Posted on 09/02/2015 4:29:48 AM PDT by Nextrush
Rowan County, Kentucky Chief Clerk Kim Davis and her staff will face US District Judge David Bunning after lawyers for two gay couples filed a contempt motion.
The lawyers for the plantiffs want the judge to issue hefty fines against her to force compliance with his earlier order for her issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Yesterday morning, Davis's office again refused to issue marriage licenses to the two same sex couples who appeared at her office again to demand licenses.
Davis issued a statement regarding her decision that says in part.
"I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and the Word of God.....I have no amimosity towards anyone. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accomodations for people's religious freedom and conscience. I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned-that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking. I never sought to be in this position, and I would much rather not have been placed in this position. I have received death threats from people who do not know me. I harbor nothing against them. I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience"
We shall soon see what the response of the federal judiciary is, perhaps as early as tomorrow's contempt hearing.
Fines could be coming as the plantiff's lawyers want, but the final decision comes from Judge Bunning.
Kim Davis's opponents have resorted to smear tactics noting her three previous marriages and sex outside of marriage resulting in children.
My Trumpistic brass knuckles response to that "stuff" is this.
We have a national holiday honoring a man who led historic acts of civil disobedience.
Dr. Martin Luther King, a married man and assassinated martyr, was not perfect either as the FBI found out when it recorded his frequent encounters with two prostitutes at a time. Four FBI technicians told author Taylor Branch that Dr. King said "I'm f***ing for God".
nobody is perfect as Kim Davis noted in her statement.
If we are going to assassinate Davis's character and say she isn't worthy of having her conscience respected in this matter, then let us go ahead and cancel Martin Luther King's birthday as a national holiday.
Since that isn't going to happen, I'm not going to worry about Kim Davis's past and none of us should give a rip about it.
We should be grateful that Davis had the ability to cite a 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act' in Kentucky law.
When attempts were made to pass such laws in Indiana and Arkansas back in the spring, corporate elites like the CEO's of Apple and Wal-Mart stood up and the Republican governors (Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson) backed down.
When North Carolina's legislature passed religious conscience legislation earlier this year for public officials regarding gay marriage Republican Governor Pat McCrory vetoed it.
Good reminders that our faith and trust should not be in the GOP whose officials slowly rot this nation, but in the GOD who created us all and will strengthen this nation.
And with that faith perhaps we can find meaningful ways to resist evil and bring the politicians along by overwhelming them with that resistance in peaceful and spiritual ways.
That's essentially what Martin Luther King had to do and did back in the 1960's.
There may be some violence along the way like there was in that decade, but it will not be because we wanted it, but because evil people chose to ignite it.
No "religious tests". Carry on.
The contempt hearing tomorrow will be before US District Court Judge David Bunning. Only Congress can impeach him. Since McConnell won’t even fight to stop funding Planned Parenthood, he sure won’t fight to remove Bunning from the bench.
What they would do would be to send the U.S. Marshals out to arrest her. The charge would be Contempt of Court, and they can keep her in jail as long as they want and fine her as much as they want so long as she continues to refuse.
“Contempt” has to have a basis in law. Any court cannot just arrest someone who refuses to comply with their command.
This woman should remain strong and NEVER submit.
Whether or not the people on this forum agree or disagree with you is irrelevant. The fact is that the Federal courts at all levels disagree with you, and they're the ones who will jail her or fine her.
That is easy for us to say, be we aren’t the ones who would be financially ruined and/or stuck in a jail cell for defying a federal judge. More power to her if she chooses that course of action.
Yes they can. That's the legal definition of "contempt of court".
This woman should remain strong and NEVER submit.
And that is easy for us to say because we're not the ones who might go to jail or be fined large amounts of money. She's the one who will pay the penalty, and that's why regardless of her decision tomorrow then I'm going to respect it.
If the Federal law supersedes, then the Fed’s issue is with Kentucky, not her.
Where is the law that requires a county clerk to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples?
Do you think that the courts cannot be tyrannical and act unconstitutionally?
Are judges too perfect and holy to make mistakes?
We are witnessing judicial tyranny. Are you ok with that?
Did my recent post go unnoticed?
I was responding to your post 51. Was there another I should look at? She is sworn to uphold Kentucky law. There is a specific Kentucky law that conflicts. The action by the Feds should be directed at the Kentucky legislature.
Aside from which, those complaining have been offered an alternative, the remedy the SC mentioned. This works everywhere except these specific couples as they refuse to use it in an effort to force her to violate her current beliefs.
Holy “Scripture Out Of Context”, Batman!
A little history, they picked Rosa Parks to go to court in 1955 but she wasn’t the first black woman to refuse to go to the back of the bus in Montgomery.
The others were ‘single mothers’ who were in public shame and disrepute in that era.
But like I said, if Martin Luther King is honored with a national holiday and has a personal life that is less than reputable, far be it from you, I or anyone else to make a fuss about Kim Davis’s life.
If you or I ended up in a court and a controversy like this, they would look for crap like that in our lives.
I updated at post “61”.
I replied without seeing that. I apologize.
I guess they could cover her fine with a “bonus.”
I would suggest she not leave the state any time soon. The Federales will be waiting for her.
Seems to me she has a good idea of how to get married. //sarc
If she is found to be in contempt of the court, she may find herself in jail.
Depends on the attitude of the judge.
Honest to God, I am not picking a fight. This is a serious question for Constitution folks out there:
Does one part of the Constitution take precedence over another? That is, in this case, is there precedent for the first amendment’s freedom from a state religion clause take precedence over the “equal protection” clause?
I understand the arguments about the equal protection clause—that is not what I am asking. I am asking if there is a formal precedence of parts of the constitution?
No problem. Take care! j
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.