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.
I imagine that SCOTUS would be more than happy to jail God for Contempt of their Divine Authority.
Seriously, the way the Constitution is written, the government (to include the Courts) do not bestow rights. God bestows rights...the natural law rights that each human being has. The Constitution limits the government's power to abridge those God-given rights.
This ruling demands that she affirmatively act in opposition to her religion. The equivalent would be a court ordering a doctor to perform an abortion.
Great article about the Dred Scott decision pointed out that people have to oppose the rulings of the Supreme Court when they violate the law of God. I hope she stands fast. As she has said, it is a matter of putting her name on something that violates the law of God.
Where are the candidates on this?
The only people I’ve seen make statements were Carly (wrong) and Cruz (right).
Where’s the Trumpster?
Yup. This is basically how the nazis did it.
I posted this on another thread, but it bears repeating...
Gay marriage is a canard. Gays claim rights have been denied to them because they can’t get married. Bullcrap. They can have any rights that married couples have via power of attorney. Both marriage and power of attorney require the state to recognize a piece of paper. If it is truly about “rights,” why do they need the piece of paper to say “marriage license” instead of “power of attorney?”
Answer: Because they want to impose themselves on our sacrosanct institutions and sh!t all over them.
A nation of laws...doesn’t much apply to obama, sanctuary cities and attorney generals who refuse to enforce laws they don’t like.
“Gay marriage is a canard. Gays claim rights have been denied to them because they can’t get married. Bullcrap. They can have any rights that married couples have via power of attorney. Both marriage and power of attorney require the state to recognize a piece of paper. If it is truly about “rights,” why do they need the piece of paper to say “marriage license” instead of “power of attorney?”
Answer: Because they want to impose themselves on our sacrosanct institutions and sh!t all over them.”
All this gay marriage thing has nothing to do with marriage .... it is about them imposing what they will teach your children
The old "Do No Harm".
Fining her or taking away her job is doing harm.
Not issuing a license does no one harm.
And let's not forget that she was set up.
Odd, I thought the Federal judicial code no longer allows for writs of mandamus, yet the article asserts the SCOTUS issued an order for her to perform a duty, which is a writ of mandamus, even if not so called.
This woman, btw, is a DEMOCRAT!
“She has run out of options,” Turley concluded. “We live in a nation of laws.”
We do? Someone should tell that to the mayors of sanctuary cities and President Pen and Phone. They could use the chuckle.
As you noted, we are no longer a nation with the rule of law that was built upon the Law of God and scripture.
The rule of law is dead in this country.
We have “law” by decree of the Rulers who will put guns to our heads to force compliance, while exempting themselves from following any law but their own.
We now have the tyranny of wicked men ruling us because this people refused to be governed by God.
I hope this clerk continues to defy them all. Let them toss her into the fiery furnace and show everyone how evil and tyrannical the Beast in this country has become.
Here’s the thing: this is not the only clerk in Kentucky (I’m guessing here) which means they singled her out on purpose, much like the bakers in Colorado. It’s not about the gays getting what they want because they CAN get what they want. It’s forcing the compliance of absolutely everyone and the enjoyment they get out of “payback” by forcing religious people to bend to their will.
Everything else they say is smoke screen.
She knows that true marriage is between a man and a woman. She knows that a marriage between a same sex couple is not a true marriage. Why can’t she just sign off on a homosexual “marriage” and not think twice about it? It’s not a marriage in the eyes of God. Why should she care? She should just do her job
and collect her pay.
I disagree. Signing off on this depravity would make one complicit in evil, in my eyes. Maybe her eyes too.
Not issuing a license does no harm? Really?
Would you say the same thing if you went to the DMV for a drivers license and the clerk refused to give you one based only on his personal religious belief that you shouldn’t have one?
How about if you wanted to get a permit to put an addition on your house and the city official denied you that?
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.
On the other hand, all this self righteous woman needs to do is perform the task she was elected to do and fill out some paperwork. No harm done. Unless you want to believe that gays having a piece of paper that says “marriage license” somehow causes harm.
“She should just do her job. . .”
She is.
The court that punished Galileo had law behind it too.
Not withstanding her disabaying a court order, what law is she accused of violating? Don’t believe their is a law on the books that says she MUST issue marriage licenses. That law was stricken by the courts. They can’t have it both ways...one which was declared unconstitutional, but now must follow.
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.