not valid?

ETA; After reading the source material in the link you provided, I stand corrected with respect to some changes being made to the forms.

But, why is she still saying that those issued in her absence are invalid?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: amicktd

and, I imagine that you view would change drastically if your daughter (or future daughter) was given a teacher who was refusing to teach her because well, he didn't believe that she needed the same standard of education as the boys did since she was female and therefore be home being taught how to sew, cook, and clean house!

I'm unsure what your getting at? I'm against religious freedom being implemented as part of the law. I feel everyone has a right to whatever they believe in, but shouldn't be allowed to implement those beliefs in a position that would affect others rights.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Agreed. Having worked at a Clerk's office right out of college, the fact that it's an elected position in the year 2015 seems out-dated to me. Clerks of Court are basically there to maintain filings, evidence, assist judges in managing dockets, swear in oaths, etc.

thelawdictionary.org...

If the Clerk is there simply to make sure it's all legit, having it be an elected Office and not simply a bureaucracy within the jurisdiction of the DOJ seems rife with political implications and possible malfeasance. To me at least.

a reply to: buster2010

I believe the Oathkeepers are out of Nevada, not Kentucky. At least that is where the non profit corp is registered.

a reply to: Hefficide

Regarding the Oathkeepers, they're too late. She was already unjustly incarcerated. Her reasonable accommodations were implemented. The crisis-by-design is over.

But I'm disappointed you chose to completely ignore Kim Davis' right to reasonable accommodations under the law, and the refusal of the judge and state officials to protect her legal rights. Or perhaps you are not aware that she does have legal recourse under the law.

None of this was necessary or proper. We cannot protect the rights of one by trampling the rights of others.

originally posted by: Flatfish

Nothing like responding to one bald faced with another!

Excuse me?

Marriage licenses issued since Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

Kim Davis refused to allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses while she was present and the forms were not changed when she got locked up.

Wrong. But I won't call you a bald faced liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you believed you had the correct information.

The only thing that changed was that her deputies were indeed willing to issue the unchanged certificates in her absence and without her approval and that's why she and her attorneys are still claiming that those licenses issued in her absence are invalid.

If changes were made, why would she now be claiming that those licenses are not valid?

Her attorney has stated that now that her name has been removed from the form, she will not try to stop the issuance of the forms. The legality of the new forms is being debated by others, based on state law, not Kim Davis' religious belief.

a reply to: Flatfish

After reading the source material in the link you provided, I stand corrected with respect to some changes being made to the forms.

But, why is she still saying that those issued in her absence are invalid?

As I understand it, it has to do with the particulars of Kentucky law, and whether anyone has the power/authority to change the rules so to speak. I would imagine that if the responsible parties actually decided to do their job, the legal technicalities could be worked out fairly simply.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Boadicea

they didn't change any forms, the deputies were initialing where she was to sign!

but well, let's go with the idea that there are new forms, why is an army showing up to protect her then if all is well and good?

Yes, the forms were changed.

Marriage licenses issued since Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

ETA: I can't speak for the Oath Keepers.

She could have changed the forms way back in June. If they are valid now, they would have been valid then. I believe this quote from your link is the crux of the matter:

Davis' complaints are "simply a misguided effort to register displeasure with the Supreme Court," attorneys for the governor said in a court document.

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
Am I the only one seeing the irony in this?

The Oath Keepers are flocking to protect someone that is breaking their oath of office? WTH?

And violating the Constitution.

a reply to: Boadicea

In this case I cannot see any need for a "reasonable" accommodation as Kim Davis is being patently unreasonable by definition. My personal feeling is that she is deliberately and willfully engaging in irrational semantics with an intent to profit from it. She knows that there is a segment of the population who will eat this stuff up and that she will likely, at the least, do the lecture and "special guest" circuit for years to come and - all with nice fees coming her way. She might well end up with her own reality TV show out of this.

The legal concept of reasonable accommodation doesn't apply here in my estimation. It's not like she wants to do her job and is being held back by some barrier. The barrier, as she sees it, is the job itself. That takes the reasonable right out of the equation - and I doubt that a Court will find that "accommodation" means "getting somebody else to do her job for her". That's a replacement.

And this case matters in that regard because if Kim Davis can convince the Court to accommodate her by having others do her job around her - then it opens the door for an endless slew of similar cases. Imagine retail workers saying that they cannot work in a building that sells pork, or alcohol. or condoms, or Christmas decorations, or anything with human images portrayed on it... Should retail stores accommodate those views by only selling items that suit ALL of their religious employees ideas of what is acceptable?

Everything that Kim Davis is doing opens a floodgate and, given the Equal Protection clause - if she has her way it could literally bring our civilization to it's knees.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Flatfish

Nothing like responding to one bald faced with another!

Excuse me?

Marriage licenses issued since Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

Kim Davis refused to allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses while she was present and the forms were not changed when she got locked up.

Wrong. But I won't call you a bald faced liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you believed you had the correct information.

The only thing that changed was that her deputies were indeed willing to issue the unchanged certificates in her absence and without her approval and that's why she and her attorneys are still claiming that those licenses issued in her absence are invalid.

If changes were made, why would she now be claiming that those licenses are not valid?

Her attorney has stated that now that her name has been removed from the form, she will not try to stop the issuance of the forms. The legality of the new forms is being debated by others, based on state law, not Kim Davis' religious belief.

Sorry for the "bald faced lie" part. I was unaware of any changes being made to the forms and after reading the material you linked in another post, I stand corrected.

Just the same, why is her son still refusing to issue licenses to gay couples?

Furthermore, why are those licenses that were issued in her absence being challenged?

Who's challenging them? Is it Kim Davis and her attorneys?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens when she returns.

But if she continues down the same path, I think she should be re-jailed, along with any Oath Keepers who try to stand in the way.

a reply to: Hefficide

The Oath Keepers obviously don't have a uniform set of ideals, goals and rules but this is coming from their founder, so I have to wonder if he is just literally stupid and doesn't understand that he's choosing to defend the government, Kim Davis, over the Constitution, the people.

a reply to: Hefficide

I'm sure that the dissenters will be tagged, tracked and in the list of "people of interest" within the FBI, CIA and NSA watch dogs.

, what a way to thin out the real dissenters from just those that have nothing better to do.

In the US is too many people with a lot of free time and nothing to do this days.

Who should be blame, those that are busy working and making a living to feed their families don't have time to be around protecting law breakers and fanatics.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

She could have changed the forms way back in June.

Not to parse words, but I don't think she had the power or authority to change the forms. She had a legal right to request that change, and she did, but those with the authority to do so refused to do so.

If they are valid now, they would have been valid then.

Exactly! Ms. Davis made the request, it was obviously a valid request and a reasonable accommodation because it was eventually implemented. (Let me qualify that by saying that there is some debate about whether the law allows for the changes...)

I believe this quote from your link is the crux of the matter:

Davis' complaints are "simply a misguided effort to register displeasure with the Supreme Court," attorneys for the governor said in a court document.

And I believe that's just CYA for the governor, who refused to uphold his oath of office and act to protect Ms. Davis' legal rights under the law, and needs to protect himself. If the governor had done his job, then it never would have gone so far.

a reply to: Hefficide

The legal concept of reasonable accommodation doesn't apply here in my estimation. It's not like she wants to do her job and is being held back by some barrier. The barrier, as she sees it, is the job itself. That takes the reasonable right out of the equation - and I doubt that a Court will find that "accommodation" means "getting somebody else to do her job for her". That's a replacement.

But she wasn't asking for someone else to do her job. She asked for her name to be removed from the form. The reasonable accommodation she asked for is exactly what was implemented. Her lawyer has stated that now that has been done, she will not stop anyone from issuing the licenses. (I have not read whether or not she will also issue forms or will leave that to her deputies.)

If the judge had considered -- and therefore protected -- her legal rights under the law, no matter what his ultimate decision on her reasonable accommodations, I would agree that she had received her due process. But that did not happen.

The fact that her requested reasonable accommodations were in fact instituted is the proof that she was not acting unreasonably or unlawfully.

a reply to: Boadicea

Who changed the forms? State Congress? They still aren't in session. The Governor? I don't think so. The judge? Don't think so.

The deputy clerks changed the forms. All by their lonesome. And all the legal experts are saying that the forms are legal, and that a deputy clerk's signature is as good as the county clerk's signature. The only one saying they weren't legal was Kim Davis, through her attorney.

Don't tell me that Davis didn't know that the forms could be changed that way. She knew perfectly well it was legal. She was determined that NO same-sex marriage licenses would happen in HER county.

She's changing her story now, because she knows she's lost.

originally posted by: Flatfish

Sorry for the "bald faced lie" part. I was unaware of any changes being made to the forms and after reading the material you linked in another post, I stand corrected.

No worries! Things are happening quickly, and there's alot of contradictory information out there. It's not easy keeping up, especially when there are those who thrive on the confusion and chaos for their own agendas.

Just the same, why is her son still refusing to issue licenses to gay couples?

I really don't know -- I haven't read anything about that recently, and I guess I assumed that once his mother's name was removed from the form, he would be satisfied also.

Furthermore, why are those licenses that were issued in her absence being challenged?

Who's challenging them? Is it Kim Davis and her attorneys?

Do you mean legal challenges in court? Or just the talking heads? I know some folks are saying that Kentucky law requires the County Clerk to personally approve the licenses and it isn't that easy just to change the forms... others say that's not true and that it's procedural not legal issue...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens when she returns.

Pretty much, yeah.

But if she continues down the same path, I think she should be re-jailed, along with any Oath Keepers who try to stand in the way.

The Oathkeepers are just stirring the pot. I don't trust them or their stated mission. But I don't want Davis to go back to jail. I would prefer a restraining order or something. If she still can't get with the program, even after being given her reasonable accommodation, then she needs to step down.

a reply to: Hefficide

I've generally been a fan of the Oathkeepers, but where they're finding the logic here that she was in the right and the judge in the wrong is beyond me. I can't, in good conscience and with my knowledge of the legal system, support what they're doing, here.

IMO, they should have been out there to protect the couples who had to sue Davis in order to get their marriage licenses.

Or just not be out there at all, as this isn't exactly the type of situation where their armed presence is necessary.

a reply to: Hefficide

Yet another onion issue.

This woman-who has committed no violent crime-is being derided by some who carry a lethal weapon to defend their rights.

The convolution and confusion is feverish.