TOMapleLaughs Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 ASHLAND, Ky. A Kentucky county clerk was found in contempt of court Thursday for her refusal to issue marriage licenses in wake of the Supreme Court decision to allow gays to wed. U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies. Before the hearing, more than 100 protesters gathered outside the federal courthouse to bolster both sides of the debate. Demonstrators lined the street, waving signs either with religious messages or calls for marriage equality. One man stood in the crowd, shouting over a microphone. "If we want to live like Sodom and Gomorrah, God will punish us like Sodom and Gomorrah," he said, where in Genesis 19: 23-26 God rained burning sulfur on the land of the two cities destroying all who lived there. The Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, whose lawyers are representing Davis, said in a court filing Wednesday that she should not be found in contempt because lesser measures could achieve the same goal. Those include authorizing the state to issue marriage licenses or allowing someone other than a county's clerk to sign them. But Bunning, who had previously ordered her and her clerks to process the paperwork and issue certificates, said fines for Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure her to follow his orders. As word of Davis' arrest became known in the crowd, cheers and chants erupted outside the courthouse. One minister called the ruling unjust, saying religious freedom had been trampled on. Ashley Hogue, a secretary from Ashland held a sign outside the courthouse that read, "Kim Davis does not speak for my religious beliefs." "This is so ugly," she said, wiping away tears. "I was unprepared for all the hate." Demonstrator Charles Ramey, a retired steelworker, downplayed the vitrol. "We don't hate these people," he said. "We wouldn't tell them how to get saved if we hated them." Davis. who calls herself an Apostolic Christian, has said she cannot issue licenses to same-sex couples because it conflicts with her religious beliefs.I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will," she said in a previous statement through her lawyers. "To me, this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and Gods word. She has been resisting suggestions that her deputies could issue the licenses because her name appears on the certificates. But the crux of the contempt case against her involves Kentucky law, which, unlike some states' laws, requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses. Bunning warned other clerks at least two other counties in Kentucky also shuttered their marriage-license operations for all couples that his order applied to them, too. He gave Davis' deputy clerks time to meet with public defenders and said he would continue the hearing later this afternoon. When four couples two gay and two straight filed suit against her for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the June Supreme Court ruling, she argued that they could be served in other Kentucky counties. When Bunning, son of GOP Sen. Jim Bunning who retired from the U.S. Senate in 2011, told her she or her deputies must issue the licenses, he stayed his order until this past Monday as she filed an appeal with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. When that stay expired, appeals court judges declined to renew it. And when she asked the Supreme Court to weigh in Monday, justices in Washington refused. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/ "Only God can be my judge." Wrong. This is not a gay or lesbian issue, marriage issue, or a word of God issue. It's called separation of church and state. As a state employee, you're not entitled to envoke religious beliefs into your job, period, let lone to deny the rights of the civilians you serve. If you have a problem with this, then don't work for the state. Simple enough. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Sounds like she had the wrong job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 religious stupidity does what religious stupidity does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/ "Only God can be my judge." Wrong. This is not a gay or lesbian issue, marriage issue, or a word of God issue. It's called separation of church and state. As a state employee, you're not entitled to envoke religious beliefs into your job, period, let lone to deny the rights of the civilians you serve. If you have a problem with this, then don't work for the state. Simple enough. Right? I gotta agree with you on this one. Her job is to use the laws created by the state, not to make up her own. Are not judges elected in the States? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 That's the problem, America is so polarized now there is little to no middle ground. That's like refusing to issue a liquor licence to a pub because it's not moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 How does someone that hideous get married four times and mother children? Meanwhile I can't get a girlfriend recently. She must be a dominatrix or do something wild in the bed room. Or maybe it's just not that difficult to hook dip shart losers with the same moronic beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 It's called separation of church and state. As a state employee, you're not entitled to envoke religious beliefs into your job, period, let lone to deny the rights of the civilians you serve. If you have a problem with this, then don't work for the state. Simple enough. Right? http://asia-canada.ca/asia-pacific-reality/wisdom-diversity/creating-change-baltej-singh-dhillon technically, God's word says nothing about giving people who identify as gay pieces of paper entitling them to live together and receive tax benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 It is also an issue of ethics and justice, one that some religious fanatics can't rationally comprehend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 She picked the wrong profession to discriminate against gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 She picked the wrong profession to discriminate against gay people. Yep. Shoulda become a baker... ...oh, wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Yep. Shoulda become a baker... ...oh, wait...More like clergy, or a stay at home soccer mom, or a liberal layabout who spends all day complaining about what others have and how they're entitled to more.Unfortunately, baking cakes isn't just baking cakes anymore. It's gotta turn into a pissing match where evidently one cares if the cake is for gay people, and where white liberals cry about people being opposed to baking cakes that disagree with their views (yet don't go bother Muslim bakeries -- how interesting). Then of course, same liberals turn around and cry to Walmart about catering to people who like the confederate flag. Oh boohoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/ijay Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Even if she was completely right, god exists and he hates homosexuals, issuing a marriage licence would not make you gay and she would not be a sinner for doing so. She is judging other people based on their lifestyles and imposing her own views on to them. Thats not to mention that she is a hypocrite, committing adultery in her first marriage and being married 4 times to 3 different men. There are more scriptures condemning divorce than there are homosexuality. By her logic she should be unable to issue marriage licences to people who were divorced previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Even if she was completely right, god exists and he hates homosexuals, issuing a marriage licence would not make you gay and she would not be a sinner for doing so. She is judging other people based on their lifestyles and imposing her own views on to them. Thats not to mention that she is a hypocrite, committing adultery in her first marriage and being married 4 times to 3 different men. There are more scriptures condemning divorce than there are homosexuality. By her logic she should be unable to issue marriage licences to people who were divorced previously.Well, if we all took her religion as seriously as she does, she'd be dead for her adultery.Moreover, I find her comment about her religion being more important than the Constitution to be utterly &^@#ing stupid. As a government employee, your only work function is to serve the public, so if one thinks of serving some god as that much more important, gtfo and find a different line of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickVega Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 So can someone help on me on this, according to the SCOTUS ruling marriage licenses must be issued to any couple who applies gay or straight. I get that part, agree wholeheartedly with it. Keeping with the church/state separation. But can a Catholic Church (just an example) deny a gay wedding inside their building or are they forced by the Feds to follow the SCOTUS ruling there as well because that to me seems like a religious infringement and is not a separation between church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Sounds like she had the wrong job. What do you think she'll give up on first (if it comes to that) - her $80K a year job, or her religious beliefs? EDIT: and of course she's an adulterer and has been married 4 times to three different men. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008. She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried. And of course it appears as though she became a devout Christian in 2011, so after these divorces happened, but there's clearly still that element of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 So can someone help on me on this, according to the SCOTUS ruling marriage licenses must be issued to any couple who applies gay or straight. I get that part, agree wholeheartedly with it. Keeping with the church/state separation. But can a Catholic Church (just an example) deny a gay wedding inside their building or are they forced by the Feds to follow the SCOTUS ruling there as well because that to me seems like a religious infringement and is not a separation between church and state.Each county jurisdiction, representing their respective state, issues marriage licenses, not churches.It is, therefore, not required to even bother getting a religious person's consent for marriage. Churches are really only used for personal religious purposes, for having someone sworn as a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages (I was sworn as this for my mother's last wedding in the US), which clergy tend to be sworn in as (the Deputy Commissioner signs the wedding license document attesting the validity, and a witness), and for ceremonial purposes.The churches made it a problem when they decided to use government to be the arbiter of marriage. Even worse, when they decided via voter initiatives that they would pick and choose which people to discriminate against. Anyone with a brain would see that this is always a battle they would eventually lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I'm all for anyone wanting to believe in whatever they want.... but people needs to leave their religion and beliefs outside the door when they're working in a secular institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickVega Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Each county jurisdiction, representing their respective state, issues marriage licenses, not churches. It is, therefore, not required to even bother getting a religious person's consent for marriage. Churches are really only used for personal religious purposes, for having someone sworn as a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages (I was sworn as this for my mother's last wedding in the US), which clergy tend to be sworn in as, and for ceremonial purposes. The churches made it a problem when they decided to use government to be the arbiter of marriage. Even worse, when they decided via voter initiatives that they would pick and choose which people to discriminate against. Ok thanks for explanation, but I must not have been clear on my questioning. I know the church does not issue licenses but because of the recent ruling would the church be forced to use their building for a gay wedding if that was where the couple decided they wanted it or is the churches religious freedom protected on their own property? Or another example could a Jewish couple get married in a Mosque even if the owners didn't want it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Ok thanks for explanation, but I must not have been clear on my questioning. I know the church does not issue licenses but because of the recent ruling would the church be forced to use their building for a gay wedding if that was where the couple decided they wanted it or is the churches religious freedom protected on their own property? Or another example could a Jewish couple get married in a Mosque even if the owners didn't want it?They can't force churches, mosques, etc. to wed people. That would violate the first amendment. On top of that, the use of churches are moot. Their function is only symbolic.The real issue at the moment with marriages legal is concerning the tax exempt status of churches while simultaneously discriminating against gays. There is now a growing push to get churches removed from tax exempt status. That's pretty much the worst the government can do.I know it's not that relevant to your last post, but since my wording was somewhat bad when explaining, I'll put the last post this way. When someone in the US files for marriage:- They receive paperwork from the county register- The couple fill out and sign what they need- A Deputy Commissioner of Marriages (which can be anyone, but tends to be clergy), sworn in by the county on behalf of the state (because they're acting on behalf of the state they need to be sworn in), signs attesting the marriage is valid- A witness signs too- After the wedding ceremony (since that is when said signatories will be present) they submit it to the county with any fees being paid and are issued within days their marriage license(s) with a state (and sometimes county) seal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Curious why the judge couldn't adjust the fines accordingly, like starting with a base amount and doubling it every day she refuses to comply. I feel like that might work quicker than if she decides to become a martyr for her cause and fight from jail. And what happens while she's there? Is there someone else temporarily sworn in to grant licenses, or is everything on hold while this plays out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.