Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kentucky clerk sued for not issuing gay-marriage licenses
Yahoo!News ^ | July 2, 2015 | Claire Galofaro

Posted on 07/03/2015 6:40:26 AM PDT by Kaslin

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Four Kentucky couples are suing a clerk who is refusing to issue gay-marriage licenses — or any marriage licenses at all — following the U.S. Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples have a legal right to marry.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis on Thursday afternoon on behalf of two homosexual and two heterosexual couples, all of whom were turned away when they tried to get marriage licenses from Davis' office this week.

Davis has said that her Christian beliefs prevented her from complying with the Supreme Court decision, so she decided to issue no more marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight. She could not be reached Thursday after the lawsuit was filed. Her office was already closed and she did not respond to an email.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2015 6:40:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Absolutely unbelievable!!!


2 posted on 07/03/2015 6:48:31 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well she is treating all couples equally.


3 posted on 07/03/2015 6:54:41 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Barack Obama is not inarguably sane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Our county Judge Advocate has stated he will no longer perform marriages, period. Symbolic gesture, but it still matters IMO. Our local 3 day a week Louisville Courier wannabe is ecstatic over the SCOTUS assault on the Constitution.


4 posted on 07/03/2015 6:55:47 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Wonder what happens when one of these cases goes all the way to scrotus? Scrotus pimping gay marriage vs the first Admentment?


5 posted on 07/03/2015 6:57:04 AM PDT by LouAvul (Liberalism: much more than just a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Is Mitch McConnell listed as the plaintiff?


6 posted on 07/03/2015 6:57:25 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

oops
Judge Advocate = Judge Executive


7 posted on 07/03/2015 6:57:35 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

What First Amendment?


8 posted on 07/03/2015 6:58:09 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Huh?


9 posted on 07/03/2015 6:59:01 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreedomStar3028

Ping


10 posted on 07/03/2015 6:59:50 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Very simple. If the law requires you, as a government official, to do something against your conscience, you should resign and then work to change the law.


11 posted on 07/03/2015 7:00:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

He is probably referring to Freedom of Religion


12 posted on 07/03/2015 7:02:46 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Whatever became of “You are further to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience, and may promise to the whole people , solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion. And that the civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.”” see note 51 p. 559 America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations Wm. J. Federer editor.When the government breaks Covenant we have a duty to resist and oppose them.


13 posted on 07/03/2015 7:06:12 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
This is exactly what a county clerk in Mississippi did

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3306650/posts

14 posted on 07/03/2015 7:06:25 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
This is exactly what a county clerk in Mississippi did

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3306650/posts

15 posted on 07/03/2015 7:06:25 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Darn double post


16 posted on 07/03/2015 7:07:48 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Very simple. If the law requires you, as a government official, to do something against your conscience, you should resign and then work to change the law.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that our constitutions do not empower courts to make or veto laws.

17 posted on 07/03/2015 7:08:43 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The weirdness in this line of events began in Massachusetts. When the court ordered the legislature to change to embrace “gay marriage,” it should have just looked at the court like “You’re crazy.” That’s not how courts even worked with respect to laws before then — they could void laws but not require other laws. But nothing was there to void.

But then in came Mitt, white flag at the ready. Who acted as if the law had been there, even the court hadn’t ordered Mitt to do a thing at that point.


18 posted on 07/03/2015 7:19:03 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It's not that simple.

. 99.99% of the world believe marriage is between one man and one woman. The problem is that the SCOTUS has perverted the meaning of marriage and our derelict Congress has allowed them to create a law, which they have no right/authority to do. The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The Constitution does not say freedom of religion and freedom of speech is limited to the walls of the church. These rights apply regardless of one's location or vocation.

The fact is that the SCOTUS has become politicized and has been creating laws illegally.

Every time a Christian is forbidden his 1st amendment rights, he should find a constitutional respecting judge - and sue the prosecuting party into oblivion.

19 posted on 07/03/2015 7:23:45 AM PDT by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We need to get rid of government sanctioned marriage. This is ridiculous.


20 posted on 07/03/2015 7:44:50 AM PDT by Politicalkiddo ("There, I guess King George will be able to read that." ~John Hancock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson