County Clerk Defies Federal, Appeals, And Scotus Court Orders Against Her, Invoking Her Faith And Religious Freedom

[Calm]

"It ought to be possible for Ms Davis to find someone in her office who has no moral standards, and is therefore willing to sign off on a "same sex marriage.""

I think the problem is she has ordered them not to.

[ttribe]

It ought to be possible for Ms Davis to find someone in her office who has no moral standards, and is therefore willing to sign off on a "same sex marriage."

 

What is the higher law of morality, here?  Refusing to issue marriage licenses on the grounds that it is validating behavior she considers sinful?  Or, executing her duties as an elected official in a legal and lawful manner?  I, for one, don't concede that someone who chooses to issue such marriage licenses, by definition, "has no moral standards."

[Daniel2]

I would agree only if the rest of our government were held to the same standard.

 

I'm not aware of any government agency or individual which is allowed to refuse to carry out the functions of their job based on personal religious objections while maintaining their employment status and salary...

[Daniel2]

I wonder if those same sex couples chose her office in order to cause a scene?

Like the oh so terribly traumatised people who drove past several florists in order to pick one they knew was a believer in authentic marriage?

The imposition of immorality upon someone with a conscience is clearly far worse than imposing religious beliefs upon those who have none.

It ought to be possible for Ms Davis to find someone in her office who has no moral standards, and is therefore willing to sign off on a "same sex marriage."

The question is: would the SSM juggernaut be content with that?

 

You would do well to educate yourself on the situation.

 

The same-sex and opposite-sex couples involved in this suit all chose this office because they reside, work, and pay taxes in the county this office serves.  Their taxes pay for Ms. Davis' salary--she is a public servant.

 

Additionally, Ms. Davis is refusing to allow any of her other staff to sign the certificates, because as county clerk, Ms. Davis' name still appears on the paperwork.

 

These gay and straight couples have said they would be content if anyone in the office just gave them a marriage certificate without imposing the burden of having to travel out-of-county to another office.

 

So, no, Russell.  These gay and straight couples aren't making it a personal issue about Ms. Davis----Ms. Davis is making it a personal issue about herself.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Ms. Davis has released a statement:

 

“I have worked in the Rowan County Clerk’s office for 27 years as a Deputy Clerk and was honored to be elected as the Clerk in November 2014, and took office in January 2015. I love my job and the people of Rowan County. I have never lived any place other than Rowan County. Some people have said I should resign, but I have done my job well. This year we are on track to generate a surplus for the county of 1.5 million dollars.

 

“In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County, I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God.

 

“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will.

 

“To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience. I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned – that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking. I never sought to be in this position, and I would much rather not have been placed in this position. I have received death threats from people who do not know me. I harbor nothing against them. I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience.”

 

It appears Ms. Davis is determined to become a martyr.

 

A stark contrast to the following commentary by Wayne University Professor, John Corvino, co-author of Debating Same-Sex Marriage with former NOM president Maggie Gallagher, writing for the Detroit Free Press.:

 

It's time to remove Kentucky clerk Kim Davis
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/09/01/s-time-remove-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis/71505026/

By John Corvino, Free Press guest writer 4:09 p.m. EDT September 1, 2015

 

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds that doing so would violate her religious beliefs, claims that the state should not force her to act against her conscience. I agree. As a gay-rights advocate — and a gay man myself — I support her right to live in accordance with her religious convictions, even if that means not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

 

What I don't support is allowing her to continue collecting paychecks for an $80,000 a year state job which she declines to perform. If her conscience renders her unable to issue marriage licenses to those legally qualified, then the right thing for her to do is resign. After all, issuing marriage licenses is not a peripheral, non-essential part of being county clerk — it's a central job function. Her current stance makes no more sense than that of an Amish person who expects to retain a job as a bus driver.

 

Some background: Back in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized same-sex couples' right to marry in all fifty states, Davis ceased issuing marriage licenses to anyone rather than grant them to gay couples. She also forbade her deputy clerks to issue them, on the grounds that her name (although not her signature) would still appear on the licenses.

 

Several couples sued, and U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis to issue the licenses; he then stayed his decision so that she could appeal. A unanimous U.S. 6th Circuit Court denied her appeal last week. Davis then made an emergency appeal to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the judicial district that includes Kentucky. Kagan referred the matter to the full Court, which on Monday denied Davis's appeal without comment. This morning Davis announced that she will still not issue marriage licenses today. Reports say that a hearing is set for Thursday to determine if Davis should held in contempt of court. 

In asking the court to grant Davis a religious exemption, her attorneys compared her to a conscientious objector being forced to go to war, for example, or an opponent of capital punishment being forced to participate in executions.

 

But these analogies fall flat. Unlike the conscientious objector, Davis is not being drafted into service against her will. She has chosen a job that requires her to grant licenses in accordance with civil law. She is no longer willing to do that. She should not expect to keep her job, any more than a military commander would keep his job if he became a pacifist, or a surgeon would keep her job if she became a Christian Scientist and refused to perform surgery. Religious liberty does not entitle the bearer to line-item vetoes for essential job functions.

 

Davis cites her Apostolic Christian faith to support the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. But civil marriage and religious marriage, though historically intertwined, are not the same thing, and Davis's job is to administer the law, not a sacrament. Many conservative religious believers oppose interfaith marriage, or re-marriage after divorce. As citizens they are free to do so. They are not free, however, to substitute their understanding of marriage for the state's when acting in an official state capacity.

 

Many have commented on the fact that Davis herself has been divorced several times. As a strategic matter, this makes her a rather poor poster child for "traditional Christian marriage": Jesus himself treats divorce and remarriage as akin to adultery. But the point is not merely ad hominem: Davis's willingness to impose a standard of marriage on gays that she does not apply to others, herself included, shows that she's less interested in enforcing a consistent traditional Christian view than in singling out gays for disapproval. In its Obergefell decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly rejected such treatment as an affront to dignity and equal treatment under the law.

 

Private citizens are free to express their religious views about homosexuality — however hypocritically and inconsistently — and to practice their faith as they see fit. But religious liberty is not a "get out of your job free" card.

 

John Corvino is professor and chair of philosophy at Wayne State University. Read more from him at johncorvino.com.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

You would do well to educate yourself on the situation.

 

The same-sex and opposite-sex couples involved in this suit all chose this office because they reside, work, and pay taxes in the county this office serves.  Their taxes pay for Ms. Davis' salary--she is a public servant.

 

Additionally, Ms. Davis is refusing to allow any of her other staff to sign the certificates, because as county clerk, Ms. Davis' name still appears on the paperwork.

 

These gay and straight couples have said they would be content if anyone in the office just gave them a marriage certificate without imposing the burden of having to travel out-of-county to another office.

 

So, no, Russell.  These gay and straight couples aren't making it a personal issue about Ms. Davis----Ms. Davis is making it a personal issue about herself.

Really? I didn't see that in your material. To which authentic (i.e. opposite-sex) couples has she refused to issue marriage licences?

And thank you for admitting that they could drive 10 km down the road and get their marriage licenses from someone else. What a "burden!"

But I do agree that she's overreaching by forbidding her employees to issue such licenses.

[ttribe]

Re:  Ms. Davis' Statement

 

If true, death threats are unconscionable.  No one needs to die over this conflict.

 

She states - "I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience."  Well, Ms. Davis, the Supreme Court of the United States has made a decision that makes it impossible for you to both.  Time to choose.

[Calm]

I wonder if those same sex couples chose her office in order to cause a scene?

According to whitepages, they live there.

[Daniel2]

Really? I didn't see that in your material.

Hence the reason I suggested that you would do well to educate yourself, instead of relying only on what others share.

 

To which authentic (i.e. opposite-sex) couples has she refused to issue marriage licences?

Her office has refused marriage licenses to all couples, gay and straight, since Obergefell. The ACLU filed their suit against her on behalf of two opposite-sex and two same-sex couples, per the first link I provided in Post 26 of this thread:

 

Lawsuit says denial of marriage licenses to same gender and opposite gender couples unconstitutional

 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky today filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Rowan County couples, two same-gender couples and two opposite-gender couples, denied marriage licenses by County Clerk Kim Davis. Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sweeping and historic decision that affords gay and lesbian couples the legal right to marry, Ms. Davis has refused to provide marriage licenses to any couple applying for one in Rowan County citing “religious concerns.”

 

 

And thank you for admitting that they could drive 10 km down the road and get their marriage licenses from someone else. What a "burden!"

I haven't said anything about 10 km.

 

I wonder how you would react to an employee on your payroll who, upon your request to fill out and file a form for you, would say, "Go drive to the next county and get someone from the regional office there to do it for you!"

 

Surely every employer wouldn't consider that any burden at all, right....? 

 

But I do agree that she's overreaching by forbidding her employees to issue such licenses.

So, the rest of your post was just an opportunity to attempt to demean the same-sex couples, while remaining ignorant of the opposite-sex couples who's rights were also violated and likewise sued. Gotcha.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Daniel2

[Zakuska]

She is doing herself and her cause no favors by defying the law. She's a poor example and is not protecting religious liberty. In fact she is denying it by forcing her religion on others.

 

How you jump to the conclusion that one persons Civil Disobedience = forcing ones religion on others is beyond me.

 

All one needs do is find a clerk that will do it and no harm no foul.

[ttribe]

How you jump to the conclusion that one persons Civil Disobedience = forcing ones religion on others is beyond me.

 

All one needs do is find a clerk that will do it and no harm no foul.

 

That shouldn't be necessary.  All citizens of the county should be treated equally on this matter; so says the Supreme Court.  Thus, there is a harm, at least in the eyes of the law.

[bluebell]

No, it's political commentary and relies upon the cynical notion that if all areas can't be fixed (i.e. held to the law), none should be.

Whether or not it's political commentary doesn't mean it's not a good point.

[ttribe]

Whether or not it's political commentary doesn't mean it's not a good point.

 

Fine.  But it's fallacious in its underlying thinking (as I've already pointed out).

Edited September 1, 2015 by ttribe

[Ahab]

Ms. Davis has released a statement:

It appears Ms. Davis is determined to become a martyr.

A stark contrast to the following commentary by Wayne University Professor, John Corvino, co-author of Debating Same-Sex Marriage with former NOM president Maggie Gallagher, writing for the Detroit Free Press.:

You are an articulate proponent of your perspective and are offering a well reasoned response. And I agree that if the people in that county don't want her to have the job she has now then they should not sustain her or uphold her in that position, even using any legal means to try to remove her from that position.

There is another side to this issue though. There are others who approve of what she is doing and agree that she should continue to have that job even while she denies people of the same sex her approval to marry. She can logistically still approve of marriages for opposite sex couples. All she wants to deny is her approval for same sex marriages, just as I do.

[Zakuska]

That shouldn't be necessary.  All citizens of the county should be treated equally on this matter; so says the Supreme Court.  Thus, there is a harm, at least in the eyes of the law.

 

This is getting into muddy water... because of this there will be an established religious test under the law for ones fitness to hold the public office of County clerk.  If one refuses to Issue Licenses on grounds of conscious they can't hold the Job and cant run for it.

 

And thus a religious test to exclude a whole swath of potential County Clerks is engrained into the law.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[ttribe]

This is getting into muddy water... because of this there will be an established religious test under the law for ones fitness to hold the public office of County clerk.  If one refuses to do so they can't hold the Job.

 

And thus a religious test is engrained into the law.

 

Well, I suppose that presumes that all people of the same religion would act in the same way.  Certainly, what you are suggesting is already in place on individual bases for all manner of public offices simply by virtue of diversity of beliefs and claims to beliefs.  So, I'm not sure your argument is all that sound.

[Russell C McGregor]

Hence the reason I suggested that you would do well to educate yourself, instead of relying only on what others share.

 

Her office has refused marriage licenses to all couples, gay and straight, since Obergefell. The ACLU filed their suit against her on behalf of two opposite-sex and two same-sex couples, per the first link I provided in Post 26 of this thread:

Lawsuit says denial of marriage licenses to same gender and opposite gender couples unconstitutional

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky today filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Rowan County couples, two same-gender couples and two opposite-gender couples, denied marriage licenses by County Clerk Kim Davis. Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sweeping and historic decision that affords gay and lesbian couples the legal right to marry, Ms. Davis has refused to provide marriage licenses to any couple applying for one in Rowan County citing “religious concerns.”

 

 

I haven't said anything about 10 km.

 

So, the rest of your post was just an opportunity to attempt to demean the same-sex couples, while remaining ignorant of the opposite-sex couples who's rights were also violated and likewise sued. Gotcha.

So, IOW, her office stopped issuing all marriage licenses.

Knowing this, two same sex couples decided to show up and demand that she issue them with a marriage license that she wasn't giving anyone else.

They could have driven 10 km down the road and got their "marriage" licenses with a minimum of fuss; but hey--why would a same sex couple want to do anything with a minimum of fuss, when they can be drama queens instead?

“I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level,” Ermold told the Associated Press.

Like he didn't invite the press along!

Clearly you asked for it, Dave and Dave.

But to come back to Ms Davis: clearly she thought that a blanket refusal to issue any marriage licenses at all was not "discriminatory."

Clearly she's right. And equally clearly, the juggernaut won't let that stop them.

[bluebell]

Fine.  But it's fallacious in its underlying thinking (as I've already pointed out).

 

Often in this country people don't really care whether or not an elected official breaks the law if they break it doing something they themselves feel is morally right (or that doesn't impact them at all).  Like that Mayor of San Fransisco (I think that's who it was) who issued marriage licenses to SS couples even though it was illegal. 

 

He was heralded by a lot of people as a hero.

 

And of course there are a ton of elected officials that just flat out do illegal stuff all the time for no moral (or moral to them) reason at all and a lot of people tolerate that with little to no moral outrage (as long as it doesn't cost them money).  

 

That doesn't mean that it's o.k. that this woman isn't following the law.  But it does say something about the double standards that some people are comfortable with.

[Calm]

.

There is another side to this issue though. There are others who approve of what she is doing and agree that she should continue to have that job even while she denies people of the same sex her approval to marry. She can logistically still approve of marriages for opposite sex couples. All she wants to deny is her approval for same sex marriages, just as I do.

It would be interesting to find out if this was discussed at all during the election and her position helped get her elected.

Her mom was it for years before her, so it could have been the brand name.

[Calm]

This is getting into muddy water... because of this there will be an established religious test under the law for ones fitness to hold the public office of County clerk. If one refuses to Issue Licenses on grounds of conscious they can't hold the Job and cant run for it.

And thus a religious test to exclude a whole swath of potential County Clerks is engrained into the law.

Seems to me all they have to ask is if you will uphold the law now and in the future. Edited September 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But to come back to Ms Davis: clearly she thought that a blanket refusal to issue any marriage licenses at all was not "discriminatory."Clearly she's right.

But either way she is not fulfilling the duties of her office.

I think halc made a good point. If she is engaging in civil disobedience she should be forthright in how she does it and not try to minimize the consequences for herself. If she is just trying to avoid what makes her uncomfortable by having all those wanting marriages to go elsewhere, she should resign because she is not doing what she promised to do for the people her voted her in...run her office.

Unless she told them she was going to do this and that is what the majority wanted. If so, then it is unfortunate that all the taxpayers are going to be footing the bill whether they voted for her or not while it gets settled.

Edited September 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Russell C McGregor]

But either way she is not fulfilling the duties of her office.

I think halc made a good point. If she is engaging in civil disobedience she should be forthright in how she does it and not try to minize the consequences for herself.

Yes, you're right.

As I said: I think she overreached when she forbade her employees to issue said licenses. If she'd just refused to do them herself, while allowing those employees who were okay with them to issue them, I'd be 100% behind her.

Of course, then the juggernaut would still be after her; she'd just make a slightly less useful poster child for (ahem) "homophobia."

[The Nehor]

 

How you jump to the conclusion that one persons Civil Disobedience = forcing ones religion on others is beyond me.

 

All one needs do is find a clerk that will do it and no harm no foul.

 

Yes, you're right.

As I said: I think she overreached when she forbade her employees to issue said licenses. If she'd just refused to do them herself, while allowing those employees who were okay with them to issue them, I'd be 100% behind her.

Of course, then the juggernaut would still be after her; she'd just make a slightly less useful poster child for (ahem) "homophobia."

 

Yes, Donna refuses to be a waitress for Black people. We'll just have to get Jimmy to deal with that table.

 

No, I would still find her in contempt even if she allowed others to issue the licenses.

 

If I were the federal judge on the case I would jail her for contempt and hold her until she either agreed to issue the licenses herself and allow others to do so (ie do her job) or until she agrees to step down from her elected office so she can be replaced by someone who will do the job.

 

What's next? Police refusing to arrest people for drug offenses to protest our idiotic "War on Drugs"? Soldiers refusing to deploy to conflicts they disagree with? Judges refusing to hear cases for laws they personally find objectionable?

[sethpayne]

It is her job. Employees don't get to pick and choose what they want to do unless the employer wants to allow them to.

 

 

Agreed.  Including police officers riding formation in a parade.  

Edited September 2, 2015 by sethpayne

[Thinking]

If you work at 7-Eleven, will you refuse to sell a 12 pack of beer to a legal adult because consuming alcohol is against your religious beliefs?

 

Kim Davis is not issuing marriage licenses in the name of God. She is issuing them is the name of the state, of which she is an employee.