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

a reply to: Rocker2013

or she was let out because the presidential pollywogs brought their circus to town and he didn't see where that played into anyone's interest.

and by the way,
those who don't pay child support are sent to jail via contempt of court.
for arguing with the judge: www.eonline.com...

and here's another story:
www.wdsu.com...

here's another:

Civil District Judge Kern Reese held New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu in contempt Friday (Sept. 4), but said he would give Landrieu one week to come up with a reasonable plan to pay an outstanding judgment due to the city's firefighters before imposing a house arrest sentence.

Reese said he understood Landrieu was constrained by a tight budget, but that did not mean he had the right to shirk a legal judgment.

"This is a legal issue," Reese said. "We all have responsibilities and those responsibilities have to be met."
www.nola.com...

there seems to be a long line of cases where people were put in jail for contempt of court, with journalists being popular targets for not releasing their sources.

think what you wish about weather this is right or wrong, but well, it's been standard procedure for as long as I remember.

Oh dear.

Thugs with guns, yay (Why does American freedom always have to involve guns?)

Maybe she might let it go and just do her job after her weekend in jail.

Maybe pigs might fly.

Somebody just impeach her already.

Are these the same clowns that showed up to protect Cliven Bundy?

a reply to: Granite

Yup, the roughly 1.7% of the population that is gay is a total threat to the roughly 80% of the population that identifies as Christian.

A historical clue just for laughs... the minority of any population is always the one that gets stepped on.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dawnstar

From what I read yesterday, her signature is on all marriage licenses regardless of who issues them, and she refused to allow her signature to be on a marriage license for a gay couple.

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! >>>>>

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dawnstar

Kentucky law doesn't state only the clerk can sign the license. The clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license must sign it.

www.patheos.com...

Which isn't stopping her attorneys from right wing groups from claiming that only she is allowed to sign licenses so anything signed by a deputy is invalid.

thank you for clearing that up for me, and pointing out my mistake....
obviously the idea that these people would be acting halfway rationally and not inventing mountains that can't be overcome was wrong of me!

so, all she had to do in the beginning it sounds like is to assign a country clerk to handle the licenses and if challeged, just tell them I couldn't do it because of religious reasons and well, no big circus probably, probably one court hearing maybe, and no jail time.

or at least that would seem to be the most reasonable solution to the problem and the easiest.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dawnstar

From what I read yesterday, her signature is on all marriage licenses regardless of who issues them, and she refused to allow her signature to be on a marriage license for a gay couple.

So......my question and maybe its a bit off point, but.......with the intervention of the Oath Keepers, does this now rise to the level of "Nullification"? My understanding of Nullification is sketchy at best, but its beginning to look to me like the challenge here is that Supreme Court, in its ruling, has acted beyond the scope of its Constitutional authority. I'm not arguing either way; I'm just a spectator here. But it does look to me like this has been taken to a new level.

a reply to: TonyS

States can seek nullification - though all past attempts have failed. The Oathkeepers are not official in any capacity. They are just a group of citizens who, as of late, seem to want to stir the pot more than live up to their stated goals.

Just a quick 2 cents from a retired military member. This is not a situation where 'patriots' need to be 'bucking the system'. Just my opinion.

originally posted by: 5thNovember

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dawnstar

From what I read yesterday, her signature is on all marriage licenses regardless of who issues them, and she refused to allow her signature to be on a marriage license for a gay couple.

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! >>>>>

Religious freedom is just another loophole to oppress certain groups of people based on a fairytale written thousands of years ago. It needs to be abolished just like slavery, because it just allows certain groups of people to violate the rights of others.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Hefficide

Here's the thing Heff, let me ask a couple of hard questions - because I think perception is very important in this instance.

Q: How many American citizens are of the same mind-set as Ms Davis and the oath keepers - throw a figure at me?

Probably about the same number of people who; believe that God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans or that displaying the Stars & Bars on government grounds is appropriate, that public schools should be segregated and that churches should be allowed to preach politics from their tax exempt pulpit.

In other words, just the lunatic fringes of our society.

Q: How many NON-Americans are of the same mind-set as Ms Davis and the oath keepers - throw a figure at me?

I would guess that there are actually millions who agree that people should be ruled by religion. Right off the top of my head, the Taliban and ISIS come to mind.

Q: In your opinion, is the Bible the word of God?

No! That goes for all other religious texts as well.

Q: In your opinion, did Jesus exist?

Don't know.

Q: In your opinion, other than government recognition, how important is the issuing of a marriage licence to 2 people who genuinely love each other?

Very important! That government recognition carries with it, substantial legal rights not afforded to couples who are denied the right to marry.

Evidently, all questions are totally related.

Not sure how all these questions are related unless your just trying to point out that Kim Davis and her supporters are the equivalent of an American Taliban, especially when you throw the lunatic Oath Keepers into the mix.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Well then, they just signed up to go to the slammer themselves as they have become lawless.

Let's see. National Guard? Militarized police? Who will take them in? When did Oath Keepers become thugs?

Almost from their inception. At the very least, when they show up to defend Cliven Bundy.

a reply to: amicktd

and, I imagine that you view would change drastically if your daughter (or future daughter) was given a teacher who was refusing to teach her because well, he didn't believe that she needed the same standard of education as the boys did since she was female and therefore be home being taught how to sew, cook, and clean house!

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Bluntone22
She's out of jail because the judge violated the law not her.

That's factually untrue.
Please stop lying.

She is out of jail because her staff decided to do the RIGHT THING and issue licenses to all those legally permitted to marry, without bigotry and without discrimination.

Actually, her staff began issuing licenses to all those legally permitted to marry AFTER the forms were changed, per Ms. Davis' legal right to reasonable accommodations for her religious belief.... which could have and should have been done without sending anyone to jail. The judge had a legal duty but refused to protect Ms. Davis' legal rights under the law (the RFRA to be specific.)

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Gothmog

That is some of the most awkward mental gymnastics I have ever seen. She is being discriminated against because she is being denied the ability to discriminate against others?

Hogwash.

No, why dont you just read the LAW ? She is EQUALLY protected under the law as any of the other groups....

Wow , just wow....Hatred of Christianity that even seeks to bypass Federal Law.........

Cover all groups but religion....no wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Mental gymnastics?????WTH ?

This is over , anyway. After the fact , then they assign the accommodations of having the Deputy Clerks fill out the same-sex marriage license where she does not have to......do you get that ? After the fact....

All this and I am not a Christian.

Peace.

Her rights end, where mine begin.
This is not rocket science. She is free to practice her religious beliefs in any way she deems proper, at any time, and any where, until... her religious rights infringe on the constitutional rights of someone else. She has already been given more than her rights by being allowed to trample under foot the rights of others who came to her, expecting her to do her damn job as an elected "servant of the people". If she can no longer perform her elected duties, she needs to step aside and give the job to someone who can.

This isn't about anyone's hatred for Christianity. This is about this woman's blatant disregard for others constitutional rights. Her right to religious observance ends at the point it infringes on these peoples right to get married under the law. And now we have another group willing to trash the constitution for her religious beliefs, and aid her in trampling the rights of others. In my book, that is a religious group looking to overthrow our government, and put a theocracy in its place. Not happening!

a reply to: TonyS
I was serious a few pages back when I suggested that maybe it was time to just shut the county clerk's office down awhile. their arrival, in my opinion, seems to bring the conflict to a new level, a dangerous level.
for safety's sake, I would at least start planning the shut down of the office just in case. if the people of that county could go that long without marriages being issued, I am sure they will survive it being shut down for awhile till things cool off and a real resolution is found, since well, I guess what they have isn't a great resolution since these guys are showing up....with gun!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

they didn't change any forms, the deputies were initialing where she was to sign!

but well, let's go with the idea that there are new forms, why is an army showing up to protect her then if all is well and good?

These guys, The Oathkeepers, are the one's over-stepping their bounds and apparently are not being truthful about what their organization is about.

Kim prevented anyone in her office from issuing licenses, in the name of a religion. The courts intervened and ordered her to comply, she refused the order, was held in contempt and jailed and the deputies were ordered to comply. Once the licenses were being issued, the court was satisfied and she was released with orders not to interfere.

She had no right what so ever to stop issuing licenses, she was jailed legally and the Oathkeepers apparently are in this for a reason other than what they are claiming. The 1st amendment actually protects the people she was refusing to issue licenses to.





Separation of Church and State so that no one has any right to find opposition to his social duties.

Seems pretty clear to me, she is using the church to deny people state business, this goes against everything our country was founded on and people supporting her are actually going against the Constitution and our Forefathers.

This country was not founded on Christianity ...



These Oathkeepers are anything but, they are just taking advantage of this to get attention and try and gain support to try and spark a war that is going to get people killed.


Monday is going to be really interesting ...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Zaphod58

but the issue of her signature cannot be resolved on the county level.

I think that's being argued now... Apparently, the county attorney felt it could be resolved on the county level, and changed the forms to remove Ms. Davis' name, thus accommodating her religious objections in accordance with her legal right to reasonable accommodations.

I imagine that it's a state law aimed at having conformity through the state. and the state isn't playing.

Oh they're playing!!! Playing their own political games. The state officials know damn well that both the federal and state RFRA provides for reasonable accommodations for religious objections. We can argue about whether it should or not, but that is the law, that is Ms. Davis' legal right, and it was ignored by all the authorities involved. This could have and should have been handled in accordance with ALL pertinent laws, not just the ones these authorities -- including the judge -- wanted to follow.

while she was arrested, the deputies were placing their initials in the spot where here signature was to be, under the judge's orders I presume. did this set up change when she was released?

The forms were changed -- her name was removed -- while Ms. Davis was still incarcerated... just as she had requested all along. The clerks began using the new form Friday, and Ms. Davis' attorney she has no problem with the new forms and will not object to their issuance.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Boadicea

they didn't change any forms, the deputies were initialing where she was to sign!

but well, let's go with the idea that there are new forms, why is an army showing up to protect her then if all is well and good?

Yes, the forms were changed.

Marriage licenses issued since Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

ETA: I can't speak for the Oath Keepers.