@FanOfTheSith --"I understand that but there is got to be a way
for her to be shifted away from her spot and be replaced by someone else who had
no qualm with the passed law."The only way to do it is by
impeaching her, and that's a long and uncertain process. Davis has already
refused to let her deputies do the licensing.
@FanOfTheSith 8:34 p.m. Sept. 5, 2015There is a way for her to be
shifted away from her spot -- she resigns as County Clerk and is hired into
another place where her desire for prejudicial discrimination and bigotry do not
get in the way of her doing her job. Neither her freedom of
conscience/religion nor her Constitutional rights have been impacted in any way,
nor has she ever been "persecuted". For the record, Davis can (and has
always been free to) protest against LBGT rights all she wants. The only thing
required of her is for her properly to do her job serving all, not just some, of
the people living in her county. The State/County does not have to condone her
failure properly to do her job, and has every right to compel her to do just
that. There is nothing in her oath of office that allows her to deny service to
LGBT people.The keys to her jail cell are in her hands --if she
wants to be free she can either do her job as established by the Constitution
and her oath of office, or she can resign.
"Davis can't e reassigned. She was elected to the office she holds and
isn't doing."I understand that but there is got to be a way
for her to be shifted away from her spot and be replaced by someone else who had
no qualm with the passed law. She is welcome to protest, due to her religious
freedom so the State needs to be accommodating and shift personnel around if
there is a need to. It can't be a one way street and people's
constitutional rights needs to be protected. I don't see anything wrong
with saying, you have a problem with this, we will shift you elsewhere so you
can still have a job and not be persecuted forever.
@FanOfTheSith 10:23 a.m. Sept. 5, 2015Davis can't e reassigned.
She was elected to the office she holds and isn't doing. She
isn't, in any way, being "persecuted" for anything. She is
perfectly free to believe what she wants and preach as she wants -- just not in
the context o her elected position. She is being sanctioned for failing to
fully perform her job (and violating the orders of the government officials who
are her superiors), breaking the law, and showing contempt for the order of a
multitude of courts.The only way she can have a job transfer is to
resign from her current position and be voluntarily employed in another.
Simple solution. Reassigned her somewhere within the employment system and let
someone else issue the license. I hope she is not going to be persecuted forever
for claiming her religious freedom. I'm sure her work background would
allow her to do another job somewhere where she won't need to issue
licenses. I'm sure the law can do a little bit of accommodation in
transferring her to another clerical position elsewhere.
@CAB90: This is a simple case. People are not allowed to over-rule the law
with their religious views. End of story.
@illuminated: Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would disagree with you.
If you don't believe them, please read their letters. Do you
really want Muslims to enforce Sharia Law as government employees? I ask this
because your interpretation of the first amendment would lead to this sort of
thing. As an government employee, you cannot enforce religious rules at the
expense of secular laws.The county clerk needs to do her job. She
took an oath to uphold the laws, and she broke her oath. If her religious
beliefs prevent her from doing her job according to the law, she should resign.
@dmd:You wrote, "So I would ask...after reading this article,
who is really practicing intolerance? Where are the calls from you and me on
what the First Amendment right of this woman to protect conscience because of
her "free exercise" of religion?"The clerk is practicing
intolerance, but that isn't really the issue. She can practice her
intolerant religious beliefs is she likes, but she can't do so as a country
clerk. The government building in which she works is not a church. If a
person had sincere religious beliefs that blacks and whites can't marry,
that person can't deny marriages between blacks and whites based on her
religious beliefs. She can do so in her own church, but not in a government
building.Maybe you have heard about the separation of church and
state. Sorry, but you can't use the state to enforce your religious
Aaaaaaand --Davis has been found in contempt, AND she has been taken
into custody by the court.
@Tekakaromatagi --"Southern slaveowners were requiring northern
officials to cooperate with kdinapping slaves..."1. Government
employment -- she works for the state of KY.2. Oaths -- Davis swore one,
which she is now violating.3. Job description -- includes issuing marriage
licenses.4. Laws -- same-sex marriage is legal in KY.5. Attorney
General of KY -- has told Davis to do her job.6. Governor of KY -- has
also told her to do her job.7. Federal Court -- has also told her to do
her job.8. SCOTUS -- not only ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex
marriage, but has already told Davis to do her job by refusing to issue a stay
on Bunning's ruling.At all levels of the government under which
Davis works -- state government, federal courts, SCOTUS -- she has been told to
do her job. She is a government employee. Issuing licenses is part of her job
description. Same-sex marriage is legal in her state.Returning
slaves was nowhere in the job descriptions of northern officials, slavery was
not legal in those northern states, and those northern officials were not
employed by the southern states. None of the relevant conditions are
@Contrariuswiser:"@Tekakaromatagi --"Well this all
reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850"Get serious."I am serious. Southern slaveowners were requiring northern officials to
cooperate with kdinapping slaves and they even made a requirement that northern
officials could not reference their religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to
comply with the law.Explain how this is not a serious argument
rather than denigrating my viewpoint. Show your superior intellect.
@Ms.W --"People who are complaining about this woman's
refusal to issue gay marriage licenses are the same people who support illegal
immigration. I just love how the left cherry-pick's which group of people
should get a free pass when it comes to obeying the law and then demand others
be punished."Last time I looked, illegal immigrants weren't
working for the government.Davis is.
People who are complaining about this woman's refusal to issue gay
marriage licenses are the same people who support illegal immigration. I just
love how the left cherry-pick's which group of people should get a free
pass when it comes to obeying the law and then demand others be punished.
A few frequent-posting DN readers are asserting that Davis has the right to
work as a county employee but also "follow her religion". Davis'
church has an opinion of Mormons, and it's not particularly nice. One of
their more mild criticisms is that they don't consider Mormons to be
Christians. Do they believe, seriously, that Davis has the "religious
freedom" to not issue licenses to couples who are Mormons? [My guess is
that they'll say yes--but ONLY because they know it's a hypothetical
@jsf --"No she has been through part of the legal
process"Even the Supreme Court has refused to grant her stay.
She is continuing her appeals, as is her right. But it is NOT her
right to defy a legal court order while she continues to appeal her case.She has been ordered to start issuing marriage licenses. That order has
been upheld, and her appeal for a stay has been denied. Tomorrow she will
rightfully be held in contempt, unless she finally decides to start obeying the
law and the court order.Again -- this is exactly the same sort of
resistance as some people mounted after the SCOTUS decision against segregation
and the SCOTUS decision on interracial marriage. It's nothing new.Would you be defending Davis so determinedly if she were refusing to marry
"She has already BEEN through the process. Even the Supreme Court has told
her to do her job -- but she is even defying them."No she has
been through part of the legal process, she still has additional options to
pursue in the courts. They have not all been exhausted. Do you propose she not
get the benefit of the full legal process. Liberal progressives are so for the
limitation of legal process if they disagree.
@Redwhatever --Fortunately, nobody with any relevant legal education
or authority agrees with you.Governor Beshear: "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, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to
resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those
duties."Judge Bunning: "...the first half of Article VI,
Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the
U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office.... However,
her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply
with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the
constitutional rights of her constituents. .... Such policies simply cannot
endure."Also, you mentioned Acts 5:29. But you've forgotten
Acts 5:40 -- "They called the apostles in and had them flogged. "If you are going to defy legal authority, you should be willing to pay
the penalty for doing so.
To "RanchHand" I am not saying that. That is what her oath states. She
is to use her judgement. Is your judgement better than hers? Do you want her
to violate her oath and use the judgement of somebody else?
@jsf;Of course she's discriminating against LGBT couples. If
it were not for these couples wanting to marry, she would STILL be issuing
licenses to every straight couple who came through the door for one. So, she
has chosen to refuse licenses to anyone because LGBT couples can now marry.Bigotry in action.
@RedShirtShe betrayed the trust placed on her by the citizens of
Rowen County and your semantic rationalization and justification won't
change that one teeny bit. The really sad part of this whole affair is that you
and your "ILK" see honor where none exists, see integrity in violating
Christ's second greatest commandment, and feel that obeying civil law is
@RedShirt;So, you're saying that her "judgment" allows
her to refuse to serve some of the citizens paying her salary just because in
her "judgment", they're icky? Is that right?
@illuminated"She is allowed the free exercise of her religion
anywhere, anytime, anyplace and the government is not allowed to restrict
her."There are limits to that, otherwise anyone could call
anything a religious practice/belief and anything would be acceptable.
@dmb"I am speaking out against the decision of the Supreme Court in
favor of same-sex marriage because that decision not only violates my conscience
of right and wrong but also because it has wide-ranging restrictions on free
speech and religious liberty. "Your church doesn't have to
perform same-sex marriages but you would ban other churches from being able to
perform same-sex marriages. Whose religious freedom is really at risk in that
To "Contrariwhatever" and "my_two_cents_worth" why do you both
conveniently leave out some of the key points of her oath.You both
leave out the part that states she is to completer her job "according to
the best of my skill and judgment...." You also leave out the last
phrase that states "so help me God."So, she is to use HER
judgement (not yours, not Obama's, and not the judgement of any court), and
is to do so with the help of God.So YOUR ilk wants her to violate
her oath by using your judgement or the judgement of somebody that is not her,
and you want her to violate what she believes to be the will of God.Why do you keep insisting on violating not only her Constitutional rights and
also want her to violate her religious beliefs?To
"Contrariwhatever" you missed the scripture in Acts 5:29 "Then Peter
and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than
men." So again, she is complying with her religion and is obeying God,
rather than men.
For the strongly religious amongst us:"Let every person be
subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God,
and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever
resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will
incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." --
Romans 13:1-3"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to
every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to
governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those
who do right." -- Peter 2:13-14"Remind the people to be
subject to rulers and authorities" -- Titus 3:1St. Augustine:
"Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part
of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up
this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he
@Redshirt1701"actually she didn't violate her oath either.
"Yeah, she did and your word games are beginning to suggest that
you do, indeed, believe Christians are above the law. From her
official website: "As county clerk I am responsible for
providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include
general categories of clerical duties of...issuing and registering, recording
and keeping various legal records...." Legal records which include
Commonwealth of Kentucky Application for Marriage/Divorce Certificate Form
VS-230. A form, ironically, she has completed for herself at least seven times.
"She is in complete compliance with her oath."Only if you believe obeying official government oaths is optional for
This woman may be exciting a few but I guarantee you that it is people like her
that are only accelerating the decline of religion. Particularly in the younger
generation. She may may motivate one person under 30 for every 99 she pushes
further away from the perceived dogma and hatred of religion.
@Redshirt1701 --"actually she didn't violate her oath
either. "Actually she did.Read this part again:
"I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and
will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or
partiality".She will be found in contempt tomorrow, unless she
decides to start issuing licenses. And she may well be facing further charges
for malfeasance -- *and* she'll certainly be paying attorneys' fees
for those couples.Get out the popcorn, this show ain't over
@patriot --"this woman should simply get someone else in the
office to stamp their signature on the marriage licence"Ahhhh,
but she has specifically told her deputies to NOT do this.So, even
according to your own statement, she is failing to do her job.@jsf
--"Now she is going through the legal process"She has already BEEN through the process. Even the Supreme Court has told her
to do her job -- but she is even defying them.She lost. She needs to
suck it up and do her job.What would you do if she stopped issuing
all marriage licenses because she opposed interracial marriage?
To "my_two_cents_worth" actually she didn't violate her oath
either. Her oath requires her to use her judgement. She is doing that. She is
in complete compliance with her oath.
@patriot"she should not be forced to issue the marriage
license."So, is it your position that Christian public servants
are:a. Above the law?b. Allowed to ignore the oath they took
as public servants?c. Both?
she should not be forced to issue the marriage license. Good grief, we have
sanctuary cities all across the US who REFUSE to obey FEDERAL LAWS of
immigration and we have a president who refuses to enforce federal laws across
the board so this woman should simply get someone else in the office to stamp
their signature on the marriage licence and thereby she is allowed to stay
within within the tenents of her faith. Laws in the country anymore are more
like guidelines anyway.
@Kalindra:"If I take money for a job and then refuse to do that job or
refuse to do it properly, I am guilty of theft and fraud. If I swear an oath to
perform certain actions and then refuse to take those actions, I am an oath
breaker and have borne false witness."Why are you bringing
Barack Hussein Obama into the issue?@GingerMarshall:"She
receives a paycheck - one source says $80,000 - to do a job. She is refusing to
do her job."Perhaps she's simply following the example of
the guy in the White House... all except for the paycheck figures.@UTCProgress:"We are a nation of laws. She is breaking the law.
It's as simple as that."Suggest you put your suggestion in
an envelope addressed to the United States White House occupant.@Eliot:"I believe the honorable thing for her to do is resign her
position as county clerk. Such action is not without precedent among people of
honor."The honorable thing to do is for the 'couple'
to find another clerk.
@Redshirt1701"BUt she has not broken any law."She's betrayed her oath to the people of her county:"I do
solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and
be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a
citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability,
the office of .... according to law..."She's violated the
establishment clause of the 1st Amendment by making her religion the defacto
religion of the county where she is an elected official. She's in violation
of the Accommodation Clause of the 1st by denying all heterosexual
couples--Mormon, Jewish, Baptist, Muslim--their right to get a religious wedding
by refusing to issue them a marriage license."you have not shown
what PHYSICAL harm is caused by not having her issue marriage licenses."She has stolen tax dollars; she continues to feed off of the tax payer
but refuses to serve them as required by her oath. She's a crook, that
creates harm. Do you believe that Christians are above the law?
"The people of Rowan County are paying her salary"This is
right because they also elected her to the position. As part of her job when
she was elected was to administer the rules of the state and county. She was
with in the parameters of the law of Kentucky to not issue licenses for SSM.
When she recognized a conflict of federal and state law, she stopped issuing
licenses altogether. Now she is going through the legal process that many hear
say she should not pursue. It is her right for what ever reason to go through
the slow process of the courts. Yet many here tell us she has no right to seek
the full range of the legal system we have. Because the SSM people want to
force every hand those in this post demand she be cast out of office she was
elected to. Kind of like the left tells us the tea party group would want for
the Presidency. But then say he was elected.She has not
discriminated against SSM, because she has issued no licenses, ssm or other.
She is not discriminating.
@Tekakaromatagi --"Well this all reminds me of the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850"Get serious.What it should be
reminding you of is the days of segregation and of Loving v. Virginia.After SCOTUS ruled on segregation, states rebelled. Alabama was so defiant
that the National Guard finally had to be activated to ensure enforcement.After SCOTUS ruled on interracial marriage, five states refused to start
performing interracial marriages. They were finally forced into it by further
court orders.Should we repudiate integration and interracial
marriage because these states objected? Many people in those states had
"sincerely held religious beliefs" guiding them to support racial
segregation, after all.Would we excuse Davis from performing
interracial marriages if she believed in segregation?You should read
Judge Bunning's court order in this case. It is clearly written, and quite
illuminating. In short, Davis is infringing on the rights of the citizens of
Rowan County and refusing to perform her sworn duties as a court clerk. And that
will not be allowed to continue for much longer.
@ Bob K: Of course my suggestion is unworkable - and, honestly, it doesn't
need to be workable to be effective. This woman has made no personal
sacrifice, and all indications are that she has no intention of making a
personal sacrifice. She has never said she would quit instead of issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples - no, she has repeatedly stated she will
not quit and will not issue the licenses. Throwing her in jail makes
her a martyr while not really costing her anything. Her attorneys are not
charging her. Any fines she is assessed will most likely be paid by supporters.
Nothing she has done and nothing that is on the radar has any direct
cost to her personally. People are lauding her for her stand, but
she has made no sacrifice for her beliefs - so let's make it personal:
let's see if she is willing to put her money where her mouth is and make a
personal sacrifice. My guess is she will issue the licenses long
before her "stand" costs her a dime.
Well this all reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 where Southern
slaveholders tried to force northern abolitionists to violate their religious
beliefs disagreeing with slavery in order to arrest and return alleged escaped
slaves to their southern masters.In many cases when the various
northern officials, police officers etc were brought before juries, the juries
would acquit.The Gay Right seems to be taking us back to the
1850's where religious freedom had to take a backseat to the property
rights of southern slave owners.
@Tekakaromatagi --"But then I thought of various attorney
generals who would not defend their states laws"Yet again --There **is** legal justification for the executive branch of government
to refuse to defend unconstitutional laws under some conditions. For an intro to
the concept, see the following papers:1. "The Indefensible Duty
to Defend" at Columbia Law Review2. "Presidential Authority to
Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes"3. "When May a
President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern University Law
Review4. "Executive Discretion to Decline to Defend Federal Law
Against Constitutional Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound Public Policy
But that isn't what Davis is doing. Davis is refusing to simply
fill out a form. And she isn't in the executive branch, in any case.
I was thinking, "Well, she needs to do her job." But then I thought of
various attorney generals who would not defend their states laws defining
marriage between a man and a woman.How come she is subject to
penalties and these attorney generals were not? Is it because she is not a low
level official and they are not? Is it because PCism is the new state
religions?But calling her a bigot isn't a very constructive way
to get her to change her mind. It is ironic that the people who preach
multiculturalism are lacking in cultural sensitivity themselves.
@Uteofferouus --"It is good to have these reminders now and
again lest the gay community is lulled into a false sense of security thinking
that people of faith and morality will go silently away."Yet
again -- many LGBTs are Christian, and many Christians support full LGBT
rights.And supporters of LGBT equality have just as much right to
claim knowledge of the word of God as you do.But I guess you
don't care about the religious freedom of all the churches that support
same-sex marriage? Is it only your own version of Christianity that deserves
freedom?And btw, "morality" includes honoring the oaths
you've made -- which Davis is not doing.In related news,
there's a fundraiser set up for Kim Davis on Indiegogo. It has raised ONE
dollar in four days. I can't tell whether she set up the page, or if
someone else did it for her.
This woman's stand is a clear reminder that many, many people will never
accept so-called same-sex marriage. We may tolerate it to a point but when the
day comes that we give up on morality, we will be giving up on a lot more than
that. It is good to have these reminders now and again lest the gay community is
lulled into a false sense of security thinking that people of faith and morality
will go silently away.
According to several news xources, this came out today:She was
divorced from husband #1 while months pregnant.She married #2
quickly, had and had twins, who he adopted.The father of the twins
was actually husband #3, who impregnated her while she was with #1Husband #4 has been married three times and looks a generation older than
Kim.Early this year, she accepted an application from a man who was
born a woman and his future wife, and, when asked if she wanted to see his birth
cirtificate (which says "female") she said it was not necessary and
allowed them to marry.--- My point: this is an unusual person, not
an ordinary religious lady being put upon by Evil Gays who want to destroy her.
It seems doubtful she would have been elected, given that history, but her
mother had held the job for 37 years.Does your Christian faith not
demand that you look at the merits of both sides?Do you find
yourself rushing to defend the "Christian", and blace blame on the Gay
couple, together for decades, who waited to marry until they could do so where
What is wrong with standing up for the law?KalindraSalt Lake
City, UtahHow's this for a compromise: Since her refusal to do her
job is what is requiring couples to go to other counties, she has to reimburse
them for mileage and travel time. Additionally, since other county clerks have
having to do her job, reduce her salary commensurately and divide that among the
other clerks. Since the county is losing the license fees, she can repay that to
the county as well. And since her office is now less busy, she needs to cut
staff and fire at least one of her deputy clerks. -- OK, if I were a
county clerk and did not want to give licenses to mormons (or catholics or
Hindus), would you make the same suggestion?And you think an
employee should lose his/her job because of this woman?Sorry -- not
What a terrible shame that comments like this appear here. What about
"civil discourse"What about respect that this is a church-owned
site, and people might ask how Jesus would discuss this problem.CAB90Logan, UT"First, a brief look at Kentucky law says "a
county clerk" has to issue the marriage license, not a specific county
clerk. They could easily go to a neighboring county and get one."--- Really? If you hacd a 40 year old son who lived and payed taxes there,
would you tell him not to demand to be served just like anyone else?"Second, they don't want her to face jail time just fines. Seems like
someone is looking for a payday."--- Fines are paid to the
court, not them. They are being nice by asking the judge not to use the jail
option. "Third,... the only reason they ...are forcing this
particular woman to issue the license is because they feel she is a bigot and
they must force their views on her."--- See my reply to your
first point. I'll call this point the mental rape of
society.--- I'll call it someone with an $80,000 job trying to
I'm curious about laws that allow one to refuse government employees to
issue civil marriage licenses, to interracial or same gender couples. Are they
really protections for religious freedoms or institutionalizing racism,
heterosexism and homophobia in the work place? What is the difference?
As long as I can remember... we as Latter Day Saints have been instructed to
obey the laws of the land until such time the the law is changed. Has that been
rescinded or changed..? Some do not want to pay taxes... but it is the law of
the land. If we invoke God's law... perhaps we should know what that law
is. We may not care for the law... but until changed... the law of the land is
what it is.
I am becoming more and more convinced that the religious right wing will lead us
to the demise of religious freedom.
This is fairly basic. God is not paying her salary. The people of Rowan County
are paying her salary (including same sex families). Is this really so hard to
As we all think about this, could the truth be hiding behind something else? Could it be this woman, who has a history of multiple marriages, again
thinking of making a change?Could she be tired of working in the
atmosphere she appears to no longer "enjoy"?Is her behavior
attempting terminated be such that she can collect unemployment benefits?Does she have interest in litigation and a hefty payout? Perhaps she has been
in touch with attorneys who are advising her? She may be encouraged to make this
situation seem very, very difficult for her so the media shows "her
pain" and she can sue the state for a large amount of damages?This may
not be about religion after all.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" you are wrong. Religion is on full display
within the government every 4 years when the President is sworn in. If you
notice, every President has taken the Oath of Office with one hand placed on a
Bible, and nearly every President has stated "So help me, God" at the
end of their oath. Are you going to prevent all future presidents from taking
the oath with one hand on the Bible?To "RJohnson" you are
imposing your view of the bible on this woman. Why should you be allowed to do
that?To "my_two_cents_worth" I don't think you
understand that Constitution and Federal Law. If something is written in the
Constitution, that law rules supreme regardless of what the other laws state.
BUt she has not broken any law. Please give us the law that says that she is
required by law to issue marriage licenses. Also, you have not shown what
PHYSICAL harm is caused by not having her issue marriage licenses.To
"Utefan60" and tell us how you are defending religious freedom by
forcing this woman to act against her religious beliefs.
For a Democrat, she's got it right! I detest the GBLT community inching
their way into fracturing society, and they surely are. One thing for sure,
she knows she can end run around the system because Obama and Hillary do it on a
daily basis. I don't give my customers everything they want done because
their request goes against construction codes. I do suggest alternate options
and they can act accordingly. Go girl go! You're doing a great job!
There are many who fear the blood moon this month heralds the end of the world -
they may be right: I agree, at least partially, with The Heritage Foundation.
They argue that, while reasonable accommodations should be given for
the clerks religious beliefs, prohibiting the deputy clerks in her office to
issue licenses imposes her religion on them and is not reasonable. Any
reasonable accommodation would require that someone in that office be available
to provide to all citizens all the services of that office. It is unreasonable
to expect citizens of that county to drive to another county to receive those
services. The Heritage Foundation does not use Utah as their
example, but this is similar to what Utah has done. And while I do not agree
that she should continue getting paid for a job she is not doing, I can
appreciate the effort at reconciliation. When even the Heritage
Foundation thinks you've gone too far, perhaps it is time to re-examine how
you are doing things.
Redshirt1701, you are no defender of religious freedom. Each one of these
couples gay or straight are first and foremost children of a loving God. You
discriminate against "certain of God's children" as if it
doesn't' matter. Many Churches of that same loving God do not believe
what you believe.Redshirt1701, you are being unfaithful when telling
us not to obey the laws that you find objectionable. That is exactly the
opposite of what we have been commanded by God to do, render unto Caesar...That isn't how this country works, nor how the founders of the
Constitution wanted it.You pick and chose the laws that you want
obeyed. I'll bet you would scream if your were refused service at any
Government place due to your religion. Might be a good thing for you to
experience what these people are experiencing. It is horrible and disgusting.
@Redshirt1701"She is obeying the 1st Amendment which states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...""No, she's
not. She has placed herself above the law--something more and more Christians
seem to think is okay. She's violating the religious rights of those
churches who support same sex marriage and she's violating the religious
rights of all those heterosexual, Christian couples who can't get married
in their churches because she refuses to her perform her duty and issue them
marriage licenses. "The people that do not get a marriage
license will not be harmed"BS. They pay her salary through their
taxes. Her refusal to provide the services the citizens of Rowen County have
paid for--through force of law--are being harmed every day this women refuses to
comply with the law.
She should be happy to give out licenses for 'gayage' or
'unionage' or 'sameage' Marriage is between a man and
woman. Between man/man or woman/woman let them find their own word.
@Redshirt1701"You want her to live by YOUR religious
beliefs."Completely, 100% false. We want her to live by the oath
she took as a representative of ALL the people in Rowan County, KY--not just the
ones she finds "acceptable." She does not get to take tax payer dollars
and then refuse to provide the services those dollars pay for, regardless of her
religious convictions. If her religious sensibilities require her to ignore what
her name sake told her to do in Matthew 22:21 then she needs to leave the
office, post haste.
One can not have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. They are two
sides of the same coin.
illuminated, I'm so sorry you don't understand the Constitution and
the First Amendment. It was never the intent or the language to give free reign
of religion over civil secular law. Never! That has been reaffirmed many times
by the Supreme Court.She has no right, religious or otherwise to
disobey the civil secular law. And she is in no way harmed by following the law.
She can not use that phony excuse of religious freedom. It is not
guaranteed under our Constitution, nor was it ever the intent of the First
Amendment.If your arguments were true this country would be in
chaos. Your observation is not based in fact or law. Her response is sheer
bigotry and hatred clothed in the guise of Religious Freedom
To "UTCProgress" that is not what you said. You said that it is wrong
to force others to live by your religion, yet this is what you want to do this
clerk. You want her to live by YOUR religious beliefs.She is
obeying the highest law in the US, and that is the Constitution. She is obeying
the 1st Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
According to the Constitution, they can't stop her. The only time that
legally the government can prohibit the free exercise of religion in when they
have a compelling interest. A compelling interest means that the government has
to show that without the prohibitions a person would die, or could be seriously
injured.The people that do not get a marriage license will not be
harmed in any way by having to drive to another county to get a marriage
@BelieveInAmerica"The only people who think they are above the
law are these gay couples and the SCOTUS who refuse to follow the First
Amendment, the Supreme law of the land."Where, exactly, in the
first amendment does it grant the right to accept tax payer money to provide
services to ALL tax payers then refuse to service those same tax payers? "If I gave 100% of my earned income to charity, I would be exempt
from all taxes. That's the law on the books."Totally
irrelevant. She is receiving Caesar's pennies (a whole bunch of them) to
provide Caesar's services. Period. She is not the victim here and because
she refuses to issue ANY marriage licenses each and every tax payer in Rowan
County, KY is begin victimized by this woman."Life & Liberty
are above even the First Amendment."So, then, the 1st Amendment
is only absolute when it is YOUR religion. Got it.
BelieveInAmerica - Again, I am surprised by your moniker given you show disdain
for America and her Constitution. Regarding pastors, Abraham
Lincoln, etc... - your analysis is incorrect. You have conflated free speech
with free exercise. Those are separate rights and have separate legal
standards. For example, a pastor, as an individual, may speak freely as he/she
pleases on political candidates but a religious organization would not be
permitted to do so lest they lose their tax exempt status. Just as a government
employee, such as a county clerk, may post her grievances on marriage equality
in social media but she cannot use religion as justification to not perform her
governmental duties. There is no government in religion and religion has no
place in government. The case law is long settled. Further, I have
dozens upon dozens of cases that back up my position, including the one at issue
involving the Kentucky county clerk. So if you "don't care how some
historical x vs y case fell out" then you openly oppose the Constitution of
the United States; case law is part of the Constitution and informs the First
Amendment per Article III.
For those arguing freedom of religion. The first amendment not only guarantees
the right of freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion. An elected official
is just that; elected by the people that she serves to perform the duties of her
office for ALL of the people that she serves, regardless of religious
affiliation. This County Clerk is defrauding the citizens of Kentucky by
refusing to perform the duties of her elected position. She should be found in
contempt, and it is only by the forgiveness of those she is preaching against
that she may avoid jail time, as they have asked for only monetary penalties.
So the question remains, who is living by Gods word here? The one
discriminating against others and judging others for their beliefs or the ones
fogiving enough to request leniency?And for those asking why they
don't simply go to another county; why should they? That does not solve the
@UTCProgress "Those laws now include allowing gay persons to marry."Please be factual. Not in Utah, the government respects the laws of
natures God and clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses based on religious
belief. Folks don't lose God, just because the go to work to earn a
BIA: "Life & Liberty are above even the First Amendment."Liberty to be treated equally under the law? Is that above the first
amendment? Because that is the exact reason that gay marriage bans were found
unconstitutional and the law of the land was changed.Where do you
draw the line about treatment of citizens equally and religious freedom? Is there something wrong with signing a document that states that two
people have been found to abide by all the requirements for marriage that would
go against a person's religion? That is not marrying them or participating
in any way in the ceremony. Just stating that these two people, by the laws of
her county, state, and country, have met the requirements. That would be a sin?
But that is what her job is. That is the position that she ran for. Help me
here understand why it isn't her fault in trying to make all the people of
her county live her beliefs and have her religious approval before she attests
to their certificate.
@Redshirt1701There was no hypocrisy in my statement. She can freely
discriminate against whomever she wishes in her private life. The government
has no business telling her what to believe. However, as a county clerk she has
sworn to uphold and obey the laws of the United States and the State of
Kentucky. Those laws now include allowing gay persons to marry. If her
religious beliefs prevent her from fulfilling her duties as county clerk, she is
welcome to resign and go about her merry way practicing her religion as she
chooses. As I stated, (and has been confirmed by the Supreme Court), she has a
first amendment right to practice her religion as she sees fit, but she has no
First Amendment right to be a county clerk.
After reading the comment thread, I find myself fighting the urge to simply walk
into the mountains and leave the world behind. Freedom of belief is absolute,
but not freedom of practice. No one, not even Illuminated, would argue that
someone should be able to sacrifice a virgin because their religion commands it.
Yes, the Constitution forbids prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but it
also only guarantees the right to bear arms for the purpose of militias.
"So Satanists can have human sacrifices and it would not be against the
law?"Life & Liberty are above even the First Amendment.
Everyone is guaranteed life in this country before anything else. Don't be
@RJohnson"1. Is it your position that Christians are above the
law?"The only people who think they are above the law are these
gay couples and the SCOTUS who refuse to follow the First Amendment, the Supreme
law of the land."2. Do you think Jesus was just fooling around
when he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"?"There is no law against giving your money to charity. If I gave 100% of my
earned income to charity, I would be exempt from all taxes. That's the law
on the books.FatherOfFour"I've got an idea. I'm
gonna join the Army. Then I'm gonna tell them that I am a pacifist and it
is against my religion to shoot people or support violent acts."Under the First Amendment this is how it should be. You could be given a
position that doesn't require you to shoot, like a technician, medic,
logistics, communications, IT etc. There are plenty of military positions that
don't require killing someone. Shocked that you don't know that.
BIA: "Anything that goes against the First Amendment is in violation of it.
And until you can back your argument up with a quotation from the First
Amendment, you have no case."So Satanists can have human
sacrifices and it would not be against the law? Hawaiians can have a virginal
maiden jump into a volcano to please Pele and you have no problem with it? As
long as they are practicing their religion, there are no laws?
I've got an idea. I'm gonna join the Army. Then I'm gonna tell
them that I am a pacifist and it is against my religion to shoot people or
support violent acts. I expect to just get a paycheck and do nothing, because of
So many talk about staying with God, but never walk the talk. Here is a woman
standing for her right to her religious beliefs. Sadly, so many believe that
one's religious beliefs only belong in church or the home. Just like in
Utah if a government clerk wants to stand for God they don't have to
participate in issuing a marriage license. What is so hard to understand about
protecting religious rights? I fear that like Jesus was arrested
and sent to jail and persecuted, she may face the same fate; handcuffed, paraded
around for the press and then jailed.
How's this for a compromise: Since her refusal to do her job is what is
requiring couples to go to other counties, she has to reimburse them for mileage
and travel time. Additionally, since other county clerks have having to do her
job, reduce her salary commensurately and divide that among the other clerks.
Since the county is losing the license fees, she can repay that to the county as
well. And since her office is now less busy, she needs to cut staff and fire at
least one of her deputy clerks. It's not ideal, but it allows
her to soothe her conscience while reducing the negative impact on those she is
refusing to serve. Kim Davis was elected in 2014. At that time
same-sex marriage was well on the radar. She knew or should have known that
there was a possibility that she would have to issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples - she campaigned for the job anyway. When she placed her hand
on the Bible and swore to uphold the duties of her office, SSM was a
possibility. If she wasn't going to do the job, she shouldn't have
asked for it.
@dmb, catseye, Cats, illuminated,So, dmb, et al...I
three questions:1. Is it your position that Christians are above the
law?2. Do you think Jesus was just fooling around when he said,
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
God the things that are God's"?3. Is a clerk who, herself, has
been married repeatedly really the best spokesperson to put out there as the
poster child for the defense of "traditional marriage?"
mcclark"Why does one persons religious rights trump another persons
religious rights?"They don't. These gay couples don't
have the right to force anyone to marry them and go against their free exercise
of religion guaranteed by the First amendment. You are advocating for the very
thing you are asking a question about. Don't you see the irony in that?These gay couples aren't exercising their religion. They are
getting married. There is nothing in the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights
that says you have the right to be married. I don't care what the SCOTUS
says, they are in violation of the law that even they must obey.If
these judges don't want to follow the law they promised to uphold, perhaps
they should be impeached and forced to step down.
@Stalwart Sentinel"there is no place for government in religious
services and no place for religious beliefs in government."This
is absolutely untrue. There are pastors all over who will tell you who to vote
for. Historically there are hundreds of elected officials preaching religion
from their political platform. Abraham Lincoln constantly preached about God
and the Holy Spirit in his speeches and political rallies. Presidents place
their hand on the Bible every time they are inaugurated."you are
free to exercise your religion as you see fit personally but, if you open a
store or work for the government, you are subject to local, state and federal
laws"Hmmm, I don't recall that line in the First Amendment.
The Constitution actually says this:"Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion."This means that, yes,
you may exercise your religion anywhere without restriction. I honestly
don't care how some historical x vs y case fell out. Anything that goes
against the First Amendment is in violation of it. And until you can back your
argument up with a quotation from the First Amendment, you have no case.
@CAB90 --"First, a brief look at Kentucky law says "a county
clerk" has to issue the marriage license, not a specific county
clerk."Davis has instructed all of her deputies to refuse to
issue the licenses."They could easily go to a neighboring county
and get one."As Judge Bunning specifically noted in his
decision, they shouldn't have to. They live in that county and pay taxes in
that county -- they should be served in that county."Second,
they don't want her to face jail time just fines. Seems like someone is
looking for a payday."The government will get the fines. But you
can bet she'll be paying their attorneys' fees. "Third, if my first point proves to be true the only reason they (the
couple) are forcing this particular woman to issue the license is because they
feel she is a bigot and they must force their views on her."Kim
Davis is refusing to do her job, and she has violated her oath of office. She
doesn't deserve to be collecting her paycheck.
@illimunated. "God is the highest law in the land, and this woman is
following the only law that will matter. I wish we had more leaders humble
enough to realize this."So then you believe we should live in a
religous state such as what we see throughout much of the Middle East?
To "UTCProgress" did you read what you posted? You said that nobody is
restricting her from practicing her religion, but you are going to force her to
do something against her religion. Do you see the hypocrisy?To
"Esquire" isn't having the government involved in marriage a
mingling of church and state? The church was performing marriages before the
state got involved. Since many liberals and their religious beliefs say that
gay marriage is good, aren't they just imposing their religious views on
everybody else?TO "GingerMarshall " if we are all Children
of God, shouldn't we obey his commandments? Wasn't one of the first
commandments given for us to multiply and replenish the Earth? How can a gay
couple comply with that? Also, if you want to talk oppression, look no further
than the Liberal/Progressive policies that oppresses the religious and punishes
those who do not bow down to their ideals.
illuminated - I'd expect better from someone with that moniker. Like all
rights, the free exercise clause in the COTUS is not unlimited. For
example, the Establishment Clause severely limits free exercise to the point
that in Everson v Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that, "[t]he
First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be
kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." That
impregnability works both ways. No government official should oversee religious
or church services while no religious or spiritual convictions are allowed to
dictate a government official's work. Succinctly, there is no place for
government in religious services and no place for religious beliefs in
government. Furthermore, through the test established in Employment
Division v Smith, we learn of various other ways the free exercise clause is
limited or curtailed. To put it simply, you are free to exercise
your religion as you see fit personally but, if you open a store or work for the
government, you are subject to local, state and federal laws which will require
you to treat people equally. If equality conflicts with your morality, you
@illuminated You have not answered my question. Why does one persons religious
rights trump another persons religious rights?
R&S: "It's difficult to see my country depart from morality. Law
does not dictate morality."Yes, it is hard. We've been on a
path that says all Americans - all of God's Children - should be treated
with dignity and respect in society and equality before the law. But we keep
having these primative and superstitious people who believe their religion gives
them the right - or even the duty - to select groups of citizens to mistreat and
discriminate against, excluding them from society pushing them into second class
status. Perhaps someday we can overcome. Until then we just need to
remember, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be
demanded by the oppressed" (Martin Luther King, Jr) and keep moving forward
toward a just and equal society that doesn't allow the religion of some to
deny rights to any minority.
So according to the left: Only the Obama administration gets to ignore laws.
And hey, I seem to recall you leftists promising--promising!-- that
gay marriage wouldn't affect anyones lives negatively.Now you
are casually talking about jailing people who disagree with you as the moral
thing to do. You guys sound like members of the SchultzStaffel from the
40's. "Christians should do what they are told, or else!"
@ChemMichaelThis is one of the most misintrepreted Scriptures in all
of the Bible."Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be
Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."Does
Caesar really own anything? Of course not. Everything belongs to God,
including Caesar's money. Jesus is saying that we should give everything
we have to God, through service and charity because God truly owns everything
including Caesar's coins. This goes perfectly with his command to the rich
young man to sell all he hath and follow him.If we give all we have
to charity, even today, the Government gives us a charitable exemption, which
means it is still perfectly legal to give to God and follow Jesus'
command.Jesus says it this way to avoid being prosecuted by the
Romans, so that only his chosen would hear the truth. It's brilliant what
he did here, and there are so many pharisees today who still do not understand
the meaning of these verses.God is the highest law in the land, and
this woman is following the only law that will matter. I wish we had more
leaders humble enough to realize this.
First, a brief look at Kentucky law says "a county clerk" has to issue
the marriage license, not a specific county clerk. They could easily go to a
neighboring county and get one. Second, they don't want her to face jail
time just fines. Seems like someone is looking for a payday. Third, if my first
point proves to be true the only reason they (the couple) are forcing this
particular woman to issue the license is because they feel she is a bigot and
they must force their views on her. I'll call this point the mental rape of
It's difficult to see my country depart from morality. Law does not
Jesus Himself gave the answer to this dilemma:"And they asked
him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither
acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:"Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?"But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye
me?"Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it?
They answered and said, Caesar's."And he said unto them,
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the
things which be God's." (Luke 20:21-25)That pretty well
sums it up. You, us a believer, may not agree with the government, but as a
citizen and a government employee, you do have to obey the law and fulfill your
job duties. If you can;t do that, this may not be a great career choice for
Utahutesthroughandthrough: Whoa there, I need some citations. I am genuinely
interested to hear about all the interracial (black-white) marriages officiated
by the LDS Church (either officiated by a bishop or solemnized in the temple)
prior to 1978. And if LDS county clerks did in fact issue marriage
certificates to mixed couples in Utah, that only goes to prove the point: they
did their jobs, and fulfilled state law rather than invoking pre-1978 LDS
teachings on interracial marriage as a "religious freedom" excuse to
avoid doing their jobs.
This has just been published --"A federal judge has ordered
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to appear in his courtroom Thursday and explain why
she should not be held in contempt of court, according to Rowan County Attorney
Cecil Watkins. All of Davis' deputy clerks are to join her, Watkins
said."Notice that ALL of her deputies have also been called
in.With any luck they'll be "scared straight" by the
As we have seen many times before, tomorrow's news will be that this woman
is no longer working for the state of Kentucky.However, should she have
friends in high places, she could be "moved" to some unrelated position
in the state. Or she can go her merry way into the world of activism.
" But marriage is a right of the states to define it and that has been taken
away by the current administration."Utahutes.......I know
you want to blame Obama for everything that you think is bad, but that
administration had nothing to do with this ruling. It came from the people
suing their states. It went to the Supreme Court (a different branch of the
government, btw) and it was decided.Go Utes!
Al Thepal: "Likely, in order to get a license from a different county clerk,
they would only need to drive probably 20-30 miles tops."Why
can't they use their own water fountain, it is only a few steps away. Why can't they ride in the back of the bus, it is only a few steps
further down the aisle.Why can't they live in their own neighborhood,
with their own kind.Why can't they go to their own schools.This argument is so worn-out it was retired half-a-century ago. Pulling it out
to use against a new group does not disguise the fact you are talking
"separate-but-equal," which does not fly under the Constitution.
Put the clerk in jail and hire someone else to do the people's work. She
can find satisfaction she is holding true to her beliefs and the people can find
satisfaction that they have a government employee doing their job. Problem
@Vanceone --"right after Obama and the city officials of San
Franscisco resign"You don't seem to understand that this
lady is not in the executive branch of government.In fact, the
executive DOES have the legal power to refuse to enforce or defend laws under
some conditions.Check out the following legal papers for a start:1. "The Indefensible Duty to Defend" at Columbia Law Review2. "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional
Statutes"3. "When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?"
at Northwestern University Law Review4. "Executive Discretion to
Decline to Defend Federal Law Against Constitutional Challenge" by the Palm
Center for Sound Public Policy "It's wrong to punish this
woman for refusing to obey this "law" that only Kennedy came up
with."Actually, the Constitution came up with it, and 50 or 60
courts across the country agreed with it."are you leftists now
saying you cannot be Christian and work for the government?""We leftists" are saying that you shouldn't get paid for a job
that you're not doing.Seriously -- should I get paid by the IRS
if I refuse to collect income taxes on religious grounds?
@UTCProgressActually that would be fine. If they don't want to
issue marriage licenses to Mormons due to religious beliefs then I would find
another person to get my marriage license from. Marriage is the right of the
state to define what marriage is (US Constitution). Now each state has to
recognize a license from another state because that is also in the Constitution.
But marriage is a right of the states to define it and that has been taken away
by the current administration.
"Why are you ignoring her blatant establishment of religion?" She
is not establishing a religion. She is merely exercising her freedom of
religion which is guaranteed to her."She is forcing the people
of her county to live by her religion."She's forcing gays to go
to church and read the Bible? She's forcing them to get baptized and take
Sacrament?"How about the people who's religious beliefs say
gay marriage is good, and who want to get married?"They can say that
all they want, that's their right. But they can't force someone else
to go against their religious belief based on an unconstitutional enforcement by
the SCOTUS."If a county clerk in Georgia (who was a Baptist)
decided that God told her that Mormonism was a cult, and she could not issue
marriage licenses to non-Baptists, then that would be OK to you"Absolutely! That is their First Amendment right! The Constitution guarantees
it! Why are you so afraid of following the law?"Your ability to
practice your religion must be weighed against others ability to practice
theirs"Sorry, I don't recall that line in the First
@ illuminated, wow, that's a perversion of the Constitution and Bill of
Rights. She IS the government official. So you are authorizing a government
official to use personal religious beliefs to carry out a government function.
You must be good, then, with a Muslim government official deciding to impose
Sharia law. Your position is what caused so many to flee the Old World and seek
religious freedom here.
I think this lady should resign.... right after Obama and the city officials of
San Franscisco resign, and Lois Lerner is prosecuted, and so is Eric Holder, and
Timothy Geitner and Al Sharpton pay their taxes.If you leftists are
demanding that she go to jail for not doing her job, then start demanding all
public officials do their job. If Obama isn't going to enforce his own
Obamacare, or punish the cities who violate immigration law, or arrest the
officials in Colorado and Oregon who sell Pot, then why should this woman have
to obey a law she disagrees with?It's Wrong to deport this poor
murdering Mexican who's killed eight people already? That's the left
view. It's wrong to punish this woman for refusing to obey this
"law" that only Kennedy came up with. Or are you leftists
now saying you cannot be Christian and work for the government?
@Billy Bob: "...I think in her mind this is a way to compromise. ... But I
also do not find fault with her for trying to do the best she can to follow her
religious beliefs..."Unfortunately for the KY clerk, even if her
compromise is well-intended, it undermines her position.Even among
those who believe Obergefell is bad law that might be reversed some day, there
are few who will go on record to argue for a reversal of Loving v. Virginia,
which struck down interracial marriage bans upon holding that marriage was a
fundamental right protected by the U.S Constitution. Thus the
Kentucky clerk's refusal to issue -any- marriage licenses violates the
constitutional rights of -all- couples in her county that wish to get married.
In spite of Obergefell, she cites her 'religious freedom'
to justify refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She is
entitled to her day in court to argue that point. But unless she is
also willing to argue overturning Loving and that marriage is not a fundamental
right, she has no legal justification for violating the constitutional rights of
heterosexual couples as part of her 'compromise.'Knucklehead != heroine.
@illuminatedSo let's take your belief to it's logical end.
If a county clerk in Georgia (who was a Baptist) decided that God told her that
Mormonism was a cult, and she could not issue marriage licenses to non-Baptists,
then that would be OK to you, based on your statement that the First Amendment
is all powerful? I'm afraid that there is 200+ years of case law that
proves you wrong. Your ability to practice your religion must be
weighed against others ability to practice theirs (or practice no religion at
all) when the two come into conflict. As an agent of the government, she is
bound by law to follow the directives of superior government organizations. The
Supreme Court is the final authority on the Constitution and all laws. Your
opinion in this area is irrelevant.
@illuminated How about the people who's religious beliefs say gay marriage
is good, and who want to get married? Why does this woman's religious
rights trump theirs?
I suspect the Judge will broker a compromise. Someone else will start issuing
the marriage licenses and the Clerk will start making license plates instead.
illuminated wrote: '"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".She is allowed the free exercise of her religion anywhere, anytime,
anyplace and the government is not allowed to restrict her.'Why
are you ignoring her blatant establishment of religion? She is forcing the
people of her county to live by her religion. She is herself violating the first
@Billy Bob wrote: "Technically she is not currently trying to discriminate
because she is also not granting marriage licensees to heterosexual couples
either. I personally, for religious reasons, am not a supporter of homosexual
marriage, but since it is the law I think she should do her job (same goes for
the LDS county clerks in Utah who are LDS who apparently are not refusing to
grant gay marriage licences). However, at this moment she is not trying to
discriminate by not granting licenses to anybody, homo or hetero."I find that argument to be disingenuous, as she ceased granting licenses the
instant that she was required to grant them to same-sex couples. She definitely
is discriminating.Much in the same way that the faux-libertarians
who go around saying that government should not recognize marriages at all.
Funny that they only started saying that when marriage equality started to be a
thing.If a person's aim is to prevent same-sex couples from
getting married, then it's still discrimination, even if the blunt-axe
method used also prevents opposite-sex couples as well.
"While she has a First Amendment right to practice her religion as she
wishes, she has no First Amendment right to be a county clerk."Of course she does! The First Amendment says you have the right to exercise
your religion freely. It doesn't state you must stop exercising it as a
county clerk or in any government position.Abraham Lincoln
frequently preached the Holy Ghost during his speeches as President. So did
many of the founding fathers as Congressmen and Presidents. The President puts
his hand on the Bible during inauguration and swears on it. It's just
silly to believe they lose the right to exercise their religion freely inside
public office!When you find that wording in the First Amendment that
restricts it when employed by the government, let us all know. Until then, obey
the highest law of the land, not your own opinion.You're
absolutely right, we are a nation of laws. The SCOTUS is breaking the law, the
law of the Constitution.
@illuminated, et al...No one is restricting her right to practice
her religion. She is free to worship in any way she wishes. While she has a
First Amendment right to practice her religion as she wishes, she has no First
Amendment right to be a county clerk. She will go to jail for contempt, she
will be removed from office, and the clerks office will issue marriage licenses
to all couples legally authorized to marry.We are a nation of laws.
She is breaking the law. It's as simple as that.
@AuContrariusier 9:09 amAnd now the current administration is trying
to force a segregation of minority groups and whites in school by creating
schools where only minority groups can attend. Sounds like the democrats are
going back to there old southern ways.
@Br. JonesActually there were plenty of black people in the church
back in the day. And there were also marriages between the blacks and whites.
And there were marriage certificates given to them in Utah. So I don't
understand your argument. One of the main reasons the LDS church was forced to
flee Missouri is cause they stood against slavery. So saying the LDS church was
a bunch of racist white folk is just plain our wrong and founded on complete
hate of the LDS church.
I believe the honorable thing for her to do is resign her position as county
clerk. Such action is not without precedent among people of honor.
She is well within her Constitutional Rights. The law is clear:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof".She is allowed the free
exercise of her religion anywhere, anytime, anyplace and the government is not
allowed to restrict her.It doesn't say, "as long as its
done in the private sector".It doesn't say, "as long as its
done in a church".It doesn't say, "as long as the Supreme
Court allows it".NO! It says they shall make "no law that
prohibits the free exercise of it". Period.
@HutteriteWell said.I'm a professor at a state
supported university. Does this mean I can throw people from her Church out of
my classroom "on God's Authority?" I don't think I would last
very long and neither should she.
@ TA1"everyone obeys the the law. You can't pick and
choose. There are significant consequences for not doing so"tell
that to all the illegal aliens and the obama government
One can assume that at least some of the couples requesting marriage licenses
are planning to marry in a religious ceremony in a church officiated by a
minister. Therefore, this government official, in claiming her own religious
freedom, is denying others their right to freely exercise their own religious
liberty and practice their faith.Rights don’t exist in a
vacuum. They often conflict, and when they do, we set boundaries. Your right
to free speech is restricted in crowded theaters.I’m willing
to cut her a little slack and let her personally opt out, as long as the
clerk’s office has someone who will issue the licenses (apparently it
does). Issuing same-sex licenses was not in the job description when she ran
for office. It will be in the job description next term. I would expect her to
either not run for re-election or be willing to carry out all the duties of the
job next term.Article: From the back of the room, Davis'
supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground."Interesting how this phrase used elsewhere to justify killing other human
beings has become the mantra of the faithful.
I personally agree with people who say that County Clerks and other publicly
elected officials should do their job. If I were a county clerk, actually would
not find it against my religious beliefs to grant gay marriage licenses despite
the fact that I am morally and religiously opposed to homosexual behavior.
However, I just looked up her county just for fun, and noticed that Rowan County
is just 286 square miles with a population of about 23,300. Likely, in order to
get a license from a different county clerk, they would only need to drive
probably 20-30 miles tops. When my wife and I lived in Utah county we got our
licence in Salt Lake County so at least in Utah it is possible to get a licence
somewhere other than where you live. Maybe the law is the same in Kentucky? If
the goal of those who are suing her is to get married, their are other solutions
than suing her. Not saying they should have to do that, but in the meantime
maybe a good idea?
@catseye --"She's setting an example of the legal tyranny
that has been used to take over a nation"Get serious.When SCOTUS ruled on desegregation, Alabama refused to comply -- and the
National Guard had to be deployed in order to enforce the ruling.Do
you think it was "legal tyranny" to enforce desegregation?When SCOTUS ruled on interracial marriage, FIVE states refused to comply --
until federal court orders forced them to submit to the ruling.Do
you think it was "legal tyanny" to enforce the legality of interracial
marriage?People have used the excuse of "sincerely held
religious belief" to explain away their prejudices ever since this country
was founded. They keep forgetting that religious belief is NOT a justification
for breaking the law.The courts will continue reminding them of this
fact until they get the message.
@Cats Why should other people suffer because of her religious beliefs? If she is
such an admirable person why does she not quit her job rather than violate her
beliefs. She is willing to make others pay the price for her beliefs, not
mcclarkTechnically she is not currently trying to discriminate
because she is also not granting marriage licensees to heterosexual couples
either. I personally, for religious reasons, am not a supporter of homosexual
marriage, but since it is the law I think she should do her job (same goes for
the LDS county clerks in Utah who are LDS who apparently are not refusing to
grant gay marriage licences). However, at this moment she is not trying to
discriminate by not granting licenses to anybody, homo or hetero. I think in her
mind this is a way to compromise. I disagree with her and think she should
follow the order from the judge. But I also do not find fault with her for
trying to do the best she can to follow her religious beliefs.
@catseye: "She's setting an example of the legal tyranny that has been
used to take over a nation by both an activist gay community and an activist
judiciary."Please explain "legal tyranny." Gays can now
get legally married, just like straights. Gay couples now have access to the
same benefits and protections as straight couples. Gay-headed families now have
the same protections as straight headed families. Gays are now
increasingly able to be visible at work - have the same benefits and coverage as
straights, display pictures of their family just like straights, not worry about
being fired if somebody finds out their orientation, just like straights. Gay kids are finding it easier to come out and be themselves and date in
high school, just like their straight peers. So please, explain how
"just like straights" is "legal tyranny."
@ dmbI think you need to clarify, how is her freedom of religion being
infringed upon?The couples were asking for a marriage license at the
Court House. The Marriage License is a civil/secular document. She was not asked
to marry anyone in her Apostolic Church.On the other hand, I see
this public servant 'using her secular job' (paid by the taxes of
those couples)to discriminate based on her "deeply held religious
beliefs". This is not religious freedom, this is an argument that religious
zealots have used through the centuries to discriminate, harras and even kill
others in the name of religion.
I never know whether to laugh or scream when I hear or read someone complaining
bitterly that they are being discriminated against because they are no allowed
to discriminate against someone else. If her beliefs are so strong she can quit
her job that she is not doing.
@dmb: "Where are the calls from you and me on what the First Amendment right
of this woman to protect conscience because of her "free exercise" of
religion?"She receives a paycheck - one source says $80,000 - to
do a job. She is refusing to do her job. Please explain why she
should get paid if she refuses to do her job? Would you defend her
if she declared "the Bible says you should beat your weapons into plows"
and refused to issue gun or hunting licenses?The First Amendment
means she can believe or speak as she wishes - claim the clause that allows her
to collect pay for a job she freely took, freely keeps, and adamantly refuses to
I can't help admiring her. Since the Supreme Court made a really bad
decision based on nothing, this woman has the courage of her convictions. I
just can't help admiring her and wish her all the best.
dmb/catseye: If this were 1977 and the clerk were LDS, it would have been
"against her religious beliefs" to issue a certificate to a black man
and white woman seeking to be married. Would you have supported her in that as
If she wants to work under the auspices of 'god's authority', she
can collect god's paycheque.
What she's doing may not be legal, but that's the point, isn't
it? She's setting an example of the legal tyranny that has been used to
take over a nation by both an activist gay community and an activist judiciary.
She may go to prison, but in the years she is there she will no doubt stand out
as an example of the dramatic shifts which have taken place in America through
its legal system over the past few decades against freedom of religious
conscience in a nation that "claims" to adhere to such principles but
does not uphold them. There may come a time when people will look at her and be
amazed at what her nation once did to her in this frenzied, unbalanced time.
You may disagree with her, but truthfully she's admirable, and she's
shining a bright light on the very real dangers and threats that exist in our
government today. Today is not a good day in America.
This is exactly why there is and should be a separation of church and state.
She is serving in a government function, not a religious one. She is violating
the oath she took when she assumed this government position. There is plenty of
justification for her removal.
Here it comes. While we have all been caught up posting selfies on Instagram,
our trip to Disneyland, or inviting a friend to play a game on Facebook, the
other side has carefully been waging and promoting a war against religious
freedom. Some of us even bought into their argument that same-sex marriage was
only about "marriage equality". Some reading this post may
go be conditioned enough to only hear intolerance and bigotry on my words here
instead of recognizing everyone's right to free speech, and that its ok to
affirm deeply-held religious beliefs.So to be clear, I am speaking
out against the decision of the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage
because that decision not only violates my conscience of right and wrong but
also because it has wide-ranging restrictions on free speech and religious
liberty. So I would ask...after reading this article, who is really
practicing intolerance? Where are the calls from you and me on what the First
Amendment right of this woman to protect conscience because of her "free
exercise" of religion?
If I take money for a job and then refuse to do that job or refuse to do it
properly, I am guilty of theft and fraud. If I swear an oath to perform certain
actions and then refuse to take those actions, I am an oath breaker and have
borne false witness. Now, I am not exactly sure where in the Bible
it says not to issue civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples - but theft and
bearing false witness are very clearly covered. If she is unable to
perform the duties of her office, she needs to step down. I'm f this is
truly about religious convictions, she needs to honor all her religious beliefs
and stop taking money for a job she is not and will not do. This is
an elected position, paid with taxpayer funds, she took an oath - probably on a
Bible - to fulfill the requirements of the office, and now she needs to do that
or let someone who will do it have the job.
@Lynn and @ Ronnie W.--"Fire her."She can't
be "fired", as such, because she is an elected official. In order to get
her out of the position, she has to be impeached by the state legislature -- and
it's heavily Republican.However, the state Attorney General has
been moving to file charges against her for official misconduct, which will be
the first step in impeaching her. And I predict some jail time in her future,
because the judge will be forced to find her in contempt of court before long.
Two things here - everyone obeys the the law. You can't pick and choose.
There are significant consequences for not doing so. And if you are going to
stage a media event like this one - you had best make certain your own house is
squeaky clean - and that really doesn't mean four marriages as a previous
poster pointed out - and - you are the one protecting the sanctity of marriage.
Fire her. Simple as that. I don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling,
but you have to sustain the law, including the parts you don't like.
Well, using the logic of the Kentucky County Clerk I may just stop paying taxes.
I don't support our military spending and I believe my higher power
dictates I not participate in the continued killing in the Mideast and other
places of American military adventuring.However, this will probably
get me in jail. If the lady in question is not similarly incarcerated, then we
know that religion can trump the quaint old notion of "equal justice under
the law". She is favored for her use of religion to avoid her legal duties,
but I may not be. It seems in America, you can get away with any
social prejudice by invoking religion. Yet another step toward theocracy. But
then again, that is what so many really want. Be careful what you
seek, you may get it.
My question is now when is the state going to either arrest her or fire her???
She has a secular job, not a religious one. She believe what she wants, but she
cannot continue to deny anyone a marriage license.
This clerk on her fourth marriage thinks gays marrying defiles the sanctity of
marriage. I know, I can’t explain it either.