Posted on 08/27/2015 2:51:58 PM PDT by NYer
ROWAN COUNTY, KY, August 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A federal appeals court has ordered Christian clerk Kim Davis to provide same-sex “marriage” licenses, but she’s refusing to give in.
Davis, a Democrat, says that her Christian beliefs will not allow her to issue licenses for same-sex “marriages.” Despite pressure from Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear, a lawsuit from the ACLU, and two federal court rulings, Davis has refused to issue any licenses while the matter is still working its way through the courts.
However, the Sixth District Court of Appeals said Davis must issue the licenses.
While critics say Davis must follow the law as a public employee, she says the First Amendment protects her decision even as a government worker. In addition to being sued by the ACLU, she has pro-actively taken her case to court.
Beshear told all government employees that "you can continue to have your own personal beliefs, but, you’re also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, then obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.”
The initial court decision against Davis was stayed 10 days ago. Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver, whose organization represents Davis, told CNN that they might appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and are hoping the high court would issue a stay of the Sixth Circuit ruling in the interim.
A poll of Kentucky voters that was released last month found that 50 percent of the state backs natural marriage, while only 37 percent supported its redefinition.
First one to bring up Nazis loses. Argument over.
<>Otherwise, you’ll have chaos.<>
It is here.
Since abortion is another “right,” we should next expect doctors to be ordered to perform them.
Chaos is certain to occur when governments attempt to overturn God’s Laws.
Hey, it's OK for judges to strike down states' constitutional marriage amendments defining and upholding marriage and then forcing a one-size-fits-all ruling over the will of three-fourths of states that approved said amendments.
You know, what's good for the goose and all that stuff....
You'll love the results of denying the 1st Amendment.
I’d rather have unmitigated chaos and anarchy than live in a country so depraved that it equates two perverted homos as being the same as a husband-and-wife.
If our “Constitution” is allowing this, then I’d just as soon see the document torched altogether. It’s already been rendered dead by Obama’s fascist judges. I’m standing with the Christian clerk first and foremost.
How many people in her position had any inkling when they got hired that would one day they would have to submit to something so monumentally insane and immoral as sodomite “marriage” or join the unemployment lines? Or stand fast and face jail? Resigning would be an honorable choice. So would refusal to submit to such a unholy decree. But doing the dishonorable task of “marrying” perverts can in no way be called honorable.
If the War Between the States went the other way we would certainly have some states’ rights.
As it stands now the states have very few rights.
All of those scenarios are possible. How do you distinguish between this situation and those?
While I will defend her personal rights and the right for her to express and practice her religion, she holds a public office which must be fair and just to all of the individuals in which her office oversees. This is not a private company this is a government position. The level of government position is irrelevant. As a government employ, in this case the state, city or county, she must dutifully do her job to all irregardless of the beliefs she holds. If in the execution of her duties in a government position, she finds she is unable to provide the services the position calls for then either transfer or resign. While I disagree on the current marriage laws, the way to change them is to overturn them. I will defend her right to be christian and her beliefs as Christian but in a “secular” country of laws, we must adhere to the laws that have been passed. The same goes for an athiest or mormon.
If it were law that every homeowner be given a gun for their protection and someone based on their religious beliefs said they weren’t going to do that and held public office, everyone on here would cite the 2nd admendment and tell them they need to distribute the guns. It is no different with marriage licenses. Either do your duty as a government official or get out. The law is the law until it is no longer the law.
I am against homosexuals (’cept lipstick lezzies /s) but the law is they can marry. It’s not something I like nor agree with. Hell there are many things I don’t like and don’t agree with but are the law. Do I stop following those laws? Until we get this overturned, it must be followed. Otherwise we can all pick and choose what laws we follow or don’t follow.
It is never law uber God.
How is it the law that people of the same sex can marry? The Extreme Court can’t make federal laws, only Congress can. The court’s majority opinion should be regarded as just that, an opinion— and a worthless one, at that.
It wasn’t in her job to begin with, and the Supreme Court defied states’ rights to issue the order. I think she has a great chance in the courts, until it gets to SCOTUS.
I guess those kind of vermin are why we’ve got homosexual mirage now.
Excellent response and highly appropriate comparison.
Is it okay that she refuses to issue homosexual mirage licenses, if she asks another clerk to do it? I’m assuming 99% of her job is unrelated to sin.
Just refuse to obey. Like Ghandi and Martin Luther Kind said.
Simply ignore the ruling. Don’t do what they told ya...,,
New tagline ...
Nonsense. She swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. and the Kentucky Constitutions, and all constitutional laws. Period. THAT is her obligation.
And faux "gay" "marriage" violates all of the core stated purposes of both constitutions.
While critics say Davis must follow the law as a public employee, she says the First Amendment protects her decision even as a government worker.
If the County Clerk were a Quaker, could she refuse to issue gun licenses?
If she were a Mormon, could she refuse to issue business licenses to liquor stores or coffee shops?
If she were an Orthodox Jew, could she refuse to issue a business license to a barbecue restaurant?
Well, there’s the problem right there: We the sheeple have been so dumbed down that we accept the false assertion that the government has the right to steal our liberties and then license them back to us on its terms. We have allowed ourselves to be neutered.
Watch it. I was making the same point and got in trouble for it.
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.