Third Party & Independents Archives

What an Oath of Office Means in Kentucky

George Washington added “So help me God” in his acceptance of the oath of the presidency of the United States, according to Washington Irving, a six-year old at the time of the swearing in. The evidence is unclear, but it may be that after Washington and until Lincoln, the phrase was dropped. It was Lincoln in 1861 who ordered all federal civilian employees to take an oath in support of the Union. This became the basis for currrent-day oaths. And the basis for elected official Kim Davis to be sentenced to jail for contempt of court, regarding her continued refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay - and then to all - couples in Kentucky. And it was Lincoln who appended “So Help me God” to his acceptance of the Oath in 1865, and who kissed the Bible afterwards as Washington himself had done.

This is not a minor issue of faith confronting civil liberties. How could it be when faith vs. civil liberties is the great fault line in American law and politics? Yes Kim Davis has multiple marriages in her past before her conversion, and sanctuary cities defiance of federal laws have resulted in the tragic shooting - at least in part - in San Francisco. There is clearly hypocrisy in those who denounce Davis, but cheer other forms of civil disobedience. But this is bigger than those fights, as angry and nasty as they can be. This is about Congress' power to jail and fine those who disobey its dictates. Civil contempt power gives federal judges the right to do exactly what a Chicago judge did to a Kentucky local official. That cuts across state rights and the issue of the Supreme Court overruling local state constitutions. The ACLU asked for Davis to be fined rather than jailed, fearing the judgment would shine too bright a light on Kim Davis and turn her into a martyr. Joe Dunman, who represents the same-sex couple, did not ask for incarceration either. But Judge Bunning stated "Oaths mean things."

What Oath did Kim Davis take? It required her to swear to a list of things:
- The Constitution of the United States
- The Constitution of This Commonwealth (Kentucky)
- be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky
- faithfully execute the office of (clerk) according to law
- and ends with "so help me God"

When this list - leaving aside a curiosity on duels - no longer binds individual states and the nation together towards a single shared goal, things get divisive to say the least. Like in 1861, when Lincoln required an expanded oath of obedience to the Union. Clearly we are not, nor will be, anywhere near that point. But for Kim Davis she must feel like she's in the crossfire of that very fault line that divides faith from civil liberties. Was jail necessary? It seems there are 4 options going forward for Kim Davis:

According to SCOTUS' 2011 Turner v. Rogers: "Once a civil contemnor complies with the underlying order, he is purged of the contempt and is free." She can issue marriage licenses to gay couples, in other words, and "purge" herself of the contempt.
As an elected official Kim Davis could theoretically be impeached.
As an elected official Kim Davis could resign in the face of her beliefs.
Kim Davis could remain in jail as a prisoner of conscience, or a political prisoner according to her supporters.
None of the choices Kim Davis faces are easy ones. Nor should they be. This issue is far too important. If she chooses to remain in jail by refusing the other 3 options, will a judge somewhere decide an elected official in a sanctuary-city who defies the law should also be jailed? Kim Davis' case has forced that possibility into the open.

Posted by AllardK at September 8, 2015 2:16 PM
Comments
Comment #398251

Her choice seemed to be; contempt of court or contempt of God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2015 2:32 PM
Comment #398256

RF,
Or she could have resigned if she felt doing her job violated her conscience.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #398257

Warren, her job didn’t violate her conscience until a court ruled otherwise.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #398258

Warren, I can cite numerous examples of our executive branch violating the laws of this nation with impunity. We have become a lawless nation. Hillary will not change this course if elected. I believe another liberal democrat in the Oval Office will only accelerate our lawlessness.

Americans yearn for a return to law and order. Perhaps they believe a president Trump, Carson or Cruz will work toward this end.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 8, 2015 7:29 PM
Comment #398259

Prosecutorial discretion is not the same as abrogating people’s unalienable rights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2015 8:19 PM
Comment #398261
- The Constitution of the United States - The Constitution of This Commonwealth (Kentucky) - be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky - faithfully execute the office of (clerk) according to law - and ends with “so help me God”


There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about marriage.
The Consitution of Kentucky only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman.
She is faithfully executing the office of the clerk according to the law.

I’m glad you recognized she is refusing to sign any marriage licences, instead of adding gay marriage as the only qualifier. Perhaps that is what the focus should be on. Should she be jailed for not signing any marriage licenses?
Would it even be an issue if the media didn’t focus only on licenses for gay people?

Why then wasn’t it brought up when Alabama discontinued licensing marriage? What about Mississippi or Louisiana having discontinued issuing marriage licenses? Why aren’t those clerks in jail?

Because there is no law that allows gays to marry.

This is a media generated farce perpetrated by gay people in an effort to force people to do their bidding. It was well said this would happen. Now that it has the motive must be hidden in a veil of misinformation to make it appear legitimate.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2015 11:33 PM
Comment #398263
She is faithfully executing the office of the clerk according to the law.

No, she is violating this law

The Consitution of Kentucky only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Which is the supreme law of the land? The Constitution of Kentucky or the US Constitution?

Perhaps that is what the focus should be on. Should she be jailed for not signing any marriage licenses?
That is precisely why she was jailed. Because she failed to follow the law when she refused to grant marriage licenses to people eligible to marry in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Would it even be an issue if the media didn’t focus only on licenses for gay people?

Why then wasn’t it brought up when Alabama discontinued licensing marriage? What about Mississippi or Louisiana having discontinued issuing marriage licenses? Why aren’t those clerks in jail?


Gay activists filmed Kim Davis’ shenanigans and those videos have become widely viewed in social media, so that is why the focus is on Rowan County instead of other jurisdictions, but I assure you that the public would treat similar antics by other clerks the exact same way if those antics were brought to the forefront.
Because there is no law that allows gays to marry.
In the District of Columbia, there’s no law that protects an individual’s right to own firearms outside of the context of a well-regulated militia, but DC v. Heller remains the law of the land.
This is a media generated farce perpetrated by gay people in an effort to force people to do their bidding.
Nobody is being forced to do anything apart from the deputy clerks in Rowan County who were forbidden from obeying the law by Kim Davis. If Davis’ conscience is violated by her issuance of marriage licences to some people then the honorable thing to do would be to resign the office or provide a means for her deputies to take care of those licences in her stead. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 8:43 AM
Comment #398264

How does she obey the law when there is no “female”?

You also can’t bring the 14th amendment into the conversation because she is not discriminating against some while accommodating others.

It’s odd how liberals can ignore the constitution when it goes against what they want, and then wholeheartedly throw their support behind the constitution when it suits them.

I’ll just file this issue in the hypocrisy folder. The big, fat hypocrisy folder.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 10:01 AM
Comment #398265
How does she obey the law when there is no “female”?

Kim Davis refused to grant licences to lesbians and heterosexual couples, both of which involve females.

You also can’t bring the 14th amendment into the conversation because she is not discriminating against some while accommodating others.

You also can’t bring Kentucky’s laws defining marriage as one man and one woman into the conversation either. Plainly apparent, Kentucky law does not grant a county clerk discretion regarding the issuance of marriage licences. “Shall issue” means shall issue.

It’s odd how liberals can ignore the constitution when it goes against what they want
It’s odd how conservatives keep claiming liberals ignore the Constitution when we are the only ones who actually follow what it says!
I’ll just file this issue in the hypocrisy folder. The big, fat hypocrisy folder.
Don’t get too dizzy, Willie. Let me know when you’ve stopped spinning and returned to reality. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 10:31 AM
Comment #398266

“It’s odd how conservatives keep claiming liberals ignore the Constitution when we are the only ones who actually follow what it says!”

That is the funniest thing I have read on this site in a loooooong time, Warren.

Posted by: kctim at September 9, 2015 10:51 AM
Comment #398267

Marriage is a state issue. Democratics have been ignoring the 10th amendment for a very long time. You go so far as to combat the 10th amendment with a perversion of the supremacy clause.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Congress has passed no law defining marriage. The 14th amendment does not apply because there is no discrimination.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 11:21 AM
Comment #398271

I stand corrected. The federal government passed a law called The Defense of Marriage Act.

defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

The nine gods claim it is unconstitutional, not because it goes against the constitution because there is no mention of marriage in the constitution, but because it is a huge bribe of the gay community with benefits.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 11:32 AM
Comment #398272

DOMA and Kentucky’s laws violate the 14th Amendment, which states (emphasis mine):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Reserving an institution such as marriage for one group of people and abridging it for another is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment’s protection of each person’s right to “the equal protection of the laws”.

The nine gods claim it is unconstitutional, not because it goes against the constitution because there is no mention of marriage in the constitution, but because it is a huge bribe of the gay community with benefits.
In DC v. Heller, those same “gods” created an individual right to own firearms even though the Constitution only mentions the ownership of arms within the context of a well-regulated militia. Should I conclude that this was the result of “a huge bribe from the gun community with benefits”? Of course not. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 12:06 PM
Comment #398273

“the equal protection of the laws”

No one was discriminated against in favor of another. The media is making this out to be discrimination against gay people when, in fact, the clerk denied licenses to everyone. Everyone was treated equally.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It is written in the constitution. There is no such amendment in the constitution for gay marriage or even marriage in general. Your argument concerning the Heller case is a red herring.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 12:33 PM
Comment #398275

The basic problem is that the SC created a law. That is unconstitutional. No court can create a law. There is nothing more to argue.

One can use all the phrases, nuances, platitudes, etc. to present their case. But there is nothing to present. Only a vacuum or void that somebody, usually lawyers, try to perform impossible functions to make their equally invalid presentation.

Posted by: tom humes at September 9, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #398279

Most of what is wrong with this country is the squeaky wheel being greased by a overly compliant supreme court.

The latest example is the gay thing. What was once considered an abnormal sickness is now being considered normal by the court using force to make it so. It matters not to the court if a huge majority of people consider homosexuality wrong. It matters not to the court if states have spoken against it.

This is not how women gained equality. This is not how 18 year old people gained equality. Their status was gained by amending the constitution by the legislatures of the many states, as it should be.

What we have in this case and in the case of corporations being considered people is judicial tyranny. It is nothing less. It will continue to be so until only the courts govern this nation, or the people put the courts and judges back in their rightful place.

The question is which will it be?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #398280
No one was discriminated against in favor of another.

Correct. But you justify Davis’ actions by claiming she was merely following KY law when in fact, the law quite clearly states that clerks are compelled to issue licences to any eligible couple who asks for one.

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment protects the right of members of well-regulated militia to bear arms, but not the right of Dick Heller to a handgun registration. Because the Constitution is a living document, the Supreme Court was able to expand that right and establish that any individual has the right to bear arms. In Tom Humes’ language, “the SC created a law”.
The basic problem is that the SC created a law. That is unconstitutional. No court can create a law. There is nothing more to argue.
So would you argue that the Court acted improperly when it ruled that DC’s restriction on handguns was unconstitutional? Established precedent for many decades has held that the 2nd amendment only protected the right to bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia. However, the Court decided to toss out that precedent and introduce a new one of its own making. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 4:36 PM
Comment #398281
This is not how women gained equality. This is not how 18 year old people gained equality. Their status was gained by amending the constitution by the legislatures of the many states, as it should be.

The Constitution was amended on July 28, 1868.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #398282

Thank you for conceding the 14th amendment doesn’t apply. What does apply is KY law which states a marriage is between a man and a woman. She is also standing on her 1st amendment right to practice her religious beliefs that are not to be set aside at the whim of the federal government.

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”

That is in the second amendment. It doesn’t say the right for a militia to keep and bear arms. Your second amendment argument is still fallacious.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #398283

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th Amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #398284
What does apply is KY law which states a marriage is between a man and a woman.

No it doesn’t because Davis failed to provide licences to heterosexual couples.

She is also standing on her 1st amendment right to practice her religious beliefs that are not to be set aside at the whim of the federal government.

The 1st amendment protects the right of some pacifists to not bear arms in wartime. However, it does not give those people the right to work for the military in a position they cannot fulfill due to personal conscience.

That is in the second amendment
No, it isn’t. The 2nd amendment is 27 words long. What you shared is scarcely half that. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #398285

Yes, it is. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people can’t hardly form a militia if they don’t have arms, now can they? That discussion is moot.

You want your cake and you want to eat it, too. What would have been the discussion if she provided licenses to normal couples and not to gay couples?
Liberals would have hung the entire conservative movement out to dry.

What she did was to take the 14th amendment out of the equation. She stands on her 1st amendment rights to practice her religious beliefs. The people in her county can hold her responsible because they are the one’s who elected her. The people in her state passed the law she will not break. You, or the nine gods have no business in this issue. Or, no dog in this hunt, as the Democratic president who signed the DOMA says.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 5:49 PM
Comment #398286

WP
A well regulated militia needs to be defined by the terms used at the time the Constitution was written. There was little or no military at that time. So the way the phrasing is done needs to be explored and understood by the writers of that amendment. That old argument has been weather beaten and mangled to death. Much like most of the southpaw interpretations of laws, rules, constitutions, and just plain idiotic writings that some try to make themselves look intelligent and know all there is to know about history, society, mankind, etc.

Posted by: tom humes at September 9, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #398287
A well regulated militia needs to be defined by the terms used at the time the Constitution was written. There was little or no military at that time. So the way the phrasing is done needs to be explored and understood by the writers of that amendment. That old argument has been weather beaten and mangled to death. Much like most of the southpaw interpretations of laws, rules, constitutions, and just plain idiotic writings that some try to make themselves look intelligent and know all there is to know about history, society, mankind, etc.

Precisely correct. Times have changed since the 2nd Amendment was originally adopted and the Constitution has evolved such that nowadays we consider the right of well-regulated militia to bear arms to encompass the right of individuals to bear arms as well. Isn’t it great we have a tradition of judicial case law in this country?

You want your cake and you want to eat it, too. What would have been the discussion if she provided licenses to normal couples and not to gay couples? Liberals would have hung the entire conservative movement out to dry.

No, you are the one who wants his cake and eat it too. If Davis issued licences to the heterosexual couples, but not to the normal* ones then those couples denied licences would have had their 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law abridged.

Basically, Kim Davis had 4 options:
A: Issue licenses to all eligible couples
B: Issue licenses to no one
C: Issue licences to heterosexual couples only
D: Resign her office

Option B violates Kentucky law and option C violates the 14th amendment. This means on options A or D can be taken by a law-abiding citizen. Kim Davis instead chose the path of criminal and picked option B. The fact that option C is also a criminal option does not justify anything.

*Not a typo, but rather a pejorative statement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #398288

She chose option B. Which leaves it up to the people of Ky to decide, not the SC.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 7:01 PM
Comment #398290
She chose option B. Which leaves it up to the people of Ky to decide, not the SC.

It wasn’t the SC that held Davis in contempt of court. The ACLU of Kentucky filed a lawsuit according to 42 U.S. Code § 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

And also according to 28 U.S. Code § 1331:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Miller v. Davis has proceeded through the courts as ordained by law. Davis has been afforded her due process at each step along the way.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 7:42 PM
Comment #398291

The original case was filed in the U.S. District court. It went before Bunning first.

The case was prompted by the ACLU, after the SC decision, in a staged event to set up Kim Davis because KY passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman.

She was charged with contempt of court. No law was broken. Not in KY, not in the U.S.

To say she was afforded due process at each step is completely false. There was only one step and it started in the U.S. District court.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 8:40 PM
Comment #398293

“What she did was to take the 14th amendment out of the equation. She stands on her 1st amendment rights to practice her religious beliefs.”

It is an absurdity to argue that the individual beliefs of one public official trumps the Constitutional rights of all citizens.

If we were to accept this argument, then any individual public official could thwart the Constitutional intent that all citizens had the right to equal protection under the law and that privileges of the law extended equally to all without discrimination. The Constitution would be a meaningless document.

The very idea makes a mockery of the 1st Amendment, let alone the 14th. It turns the 1st Amendment on its head. In essence, it is argued that the religious beliefs of one government official can be imposed on the general citizenry. I don’t know about you, but I always thought that the 1st Amendment was designed to avoid the imposition of religious beliefs by government on citizens.

Posted by: Rich at September 9, 2015 8:45 PM
Comment #398294
The original case was filed in the U.S. District court. It went before Bunning first.

Which is exactly how it ought to have been done according to the laws that I cited above.

She was charged with contempt of court. No law was broken. Not in KY, not in the U.S.

Again. KY law requires clerks such as Davis to issue marriage licences to all eligible couples who request one. Davis broke that law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 9, 2015 8:50 PM
Comment #398295

I will concede the fact she neglected to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples. However, she did not discriminate in doing so. Just as you said, she neglected to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples. Therefore the 14th doesn’t apply. It is a state issue and the U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws

How many times must it be said that marriage isn’t in the constitution? There are no laws at the federal level that guarantee a right to gay marriage. If fact, it is just the opposite. DOMA reinforces traditional marriage and protects it. The SC infringed on that law in the absence of any constitutional right to do so.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2015 9:20 PM
Comment #398298
Therefore the 14th doesn’t apply. It is a state issue and the U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.

I’ll be perfectly honest. I’m not a lawyer and I do not completely understand why this was done in a Federal Court rather than a KY one. At most, I can guess that the Constitutional argument in the lawsuit probably utilizes the 9th amendment and the centuries of case law establishing marriage as a fundamental right.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 8:50 AM
Comment #398299

On second thought, I looked up the complaint filed by the ACLU in KY. The complaint does not rely on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but rather on the due process clause. In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that the denial of their requests for marriage licences was a violation of substantive due process.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2015 9:10 AM
Comment #398300

It was brought in federal court since the suit alleged violations of a federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983) for deprivation of a right or privilege guaranteed under the Constitution by a government official. The factual basis alleged for the suit was the Clerk’s own statements that she would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples due to her religious beliefs. She attempted to avoid that specific issue by refusing to issue any marriage licenses. So, the suit added a heterosexual couple to the suit as additional parties whose right to marry has been infringed by the actions of the Clerk.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2015 9:31 AM
Comment #398301

This is what happens when the Federal government gets to much into peoples lives. The SCOTUS opened a big can of worms when they ruled the way they did. IMO marriage should be a STATES issue. As far as the Davis case she is just a pawn to see how far the gay community can take their cause.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 10, 2015 9:55 AM
Comment #398302

This is saying the KY constitution doesn’t apply because it violates the due process clause. Due process applies to any government action against a person.

Do you believe two heterosexual men can marry? Would two heterosexual men be denied due process if they applied for a marriage license and were denied?

As far as due process is concerned, I see no difference between two homosexual men and two heterosexual men if the objective is to form a binding agreement between the two to form a family or household and to claim the benefits of that agreement.

What of two brothers entering into an agreement/marriage? Would they be denied due process if they claimed each others SS benefits? Are we ready to go that route?

If the court is willing to open those flood gates they must open them all the way. If marriage is meaningless then it must be equally meaningless across the board. You can’t say it pertains to a certain instance and then say it doesn’t pertain to a relatively equal instance. If you do then what’s the point of having the distinction at all?


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2015 9:56 AM
Comment #398311

Don’t be crazy Kap?

“IMO marriage should be a STATES issue.”

If liberals hadn’t negated the power of the states, how else would they force their beliefs, policy and way of life onto Constitutional and freedom loving individuals who disagree with them?

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2015 12:00 PM
Comment #398312

Yep,kctim, it’s the only way the liberal minority can get their way.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 10, 2015 12:05 PM
Comment #398316

Where in the bible dos it say “Do not signed ,marriage papers for gay marriages” or words to that affect? Certainly not in the 10 commandments. I am not seeing any religious beliefs violated here , no one is asking her to marry a women against her will, right?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 1:22 PM
Comment #398317
, I can cite numerous examples of our executive branch violating the laws of this nation with impunity. We have become a lawless nation.

SO what Royal are you suggesting two wrongs make a right? This gross exaggeration about the executive office… oh you mean … like selling weapons to Iran and using the money to violate the law. But do you really think we should allow this clerk, who seems to me to be using religion to persecute others, to have here way because Reagan violated the law, is that what you are saying?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #398321

j2, No where, but it does call gay practices an abomination in both old and new testament. That is where the sincerely held religious beliefs come from, and the belief that she is condoning the practice by signing the licenses. Two things could be done, 1) She resigns her position, or 2) The state changes regulation by allowing someone else who does not have any religious convections to sigh the licenses.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 10, 2015 1:43 PM
Comment #398323

3. Eliminate any government involvement in marriage altogether.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2015 2:10 PM
Comment #398324

Exactly W.W.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 10, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment #398325

Rich writes; “It is an absurdity to argue that the individual beliefs of one public official trumps the Constitutional rights of all citizens.”

Well yes it is Rich…and yet, obama does it routinely.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment #398327
No where, but it does call gay practices an abomination in both old and new testament.

So don’t do gay practices which would violate religious were one forced to do so against their will. “Thou shall not kill” one of the big ten yet she would allow military personnel the right to marry? “Thou shall not commit adultery”, which evidently she has done, is yet another of the big 10 yet she would allow herself 4 shots at marriage! How does she know the couple she refuses to get a license to marry hasn’t been saved as she claims to be? This interference of one’s religion into the affairs of government is a conundrum when one is so selective in one’s belief. Seems to me she is using her religion to persecute others.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2015 2:36 PM
Comment #398329

“Thou shall not kill” one of the big ten…”

“Thou shall not murder.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 2:41 PM
Comment #398331

j2, Since your religious knowledge is limited to liberal B.S. I will give you a pass. Did she give licenses to certain people? The answer to that is NO! Her past life is just that PAST. Maybe you should read the bible before you make ridiculous comments.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 10, 2015 2:47 PM
Comment #398336

In the early days of Watchblog, I predicted there would be a day when gay marriage would be legal, and we would look upon the time preceding it similarly to the way we look upon the time prior to the Civil Rights movement and desegregation.

It is remarkably similar how the waning arguments opposing gay marriage are similar to the arguments made against desegregation. As I watched Kim Davis on the doorsteps of the Courthouse, I am reminded of George Wallace on the steps of the University of Alabama. The difference I suppose is that George Wallace stepped aside knowing when to end his symbolic gesture.

Posted by: Cube at September 10, 2015 3:30 PM
Comment #398337

I am reminded of a time when the Supreme Court ruled that slavery, segregation and American Japanese citizen confinement were all legal.

The SC is not infallible nor are their rulings irreversible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 10, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #398344

I remember a time when congress passed laws that led to these kinds of changes.

I just talked to my neighbor. He’s an old guy, like me. We’ve come to an agreement. We’re going to get married. We’re going to take advantage of the benefits of being married

Taking current events into account, I don’t foresee a problem with this plan.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2015 6:11 PM
Comment #398348

The most popular Halloween costume this season will be dressing up as Kim Davis and carrying a white cross and a stake. I have no idea how a stake comes into it. But if young people think your political opinions are so funny it is worth masquerading as this person, then maybe, just maybe, you might want to rethink this thing.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2015 11:38 PM
Comment #398349

Cube, gay marriage is still illegal in most states.

I’m also not sure what the benefits of desegregation were. There’s been no real improvements in the inner cities, in fact they’re worse off than before desegregation. The family has disintegrated since desegregation.

What are the tangible benefits of desegregation, other than to provide an opportunity for old, white guys to crow about accomplishing something?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2015 11:39 PM
Comment #398350

That’s quite a contradiction there, phx8! Did you come up with that all by yourself, or do you want to embarrass someone else?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2015 11:43 PM
Comment #398351

Royal, its pretty clear in the King James bible.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-20/


j2, Since your religious knowledge is limited to liberal B.S. I will give you a pass.

I don’t need no pass KAP I can read, thou shall not kill.

Did she give licenses to certain people? The answer to that is NO!

You lost me here KAP what are you saying?

Her past life is just that PAST. Maybe you should read the bible before you make ridiculous comments.

Maybe you should KAP, perhaps “let ye without sin cast the first stone” would be apropos in this case. Or perhaps you prefer “why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Seems it is Kim Davis that should study the bible a bit before judging someone else. Or as the bible says “judge not lest ye be judged”. Which of course was my “ridiculous ” point to begin with KAP.

BTW KAP, why not answer the question why should these bogus religious rights claims be a reason to not issue a license to gays?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2015 12:54 AM
Comment #398355

Rich KAPitan, ask him why he thinks religious rights are bogus.

Ask him why religious rights claims shouldn’t be a reason.

I’ll bet dimes to donuts he won’t answer you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2015 3:08 AM
Comment #398356

Let’s say a gay county clerk will not issue a marriage license to someone like Kim Davis because he believes her religion is an “abomination”. Their belief is grounded in their honest perception that this religion is holding a position that is in direct conflict with their life style.

What protections are offered to protect citizens from using their perception of others to then make prejudicial decisions that impairs someone’s ability to gain a contract of marriage? It is laws, laws that are decided upon by the use of jurisprudence and the respect of the rights of others.

I sincerely believe that their is a vastness to our great country that allows the gay county clerk and a devoutly religious person to coexist. But only laws will allow that to happen.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2015 9:34 AM
Comment #398359

j2, Why are religious rights bogus? Why shouldn’t religious rights be a reason? BTW j2 she didn’t just not issue marriage licenses to gays, she quit issuing them altogether.
Speaks, I believe gay clerks and religious clerks can co exist also, we accommodate people in many areas I’m sure we can accommodate county clerks in their sincere beliefs. I’m sure if the clerk were Islamic there would be no problem.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 10:32 AM
Comment #398361

But would you support the Islamic county clerk’s decision to not issue a marriage license for religious reasons as vehemently as you do for a Christian county clerk? Would you be willing to support and accommodate the Islamic county clerk with the same vehemence?

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2015 11:25 AM
Comment #398362

YEP sure would speaks, and I would support the same for the gay clerk or an athiest. I don’t believe religious rights or whatever rights are bogus like some people on this blog.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 12:08 PM
Comment #398363

And then where do the accommodations end? Do we simply attempt to accommodate everyone’s wishes and desires with laws? Isn’t that a bit against the grain of most conservatives? Now I am not being facetious but are we talking about being “politically correct” here?

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #398364

KAP and Weary you have put the spin on what I said,lets be specific I said “these religious rights” referring to those rights this misguided clerk thinks are hers.

There is no religious right to discriminate. That is what she is dong under the guise of freedom of religion. Her coaches, er.. umm… lawyers have been using this line for years and have made a fortune by raising these non existent rights. The poor girl has been mislead. They were thrashed here and rightfully so as her claim is bogus. She has carried her beliefs over to the government job she holds and has forced them upon others, how slimy is that?

Now were she told by the government to marry the women working in her office, or any other women for that matter, that would be a violation of her religious rights. Two other people getting married doesn’t affect her rights at all. Because she has a job that allows her the power to determine who gets to be married in the county she works in doesn’t mean she can discriminate based upon her religious beliefs. She is the one violating the civil rights of others, as an official of the government.

You guys have twisted this line about religious freedom, or religious rights until you have made a mess of things with all this spin. You dishonor true religious freedom when you abuse the right as you have done in this case with your silly excuses and attempts to justify this clerks discrimination. How sad conservatives have fell so low.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2015 12:25 PM
Comment #398365

Exactly speaks where will they end, when every little cry baby minority cries for rights and if they don’t get them they find a judge that will accommodate them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment #398366

Keep up with the spin j2, maybe someday you will come up with something that is factual.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 12:39 PM
Comment #398367

I see no problem supporting rights for all of our citizens within the boundaries of our laws. I do have a problem accommodating religious rights over our laws. I do understand that not everyone would agree with me but I don’t understand how religious rights can be accommodated without subverting the intent of the law in every case. I believe the separation of church and state attempts to abrogate that.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2015 12:46 PM
Comment #398368

Speaks, accommodating rights of one party be it religious or not may subvert the intent of laws. The separation of Church and State is not a law and is no where in the Constitution, but I do believe the 1st amendment address religious and other rights. The conflict of rights is never going to end. Someone’s rights will be trampled on as long as accommodations are given to whom ever be it religious or secular.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 1:28 PM
Comment #398369
The separation of Church and State is not a law and is no where in the Constitution, but I do believe the 1st amendment address religious and other rights.

And you say I spin KAP.

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can discriminate against others. Hell that clerk can go to any church she chooses, she can have any belief she chooses but as an elected official she cannot discriminate based upon her beliefs. It is the demand of the religious right that causes these problems , they hide their hatred under the guise of religion and try to force their will upon others, as government officials, instead of practicing their religion at home or church.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2015 2:07 PM
Comment #398370

I guess I will just have to take it for what it is. Kim Davis is asserting that darned ole’ right wing “political correctness” that I keep hearing about. If we didn’t have a conservative right wing media like we do, it would be reported as just that. There oughta be a law against that! The conflict of rights will be continuously debated and adjusted, we can only hope that it is done with jurisprudence and a respect for the rights of others.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2015 2:16 PM
Comment #398371

She didn’t discriminate, j2t2. You need to do a little research before you start spouting off with myths, lies, misinformation, and half-truths.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #398372

j2, She did not discriminate she refused to issue marriage licenses period. Show me where in the constitution is the amendment that says “Separation of Church and State”, Show me the law j2 the only place you can find “Separation of Church and State” is a letter to a Baptist Church from Jefferson. Hell the people of Kentucky can go to any county to get a marriage license, hell even any state to get one. Spin it all you want j2 but the lady did not discriminate, she is only guilty of not doing her job. j2, your beliefs do not end when you are at a work place nor do they only exist at a Church, Temple or Mosque, or at home. Spin it all you want j2 you may believe what you want, but so do Jews, Christians or Muslims or atheist or any other group.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 2:28 PM
Comment #398373

By the way j2, Why should your rights be more important then those of a religious nature?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 2:55 PM
Comment #398374

KAP, I don’t think J2 believes it’s his rights that are more important than those of a religious nature, but rather that it’s the agenda he supports that is more important than the rights of others. That is why the far-left condemns this, but praises the ignoring of things like drug and immigration laws. It is also why it is so quick to target and attack anybody who dares disagree with them.

Truth is that ALL of this probably could have been avoided.
Ms. Davis ran for and was elected to a job with a job description. The Supreme Court changed that job description AFTER she accepted it.
Now, common sense says that it always takes states a little time to get up to speed with new laws. To bring their own laws in line with the feds.
If Ms. Davis didn’t want the job under the new guidelines, somebody who did could run for the office. Done and over with.

Instead, we get this ridiculous leftist side show of making an example out of her and all who share her personal beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #398375

EXACTLY kctim!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 6:10 PM
Comment #398377

“The Supreme Court changed that job description AFTER she accepted it.”

Nonsense! She took an oath to carry out her duties in accordance with the law of the land. As Clerk of the Court, one of her duties was to issue marriage licenses to those who met the legal requirements under the law. It was not to determine who was eligible under the law to marry. The Supreme Court did not change her job description.

If she doesn’t like what the law of the land is regarding eligibility for marriage, she can resign or make arrangements for a deputy clerk to issue the licenses. Simple as that.

Otherwise, all of us can be held hostage to the religious whims of any public official. The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves at the thought that a government official could condition the fundamental right of marriage on his/her personal religious belief.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #398382

At the time of our founding fathers there were no marriage licenses, Rich. Yes the SCOTUS did change her job description, Kentucky only recognized marriage as between a man and woman, SCOTUS changed that to include same gender couples, so in essence they did change her job description. Yes she could have resigned or gave her deputy power to issue licenses. She isn’t the only one who is doing what she did there are other clerks doing the same. She is just the sacrificial lamb. IMO marriage should have remained a States issue and IMO) the SCOTUS should have ruled that way.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2015 8:52 PM
Comment #398383
j2, She did not discriminate she refused to issue marriage licenses period.

So the clerk in charge issued marriage licenses for quite sometime then the law changed to allow gay marriage and she stopped issuing marriage licenses but she didn’t discriminate! Sure guys she just quit doing her job right and that is ok with you, that is the bar you have set for government officials at the local level?

By the way j2, Why should your rights be more important then those of a religious nature?

Who ever said that KAP? You seem to confuse what religious rights are. I understand you want to believe this clerk is being denied her religious rights but that is laughable to anyone who can stop spinning long enough to see the issue at hand. She is violating the civil rights of others. Her rights are not being violated. She is an elected government official, a democrat at that, that tries to tell us, we the people who subscribe to the notion that we are a nation of laws, that our laws don’t count when it comes to her. Perhaps her title should be Ayatollah instead of clerk.

This lady has every right to practice her religion, to pick and choose which parts of the bible she chooses to ignore, to go to the church of her choice, to stand on the corner shouting “death to fags” while holding the bible but she isn’t asserting a right when she tries to force her beliefs onto others while practicing her religion, while picking and choosing which parts of the bible she wants to ignore, while going to the church of her choice, or while standing on the street corner holding a bible and shouting “death to fags”. And she damn sure doesn’t have a right to use her position as a county clerk to force her religious beliefs upon those she works with and those she serves in the position.

So your nonsensical diatribe over whose rights are important is spin and nothing buy spin KAP.


Instead, we get this ridiculous leftist side show of making an example out of her and all who share her personal beliefs.

Nonsense kctim, Davis has made herself a sacrificial lamb. The judge ordered her back to work, she refused to do her job and set herself up for this battle, It wasn’t the lefties on TV when she was released from jail it was her and her lawyers.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2015 1:14 AM
Comment #398384

j2, would you be saying the same if she were Muslim?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2015 10:06 AM
Comment #398402

KAP, let me be clear, were this Muslim elected by those voters in that county in Kentucky to the office held by Davis and she refused to do something that was her job based upon her religious beliefs I would say the same thing.

In fact I think this Muslim flight attendant currently in the news for not wanting to do her job based upon her religion has no right to use her religion as a basis for not performing her job.

Here is a run down of what I believe,

If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay…
If you think your religious rights are being violated because you have to issue a license to someone gay you are wrong. Since you are,however, entitled to your beliefs get a different job instead of being an elected official that has the job of issuing licenses. You are putting yourself in the line of fire, you are the problem.
If you are against drinking alcohol, don’t drink alcohol
But don’t use your religion to justify not allowing others to do so. However you are entitled to your beliefs so get a job that doesn’t require you to serve alcohol to others. You are putting yourself into the line of fire, you are the problem.

KAP I don’t want to serve alcohol to drunks so I don’t get a job at the local bar. I don’t want to pull people over and confiscate money from them so I don’t get a job as a cop. I don’t want to steal money from innocent folks so I don’t get a job at the local bank. If the company I work at now decides to do any of these things and makes it part of my job I will find another job. To be honest had I known how much money a clerk in a small county in Kentucky makes, well this one anyway, I would probably be ok with that job.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2015 5:07 PM
Comment #398405

I agree j2 if she was aware at the time she got elected that gays were allowed to marry in the state of Kentucky she should not have taken the job. But the law was changed AFTER she was in office. So that being said she quit issuing marriage licenses to anyone. IMO marriage laws should have been left up to the individual states and voters in the states to decide SCOTUS should have ruled it that way but they didn’t and now the can of worms has been opened.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #398406

The people who are wrong, j2t2, are the Supreme court. It’s still in their constitution, it’s still in their law. It’s in the constitutions of 30 states. It’s still written in law at the federal level in DOMA.

What’s wrong is the SC overstepped their authority by interfering with something that is not in the constitution. It falls in favor of the state and the individual and backed up by the 9th and 10th amendments.

It is the SC that is on the wrong side of this issue. As soon as we start to look at it that way is how soon we correct the error.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2015 8:33 PM
Comment #398407

I remember a conversation I had with someone here on WatchBlog. It was about representation in a court of law and that communities chose to confiscate money to manage the court system they preferred. The contention was that there was no right to a lawyer. It had to be paid for and the local governments chose to fund a public lawyer.

This is the same thing. There is no right to a marriage license. It is used only to qualify for benefits that are also not rights, because someone has to pay for them.

The supreme court thinks it can change the game. It can’t. Marriage isn’t in the constitution. They have no right dictating to the state who defines marriage. That authority is the state’s granted in the 10th. The individuals in those states have given their state governments the authority to define their marriage laws, as is their right under the 9th.

This isn’t about rights, it’s about benefits.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2015 8:50 PM
Comment #398408

If taxpayers can’t fund a ten commandments statue using public funds, why should they be forced to accommodate sodomy using public funds?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #398411
I agree j2 if she was aware at the time she got elected that gays were allowed to marry in the state of Kentucky she should not have taken the job. But the law was changed AFTER she was in office.

Changes KAP or did the law become clarified due to a SCOTUS decision? The fact is the SCOTUS cannot change laws only Congress and the president can. So I don’t know why you would think otherwise.

So that being said she quit issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

Don’t be fooled by this lady and her lawyers KAP. She simply wants to discriminate against homosexuals. She is not above the law, as a government official her job is to issue marriage licenses based upon the law. She has refused to do her job at all in order to appear to not discriminate, but we all now what the issue is.

IMO marriage laws should have been left up to the individual states and voters in the states to decide SCOTUS should have ruled it that way but they didn’t and now the can of worms has been opened.

SCOTUS was the level the issue of gay marriage discrimination was raised to by those on the two sides of the argument. Why blame them for doing their job?

It seems we have state officials who would rather discriminate against their citizens based upon their personal beliefs instead of following the law of the land KAP. It is the job of the federal government to step in and ensure the rights of all citizens at that time.

The people who are wrong, j2t2, are the Supreme court.

So you say Weary but were it true the lawyers for the clerk would be filing briefs with the appropriate courts to get the SCOTUS to modify this decision. The use of state laws has been the means haters have used for years to hate. They have used the cloak of religious rights to discriminate against others. Their day has come they have lost and the civil rights of yet more individual Americans has become the law of the land. You should be happy as a conservative that government officials cannot use religious rights to discriminate against others Weary. At least according to the myths you and other on WB perpetuate.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2015 1:37 AM
Comment #398413

No discrimination j2, if she quit issuing licenses altogether. The only discrimination is in your mind. She held to her sincerely held religious beliefs. SCOTUS may not be able to change or enact laws but in this case they did. As I stated before SCOTUS got this one wrong, they should of left the marriage question up to the individual states.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2015 9:29 AM
Comment #398415

Well we have come full circle KAP and you continue to hold onto the religious beliefs idiom created by Davis to allow her to discriminate against homosexuals.

These silly arguments her lawyers use to force their religious beliefs upon others are nothing but spin. You must be dizzy from the spin. It amazes me how hard you guys will work to keep others from having the basic civil rights you have.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2015 11:21 AM
Comment #398418

No discrimination, j2t2. Stop with the lies, myths, misinformation, and half-truths.

That’s the problem with talking to ignorant people. They just don’t listen.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2015 12:52 PM
Comment #398419

j2, What does it take for you to realize that she did not discriminate. I would say she did if she refused gays but she refused to issue licenses to all so it was not discrimination. You can spin your take I will spin mine. You can say I’m full of s**t and I will say the same for you. So lets just agree to disagree.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #398442

j2t2,

The plaintiffs (which include couples of many orientations) never alleged discrimination. The suit was brought about because of alleged violations of KY law, the 14th Amendment’s protection of substantive due process and the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was not cited.

This controversy is going to heat up again tomorrow. Rumor has it that Davis will attempt to prevent her deputies from issuing licences even though the deputies have no qualms or objections and the licences do not bear her name. This will not be pleasant for Ms. Davis.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 5:06 PM
Comment #398470

Rich

The Supreme Court struck down Kentucky’s statutory and constitutional bans on gay marriages that were in place when Davis accepted the job. This action changed the Kentucky marriage law that Davis had agreed to carry out as part of her duties.
It is silly to suggest that the duties she swore to carry out have not been changed.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2015 10:06 AM
Comment #398471

J2

“Davis has made herself a sacrificial lamb.”

Something she would have not been able to do if her beliefs had not already been targeted. The left’s rush to make an example of her is why this is playing out the way it is.
Once again, your agenda is more important than ALL parties involved.

Posted by: kctim at September 14, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #398550
This will not be pleasant for Ms. Davis.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2015 5:06 PM


This will not be correct for Mr. Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2015 11:02 PM
Comment #398553

I urge Kim Davis to speak her mind every day she is in office.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 15, 2015 12:54 AM
Comment #398554

Just think about what happened here.

Everyone says she broke the law, and then said she didn’t when she submitted to the court’s will.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 15, 2015 1:12 AM
Comment #398820
This will not be correct for Mr. Warren Porter.

You might have spoken too soon.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 19, 2015 7:31 AM
Comment #398860

The alteration was to remove her name following “Under the Authority of Clerk” and replaced it with “Under the Authority of the federal court”.

And that is exactly what happened. The federal court took her authority to license marriages and replaced it with its own. She has every right to remove her name.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 21, 2015 4:02 AM
Post a comment