Frankly, it seems high time the people of Kentucky stop protesting and start demanding that Judge David Bunning and members of the Supreme Court be impeached...
Posted on 09/04/2015 8:46:27 AM PDT by conservativejoy
On Thursday, a federal judge, who has no jurisdiction in the matter of Kentucky law regarding marriage, ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to be jailed for contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses to sodomites.
RT reports:
The Kentucky county clerk citing religious reasons for refusing to issue marriage licenses was jailed for contempt of court. Kim Davis was taken into custody by US Marshals, after defying orders from a federal judge to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
US District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis detained, saying a fine would not be enough to force her compliance. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who filed a motion to find Davis in contempt, specifically requested a fine instead of imprisonment, in order to avoid having the Rowan County clerk become a martyr for her cause. Davis cannot be fired from the post, because she is as an elected official.
Deputy clerks were also threatened with contempt charges if they refused to issue marriage licenses. Five of the six clerks said they would comply with the judge's order, AP reported. One of the deputy clerks, who is Davis's son, continues to refuse, but will not be charged with contempt, according to local media.
Consider that this is a state issue, not a federal one. The Supreme Court claimed the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and later would illegally rule against state law concerning marriage to open the door to lawless sodomites to engage in a redefinition of marriage. Again, there is no authority in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to act in such a manner.
Now the question must be asked, did Kim Davis violate the law and should she have been jailed? The answer is quite clear: Davis upheld the law, and the judge's order is unlawful and, indeed, criminal and tyrannical.
According to Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.005, marriage is defined as:
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
The chapter also goes on to point out that Davis was right in following the law as to who is not permitted to receive a marriage license. 402.010 reads:
Degree of relationship that will bar marriage. (1) No marriage shall be contracted between persons who are nearer of kin to each other by consanguinity, whether of the whole or half-blood, than second cousins. (2) Marriages prohibited by subsection (1) of this section are incestuous and void.
The chapter continues in 402.020 to prohibit other marriages, including those between members of the same sex, spouses who are married and seeking another marriage without divorce and polygamy.
Finally, it is noteworthy that 402.080 states, "No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk."
So, Kim Davis has followed the laws of Kentucky and, I might add, the laws of God concerning marriage. Who then is the violator of law in this matter? First, the sodomites are the violators of these laws in their attempt to get a marriage license. Second, the judge in the matter is in violation of the law by ordering Davis to do what is unlawful.
Frankly, it seems high time the people of Kentucky stop protesting and start demanding that Judge David Bunning and members of the Supreme Court be impeached and that sodomites be held accountable lawfully for their criminal behavior. Like I've said before, if we would deal with the crime of sodomy lawfully, we wouldn't be at this crossroads where so many people are confused about marriage.
A full list of marriage law statutes in Kentucky can be found here, which were written by the representatives of the people in the Kentucky legislature.
Page 5:
Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.
Page 27:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
If the judge is going to cite the Supreme Court ruling, then where is this protection? Were there not other alternatives short of imprisonment that could have taken first, if they were serious about protecting the First Amendment rights, too, during all of this?
Furthermore, if we are to have a "rule of law," then must stop judicial legislation and let the laws that rule us come from our representatives, not as edicts from a "judge."
Page 5:
(5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
There is the judicial arrogance for all to plainly see. The country doesn't have to wait for the representative process to work, because these few judges have an "enhanced understanding" and know better than the rest of us.
The Separation of Powers doesn't apply to them, and the separation of powers didn't apply to Kim Davis when an appointed judge jailed an elected executive.
-PJ
Frankly, it seems high time the people of Kentucky stop protesting and start demanding that Judge David Bunning and members of the Supreme Court be impeached...
bfl
It's not about law or justice; it's about force. The thugs will compel obedience if they can. That is why they want decent people disarmed.
Correct.
Yup. if they ever had appeared to be jolly’happy people its just a veneer, an act, before theygo bolar and you meet the real them.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan should be impeached for their lawlessness, abuse of power, and violation of their Oath.
Not a setup.
The other clerks are only “free” to issue licenses (which are actually invalid) because Davis is their boss and thanks to being imprisoned can’t interpose herself between this judge and them.
In KY this has the potential for hurting Democrats more than Republicans. The Democrats control the KY State House and can impeach her. The Attorney General is a Democrat and can indict her. They’re staying really far away from this given the impact on the upcoming election.
Start pointing that stuff out, plus the fact that it’s a Republican Judge who’s “upholding the law” while Democrats refuse to, and Proggies get really quiet.
RE: But His Order Was Against the Law
THIS CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH:
1) KENTUCKY HAS NO LAW LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE.
2) KIM DAVIS IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. Therefore, SHE CANNOT BE FIRED.
The only way she can be removed is via IMPEACHMENT or RECALL ELECTIONS.
Noe of the above were done.
When the Mayor of San Francisco ordered gay marriage licenses to be issued when California DID NOT PASS any gay marriage law, where were the judges then?
That “have protection” has an important caveat: “teach”
Kennedy’s ruling redefined the interpretation of “free exercise” limiting it to teaching rather that “living”.
Essentially reducing it to the “freedom to worship” interpretation Progressives have long sought.
Until Congress starts to impeach judges, none of this will stop. Justice Kennedy should be the first target. It may take a dozen further impeachments until the judiciary is brought under control.
The Fifth Amendment "public use" is redefined by the court as "public good" when it comes to taking your private property.
Now the First Amendment "free exercise" of religion is redefined by the court as "free worship" of religion.
Do what you wish inside your church, but keep the free exercise of your religion away from the public square?
-PJ
The Attorney General also happens to be a RAT running for governor.
Judges are grabbing a frightening amount of power.
A recital of vows is optional for a civil union. Those involved in the union simply sign their names and the contract is complete. The civil union can be celebrated with or without a reception.
Holy Matrimony continues to be a religious commitment between a man and woman where they promise to be faithful to one another 'til death do us part'.
Thanks for that info. What I gleaned from that is only the county clerk can issue licenses, which would suggest that licenses issued by deputies would technically be invalid. The only other issue would be under what circumstances can another official stand in for a county clerk - say in cases of extended illness or injury?
Yes, exactly that. No such thing as freedom of religion. It’s now freedom from religion.
I’m not even that religious, but the actions to eliminate the free exercise is very upsetting to me because I know that for the Progressive Totalitarian bullies it’s only the first such elimination on a very long list.
We need no morality lessons from the Left and certainly not from homos.
Is that true? do we have anything that says that it is what they did?
Yes we do. One of the two homosexual couples said clearly that they kept going back to her knowing she would decline to issue a marriage license. They went back FOUR TIMES. Yesterday was their fifth.
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.