Kentucky Clerk’s Office Defies Court Order to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ashiraya wrote:
It is absurd that it got this far. If you were elected to do a job, and your religion forbids you from doing your job, you either quit the religion or quit the job.

You don't continue to do your job but not really.

Among her (and the other guy's) arguments, are that when they took their oaths of office, SSM was not legal, and therefore, they are upholding their oath, as administered.

Of course, that is a gakky excuse, because anyone who's been in the military, or taken an oath of office knows that the oath is rather "open ended" in that, things change, and when laws change, your oath reflects that, even if you didn't say anything new.

**Kilkrazy**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
In a move that surprised absolutely no one

Pretty sure her paycheck isnt signed by "God"

I dunno.

In God We Trust is printed on American money, isn't it.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
In a move that surprised absolutely no one

Pretty sure her paycheck isnt signed by "God"

I dunno.

In God We Trust is printed on American money, isn't it.

Just remember: "Jebus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're a

."

Hahahahahaha

**Psienesis**

Kilkrazy wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
In a move that surprised absolutely no one

Pretty sure her paycheck isnt signed by "God"

I dunno.

In God We Trust is printed on American money, isn't it.

And Jesus says that the laws of the land are created by governments who are put there by God.

**SilverMK2**

And when someone shows any evidence that god exists, I am sure we can then start to think about listening to anything it supposedly has to say about anything.

Until that point I'm quite happy to live in a world of equality...

**reds8n**

Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Ouze wrote:
.... and she is still refusing to issue them.

I'm pretty sure this woman is going to see the inside of a cell, and soon, for contempt.

so she has or hasn't been divorced 3 times and is on her 4th marriage ?

I haven't been able to source that definitively, but that is the scuttlebutt.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/meet-kim-davis#.lhnjNM9ng

seems to be true indeed.

“The public is my boss,” she told the Morehead News during last year’s general election. “Being a public servant is ingrained in me and I want [to] continue providing the high level of customer service we do while treating people with respect, kindness, and helping them with whatever situation they have.”

....errmmm .......

**Ensis Ferrae**

reds8n wrote:

“The public is my boss,” she told the Morehead News during last year’s general election. “Being a public servant is ingrained in me and I want [to] continue providing the high level of customer service we do while treating people with respect, kindness, and helping them with whatever situation they have.”

....errmmm .......

Clearly "The Gays" are not people in her book. So she's good..... right?

**Kanluwen**

Read a great little article this morning about Kim Davis and the "sanctity of marriage":

The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life.

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.

Davis has described her desire to strictly adhere to the Bible in stark terms and thus far has shown no sign of bending to court orders on same-sex marriage. She said Tuesday she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders.

Davis' struggle to exempt herself from the Supreme Court's June decision legalizing same-sex marriage has excited some Christian conservatives but legally has proven futile: The Supreme Court refused her request Monday that the justices intervene, and a federal judge will decide Thursday whether to hold her in contempt.

Davis’ divorce records, in the meantime, are a “popular file” at the local courthouse, a woman who answered the phone tells U.S. News, as bloggers and social media users titter with accusations of hypocrisy.

The matter first attracted public attention in July, when WKYT-TV reporter Victor Puente made a passing on-air reference to the fact that Davis’ latest marriage certificate shows she was married four times. Davis’ office stores that document.

Davis did not respond to an emailed request for comment, and her office’s phone line was busy throughout the day Tuesday.

The leader of the organization providing her legal representation, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, says he’s not sure precisely how many husbands Davis has had, but that it's not relevant.

“I know she was married more than once – I’ve heard three [times],” he says. “It’s a matter of fact that she’s been married multiple times.”

Staver says “it’s not really relevant, it’s something that happened in her past” and that her conversion to Christianity about four years ago wiped her slate clean. “It’s something that’s not relevant to the issue at hand,” he says. “She was 180 degrees changed.”

In a Tuesday statement released by Liberty Counsel, Davis admitted she had lived an imperfect life, but insisted her current beliefs are sincere.

“It is not a light issue for me,” she said. “It is a heaven or hell decision.”

Three other Kentucky county clerks have expressed opposition to facilitating same-sex marriages, and one of them says Davis’ divorces in no way diminish her credibility.

Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who is not related to Kim Davis, tells U.S. News he believes there’s a difference between getting a divorce and then repenting and living in a same-sex relationship.

“I don’t have any problem with that whatever, how she was before. If the Lord can forgive her, surely I can,” he says. “That’s something that’s forgivable just like any other sin, but if you continue in it and live in it, there’s a grave danger in that.”

Casey Davis says he wasn’t personally aware Kim Davis had been divorced and that he has no desire to speak with her about that. “You know this, people will say everything and all this stuff, they want to bring the worst out in the best of people. Obviously it’s human nature. I don’t like it and no one should,” he says.

The Casey County clerk currently is riding a bicycle across Kentucky to raise attention to the issue and wants Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to pass a law allowing local clerks to play no role officiating marriages and make their role mere record keeping.

Staver says other possible avenues include the state centralizing marriage issuance or allowing marriages to be performed without attaching the names of county clerks.

But there’s no sign that will happen, and Staver acknowledges it's impossible for clerks to hold out indefinitely against ruinous fines given for contempt.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is advocating on behalf of a male same-sex couple repeatedly denied a marriage license by Kim Davis' office, is asking for fines significant enough to compel compliance.

Source

HYPOCRISY TASTES DELICIOUS!

**Frazzled**

Thats your assumption. She can treat them with respet, kindness, blah blah and still deny them a certificate. Appears she's denying everyone though.

Me, I'd have more fun. "You mean to tell me you want me to get up out of my seat, walk over there and push print? Have you lost your mind? I'm on coffee break."*

*Standard response Frazzled gets when dealing with the gov.

**Kanluwen**

She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.

Agreed Big K. Let no one misinterpret that I agree with her or what she is doing. I have faith that the courts will provide sufficient motivation to resolve the situation.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.

Agreed Big K. Let no one misinterpret that I agree with her or what she is doing. I have faith that the courts will provide sufficient motivation to resolve the situation.

WWJDD... (What Would Judge Dredd Do?)

**agnosto**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
She's denying everyone as a "protest" to the fact that she'd have to give marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

It's why she can say "I'm not a bigot" with a straight(no pun intended) face.

Agreed Big K. Let no one misinterpret that I agree with her or what she is doing. I have faith that the courts will provide sufficient motivation to resolve the situation.

WWJDD... (What Would Judge Dredd Do?)

She's kind of following that already, "I am the law!!"

**Ouze**

$20 says her supporters are the same sort of people who would say sharia law is one of the greatest threats to the US.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
$20 says her supporters are the same sort of people who would say sharia law is one of the greatest threats to the US.

inversely,at mean ISIL will attack if she's forced to resign?

**agnosto**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
$20 says her supporters are the same sort of people who would say sharia law is one of the greatest threats to the US.

inversely,at mean ISIL will attack if she's forced to resign?

More like God will send a plague if she's ousted from office to show his/her displeasure at having a true daughter's adherence to an obscure reference in the bible being questioned while she simultaneously flouts clearly worded doctrine. It's the details that matter.

**WrentheFaceless**

Lets hope the "court motivation" isnt footed by the taxpayers like her paycheck for the job she isnt doing is

Should be out of her own pockets, and any kickstarter/go fund me should be shut down

**CptJake**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Lets hope the "court motivation" isnt footed by the taxpayers like her paycheck for the job she isnt doing is

Should be out of her own pockets, and any kickstarter/go fund me should be shut down

Now, I agree with not wanting to see the taxpayers have to pay the bill (but frankly, if the county tax payers do have to, whomever runs against her in the next election can use that like a hammer during the campaign).

But why the desire to shut down any crowd funding she or one of her supporters sets up for her? Are you that vindictive that you would disallow a legal means of fund raising to her? What ends up being your litmus test for allowing crowd funding, your approval of the cause/issue?

**WrentheFaceless**

Because, if people are paying money to support her fines, its not a punishment, its no money out of her pocket.

They can pay for her lawyers, rather they pay for that than the state, but if they're paying her fines, its not much of a punishment or a deterrent.

**Ouze**

Since she is acting outside the scope of her office, I'm certainly hopeful the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for any sanctions that get levied.

Outside of that, I don't care other than to maybe mention that GoFundMe might shut down the campaign if one is started, as they now disallow fundraising "in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.” But if they don't, it's no skin off my teeth of the Chik Fil A crowd wants to throw their money into this particular dumpster fire.

**Kanluwen**

CptJake wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Lets hope the "court motivation" isnt footed by the taxpayers like her paycheck for the job she isnt doing is

Should be out of her own pockets, and any kickstarter/go fund me should be shut down

Now, I agree with not wanting to see the taxpayers have to pay the bill (but frankly, if the county tax payers do have to, whomever runs against her in the next election can use that like a hammer during the campaign).

But why the desire to shut down any crowd funding she or one of her supporters sets up for her? Are you that vindictive that you would disallow a legal means of fund raising to her? What ends up being your litmus test for allowing crowd funding, your approval of the cause/issue?

If the courts levy a financial punishment and her or her family or her "supporters" start a crowdfunding for her, then the financial punishment is meaningless.

The whole reason why the courts are being encouraged by the protesters and ACLU to not give her jail time is because they know she can cash in on that via Fox News and so-called Christian groups that would gladly start lining her pockets.

Let's put this in perspective though. She's an elected official and not doing her job. She's been collecting pay while not doing her job.
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

**CptJake**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Because, if people are paying money to support her fines, its not a punishment, its no money out of her pocket.

They can pay for her lawyers, rather they pay for that than the state, but if they're paying her fines, its not much of a punishment or a deterrent.

I just see that as massively petty and tyrannical to me. Who cares how she raises the money to pay for any of it (lawyers/fines/what ever)? Is the goal just to bankrupt her? If so, just advocate for total confiscation of all her property. Folks have been finding ways to pay penalties/fines ever since penalties and fines existed. Crowd funding is a newer way of doing so, but not nearly the only way supporters have helped those they deemed worthy pay off fines and penalties.

**Ouze**

Kanluwen wrote:
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?

**CptJake**

Kanluwen wrote:

Let's put this in perspective though. She's an elected official and not doing her job. She's been collecting pay while not doing her job.
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

And now you want to disbar her lawyers? Seriously? On what grounds? What illegal act or ethics violation have they committed? Is she not entitled to secure legal representation?

**WrentheFaceless**

CptJake wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Because, if people are paying money to support her fines, its not a punishment, its no money out of her pocket.

They can pay for her lawyers, rather they pay for that than the state, but if they're paying her fines, its not much of a punishment or a deterrent.

I just see that as massively petty and tyrannical to me. Who cares how she raises the money to pay for any of it (lawyers/fines/what ever)? Is the goal just to bankrupt her? If so, just advocate for total confiscation of all her property. Folks have been finding ways to pay penalties/fines ever since penalties and fines existed. Crowd funding is a newer way of doing so, but not nearly the only way supporters have helped those they deemed worthy pay off fines and penalties.

How is that petty? She's skirting the punishment, why would she feel any different if there is no punshiment to her actions if others are footing the bill. Thats far from petty, making her pay her own fines is justice

Though I dont see any reason to punish the lawyers.

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?

Failure to properly substantiate certain claims to the courts/perjury.

Since day one, Liberty Counsel has been claiming that Kim Davis has been receiving "credible death threats" as part of the reason why law enforcement need to be present at the Rowan County Court House where she works.

Also because Liberty Counsel is a mouthpiece for Liberty University, and as trolly as the Westboro Baptist Church--just not calling themselves a church.

**Ouze**

There's no evidence she hasn't received death threats and honestly I'd be a little surprised if she hasn't.

Disbarring lawyers for taking unpopular cases or being supported by unpleasant people seems like the slipperiest of slopes to me.

**Kanluwen**

CptJake wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Let's put this in perspective though. She's an elected official and not doing her job. She's been collecting pay while not doing her job.
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

And now you want to disbar her lawyers? Seriously? On what grounds? What illegal act or ethics violation have they committed? Is she not entitled to secure legal representation?

Claiming that your client is receiving "credible death threats" to garner public support and as an attempt to get law enforcement protection is an ethical violation, since it amounts to perjury when you do not present any actual evidence.

And calling "Liberty Counsel" legal representation is hilarious. They're lawyers, but they're the Westboro Baptist Church kind of lawyers. As in--"We'll be complete donkey-caves to you, but if you do anything back to us--SUE! SUE! SUE!".

To use an Ouze term, they specialize in poutrage litigation.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Since she is acting outside the scope of her office, I'm certainly hopeful the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for any sanctions that get levied.

Its worse. She's actually VIOLATING the scope of her employment, so agreed the taxpayers should pay nothing for her.

But if they don't, it's no skin off my teeth of the Chik Fil A crowd wants to throw their money into this particular dumpster fire.

Again with the Chik FIl A slam. Its so good! I had two sandwiches and my heart rate was only 120 when I woke up at 1.00 in the morning hoping I wouldn't die. I'm sure it wasn't related...

**Ouze**

I'm thinking about trying that double breaded thing that was suggested earlier.

If you have a better, or at least less appetite inducing term to use for those guys I'm all ears. I would say "evangelicals" but that seems a little offensive since most (or really any) of the really religious people I know still won't go as far as throwing money at people like this. "Render unto Caesar" and all.