It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 10:53 AM
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Given the media coverage and the support Kim Davis has received, particularly from Huckabee and Cruz - I honestly do not see the situation deescalating without some form of intervention.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 10:54 AM

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Gov. Beshear needs to get off of his duff, call a special session, and amend these laws to negate further confusion, but heaven forbid a politician go above and beyond the minimum in order to make things run more smoothly.

Thank you -- yes! None of this was necessary or proper. The governor knew the Supreme Court decision was coming and he should have been prepared to do his job and take care of business. It's been over two months. There is no good reason for this.

He needs to do his job.

To be honest, I think everyone in that state who voted in favor of amending their constitution, (or whatever law it was that 75% of their citizenship supposedly voted for) in order to ban same sex marriage, did so because they also knew this SCOTUS ruling was inevitable and it's really nothing short of a statewide effort to
preempt and/or defy the courts.

If they actually voted that way and in those numbers, I'd say that 75% of the voting electorate in that state of Kentucky are responsible.

The judge however, is doing his job just as the law requires him to.

ETA; Maybe the governor could call a "special" session to correct their discriminatory state law and then send out a "special" tax assessment to cover the cost of holding that "special" session to each of their citizens who voted to enact their discriminatory law in the first place.

That should fix it!

edit on 11-9-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 10:56 AM
a reply to: Hefficide

Good god no. She's become a lightning rod for "the movement" now from both sides. I read that gay couples from California were going to Rowan to get married. And then the obvious right wing embracing of her.

And she's milking it for all its worth.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:00 AM

originally posted by: kaylaluv
By having her name on the license, she is making no moral judgments for or against same-sex marriage.

Exactly. All her authorization is doing is saying that these people are legal to get married in the state of KY.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The reality is that the Oath keepers are going to force a show down and it would be bad if violence were to break out. We can only hope that Davis will not interfere and things calm down.

Unfortunately, I suspect her lawyers (and her other religio-political "handlers") want just such a confrontation. Davis is a puppet, IMO, being used by the religious right to force their "special rights" agenda.

I sure hope the Oathkeepers get some legal advice, which they SORELY need, and everything goes calmly, but I wouldn't count on it.
edit on 9/11/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Unfortunately, I suspect her lawyers (and her other religio-political "handlers") want just such a confrontation. Davis is a puppet, IMO, being used by the religious right to force their "special rights" agenda.

I think you have this pegged, and at this point, I'm wondering if the oathkeepers received a phone call from a vested interest.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:05 AM
After studying this issue and following its course so far, I believe the discussion should be slightly altered. That is Kim Davis the individual should be removed and we should instead ask if 'an individual acting as a government agent has the right not not fulfill their designated duties due to their personal beliefs'. This could have far reaching effects if this is the case. Here is an extreme example: Could an Amish elected official stop issuing driver's licenses? Could a restaurant be denied a license because they will be serving pork?

Yes, I know this are absurd examples, but it goes to point of where do personal beliefs override the rights of others? And if this can be done through a government agency, where is the line drawn? If 'God' trumps all, then which 'God' do we choose? KD is nothing more footnote to a larger question. A question that was answered over 200 years ago.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:05 AM
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Is there a report of one them stating this some place? I must have missed it if there is. Never mind found one report on it.

Oath Keepers comments

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes announced [Wednesday] that he had reached out to Davis’ lawyers at Liberty Counsel to offer the protection of his group, which he says is already forming a presence in Rowan County, Kentucky, where Davis was recently released from jail after prohibiting her office from issuing marriage licenses. Rhodes said in a statement that his position has nothing to do with gay marriage, but rather his conviction that Davis had been illegally detained by the federal judge who held her in contempt for violating multiple court orders. In a phone call with Jackson County, Kentucky, Sheriff Denny Peyman and other local Oath Keepers activists, Rhodes said that he was on his way to Kentucky to help with the Davis operation.

From the founder no less. I was hoping it was from a rogue part that only had loose tie to the main sections. But seems not. Well happy I'm not part of that group, so much for what good image they had left in the media.

I'm pretty sure she's mandated by her release terms that she has to comply to all her duties by the written law other wise she's in violation and goes back to jail again.
Ah yup found it release terms

Davis was jailed at the Carter County Detention Center on Thursday after she refused to comply with a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The following day, her deputies began issuing the documents in her absence. As a condition of her release Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis not to interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses by her office.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: chuck258

hey, it's not the left appearantly loading up the trucks with armed men and heading into kentucky!!
but well, if her name has been taken off the marriage licenses and some of her duputies are issuing the marriages which we can only assume will be found to be legal....
and she has agreed with the judge that she won't interfer with those deputies issuing the marriage licenses...

umm...why the truckloads full of armed men??
(ya that might be an exageration, it might just be a couple of bodyguards that have been sent to protect her because she felt threatened.) but the story says they are coming to protect her from being arrested again, which kind of sounds that although this should be rather a dead story now, it seems to be esculating towards the violent.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:08 AM

originally posted by: 5thNovember
So we can change marriage laws because they don't accommodate the gays but taking the requirement of having clerks names on things that could very well with the stroke of a pen have a different name and by all common sense means would not remove the value of the document is a travesty of the constitution? I lol at that statement. IE, if Hancock didn't sign the declaration would it have made any difference? no its just a signature, that can be replaced. We are in the day and age where you have two idiots punching each other square in the face at the same time and blaming the other, lets just accept the fact that

A simple law change no one gets hurt, change law to avoid calamity, licenses remain valid and get issued. Instead what we see from the incompetent government is a complete failure to uphold their oaths, thus the religious freedom in the constitution. For this very reason the country was designed to accommodate everyone. When you choose who gets rights is where it all falls apart. Thus the civil war and civil rights movements country torn apart because people were trying to dictate whether or not the blacks had rights, which were seeing now but over religion. Separation of Church and state means you cannot have religion dictate law, nor infringe on the Church using the state. Balance my friends.

The constitution was written to restrict the government not the people. Religious freedom is still freedom. If you want your right to speak against it she has a right to her religion and what it dictates. Don't like that? Mexico is that way! >>>>>

The judge can't change the law, that rests with the state legislature which isn't in session. Furthermore, if they were in session they probably would have just removed her from office rather than change the law for her.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:10 AM
a reply to: chuck258

Marriage licenses come from the County Clerk's office. She is the County Clerk. So even if they take her name off the licenses, they still come from the office that she is in charge of. She doesn't like that. Too bad - her only options are to suck it up and allow the licenses, or resign her position so that she is no longer the County Clerk.

She is an elected official in a government position that provides services (licenses) to its citizens. The citizens - ALL citizens who fulfill the legal requirements - have the right to those services equally. She can't just refuse to provide those services to certain citizens because it's "icky" to her. She also can't decide unilaterally to withhold all marriage licenses from all citizens. That just isn't within her realm of government power. She was in the wrong.

I'm a "crazy liberal", and I think that it is up to the employer as to whether they can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious objections. If they feel they can't accommodate without putting undo inconveniences on customers and other employees, then they have the right to fire the employee.

There are non-discrimination laws regarding public accommodations. If you are the owner of a public accommodation, you cannot refuse to sell the same product or service to someone in a protected group that you are willing to sell to everyone else, simply because they are part of that group. The bakery issue happened in a state that included sexual orientation in that protected group. That's just the law.

I can't speak to what happens a world away, but if someone drew a picture of Muhammad, Muslims in America have the right to speak their opinion (freedom of speech), but if they tried to kill the person who drew it, they would be charged with attempted murder, and rightly so, in my opinion.

I see nothing inconsistent or "insane" about my views. I believe in following the laws. Is that just a "liberal" thing?

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:14 AM
a reply to: Hefficide

…then why are we willing to let homegrown gun crazed religious fanatics get away with this blatant terrorism

Because their white Christians that’s why

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:16 AM

originally posted by: Flatfish

To be honest, I think everyone in that state who voted in favor of amending their constitution, (or whatever law it was that 75% of their citizenship supposedly voted for) in order to ban same sex marriage, did so because they also knew this SCOTUS ruling was inevitable and it's really nothing short of a statewide effort to preempt and/or defy the courts.

Ya know what? I agree. Folks were scared into voting for it by all the fire and brimstone talk. As another poster said in another thread, the Supreme Court didn't make gay marriage Constitutional, it always was. The Supreme Court just made it official.

But here's my thing: I think this was all by design. I've become convinced that DOMA -- both federal and state -- was passed for the express purpose of challenging it in court, knowing that it could not pass Constitutional muster. In the process, it has been twisted and twerked and tweaked and otherwise exploited to drive a wedge between the people. And watching how all this has played out with Ms. Davis, I do believe that one of the ulterior motives is to weaken and ultimately deny any rights of religious belief or conscience.

The judge however, is doing his job just as the law requires him to.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I cannot agree. If the judge had given due consideration to Kim Davis legal right to request reasonable accommodations -- which were ultimately implemented, proving Ms. Davis' request was in fact reasonable and proper -- then I would agree. But he did not. I would even say he violated the very law he held against Ms. Davis: Due process and equal application of the law.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:20 AM
if she stopped to think for five seconds, she'd realize that as per her religious beliefs, god is the only one that ordains marriage, not the state, and as a result, she could sign papers till the cows come home, and it wouldn't mean a thing (religiously speaking). if she's concerned that it is a violation of her religious creed, all she needs to do is disconnect her attachment to the idea that the state supersedes god on religious issues, which it doesn't. and if it doesn't, then she's not violating her faith by signing the documents.

pretty simple.
edit on 11-9-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:22 AM
The not preforming her duties is a minor thing. She keeps it up she get fired there and done. But now it looks like the have a group of people that have been willing to go to what I can only guess would be risky means to defender her. No matter if she violates the terms. ((this never should have made it past and HR meetings and a firing her if need be))

If the Oath Keepers do push this matter to it's scary end. I can see it being used a spring board for change that I lot of us in the US really wouldn't care far.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:23 AM
a reply to: ObjectZero

That's the problem. County clerk is an elected position that requires impeachment to remove her from office. So unless they grow a pair and impeach her she will remain in office.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:25 AM
Well this just proves that the Oathkeepers are a bunch of hypocrites. They do not care about the Constitution. They just want to follow it when it supports their position.

Plus aren't the Oathkeepers big second amendment supporters. Don't they realize that they will just give the government and those who are anti gun a huge excuse to limit gun rights. A big shoot out between the Oathkeepers and the feds is exactly the excuse the government needs to step in and "restore order".

But maybe that is what both sides want.
edit on 11-9-2015 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: 727Sky

Then she needs to seek new employment if she will not do her job. Like i'm going to decide I'm not doing something at work and expect to remain employed..this is utterly ridiculous as this hypocrite is elected, being elected and not doing your job..nice work if you can find it. I guess her 80k a year has nothing to do with her convictions..if she really had any she would leave rather than defy the SCOTUS and the constitution..she is just a bigot..plain and simple.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:28 AM
Her faith based on bible passages prevents her from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples because it is "sin" . Similiar to this ...... On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:37 AM
a reply to: zenartist

I had a female co-worker who used to listen to Dr Luara..uggg just typing her name makes my skin crawl, I had to leave the room sometimes.

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:37 AM
a reply to: karmicecstasy

i just think they are confused about state power. the state never supersedes the natural rights of the individual, which are inherent from the moment of birth and include things like the practice of religion or the lack thereof. the natural rights of the religious person are based on god's natural law, not on the state, so giving the state's legal documents the same religious impact, is a misnomer. state laws never usurp divine law, on an individual level, so she has nothing to worry about signing the documents. had it been a real religious document (which it is not), then she'd have grounds to stand on. but state documents are not the equivalent of god's law. totally different ball of wax.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in