world

Kentucky clerk who fought gay marriage released from jail

88 Comments
By ADAM BEAM

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

88 Comments
Login to comment

Something tells me she will be incarcerated again before the week is out.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

What a brave woman in that insane theater of absurd !

-22 ( +10 / -32 )

'“If somebody has to go to jail, I’m willing to go in her place. I believe that,” said Huckabee, a former Baptist minister and Arkansas governor.'

Please do. One less bigoted religious crackpot running around spouting garbage is always good for progress.

14 ( +21 / -7 )

If she isn't willing to do the job due to her religious affiliation, she needs to quit.

20 ( +26 / -6 )

There are states that already have laws allowing judges and magistrates to opt out of officiating at same sex marriages so for Kentucky to remove an individual clerk’s name and title from a marriage license doesn't seem like that big of a deal in comparison (and that is all that Mrs. Davis is requesting).

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

I wonder if Kim Davis will also refuse to issue marriage licenses to couples if one partner is an unbeliever? If, as she says, this is a matter of following "the Word of God", she had better follow the word to the letter.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

Or what about issuing divorce certificates (something she should know well about)? Didn't she read what the Bible says about that?

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband

Davis is a confused fundamentalist who has been taken advantage of by anti-gay groups like the Liberty Counsel and shamelessly opportunistic politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz.

Religious liberty my ^#s.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Throwing her in jail for what she did is absurd.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

Has it come to this, priorities are selective?

This woman should have found a solution or left her elected post. Certainly not arrested!

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

If America continues on this path, when you go to the grocery store, you'll need to find a non-Catholic register to buy condoms, a non-Muslim register to buy ham, and a non-bigot register to make purchases as a gay couple.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

@MarkG, she is not about to leave an elected post that pays 80K per year. What other non government job in Kentucky would pay her anything near that?

A minor but funny detail was the 80s song 'Eye of the Tiger' blaring as she came out to address her supporters. Can someone get this lady a leotard and a job in professional wrestling please!

7 ( +7 / -0 )

And so we begin the slow decent into tribalism, misinformation and the celebration of ignorance and bigotry.

Congrats there goes a few hundred years of progress...

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Given the increased lawlessness under the Obama administration and the absolute crusade he has waged against religious people it is no surprise that this is occurring. Get used to seeing more and more religious people asserting their first amendment rights and more of them being jailed for their thought crimes. The Supreme Court brought this on by it's incoherent gay marriage decision. The Left will not stop until they drive religion underground and out of the public sphere completely. Their hatred for Christians is palpable rendering them incapable of seeing them as anything but their enemy. Kim Davis is public enemy number one now. Next week it will be another average American citizen that will be jailed for their religious views.

-17 ( +5 / -22 )

The Left will not stop until they drive religion underground and out of the public sphere completely.

One can hope, but it's not likely.

Now that all said, you are condemning all leftists as anti-christian, which ignores the fact that many, many leftists are Christian.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

What a load of nonsense.

No-one is telling anyone what to believe.

The same rules that give freedoms to others are the same ones that give religous people to conduct thier personal life's within their belief.

They are the same guidelines that would protect your beliefs if for example another religion gained traction in your country.

It's pretty simple, don't want to get gay married, don't, don't want to eat pork or serve alcohol, don't. Don't want give those things to other people when it's part of your job, find a new job.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Another average American citizen?

I don't think the average American has a cushy government job arranged by her own mother like Kim Davis is lucky enough to have. Why does she get so upset about following laws?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Wolfpack

The Supreme Court brought this on by it's incoherent gay marriage decision. The Left will not stop until they drive religion underground and out of the public sphere completely. Their hatred for Christians is palpable

Interesting how you include the Supreme Court as part of this lefty atheist inquisition against Christians. Five out of the nine justices are conservatives, and all five are Catholics. Sotomayor is also a Catholic.

The public sphere in America is thoroughly drenched in Christian biases. Christians form a clear majority. There is no need to panic about the secularization of America.

What I might agree with you about is that discussions about the role of the Christian right in politics has become more heated, probably because conservative believers have become more active in their opposition to a more liberal shift on social issues by most Americans.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Think the title is misleading too. Should be more like;

Elected public official leaves jail after very short court sentence for repeated failure to do their job of serving the public.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It will take time, but people like this will slowly fade away and gays who want to marry won't event get a second look. Until then, we have to deal with bigots shielding themselves with the bible.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Just like the Muslim air-attendant that did not want to serve alcohol due to her religious convictions this lady here also has that right. People need to understand the USA is not socialist/communist -yet. Hopefully the fine people of Kentucky can vote out this judge. ==> the judge's "rule of law" does not circumvent the "unalienable rights" of our Constitution.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Marriage certificates should be filled at the City Hall and not by priests, rabbi, whatever.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Most of us are suggesting that when serving the public, or performing your job that these exemptions are a bit ridiculous, and that taken to the end game are nothing more than personal opinions and bigotry protected by law.

The laws are to protect individuals in their private lives not to enable people to discriminate.

And yes sure you might say the public will decide to vote her out, what of the people that live in that community that aren't able to have their legal entitlements served by the public office during the intervening time or ever if that community votes to keep her?

What about their rights?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Neither has to take their job if there are things that make uncomfortable.

Not going back on my previous statement but if job conditions change look somewhere else or find a work around.

All in all it is a job with rules and conditions, she could be asked to be reassigned.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Huckabee, et al, are history. He loves to see his name in the news and get the free food and lodging. Now it is time for him to eat his words. He said that this (USA) is a nation of laws, not men. He apparently believes in another issue and meant and believes it is a nation of women. Everyone reading this type of article needs to know that there are many areas of the USA and that opinions vary. It is the reason the war between the states was fought in 1861. She can't be removed unless the state legislature moves on the issue regardless of what the Supreme Court of the USA says. It is the state's right to decide if she should be removed from office. In other states she would be gone for not upholding her pledge to follow the laws of the state and the USA. It is as if the national government says the speed limit is 100km/hour, but the Shizuoka police say it is for all cars except purple cars. The speed limit is unlimited because the "boss" likes purple cars.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Noriyosan73

Stop being so sensible, its hard for people to hide their discrimination if you do that...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If she isn't willing to do the job due to her religious affiliation, she needs to quit.

This is where the line between freedom of conscience, and "public duty" gets blurred.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just like the Muslim air-attendant that did not want to serve alcohol due to her religious convictions this lady here also has that right.

. . . a right no one took from her. She has the right to not issue licenses. She does not have the right to keep the job she is paid to do (to uphold the laws) while not doing said job.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I do not support same sex marriage. I do not support Davis' refusal issue marriage licenses. She's a public servant, just do the job be professional. But please, no double standards in civil service / public safety.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There are states that already have laws allowing judges and magistrates to opt out of officiating at same sex marriages...

Yes - but note the operative word "laws." The Kentucky governor (amazingly, a Dem) noted that the legislature is on summer break and he is not empowered to write legislation - and that it would be unfair to gay couples seeking what the Supreme Court has ruled is their right to wait for the legislature to act on this, assuming they ever will.

She's welcome to continue making a fuss about this, but the second she tries to prevent her office from fulfilling its legal duties, it will be back to jail for her.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

As it should be

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Wc626, how funny that both Mike Huckleberry and Rafael "Ted" Cruz flew in to show some love for Kentucky's most controversial Democrat. Surely not a good sign for their sagging support rate. How much longer until they call it a day on their presidential campaigns? Or do they hope to siphon some donor cash off this little controversy?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If only the clouds of politics and religion could be lifted on this, we could see this for the states' rights and federal overreach case that it is.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the U.S. constitution, and the constitution grants no powers to the federal government that are not mentioned therein.

But Kim Davis' case does involve a constitution. The constitution of Kentucky, which 75% of that state's voters chose to amend by referendum from 2004. In that amendment, same-sex marriage or any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” was specifically outlawed. No matter what your opinion is on this, that is the law in Kentucky. To throw someone into a Kentucky jail for upholding that law is an assault by the federal government against the state and citizens of Kentucky.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

But Kim Davis' case does involve a constitution. The constitution of Kentucky, which 75% of that state's voters chose to amend by referendum from 2004. In that amendment, same-sex marriage or any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” was specifically outlawed.

. . . and the highest court of the land has determined that to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS decides what is constitutional--not the tyrannical masses.

Next.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Sioux The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since no provision of the Constitution delegates power over marriage to the federal government, this is clearly a states' rights issue and should be addressed as such.

"Next" indeed. I'm neither for nor against same-sex marriage, because I expect no effect either way on my life. I do, however, frown on the political and religious circus the U.S. has become. Wake me up when the Heinlein-esque group/line marriages of Luna are given the same freedom.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

There are states that already have laws allowing judges and magistrates to opt out of officiating at same sex marriages...

One other point about this: The clerk does not "officiate" a marriage; he or she simply confirms the legalities of the marriage, which, considering the importance of these legalities, is a fundamental responsibility of a civil servant. Rand Paul has suggested (off-the-hip, I suppose, as he clearly hadn't thought it through) that government should get out of the marriage business.

So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?

His first question should be embarrassing for a lawmaker: Rights of inheritance, of property, of indebtedness, of legal guardianship to name a few, are closely tied to the legal definition of marriage by both government and the private sector. Paul appears prefer a patchwork of marriage laws, where one's rights are recognized in one state but not in another - a world in which a most basic human identity, a spouse, may appear or disappear in a matter of inches. Of course, he frames it in terms of "states' rights," but where that all ends has already, sadly, been proven by history.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Since no provision of the Constitution delegates power over marriage to the federal government, this is clearly a states' rights issue and should be addressed as such.

And yet the SCOTUS--the highest level of judicial review--disagrees with you and has ruled that such discrimination by the states is unconstitutional.

Weird, huh?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

“If somebody has to go to jail, I’m willing to go in her place. I believe that,”

Please do, Mr. Huckabee. Please do.

pointofview: "Throwing her in jail for what she did is absurd."

How so? Do you even know WHY she was thrown in jail? Her lawyers, who should be disbarred for lying on record, would have you believe she was jailed for her religious convictions, when in fact she was jailed for contempt of court. She and her lawyers brought the existing laws to grant gay couples a certificate to court and lost. They appealed, and lost. They appealed again, and lost, and were each time told by the court that they MUST, legally, grant gay couples a certificate if requested. She KNEW when she started the job that the law was in the pipeline and was very likely to pass. She went in eyes wide open. Then, not only did she refuse to obey the law and the court orders, she forced colleagues and subordinates to do the same, demanding they do NOT give the certificates, regardless of the court's ruling because of HER personal beliefs. When finally given an ultimatum by the court to give the certificates or be fired and possibly face prison time, she again refused. The arrest and subsequent prison time had nothing to do with her beliefs, but with her obstructing the court and disobeying court orders. Her lawyers literally said she was jailed because of her beliefs, which is slander, and according to the letter of the law they can be disbarred. It was also not in the interest of their client to have her jailed, it was to push their personal and political agendas.

Now that she's out and a 'hero' to the bible thumpers she can pander and preach to them all she likes, so long as it is not again in any capacity where she breaks the law.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Defending this lady is defending bigotry. Call it what you want....religious freedom, states rights, whatever. You can't support her and not be a bigot.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

What a brave woman in that insane theater of absurd !

Brave? Hardly! Two faced hypocrite, more like it. She claims she is being forced against her beliefs but fails to accept responsibility that she is in effect forcing her own beliefs on to others for refusing to do her job and follow the LAW.

This woman should have found a solution or left her elected post. Certainly not arrested!

She was not arrested, she was found in contempt of court and held in custody. There is a large difference. She committed no crime but refused to follow a judges legal orders.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the U.S. constitution...

Guess that's why you're not a Supreme Court justice. The Supremes ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples constitutes unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex, violating both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment - directly connected to the Supreme ruling which forbid interracial marriage, which wasn't finalized until 1967!

Someday, our kids will look back on the former in a similar way that we (well, most of us here) now view the latter.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

What Huckabee can't seem to grasp is, by advocating that Kim Davis be free to pick and choose what laws will be followed and how they apply, he is promoting anarchy. Under his logic, elected officials are not public servants but rulers whose deeply held beliefs determine what laws they are free to apply to anyone under their dominion. He does not understand that while private individuals have the right of civil disobedience to laws they don't agree with, government employees and elected officials under oath to uphold the law, do not. He likes to point to the rational that if a law is unjust and the courts still uphold it, such as was once with slavery, then people are justified in disobeying.

These two are a perfect match: The axis of losers.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

What Huckabee can't seem to grasp is, by advocating that Kim Davis be free to pick and choose what laws will be followed and how they apply, he is promoting anarchy.

Good point.

Huckabee is promoting is a self-serving form of theocracy. He believes (when convenient) that the laws of the United States need to be brought into line with the Bible. He also believes (when convenient) that America's founding fathers were Christian fundamentalists.

Huckabee and much of the religious right talk about constitutionality and law when it protects the privileges held by people like them. And when the constitution and the courts remove the safeguards from such privileges (more accurately these people's right to discriminate against those who are different from them), they go running back to the Bible and crying that they're being persecuted for their beliefs.

This particular case is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of conservative Christians in the US.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

'Otherwise leave and go to some Christian fairyland where you can all hate others as you will for ever an ever. Amen.'

A good idea. If they were all together, they'd probably be too busy damning one another as heretics to give the gays a bad time. Then again, I'm sure a few rip-off televangelists and politicians who damn homosexuality might be caught with their pants down in hotel rooms or public toilets in this fairyland....

2 ( +2 / -0 )

she is not about to leave an elected post that pays 80K per year. What other non government job in Kentucky would pay her anything near that?

Well after all this publicity she could quit and open her own store front church! I am pretty sure she would get quite a few of those fundaMENTALists to follow her!

I dont know which is worse her refusing to do her job, (the only credit I can see to give her is that she at least did not give licenses to anyone, not just same sex couple) or the politicians running for president backing her up and coming out sounding like their are talking out of their arses.

It's a toss up to me right now, and I am just enjoying eating my pop corn and watching the comedy play out.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

She is kind of American version of Samurai ...She is a HERO.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

She is kind of American version of Samurai ...She is a HERO.

If she were Samurai she would have slit her belly for failure to follow a direct order from a superior, and everyone would have been commenting on her "death".

She aint no Samurai, because it is the Samurai's number one duty to follow the orders of her boss!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

NZ2011Sep. 09, 2015 - 11:54AM JST Think the title is misleading too. Should be more like; Elected public official leaves jail after very short court sentence for repeated failure to do their job of serving the public.

She was elected long before there was anything called gay marriage.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

She emerged next to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and her husband, who was in blue dungarees and a straw hat.

Yeah, and which husband was that, number 1, 2, 3 or 4? Or is Grandpa Walton her new fifth husband?

The people supporting her are likely to be the sort of people complaining about Muslim air stewardesses or shop workers who refuse to serve alcohol. But then again, religious freedom only applies if it's your own religion, no matter how flawed and illogical it is. As a vegetarian, I don't like believe in eating meat, but guess what? I have no problems with sitting next to people who do because I realize that everyone's lives and beliefs are different. And guess what? If a friend asked me to buy some meat or fish for their shopping, why should I object? I'm not the one eating it. Likewise, nobody's forcing her to marry a woman. Is she going to object to issuing marriage licenses to straight couples who are atheists?

And if she can't do her job properly then find another one. Frankly she should stick to the kitchen. She's already sinned by divorcing not once, but three times.

Huckabee and fellow Republican Party White House candidate Sen. Ted Cruz visited her in jail just after the decision came down.

Yeah, the hillbilly and Rafael Cruz in for the extra media time. I've never heard of Rafael Nadal feeling embarrassed about his Hispanic name so why is Cruz? Surprised 'Piyush' Jindhal didn't join in.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@pointofview

Throwing her in jail for what she did is absurd.

It's a tough punishment, but it is exactly in line with the law. She wasn't thrown in jail for what she did (refusing to issue licences), but for defying a court order. This falls under "contempt of court", and results in either a fine or time in jail. Anyone can be jailed for contempt of court, regardless of the seriousness or triviality of the initial crime or case.

It is the contempt itself that is regarded as a) pertinent and b) serious. And it hardly needs saying, but such cases are pretty clear-cut. Do you think a judge struggles to prove or justify that contempt occurred?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

She broke the law, the penalty was imprisonment. If she doesn't want anything to do with same sex marriage she should get a new job.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

'She is kind of American version of Samurai ...She is a HERO.'

Some Samurai were known for their love of handsome young men.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Back to topic, Vegas marriage Bureau announced marriage business (meaning churches included) Anyone can stay in Nevada short time and can get marriage license. $80,000 jobs are plenty here, Employee shortage here so she can get a job easily. Oh I forgot maybe her religion will not let her to become a table game dealer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This woman and her supporters are the perfect example of how religions such as christianity, islam and judaism, which are pretty much the same thing with different stripes turn their followers into idiots, plain and simple. Religion is a human construct that arose out of the frailty of early humans. Instead of brainwashing children with the tired old doctrines concocted centuries ago why not let them discover their own sense of the spiritual/religious. Go for a hike alone in the mountains or visit a planetarium and see the scale and power of the universe. But god? How did we ever fool ourselves! Although we like to think we are complex and something special we are just frail animals in a world that is awe-inspiring.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The idiots don't understand the difference between a florist not wanting to do something and a government official refusal to follow the law.

That is what makes them idiots.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

She broke the law, the penalty was imprisonment. If she doesn't want anything to do with same sex marriage she should get a new job.

Just what "law" do you think she broke? She did not issue licenses to straight couples either. If she had then I would agree, technically the only thing she did was refuse a judges order which as previously noted, is contempt of court.

She did not "break the law"

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Kim Davis, Kentucky clerk who fought gay marriage didn't fight anything.

Kim Davis simply replaced the law with her own private religion, at taxpayer expense.

Only those who wish to live under a theocracy cheer Ms. Davis' predictable and well-coached piety, at taxpayer expense.

Ludacris clowning for the dim witted, at taxpayer expense. Thanks again GOP-Tea, well played. Is there a pattern here?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

.Not in jail. Anyone can be throwin in jail without due process. Glad each state behave differently.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If Davis wants to be consistent she would refuse a marriage license for anyone who has sinned, which would limit the number of applications to zero since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Davis had four options: Issue the license, have someone else issue it, resign, or go to jail. She chose to go to jail, which, unlike Rosa Parks to whom she is being compared, makes her look more like a religious fanatic than a martyr. Removal of her name from the marriage licenses would be a good compromise.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Kim Davis draws an annual salary of $80,000.00, (9,619,207.90 JPY)

Ms. Davis has enough money to harass the gay married in her spare time.

She, instead, chose to use taxpayer compensation to enforce her private religion over the dictates of the US Supreme Court. Nicely played Ms. Davis. Do they teach about the separation of Church and State in Kentucky?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the U.S. constitution, and the constitution grants no powers to the federal government that are not mentioned therein.

Exactly right. The Federal government is wrong to impose law upon the states. Firstly, the federal courts are not empowered to legislate. Also protected classes are founded through Constitutional amendment, not judicial dictate. The gay marriage ruling is in direct conflict with first amendment religious conscience rights and it forces those with moral objections into an unwanted association through a government sanctioned institution.

Now it is impossible of course to undo what has been done. So the only Constitutionally correct solution is to privatize marriage by eliminating government from any role in sanctioning any type of 'marriage.' Doing so will return the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and will not interfere will with homosexuals right to legally associate. The added benefit is that there can then be real marriage equality whereby any two or more people without any restrictions can freely create the family that they want and not what the government says you can have.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The Federal government is wrong to impose law upon the states.

The federal government is not imposing "law" on the states. The supreme court put out a ruling, in regards to a case brought from a lower court regarding same sex marriage, and they ruled in favor of the plaintiff saying in effect, that the law banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional.

It is up to the states to make their own laws, but they won't make laws banning same sex marriage because they know it would be over turned by the supreme court.

It is not the federal government,

5 ( +5 / -0 )

When ignorance and anger finally fail to solve the problem; education is the only answer left.

A good illustration of just how whoopee pie these pious idiots are, at every election cycle, unfortunately.

It is as if the GOP-Tea simply cannot do better than some unpleasant person grabbing the mic yelling their prejudice or faith or ignorance, or all three.

We hope Ms. Davis enjoys her new work with Walmart since she seems unable to understand the laws she swore to uphold. What a sad, sad little person, pathetic actually.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@wipeout and smith,

It`s ridiculous! Throw people in jail for such dumb things. You people and your hypocrisy. Sanctuary Cities Mayors break the law all the time and not a peep. Pick and choose eh?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It`s ridiculous! Throw people in jail for such dumb things

You dont understand the process if you think she was thrown in jail for refusing to authorize marriage licenses.

She was NOT sent to jail for that, she WAS sent to jail for refusing to adhere to the orders of a judge. In America there are many instances where people have been tossed in jail for refusing a judges orders, it's called being in contempt of court.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Yubaru,

It`s silly.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wolfpack: The Federal government is wrong to impose law upon the states.

You are defending a bigot. All the law debates will never, ever change that fact. Stop trying to hurt homosexuals and just get on with your life.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Wolfpack: The Federal government is wrong to impose law upon the states.

This 'states rights' argument deserves closer scrutiny. If you look at its rhetorical history in America, one would be hard pressed to find contexts in which this line of reasoning is not used to defend discriminatory behavior, or at least cultural habits that tend toward the protection of the status quo, that which is acceptable by the majority, or at least its most influential defenders.

I understand that too much power in the hands of centralized authority can be dangerous (e.g. in suppression of the press, nationwide unionization, etc), but I would like to hear from Wolfpack (or people sympathetic to such line of reasoning) why in the case of same sex marriage states rights becomes an issue of moral imperative.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Yubaru, It`s silly.

So then if your logic is to be followed people can do what ever they wish based upon their own personal beliefs?

Your logic suggests then that ISIS beheading Christians is fine, because they are following their beliefs, THAT is Christian persecution. Kim Davis, is a hypocritical woman who just wants to force HER beliefs on everyone else.

That is silly. As a public servant making 80K per year, her job is to follow the law, if she cant do her job...QUIT.

It really is that simple.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@pointofview

It`s ridiculous! Throw people in jail for such dumb things. You people and your hypocrisy.

You are feigning ignorance of contempt of court (and the definition of "hypocrisy", come to that), which can be applied in any case where a person refuses to accept the authority of the court. The punishment is intentionally severe for reasons that ought to be obvious to any person capable of rational thought, but for those who still don't get it, it is so that the application of court decisions is not subject to the whim of the individual. You are supposed to definitely not want to be found in contempt: that's the whole idea.

While you can pretend not to have been aware until now of this thing called "contempt of court", and try to get some mileage out of it, Davis should have been (and let's face it, certainly was) advised by her lawyers of the seriousness and the consequences and the foolishness of not complying with a court order.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

intellectually challenged people on the plane

And you are being overly generous here too!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Here's the problem, without malice; If states can vote to legalize pot, by virtue of popular vote, in spite of Federal Law prohibiting... and that Federal agency looks the other way; then if the voters in any state vote NOT to legalize gay marriage, Federal courts have violated voters rights in overriding any popular consensus of said voters. THAT is NOT democracy. It's law that caters to the few and sets a dangerous precedent. To accept the courts decision, is the same as in-validating the will of The People. Amerika should just trash voting period, and let the courts decide every aspect of their puny and ignorant lives. @SuperLib, Wolfpack is correct in dissenting, expressing their own (Wolfpacks) CONSTITUTIONAL right as declared in Independence. ... "for the people", my ass. I agree that she indeed knew the parameters of the job when she took it; and that does NOT include her personal Supreme decision.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It pleases me to no small degree that blinkered conservatives are rushing to defend ugly Kim Davis. [Here, ugly means her heart] Here's why:

An honest person can easily recognize the constitutionality of LGBT rights, and what to do when those rights conflict with the 1st Amendment is simply unclear. Said another way: the answer does not lie within the four corners of the constitution.

Where does the answer lie? Well, within the political process and the history of the court. And to no small degree with the common decency of the American people. Americans don't like it when people can't live as they wish. Here, we have a conflict between one American's right to live, and another Americans right to not approve of that.

But Kim Davis is ugly. She is a recent zealot with a foul mouth, with more than her fair share of checkered past who thinks she takes orders from god, but gladly takes her paycheck from the public purse. We have a word for people like her:

Ugly hypocritical bigot.

But stupid right wing defenders of ugly little Kim Davis are hurting their argument. Because Kim Davis is ugly. And because she is a public employee.

And so is not a poster girl for their cause.

And I'm lovni' it.

Because the stupid conservatives are making her their poster girl.

Fools.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

She is kind of American version of Samurai ...She is a HERO.

No, it's called fanaticism when people like her make judgements like this on others based on their own personal religious beliefs. She can believe homosexuality is a sin all she wants, that is her right. But she (and her ilk) do not seem to comprehend that judgement of "sin" should be left to the divine, not her or the rest of mankind. When she purposefully interfered with affairs of the state and the lives of others due to her religious belief she overstepped her rights and those of others.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@wipeout and yubaru,

You sound as radical as her.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

This is a VERY interesting read for the more open-minded among us... Most will understand the similarities involved...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You sound as radical as her.

Radical? If believing that people should have their right to choose who they want to get married to as being "radical" then please feel free to call me such, it's an honor.

To those that hide behind their "religion" and judge others and then force their beliefs on everyone else as well, then I call them dumb, and ignorant, from the low, low, low, end of the gene pool. The one's that will be weeded out by evolution.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You sound as radical as her.

For explaining a point of law? Only to someone living in a decidedly weird alternative reality.

Try a second opinion next time you have the ear of a lawyer or a law student or even just someone moderately educated with no axe to grind. Ask them what contempt of court is, expressed in the simplest possible terms, the smallest number of words, and the fewest possible sentences.

Done correctly, this will take them about 12 seconds, by which point, you will have been presented with an exact description of the action for which Davis was punished (that part is 4 to 6 seconds' worth, the other category of contempt does not apply to her case). Any citizen who is the subject of legal proceedings can be punished exactly as she was. If you have the tiniest doubt about that, do a search on "failure to pay alimony".

A lawyer would be professionally obliged to advise their client, who, having been ruled against in a court case, was considering flouting the ruling, that it would constitute contempt, that punishment would be inevitable, and that it would be severe. No lawyer in their right mind would advise her to ignore a ruling of the court.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No lawyer in their right mind would advise her to ignore a ruling of the court.

Only a Christian fundamentalist lawyer would. (If one even exists.....)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@SuperLib

You are defending a bigot. All the law debates will never, ever change that fact. Stop trying to hurt homosexuals and just get on with your life.

You are defending bigotry yourself when you agree with imprisoning a person for their religious beliefs or simply their moral belief that homosexual 'marriage' is not marriage. This is what even Obama believed until just a few years ago. Where is freedom of conscience when a person is compelled to endorse the sexual practices and lifestyles of others? So instead of accommodation for the first amendment right of religious freedom you assert the non-existing right of homosexual marriage as preeminent. Stop trying to hurt people that are religious and get on with your life. But this is typical of the Left. To obey the law or not is optional depending upon whether it suits their political or ideological goals.

I am not even a religious person and even I can see what a terrible injustice that is going on with respect to religious freedom. Furthermore, gay marriage is not even marriage equality because it excludes so many others such as bisexuals, bigamists, polygamous, etc.). Read the text of the first amendment. Taking someone's freedom and threatening their job and livelihood over their religious views is in direct contradiction to the words written in the first amendment of the Constitution. It is wrong.

I am okay with gay marriage as-long-as it is not used as a lever to overturn the rights of non-homosexuals. Therefore, marriage should be converted into a private contract of the likes of any other private business, real estate, or other contract. The governments role should be to adjudicate differences over the agreed upon contract and not to control the definition of marriage for all. Why should the government get to decide who can love one another?

In a free country people should be allowed to have a diverse view of the world. They should be allowed to live their lives as they wish. The way the court is interpreting the law makes this impossible. It is an attempt to eliminate people of faith from participating in their own nations government. To force everyone to agree with the moral views of others or risk imprisonment when there are ways to accommodate everyone is merely political oppression. America is turning into a nation of thought police where every deviation from the politically established norms are dealt with harshly. Is this really what the Left wants? I do not see how such a society cannot but destroy itself.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You are defending bigotry yourself when you agree with imprisoning a person for their religious beliefs or simply their moral belief that homosexual 'marriage' is not marriage.

That's really NOT why she was jailed. If you don't know that by now... you're being purposely obtuse.

To say that christians, or religious people are under attack is just laughable.

America is turning into a nation of thought police where every deviation from the politically established norms are dealt with harshly.

Wildly, amusingly, hysterical. But if you truly believe that, there's still time for you to escape. I hear Russia is nice this time of year.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just what "law" do you think she broke? She did not issue licenses to straight couples either. If she had then I would agree, technically the only thing she did was refuse a judges order which as previously noted, is contempt of court. She did not "break the law"

@Yubaru. Yes, she did. What gives contempt of court it's legal standing? The law. You think CoC is just something judges make up? They have the legal framework to use it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Yubaru. Yes, she did. What gives contempt of court it's legal standing? The law. You think CoC is just something judges make up? They have the legal framework to use it.

Taken in the context you wrote here, sure she did, but go back and read the entire thread, the supposition made was that she was jailed for refusing to do her job. That is not the case, she was jailed for refusing the judge.

Either way, she screwed up and she deserves the punishment meted out. Personally speaking if I was the judge, she still be in jail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The majority of Americans think she should have been arrested, and also fired.

Ha!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I respect everyone's right to have their own opinions. Ethnology teaches people to respect even weirdest customs, so why all the racket about a woman who tries to live by the rules of her religion. Oh, I forgot - everyone on the Internet blames religion for all evil on Earth.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

She's obviously passionate about what she believes in, but she should look for another line of work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gcbel That's really NOT why she was jailed. If you don't know that by now... you're being purposely obtuse.

When she says that she objects on religious grounds and the judge puts in in jail for objecting it's pretty clear that it is because of her religion. Saying that she is jailed simply because she is not obeying the law and not taking into consideration the reason is a willful disregard for the facts. You could say it is obtuse.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

When she says that she objects on religious grounds and the judge puts in in jail for objecting it's pretty clear that it is because of her religion.

Always supremely amusing how you try and play with words. No, the poor woman was not "imprisoned for her religious beliefs". She was jailed for refusing to comply with the court's order that she issue the marriage licenses. If she can't do her job she should've resigned, stood down... She chose not to do her job, she didn't comply, that's why she went to jail. Doesn't matter if the reason she refused to do her job was because of her religious belief. That she refused to comply because of her religious beliefs does not equate to she was jailed for her beliefs.

Bottom line - she was not jailed for believing that same sex marriage is against God's law.

And, to paraphrase Black Sabbath - nobody's buying it.

Again, to say that Christians are under attack in America is flat out ridiculous.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

She refuses to do her job, disobeys court orders, refuses to quit despite not doing her job and demands to keep getting paid.. I say jail her again -.-"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites