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”

  2. “All ideological, theological and political debates with the radical Christian right are useless. It cares nothing for rational thought and discussion. Its adherents are using the space within the open society to destroy the open society itself. Our naive attempts to placate a movement bent on our destruction, to prove to it that we too have “values,” only strengthen its supposed legitimacy and increase our own weakness.”

    Chris Hedges

  3. David, it’s YOUR authority that you want people to trust. Unfortunately, you don’t sound like a rationalist. Your extreme homophobia is irrational. A Constitutional Amendment that recognizes “God” is an irrational thing to call for, when our form of government is clear on the Seperation of Church and State. Your views on feminism is irrational, you see it as somehow usurping the role of women, as IF it’s up to YOU to define the role of women. Your views on marriage are irrational, to say you would be in favor of a law restricting elderly and infertile couples from marrying, as well as gay people. You have an irrational fixation on procreation. So many more I could mention. What you want is for us to THINK LIKE YOU and that in itself is irrational, because you are an extremist.

    You claim you aren’t religious, you claim you aren’t a Christian, yet as Mike Appleton observed, you are the epitome of a Dominionist.

    1. Annie wrote: “A Constitutional Amendment that recognizes “God” is an irrational thing to call for, when our form of government is clear on the Seperation of Church and State.”

      It now is becoming clear that you do not understand separation of church and state. The acknowledgment of God does not violate the principle of separation of church and state at all. The First Amendment is about Congress not showing preference for a particular religious establishment, and about allowing the free exercise of religion, and about allowing free speech. How could you possibly think that a specific free speech clause would be irrational? The Constitution itself accommodates the Christian sabbath of Sunday when the President signs bills into law. The Constitution dates itself from two significant historical events: the birth of their Lord and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God four times. Why would you possibly believe the lie that acknowledging God is a violation of Church and State? That makes no sense. Our president acknowledges God at every State of the Union address. I suspect that all our Presidents have acknowledged God. The only rational approach is to make it clear that government can acknowledge God without violating the Constitution. The reading is already clearly there, but our populace is ignorant and now needs it spelled out for them because of the deceivers out there.

      What is really bewildering is that you are a Christian who thinks that spelling out the right of individuals and government to acknowledge God is irrational. I suppose you also think that a government official praying is irrational. How can any Christian possibly think this way?

      1. David writes: “The acknowledgment of God does not violate the principle of separation of church and state at all.”

        So, where in the federal Constitution does it acknowledge “God”? One would think that the well-contemplated slave-holding aristocracy that gave us the Constitution surely would have crafted the document carefully enough to force-feed us a “God” had they intended it.

        Pray away, but, clearly, it is YOU who do not comprehend the concept of separation of church and state because you want to impose “God” on the People You and Junipero Serra. Your bigotry is outrageous.

        1. stevegroen, the freedom of speech has nothing to do with force feeding people a concept of God. It is about the freedom of people to express their viewpoints, and the freedom of people to make up their own minds about God. Why do liberals hate freedom of speech so much? They always complain that if someone expresses their view, they are forcing it upon everybody else. This is especially true if they use logic rather than emotions to buttress their position.

          The separation of church and State is not the same as the separation of God and State. Modern atheists and secularists have pushed a notion of separation of church and state that does not exist in the Constitution. How highest laws teach freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The establishment clause from which “separation of church and State comes” is even narrower, focusing on not being inclined toward any particular religious sect. The law should be amended to make clear the freedoms meant to be granted to us by the Constitution. You are still free to be an atheist if you like, and I am still free to say that the philosophy of atheism is foolish.

  4. It is good that this Kim Davis came along. The crazies who obsess on religion, both pro and con, have given me a break.

  5. Another denial.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-appeals-governor

    “A motion by Kim Davis — the anti-gay marriage clerk in Kentucky — to halt a requirement that she issue marriage licenses to gay couples was denied by a federal appeals court Tuesday.

    Davis is suing Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear (D) and state librarian Wayne Onkst for enforcing a requirement that Kentucky clerks grant same-sex marriage licenses, which she objects to on religious grounds. She had ask the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to temporarily halt the requirement while the lawsuit proceeds.

    “Davis has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on her federal constitutional claims,” the panel of judges said in their order denying the request.”

  7. Another thought, there is a stark difference between a scholar and an extremist. Professor Turley is an example of a Constitutional scholar, others, not so much.

  8. The extremist elements, whether they be religionists or Constitutionalists, do not have the inside story on the Constitution, the Bible, or the Koran. We all need to do our own homework.

  9. The Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights have dominion.

    Not the judicial branch.

  10. “…people who claim to ‘know’ the truths behind the words. If anyone has a better insight into what the Constiturion (sic) means would be…. The SCOTUS, not some commenter on a law blog.”

    Precisely.

    The cavalier, arrogant and condescending SCOTUS and its allies, collectivist liberals, presume to be the only entities able to read and comprehend the words of the English language and presume the authority to change them in the founding documents to fit their ideology. After all, in the lofty ether where the SCOTUS rules by decree, definitions are fungible.

    I rest my case.

  11. And David, how do YOU know this is how the Justices who voted to rectify the unconstitutionality of same sex marriage bans and who recognize that everyone deserves Equal Protection and Due Process, think? Or are you guessing too?

    “The government confers a bundle of rights on individuals who choose to marry. The constitution’s guarantee of equal protection forbids any state from withholding those rights from the class of people who happen to be gay. End of story.””

    1. Annie wrote: “Or are you guessing too?”

      Of course I am not guessing. All a person has to do is take the time to read what they say and consider their arguments.

      For example, it is no secret that Justice Ginsburg is an old ACLU attorney who believes in a Living Constitution form of jurisprudence, whereas Justice Scalia is against that philosophy, correctly believing that such an approach to reading the Constitution will ultimately take away rights. Justice Scalia takes an Originalist and Textualist approach.

      1. No, I don’t think it’s as easy at that. I think everything you say is STRONGLY slanted from your religious beliefs and biases. Granted, everyone has biases and personal beliefs that influence them, but IMO, based on your comments over the last couple of years, I think you are driven by them in an extreme way.

        1. Annie wrote: “I think everything you say is STRONGLY slanted from your religious beliefs and biases.”

          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?

          I am a rationalist in an age of feminist emotionalism. Logic is lost on feminists and liberals, unless it is related to emotions and feelings. You, for instance, constantly look for an authority figure to trust, such as Professor Turley. You have not yet learned how to think independently with logic that is separated from emotions.

  12. “Federal, ney, governmental (emphasis on mental) employees have full latitude and discretion to “interpret,” re-interpret and re-interpret the interpretation of not only the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the entire English language with a little Latin thrown in for good measure.”

    This begs the question, what does he think he is doing? The Constitution as well as the Bible, the Koran, etc has had people who claim to ‘know’ the truths behind the words. If anyone has a better insight into what the Constiturion means would be…. The SCOTUS, not some commenter on a law blog.

    1. Annie wrote: “If anyone has a better insight into what the Constiturion means would be…. The SCOTUS, not some commenter on a law blog.”

      It depends upon which Justice on the Supreme Court you are talking about. A good originalist like Justice Scalia perhaps might do better at it than many commenters here, but the 5 Justices who just ruled in Obergefell have made it clear that they only interpret the Constitution in a way that they want others to interpret it. They believe in a living, breathing, changing document for the times rather than understanding the Constitution in a way that was meant at the time the law was passed. Unfortunately, we can no longer blindly trust the Supreme Court to know what they are doing. The court has become a political activist body.

  14. Aridog,

    The SCOUTS has decreed that definitions are fungible.

    You must attend your “re-education” classes.

    Federal, ney, governmental (emphasis on mental) employees have full latitude and discretion to “interpret,” re-interpret and re-interpret the interpretation of not only the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the entire English language with a little Latin thrown in for good measure. “It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.” “State” means “federal” and “federal” means “state.” Definitions may be commingled and they are interchangeable.

    The American thesis and founding documents were nullified, possibly out of the gate by Marbury v. Madison, and most certainly by the Lincoln “Reign of Terror” when rights and freedom were revoked.

    It has been thus ever since: central planning by the Fed, redistribution by comrade Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” elimination of the “utility of the currency” as a stable gold-backed dollar and the social engineering of the “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” (poverty won).

    __________

    Wait, let’s channel the Founders and get their opinion. Oh! Here they are now:

    “SEPARATION OF CHRUCH AND STATE.”

    Further, the Founders say,” SCOTUS you don’t have the authority to “interpret” or otherwise modify our words. We meant what we said. America is not a theocracy. America is not a one-man, one-vote democracy. Citizens must earn the right to vote. America is a restricted-vote republic. Americans have the right to Freedom of Religion. Be as bizarre as you want to be in church on Sunday but don’t bring it to the government on Monday.”

    If you doubt our words, observe our practice in 1789.

    Well, there you go. “Straight from the horse’s mouth,” as they say.

    (By the way, those horses were said to have been geniuses. Has the SCOTUS ever attempted to “interpret” the genius of the Ten Commandments?).

  16. To paraphrase a former author here (Chuck Stanley) commenting elsewhere, “Hubris, thy name is Kim Davis.” This lady is confused about the entitlements of her elected position. She seems to think it is her “property” and thus entitled to accommodation. All I can say is “Wow!” If it is “property” in the common parlance sense, why do they bother with elections? She’s had her 15 minutes, let her pass in to history now. Also Mike Huckabee needs to take a break. He made some minimal sense until he jumped to Ms Davis’ side. WTF?

    That said, Ms Davis knows that Kentucky voters would and will support her, so she’s taking advantage of that issue, but oddly doesn’t cite Kentucky law and instead cites only God. Say what?! I like God (I’m a Catholic) but I doubt he/she provides such property rights. Maybe I can elect a Rastafarian where I live and provide “blunts” for everyone…what the heck? 😀

    Toke up y’all 🙂

    1. ” oddly doesn’t cite Kentucky law and instead cites only God.”

      I wonder about the response of Ms Davis and her co-religionists if in the next election she is defeated by someone who feels called by god to issue marriage licenses to multiple partners?

      Should their be a legal limit to the number of wives a man can take or should we let the free market make that determination? That may not be a new question but it certainly suggest a new image for the workings of the invisible hand.

  20. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/12/baptist-pastor-crushes-kim-davis-and-hypocrisy-of-his-fellow-evangelicals-in-open-letter/

    “Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

    First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

    Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

    Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

    This is why we are losing.

    This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.

    Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

    We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.

    We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.

    If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self.”

Comments are closed.