Kim Davis To Be Released

[i am herdman]

Looks like I was right...again.

Cooler heads prevailed and the judge did the right thing. No need to hold her in jail.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be released from jail
Posted: Sep 08, 2015 12:59 PM EDTUpdated: Sep 08, 2015 1:22 PM EDT

• GRAYSON, Ky. (AP) - The Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs will be released from jail, where she's been held since Thursday on a contempt of court charge.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning lifted the contempt order Tuesday and ordered Rowan County clerk Kim Davis released. Bunning ordered her not to interfere with the issuing of gay marriage licenses.

Bunning sent Davis to jail on Thursday after she refused to comply with his order that Davis issue marriage licenses. She had refused to grant licenses to any couples, gay or straight, since shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage.

Outside the jail where Davis is held, word spread slowly through a crowd of supporters Tuesday afternoon.

Some said they couldn't believe the new

 

[herdit44]

she's being released because the suit for which she was being held in contempt is no more, i.e. those people got their licenses. if she goes back to work and starts the same shit and someone else sues her and she doesn't comply, she'll be right back in the pokey.

 

[i am herdman]

she's being released because the suit for which she was being held in contempt is no more, i.e. those people got their licenses. if she goes back to work and starts the same shit and someone else sues her and she doesn't comply, she'll be right back in the pokey.

Her deputies have been given full authority. The Clerk position is rendered useless by a federal judge.

 

[ARandomHerdFan]

Her deputies have been given full authority. The Clerk position is rendered useless by a federal judge.

As it should be, since the clerk was not performing her duties.

 

[greenblazes]

All that had to be done was her receiving a reasonable accommodation to protect her perceived 1st amendment rights, which also would've protected the gay couples 14th amendment rights at the same time. The governor could've fixed this with one pen stroke changing the language on the certificates and that to me is reasonable - certainly not too much to expect when dealing with the 1st amendment free exercise clause, one of the most deeply held rights we as people possess.

Instead, the liberals were determined to rub her nose in it, which is a primary objective of this whole movement. Just like when they send out hit squads to find the one baker in town they know will have a problem participating in a gay wedding when there may be 10 other bakers in town who wouldn't. These people could've gotten their license almost anywhere in kentucky. But they were looking to cause a stir. And fine, the sup ct has now interpreted the 14th amendment to encompass a right to gay marriage. So I suppose they certainly were within their legal rights to sue. But again the governor could've stepped up and protected everyone's constitutional rights here.

The intolerance from those preaching tolerance is disgusting. The gay agenda is stirring up passion that is going to backfire IMO. You can only try to shovel shit on a group so long before they push back.

 

[extragreen]

...or she could have simply done her job. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

 

[greenblazes]

I wouldn't expect you to get it.

But since you said it, the gays could've gone down the road and gotten a license. That is an equally reasonably thing to have done. They simply weren't being prevented from marrying.

If there is a way to protect everyone's rights, it's reasonable to choose that option. But that's what's wrong with society. Everyone is about having their rights vindicated and don't give a damn about whether in the process, it's at someone else's expense. All about me.

 

[extragreen]

No, you don't get it.

The "reasonable" thing to do was for blacks to sit in the back of the bus. They weren't being prevented from sitting.

The "reasonable" thing to do was for women to not obtain the right to vote. They weren't being prevented from living in the United States.

I oppose gay marriage only because it's Biblically wrong according to my understanding. I oppose theocracy, because it may not be MY religion that rules. Now, do you get it?

 

[HerdandHokies]

She could've told her clerks to handle the gay marriages and nobody would have noticed or cared.

 

[flairforherd]

If there is a way to protect everyone's rights, it's reasonable to choose that option. But that's what's wrong with society. Everyone is about having their rights vindicated and don't give a damn about whether in the process, it's at someone else's expense. All about me.

You could make the exact same statement about the clerk.

Also, there is also the basic principle of separation of church and state, which is one of the principles this country was founded on.

The clerk needs to be educated on this. Since she has a govt. job, she shouldn't be forcing her personal religious beliefs on anyone else.

Whether gay people believe in God or not, or whether God views them as sinners or not, the law says they have the same right to be married as Christian, Catholic, Baptist, Muslim or atheist heterosexuals do.

The clerk must follow the law. As a govt. official, it's not her job, nor her right, to say what is right or wrong, legal or illegal. She has overstepped her bounds. She needs to perform the function of her office or resign.

 

[i am herdman]

She could've told her clerks to handle the gay marriages and nobody would have noticed or cared.

Bull Shit.

 

[i am herdman]

You could make the exact same statement about the clerk.

Also, there is also the basic principle of separation of church and state, which is one of the principles this country was founded on.

The clerk needs to be educated on this. Since she has a govt. job, she shouldn't be forcing her personal religious beliefs on anyone else.

Whether gay people believe in God or not, or whether God views them as sinners or not, the law says they have the same right to be married as Christian, Catholic, Baptist, Muslim or atheist heterosexuals do.

The clerk must follow the law. As a govt. official, it's not her job, nor her right, to say what is right or wrong, legal or illegal. She has overstepped her bounds. She needs to perform the function of her office or resign.

Sounds like the Supreme Court(among other judges) need to read your last paragraph as well. Especially the last sentence.

 

[herdit44]

Sounds like the Supreme Court(among other judges) need to read your last paragraph as well. Especially the last sentence.

sounds like you need to read up on the duties of supreme court justices and county clerks.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

But since you said it, the gays could've gone down the road and gotten a license.

If the elected officials in my county cannot or will not perform services they are required to perform for me, a taxpayer in this county, well bitch better have my money and cut me a check.

 

[Walden Pond]

She probably just made all this up to get out of doing work.

I hate being in this position of having to side with the rainbows, but who does she think she is to get to avoid doing stuff you don't believe in? Most people build their careers on it these days. If you want pure as the driven snow work that doesn't conflict with everything you believe, you probably have to go live off the land and live in a hut.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Bull Shit.

Who would have ever known (or cared) if suddenly Deputy Clerk Joe was signing marriage certificates instead of her?

 

[ggforever]

When Mr. GG and I went to the Cabell Courthouse in July there was one lady there and when she asked what we were there for she excused herself and a different lady came over and took care of everything. We knew what the deal was but neither of us cared because we didn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities. Now, if we had been told to GTFO...that would have been an altogether different story.

I even asked one of the Judges if he was cool with doing the legal part because we didn't want him to feel like he was doing something that he wasn't comfortable with. Even though we ultimately didn't use him he was completely fine with all of it.

I guess Huntington is a bit more cosmopolitan than some of our surrounding tri-state communities.

 

[Walden Pond]

Why sure. Huntington is many a hick's New York City. It was a culture shock to me that I didn't particularly enjoy, but most of the other hicks there were eager to leave behind everything they came from and conform to what they saw on MTV.

Their way of rebelling against parents, I suppose. My way of rebelling was nightly shouting matches resembling Charlie Manuel and the umps at a baseball game.

 

[greenblazes]

Discrimination against blacks or women cannot be argued to have implicated constitutional rights of someone else. Here, whether you agree or disagree, her 1st amendment rights are in the discussion. How do you say one persons constitutional rights trump another persons? Since that is a legitimate discussion, the governor could've diffused it and served all the people of his state but chose not to.

As to the separation, you don't forfeit constitutional rights just because you hold public office. And her decision has nothing to do with establishment, but is analyzed as a free exercise issue. Sure there are limits which is why accommodations must be "reasonable." For instance, you couldn't hold office as a judge and assert you can't judge people because of your religious conscience. There is no reasonable way to accommodate that as it is the integral function of the position. But a clerk serves many functions and issuance of licenses is only one. It could have been accommodated easily, the couples could've gotten licenses in Rowan county, and all this hate and vitriol, albeit coming from both sides to an extent, would've been avoided. Instead the governor did nothing and failed the electorate in his state IMO.

But again, there is a large segment of this movement that is thriving on crushing any dissent - if you can't admit that, you are simply being dishonest. I respect someone like GG for his post above. If more people were like that, this world we be a better place.

 

[herdit44]

Discrimination against blacks or women cannot be argued to have implicated constitutional rights of someone else. Here, whether you agree or disagree, her 1st amendment rights are in the discussion. How do you say one persons constitutional rights trump another persons? Since that is a legitimate discussion, the governor could've diffused it and served all the people of his state but chose not to.

As to the separation, you don't forfeit constitutional rights just because you hold public office. And her decision has nothing to do with establishment, but is analyzed as a free exercise issue. Sure there are limits which is why accommodations must be "reasonable." For instance, you couldn't hold office as a judge and assert you can't judge people because of your religious conscience. There is no reasonable way to accommodate that as it is the integral function of the position. But a clerk serves many functions and issuance of licenses is only one. It could have been accommodated easily, the couples could've gotten licenses in Rowan county, and all this hate and vitriol, albeit coming from both sides to an extent, would've been avoided. Instead the governor did nothing and failed the electorate in his state IMO.

But again, there is a large segment of this movement that is thriving on crushing any dissent - if you can't admit that, you are simply being dishonest. I respect someone like GG for his post above. If more people were like that, this world we be a better place.

what constitutional rights of kim davis are being trumped by someone else?

and, how did the governor fail? he can't change her job duties, he can't force her out of office. all he could've done was cost the taxpayers of kentucky hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to call a special session of the legislature because 3 citizens/county clerks of the state refused to do their jobs. so, to satisfy 3 people, the governor should've wasted the tax dollars of over 4 million?

 

[Walden Pond]

What if the GOP establishment set all this up to try to get Trump to announce his love for gays and sink to the bottom of the Republican polls?

Seeing Huckabee at this woman's release makes me wonder about it.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Discrimination against blacks or women cannot be argued to have implicated constitutional rights of someone else. Here, whether you agree or disagree, her 1st amendment rights are in the discussion. How do you say one persons constitutional rights trump another persons? Since that is a legitimate discussion, the governor could've diffused it and served all the people of his state but chose not to.

As to the separation, you don't forfeit constitutional rights just because you hold public office. And her decision has nothing to do with establishment, but is analyzed as a free exercise issue. Sure there are limits which is why accommodations must be "reasonable." For instance, you couldn't hold office as a judge and assert you can't judge people because of your religious conscience. There is no reasonable way to accommodate that as it is the integral function of the position. But a clerk serves many functions and issuance of licenses is only one. It could have been accommodated easily, the couples could've gotten licenses in Rowan county, and all this hate and vitriol, albeit coming from both sides to an extent, would've been avoided. Instead the governor did nothing and failed the electorate in his state IMO.

But again, there is a large segment of this movement that is thriving on crushing any dissent - if you can't admit that, you are simply being dishonest. I respect someone like GG for his post above. If more people were like that, this world we be a better place.

A huge part of what the Supreme Court does is deciding where one person's rights end and another's begins. In this case they decided that a couple not being able to get basic services from their local government is more important than a county clerk throwing a fit and not even allowing her subordinates to do their job. I agree with that assessment. You're free to disagree, and I'm free to think you've got a loose grasp on reality for disagreeing.

 

[greenblazes]

Her 1st amendment rights are in play, again whether you agree or disagree that there is actually a violation. The governor could've issued an executive order or the kentucky Supreme Court could've issued an order changing the forms at a minimum so she wasn't required to endorse the license. That wouldn't have cost the taxpayers but about 10 minutes to draft, sign, file and fax.

 

[greenblazes]

We don't know for sure how she would've reacted if some subordinate could've issued a license without her endorsement. That's the next logical step that should've been taken as opposed to jailing her. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money.

And the court didn't pass on interplay between competing rights of citizens. In fact, there were discussions in the arguments about where this road was going to lead in terms of religious institutions who are tax exempt, universities, etc. and for good reason, that will be the next front at some point.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Well, she ordered them not to and then argued from jail that any liscences issued in her absence didn't count, so we have a pretty good idea of how she'd have handled it.

 

[SHAMMOND16]

I remember the "spike the football" crowd in this whole gay marriage subject. Talked about how sickened they were that it has to be rubbed in their face. How the gay community always has to shove their sexuality, their beliefs, and their actions down their throat.

What do you people call this spectacle?

 

[Walden Pond]

Retaliation

 

[i am herdman]

Who would have ever known (or cared) if suddenly Deputy Clerk Joe was signing marriage certificates instead of her?

The liberals and the agenda would have. They still would have went after her.

 

[i am herdman]

I remember the "spike the football" crowd in this whole gay marriage subject. Talked about how sickened they were that it has to be rubbed in their face. How the gay community always has to shove their sexuality, their beliefs, and their actions down their throat.

What do you people call this spectacle?

They scored in a 28 to 0 game with 2 mins to go.

 

[HerdandHokies]

The liberals and the agenda would have. They still would have went after her.

No they wouldn't have. Nobody would have cared.

 

[Walden Pond]

They would if they found out. They would want that woman's head on a pike. I just can't believe people feel so sorry for gays. Is their life really that bad?

"Yeah, because of you."

Really? I have that power? If people are stupid enough to let my disapproval ruin their day, then they deserve it.

All this is why the gays will never be happy though. Hell, the politicians fighting for them just do it for the votes. They're pretty much the leftist version of evangelicals. Democrats pretend to fight for gays. Republicans pretend to fight for God. All they're really fighting for is more money in their bank accounts. And now I just found some admiration for them.

 

[i am herdman]

No they wouldn't have. Nobody would have cared.

You can't honestly sit and say that. They sure would have if they found out a county clerk would not sign off on it. They want to force people to accept them.

 

[extragreen]

You can't honestly sit and say that. They sure would have if they found out a county clerk would not sign off on it. They want to force people to accept them.

And people like you want to force people to not accept them.

 

[herdit44]

Her 1st amendment rights are in play, again whether you agree or disagree that there is actually a violation. The governor could've issued an executive order or the kentucky Supreme Court could've issued an order changing the forms at a minimum so she wasn't required to endorse the license. That wouldn't have cost the taxpayers but about 10 minutes to draft, sign, file and fax.

how are her first amendment rights being violated? i'm thinking you don't know what the first amendment entitles a citizen to.

We don't know for sure how she would've reacted if some subordinate could've issued a license without her endorsement. That's the next logical step that should've been taken as opposed to jailing her. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money..

she told the judge she would prevent her deputies/subordinates from issuing them. from her own mouth. so, yeah, we kind of do know.

 

[flairforherd]

sounds like you need to read up on the duties of supreme court justices and county clerks.

Thanks, beat me to it. There is a slight difference there.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

You can't honestly sit and say that. They sure would have if they found out a county clerk would not sign off on it. They want to force people to accept them.

Not really. There are county clerks in KY that are doing exactly what she could have done, and none of it is being publicized.

You are being a big dummy this month.

 

[i am herdman]

And people like you want to force people to not accept them.

No, I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I have my own opinion on the matter. I think there are others who throw token support as they want to be seen as cool or they have some guilt.

 

[extragreen]

No, I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I have my own opinion on the matter. I think there are others who throw token support as they want to be seen as cool or they have some guilt.

Didn't you want to force gays to go somewhere else to get their marriage licenses?

You think people just want to look cool for supporting gay people have the rights of other U S citizens? You mean like when it was cool to support blacks not having to ride in the back of a bus, or not being allowed to vote?

How does the "guilt" thing work? I don't understand that. Is it the same thing as empathy?

 

[i am herdman]

Didn't you want to force gays to go somewhere else to get their marriage licenses?

You think people just want to look cool for supporting gay people have the rights of other U S citizens? You mean like when it was cool to support blacks not having to ride in the back of a bus, or not being allowed to vote?

How does the "guilt" thing work? I don't understand that. Is it the same thing as empathy?

No I said, the gays could belly ache for a few days or they could drive to the next county and get their license.