Posted on 08/17/2015 8:10:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Kentucky state employee has maintained her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a recently issued court order mandating that her office do so.
Kim Davis of Rowan County has declined to follow a court order issued Wednesday by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
"The Court must … point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval," read the order.
"Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her 'no marriage licenses' policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs."
However Davis has refused to submit to the order, turning away a gay couple that had a copy of the order on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.
"Davis … was the first to be sued and her attorneys vowed to keep fighting in a case legal experts have likened the resistance some local officials put up five decades ago when the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage," reported the AP.
"Staff in Davis' office said she was on vacation. Though she has six employees authorized to issue licenses, deputy clerk Nathan Davis said the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals the judge's decision."
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that state level bans on gay marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Upholding several lower court decisions, Obergefell was the culmination of over a year of judicial rulings that had struck down several state constitutional amendments passed by popular referenda.
Since the Supreme Court's decision, many county clerks across the nation have either refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples or resigned from their posts.
The National Organization for Marriage, a pro-traditional marriage group, called Davis and other clerks taking similar actions "absolute heroes."
"All American citizens are encouraged to stand up for marriage, especially through actions such as these," stated NOM on July 1.
"While the opposing side may well attempt to invoke violent attacks against us, those who support marriage as the union between one man and one woman have the benefit of truth on their side."
Have there been any court cases on this particular subject?
Based on decisions in recent gay wedding cake and photographer cases, I would not be optimistic. But would like to see this tested in court.
At least there is someone willing to stand for the what is right. She IS applying the law as enacted, not the tyranny of a few black robed tyrants, who misapply the constitution as our forefathers never intended.
IOW, the supremes, by a margin of one vote, overturned 6000 years of recorded history by judicial fiat and ordered the Commonwealth of Kentucky to do something that neither their voters nor their state legislatures authorized.
The supreme court did not rule on county clerks must issue licenses...did they?
The First Amendment applies only to homosexuals and muslims.
bfl
Never, EVER back down, because if you do, it is far worse than never taking a stand at all.
The appropriate response, when you cannot in good conscience perform the duties of your office, is to resign.
The argument needs to be simplified.
The court ruled it was legal for homosexuals to marry. That does not mean they can get a license everywhere, get married everywhere - or force someone to marry you.
It is legal to smoke cigarettes. But you can’t buy them everywhere, you can’t smoke them everywhere and not everyone will sell them to you.
Good for her!
This is more an academic question, not in support of gay marriage:
How can this clerk get away with this? Can any other state employees refuse to follow a Supreme Court directive because they do not approve based on a religious belief. Would it not be SOP for the clerk to pass along that function to another? Could the State Mandate that she either follow the rules or be relieved of her duties.
My Dad was a JP in Vermont. He resigned his position because he did not agree with civil unions. It was made clear to them that they HAD to perform them or they would lose their license.
What is the difference here?
Superbly stated.
Big difference. Administrative dik-tat is a much lower form of law than one implemented through the legislative process.
If the duties of your office are so dramatically altered that you must forfeit your god-given rights to religious freedom to hold the office, how is this not a “religious test”, which IIRC is expressly forbidden in the constitution?
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.