Posted on 09/02/2015 7:00:44 PM PDT by markomalley
The Kentucky county clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses may be out of legal options as she heads before a judge Thursday. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis will stand before U.S. District Judge David Bunning for refusing to follow an order by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court refused her request Monday to stay its unanimous ruling that she provide any and all couples with marriage licenses.
Davis may face severe criminal or civil consequences for her actions. She could face hefty daily fines and even put in jail. As an elected official, Davis cannot be fired, but she can be impeached by the state legislature. A judge can also remove her and order another official to do her job.
“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,” Davis said in a statement. “It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.”
In a landmark decision in June, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution recognizes same-sex marriage. The case Obergefell v. Hodges effectively meant all states must recognize and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite exhausting all available legal options, Davis has refused to comply.
Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, notes the judge could impose significant penalties on her.
“The most obvious is contempt of court,” Turley told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Contempt sanctions can be levied as either a criminal or civil matter. The person can be threatened with jail or a court can impose a running fine.”
The fine against her could be very high. As Turley noted, it is very much up to the discretion of the judge. The severity often depends on whom it’s against and the nature of the case.
“There is actually a great range depending on the case,” he noted. “The daily running fine is generally larger for corporations and … are less common against government officials who are appearing in their official capacity.”
“Such fines against the government raise added issues,” Turley continued. “The court could also issue an order to a subordinate or to the city to circumvent the Clerk while potentially jailing the Clerk.”
“She has run out of options,” Turley concluded. “We live in a nation of laws. She appealed her case to the highest court without success. The court will now have considerable latitude in sanctioning further contempt of its orders.”
Davis maintains her appeals to the Constitution, the founding fathers, and God.
“It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Davis argued. “I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned.”
The day after the court refused her request for a stay, gay couples went to the Rowan County Clerk office to get marriage licenses.
In front of a mob of reporters Davis still denied their request citing “God’s authority.” A heated argument followed, with the couples demanding they get their marriage licenses.
Under current U.S. law, God does not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court.
Go ahead, lefties. Polarize it.
That sacred book embodies the wisdom AND points out the dire consequences for wrong behavior as learned by hard experience over the previous few thousand years!
Okay, now I understand your point.
You’re comparing the court that ordered this Kentucky clerk to do her job and get back to issuing marriage licenses to the Holy Inquisitin that sentenced Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life against the threat of death by torture.
Yeah, I can see the similarities. . . .
Two dudes who live together and get their jollies from writhing around in each other’s feces does not and never will constitute a marriage. No matter how many degenerate judges and officials claim so.
You’ll have to learn a lot more history...
Good night, feel comfortable.
This site is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family. If you can’t respect that, you can always post elsewhere.
That one left a mark. Ouch! Good work by the way.
this self righteous woman
It’s not SELF righteousness. Any Righteousness that you observe is the Righteousness of Christ.
[. . . they don’t keep it private and that is the problem.]
Personal anecdote: I know a lot of people and am fortunate to have made many friends over the years. A significant number of them are gays and lesbians. My personal experience tells me that “deviants” are no more or less moral than straight people.
I’m truly sorry that your 2000 year old book of wisdom has mislead you into believing they are depraved and evil. And they are certainly not demanding attention other than where necessary to achieve equality under the law. Two of my lesbians friends waited patiently for 6 years until the state of Illinois began issuing same sex marriage licenses last year. They were the first ever same sex couple to be married in Kane County, yet they made no big deal of that fact and sought no publicity. They were just happy they could be legally married. By the way, I took the pictures at their private ceremony. Both brides were radiant.
Now why can’t those who personally believe they should act according to words written in their Bible keep their practices “private”?
A great number of people, myself included, don’t want our government basing its laws on a primitive book of fairy tales that dubiously claims to be the word of God and the source of all that is moral, but condones tribal warfare, slavery, the subjugation of women and the murder of those who think the wrong way.
There. I trust that makes clear the position of tens of millions of decent American citizens who are fed up with religious zealots trying to control everyone’s private lives all the time. Mind your own business.
The scotus imposed its will on the people. This is not LAW. The authors and ratifiers would never approve this scotus opinion. They didn’t intend the judiciary to legislate.
I think it was Huckabee that posted on Facebook - there is no law in Kentucky that allows for marriage between same sex couples. The Court’s ruling didn’t make a new law, it can’t. Only congress can do that.
AND - the Constitution of Kentucky says it’s between a man and a woman.
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to invalidate a state constitution?
After being divorced twice I wonder if she doesn’t mind stiff penalties.
I’ve been arguing the same for years. The losers that lose the arguement, oops debate, always throw out the 50 year old canard of “hospital visits”!
And then they’ll bring up survivor benefits under Social Security. I say rigth, let’s destroy millenimum of tradition that created civil society for an extra $250 a month.
FR is not for godless homosexual pushers. Bye.
So you don't want the government governing based on "Keeping up with the Kardashians." What's that have to do with the Bible?
Wow. This creature had been here for 11 years? I would have guessed a sign-up today.
Your use of the word, "only" assumes something not in evidence, and a lot of things that are manifestly contrary to the evidence. A more fitting analogy would be if you went to the DMV for a drivers license and the clerk refused to give you one based on the fact that that you were only six years old and did not meet the statutory minimum age requirement.
How about if you wanted to get a permit to put an addition on your house and the city official denied you that?
Comparing homosexual "marriage" to municipal zoning ordinances and building codes is a stretch, but if you insist, what if you wanted to construct a full fledged ape zoo and big cat country in the front yard of your suburban ranch house?
Do you usually exercise your right to vote? Maybe you’d like to experience being told you can’t register to vote because some public official says that God told him you were a sinner.
Assumes the very thing in question; namely, that homosexual "marriage" is a "right", like the right to vote. What if you are told you can’t register to vote because some public official says that you don't meet the statutory qualifications of being an eligible voter because you are a not an American citizen and in fact you are in this country illegally?
Do you think the Supreme Court creates rights?
Do you think the Supreme Court writes Kentucky Statutes?
Do you think the Supreme Court has the authority to destroy and invert the meaning of words?
Do you think the Supreme Court has the authority to rewrite Natural Law?
(Do you ever wonder why they require state coercion to enforce their revolutionary goals?)
Do you think marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose or do you think they are just a social convention subject to change whenever 5 people in black robes feel like it?
If you want to sow to the wind, and don't mind if marriage and family are stripped of any of their normative content at the barrel of a gun then don't be surprised when you and civilization reap the whirlwind.
Cordially,
We need million man march. It’s the new Roe v. Wade opposition.
Homosexual sex is depraved. It does not benefit society AT ALL. There is no reason for society to grant privilege to those who choose to engage in homosexual sex, nor is there any reason to promote the disordered activity. At it's best, homosexual sex is a recreational activity that contribute nothing to society, at its worst it is an unhealthy activity that promotes disease and death.
Why don't you crawl back into the leftist indoctrination camp you crawled out of.
Not true. She and her lawyers admitted that it does have the authority when she appealed to the SCOTUS. Why did she ask the court to intervene if it didn't have power over the issue?
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.