Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

I continue to be confused by stuff like this.
I always thought that the US was the ultimate example of the separation between church and state, yet so much of this stuff keeps cropping up.
I dunno, don't people swear to uphold the constitution or something, when they take public office? And doesn't that state people's freedoms and rights in a civil setting?

Maybe it's just all too complex for a Brit to understand.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Actually, you seem to understand the situation perfectly. Yes, Davis took an oath to uphold the Constitution and obey the law. Interestingly, she took the job, knowing that marriage equality would soon likely become the law of the land, so she had it in her head to obstruct the law when she took the oath.

Yes, we have been pretty strong in separation of church and state. Problem is, there is a very wealthy and influential religious contingent here in the US that is determined to strong-arm the law to be more reflective of "Christian values". They've convinced themselves that separation of church and state is for wimps, heathens and heretics or something. They abhor the thought of Sharia Law (which applies ONLY to Muslims), but do their best to legally enforce Christian Law, that would apply to ALL citizens.

It's an interesting time to be alive in the US, that's for sure!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sometimes, which I am hoping in this case, they take their time going through the legal process to make sure all the "T's" are crossed and "I's" dotted to make sure there are no loopholes and it can't be reversed or overturned.

Usually, Separation of Church and State win - - - - except for the ridiculous and wrong Hobby Lobby decision. I still think they were thrown a corporate bone because every other case of "religious right" has been lost.

a reply to: Annee

I agree completely, Annee. I don't know what happened with Hobby Lobby, but you could be right about that. Fortunately, you're right in that most of the time, secular law will win.

In the Davis case, I think it will be January until any movement happens in this case, unless the ACLU pushes it, which they might.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

I agree completely, Annee. I don't know what happened with Hobby Lobby, but you could be right about that. Fortunately, you're right in that most of the time, secular law will win.

In the Davis case, I think it will be January until any movement happens in this case, unless the ACLU pushes it, which they might.

I don't expect any action before January.

But, I think there are behind the scene discussions happening.

Remember --- there are 3 clerks (not just Kim) in OK refusing to issues same sex marriage licenses.

What ever decision is made affects all 3. So, it has to be a firm decision.

Top Mormon Official Condemns Kim Davis, Calls for End to Fight Against LGBT Rights

Government officials "are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices," Oaks told the group, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. "A county clerk's recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle."

"Believers should acknowledge the validity of constitutional laws," Oaks told the conference attendees. "Even where they have challenged laws or practices on constitutional grounds, once those laws or practices have been sustained by the highest available authority, believers should acknowledge their validity and submit to them."

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks, I'm sure they'd be horrified at the comparison with Sharia law, but it's something that also occurred to me.

Majority of Americans Think Davis Should Be Required to Issue Licenses over Religious Objections

Now, just 41 percent favor an exemption and 56 percent think they should be required to issue the licenses.

That shift was especially stark among Republicans. A majority of them —58 percent — still favor religious exemptions for officials issuing marriage licenses, but that's down 14 points since 72 percent said so in July.
...
The cultural change has influenced the governing bodies of some of the most conservative religions, including the Catholic Church under Pope Francis and the Mormon Church, which last week called for compromises between protecting religious liberties and prohibiting discrimination.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am still following this.

Even though majority thinks she should do her job.

Its alarming and disappointing to me that its as high as 41% that thinks she should have an exemption.

Kim Davis is appealing the series of rulings that sent her to jail for five days in September, with her lawyers saying the judge who issued them was “threatening to hold her hostage indefinitely as a prisoner of her conscience.” Attorneys for Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., filed the appeal late Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Associated Press reports. The 126-page opening brief asks the appeals court to throw out four rulings by U.S. District Judge David Bunning, including his order that held her in contempt of court and the one that bars her from interfering with the issuance of marriage licenses.

www.advocate.com...

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am still following this.

Even though majority thinks she should do her job.

Its alarming and disappointing to me that its as high as 41% that thinks she should have an exemption.

Why is that job an elected position anyway seemed to me a regular run of the mill civil service job.

Kentucky Governor-elect to Remove Clerk Names from State Marriage Licenses

Kentucky Governor-elect Matt Bevin said on Friday that when he takes office in December he will order changes to the state marriage license form to appease clerks who have objected to issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

"One thing I will take care of right away is we will remove the names of the county clerks from the marriage form," Bevin told reporters in the Capitol rotunda.

Bevin, the second Republican elected governor in Kentucky since 1971, said he would make the change by executive order.

Governor Beshear said he didn't have the authority to change the county clerks' duties using an executive order had planned to address the issue when the state legislature meets in January.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Kentucky Governor-elect Matt Bevin said on Friday that when he takes office in December he will order changes to the state marriage license form to appease clerks who have objected to issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

"One thing I will take care of right away is we will remove the names of the county clerks from the marriage form," Bevin told reporters in the Capitol rotunda.

Bevin, the second Republican elected governor in Kentucky since 1971, said he would make the change by executive order.

Governor Beshear said he didn't have the authority to change the county clerks' duties using an executive order had planned to address the issue when the state legislature meets in January.

That sucks.

Solves nothing.

originally posted by: Annee
Update: Judge Orders Governor Steve Beshear To Address Altered Gay Marriage Licenses - - By Vishakha Sonawane on October 15 2015

A federal judge has ordered Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to decide whether gay marriage licenses issued by Rowan County clerk Kim Davis’ office were valid, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. A lawyer of one of Davis’ deputies said in a September court filing that Davis changed the forms by dropping her name as well as the county’s, weakening the legality of the licenses.

Terry Sebastian, a spokesman for the governor, said Wednesday that Kentucky recognized the licenses in question, the AP reported. Sebastian said Beshear will file a response and follow the court order. The judge’s order came a day after Davis’ lawyers maintained that the altered marriage licenses were valid because they were recognized by Beshear and Kentucky Attorney Gen. Jack Conway. www.ibtimes.com...

This just offers further evidence that this Federal judge should not be on the bench. The governor is not the proper channel. Governors nor Attorney Generals can make laws---nor can the Supreme Court. That is the whole sticking point in this mess. The governor can issue an executive order. As I understand it, he did so. But the legislature will have to pass new marriage statutes.
The governor and AG violated the law by not upholding her rights under state statutes concerning religious protection. The AG just got his behind handed to him in the election. Could the wishes of the citizens be any clearer?

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Annee
Update: Judge Orders Governor Steve Beshear To Address Altered Gay Marriage Licenses - - By Vishakha Sonawane on October 15 2015

A federal judge has ordered Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to decide whether gay marriage licenses issued by Rowan County clerk Kim Davis’ office were valid, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. A lawyer of one of Davis’ deputies said in a September court filing that Davis changed the forms by dropping her name as well as the county’s, weakening the legality of the licenses.

Terry Sebastian, a spokesman for the governor, said Wednesday that Kentucky recognized the licenses in question, the AP reported. Sebastian said Beshear will file a response and follow the court order. The judge’s order came a day after Davis’ lawyers maintained that the altered marriage licenses were valid because they were recognized by Beshear and Kentucky Attorney Gen. Jack Conway. www.ibtimes.com...

This just offers further evidence that this Federal judge should not be on the bench. The governor is not the proper channel. Governors nor Attorney Generals can make laws---nor can the Supreme Court. That is the whole sticking point in this mess. The governor can issue an executive order. As I understand it, he did so. But the legislature will have to pass new marriage statutes.
The governor and AG violated the law by not upholding her rights under state statutes concerning religious protection. The AG just got his behind handed to him in the election. Could the wishes of the citizens be any clearer?

You seem to be a bit confused.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I continue to be confused by stuff like this.
I always thought that the US was the ultimate example of the separation between church and state, yet so much of this stuff keeps cropping up.
I dunno, don't people swear to uphold the constitution or something, when they take public office? And doesn't that state people's freedoms and rights in a civil setting?

Maybe it's just all too complex for a Brit to understand.

Here's the problem:
www.lrc.ky.gov...

Kentucky Constitution
Section 233A Valid or recognized marriage -- Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004. History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.

That was the Constitution to which she swore an oath. It did not conflict with her religious beliefs. She relied on this statute to protect her rights.

www.lrc.ky.gov...

446.3 50 Prohibition upon government substantially burdening freedom of religion
-- Showing of compelling governmental interest-- Description of "burden."

Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
Effective: June 25, 2013 History: Create d 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2013.

But the Governor and the AG didn't like this bill when the legislature passed it. The governor vetoed the bill. The legislature overrode his veto. So, when Kim Davis appealed to the Governor and AG to protect her rights under Kentucky statutes, they ignored her---thus violating her rights. They also swore an oath to the Constitution to uphold the law.

Clearly, the US Supreme created a mell of a hess when they once again over-stepped their authority and ruled on a matter clearly delegated to state legislatures.
Then, an unqualified Federal Judge, (who is only a Federal Judge because his Daddy was a Senator who got him appointed over the objections of the US Bar Association) felt the need to stir the pot even more by ordering the clerk who was attempting to resolve the mess under statutes, to jail. Now that same judge has again stumbled way out of his league by "ordering the Governor and Attorney General" to take action.

I can't say that I blame you for not being able to understand it....you're not alone. While I don't share the religious beliefs of Kim Davis, I do believe that she has the right to seek protection under the statute cited above. That statute has never been challenged in court, much less abrogated. For the governor and the AG to deliberately ignore her pleas puts both of them in violation of the statute when they refused protection for her.

If you swear to uphold the Constitution.

You swear to uphold the Constitution.

The 14th ammendment did not change.

a reply to: diggindirt

Clearly, the US Supreme created a mell of a hess when they once again over-stepped their authority and ruled on a matter clearly delegated to state legislatures.

This is where you are wrong. The Supreme Court's job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, state and federal. They ruled that the state's constitutional amendment was "UNCONSTITUTIONAL", therefore, the "matter" was always an unconstitutional "matter".

As far as you believing this is a "state's rights" issue, I refer to the federal Civil Rights Act.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am still following this.

Even though majority thinks she should do her job.

Its alarming and disappointing to me that its as high as 41% that thinks she should have an exemption.

It matters not one whit what the majority thinks. It is the statutes. Kentucky Statutes provide protection for her. (See my post above.) That is the part of the problem that the msm and others are ignoring---and apparently you agree that government officials should follow the law---except in this case----because they disagree with the statute passed by legislature.
You can't have it both ways. If Kim Davis could be required to violate her beliefs on same sex marriage, the governor and AG could be forced to violate their beliefs on religious protection because it is the law of the Commonwealth.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am still following this.

Even though majority thinks she should do her job.

Its alarming and disappointing to me that its as high as 41% that thinks she should have an exemption.

Kentucky Statutes provide protection for her.

Federal trumps state.

Court determined she was not burdened as nothing in her job description changed.

Her job is to verify clerical information. Nothing in her job description requires her to be involved in the marriage itself.

We've been over this a million times. The correct answers are still the correct answers.