Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Religion, Society, Supreme Court

Kim Davis Was Not The Only Kentucky County Clerk Who Refused To Issue Couples Marriage Licenses

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Casey Davis via MSNBC interview screen shot
Casey Davis via MSNBC interview screen shot

Kentucky was faced with another case of drama and failure to perform statutory duties and the federal courts. The Casey County Clerk announced that he would refuse to issue marriage licenses to couples who’s marriage he objects to.

The clerk, in a bit of irony, is named Casey Davis.

Davis insists that he has a duty to himself to violate state law but oddly he feels the Commonwealth should pay for an attorney to represent him.


 

Kentucky governor Steve Beshear in July granted an audience with Mr. Davis and thereafter ordered him to issue licenses to all couples regardless of their gender or resign. Defiantly, the county clerk stated, “I’m going to trust the Lord with all my heart, my position remains.”

Governor Beshear issued the following statement:

“This morning, I advised Mr. Davis that I respect his right to his own personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriages,” the Governor’s statement reads. “However, when he was elected, he took a constitutional oath to uphold the United States Constitution. According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution now requires that governmental officials in Kentucky and elsewhere must recognize same-sex marriages as valid and allow them to take place. One of Mr. Davis’ duties as county court clerk is to issue marriage licenses, and the Supreme Court now says that the United States Constitution requires those marriage licenses to be issued regardless of gender. Mr. Davis’ own county attorney has advised him that his oath requires him to do so.”

Here is a video of Mr. Davis speaking before supporters:

By Darren Smith

Source:

The New Civil Rights Movement
MSNBC Photo Credit

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

306 thoughts on “Kim Davis Was Not The Only Kentucky County Clerk Who Refused To Issue Couples Marriage Licenses”

  1. These people are really slow. Instead of filing fruitless appeals they should have incorporated and cited to Hobby Lobby. Then they should have cited the the Takings Clause because the government took away their right to discriminate against persons wanting to enter into a same sex marriage.

  2. The government itself has no freedom of religion. I.e., the Establishment Clause. If you work for the government, you have no freedom of religion at work, because you, in effect are the government. In off hours, have at it.

    To the point about the Constitution having no provision about homosexual marriage. True enough. It does not say anything about the Christian Faith either. So ban it? Airplanes? Skyscrapers? Under that judicial philosophy anything not mentioned directly in the Constitution is subject to being banned.

  4. This nonsense is misplaced martyrdom. The law must be obeyed. If you don’t like it, get another job. Or elect people that understand the Constitution and states’ rights.

  5. Annie,
    Liberty Council makes a mockery of the legal profession, itself.
    Lawyers getting paid to represent AND advocate the usurpation of the Rule of Law.
    Good lawyers should be incredulous about this farce of theirs…

  6. Sorry, I’ll clarify the above word salad of mine…
    If they seek to carve out law, they need to pay taxes.
    Jesus was clear about THAT!

  7. Remember, Jesus was resigned to his fate and resisted the urge to put it to the Romans by climbing off the cross to save himself… Instead, we have Christians screaming that they climb up onto their cross (aka burden to carry) of judgement and anger toward a select few so that when called out for their martyrdom they can scream, “victim”. Ego, if Caesar doesn’t accept Jesus as King, the ‘true believers’ will feel oppressed so instead they insist on rendering their Christ unto Caesar. Jesus was clear about this position, yet they continue to refuse to listen. He said, judge not, yet they do. He said love your neighbor, yet these fanatics only love and show concern for themselves and their Rights. Again, what is it called when one religion is allowed to carve out law? It would be good, however, if these Churches did render unto Caesar that what is Caesar’s.

  8. I saw that Max,( @1:11) too funny. And her appeal is denied…. Again. What is ironic is that her lawyers wanted the Judge to violate the State’s sovereignty, lol. Her Liberty Council attorneys are pretty desperate.

  12. Annie,
    Here’s an update from the Oath Keepers.

    Kim Davis’ Legal Team Declines Oath Keepers’ Offer to Protect Her Against Unlawul Arrrest
    http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/kim-davis-legal-team-declines-oath-keepers-offer-to-protect-her-against-unlawul-arrrest/

    Upon request by Kim Davis’ legal team, Oath Keepers is canceling the planned security detail for Mrs. Davis in Morehead, Kentucky.

    Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’ legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning. We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.

    Oath Keepers will NOT be conducting a security detail for Mrs. Davis.

    From your copy/paste king
    (ergo, the poor spelling is there’s)
    Unlawul Arrrest… ROFLMAO!

  13. Annie,
    Correct. These two are NOT related even though their last name is the same.
    They will tell you, though, that they are brother and sister through Jesus Christ.

    Either way, they are contemptuous toward the Constitution and deserve the book thrown at them!

  14. It’s not just in Kentucky…
    Magistrates in a North Carolina County Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Marriages
    http://www.newsweek.com/northcarolinajudgesrecusesamesexmarriage-370971

    Officials in McDowell County in North Carolina are being forced to ship in magistrates from neighboring Rutherford County after all four of McDowell’s magistrate judges recused themselves from performing marriages—gay, straight or otherwise. The magistrates invoked their rights not to perform marriages under the state’s religious exemption law, which allows every magistrate “the right to recuse from performing all lawful marriages…based upon any sincerely held religious objection.”

  15. “but, yeah, that’s not irony.”

    Reversal of expectations: I though we had already encountered all the religious fundamentalist nut job, government officials, named Davis in the state of Kentucky, but alas that was not to be. There was another one lurking, committed to undermine the rule of law and the constitution.

  16. This deviation from the Constitution was generated by the Supreme Court.

    There is no provision for homosexual marriage in the Constitution.

    The Constitution can not be “interpreted” to provide for homosexual marriage.

    The only aspect left to be executed is the impeachment and conviction of the SCOTUS.

    Defrauding the United States of America and their citizens is inexcusable and contemptible.

    Judicial tyranny is treason; subversion of the state; a capital crime.

    The metaphorical guillotines of the French Revolution must be readied.

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    ― Edmund Burke

  17. Ah, so Casey Davis is not Kim Davis’ son and works out of the Davis County office. Nathan Davis is a deputy clerk in the same office as his mother in Rowan County, who also refuses to issue the marriage licenses. Monday will be very interesting.

  18. Pingback: Kim Davis Was Not The Only Kentucky County Clerk Who Refused To Issue Couples Marriage Licenses | COSECOM

  19. Doesn’t the Constitution guarantee us that the government will not prohibit our free exercise of religion? How does this obvious statement get overlooked?

Comments are closed.