Posted on 09/02/2015 4:33:04 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
A federal judge has ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her deputies to appear in his courtroom Thursday and explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses.
Shortly after opening her doors Tuesday, Davis told two same-sex couples who asked for marriage licenses that she would not issue them, despite a federal court injunction ordering her to do so.
(snip)
Davis, an Apostolic Christian, has refused to issue any marriage licenses in Rowan County since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage June 26. U.S. District Judge David Bunning issued a preliminary injunction Aug. 12 ordering Davis to resume issuing licenses. She appealed to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, both of which denied her.
(snip)
Davis, a Democrat, was elected to a four-year term last November. She cannot be removed from her roughly $80,000-a-year post unless the General Assembly impeaches her.
(snip)
While he was inside Davis' office, Moore asked Rowan County Sheriff Matt Sparks to arrest the clerk for refusing to obey the law. The sheriff declined, telling Moore it was a matter for the federal courts, not for local law enforcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at kentucky.com ...
From what I understand, a local judge offered to do so. The homosexual couple refused, because they want the clerk to be forced to do it.
She needs to show a written policy stating that marriage licenses are issued one day a year. That day is June 1st. That will buy her some time
After they found that the very plain language of the zerocare law did not mean what it said, all pretense that we are a nation of law vanished.
The law, apparently, is what whoever has the biggest stick says it is.
So no, I wouldn't resign and I dang sure wouldn't pay any fine...this judge is ruling on things not in his purview. Its a state matter and i would push that argument to the hilt: he has no power here.
She might lose that tack but it would expose the very naked hand and jackboot of tyranny.
“In today’s American, only the black’s president is allowed to pick and choose the laws to obey.”
Couldn’t she cite the President’s decrees as precedent? “Hey, if the President can break the law, and the court approves, then there is no reason I cannot do the same thing.”
Tupelo,
The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tire of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!
Actually, she entered the job with the mandate (and an oath, presumably) to faithfully execute KY law. KY law does not espouse homosexual marriage. She is following the dictates of KY law, and doing so without discrimination because her office will not issue any marriage licenses until the dispute is resolved.
There can be no religious test for office. That is plainly written in the constitution.
The government cannot deprive a citizen of their rights (those actually recognized in the constitution) - so sayeth the 14th amendment. The first amendment clearly states that “free exercise” of religion is an enumerated, recognized right of the people.
I applaud this woman’s moral stance, and I hope she can emerge relatively unscathed, although I know the judicial kakistocracy will bend all effort to not just punish her, but to eviscerate her in the court of public opinion.
Your choices are surrender. The hope you express for future generations to “take it back” means that they will have a much, much longer climb out of the abyss.
You really need to send your opinion to her legal team and to the clerk, and maybe an amicus to the judge. Post haste.
You are correct. The legislature has not yet done anything to change the law. It is either the old law, or a non-existent law, or lawlessness. This clerk is doing the reasonable thing; she is awaiting a valid law.
You are in a unique position of clarity on this, brother, and God has placed you in position to respond and with the capacity to respond.
She should cite the sUPREME cOURT’S ruling and statements that no one would be forced to violate their religious principles.
SCOTUS does not make laws by decree.
That would take an act of courage. Right now the only person in Kentucky that has that courage is the county clerk. Everyone else seems to be cowering in the corner. It is disgraceful. And there are people on this forum who want her to cave and join the cowards.
Wow! Apparently you missed “Roe v Wade”, Roberts rewriting Obamacare and others.
Looks like decrees - Walks like decrees - Probably are decrees.
You are correct, there is no provision in the Constitution that allows SCOTUS to write laws, just to define existing law. But over the years.............................
SCOTUS has decreed that gay marriage is the law of the land.
___
SCOTUS can “decree” all they want but they still don’t have the power to make/change/void laws. DOMA is still the law of the land. Kim Davis needs to simply ask the judge to name the law he’s accusing her of violating.
Unfortunately, you are right. Kentucky is a state largely settled by the Scots-Irish, the people who have been described as "born fighting." Looks like the fight is mostly gone now.
So we are basically under mob (or media hysteria) rule?
"The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tire of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!"
Note well: The media are digging up personal history about the clerk. I won’t post the details, as they have no bearing on the matter at hand.
No, disobeying unconstitutional law is right. It has no validity.
It’s actually the gay mafia doing it, and then feeding the info to the compliant and sympathetic media. It’s what they do to destroy good people who refuse to embrace and celebrate their deviant lifestyle.
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.