CLERK JAILED BY JUDGE BUNNING

[Billy Martin]

Sep 3, 1:59 PM EDT

 

Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriage licenses

By ADAM BEAM
Associated Press

AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley

ASHLAND, Ky. (AP) -- A defiant county clerk was sent to jail for contempt Thursday after insisting that her "conscience will not allow" her to follow a federal judge's orders to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

"God's moral law conflicts with my job duties," Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis told U.S. District Judge David Bunning. "You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul."

The judge said she left him with no alternative but to jail her, since fines alone would not change her mind. A deputy escorted her out of the courtroom, although not in handcuffs, to be turned over to the custody of federal marshals.

read the whole article

 

 

[Steve T.]

I believe the judge did the right thing.  A fine would not work as it wouldn't affect her personally.  There

are millions of misguided "supporters" out there who would just pony up some bucks to pay it for her.  

Jail is the only thing that would inconvenience her.  

 

I'm sure the contempt charge only allows the judge to jail her until she complies (which could be

tomorrow if jail is as miserable for her as it would be for any other criminal).  If there were any true

justice, she would have to serve one day for every day that she caused harm to the citizens of her county

who just wanted to get married...so a little over two months.

[Billy Martin]

Billy, you copied a news article but did not include a link to the article itself. Can you please edit your post to include the link to the article?

Zach, I thought it was clear that it was a byline by Adam Beam of the Associated Press. However, I attempted to do as you asked but for some reason the site wouldn't allow me to link, so, here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_KENTUCKY_KYOL-?SITE=KYWHI&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Jeikor]

If her interpretation of God's moral laws interfered with her job duties then it should have been clear that she needed to resign her job.

Regardless of how they 'feel' about the subject county clerks either must follow the law or resign.

Jesus even said, "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."  

[Zach Caldwell]

The Right is showing their true hypocrisy and animus in this situation. Not sure if anyone knew or remembers. I believe it was in 2009, in Louisiana, a county clerk there refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple on the basis of his religious beliefs. Gov. Jindal, at the time said that the clerk had to go if he could not follow the law. Just recently Gov. Jindal came out on the side of Kim Davis and says she has a right to her religious beliefs.

This just proves to me the animus that a number of politicians have towards the gay people. Simply put, the government cannot endorse any religion, by extension a county clerk is an elected government official, thus cannot impose her religious beliefs on to others and cannot and should not act contrary to the law.

If a situation is created in which clerks or government officials can assert their religious beliefs in their workplace onto others, then chaos will ensue. It could lead to any number of religious sects refusing services to other religious sects or to people who in some way violates their religious code.

The right goes on and on about Sharia Law and how it must be stopped. Yet it sure seems to me, that many on the right would very much like to have their own Christian (Sharia like) laws. That, to me, is very dangerous no matter what religous sects pushes for and seeks to do.

[Draco]

This is my first time to respond on any forum. I have been a lurker here for a long time reading the comments of others and not saying anything, however I think now is the time to change that.

There is one thing that everyone has missed out on. When she accepted the office she took an oath on a bible that she would do her job to the law of the land. This was not only a vow to the government that she would do the job but also a vow to her God as well. When the Supreme Court gave gays the right to marry this then became the law of the land. When she refused to follow the now law of the land she broke not only her oath to the government but also her vow to her God. To me this shows that she holds her God in contempt and feels that she doesn't have to honor any vow to him or any taken in His name.

In my way of thinking she has done nothing but make a mockery of Religion. Also I believe that anyone that claims to be Christian and supports her; and other oath breakers, continues to show that their God is not worthy of honoring by keeping their vows either to Him, or taken in His name.

At this time there is nothing that she can do that will show that she honors God. If she returns to office and does her job she shows that she has to be forced to honor her vow to God. If she resigns she shows that she is unable to honor any vow to her God. If she remains in jail she still shows that she is unable to honor any vow to God.

[ken barber]

Draco,

First glad you decided to post and share your views. All are welcome here. I had not looked at it from that perspective before and your right she is being very hypocritical.

[Emperor Roland]

being counted as one of the conservatives on this board, all I have to say is this....

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

 

in other words... every devout Christian (which i am NOT one by the way) must follow the law of the land...That is what Jesus said.... so..... ummmmm... yeah.

 

lol

[Draco]

Ken

Thank you for the like and welcome.

Yes she is being very hypocritical but she is not the only one. To me anyone that supports her, and other oath breakers, is just as hypocritical.

[ken barber]

Draco,

You are on to something there. too many people use religious beliefs to oppress others. The religious teachings they "use" are exactly opposite of that. They teach peace and acceptance.. You see this most prominently  in the Christian Evangelicals and Muslim Fanatics. In my opinion this is the worst kind of person there is. 

[Draco]

Emperor Roland you honor me with your comment and I thank you.

[Al Norris]

First, let me say that I have always thought that since we are supposed to take the view that church and State are to be separated, the giving and taking of vows or oaths on a Bible, should have never started, let alone continued.

But being a conservative and holding to a certain christian view (which is mine and doesn't mean squat, here), the lady is as wrong as wrong can be. Draco, you just hit on the one thing I don't see being talked about in the press or elsewhere.

Thank you for that.

[Draco]

Ken.

I agree totally with you. They claim to teach peace and acceptance but in their church they preach hate and intolerance for any that don't agree with their view of religion.

[Draco]

Al.

You are welcome and thank you for your comment.

I totally agree that church and State should be totally separated and oaths and vows on a bible should never been started. If an Atheist takes a vow on a bible, that he doesn't believe in, does that mean that he can tell lies without being punished? That is something that I have often wondered about.

[ken barber]

As an Atheist if I were forced to take a oath on the bible, My morals would kick in and ignore the bible and focus on the words of the oath itself. Say so help me god means nothing to me, so the rest of the oath would be a promise to me and my community. I took an oath once, an oath to defend this country, I was required to say so help me god, but that phrase was worthless to me. I still honored my oath and it still is a part of me today. 

My point is even though I am an Atheist I still have more moral conviction than this clerk in KY

[Draco]

Ken as another Atheist I feel the same way about any oath. When I had to sit for jury duty, and also once as a witness, I had to take an oath to tell the truth. That phrase meant nothing to me and I still told the truth due to my own morals. 

To me it is no surprise that Atheists have shown more moral conviction than the clerk in KY or many others that call themselves Christian.

 

[Zach Caldwell]

It is my understanding that anyone taking an oath of office has choices. A christian can take the oath on a bible, a Muslim on the Koran or one can even take the oath without any religious book. Oaths, I think, also come with and without the So help me God portion.

[Draco]

Zach I think that is the way it should be. However if a person takes an oath to God, or in the name of God, on a religious book of their choice, and breaks that oath then they can't continue to use religious conviction to justify breaking the law of the land. They have shown their contempt for religious conviction by breaking the oath to begin with. To continue to use religious conviction as justification is being totally hypocritical.

 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Draco

[Steve T.]

At least for the oath of office for the President, I've read that there is no requirement to swear on any religious text.  It sort of became tradition because Washington did it.  John Quincy Adams took his oath on a book of laws.  Teddy Roosevelt didn't use any book.  Just raised his hand and took the oath.

[Draco]

I may be wrong but I think that I read in one of the news reports that all oaths of office in Ky must be sworn on a bible and have the words " so help me God". If this is true then the moment she refused to do her job to the law of the land then she went beyond showing that she has no moral conviction to the law of the land. She also showed that she has no religious conviction and shows contempt for any oath taken in the name of God. In my way of thinking she has no right to continue to claim her actions are due to moral or religious convictions.

[Zach Caldwell]

Here is the oath that Kim Davis took.

 “I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

I have been looking but I have not found anything that says a bible is required to take an oath in Kentucky. Regardless, from reading the oath she took, she is violating more than just her oath to god. From reading the oath, I do not see how you can say that she is taking an oath to god. Sure she has a hand on the bible and says so help me god. This seems to me to be a way to appeal to a person's conscience or moral center to do the right thing. Which is why a person who is not religious is able to affirm his or her oath rather than have a religious context to it.

I have also been hearing, especially from Huckabee, that Kentucky marriage licenses include male and female on the form. Stating that despite the Supreme Court ruling, that Kentucky legislative action is required to make same sex marriages legal. Citing proof that Kentucky has not done this as the form has male and female listed on the form, thus the Supreme Court ruling is invalid. Or some crap to that effect. But actually Kentucky had changed the forms to 1st party and 2nd party. To say the state has no statutes actually allowing gay marriage means Kim Davis is right and the court wrong. He seems to forget that marriage laws are on the books in all states. Thus gay people, who now have the same rights to marriage, are subject to the same marriage laws that straight people are. Huckabee is simply a huckster out for his own gain and glory and to force his views and or beliefs onto others in the same vain as Kim Davis.  

Edited September 7, 2015 by Zach Caldwell

[Steve T.]

Well, Judge Bunning released her from jail.  He says that since her deputy clerks are complying, that meets his expectations.  He gave an order that she in no way, "directly or indirectly" interfere with her deputies continuing to issue those licenses.  Through her lawyers though, she has stated that she will not issue any license to a same sex couple with her name on it.  So it looks like we may go through this all over again, as soon as another gay couple tries to get a license in Rowan County.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/lawyers-vow-kim-davis-will-violate-court-order-and-halt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/

[Zach Caldwell]

If I were a betting man. I think she will return to work and, despite the Judge's order not to interfere with her deputies issuing licenses, will in fact interfere. Result, back to court, back in contempt, most likely criminal contempt at that point and back to jail for a much longer time.

[Jeikor]

You can add Ted Cruz to the Republican candidates jumping onto the Kim Davis bandwagon. One bright spot for me as one who usually votes Republican they are whittling down my choices for me.

Draco thanks I had not realized she used the words 'so help me God' in her oath of office but as I already stated if her religion interferes with her duties as County Clerk her only other option was to quit.

Hey Roland! We quoted the same scripture.

[Draco]

Jeikor you are welcome and I agree that was her only option.

You can also add Rick Santorum to the list of candidates that have jumped onto the Kim Davis bandwagon.