Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: piney

If Jesus Christ met a gay couple, he would invite them into his home, wash their feet and serve them the best food and drink he had to offer. He would give them his bed and sleep on the floor. And if one of them needed sandals he would give them his last pair.

WWJD muther f**ker!!!!!!!!!


* Not calling you names piney...the proverbial m f'er, no one specific.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I would have moved city hall to make sure I married my bride... if that's what it took.

I may have, too. But if I had been with him for 17 years and waited until "my people" had the legal freedom to marry, I may have pushed it.

But then, I may have just sat in the back of the bus, too. But without people that DEMANDED change, like Rosa Parks, this country wouldn't have made the civil rights advances it has.

So, how I or others would have behaved under similar circumstances is really irrelevant, especially since we're not really "in their shoes".

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: piney

If Jesus Christ met a gay couple, he would invite them into his home, wash their feet and serve them the best food and drink he had to offer. He would give them his bed and sleep on the floor. And if one of them needed sandals he would give them his last pair.

WWJD muther f**ker!!!!!!!!!

* Not calling you names piney...the proverbial m f'er, no one specific.

Like Jesus said - if they dont do that the punishment is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah punishment. Something that some Christians like to ignore.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You are generalizing entirely too much!

1. The court didn't make her break anything. She is free to allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses OR step down from her position, but she refused both.

2. I have never applauded her going to jail. I wish she had taken one of the many options she had available.

3. I support her having her religious beliefs and am not condemning them.

4. I don't support Muslim's right to hide their faces for a drivers license photo.

5. I'm sure you know by now, that she cannot be fired.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And what if the next county refused? And the next and the next? What if ALL the counties in the South saw that it's OK to refuse and they ALL refused?

Can't find it now, but there were indications in a few of the early stories that neighboring county clerks were saying they would provide the marriage licenses.

Anyway...

I think my comments are being misconstrued.

Yes, the discrimination is deplorable. This woman, professing Apostolic Christianity -- which claims to follow first-century Christianity, but really doesn't because she's mixing fabrics and other "sins" -- is in direct contradiction of her faith's professed convictions by passing judgement on others and making a public spectacle of her beliefs. So the hypocrisy is wide and deep with this one. She should have been removed from her position the very first time she denied a license.

But the media has been pushing the narrative that the couples can't get their license -- at all -- because of her. And that's not true. And conservatives have been painting her as a martyr for her faith, and that's not true either.

All I've ever been interested in is accuracy and truth. And when I say that, to me, this "feels" like a manufactured spectacle, I stand by that. Seeing the reactions of conservatives in claiming that this is the first step to making Christianity illegal (and other deplorable comments) is clear and decisive evidence of that.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
5. I'm sure you know by now, that she cannot be fired.

Long ago, in Western New York (1990's I think), the county clerk was arrested for DUI after hitting a tree with his car. The next day he was relieved of duty by the county Legislature, and one week later removed from office after impeachment proceedings.

His offense had nothing to do with his duties, but he was still removed relatively quickly. It can happen, and should have happened here.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord


All I've ever been interested in is accuracy and truth. And when I say that, to me, this "feels" like a manufactured spectacle, I stand by that. Seeing the reactions of conservatives in claiming that this is the first step to making Christianity illegal (and other deplorable comments) is clear and decisive evidence of that.

I'd like to think of myself as a constitutionalist and as a conservative.

That being said, she violated the 1st Amendment by making her position in government and her beliefs "de facto" in discharging her duties as a public servant.

In my humble opinion.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

but then you seemed to give the indication that people having to go further for their marriage licenses is no big deal. just like, well it's no big deal for employees to quit their jobs if birth control is not included in their mandated health insurance policy if they want it....ect.
well, I imagine that if a person doesn't have a car, or isn't licensed to drive one, well it just might be not just a minor inconvenience but a hurdle that they might not be able to get over.
please understand here, I lived that life, spent just as many of my adult years walking everywhere I wished to go instead of driving. I've walked the seven miles to my job. and now, my feet wouldn't permit me to drive no 50 miles!

it would have been a much more smaller thing for her to have just allowed those under her to give out the licenses or resigned and found another job!

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

All I've ever been interested in is accuracy and truth. And when I say that, to me, this "feels" like a manufactured spectacle, I stand by that. Seeing the reactions of conservatives in claiming that this is the first step to making Christianity illegal (and other deplorable comments) is clear and decisive evidence of that.

Hmm I think I understand you. Its like that woman with rainbow lamps?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I think my comments are being misconstrued.

Well, I understand your position, I think. And being a mostly white, mostly heterosexual woman who was a Christian for 30 years, I haven't spent my life with people telling me I'm disgusting, against God and nature, and a freak who's going to hell, I cannot say how I would have responded. I think it's easy for people like you and me to say, "Oh, well, I'll just go to the next county". It's not nearly as easy for some... And I won't judge them, either.

This woman, professing Apostolic Christianity -- which claims to follow first-century Christianity, but really doesn't because she's mixing fabrics and other "sins" -- is in direct contradiction of her faith's professional tenants by passing judgement on others and making a public spectacle of her beliefs. So the hypocrisy is wide and deep with this one.

I'm not making any judgments on her beliefs. I don't care if she picks and chooses what to believe OR if she's a hypocrite in her religion. That's NONE of my business. Her beliefs are entirely irrelevant.

She should have been removed from her position the very first time she denied a license.

Agreed, but there is no legal way to do that without the Kentucky legislature holding a special session and they are not willing to do that. The path followed was the ONLY legal way to remove her from her job until January, when the legislature meets.

But the media has been pushing the narrative that the couples can't get their license -- at all -- because of her.

I haven't seen that. In fact, I've read that they COULD get it in other counties.

All I've ever been interested in is accuracy and truth. And when I say that, to me, this "feels" like a manufactured spectacle, I stand by that. Seeing the reactions of conservatives in claiming that this is the first step to making Christianity illegal (and other deplorable comments) is clear and decisive evidence of that.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think Kim Davis is being USED by her legal counsel (Liberty Counsel) who is a fundamental religious legal group. Source Davis is a pawn in their fight against the SC ruling on the 14th amendment.

And to be fair, the gay people are also pushing an agenda. An agenda of equal treatment under the law. And because of MY support of the Constitution, I support them in this case.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

All I've ever been interested in is accuracy and truth. And when I say that, to me, this "feels" like a manufactured spectacle, I stand by that. Seeing the reactions of conservatives in claiming that this is the first step to making Christianity illegal (and other deplorable comments) is clear and decisive evidence of that.

Yes, I think most of us can agree that it's not so much a "mountain out of a molehill" as it is "Olympus Mons out of a mountain".

By that I mean that while yes, the issue that the clerk wouldn't issue licenses because of religious beliefs, and contrary to the law, is a "mountain", there are certain opposing elements that seem to want to turn the "mountain" into "Olympus Mons" by making false claims and playing victim while ignoring the actual law behind the decision.

In that sense it does feel somewhat "manufactured".

(FYI for those that don't know what "Olympus Mons" is - it's the tallest mountain in the solar system, 3 times higher than Everest and located on Mars)

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Are you sure about that?

A common misconception is that impeachment of an official means his or her removal from office. In fact, impeachment functions as an indictment of a public official; it allows the legislature to bring formal charges against a civil officer of government. After an official has been impeached, or formally charged, a trial is held to determine whether or not the official will be removed from office.

State impeachment proceedings take place according to each state's constitution and can vary widely.

www.legalzoom.com...

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
She swore on a bible to uphold the Constitution; not the other way around. I am beyond pleased that the judge saw things the same way!

A court ruling is not the Constitution, it is a ruling (opinion) of a court. There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issue is far from over.

originally posted by: Fromabove

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
She swore on a bible to uphold the Constitution; not the other way around. I am beyond pleased that the judge saw things the same way!

A court ruling is not the Constitution, it is a ruling (opinion) of a court. There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

Is there any law that says she can't?

Not being argumentative, but I've seen this aspect. Wouldn't denial of a marriage license be in violation of law?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
His offense had nothing to do with his duties, but he was still removed relatively quickly. It can happen, and should have happened here.

I agree completely. I don't know the specific laws in Kentucky, but from what I've read, the state legislature or the attorney general are the only ones who could impeach.

More details: Here's Why Kim Davis Can't be Fired

Also:

The release says Rowan County Government and the Rowan County Attorney's Office cannot take any other action against Kim Davis.

"Kentucky state government is the only entity that can move to have Kim Davis removed as Rowan County Clerk," the release says.

A spokeswoman for the attorney generals office told WKYT they are looking into the matter.

Official Misconduct Charge

a reply to: Fromabove

A court ruling is not the Constitution, it is a ruling (opinion) of a court. There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

KNOCK KNOCK ON YOUR HEAD. She is a government employee. She has to follow the Constitution and the law. And yes even the supreme court.

I suppose you disagree with the separation of state and church?

a reply to: beezzer

Not being argumentative, but I've seen this aspect. Wouldn't denial of a marriage license be in violation of law?

BINGO. That is what some people don't get.

originally posted by: Fromabove

There is currently no law that says that she has to issue a marriage license to homosexuals, only that homosexuals can marry. The issues is far from over.

There is no law that specifically says she has to issue one to anyone, the Constitution is not a laundry list of things you are permitted to do.


The issue is that she was found in violation of their 14th Amendment rights.

One thing we Christians must understand is that this is not our world (yet). We cannot change what is evil and make them obey God, it will never happen. It is better to keep ourselves from them and let them relish in their sinful ways. Our righteousness is sin to them as their sin is righteousness to them.

Jesus already told us that in this present world we would be despised and hated because we won't give in and be like them. If we did they would love us as they do each other. So the woman will suffer for her obedience to God and they will like that, and it will make them feel vindicated, even though they are not.

Christians, let them do what they want to do, and what we should do is preserve ourselves. These are the final days and not long from now things are going to change in a big way. Be patient. Right now this is their world and we don't like that but soon we will have it and they will be out.

There is no government on earth that does good. We have to stay out of the societal change business and just be Christians. Jesus will come back just as they are about to destroy the earth with war, disease, and death. If homosexuals want to marry and the government says they can, it's their choice to do it. But if I were that clerk I would have done exactly as she did and not compromise my faith.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think Kim Davis is being USED by her legal counsel (Liberty Counsel) who is a fundamental religious legal group. Source Davis is a pawn in their fight against the SC ruling on the 14th amendment.

I kind of think the same thing and really wonder as to just what kind of legal advice they have been given her. was it in her best interest, or was it more in the best interest of their agenda? I mean, in my opinion, either she was just so headstrong that she was refusing their sound advice, or they were really giving her some crappy advice. maybe the lawyers should be investigated, if this is the case, since above all else they should be working on the behalf of their client, not their agenda.