Kentucky clerk returns to work after 5-day stint in jail

[webfact]

Kentucky clerk returns to work after 5-day stint in jail
By CLAIRE GALOFARO

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — Kim Davis returned to work Monday for the first time since she was jailed for defying a federal court and announced that she would no longer block her deputies from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Standing at the courthouse door, the Kentucky county clerk read from a handwritten statement and explained in a quivering voice that she had been faced with a "seemingly impossible choice" between following her conscience and losing her freedom.

So she agreed to an "emergency stopgap" concession, her lawyer later said: She did not stop her deputy clerk from issuing licenses edited to remove her name, her title and her authorization. But, she said, she had "grave concerns" that the licenses would be invalid without her blessing.

The only couple to receive a license on Monday walked into a surreal scene. Shannon and Carmen Wampler-Collins squeezed through a throng of reporters and protesters and stood at the counter, microphones bobbing above their heads.

Deputy clerk Brian Mason, who began issuing licenses when Davis was hauled to jail, worked behind a sign anointing him the "marriage license deputy." He has issued a dozen licenses since Davis was jailed Sept. 8, eight of them to same-sex couples, and has pledged to continue issuing them despite his boss's wishes.

Hecklers shouted "coward" at him from the side of room. Mason, a 38-year-old former retail worker who unwittingly fell into the middle of the firestorm, smiled at them and turned back to his work.

"It's a little crazy," said Mason, who's worked for Davis for a year and a half, "but I try not to let it bother me."

One protester waved a Bible and shouted. Elizabeth Johnston from Ohio screamed, "Don't let Kim's five days in jail be in vain."

Marriage equality supporters tried to drown them out: "Love has won," they chanted.

The scene dragged on for a half-hour as Davis remained in her office, the door closed and the blinds drawn. Mason went into her office three times, though he attributed the holdup to printer and software problems.

When he finally finished the license, he handed it to the couple and shook their hands. The document, a template issued by the state and filled out by each clerk, had been altered. Where the name of the clerk and the county is typically entered, it said instead "pursuant to federal court order."

Her attorneys later said they hoped the concession would satisfy the judge's order enough to keep her out of jail. But they said the validity of the licenses remains in limbo. They called on the Legislature to rewrite state law to accommodate clerks with religious objections and blamed Gov. Steve Beshear for refusing to call a special session to find a solution.

The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid.

But attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued Davis on behalf of four couples denied licenses by her office, said late Monday that they "have concerns about the validity of the marriage licenses issued today given the further alteration of the forms."

The ACLU's lawsuit led to Davis spending five nights in jail for contempt of court. U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning let her out last week under strict orders to "not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples."

"We brought this case to ensure that our clients and all eligible couples could legally marry in Rowan County," ACLU attorney James Esseks said in a statement. "We are reviewing the changes to determine our next steps."

A Democrat and Apostolic Christian elected last fall, Davis rocketed to folk-hero status among many Christian conservatives when she refused to issue licenses after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. She defied a federal court order, lost a string of appeals, then sat in a jail cell as hundreds of protesters, news crews and politicians descended on this small, rural town unaccustomed to media spectacles.

Davis said she did not want to be in the spotlight.

"And I certainly don't want to be a whipping post. I am no hero. I'm just a person that's been transformed by the grace of God, who wants to work, be with my family. I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience," she said.

Outside, the Rowan County Courthouse plaza took on the air of a carnival: Media packed into white-topped tents. Christian music blared from loudspeakers. People shouted Bible verses from the sidewalk. A plane flew overhead trailing a rainbow banner.

A fissure became apparent Monday between the out-of-town activists who arrived in droves several weeks ago, and Davis' homegrown supporters who have stood beside her for months.

The ordeal has drawn some of the most fervent Christian activists from across the country. Their trucks were parked up and down the street, with license plates from Colorado to Iowa to North Carolina, bearing signs like "sodomy ruins nations" and "repent."

Johnston, screaming in the back of Davis' office, said she was disappointed that Davis allowed a license to be issued, rather than risk being jailed again by firing the deputy who agreed to sign them.

"We want her to be our Rosa Parks," said Johnston, who traveled from Zanesville, Ohio, with her nine children and a 10th on the way. Any compromise was unacceptable, she said.

Davis' local supporters took a more temperate stand.

Serena Smith, a Morehead native, said she is happy so long as Davis feels like she's not being forced to violate her faith. That's all they've wanted all along, she said.

Of the out-of-towners, she said, "they need to go back home."
___

Associated Press Writer Adam Beam contributed from Louisville, Kentucky.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-15

[Jingthing]

So she accomplished nothing really. Good!

[Scott]

A post with a slur in it has been removed.

Please stay on topic.

[DirtyDan]

"We want her to be our Rosa Parks..." One issue with that statement: Rosa Parks stood for equality, Kim Davies is preventing it.

Wow, talk about a convoluted view of reality - so twisted it's scary. It's like saying I want McDonalds to be my champion against anorexia.

[jerojero]

Invalid without her "blessing"? What a pompous a$$. Oh forgot... She speaks for God and definitely knows what He wants. Because the" Bible says so". Believe what you want, but don't impose it public office. Quit your job, you moron.

[Searat7]

That miserable creature should be fired for not following the law. Everyone in the work force has to do some things they don't agree with but it's not their choice. Maybe they should follow Thailand's example and move her to an "Inactive position" where she can still collect her $80,000 salary.

[reptile91602]

America is a joke. Over and over again!

[IAMHERE]

I am not sure if she is un-american or anti-american. One of the core principals that the USA was founded on is 'freedom from religion'. That principal has been corrupted to 'freedom of religion' by this bigot. She wants to force her religion on others, not what the founding fathers wanted at all. Freedom of religion is not the same as Freedom from Religion.

[Seastallion]

"Deputy clerk Brian Mason, who began issuing licenses when Davis was hauled to jail........

Hecklers shouted "coward" at him from the side of room."

Lol...the coward is the lady who's convictions are SOOOOO strong, she couldn't bear another night in gaol. The strength of her convictions is equal to 5 nights of mild discomfort.

[elgordo38]

If you think she is the new standard bearer for American morality think again. Google and watch this video what a hoot. Moral majority my well you know my A

Watch: Randy Rainbow Serenades Kim Davis With 'Cell Block Tango'

Edited September 15, 2015 by elgordo38

[NeilSA1]

Atitude Adjustment seems to work after all.

[Srikcir]

That miserable creature should be fired for not following the law. Everyone in the work force has to do some things they don't agree with but it's not their choice. Maybe they should follow Thailand's example and move her to an "Inactive position" where she can still collect her $80,000 salary.

She cannot be fired or reassigned to another duty or position. As an elected official to the position of County Clerk she has to be impeached by the State legislature to be removed from office. However, she can be jailed for an unspecified time for contempt of court. She would still draw her salary.

[chuckd]

I am not sure if she is un-american or anti-american. One of the core principals that the USA was founded on is 'freedom from religion'. That principal has been corrupted to 'freedom of religion' by this bigot. She wants to force her religion on others, not what the founding fathers wanted at all. Freedom of religion is not the same as Freedom from Religion.

Well, you are close at least. The only problem is you are wrong.

The First Amendment to the Constitution says this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution expressly provides for the free exercise OF religion.

Nowhere is it expressed in the Constitution that freedom FROM religion exists.

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

The Supreme Court later took that letter and ran with it, declaring the somewhat dubious freedom FROM religion concept.in 1879.

[cookee68]

Religion, the killer of all evils

[Publicus]

I am not sure if she is un-american or anti-american. One of the core principals that the USA was founded on is 'freedom from religion'. That principal has been corrupted to 'freedom of religion' by this bigot. She wants to force her religion on others, not what the founding fathers wanted at all. Freedom of religion is not the same as Freedom from Religion.

Well, you are close at least. The only problem is you are wrong.

The First Amendment to the Constitution says this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution expressly provides for the free exercise OF religion.

Nowhere is it expressed in the Constitution that freedom FROM religion exists.

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

The Supreme Court later took that letter and ran with it, declaring the somewhat dubious freedom FROM religion concept.in 1879.

By virtue of the constitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Fourteenth Amendment establishes the equal protection of the laws throughout the Constitution. Mr. Jefferson's letter of 1802 was persuasive and it endured to the point SCOTUS cited it in their 1878 definitive and unanimous decision that the Constitution always prevails when challenged by religious belief per se.

The clerk has no Constitutional right to impose her religious belief(s) on anyone at any time, to include especially and in particular as an official of the government sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution to support or encourage or to justify the clerk in support of her anarchy.

Legally and constitutionally this circus is over, wiped clean, flushed, finished.

[Seastallion]

I am not sure if she is un-american or anti-american. One of the core principals that the USA was founded on is 'freedom from religion'. That principal has been corrupted to 'freedom of religion' by this bigot. She wants to force her religion on others, not what the founding fathers wanted at all. Freedom of religion is not the same as Freedom from Religion.

Well, you are close at least. The only problem is you are wrong.

The First Amendment to the Constitution says this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution expressly provides for the free exercise OF religion.

Nowhere is it expressed in the Constitution that freedom FROM religion exists.

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

The Supreme Court later took that letter and ran with it, declaring the somewhat dubious freedom FROM religion concept.in 1879.

By virtue of the constitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Fourteenth Amendment establishes the equal protection of the laws throughout the Constitution. Mr. Jefferson's letter of 1802 was persuasive and it endured to the point SCOTUS cited it in their 1878 definitive and unanimous decision that the Constitution always prevails when challenged by religious belief per se.

The clerk has no Constitutional right to impose her religious belief(s) on anyone at any time, to include especially and in particular as an official of the government sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution to support or encourage or to justify the clerk in support of her anarchy.

Legally and constitutionally this circus is over, wiped clean, flushed, finished.

Maybe not.

" She did not stop her deputy clerk from issuing licenses edited to remove her name, her title and her authorization. But, she said, she had "grave concerns" that the licenses would be invalid without her blessing."

And her own lawyers "hope" that this "stopgap" satisfies the judges order.

It says to me that the judge said she may go free if she agrees not to stop her deputies issuing licenses, and her lawyers have offered her this technicality, which in her mind at least means she is not authorising any licenses. In my mind too. Some nutcase third party, from either side, is going to test this, I'm guessing. Actually, I'm hoping. I want to see how strong her religious convictions are as she looks out from behind the bars again.

[Publicus]

I am not sure if she is un-american or anti-american. One of the core principals that the USA was founded on is 'freedom from religion'. That principal has been corrupted to 'freedom of religion' by this bigot. She wants to force her religion on others, not what the founding fathers wanted at all. Freedom of religion is not the same as Freedom from Religion.

Well, you are close at least. The only problem is you are wrong.

The First Amendment to the Constitution says this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution expressly provides for the free exercise OF religion.

Nowhere is it expressed in the Constitution that freedom FROM religion exists.

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

The Supreme Court later took that letter and ran with it, declaring the somewhat dubious freedom FROM religion concept.in 1879.

By virtue of the constitutional doctrine of Incorporation, the Fourteenth Amendment establishes the equal protection of the laws throughout the Constitution. Mr. Jefferson's letter of 1802 was persuasive and it endured to the point SCOTUS cited it in their 1878 definitive and unanimous decision that the Constitution always prevails when challenged by religious belief per se.

The clerk has no Constitutional right to impose her religious belief(s) on anyone at any time, to include especially and in particular as an official of the government sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution to support or encourage or to justify the clerk in support of her anarchy.

Legally and constitutionally this circus is over, wiped clean, flushed, finished.

Maybe not.

" She did not stop her deputy clerk from issuing licenses edited to remove her name, her title and her authorization. But, she said, she had "grave concerns" that the licenses would be invalid without her blessing."

And her own lawyers "hope" that this "stopgap" satisfies the judges order.

It says to me that the judge said she may go free if she agrees not to stop her deputies issuing licenses, and her lawyers have offered her this technicality, which in her mind at least means she is not authorising any licenses. In my mind too.

Some nutcase third party, from either side, is going to test this, I'm guessing. Actually, I'm hoping. I want to see how strong her religious convictions are as she looks out from behind the bars again.

The only reason Davis is conceding licenses being issued is that she spent five dayze and nights in the pokey. Nothing made the experience tolerable to her, not her reading of the Bible there, not her contemplations while in the cooler, not any personal conversations she may have had with anyone during glowing moments in the slammer.

The fight has been taken out of her and she is finished. The federal judge has, so to speak, showed her the way and the light of the law. There was no other possible course of action or outcome which is why the most obstinate and fierce of headstrong people who defiantly stand in contempt of the courts get put in the bighouse. That's why it's called the cooler.

Kim Davis is cooked. Stick a fork in her cause she's done.

Next.

[notmyself]

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

Which group were the Baptists afraid of?

[FangFerang]

"explained in a quivering voice that she had been faced with a "seemingly impossible choice" between following her conscience and losing her freedom"

What a stage hungry bimbo.

[Jingthing]

"explained in a quivering voice that she had been faced with a "seemingly impossible choice" between following her conscience and losing her freedom"

What a stage hungry bimbo.

Resigning is quite possible.

[chuckd]

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

Which group were the Baptists afraid of?

Google is your friend.

[notmyself]

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

Which group were the Baptists afraid of?

Google is your friend.

That is BS. Google did not even exist at the time.

[Publicus]

Just for your information, freedom FROM religion was originally brought up by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, wherein he called for a wall of separation between church and state as his original intent.

Which group were the Baptists afraid of?

Google is your friend.

Afraid primarily of Northern Baptists who had demanded abolition of slavery, so the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845 to separate it from the Baptists of the North.

The clerk Kim Davis belongs to some kind of Apostolic Pentecostal church and its phone booth membership that fear the creeping moderation and modernism of the 21st century Southern Baptist Convention. Davis' little church group believes that a person must speak in tongues to be saved, especially one unknown by the person. So Davis has gone a long distance to separate herself from the Constitution and the rule of law.

[notmyself]

So the separation was due to other theists?