Other Local Officials Citing Religious Beliefs in Denying Marriage Licenses to Gays

Kim Davis, the Woman Behind Bars

Liberty Counsel ^ | September 4, 2015 | lc.org

10 Facts You Should Know About Jailed Clerk Kim Davis

Davis only asked that the Kentucky marriage license forms be changed so her name would not appear on them. She would record any license without her name affixed. Marriage licenses remain in county records permanently. Davis said, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
Before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Obergefell on June 26, 2015, 57 clerks, including Davis, wrote a letter to Kentucky legislators during the regular session, pleading with them to “get a bill on the floor to help protect clerks” who had a religious objection to authorizing the licenses. The Kentucky Clerks Association also recommend that the names of clerks be removed from the forms.
Davis was elected County Clerk as a democrat in November 2014 and took office in January 2015, after her mother retired from the position. Before January, Davis was a Deputy Clerk for 27 years.
Kim Davis became a Christian at a church service she attended to honor the dying wish of her mother-in-law, who passed away on a Sunday morning. Davis said, “Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ.”
Davis, who is married to one of the 3 men she married and divorced, admits she was a sinner before she accepted Jesus Christ four years ago and changed her life.
Kim Davis does not hate homosexuals or lesbians, as she explained: “I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. 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….”
Davis is a professing Christian who, before incarceration, attended church worship services multiple times per week and held a weekly Bible study with women at a local jail.
As elected officials, Kentucky Clerks can only be removed from office if impeached by the Kentucky House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. The Kentucky General Assembly does not meet until January 2016.
The Supreme Court did not change Kentucky’s marriage law or its forms, but invalidated the legislation limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. It is up to each state’s legislature to conform the law to the opinion. Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers filed a brief in Davis’s case, pointing out to the judge: “The Supreme Court ruling has completely obliterated the definition of marriage and the process for obtaining a marriage license in Kentucky. The General Assembly will be compelled to amend many sections of Kentucky law, not just for the issuance of marriage licenses, to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision.” The brief pointed out that the Governor can call a special session of the legislature, or he could issue an executive order about the licenses to later be codified by the legislature during the 2016 session. A judge is not a super-legislature that can rewrite the law.
Davis is being represented at no charge by attorneys with Liberty Counsel, an international nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family. Liberty Counsel was founded in 1989 and has offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C., an outreach in Israel, and hundreds of advocates around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And she works in the wrong county (Rowan). For as of September 3, 2015, Appalachian Kentucky counties Casey and Whitley refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples: "Casey county has stopped issuing licenses to all couples rather than issue to same-sex couples, while Whitley refuses only same-sex couples. The clerks from both counties have demonstrated at the state capitol to demand a religious exemption from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. A third county, Knott, refuses to say whether they will issue licenses." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Kentucky

And it is likely (we pray) that Kentucky will do what NC did in which "a law allowing officials to refrain from conducting marriage-related duties has led to more than 30 magistrates refusing to perform same-sex unions, the Associated Press reported."

Kentucky Amendment 1 banned Ban Same-Sex Marriage passed 75% to 25% (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/), reflecting the religious beliefs of the voters overall (Kentucky was the 4th most evangelical state last i knew).

Randy Smith, a supporter of Davis, has been vocal at many of the rallies.
He said Kentucky's Governor Steve Beshear needs to call a special session so legislators can make changes to the law.
Smith said county clerks shouldn't be required to handle processing the licenses, and the changes would clear up the whole problem.
"Steve Beshear needs to quit hiding behind the walls of the capitol and actually do something, this whole thing is his fault," he said. - http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/Rowan-Clerk-Ordered-To-Issue-Marriage-Licenses-Again-323007901.html

Last week, a Tenn. judge refused to grant a straight couple a divorce because the U.S. Supreme Court allowed gay marriage...“The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee,” Atherton began. “This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

But it is Atherton’s next paragraph that is the real doozy, in which he calls the Supreme Court’s decision “judi-idiocracy.”
In other words, if a state can’t even deny gay couples the right to marry anymore, then what’s the point of being in the marriage business anyways. Let the feds handle it. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

And consider the manner of judge:
Bunning’s decision was then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his ruling in October 2007 and sided with Morrison. It stated that the student could seek damages from the school district because the policy and training “chilled” his ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
ASHLAND, Ky. — Following yesterday’s jailing of a county clerk for stating that it is not possible for her to obey an order to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals against God’s law, it is now being noted that the same federal judge also once ordered Kentucky students to be re-educated about homosexuality despite their objections...
But Bunning also required the school district to implement training as part of a settlement, which mandated school staff and students to undergo diversity education, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.” However, a number of students objected to being forced to watch a video that asserted that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person’s sexuality cannot be changed. They discovered that they could not opt-out of the training without being penalized, and contacted the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance.
But in 2006, Bunning again ruled that the students must watch the video and could not opt-out because of their Christian identity, stating that the education “rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment.” He said that the training wouldn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs, therefore, an opt-out was unnecessary.
Bunning’s decision was then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his ruling in October 2007 and sided with Morrison. It stated that the student could seek damages from the school district because the policy and training “chilled” his ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Davis obviously does not disagree with the terms of the job to which she was elected, which was to issue marriage licenses to people of opposite genders, not to men and monkey, or women and whales or men with men, which Kentucky law forbade.
Who would you say that all those who object to their jobs description being so radically changed should face unemployment rather than refuse to do so and seek an exception? If being a registry of motor vehicles employee became a job requiring providing licenses for monkeys, based upon a SC ruling that renders apes to be humans, should one face unemployment, rather than an exception for them being made?

Some have likened Davis to a police chief who refuses to arrest illegals, but which is not a valid comparison unless the sheriff was elected or hired to be a guard whose duties were radically changed, such as defining anyone who wanted to come over the border as American citizens, or defining the latter as illegals. If Davis took office after the SC changed marriage and Ky law was settled regarding dissent, then that would be a fitting analogy, with immigration law having suffering a like radical change under which the chief took his position. Or one enlists in the Marines, but defending American from enemies was changed to mean threatening or using force against peaceful Americans due to them owning a registered handgun, or engaging in homeschooling, etc.

As said, we can expect companies to yield to pressure (or a future court ruling) to require employees to affirm LGBT rights in order to be a team player, and to force all who disagree into unemployment as they have no appeal to exception (note that Davis was not requires others to reject "gay marriage" licenses, but that her signature does not appear on the license). This is part of the economic sanctions upon conservatives that many "conservatives," support, according to the "do whatever your job requires or quit" ethos.
Principled dissent was dangerous in the past, as that is how the the OT faith continued and the NT church began, as did America.
Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed–nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. (Daniel 3:10-12)
All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. (Daniel 6:7)
Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. (Daniel 6:10)
And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? (Mark 11:27-28)
But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. (Acts 4:17)
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19-20)

And to think, fifty years ago the HIPPIE movement came out against all forms of marriage! Living together was the way to go if you truly loved someone. Marriage was outdated , after all the marriage license was just a piece of paper!

Now those same OLD HIPPIES and their children now think marriage is the most important thing two people can engage in!
BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE SODOMITES!

SCOTUS federalized marriage, so the federal government should make provisions for couples to obtain licenses. The states (or churches) need not have anything to do with licenses.

And to think, fifty years ago the HIPPIE movement came out against all forms of marriage! Living together was the way to go if you truly loved someone. Marriage was outdated , after all the marriage license was just a piece of paper! Now those same OLD HIPPIES and their children now think marriage is the most important thing two people can engage in! BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE SODOMITES!

That would be a paradox if they really esteemed marriage, but in reality marriage is largely refined not only as being btwn same genders but also are regards monogamy and permanence.

The sodomite marriage movement is driven by the demonic insistence that a perversion of what God joined together be recognized, sanctioned and affirmed by all, as equal (or superior) to what God ordained, thus giving glory to the devil which lusts for it.

SCOTUS federalized marriage, so the federal government should make provisions for couples to obtain licenses. The states (or churches) need not have anything to do with licenses.

Only a minority saw what the devil hath wrought.

"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

Roberts looks ahead to the likelihood of future conflicts between gay rights and religious rights, such as the tax status of conservative Christian colleges. He notes:

Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.< - http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/june/supreme-court-states-cant-ban-same-sex-marriage.html/p>

Gutless Christian pastors like Rev. Franklin Graham are granted a special “spiritual Howard’s exemption” by virtue of their position as “Ceasar’s Perfumed Princes” ....

Special Coward’s Exemption ...

Gutless Christian pastors like Rev. Franklin Graham are granted a special “spiritual Howard’s exemption” by virtue of their position as “Ceasar’s Perfumed Princes” ....

I have not see how Franklin Graham warranted the gutless label. I knew he said many politically incorrect things in the past.

Maybe more will start doing this, because of Kim Davis, I’m amazed the Gaystapo hasn’t attacked Alabama, yet. If they haven’t yet, they’re waiting to see what happens because of Kim Davis.

Why is he gutless?