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. Who’s paying her defense team of 16+ lawyers… ?
    … I hope it isn’t the citizens of Kentucky.

    Man, being a corrupt and greedy lawyer taking cases in Kentucky is a windfall.
    NO?

  7. davidm
    Again, please cite the part in the United States Constitution that allows Christians the ability to carve out law?

    1. Max-1 wrote: “please cite the part in the United States Constitution that allows Christians the ability to carve out law?”

      What do you mean by “carve out law”? Do only homosexuals get to carve our law using the Supreme Court? Is that what you think?

      The legislative branch of government is supposed to write law based upon elected officials representing the people. The people themselves voted for the law in Kentucky, with 75% of the people overwhelming voting to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Now the homosexuals have tried to “carve out law” using the federal courts. The federal government is now CONTRARY to the people. They no longer have the consent of the governed, which is how the government derives its power. Democracy is no longer working. This is the fault of the homosexuals, not the Christians. They were the ones fighting to destroy the institution of marriage and forcing the Jews, Christians, and Muslims to define marriage in a way that sanctions sodomy and other sexually perverse behavior as well as demeans women by nullifying their natural function in human procreation.

  8. David, it bewilders you because you don’t understand moderation. I am a moderate to liberal Christian, you are an extremist. Your views are extreme. Extremism and religion is a dangerous combo.

    1. Annie wrote: “I am a moderate to liberal Christian, you are an extremist. Your views are extreme. Extremism and religion is a dangerous combo.”

      I’m sure it makes you feel better to categorize me as a religious extremist, but I belong to no religion and my views are not any more extreme than the views of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. My interest is in law and government, and I seek to keep the republic that they helped create.

    2. Annie wrote: “Your views are extreme. Extremism and religion is a dangerous combo.”

      I thought about this in the context of something Martin Luther King, Jr. said when he was labeled an extremist. MLK wrote: “I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? — “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice? — “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? — “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist? — “Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God.” Was not John Bunyan an extremist? — “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? — “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”

      MLK also referenced the role of conscience in fighting for just laws:

      “They will be young high school and college students, young ministers of the gospel and a host of
      their elders courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’s sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

      You may hate the religious overtones of Kim Davis, you may even despise her conscience, but such are what filled the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, Jr.

        1. Annie, fighting for the right to be immoral is not fighting for civil rights. Can’t you see that gay marriage is about establishing a legal basis for discriminating against people like Kim Davis? Kim Davis is the one spending time in Jail. Name me one gay marriage advocate who has been discriminated against by being cast into jail. If you were in favor of equal rights, you would support people like Kim Davis and stop the discrimination against her.

          Before Obergefell, I had warned you all that people with religious convictions would be put in jail over this impending decision. You all laughed at me. I hate to be the one to say that I told you so, but I did. The discrimination against those with religious convictions is going to get a lot worse as the homosexuals and homosexual advocates believe the law is on their side.

  9. Divorce…Divorce
    With children
    Without children
    No-fault or other
    Etc,,etc..

    SCOTUS has provided a marriage solution.

    Now for the solutions for dissolution.
    So far divorce is solely defined as by the States is it not?
    Religion has no legal jurisdiction. .. they don’t act as agents of the State.

    I’ll give this SCOTUS finding about 3-4 yrs before the 2nd half starts.

  10. When Barbarians are at the gate and the EXTREMISTS approach, good men must respond.

    Edmund Burke –

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

  11. Religious freedom is provided by the Constitution.

    America is not a theocracy and there is Separation of Church and State.

    Homosexual marriage is not provided for by the constitution and homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms and a physical impossibility. Marriage exists to facilitate the sole purpose of humanity which is procreation, something homosexuals cannot do.

    Promotion and expounding on homosexual marriage and demands (issues that relate to only 2% of the population) are the very essence of EXTREMISM. Collectivists throw the ridiculous sop of artificial and inane homosexual marriage to the practitioners of perversion, abortionists and various and sundry other, allied minorities. They are extremists in a frothing, rabid lather of EXTREMISM. The benefit for Americans is that it brings into crystal clear focus the reason the American Founders established a restricted-vote republic (male, 21, European, 50lbs Sterling or 50 acres in1789), distinctly not a one man, one vote “democracy.” Now Americans know what the Founders feared.

    Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2015, we gave you “a republic, if you can take it back.”

    The EXTREMISTS’ greatest fear is freedom. The EXTREMISTS can’t compete on a level playing field, they need it to be unnaturally and artificially tilted in their direction. The EXTREMISTS will cause the imposition of a tyrannical dictatorship at the end of their disease,

    to wit:

    Alexander Fraser Tytler –

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

  12. Annie
    I noticed you had a news article up about it. So I posted the ruling. These people never give up, do they. They will belly ache until never comes yet insist that being on the wrong side of the law is the right thing to do. Ugh!!!

  17. Davidm
    “Annie, don’t you find it strange that you are the religious person and I am not, yet supposedly I am the one driven by religious beliefs?”
    = = =
    Annie, time to cut and paste Davidm’s holy roller comments.

  18. Annie
    Forget forgets what a tripartite form of Government is and how it is necessary so that our Constitutional Rights aren’t wrestled under one person’s rule. Somehow forget thinks a checks and balance is NOT necessary… Odd, no?

  19. Airdog
    Perhaps she won’t cite Kentucky law because she’s attempting to insert gawd’s laws into our Government.

  20. Annie
    Has Davidm pointed to which part of the US Constitution allows Christianity the ability to Govern US citizen’s Rights?

Comments are closed.