Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (Reuters) A Kentucky county clerk petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 28) for an emergency order allowing her to continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move coming two days after a federal appeals court rejected her request.

In a related move, a federal judge refused to extend a stay of his own ruling requiring the clerk to furnish marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples while she appealed on the grounds that her religious faith overrides her duties as a public servant.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning said earlier in August that Kim Davis had to live up to her responsibilities as the Rowland County clerk despite her religious convictions, and he issued a preliminary injunction requiring her to issue marriage licenses.

religionnews.com/2015/08/30/kentucky-clerk-seeks-supreme-court-help-to-deny-gay-marriage-licenses/

SCOTUS denied her appeal.

nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/supreme-court-says-kentucky-clerk-must-let-gay-couples-marry.html?_r=0

Now the plaintiffs can ask the judge to hold the county clerk in contempt of court, subject to fines or imprisonment if she refuses to comply.

Citing God’s authority, clerk defies U.S. top court on gay marriages

reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901

Federal Judge Orders County Clerk Into Court Over Refusal to Issue ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

MOREHEAD, Ky. — A county clerk in Kentucky has been ordered to appear in court on Thursday for a contempt hearing and is now facing “serious financial penalties” after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed motions against her for continuing to refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals because of her Christian convictions.

“The motions ask the court to hold [Kim] Davis in contempt of court for failing to comply with its previous ruling and to clarify that Davis must issue marriage licenses to everybody, not just the four named couples in the case,” the organization reported in a statement on Tuesday.

christiannews.net/2015/09/01/federal-judge-orders-county-clerk-into-court-over-refusal-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/

^^

Hope she brings her toothbrush to court with her. Unless she decides to do her job there’s a very good chance she’s headed to jail.

Federal Judge Orders County Clerk to Jail Until She Agrees to Issue ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

MOREHEAD, Ky. — A federal judge has ordered a Kentucky clerk to be placed behind bars until she complies with his order to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals despite her Christian identity.

US District Judge David Bunning, appointed to the bench by then-president George W. Bush, declared Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt of court this morning after she explained in tears that it is not possible for her to comply with the order because of her Christianity.

“My conscience will not allow it,” she said. “God’s moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties.”

christiannews.net/2015/09/03/federal-judge-orders-county-clerk-to-jail-until-she-agrees-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/

First they came for the Christians…

Oh come now. All she had to do was resign. No one was coming after her because she called herself Christian. She was held in contempt because she wasn’t doing her job. She could have claimed belief in anything and the courts would have taken the same action.

Oh come now. All she had to do was resign. No one was coming after her because she called herself Christian. She was held in contempt because she wasn’t doing her job. She could have claimed belief in anything and the courts would have taken the same action.

Hold on, now. Are you suggesting Christians may no longer voice their views publicly on this issue? Even the Supreme Court backed down from that sort of militantism in Obergefell:

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

So we know that she is certainly allowed to speak her mind. More than that, we know that Civil Disobedience has always been part of the American legal system. Lincoln was the most high-profile offender, others like Rosa Parks and MLK did similar things.

Look, it’s not that she’s refusing to give marriage licenses to LGBT folks; she’s refusing all marriage certificates until the state permits her to remove her name from marriage certificates. This would require… what? Maybe fixing a broken state statute. So why is it out of the question for the State to fix a broken statute? Especially when the alternative is barring those who disagree with gay marriage from that public office. That’s like making voters take a “literacy test” at the polls. Or making people swear allegiance to the party and its Fuhrer before holding office.

Not at all. I said that the issue was not that she was Christian. The issue was that she refused to do her job.

I’d agree with you that the Church/State issue is peripheral, at most, to this situation. Whether her personal reasons are religious or non-religious has no bearing on the fact that her conscience is compromised by the novel demand of the office she had held without issue before. When federal practices changed, however, it left her with an undue burden on her conscience – which Obergefell explicitly promises should not be done!

She’s still willing to do her job as it existed before the Court’s decision. She has simply asked for a means to take her name off marriage certificates. Her request is not unreasonable. Especially when the alternative effectively bars traditionalists from public office. We don’t burden the voter with “literacy tests” at the polls. We don’t make the soldier swear allegiance to the party and its Fuhrer. We shouldn’t make the religious abandon their belief when they hold public office (as if it were possible!).

The dispute has nothing to do with religion, and all to do with here we draw the line in forcing minority opinions into compliance with conformity. Conscience vs. Zeitgeist.

I think it speaks volumes, about justice and equality, when people of power can follow their conscience and not enforce Federal law. Such as the President and all those sanctuary cities for illegals. Yet this lady without any political power is jailed. If she isn’t doing her job, they aren’t either.

I’ve written posts on other threads on another subforum about this so I won’t bother rewriting here other than to say that indeed you are exactly correct.

[/quote]

She took an oath to uphold the laws of Kentucky, when the law changed counter to her beliefs she should have had the integrity and honor to give up her position. You know actually put her money where her mouth is, but no she wants that 80,000 even though she is unwilling to do her job.

Do you think that she sees herself as a martyr? Or more of a conscientious objector? It’s difficult for me to tell.

I have read and reread some of the posts on this thread , very diverse and questionable responses. Personally I do not want to post my opinion but Gods. Marriage is between a man and woman , period. That is unless we as a society have decided that we know and understand more then God. Perhaps the best thing to do as Catholic Christians is support this situation by prayer, asking God for His mercy due to the fact that we have even gotten to such a sinful state. Are we going to serve God or man? :bowdown2:

I work for a government agency.

If God were to deposit a large sum of money every two weeks, then I’d be more than inclined to serve Him. Yet the money is not forthcoming, so man it is!

Do we actually know what God’s opinion is? Unfortunately, he’s unlikely to post here so that we can find out. :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.