Federal judge jails Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses
Source: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/03/4018514_federal-judge-jails-rowan-county.html
BY JOHN CHEVES Lexington Herald-Leader, September 3, 2015
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was taken to jail Thursday by U.S. Marshals after a federal judge found her in contempt of court for ignoring his order to issue marriage licenses.
U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to remain in jail until she agrees to comply with his Aug. 12 order.
[...] (http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/03/4018514_federal-judge-jails-rowan-county.html)
Excellant!
she'll serve some time , come out and start making the lecture circuit for the right wing
Quote from: stephaniec on September 03, 2015, 12:36:42 PM
she'll serve some time , come out and start making the lecture circuit for the right wing
She's a democrat. We don't want her.
Her Republican opponent actually had a good idea. Make the license application available by the internet and remove the clerk from the process.
wow, the things you learn on Susan's. Never even thought to check what her party was.
I've said it over and over - party doesn't matter. I am not aligned to any one party. Yes, I am a registered Republican but only because I want to vote in the primary and that's how politics are up here since Democrats have zero chance of winning anything. Elections are usually decided in the primary.
Kentucky clerk ordered to jail for refusing to issue gay marriage license
By James Higdon and Sandhya Somashekhar, September 3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
A county clerk who refused on religious grounds to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples was found in contempt of court Thursday and taken into federal custody.
U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning had given Rowan County clerk Kim Davis the chance to stay out of jail if she "purged her contempt" by allowing one of her deputies to sign marriage licenses in her place. But through an attorney, Davis told the judge that "she does not grant her authority nor would allow any employee to issue those licenses."
Davis's decision means the 49-year-old elected public servant will be kept in custody indefinitely as the legal wrangling over her case continues.
Good.
She also refused to issue license to *anyone,* even straight couples; if I decided not to do my job ever again, my employer would fire me. If I decided the law didn't apply to me and then openly defied a judge, I'd go to jail for contempt of court. I don't see why she should be an exception.
One can imagine what would happen to a Quaker clerk who refused to issue gun permits... except the Quaker would have the decency not to take the job in the first place.
Maybe she'll meet her future ex-girlfriend there? ;D
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I can't help but admire Kim Davis just a little bit. I don't support Davis' beliefs, but I respect her commitment to them. When a law goes against my values, I willfully break it, so I can't reasonably judge Davis by a different standard. However, for the sake of all interested parties, I wish she had chosen to exercise her dissent by resigning her post.
It's fairly obvious that her beliefs aren't religious but bigotry given the number of things in the bible she is ignoring.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Yep, she's all about traditional family values.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1262.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii610%2FTysilio%2FOur%2520Kimmie_zpswdkgulpp.jpg&hash=35db7eb46734b5348bd802b0889f04a3159493e0)
Quote from: EmmaMcAllister on September 03, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I can't help but admire Kim Davis just a little bit. I don't support Davis' beliefs, but I respect her commitment to them. When a law goes against my values, I willfully break it, so I can't reasonably judge Davis by a different standard. However, for the sake of all interested parties, I wish she had chosen to exercise her dissent by resigning her post.
I'd suggest that motivation for breaking the law matters quite a bit. If you're standing up to injustice, like Rosa Parks, that's one thing. Tearing the tag off your mattress and other things which do neither harm nor good is a second category. If you're going out of your way to break the law just to hurt people who live their lives by their own values instead of yours, like Dylann Roof or Kim Davis, that's a horse of a different color. Lawyers actually do differentiate between "malum prohibitum" for things which are bad just because they're illegal, and "malum in se" for things which are bad in themselves. She's clearly doing evil here and I just can't respect that.
it kind of reminds me of working at fast food places or gas stations, there are some people who you really feel should not be patrons of such places like people who count out pennies to buy 6 sandwiches or beer or cigarettes or scratch tickets with the last of there money, but they have the right to service just as anyone does. i dont respect her decision or the beliefs supposedly behind that decision, but there is something admirable about her convictions, as misplaced as they are in a legal field. basically, she should of known it was going to come up and gotten over her personal gripes a long @$$ time ago, probably back at husband number 1.
Quote from: Tysilio on September 03, 2015, 09:30:08 PM
Yep, she's all about traditional family values.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1262.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii610%2FTysilio%2FOur%2520Kimmie_zpswdkgulpp.jpg&hash=35db7eb46734b5348bd802b0889f04a3159493e0)
That's a whole lot of WTF right there.
To be honest I feel she has a pathological narcissistic disorder. Her self belief overrides reason.
I feel sorry for her and I hope she gets the medical help she needs and doesn't realise that she needs it.
How long do you think she will last before she agrees to do her job?
Quote from: iKate on September 03, 2015, 12:39:43 PM
She's a democrat. We don't want her.
Her Republican opponent actually had a good idea. Make the license application available by the internet and remove the clerk from the process.
I am not a republican but agree this could be an option or make sure there are deputies(which there are), that couples have access to, that can grant the license.
I hate to bring judgement crashing down on my head. So, timidly I say: I don't agree with her. However, I have respect for her convictions and it is kind of refreshing to see someone stand that strongly to their beliefs(I think many people who have beliefs might fold before being sent to jail). I have been debating with myself if the duties of her office require her to do something against her religious beliefs, should she not remove herself(after all, "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceaser's".)? Is it better to stay and fight(not convinced that that is what the Bible says{her chosen source for opinion}). I don't agree but do have respect. Sadly, if she met me I don't know that she would reciprocate.
Ducking for cover,
Joanna
To me this is not about standing on your convictions. The courts have to enforce court orders otherwise no one will have any incentive to obey them.
Quote from: iKate on September 04, 2015, 10:51:34 AM
To me this is not about standing on your convictions. The courts have to enforce court orders otherwise no one will have any incentive to obey them.
I understand what you are saying and generally agree. We often become terribly polarized in this society. What I am saying is I respect the conviction's of her belief. I am glad that the people in that county should be able to marry regardless of orientation or other aspects.
Joanna
Quote from: Joanna50 on September 04, 2015, 11:01:35 AM
What I am saying is I respect the conviction's of her belief.
I do too but I think that unless she is willing to go fully nuclear, it won't amount to much.
The only thing she can do is push to amend the Constitution, which probably won't happen.
I hear Huckabee, Todd Starnes and a bunch of other people from the religious anti-marriage fringe are headed down to KY to protest. Should be fun for them. I would go to watch but Starnes and Huck may recognize me. :p
I wrote a piece for newsacred.org about this. She can continue to maintain that, in the eyes of God, gays aren't married.
All she has to do as clerk is certify that the couple meets the legal requirements for a license.
Then, after someone else marries the couple, she has to record that it happened.
The former is an assessment of facts, the latter the noting of an event. Neither requires that she participate, nor that she agree with it.
This is probably going to be wildly unpopular here:
<copypasta'ed from my Facebook page, which I wrote earlier and edited for this forum.>
I realized after a period of thought on what my problem with Ms. Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk's situation is with the whole licensing of same-sex marriages are.
Without going into the whys and wherefores of how I feel about the state licensing marriages, This is a fallout of judicially-made policy and case law into matters that the court should not have to decide on.
Having read the decision and the dissents recently, I am finding myself more and more agreeing with Justice Roberts in the lead dissent's opening paragraphs when he said:
Quote"Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social
policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that
same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex
couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and
the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow
marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither
force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitaliza
tion altered)." Obergfell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct, 2584 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)
So now we have a court decision and an order from the Supreme Court for something that it really should have had no business in. When Proposition 8 passed in California, I said then that the people who want same-sex marriage need to double down and get that amendment repealed. Instead, they went to the courts, and somehow got a constitutional amendment overturned. This stoked the fire that brought two new methods of political and social change: 1) The legislature is no longer important, as the Court will now impose policy, and 2) The tyranny of the majority has become the tyranny of the minority. Personally, I don't think Proposition 8 would have survived a single election cycle, and if brought to a proposition the next election, it would have been repealed.
So where does that put us with Ms. Davis? Now, she has been imprisoned, indefinitely, without trial, charges, or any other due process, for "contempt of court". She has been essentially treated as a criminal for violating no statute, no regulation, nothing except a judicial policy. She will remain in a cage without a trial, and without any due process until such time as she decides to comply with a new law not passed by any constitutional means. This bothers me as it smacks of tyranny.
I am sure that many people will and have crowed about "her getting what she deserved." because they happen to support the end-result of the decision. However, what happens when the court issues an order that >YOU< do not agree with? Will you go to jail, and be put in a cage indefinitely, without trial, until you comply? Even if the decision in your heart of hearts believe was wrong?
We are at a precipice of history, where we look past the procedures that made this country great in lieu of the quick-fix and "object oriented judging." This is dangerous. It might be wise to read the dissents in Obergfell v. Hodges.
----
Yes, I know that she "controls her destiny" and can "get out of jail any time she wishes", but the idea that fining her so heavily that the taxpayers of Rowan county recall her didn't cross his mind?
This is really a no-win situation for anyone involved.
Quote from: iKate on September 03, 2015, 12:57:53 PM
I've said it over and over - party doesn't matter. I am not aligned to any one party. Yes, I am a registered Republican but only because I want to vote in the primary and that's how politics are up here since Democrats have zero chance of winning anything. Elections are usually decided in the primary.
Pretty much this. Southern Democrats are basically as conservative as current republicans. They are relics of the old mindset and never bothered to switch parties
Also she has been ordered to di her job. By law she is discriminating against same sex couples under government authority. You can not do that. No sympathy is deserved for her and they have every right jailing her
And what is the difference between this person "standing by her convictions" that suggest she believes religious law trumps our Constitution and the ISIS folks in Syria that believe their Sharia law trumps civil law?
This is just one example of why the venerated US Bill of Rights places that wall between church and state.
I give this thread little chance of staying open but always enjoy a good show. ;D
Quote from: EmmaMcAllister on September 03, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I can't help but admire Kim Davis just a little bit. I don't support Davis' beliefs, but I respect her commitment to them. When a law goes against my values, I willfully break it, so I can't reasonably judge Davis by a different standard. However, for the sake of all interested parties, I wish she had chosen to exercise her dissent by resigning her post.
Most people are MISSING part of the equation. Davis has plainly said she is upholding God's moral laws and if she signs the paper work she is part of that marriage. If she is condoning marriages and TRULY following moral laws then how does she reconcile the fact that if she is part of the marriage when Jesus plainly says this
Matthew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'
? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So if she "part of the marriage and condoning that marriage" and she signs off on a person's second marriage and the cause for the divorce is NOT adultery then is she approving of adultery in that second marriage? How can then she say she is truly upholding God's moral laws in her own words? Doesn't that make her a hypocrite?
Two how can she NOT do the job and still get paid for doing that job and she is NOT a thief?
Isn't that stealing from the people of the county who are paying her do the job that she refuses to do?
To be charitable to Davis, which I try to be with anyone I disagree with, I don't think we can judge her for her personal life (especially as most of that came before her conversion to Christianity). The only question should be her belief that gay marriage is wrong, and the actions she takes from that belief.
Don't get me wrong, I'm saddened that gay marriage isn't going as smoothly in the US as it did here in Canada a decade ago. But the anarchist in me will always admire people who take stands on principle, even if I disagree with the stand or principle. Note, I'm not arguing that she's right. I'm just saying that I can understand and appreciate her motivations.
And consider, if everyone exercised empathy toward their political opponents, would politics still be so awful?
Quote from: Sigyn on September 04, 2015, 07:04:33 PM
Without going into the whys and wherefores of how I feel about the state licensing marriages, This is a fallout of judicially-made policy and case law into matters that the court should not have to decide on.
Having read the decision and the dissents recently, I am finding myself more and more agreeing with Justice Roberts in the lead dissent's opening paragraphs when he said:
So now we have a court decision and an order from the Supreme Court for something that it really should have had no business in. When Proposition 8 passed in California, I said then that the people who want same-sex marriage need to double down and get that amendment repealed. Instead, they went to the courts, and somehow got a constitutional amendment overturned. This stoked the fire that brought two new methods of political and social change: 1) The legislature is no longer important, as the Court will now impose policy, and 2) The tyranny of the majority has become the tyranny of the minority. Personally, I don't think Proposition 8 would have survived a single election cycle, and if brought to a proposition the next election, it would have been repealed.
This is and has always been an issue of equal protection.
Putting rights up to the popular vote doesn't make it a right anymore. It is a right. It should never be up for debate. It is a right that you are born with, not one that the Government gives you.
QuoteSo where does that put us with Ms. Davis? Now, she has been imprisoned, indefinitely, without trial, charges, or any other due process, for "contempt of court". She has been essentially treated as a criminal for violating no statute, no regulation, nothing except a judicial policy. She will remain in a cage without a trial, and without any due process until such time as she decides to comply with a new law not passed by any constitutional means. This bothers me as it smacks of tyranny.
Punishment for contempt of court is the law and is covered under 18 U.S.C. §§ 401–403.
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.So yes, she is breaking the law.
Court orders also have no force unless people face consequences for disobeying them. So there has to be some sort of consequence otherwise there is really no such thing as a court order, it will be a court suggestion.
QuoteI am sure that many people will and have crowed about "her getting what she deserved." because they happen to support the end-result of the decision. However, what happens when the court issues an order that >YOU< do not agree with? Will you go to jail, and be put in a cage indefinitely, without trial, until you comply? Even if the decision in your heart of hearts believe was wrong?
My heart doesn't matter. There are things I do not agree with - gun control and property taxes, for example. I cannot just go and say I disagree and then do whatever I want with my guns or not pay my taxes.
Quote
Yes, I know that she "controls her destiny" and can "get out of jail any time she wishes", but the idea that fining her so heavily that the taxpayers of Rowan county recall her didn't cross his mind?
People were already raising funds for her, and waiting until she cracked would take a long time. Besides, we are not sure whether the taxpayers would recall her. I don't think she is allowed to use taxpayer funds to pay a fine.
Emma. Why be empathetic to a group so focused on taking away rights from people just because they disagree? These people are just so privileged in getting everything they want that they throw a tantrum when someone else gets the same thing
Quote from: BenKenobi on September 05, 2015, 11:27:38 PM
Emma. Why be empathetic to a group so focused on taking away rights from people just because they disagree? These people are just so privileged in getting everything they want that they throw a tantrum when someone else gets the same thing
Why be empathetic? Because empathy turns a disagreement into a dialogue instead of a war. I believe that it's important to remember that a pervasive, long standing worldview is being challenged here. I know many Christians who are opposed to homosexual relationships, but that doesn't make them monsters. Politics will always polarize if we treat those we disagree with as our enemy.
:police: please keep this conversation civil
Quote from: EmmaMcAllister on September 06, 2015, 12:31:41 PM
Why be empathetic? Because empathy turns a disagreement into a dialogue instead of a war. I believe that it's important to remember that a pervasive, long standing worldview is being challenged here. I know many Christians who are opposed to homosexual relationships, but that doesn't make them monsters. Politics will always polarize if we treat those we disagree with as our enemy.
These people arent interested in dialogue. She has been given chance after chance to step down or issue the licences and has already appealed multiple times. This mindset has been dominating the US for too long. If we want ANY sort of progress we can't afford to appeal to the bigots any more.
In regards to her past, yes I judge it because, as a Christian, it severely pisses me off when she beats the bible about gay marriage but has had three divorces and refuses to follow her own gospel. It's one thing to disagree. It's another to break the law and force people into your religious views under the government's jurisdiction.
Great discussion all,
Hope to make a few points without seeming too "bombastic" or anything else(all in moderation).
Tessa,
And what is the difference between this person "standing by her convictions" that suggest she believes religious law trumps our Constitution and the ISIS folks in Syria that believe their Sharia law trumps civil law?
This is just one example of why the venerated US Bill of Rights places that wall between church and state.
I would suggest there has been a long history of non-violent examples of standing by convictions(breaking the law), from the bible through the civil rights campaigns. However, I do share the opinion of Kate and a few others that it should just be a right...
And yes, separation of church and state should be stronger.
Emma,
But the anarchist in me will always admire people who take stands on principle, even if I disagree with the stand or principle. Note, I'm not arguing that she's right. I'm just saying that I can understand and appreciate her motivations.
And consider, if everyone exercised empathy toward their political opponents, would politics still be so awful?
+1. My original point was exactly this. I think politics should include debate and argument of beliefs. Sadly it mostly just feels a little "...quite contrary." Saying no because the opposition says yes.
Why be empathetic? Because empathy turns a disagreement into a dialogue instead of a war. I believe that it's important to remember that a pervasive, long standing worldview is being challenged here. I know many Christians who are opposed to homosexual relationships, but that doesn't make them monsters. Politics will always polarize if we treat those we disagree with as our enemy.
Ben and Emma,
I think you are on to something Emma. Empathy and compassion are some of the biggest points that existed originally in the teachings of Christ(and love, Ironically enough with regards to how many "Christians" act). Empathy (and the ability to accessorize) is what separates us from the beasties. Otherwise, we are an uncivil, hate addicted society.
However, my opponents may behave, I want to try to be better than that and not stuck in those hate filled habits.
Joanna
"However, my opponents may behave, I want to try to be better than that and not stuck in those hate filled habits."
My thoughts exactly. I always try to be the best person I can be. If someone hates me, I consider it my duty to understand and empathize with their motivations. If I return their ignorance and hate, I'm not being the best I can be.
Judge orders Kim Davis released, bars her from withholding marriage licenses
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html
CNN/By Ed Payne and Jason Hanna, CNN Updated 1:17 PM ET, Tue September 8, 2015
"U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning in Kentucky has ordered that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis be released from jail.
He ordered her not to interfere with clerks in her office issuing marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples."
So who's going to win her or the government ?
That didn't take long.
She vows to violate the court order (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/lawyers-vow-kim-davis-will-violate-court-order-and-halt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/)
Next, I expect a standoff at the clerk's office, with supporters surrounding it.
If Dick Cheney transitioned, I swear he'd look like Kim Davis.
You don't think...
I strongly feel that if she could not obey the law, she should have found another position. It's pretty simple.
Cindi
I agree if Cheney transitioned that would be her!! haha
AND it Looks like her buddies got her out. If you have a federal job then you need to follow federal laws regardless of your beliefs. Now, this goes to show other people that have these types of jobs that they can go ahead and discriminate all they want and just get a slap on the wrist. You know, if I discriminated against people at my job I'd be out of one. What ever happened to separation of church and state??
I don't know too many people that can tell their boss to go screw it
sorry, had to share , got this from Facebook
Quote from: EmmaMcAllister on September 03, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I can't help but admire Kim Davis just a little bit. I don't support Davis' beliefs, but I respect her commitment to them. When a law goes against my values, I willfully break it, so I can't reasonably judge Davis by a different standard. However, for the sake of all interested parties, I wish she had chosen to exercise her dissent by resigning her post.
I'm all for standing for what one believes in. I don't think that's the major issue here...its that she wants to stay in a position of authority while refusing to perform duties related to that position.
Out in the street or in a church, one can believe whatever they want, and most people won't complain and protest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Beth Andrea on September 08, 2015, 07:31:30 PM
I'm all for standing for what one believes in. I don't think that's the major issue here...its that she wants to stay in a position of authority while refusing to perform duties related to that position.
Out in the street or in a church, one can believe whatever they want, and most people won't complain and protest.
I do wish she had chosen to resign, but I can understand why she didn't. Imagine the situation in reverse. It's 2025, and a Republican stacked Supreme Court overturns Obergefell vs Hodges, arguing judicial overreach. Many states, including Kentucky, reintroduce legislation limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The elected clerk of Rowan County, a supporter of same sex marriage, continues to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. They choose to stay in their elected position to fight for what they believe is right.
Would you feel more positively about this hypothetical clerk than you do about Kim Davis? If so, it is not Davis' unwillingness to apply the law, nor her decision to stay in her post, that is the issue. Rather, it seems to be a matter of what is right. Here, I believe it important to remember that Kim Davis believes that she is doing what is right. Understanding that, I can disagree with Davis, but I can't condemn her.
Quote from: EmmaMcAllister on September 08, 2015, 08:33:42 PM
I do wish she had chosen to resign, but I can understand why she didn't. Imagine the situation in reverse. It's 2025, and a Republican stacked Supreme Court overturns Obergefell vs Hodges, arguing judicial overreach. Many states, including Kentucky, reintroduce legislation limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The elected clerk of Rowan County, a supporter of same sex marriage, continues to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. They choose to stay in their elected position to fight for what they believe is right.
Would you feel more positively about this hypothetical clerk than you do about Kim Davis? If so, it is not Davis' unwillingness to apply the law, nor her decision to stay in her post, that is the issue. Rather, it seems to be a matter of what is right. Here, I believe it important to remember that Kim Davis believes that she is doing what is right. Understandi?ng that, I can disagree with Davis, but I can't condemn her.
or maybe when Gavin Newsome continued to issue licenses despite an order from the California Supreme Court to cease and decist? Or even after Prop 8 passed?
The "table turned" argument is a difficult one to navigate. I think that we all agree that Equal Rights IS the correct thing to do. If I were asked to discriminate against anyone for any reason because a new law were passed, I would protest and resign, regardless of my beliefs. I see so many of the atrocities committed in the name of just following beliefs or orders and I know in my heart I could not condone or accept the responsibility to do something so morally wrong.
Cindi