Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Town Heretic]

To recap:

Kentucky clerk refuses to follow a lawful order in keeping with the S.Ct. ruling.

Judge gives clerk a choice to avoid conflict of conscience.

Clerk refuses. Judge holds her in contempt and puts her behind bars until she complies.

Clerk states she couldn't in good conscience allow her name to be affixed to the licenses.

In her absence clerks begin issuing licenses without her name affixed.

Clerk declares the licenses invalid because they lack her name.



Previously there was some debate around here about a level of hypocrisy attaching to someone torn by religious beliefs who was working on her fourth marriage and the defense was a recent conversion, which would seem reasonable.

But when asked about her decision to deny the licenses she didn't cite her recent embrace of the faith. No, she said, "I'm a preacher's daughter, and this is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life." That would appear to be resting on a less honest impression. She presumably was a preacher's daughter during the activity prior to her conversion as well.

What I'm suggesting is that appearance appears to be very important to her, even to the point of misleading people with her selection of reveals.

Davis has said she hopes the Kentucky legislature will change the law in such a way as to allow her to remain Clerk without violating her conscience...for those following along that's a tacit admission that she's not performing the duties of her office. Worse, before being held in contempt she had said she would actively forbid her deputies from following their duty and, presumably, exercising their own consciences.

:think:

 

[ok doser]

To recap:

Kentucky clerk refuses to follow a lawful order.....

and everything you typed after this is meaningless because what you consider to be a "lawful order" means absolutely diddlysquat to God

 

[bybee]

would you speak of blacks the way you are speaking of gays?

Red, Brown, Yellow, Black and White they are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world!
People are people regardless of external differences.
But God created us man and woman so that together we may have children and be a family.
I am not speaking ill of people who are practicing homosexuals. They are after all God's children.
I am saying that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and against nature.
That is all that I am saying.

 

[TracerBullet]

Children are children, they do not choose to be children

Thank you for clearing that up

People look different, and this is the main issue, looks, and how one appears is not of one's choosing, how they essentially look . Normal persons are female or male, they do not choose to be one sex over the other.

your grasp of the obvious is astounding

Homos choose to be queer, there are no conclusive studies proving beyond doubt anyone is born a queer.

There is plenty of evidence however

there are no conclusive studies proving beyond doubt anyone chooses their orientation. There isn't any such evidence either.

Th difference is the condoning of a choice to live an unnatural life, and now wanted this unnaturalness condoned and protected by law.

Hate is always a choice and it is an unnatural one and one that does not deserve to be protected by law

 

[TracerBullet]

Red, Brown, Yellow, Black and White they are precious in His sight.

That is nice but not what i asked

Jesus loves the little children of the world!
People are people regardless of external differences.
But God created us man and woman so that together we may have children and be a family.

and families come in many different forms.

I am not speaking ill of people who are practicing homosexuals.

I am speaking of something society, up 'til now has regarded as aberrant behavior.
What science comes up with is something else entirely.
No doubt more and more behaviors once considered aberrant shall be considered normal and all shall be forced to accept it.
The accepting part is noxious to me

.
Would you post this in a discussion about blacks? Jews? the handicapped?

But here we are living in the lunatic fringe and it's legal!

would you post this in a discussion about interracial marriage

hey are after all God's children.
I am saying that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and against nature.
That is all that I am saying.

and racists would say much the same thing about racial equality - that it is unnatural and goes against God's word.


It's a convenient way to say horrible and hateful things while claiming that you aren't REALLY saying derogatory things

 

[annabenedetti]

Her name DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT appear on the license unless she personally affixes her signature to it.

That appears to be the case. From the New York Times:

But the legal wrangling over both the status of Ms. Davis, an elected official, and the validity of the licenses went on. Deputies of Ms. Davis were issuing the marriage licenses without her signature. Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the conservative legal group representing Ms. Davis, insisted the licenses were void because they were issued under her authority but without her authorization.

“They are not worth the paper they’re written on,” he said.
​

Kentucky law says that a marriage license must contain “an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license,” which same-sex marriage advocates note is standard language, preprinted on the form. State law does not require a clerk’s signature on the license; to be valid, it must have “the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.”
The Rowan County attorney, Cecil Watkins, has said that licenses issued without Ms. Davis’s assent would be valid, but he could not be reached for comment Friday.
​

Staver sounds desperate at the thought that the issue might be resolved.

And here's an interesting excerpt from The Kentucky Trial Court Review's conversation with Rowan County attorney Cecil Watkins:

... Liberty Counsel will leave Kim Davis high and dry when this charade is over. Watkins thinks the funds they raise off the case should go to Rowan County.

Finally and most importantly he has learned that deputy clerks would issue lawful marriage licenses. They are simply afraid to do so. And if Judge Bunning instructs them to do so . . . they will.
Davis has put, in the words of Watkins, her employees and everyone in the courthouse in a "terrible position."

[. . . ]

Ed. Note - The takeaways from the Watkins interview are clear. Davis is acting alone in her zealous mission. Her conduct has terrorized not just her staff but everyone that works in the courthouse. And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their "religious liberty" mission.
Shannon Ragland
Kentucky Trial Court Review​

 

[bybee]

That is nice but not what i asked


and families come in many different forms.



.
Would you post this in a discussion about blacks? Jews? the handicapped?


would you post this in a discussion about interracial marriage



and racists would say much the same thing about racial equality - that it is unnatural and goes against God's word.


It's a convenient way to say horrible and hateful things while claiming that you aren't REALLY saying derogatory things

The only person using the word "hate" is you. I have not stated that I hate anyone. I disapprove of certain behaviors.
You attempt to conflate things that are not of the same value.

 

[quip]

Children are children, they do not choose to be children

People look different, and this is the main issue, looks, and how one appears is not of one's choosing, how they essentially look . Normal persons are female or male, they do not choose to be one sex over the other.

Homos choose to be queer, there are no conclusive studies proving beyond doubt anyone is born a queer.

Th difference is the condoning of a choice to live an unnatural life, and now wanted this unnaturalness condoned and protected by law.

Yes, but human suffering knows no such boundaries. No doubt you shirk from personal suffering.....so why are you promoting suffering on the behalf of others?

 

[StanJ]

Red, Brown, Yellow, Black and White they are precious in His sight.

Hey! No adding words. :chuckle:

 

[StanJ]

and everything you typed after this is meaningless because what you consider to be a "lawful order" means absolutely diddlysquat to God

Sadly, trying to speak for God, DOES! Especially when His written word teaches the contrary.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I forgot to aggregate man/child, woman/child.

You do know that NAMBLA would love for that to happen don't you.

It would be so nice if all of us would read for understanding.

I'm well aware of what NAMBLA advocate and they, like any other nutball group that pushes for sex with minors don't have a cat in hells chance of it being passed under law.

 

[Ktoyou]

Yes, but human suffering knows no such boundaries. No doubt you shirk from personal suffering.....so why are you promoting suffering on the behalf of others?

In fact I do not 'shirk' from personal suffering. I am not promoting suffering, rather I am attempting to prevent it. When perversion is taken as normal and acceptable, we all suffer, some more than others.

 

[Ktoyou]

....
Would you post this in a discussion about blacks? Jews? the handicapped?

The truth is always acceptable.

If you really think being of a color, being another religion, or being physically, or mentally impaired, is the same as committing an act of volition, then you are a moron!

I am not attacking you, I am speaking the truth.

 

[exminister]

Children are children, they do not choose to be children

People look different, and this is the main issue, looks, and how one appears is not of one's choosing, how they essentially look . Normal persons are female or male, they do not choose to be one sex over the other.

Homos choose to be queer, there are no conclusive studies proving beyond doubt anyone is born a queer.

Th difference is the condoning of a choice to live an unnatural life, and now wanted this unnaturalness condoned and protected by law.

If you are born a sinner and being gay is a sin why can't you be born gay? What meaning does being born a sinner have if you cannot be born with sinful ways?

 

[quip]

In fact I do not 'shirk' from personal suffering.

Of course you do, it's human nature. You're only lying to yourself if you believe otherwise.

I am not promoting suffering, rather I am attempting to prevent it. When perversion is taken as normal and acceptable, we all suffer, some more than others.

Preventing suffering via the proliferation of suffering! lain:
This seems a rather impoverished (read: selective) ideation of suffering. I could employ similar vague pronouncements justifying the banning of christianity from our society....but you'd no doubt see the folly in this ...correct?

Rather, it's a lame rationalization for holding a self-important position against that which you personally object whilst both seeking and perpetuating appeals ad populum by way of personal indignation and spurious logic.

Self-righteousness has its social perks ..yes? :angrymob:

 

[fzappa13]

This is absolutely correct.

The 4 dissenting judges including the Chief Justice realized this action was a stepping out of bounds.

In four separate dissents, the court's conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — said the court usurped a power that belongs to the people.

Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, "Just who do we think we are?"

Not to niggle, but the tenth amendment to the federal constitution reserves any non enumerated rights to the people or the states. Either way the constitution does not provide for the type of usurpation of power exercised in this and many other cases but, that is the nature of gradualism ... The anti-federalists won the day in the framing of our federal constitution but the federalists appear to have won the war as it regards it's eventual implementation.

 

[Traditio]

The comparisons are real and legitimate.

So you are dogmatically asserting with absolutely no argument or justification (as social liberals are wont to do). :idunno:

the very fact that all you can do to oppose them is to unilaterally declare them wrong and insult them speaks volumes about their relationship.

See my previous comments. You cherry picked a line or two and completely ignored the arguments that I made.

 

[fzappa13]

So any time you don't like a ruling you just point to the dissent? Okay. I sometimes agree with the dissent too. Well, if it makes us feel better why not, but the ruling is still the controlling part.

Though I think I understand some of the finer points of the law of the United States and its various states and occasionally opine on those matters, at the end of the day, I realize that there is a higher law that we will all be judged by and I sometimes question whether or not you understand this.

 

[Ktoyou]

Of course you do, it's human nature. You're only lying to yourself if you believe otherwise.

Not really, I lived with suffering too long to fear it.

 

[Ktoyou]

If you are born a sinner and being gay is a sin why can't you be born gay? What meaning does being born a sinner have if you cannot be born with sinful ways?

We are all born into sin, and being homosexual is one of many sins; however, we seek to be born again, saved from sin, and to live righteously. No one can live in sin and live righteously, not even homos.