Reluctant Kentucky clerk gets time for gay marriage appeal

[webfact]

Reluctant Kentucky clerk gets time for gay marriage appeal
By ADAM BEAM

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A federal judge on Monday gave a Kentucky county clerk room to continue denying marriage licenses to gays and lesbians while she takes her religious objections case to an appellate court.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis last week to issue licenses to two gay couples, and ruled Monday that she is not entitled to any more delays. But because "emotions are running high on both sides of this debate," he also stayed his decision while she takes her case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal.

Attorneys on both sides disagreed about the implications. Dan Canon, representing the gay couples, said Davis remains under the judge's order. But Mat Staver, who represents Davis and is the founder of Florida-based Liberty Counsel, said the convoluted order essentially grants her request for more time.

What is clear is that Davis will continue refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone in this county of about 23,000 people, home to Morehead State University in the Appalachian foothills of eastern Kentucky. Until the case is resolved, no new wedding can be legally recognized in Rowan County unless the couple obtains a marriage license somewhere else.

"This is not something I decided because of this decision that came down," Davis testified in federal court last month. "It was thought-out and, you know, I sought God on it."

Clerking has been a family business in Rowan County. Davis worked for her mother for 27 years before replacing her in the elected post this year, and her son Nathan now works for her. He personally turned away a gay couple last week.

Around the U.S., most opponents of gay and lesbian marriage rights are complying with the high court. Some other objectors in Kentucky submitted to the legal authorities after Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear told them to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples, or resign.

Kim Davis is one of the last holdouts, and apparently the first to be challenged in federal court, putting her and tiny Rowan County middle of one of the country's largest social upheavals.

Davis wants Kentucky lawmakers to allow county clerks to opt out of issuing marriage licenses for religious reasons. But the governor has declined to call a special session. Davis faces fines and possible jail time for contempt of court meanwhile if she loses her challenge and still refuses to issue licenses. But she can only be impeached from her $80,000 a year job by the legislature, and impeachment proceedings are unlikely even after the lawmakers reconvene in January.

Davis' lawyers compare her to other religious objectors, such as a nurse being forced to perform an abortion, a non-combatant ordered to fire on an enemy soldier, or a state official forced to participate in a convicted prisoner's execution.

Bunning disagreed. Davis is "free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk," he wrote last week.

Nevertheless, the judge's convoluted ruling on Monday effectively imposes more delays, not only on the couples suing Davis, but on anyone else in Rowan County who wants to get licensed to marry in the place where they live, work and pay taxes.

Davis said it would violate her Christian beliefs to issue a license to a same-sex couple that has her name on it, and she has her supporters for standing firm.

"If she was to say 'Well, you know, I need my job, I'm going to do what they say do,' she would be letting down her faith," said Joe Riley, an evangelist who says he attended church with Davis at Morehead First Apostolic Church.

Davis, through her attorney, declined to be interviewed. Acquaintances describe her as easy-going but reserved. She hid behind her attorneys to avoid being photographed in a courthouse hallway and had to be told to speak up from the witness stand.

Beneath her quiet nature lies a steadfast resolve not to compromise, even after a video of her refusing to issue a license to a gay couple, David Ermold and David Moore, generated more than a million views online.

Shortly after she took office in January, she said she wrote every state lawmaker she could and pleaded to change the law, to no avail. So, on June 26th -- the day the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide -- Davis told her staff not to process any more licenses until further notice, no matter who asks.

Under Kentucky law, marriages must be licensed by a county clerk, who first determines if the couple meets all legal requirements — such as being unmarried, and old enough. And because every license issued in Rowan County is under her authority, she feels she can't delegate the job to a non-objector.

"If I say that I authorize that, I'm saying I agree with it, and I can't," Davis told the court.

Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins can issue marriage licenses if the clerk is "absent," but the term is undefined in state law. Both Blevins and Bunning decided Davis not issuing licenses for religious reasons does not mean she is absent. That leaves Davis, for now, firmly in control.

Davis said her beliefs on sin are shaped by "God's holy word" in the Bible, and that she attends church "every time the doors are open." She also leads a weekly women's Bible study at the county jail.

"I love them. They're the best part of my Monday," Davis said.

Davis testified that the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Court records indicate Davis herself married when she was 18 in 1984, filed for divorce 10 years later, and then filed for divorce again, from another husband, in 2006.

Many Christians believe divorce also is a sin, and an attorney for the same-sex couples repeatedly questioned her about this in court. Asked if she would religiously object to issuing a marriage license to someone who has been divorced, she said "That's between them and God."

Davis has not said how she would react should she lose her appeal.

"I'll deal with that when the time comes," she said.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-18

[Linky]

Yeah I sought God on it too. She's an idiot who broke her oath to office.

[Jingthing]

Give her lots of time ... on the unemployment line. Then she can meet some government clerks actually willing to do their jobs.

Next ... !

[lovelomsak]

Sounds like she should find a new job. Appears she isnot qualified under the new laws. She should look for work that doesnot conflict with her religious beliefs.

As Trump would say "You are Fired"

Edited August 17, 2015 by lovelomsak

[Jingthing]

Hey lady ...

The Donald has something to say to you:

[Seastallion]

" "It was thought-out and, you know, I sought God on it.""

Yeah...He gives great advice; Bush's invasion of Iraq was on advice from Him too.

[Seastallion]

"Davis' lawyers compare her to other religious objectors, such as a nurse being forced to perform an abortion, a non-combatant ordered to fire on an enemy soldier, or a state official forced to participate in a convicted prisoner's execution."

Hollow and spurious argument that is bound to fail. Nobody is asking her to perform a marriage, only to issue a document.

Actually....nobody is asking her to get married to a woman is the accurate argument against those weak excuses above.

[NeilSA1]

".... marriages must be licensed by a county clerk, who first determines if the couple meets all legal requirements — such as being unmarried, and old enough...."

She is blatantly not doing her job. She must issue the license if couples meet all legal requirements, failing which, she should be forced to 'be absent' from work so that others can be empowered to issue the licenses.

[Seastallion]

".... marriages must be licensed by a county clerk, who first determines if the couple meets all legal requirements — such as being unmarried, and old enough...."

She is blatantly not doing her job. She must issue the license if couples meet all legal requirements, failing which, she should be forced to 'be absent' from work so that others can be empowered to issue the licenses.

You're too kind. Why should the county pay for an extra person to perform duties that she actually has no valid argument not to do? She's conflated the issues to grandstand.

[robblok]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

[Seastallion]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

Yeah, that's a work-around, but it's a matter of principle; The law says she has to do it. Her religion has no bearing on it as it does not cause a conflict...she is not being ordered to marry a woman herself, just to issue a legal document.

I have a personal conviction concerning equal rights. If I worked at a county office and the law changed to dis-allow gay marriage, and I was ordered NOT to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, I would either do my job, because my personal conviction has no bearing on what the law says, or resign.

If I was to resign it would be because I feel I can not do my job properly, and in protest.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Seastallion

[robblok]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

Yeah, that's a work-around, but it's a matter of principle; The law says she has to do it. Her religion has no bearing on it as it does not cause a conflict...she is not being ordered to marry a woman herself, just to issue a legal document.

I have a personal conviction concerning equal rights. If I worked at a county office and the law changed to dis-allow gay marriage, and I was ordered NOT to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, I would either do my job, because my personal conviction has no bearing on what the law says, or resign.

If I was to resign it would be because I feel I can not do my job properly, and in protest.

Principles are nice, but in this case both have good points. You cant just fire someone because all of a sudden the job changed and went in against his / her beliefs and at the same time you can't deny gays to marry. This is a good work around and those who go after principle just want to humiliate their opponents.

Fact is for her her job did not go against her religion when she took it now it does unfair to ask her to change, but at the same time the gays have the rights.

I am 100% pro gay rights and don't see a problem here with a workaround that has worked already and is proven.

[klauskunkel]

if job and faith are irreconcilable, then you have to give up one or the other.

Case closed.

[Publicus]

The federal judge appointed by GW Bush is falling down on the job, same as Bush himself did.

The clerk is a God freak twit anarchist in a blatant violation of the US Constitution, the Kentucky constitution, the clerk's oath of office. She is a hard core rightwing militant extremist who no doubt will vote Republican for prez next year.

Locking away Davis for contempt of court would make her a felon ineligible for public office again period. So this Republican judge is a wimp.

[oneday]

"It was thought-out and, you know, I sought God on it."

If that's not prejudicial then I don't know what is.

"...and her son Nathan now works for her. He personally turned away a gay couple last week..."

On top of this she is blatantly practicing nepotism.

Ignorant religious fanatics...all of them. And this is the reason the "founding fathers" tried like hell to separate government and religion. She has no right whatsoever to impose her religious beliefs on anyone in her capacity as a government employee.

[Publicus]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

Maybe each county in the United States does not need or want two co-clerks to be elected. Or two co-clerks to exist in some bizarre relationship of co-equals, or of one clerk being subordinate and the other being superordinate. This Davis dingbat is a nationally minuscule God-hugging clerk who while being elected is violating the federal and the state constitutions, respectively, and her oath of office. Davis is an immoral anarchist and nothing more.

There's no need to change the system when the courts will do the job and in a reasonable period of time, which means she or any of the very few psycho clerks like her doesn't have a prayer of succeeding.

Good for the Netherlands for their particular solution to a similar problem. In the Kentucky case there is however an ex officio substitute clerk in the county who is the local mayor, also an elected position. So while this pickle had not been specifically anticipated, the clerk's oath of office encompasses all of it, i.e., preserve, protect, defend, the Constitution of the United States.

Let the rule of law run its course.

[Seastallion]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

Yeah, that's a work-around, but it's a matter of principle; The law says she has to do it. Her religion has no bearing on it as it does not cause a conflict...she is not being ordered to marry a woman herself, just to issue a legal document.

I have a personal conviction concerning equal rights. If I worked at a county office and the law changed to dis-allow gay marriage, and I was ordered NOT to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, I would either do my job, because my personal conviction has no bearing on what the law says, or resign.

If I was to resign it would be because I feel I can not do my job properly, and in protest.

Principles are nice, but in this case both have good points. You cant just fire someone because all of a sudden the job changed and went in against his / her beliefs and at the same time you can't deny gays to marry. This is a good work around and those who go after principle just want to humiliate their opponents.

Fact is for her her job did not go against her religion when she took it now it does unfair to ask her to change, but at the same time the gays have the rights.

I am 100% pro gay rights and don't see a problem here with a workaround that has worked already and is proven.

This confusing of two separate issues, this conflation, is at the heart of the dispute, and I'm sorry to say that you seem to have fallen for it.

She has her principles, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Fine. The change in the law did not change anything for her, personally. She can still maintain her principles, they are hers, in her heart and mind. As a member of society she has to accept that other people have different principles, and that she can not force her principles onto other people. Her principles state that she should not marry a woman. Her principles do not state that she can't issue a document for another person to follow their own principles.

Lets extend it...For her, marriage is in the eyes of God and between a man and a woman. So what if a Hindu couple came in to get a license? She knows full well that they will not marry "in the eyes of God", and thus it's not, in her view, a "marriage".

If she can say gay people can't get married on her watch, then she should also be saying that heathen people can't get married on her watch. Both are against her principles.

[little mary sunshine]

Yes she should have time....5 years in jail for

Violating these peoples Civil Rights.....

Freaken REDNECK!!

[JUDAS]

Another religious nut job cherry picks her chosen religious book to enforce her bigoted views. I can guarantee she ignores large parts of the bible as they don't fit her world view. Hypocrite.

Sent from my GT-I8552 using Tapatalk

Edited August 18, 2015 by JUDAS

[F430murci]

The federal judge appointed by GW Bush is falling down on the job, same as Bush himself did.

The clerk is a God freak twit anarchist in a blatant violation of the US Constitution, the Kentucky constitution, the clerk's oath of office. She is a hard core rightwing militant extremist who no doubt will vote Republican for prez next year.

Locking away Davis for contempt of court would make her a felon ineligible for public office again period. So this Republican judge is a wimp.

"God freak twit anarchist . . . hard core rightwing militant extremist who will no doubt vote Republican for prez next year." Lol, you'd think this clerk pee'd in your Cheerios, kicked your dog and shagged your girl on the way out after reading this.

[Publicus]

The federal judge appointed by GW Bush is falling down on the job, same as Bush himself did.

The clerk is a God freak twit anarchist in a blatant violation of the US Constitution, the Kentucky constitution, the clerk's oath of office. She is a hard core rightwing militant extremist who no doubt will vote Republican for prez next year.

Locking away Davis for contempt of court would make her a felon ineligible for public office again period. So this Republican judge is a wimp.

"God freak twit anarchist . . . hard core rightwing militant extremist who will no doubt vote Republican for prez next year." Lol, you'd think this clerk pee'd in your Cheerios, kicked your dog and shagged your girl on the way out after reading this.

Kindly post to the board for a radical change instead of consistently posting personal views directly to and about any particular poster. When I become the thread topic you can post about me personally, directly, whatever, to tickle your own fancy, but that will be never.

If certain posters have things about me personally or individually that keep them up at night or turn their face as red as their neck, I'd invite a rep among them to PM me to get me off their alleged mind and invisible chest. Otherwise stow the personalized cartoon strip level of understanding.

[Jingthing]

The Netherlands tactic sounds OK but frankly from an American POV, that sounds rather NAMBY PAMBY.

You see, Americans don't expect job security for life (with some exceptions like academic tenure) and there is the understanding that job responsibilities may change and expand at any time.

Hired for one thing, fine, if you can't adjust to changes, that's too bad ... you're OUT!

Maybe that sounds harsh to people from more extreme Nanny state countries, and maybe it is, but there it is.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[HooHaa]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

hiring an additional person because the pre-existing employee is unwilling to do their job is pragmatic?

if my maid decides she doesn't like cleaning toilets because god is adverse to poo, im certainly not going to hire a second one to take up the slack

Edited August 18, 2015 by HooHaa

[granuaile]

Actually Bunning denied her stay request but then he stayed his denial, which is crazy....

[sgtsabai]

And our resident rich boy right winger has again used the the same old tactic of if you can't win the argument because you have no valid point, attack the writer/speaker. This "person's" actions are indefensible. Typical of the ignoramus right wing dominionist theocratic crap spewed out by the hateful faux (not the) news and the various lying right wing websites. The right learned well from Herr Goebbels. I believe even old Jesu's H. Christus had something to say about obeying the law of Rome. Even being raised in the baptist church by a bible thumper I don't remember anything about disobeying the law in god's name. Fire her last month, disallow any pension, benefits, unemployment, food stamps, welfare (I'm sure god will provide and by not having a helping hand she will be encouraged to return to the work force asap) and fire her son at the same time. I guess in some backward places nepotism is still practiced.

[sean in udon]

"Davis' lawyers compare her to other religious objectors, such as a nurse being forced to perform an abortion, a non-combatant ordered to fire on an enemy soldier, or a state official forced to participate in a convicted prisoner's execution."

All of the above involve taking a human life. Davis is required to issue a document. Where's the comparison?

[robblok]

The Netherlands tactic sounds OK but frankly from an American POV, that sounds rather NAMBY PAMBY.

You see, Americans don't expect job security for life (with some exceptions like academic tenure) and there is the understanding that job responsibilities may change and expand at any time.

Hired for one thing, fine, if you can't adjust to changes, that's too bad ... you're OUT!

Maybe that sounds harsh to people from more extreme Nanny state countries, and maybe it is, but there it is.

Yes I think in the Netherlands jobs are more protected. If you got a job on a certain condition and all of a sudden those conditions change, then the employee has certain rights. Like if your hired as an accountant they cant expect you to clean floors ect. ect.

So i see your point, before when they introduced this new law I was as pro gay rights as now and thought it was stupid, but the compromise worked good.

[robblok]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

hiring an additional person because the pre-existing employee is unwilling to do their job is pragmatic?

if my maid decides she doesn't like cleaning toilets because god is adverse to poo, im certainly not going to hire a second one to take up the slack

Not a correct analogy, say you hired your maid to clean for a one person household for a fixed salary and all of a sudden there would be 2 people there it would be a change they can object too.

If you hired her to be the maid and all of a sudden she has to drive you around that too.

I am talking about changes to the job that were not in the job description when you took it.

But this is a Dutch point of view and more nanny state as the US so you guys might see this totally different. I don't really care it worked well where i came from. Confrontation isnt always the best way to go about things but in a way the US looks like Thailand the parties are quite extreme and go to great length to get it their way.

Kinda like i accepted a job as a cook in a Jewish halal restaurant and all of a sudden i need to serve and prepare bacon. That totally changes my job and then in the Netherlands you would have certain rights. So if I understand correctly in the US its either serve the bacon or get kicked out without severance pay.

[Publicus]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

hiring an additional person because the pre-existing employee is unwilling to do their job is pragmatic?

if my maid decides she doesn't like cleaning toilets because god is adverse to poo, im certainly not going to hire a second one to take up the slack

Not a correct analogy, say you hired your maid to clean for a one person household for a fixed salary and all of a sudden there would be 2 people there it would be a change they can object too.

If you hired her to be the maid and all of a sudden she has to drive you around that too.

I am talking about changes to the job that were not in the job description when you took it.

But this is a Dutch point of view and more nanny state as the US so you guys might see this totally different. I don't really care it worked well where i came from. Confrontation isnt always the best way to go about things but in a way the US looks like Thailand the parties are quite extreme and go to great length to get it their way.

Kinda like i accepted a job as a cook in a Jewish halal restaurant and all of a sudden i need to serve and prepare bacon. That totally changes my job and then in the Netherlands you would have certain rights. So if I understand correctly in the US its either serve the bacon or get kicked out without severance pay.

Davis is a public employee elected to public office which requires taking an oath to support and implement the state charter which authorizes the office the employee holds and also to pledge fidelity to the national charter of a republic that is also a liberal democracy.

Toilets, accountants, bacon and Jewish people per se have nothing whatsoever to do with it, to include the Dutch who travelled all the way to North America to swindle the natives out of Manhattan Island. One recalls New York had been New Amsterdam until the Royal British Navy arrived one day and that that had not been in the fur trappers job description either, so they voluntarily and wisely quit the place and their contracted purposes there.

The logic of elective office in respect of constitutions and sworn oaths in the republic that is the United States is sufficient and evident, as are the expectations of the republican culture.

The clerk has no viable defense in any basic or statutory law or in SCOTUS rulings. The clerk is moreover in violation of the oath of office that she unfaithfully executed. Perhaps the nepotism involved in generations of holding the office has colored her alleged thinking so that the clerk thinks oath taking with unspoken reservations and/or under purposes of evasion are justified in the name of a theology or deity.

She is wrong and the Republican party judge is overly generous to not incarcerate her until she agrees compliance. Incarcerating the clerk for contempt of court would disqualify her from any public office, which is what the judge should have done.

[Chicog]

Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith

No it hasn't. Her job is issuing pieces of paper to couples who are legally allowed to wed.

I don't see that it's ever changed. All that's changed is the people who are allowed to wed. Otherwise it's none of her f---ing business.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Chicog