Posted on 09/07/2015 8:03:29 PM PDT by Whenifhow
Attorneys for the Kentucky clerk who was jailed last week because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples said Monday they have filed an emergency motion with a federal court that they hope will result in Kim Davis' freedom.
The filing seeks to have Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear accommodate Davis' "religious conviction," and not compel her to grant licenses to gay couples, Liberty Counsel said in a statement.
"The motion requests an injunction pending appeal for an exemption from the Governor's mandate that all county clerks issue marriage licenses," said the statement by Liberty Counsel, which is representing Davis.
The same injunction request was denied last month by U.S. District Judge David Bunning, who jailed Davis on Thursday.
Charla Bansley, communications director for Liberty Counsel, said Davis could be released from jail immediately if the motion were granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordering Beshear to issue Davis an "accommodation" — allowing her to remove her name and title from official marriage certificates issued in Rowan County.
By doing that, Davis would not be sanctioning any same-sex unions and her conscience would be satisfied, they say.
"If there was an accommodation, she would be released (from jail) because she would no longer be in contempt," Bansley said.
snip
Bunning indicated Davis will be in jail at least a week. She could stay longer if she continues to not obey the judge's order. Bunning had offered to release Davis from jail if she promised not to interfere with her deputy clerks as they issued the licenses. But Davis refused.
(Excerpt) Read more at kentucky.com ...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-kim-davis-federal-appeal.html?_r=0
Appeal Filed in Kim Davis’s Contempt Ruling
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-kim-davis-federal-appeal.html?_r=0
Thanks for that link. I’ve been looking for the court documents.
The true issue is the illegal USSC dictate commandeering State legislatures and writing law for them.
but by golly if it was a muslim that had been jailed, everyone would be called back and the recess would be cancelled permanently in honor of the day an emergency session was called to free a muslim from the tyranny of government
Is Kim doing this for Christian reasons or political?
I understand her as a Christian not wanting to sign gay marriage licenses. I’m fine with that. I support that.
Yet
She has no right to stop the deputy clerks from signing marriage licenses because of HER belief. The deputy clerks have the right to THEIR OWN beliefs and whether they want to do the job they were hired for.
Kim is seeking her 15 minutes.
did they actually write law for them? Or did the government declare the opinion they came to as law without congressional vote?
[[Is Kim doing this for Christian reasons or political?]]
Neither, she’s doing it for patriotic reasons- The government can’t simply trample the rights of we the people like it has- and she, using her religious freedom rights, is taking a patriotic stand against a tyrannical government/Supreme court because no one else will- Many people have taken such stands all down through history in defense of our constitutional rights-
She has no right to stop the deputy clerks from signing marriage licenses because of HER belief. The deputy clerks have the right to THEIR OWN beliefs and whether they want to do the job they were hired for.
____________
No marriage license is required at all. Wait til the IRS tax man starts to figure this out!
Kim Davis is following the law - see this post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3334150/posts?page=13#13
Excerpt:
So no marriage license is needed and those who are requesting them should stop asking.
Pretty much.
There is no Constitutional requirement for a State to have any marriage laws whatsoever.
SCOTUS just invalidated all the state marriage laws based on the definition of marriage being the union of one man and one woman.
[[She has no right to stop the deputy clerks from signing marriage licenses because of HER belief]]
She actually does because HER name is on the licenses- this was the thing she objected to- She didn’t want her name associated with gay marriage licenses- The licenses are all presigned with her signature on them,- She merely asked that new licenses be made up WITHOUT her name on them- the state refused- and so she is now In jail because she would not obey the courts ILLEGAL demand
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” - Obergefell
Here is the error:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This goes too far. This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States. No court, least of all the USSC, has the authority to legislate.
There may be a legitimate Art IV basis for the USSC declaration that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, although I am not convinced. This would strike Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable, but it does not touch other provisions of Kentucky’s marriage statutes.
Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws, or to have it’s laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
Do you understand that when her deputy clerks issue them, they stamp HER name on them? Every pervert faggot "marriage license" will have the word's "Approved by KIM DAVIS" on them.
Are you okay with your real name being stamped on pervert faggot "marriage" licenses? If you are not, then perhaps you should consider that a lot of people do not want their name put on such a disgusting document.
And this doesn't even address the larger question of how Christians should deal with vile and anti-Christian laws which are pulled out of the @$$E$ of the five lunatic Judges on the court.
I am sick of people saying that this law should be obeyed. No, this law should be defied in every possible way to establish that there are LINES which no one is obliged to cross merely because the law says so.
The Nazis had the law on their side too, but we saw fit to put people on trial for obeying their laws.
post#10-"The licenses are all presigned with her signature on them,-"
If a marriage license is not needed then why are there licenses with her name preprinted to begin with?
post#9-”So no marriage license is needed and those who are requesting them should stop asking.”
post#10-”The licenses are all presigned with her signature on them,-”
If a marriage license is not needed then why are there licenses with her name preprinted to begin with?
____
That is the question! It seems there is so much confusion thanks to SCOTUS. One argument in post 9 refers back to another thread in which it was disclosed that all marriage laws in the US are null and void and thus to licenses are needed.
From post 10 on this thread - that is what I thought was happening until I read
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3334150/posts?page=13#13
Surely someone with authority can speak on this issue, let’s hope it isn’t SCOTUS though.
Perhaps it would be possible for churches to issue a “holy matrimony” document and file it in the church?
That would keep marriage out of government.
Some people are coming from outside the area for the purpose of being turned away, and to watch the expression on the faces of others turned away. How sick is that?
[[This goes too far. This commandeers the legislative process of the States.]]
I’m certainly no legal scholar- But it seems to me that it’s still just an opinion by the court (There is no actual fundamental ‘right’ for gay people to be married, ay more than there is a ‘fundamental right’ for pedophiles to marry underage kids)- and it seems that it’s the federal government that has taken the opinion and is enforcing it as law (without ever having gone through the legal means of law creation, ie congress)
[[The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.]]
If true, then they are the ones illegally enforcing a fictitious law they created
I have some what followed up on this by reading a portion of the decision... but on FOX this morning I thought I heard something to the effect that when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.
“Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.”
So then the question is .... does this also apply to elected officials who were elected to do a specific job? And if it doesn’t apply to elected officials ... does the elected official then have legal authoriztion for not permitting other public employees from doing that job?
[[That would keep marriage out of government.]]
It’s fully entrenched in government now- the govnemrent may infact take it out of the churches hands before too long- citing ‘haste speech’ and ‘bigotry’ if a church refuses to marry gay couples when ‘ordered to by the courts’
Sound far fetched? So didn’t gay marriage just a few short years ago-
but on FOX this morning I thought I heard something to the effect that when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.
______
Here is the video - but IF all marriage laws are null and void - (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3334150/posts?page=13#13)this would not even apply in this case.
6:39 Minutes – Garcetti v Ceballos 2006 ruling which said that
“When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.”
Lawyers Appeal Contempt Ruling Against Jailed Kentucky Clerk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjgV4MMluhg
[[but on FOX this morning I thought I heard something to the effect that when a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.]]
That is expressly forbidden - there shall be no religious test for public office- Not sure who said that? Were they a liberal lawyer?
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.