Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Tense Video Of Moment Davis Refuses Marriage License
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://absoluterights.com/davis-refusing-to-issue-license/
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: James Bosworth
Post Date: 2015-09-01 17:00:51 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 104
Comments: 13

Tense Video Of Moment Davis Refuses Marriage License    

James Bosworth , September 1, 2015

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A county clerk in Kentucky who invoked “God’s authority” Tuesday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage has been summoned by a federal judge to explain why she should not be fined or jailed for contempt.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning moved swiftly after Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis insisted yet again Tuesday that her religious beliefs prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis turned several couples away and then retreated into her office, where her door and blinds were closed to the raucous scene outside.

Davis then issued a statement refusing to resign or concede her position.

“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,” her statement said. “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.”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Monday night, leaving Davis no legal ground for her continued refusal. Lawyers for couples who were denied licenses asked the judge Tuesday to find her in contempt, but punish her with only financial penalties, not jail time.

“Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform,” they asked Bunning to “impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous” to compel her immediate compliance without delay.

Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the federal court alerted him that a hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Ashland, and that Davis along with her entire staff has been summoned to appear.

As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired; her impeachment would have to wait until the Legislature’s regular session next year or a costly special session.

Davis rejected David Moore and David Ermold’s license request for a fourth time, and then told them to leave.

“We’re not leaving until we have a license,” Ermold said as reporters and cameras surrounded them.

Kim“Then you’re going to have a long day,” Davis told him, and then retreated into her inner office.

From the back of the room, Davis’ supporters said: “Praise the Lord! … Stand your ground.”

Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: “Do your job.”

The sheriff then moved everyone out to the courthouse lawn, where James Yates and Will Smith Jr., who were denied a license for a fifth time, left red-eyed and shaking.

“It’s just too hard right now,” Yates said, choking back tears and holding hands as they rushed to their car.

Davis was elected last November as a Democrat, succeeding her mother in the office she had held for 37 years, according to the Morehead News. Her staff includes her son.

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation in June. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. Other couples also sued. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision.

Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch request Friday to the Supreme Court, seeking what they called “asylum for her conscience” that would enable her to continue denying marriage licenses even though she’s lost her case in every lower court.

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred the request to the full court, which denied it without comment.

Amid Tuesday’s developments, two groups lined up on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other.

“At the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” said Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis.

Ermold and Moore, together for 17 years, cried and swayed as walked out to chants from the clerk’s supporters.

“I feel sad, I feel devastated,” Ermold said. “I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level, I can’t even comprehend it.”

The clerk’s husband, Joe Davis, came by to check on his wife. He said she has received death threats but remains committed to her faith and is “standing for God.” As for himself, he said he believes in the Second Amendment: “I’m an old redneck hillbilly, that’s all I’ve got to say. Don’t come knocking on my door.”

He pointed to the gay rights protesters gathered on the courthouse lawn and said: “They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won’t accept our beliefs and our ways.”


Poster Comment:

This is about gay marriage. These fags to not need this. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

“It’s just too hard right now,” Yates said, choking back tears and holding hands as they rushed to their car.

Wait til some guy shows up with his favorite sheep and demands a license.

The queers will be frothing at the mouth .

Cynicom  posted on  2015-09-01   17:24:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BTP Holdings, 4 (#0) (Edited)

This is about gay marriage. ... Marriage is between a man and a woman.

This is about conditioning Americans to think that the Constitution guarantees Freedom from Religion instead of Freedom of Religion as it does. Marriage is a religious issue for religious people, regardless of whether the State is a party in the ceremony and/or licensing record. The more secular, Agnostics, Atheists, etc., have no Constitutional right to demand that generic Secularism be imposed on the religious as the State's established religious belief system. In fact, the Federal government is prohibited from doing that before the first comma of the 1st Amendment.

This is also about obscuring the fact that the Military, its capabilities and readiness, are matters of National Security - not "Equal Rights", "Gender Equality", "Gender Neutrality", blah-blah-blah (ask anyone of any gender not admitted because of being overweight or overage, etc., etc.). There's a reason why it took a Congressional passage of law (wrongful though it was) to repeal the Clinton-era policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; which the mostly Democrat-Commies had pushed for advancing their PC "Progressive" agendas to weaken, demoralize, destablize and jeopardize our Armed Forces by imposition of the homosexual counter-culture among them. And the reason behind that legislative enactment is that only Congress has the Constiutional authority to make such National Security impacting Rules for the Government and Regulation of America's land and naval Forces [Reference: Article I, Section 8] -- not the Judiciary, not Presidents of the Executive Branch as Commander-in-Chief and not "policy change" decrees by the Pentagon's "Political Correctness" stylists.

Within the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [Public law 111–321; Text (7 KB) | PDF (126 KB)] is this section:

(d) BENEFITS.—Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ and referred to as the ‘‘Defense of Marriage Act’’).

(e) NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION.—Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

See also:

JUNE 9, 2015: Sexual orientation will be added to equal opportunity policy, Secretary of Defense says - KFOR.com

[Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter,] said the DOD would provide benefits as well as recognize those who are same-sex spouses of military members.

Afaik, he seems to be claiming there that his DoD policy-change announcement nullifies the above quoted section of Congressional law and that same-sex spousal benefits are going to be provided contrary to the stipulations set therein by Congress regarding definitions of ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’.

And that's what is being camouflaged behind the issues of this 4um topic. The MSM "Ministries of Trooth" report as if judges can overrule Constitutional rights of religion or anything else they want to alter about it, like that isn't wrong -- just another method to "update" America's policies of State in accordance with PC demands ... and they also report as if policies of the Secretary of Defense can overrule laws of Congress ... and they repeatedly report as if whatever policy a President decrees overrules the Constitution too and Congressional laws of Constitutionality as well. Americans who know or suspect that's not our rightful form of government are correct. Those who don't and aren't resisting those Communist cobwebs because they can't understand the Constitution or refuse to do so can still resist disempowerment by Communism if they can at least understand that being ruled by whatever "trendy-sounding" PC policywonks dictate is wrong and they decide to stop fighting against the resistance to that Cultural Marxism Coup by Confusion.

Meanwhile, this is who Obama recently chose to be an Under Secretary of the Army and America's Defense:

"Progressive Democrat"/Commie pusher of gender confusion to be made Military "policy" by law, Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania politician) - Wikipedia

In July 2009, Murphy became the lead advocate for a bill that would repeal the Defense Department's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy concerning open gays in the armed forces.[19]

Murphy worked tirelessly to convince fellow moderate Democrats to support the issue despite the political risk involved.[27] He introduced a bill in the House to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell on December 14, 2010.[28] The bill was approved in a strong bipartisan vote of 250-175 in the House, with the support of 15 House Republicans including Murphy's home-state colleagues Todd Russell Platts and Charlie Dent.[29] Ultimately eight Republicans joined with 57 Democrats to approve the bill in the Senate and send it to the President's desk for signature.[30]

On August 5, 2015, President Barack Obama nominated him to be the Under Secretary of the Army.[2]

Repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010", so "popularly marketed" by Murphy and even by the "Alternate" Media's idolatry of DADT Disgruntlement-salesman (channeled into the public "conscienceness" through WikiLeaks in "timely fashion"), the supposed "Pfc. Military-whistleblower" Bradley/"Chelsea" Manning.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-02   15:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)

This is about conditioning Americans to think that the Constitution guarantees Freedom from Religion instead of Freedom of Religion as it does.

The Constitution is irrelevant in a commercial jurisdiction ... it's an absolute secular situation free of Constitutional restraints. That's why a private company isn't required to guarantee your rights such as freedom of speech.

In the view of the govt and the Supreme Court all TAXPAYERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. Taxpayer is a gender free term.

"Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day".

Doug Scheidt

noone222  posted on  2015-09-02   16:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: noone222 (#3)

This is about conditioning Americans to think that the Constitution guarantees Freedom from Religion instead of Freedom of Religion as it does.

The Constitution is irrelevant in a commercial jurisdiction ... it's an absolute secular situation free of Constitutional restraints. That's why a private company isn't required to guarantee your rights such as freedom of speech.

In the view of the govt and the Supreme Court all TAXPAYERS ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. Taxpayer is a gender free term.

I've been trying to work my way back through the blizzards of other news and some backlogs of research works-in-progress to our earlier discussions on these issues. Am archiving them here so I can find them easier for referencing as needed:

Post #17 of 4um Title: Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States to Ignore Federal Courts

Post #62 of 4um Title: Gay Marriage OK - scotus

Am going to say for now that the government needs to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. It cannot be lawfully defined as a religious non-issue. It's also not the Military's job to defy Congressional law on the issue of marriage by acting as if all that's required is a Sec. Def. policy-change announcement, not another legislative issuance by Congress, for it to be legally fast-tracked with authorization as an "independent" provider of gender-confused PC spousal benefits no matter what Congress enacted about it.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-02   17:47:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

Satanic faggots haranguing normal folks. The only pushback is to gun them down in front of everybody.

 photo 001g.gif
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group."
-Alex Kurtagic

X-15  posted on  2015-09-02   18:53:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation in June. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. Other couples also sued. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision.

Why the heck is the loon refusing straight marriage licenses also?

That makes her sound like a fruit loop who indeed is incompetent to do her job.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

Artisan  posted on  2015-09-02   19:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GreyLmist (#4)

...the government needs to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether.

Amen, end of story.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-09-02   19:32:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: BTP Holdings (#0) (Edited)

A county clerk in Kentucky who invoked “God’s authority” Tuesday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage has been summoned by a federal judge to explain why she should not be fined or jailed for contempt.

Davis then issued a statement refusing to resign or concede her position.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Monday night, leaving Davis no legal ground for her continued refusal. Lawyers for couples who were denied licenses asked the judge Tuesday to find her in contempt, but punish her with only financial penalties, not jail time.

“Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform,” they asked Bunning to “impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous” to compel her immediate compliance without delay.

As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired; her impeachment would have to wait until the Legislature’s regular session next year or a costly special session.

activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: “Do your job.”

A reason that she should not be fined or jailed for contempt or lose her job is because, at the time she applied for the job opening, the government styled itself as an Equal Opportunity Employer and the .gov employment laws weren't conditioned such that people of her religious beliefs on marriage needn't apply and would be subject to fines, jail and unemployment if the Supreme Court ever declared itself at some point to be America's dictators on marriage.

What their abominable ruling has rendered is Radical Leftist expectations that now .gov workers must religously conform to "PC" standards of marriage confusion as a "new norm" or lose their jobs ... be criminalized ... be impoverished ... on the grounds of their religous beliefs that weren't even considered a "politicized problem" until SCOTUS irrationally made it into something of a PC employment-restriction dilemma, where Americans of traditional religious beliefs on marriage are demanded to be discriminatorily disqualified from elected office or hirings henceforth -- and discharged, etc., if already a .gov employee -- in fields of SCOTUS-impact where disagreement with their wrongful and disruptive ruling is said to be banned.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-02   20:10:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Artisan (#6) (Edited)

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation in June. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. Other couples also sued. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision.

Why the heck is the loon refusing straight marriage licenses also?

That makes her sound like a fruit loop who indeed is incompetent to do her job.

I suppose that she stopped issuing all marriage licenses because she rightly thought she'd be charged with discrimination if she issued them only to heterosexual couples. The government should stop issuing all marriage licenses too.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-02   20:39:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)

Well this case isn't about whether marriage licenses should exist, its supposedly about her religious conscience rights to refuse them for homos.

If she doesn't believe in marriage licenses at all, then she needs to find another job and stop sponging off the taxpayers, who pay her to fulfill her assigned tasks. I have no problem with her alleged religious objections to giving marriage licenses to homos.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

Artisan  posted on  2015-09-02   21:28:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Artisan (#10)

I have no problem with her alleged religious objections to giving marriage licenses to homos.

Just her probable unwillingness to be prosecuted and sued for marriage license Discrimination. Well, I think she made the wisest and most practical choice, under the circumstances. Marriage licenses aren't necessary anyway, really. A ship's Captain can perform marriages if they choose to do so, for example.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-02   23:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: GreyLmist (#9)

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of licensed marriage, however a writ of divorce is noted.

"Honest, April 15th is the real April Fool's Day".

Doug Scheidt

noone222  posted on  2015-09-04   8:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: All (#2) (Edited)

this is who Obama recently chose to be an Under Secretary of the Army and America's Defense:

"Progressive Democrat"/Commie pusher of gender confusion to be made Military "policy" by law, Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania politician) - Wikipedia

In July 2009, Murphy became the lead advocate for a bill that would repeal the Defense Department's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy concerning open gays in the armed forces.[19]

On August 5, 2015, President Barack Obama nominated him to be the Under Secretary of the Army.[2]

Also:

cnn.com September 18, 2015: Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army

Obama on Friday nominated Eric K. Fanning to be secretary of the Army, which could make him the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch.

Fanning has served as acting under secretary of the Army since June, and before that, served as chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Fanning also served as under secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of the Navy.

The U.S. Senate must confirm Fanning before he can lead the Army.

sputniknews.com 19.09.2015: New Gay Secretary Will ‘Openly’ Lead US Army

Obama nominated Eric K. Fanning as the first openly gay secretary of the Army,

Obama introduced policies to provide benefits to same-sex partners,

Copied from Post #2 [verifications linked there]:

Within the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [Public law 111– 321; Text (7 KB) | PDF (126 KB)] is this section:

(d) BENEFITS.—Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ and referred to as the ‘‘Defense of Marriage Act’’).

Paraphrasing from Post #2:

only Congress has the Constiutional authority to [alter or repeal that law section] -- not Presidents of the Executive Branch as Commander-in-Chief, not "policy change" decrees by the Pentagon's "Political Correctness" stylists and not the Judiciary.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-29   11:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest