Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How were gays excluded? Blacks weren't segregated, I never saw a gays only drinking fountain or restrooms or excluded from registering from voting. Same access to education, no exclusion there, either, all these phony arguments. Everything was acceptable to gay. It boggles my mind, they see themselves as victims when they are just rich white whinny men that want exceptional privileges NOBODY even though they were due.

Everything except a marriage license in Kim's county.

We used to have a system like that in the South. Blacks could do anything that we did, as long as blacks stayed away from places where we went to do it.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual degenerates and their feckless attempt to find legitimacy through marriage.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.

Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.

Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.

Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.

Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....

No, you invalidated it. Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.

Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.

 

[Carla_Danger]

i think it would have been hilarious if the jailor had refused to let her out, because letting a homophobe out of jail was against his religious beliefs.

Of course you do. Because you don't understand the difference between imprisoning someone for their beliefs, vs. failing to sign a document that can be signed by anyone else. One is representative of fascism, the other of liberty.

You guys have been so victimized. It is a wonder you don't go around showing the nail holes in your hands.....

We don't have any nail holes in our hands, Christ has nail holes in his hands.

But... in fairness, he's the one that is going to sentence you to eternity of incomprehensible anguish and torment, for your inability to be a decent human being and at least try to obey God's law, while having the humility to accepting God's grace through Christ, so if you've got a bitch, take it up with him.

Thank you for the wonderful sermon, Ted Haggard.

 

[MaryL]

Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.

Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.

Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....

No, you invalidated it. Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.

Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.

Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking gays iare on parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual dysfunctional whiners.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Marriage is NOT a trophy blindly handed out to lovers, period . And it seems painfully apparent some posters aren't getting that. It isn't guaranteed in the constitution, neither is happiness. Some of you are going to have to get over it.Marriage is about people coupling and having children, not validating broken sexualitity for political gain.

Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....

No, you invalidated it. Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.

Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.

Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking gays iare on parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual dysfunctional whiners.

Again, you just told me that I have no reason, or right, to get married, since my reproductive days are over. Frankly, you are starting to piss me off. Where do you get off telling me that my marriage is not worthy enough to have been validated?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, I guess that invalidates my marriage that happened at age 53, after my vasectomy.....

No, you invalidated it. Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.

Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.

Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking gays iare on parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual dysfunctional whiners.

Again, you just told me that I have no reason, or right, to get married, since my reproductive days are over. Frankly, you are starting to piss me off. Where do you get off telling me that my marriage is not worthy enough to have been validated?

That you marry without the means to reproduce, IN NO WAY alters the PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE!

I have a hammer sitting on my bench holding down paperwork. That HAMMER is being useful as something other than what it built to do. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMMER.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.

>>> PERIOD <<<​

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.

Not true then, not true now. And since that isn't true, why are bothering to say it? Are you just a total moron?

 

[Camp]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.

Not true then, not true now. And since that isn't true, why are bothering to say it? Are you just a total moron?

Beware of the POS who sees sex and identifies with sexual perversion at every opportunity. For them the thoughts have become obsessions. The key guy fits the bill.

 

[Kondor3]

...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.

And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.

You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.

I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

Doesn't mean she's right.

Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.

It's just the label that we hang on her actions.

You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.

I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.

An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.

And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.

She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.

Sucks, eh?

 

[Flopper]

...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.

And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.

You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.

I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

Doesn't mean she's right.

Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.

It's just the label that we hang on her actions.

You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.

I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.

An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.

And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.

She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.

Sucks, eh?

Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court. Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job. If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The long and short of it is that if she interferes with the assigned duties of the county clerk's office, she will return to the slammer.

End of story.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The long and short of it is that if she interferes with the assigned duties of the county clerk's office, she will return to the slammer.

End of story.

I love a happy ending. Let's watch it again, soon...

 

[Kondor3]

...Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court. Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job. If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.

True.

Also irrelevant, to the question of whether or not Davis is, indeed, engaged in Civil Disobedience, rather than simple law-breaking or failure to execute her office.

The ruling is new, the public blood is 'up' over this, and her jailing did more to elevate her to the status of Martyr and Folk Hero than it did to tarnish her image or that of her dept.

In truth, it seems likely that Davis is not simply 'still swinging after the bell has rung'.

Rather, it seems likely that Davis is 'priming the pump' for the NEXT round in what promises to be a long-running battle for America's soul.

Every time that someone takes a hit in a lawsuit or goes to jail for refusing to submit to wickedness, as many perceive this ruling to be, the more fence-sitters (and that number is vast) will be driven into the Opposition camp. Support for Gay Marriage may have grown in recent years, but it's a far more fragile thing than Gay advocates will ever admit.

And, of course, if Liberals lose the general election in 2016, keeping both chambers of Congress in Conservative hands, and if the Conservatives take the White House as well, with someone sufficiently forceful and motivational to lead the charge, who knows? Individuals can be swayed. Fresh challenges can be mounted. Old rulings can be overturned.

We live in interesting times, and it seems likely that it's about to grow even more interesting in the near future; just not in the way that the Gay Mafia might be hoping for.

 

[Seawytch]

We live in interesting times, and it seems likely that it's about to grow even more interesting in the near future; just not in the way that the Gay Mafia might be hoping for.

Your delusional fantasies about how you're going to "take your country back" are just that, delusional fantasies. You're never going to get rid of gay marriage...but do keep trying, please.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.

The Obergefell Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.

The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.

“The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed. doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.

I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience. While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.



(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2



(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3



A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3


A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3


Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. Pg.4



(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5




There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5

I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.

I did see one case mentioned Baker v. Nelson

which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.

You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?

The issue of Baker being a controlling precedent had been questionable for some time as it was from a prior era in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.

some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.

Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.

Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........


“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:

“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .

In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.


Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom

 

[Kondor3]

...Your delusional fantasies about how you're going to "take your country back" are just that, delusional fantasies. You're never going to get rid of gay marriage...but do keep trying, please.

Yes. Vae victus. ("Woe unto the vanquished"). "Resistance is futile". "Surrender. You have no choice." "You're delusional." --- Yes, indeed, we've heard it all, before.

Let's see what happens after January 20, 2017, once Republicans are back in charge of the White House, as well as both chambers of Congress.

This isn't over yet - it's only beginning - and you(r side) is square in the metaphorical targeting-sights.

Meanwhile, enjoy your phyrric victory while it lasts, because it seems highly unlikely that it will last much beyond Barack Obama's term in office, once a more Conservative leadership is online, to lead the charge.

In any event, we will know, soon enough.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...Your delusional fantasies about how you're going to "take your country back" are just that, delusional fantasies. You're never going to get rid of gay marriage...but do keep trying, please.

Yes. Vae victus. ("Woe unto the vanquished"). "Resistance is futile". "Surrender. You have no choice." "You're delusional." --- Yes, indeed, we've heard it all, before.

Let's see what happens after January 20, 2017, once Republicans are back in charge of the White House, as well as both chambers of Congress.

This isn't over yet - it's only beginning - and you(r side) is square in the metaphorical targeting-sights.

Meanwhile, enjoy your phyrric victory while it lasts, because it seems highly unlikely that it will last much beyond Barack Obama's term in office, once a more Conservative leadership is online, to lead the charge.

In any event, we will know, soon enough.

phyrric victory ???? Funny, it doesn't feel like that.

 

[Faun]

...Again -- she IS the government. The government does not act out in civil disobedience, which is an act against the government. That's why you're wrong and she sits in a cell.

And there, apparently, is the gist of the difference in positions.

You (apparently) believe that it is impossible for a member of the government to engage in Civil Disobedience while on-duty.

I believe that is it possible for a member of the government to refuse to conform to an immoral law, while on-duty, and that, in doing so, she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

I believe that Davis is in jail because - member of the government or no - she is engaged in an act of Civil Disobedience.

Doesn't mean she's right.

Doesn't mean that she can't be charged with a failure to execute or for contempt.

It's just the label that we hang on her actions.

You (and others less sympathetic) label it as Simple Lawbreaking.

I (and others more sympathetic) label it as Civil Disobedience - which has much the same effect, at-law, but which suggests a nobler purpose and self-sacrifice.

An appellation that you-and-yours are desperate to try to suppress, for fear that it will gain enough traction to become irreversible in the collective public psyche.

And, if that's the case, I think you're already too late.

She's already been awarded the mantle of hero and martyr.

Sucks, eh?

Sucks? Hell no. Why would it suck? She represents the fringe right who just can't accept they lost the fight. She is like the diehard birthers who refused to accept they were beaten when Obama released his long form certificate. The majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage. The majority of Americans support the U.S.S.C. decision. The majority of Americans think what Kim Davis is doing is wrong.

Politically speaking, all she can do is hurt the Republican party as we approach an election year.

That doesn't suck for Liberals.

As far as it being civil disobedience ... it's not civil disobedience when the government protests the people. It wasn't just her protesting -- it was her office. She refused to let her office perform its governmental responsibilities. That's not civil disobedience -- it's anarchy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

What law did she violate?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They crucified Jesus, they imprisoned MLK for believing in something that offended and violated laws of the status quo.

They probably had to drum up some law they said MLK was violating. Now they throw political dissidents in jail on a whim. I think this judge needs to see the inside of a jail cell.

I think that you need to see the inside of a mental institution

Will you settle for the inside of my autistic son's developmental therapist's clinic?