Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Sept. 6, 2015 6:57 a.m.

    @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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 6, 2015 6:01 a.m.

    @FanOfTheSith 8:34 p.m. Sept. 5, 2015

    There 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.

  • FanOfTheSith Vernal, UT
    Sept. 5, 2015 8:34 p.m.

    "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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 5, 2015 3:30 p.m.

    @FanOfTheSith 10:23 a.m. Sept. 5, 2015

    Davis 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.

  • FanOfTheSith Vernal, UT
    Sept. 5, 2015 10:23 a.m.

    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.

  • JD Jones Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2015 2:54 p.m.

    @CAB90: This is a simple case. People are not allowed to over-rule the law with their religious views. End of story.

  • JD Jones Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2015 2:52 p.m.

    @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.

  • JD Jones Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2015 2:44 p.m.

    @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 views.

  • Contrariuses mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2015 11:13 a.m.

    Aaaaaaand --

    Davis has been found in contempt, AND she has been taken into custody by the court.

  • Contrariuses mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2015 9:27 a.m.

    @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 similar.

    Keep trying.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 3, 2015 9:08 a.m.

    @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.

  • Contrariuses mid-state, TN
    Sept. 3, 2015 8:11 a.m.

    @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.

  • Ms.W South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 3, 2015 7:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Sept. 3, 2015 6:35 a.m.

    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 question].

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 5:18 p.m.

    @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 interracial couples?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 4:55 p.m.

    "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.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 2:03 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:55 p.m.

    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?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:49 p.m.

    @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.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:48 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    She 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 beneath you.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:34 p.m.

    @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?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:20 p.m.

    @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.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:18 p.m.

    @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 debate?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 1:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 12:39 p.m.

    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 3:1

    St. 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 ought."

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 2, 2015 12:04 p.m.

    @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 "Christians."

  • One of Vai's Cousins DC, Washington
    Sept. 2, 2015 12:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 12:01 p.m.

    @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 yet.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 11:32 a.m.

    @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?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 2, 2015 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 11:16 a.m.

    @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?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 2, 2015 10:53 a.m.

    @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.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 2, 2015 10:38 a.m.

    @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?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 10:26 a.m.

    "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.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 9:43 a.m.

    @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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 2, 2015 9:41 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 2, 2015 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 9:15 a.m.

    @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 Review
    2. "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes"
    3. "When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review
    4. "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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 2, 2015 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Sept. 2, 2015 8:10 a.m.

    @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.

  • Uteofferouus Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 2, 2015 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    Sept. 2, 2015 2:27 a.m.

    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 #1

    Husband #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 they live?

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    Sept. 2, 2015 2:16 a.m.

    What is wrong with standing up for the law?

    Kalindra
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    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.

    -- 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 good

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    Sept. 2, 2015 2:12 a.m.

    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.

    CAB90
    Logan, 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 keep it.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:46 p.m.

    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? Anyone?

  • Norman Roy Odessa, MO
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:01 p.m.

    I am becoming more and more convinced that the religious right wing will lead us to the demise of religious freedom.

  • rdean92 Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 1, 2015 4:35 p.m.

    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 understand?

  • suchfun1 St.George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 3:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 1, 2015 3:52 p.m.

    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.

  • torquewrench Oakley, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 3:15 p.m.

    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!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 1, 2015 3:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 2:35 p.m.

    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.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 1, 2015 2:33 p.m.

    @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.

  • sarcat Highland, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 2:30 p.m.

    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.

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 2:24 p.m.

    @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.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Sept. 1, 2015 2:23 p.m.

    One can not have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. They are two sides of the same coin.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 2:21 p.m.

    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

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:42 p.m.

    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 license.

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:42 p.m.

    @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.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:40 p.m.

    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 issue.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:33 p.m.

    @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 living.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • UTCProgress American Fork, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:10 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    There 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.

  • MoliterManus SLC, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:07 p.m.

    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.

  • BelieveInAmerica St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:05 p.m.

    "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 ridiculous

  • BelieveInAmerica St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:01 p.m.

    @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.

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 1:00 p.m.

    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?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:52 p.m.

    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 my religion.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:29 p.m.

    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.

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:17 p.m.

    @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?"

  • BelieveInAmerica St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:14 p.m.

    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.

  • BelieveInAmerica St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:13 p.m.

    @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.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:09 p.m.

    @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.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:06 p.m.

    @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?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 1, 2015 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:57 a.m.

    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 should self-reflect.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:41 a.m.

    @illuminated You have not answered my question. Why does one persons religious rights trump another persons religious rights?

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:25 a.m.

    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!"

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:20 a.m.

    @ChemMichael

    This 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.

  • CAB90 Logan, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:16 a.m.

    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 society.

    Cheers!

  • R&S Boise, ID
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:12 a.m.

    It's difficult to see my country depart from morality. Law does not dictate morality.

  • ChemMichael SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:02 a.m.

    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 you.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    Sept. 1, 2015 11:00 a.m.

    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.

  • AuContrariusier mid-state, TN
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:56 a.m.

    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 judge.

  • riverofsun St.George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:44 a.m.

    " 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!

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:34 a.m.

    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 solved.

  • AuContrariusier mid-state, TN
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:31 a.m.

    @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 Review
    2. "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes"
    3. "When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review
    4. "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?

  • Utahutesthroughandthrough Murray, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:27 a.m.

    @UTCProgress

    Actually 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.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:24 a.m.

    "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 Amendment...still waiting.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:21 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:21 a.m.

    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?

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:17 a.m.

    @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.

  • UTCProgress American Fork, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:10 a.m.

    @illuminated

    So 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.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:09 a.m.

    @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?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Sept. 1, 2015 10:07 a.m.

    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 amendment glaringly.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:54 a.m.

    @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.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:46 a.m.

    "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.

  • UTCProgress American Fork, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:41 a.m.

    @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.

  • Utahutesthroughandthrough Murray, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:35 a.m.

    @AuContrariusier 9:09 am

    And 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.

  • Utahutesthroughandthrough Murray, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:33 a.m.

    @Br. Jones

    Actually 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.

  • Eliot Genola, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:31 a.m.

    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.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:26 a.m.

    @Hutterite

    Well 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.

  • DisturbedOne North, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:15 a.m.

    @ 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

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Al Thepal Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:10 a.m.

    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?

  • AuContrariusier mid-state, TN
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:09 a.m.

    @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.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:05 a.m.

    @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 herself.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 9:00 a.m.

    mcclark

    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 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.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:56 a.m.

    @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."

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:51 a.m.

    @ dmb
    I 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.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:49 a.m.

    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.

  • GingerMarshall Brooklyn, OH
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:48 a.m.

    @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 do.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:43 a.m.

    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 well?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:37 a.m.

    If she wants to work under the auspices of 'god's authority', she can collect god's paycheque.

  • catseye MAGNA, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:18 a.m.

    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.

  • dmb Lehi, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 8:11 a.m.

    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?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:57 a.m.

    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.

  • AuContrariusier mid-state, TN
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:48 a.m.

    @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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:35 a.m.

    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.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:28 a.m.

    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.

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    Sept. 1, 2015 7:29 a.m.

    This clerk on her fourth marriage thinks gays marrying defiles the sanctity of marriage. I know, I can’t explain it either.