US: Despite order, office refuses to issue gay marriage license

[webfact]

Despite order, office refuses to issue gay marriage license
By CLAIRE GALOFARO and ADAM BEAM

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A gay couple marched into the county clerk's office Thursday, carrying a federal judge's order that said the clerk can't deny them a marriage license based on her deeply held Christian beliefs.

Still, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office turned them away.

Davis was among a handful of clerks across the country to cite deeply held religious beliefs in denying gay marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in June. She was the first to be sued and her attorneys vowed to keep fighting in a case legal experts have likened the resistance some local officials put up five decades ago when the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage.

"We're going to keep coming back," said Karen Roberts, shaking after she was denied a license to marry April Miller, her partner of 11 years. "We're going to fight this to the very end."

Three other couples streamed into the clerk's office in this eastern Kentucky college town throughout the morning, and all were denied.

Staff in Davis' office said she was on vacation. Though she has six employees authorized to issue licenses, deputy clerk Nathan Davis said the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples is it appeals the judge's decision.

The staff handed one couple a Post-it note with Liberty Counsel's toll-free phone number.

"Kim Davis is just an example of what's going to be happening not only to other clerks but to other people who are going to be confronted with this issue and we think that this is a serious matter that needs to be decided by a higher court, even the Supreme Court," said Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver.

Clerks and judges in pockets across the South halted issuing licenses in the days after the Supreme Court's decision. Some resigned rather than acknowledge a same-sex marriage. Others relented under the threat of legal action and began handing them out. It's not clear exactly how many clerks nationwide are still refusing to issue licenses, but at least one other county clerk in Kentucky has pledged that he would not.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has told defiant clerks, who are elected, to issue licenses or resign.

U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning said in his ruling Wednesday that Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's protection against the establishment of a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."

Davis' attorneys have asked the judge for a stay, and Bunning has not yet ruled.

In the meantime, Laura Landenwich, an attorney for the couples, said they are considering asking the judge to hold Davis in contempt, which could carry a hefty fine or the threat of jail time.

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News. Davis worked under her mother as a deputy clerk for 26 years. Nathan Davis refused to say if he is related to Kim Davis.

The battle has exposed the deep rift that remains in this county of 23,000 people, considered to be among the most progressive in Appalachian Kentucky.

James Yates and William Smith Jr., a couple for nearly a decade, said there was a difference between the clerk's actions and their experience in Morehead. They held hands as they walked into the clerk's office, and gay rights activists, who have lined the street with rainbow signs and flags every day for more than a month, shouted "Good luck!"

Still, some of the couples struggled to reconcile their support in the community and the rejection at the county clerk's office.

David Ermold broke down in the county's judge-executive's office, after he was denied a license to marry David Moore, his partner of 17 years. He felt angry and humiliated.

"I will say that people are cruel, they are cruel, these people are cruel," Ermold said, tears welling in his eyes. "This is how gay people are treated in this country. This is what it's like. This is how it feels."

The county judge executive's secretary, Lois L. Hawkins, started to cry with him. She declined to comment, except to say it broke her heart and there was nothing she could do to help them.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-14

[sdanielmcev]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

[Credo]

And Rowan probably needs a new job.

She is not being asked to perform a marriage, just issue a license?

Does this give a state official the right not to issue a hunting license, because they are a vegetarian.

This woman is a Christian version of ISIS.

[whybother]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue.

The Supreme Court rules on law. It ruled that the constitution says that the states can't discriminate.

Why do gays need another term? Marriage is a legal union. The supreme court has ruled that same sex couples can not be denied that legal union that any heterosexual couple can have. Marriage isn't owned by religion.

[granuaile]

I believe most people in the Rowan County area disagree with her position (I lived there for 20 years and still have a lot of friends there, none of whom support her - I worked with one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU suit).

Bunning's opinion is well thought through (yes I read it) and Kim Davis is a propaganda pawn for Liberty Counsel's theocratic agenda. She will lose. Judge Bunning is definitely not a liberal by any stretch (his father is former republican senator Jim Bunning). I also don't believe that the Sixth Circuit will rule differently, if they even consider her appeal. Liberty Counsel is simply trying to drag this out for propaganda and as a form of throwing roadblocks up.... The decision can be read here: http://files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-43/

A lot of people in the community are very upset by this - in fact I don't know anyone who agrees with her, though there are some for sure. Ironically, a year or so ago, Morehead (the county seat) passed an ordinance banning discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the university has had a policy for several years concerning sexual orientation. It is overall a liberal community, with a large academic community, and Ms. Davis (who herself has been married 4 times) hardly represents the views of a majority.

[Jingthing]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

[h90]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

the problem is the marry word.....the country should be involved in religious matters.

have private partnership contracts, with some recommended from government. No matter what sex the people have.

Everything marry should happen in the temples....

[JDGRUEN]

The best solutions that states - perhaps counties can do is get the Government out of the Marriage Business. Licenses were not issued by anyone a hundred years ago or so... And there is no reason to do it now. There are marriage licenses that are taken out but never used. So what sense does it make to have to have one. All marriages could be registered after the fact - even done on line or at a computer kiosk at a county clerk's office - so that for family law purposes they are in fact legally married.

And the same for requiring a license or a certification to marry a couple. Just do away with it. It is an antiquated concept anyway. Registering the marriage after the fact - DIY - do it yourself removes all possible bad encounters between ministers, county clerks and everyone else. The gay couples are still legally married under my proposal.

[granuaile]

ACLU filing opposing Kim Davis' request for the court to stay enforcement of its order

http://files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-46/

[granuaile]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Actually not that easy. As I understand it she would have to be removed by the state legislature, which tends to be very conservative - some county clerks who oppose same-sex marriages have asked the governor (a Democrat who has instructed clerks to issue marriage licenses) to call a special session of the legislature. However, the state legislature could well pass an ordinance allowing county clerks to do just what Kim Davis is doing.

[granuaile]

The best solutions that states - perhaps counties can do is get the Government out of the Marriage Business. Licenses were not issued by anyone a hundred years ago or so... And there is no reason to do it now. There are marriage licenses that are taken out but never used. So what sense does it make to have to have one. All marriages could be registered after the fact - even done on line or at a computer kiosk at a county clerk's office - so that for family law purposes they are in fact legally married.

Not so. As a genealogist who has spent a lot of time in county courthouses in Kentucky licenses and bonds have been required since the beginning (in fact the oldest ones I've found were expressed in pounds rather than dollars).

My great-great-great-grandparents' marriage record from Kentucky was in 1814 (I couldn't find the bond and license) but the record notes that "License Being Produced".

Edited August 14, 2015 by granuaile

[rjcampbe]

"...considered to be among the most progressive in Appalachian Kentucky."

Where it is no doubt legal to marry your sister or first cousin.... I think I hear banjos...

While we are on the subject of banjos... Do you know the difference between a banjo and an onion?

Nobody cries when you cut up a banjo!

[Jingthing]

Who cares about this quaint Kentucky trivia? Discriminating against same sex couples at the city hall/county clerk level has been ruled unconstitutional. Get with the program or get a new job! It is constitutional to deny marrying anyone for any reason by religious bodies. Separate matters. The US is not a theocracy. Thank"God" for that!

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Jingthing

[wwest5829]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

b

Fortunately, you are right, the Supreme Court does not make law. It only rules on the Constitutionality of existing law. The decision already made was that all are protected by this equal right. This Court Clerk has violated the Constitution as ruled on already by the Supreme Court. No, it is not a state issue. No state can take away my U.S. Constitutional Rights. She should be found in Contempt of the SCOTUS ruling and removed from office. We have a right to our private religious beliefs, we do not have a right to press our private beliefs on others.

After removal from office, if she wishes to argue her case, that she has a right not to carry out her constitutional duties, she is welcome to do so. I would encourage that arguement. We need a resounding decision that...no, you do not get to decide who to operate on, who to fill a prescription for, to render aid to, etc. on the basis of private religious beliefs.

[oxo1947]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen.......

I wonder why..............your views are usually so erudite .......

Edited August 14, 2015 by oxo1947

[wwest5829]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Actually not that easy. As I understand it she would have to be removed by the state legislature, which tends to be very conservative - some county clerks who oppose same-sex marriages have asked the governor (a Democrat who has instructed clerks to issue marriage licenses) to call a special session of the legislature. However, the state legislature could well pass an ordinance allowing county clerks to do just what Kim Davis is doing.

My such legislative action would be ruled unconstitutional. The ruling has already been made on this issue. No inferior government entity may rule against the U.S. Constitution and have that action upheld by the courts.

[magnacarta]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

I would like to pick my nose in a restuarant while serving food,but health and safety prohibits me,where is my human rights.It might offend people but it is something I think I have right to do.All nose pickers unite.

[Boon Mee]

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Would you bake a cake for a Queer Wedding which would violate your moral code?

We have to bow down to the lowest common denominator these days - enough is enough.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Boon Mee

[wwest5829]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

In Kentucky, County Court Clerks are elected Kentucky Constitutional officers, so she cannot be "fired". She must be Removed From Office. Of course, she is still subject to being thrown into jail for Contempt of Court...

[wwest5829]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

I would like to pick my nose in a restuarant while serving food,but health and safety prohibits me,where is my human rights.It might offend people but it is something I think I have right to do.All nose pickers unite.

Cute but your nose picking is not a protected right under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, well, big difference.

[Jingthing]

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Would you bake a cake for a Queer Wedding which would violate your moral code?

We have to bow down to the lowest common denominator these days - enough is enough.

The cake question is a blown up red herring by anti-gay reactionaries. Has nothing to do with this thread. The clerk in question thinks she is above the constitution and quite simply she ain't.

[wwest5829]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

the problem is the marry word.....the country should be involved in religious matters.

have private partnership contracts, with some recommended from government. No matter what sex the people have.

Everything marry should happen in the temples....

That horse has already left the barn...sorry, U.S. Southern talk. Those opposed on religious grounds badly mishandled the issue IMHO. Those opposed from the get go should have united in arguing that the institution of marriage was one of the traditional seven sacraments of the Christian Church. Thus government, recognizing the Separation of Church and State, would not be allowed to interfere in purely a religious matter. The government would, in its public interest govern, "civil unions" with all equal rights under law being given.

By demanding government not abide by the Separation of Church and State, the U.S. conservative churches have left the door open for all other religions to demand equal rights. Watch for it as Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist prayers are demanded equally before government meetings, public events. This and the 2016 Presidential Campaigns promise a world of entertainment in the near future!

[attrayant]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

I would like to pick my nose in a restuarant while serving food,but health and safety prohibits me,where is my human rights.It might offend people but it is something I think I have right to do.All nose pickers unite.

Cute but your nose picking is not a protected right under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, well, big difference.

Senator Tillis, is that you?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-sen-tillis-restaurants-shouldnt-force-employees-to-wash-their-hands/

[magnacarta]

Who cares about this quaint Kentucky trivia? Discriminating against same sex couples at the city hall/county clerk level has been ruled unconstitutional. Get with the program or get a new job! It is constitutional to deny marrying anyone for any reason by religious bodies. Separate matters. The US is not a theocracy. Thank"God" for that!

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Still in the minority world wide.

[magnacarta]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

I would like to pick my nose in a restuarant while serving food,but health and safety prohibits me,where is my human rights.It might offend people but it is something I think I have right to do.All nose pickers unite.

Cute but your nose picking is not a protected right under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, well, big difference.

Senator Tillis, is that you?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-sen-tillis-restaurants-shouldnt-force-employees-to-wash-their-hands/

Lets have a rally starting here in Thailand as I have had first hand experience of the practice and nobody seems to object,might want to include taxi drivers,but maybe that is a bridge to far,

[ggt]

"This is how gay people are treated in this country. This is what it's like. This is how it feels."

Yes! It is! in some places...

A judge's order can not wipe away decades of viewing gays as a disgusting aberration...gays still have many more battles and many more years before true equality will be achieved...IMHO

Years down the road...people will ask...what was all the fuss about?

[Jingthing]

This is really just the beginning of the gay civil rights movement in the USA. American GLBT people still lack national legal protection against discrimination in important matters such as employment and housing. In many states, explicitly anti-gay laws (not related to marriage) are still on the books. GLBT youth still face violent bullying in large parts of the nation. That social homophobia part can't be legislated away ... change of social attitudes is a long organic process. But the recent supreme court decision sets an encouraging precedent.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

The federal judge needs to deny the stay request and issue a civil contempt citation against the clerk, $2000 per day of defiance and non-compliance.

If there's a day 3 of contempt by the clerk, the consequence on day three increases the per diem fine to #3500. If there's a day five, then $5000 each day. This schedule is common in civil contempt charges and these proposed amounts are modest by most standards. The court can thereby provide the clerk (and her church contributors who might donate) the splendid occasion to contemplate the financial impact of their failure to respect the Constitution.

The Constitution and SCOTUS have always provided religious belief, worship, practice a protected position and status in the society. Religion and religions must always however recognize the supremacy of the Constitution of the Nation over cannon law, observance, practices. SCOTUS has ruled decidedly in this matter....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

“Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/reynolds-v-united-states-1878/

In other words, immoral anarchy.

If God wants to issue passports then he's going to run into a certain trouble. Look at the Middle East as the model of historical don'ts.

[magnacarta]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

[Seastallion]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

b

Fortunately, you are right, the Supreme Court does not make law. It only rules on the Constitutionality of existing law. The decision already made was that all are protected by this equal right. This Court Clerk has violated the Constitution as ruled on already by the Supreme Court. No, it is not a state issue. No state can take away my U.S. Constitutional Rights. She should be found in Contempt of the SCOTUS ruling and removed from office. We have a right to our private religious beliefs, we do not have a right to press our private beliefs on others.

After removal from office, if she wishes to argue her case, that she has a right not to carry out her constitutional duties, she is welcome to do so. I would encourage that arguement. We need a resounding decision that...no, you do not get to decide who to operate on, who to fill a prescription for, to render aid to, etc. on the basis of private religious beliefs.

She should be charged with contempt of Bunning's order first, if for no other reason than it was handed to her office in person.