Embattled Ky. county clerk delays return to work

Print More
Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., clerk, spent five days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses. Photo by Carter County Detention Center.

Photo from Carter County Detention Center, Ky.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., clerk, spent five days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses. Photo by Carter County Detention Center.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning warned Davis she would be sanctioned again if she violates the conditions of her release

  • Pingback: Embattled Ky. county clerk delays return to work - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • George Nixon Shuler

    Now that the ghouls like Huckabee and Staver are done exploiting her, she will go back to the obscurity she came from. I wish her well. She was not so much a victim of injustice as of bad legal advice from slick lawyers and politicians who sought to use her.

  • Pingback: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Won’t Return to Work Until Friday or Monday | BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network()

  • Pingback: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Won’t Return to Work Until Friday or Monday | BCNN1 WP()

  • … she can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions.

    Ms Davis is a common criminal. As a public official, she required subordinates to deny individuals their rights under the constitution as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Ms. Davis compounds her insult to society by being a Christian supremacist who seeks special privileges based upon her religious beliefs. She does not think that court orders apply to her which means that she thinks that she is above the law. That makes her no better than a common criminal.

  • Davis is an elected public official — not a public preacher.

  • First of all Staver is far from done with Davis. There are numerous appeals and motions in the works http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2015/09/liberty-counsel-drifts-while-nom-grifts.html

    Secondly, while she is a rube she is complicit in the exploitation of the issue. She took an oath of office that said nothing about her quaint religious beliefs. Moreover, after she was placed in the custody of the marshals her staff agreed to issue the necessary marriage licenses. She was then brought back to court and given the opportunity to assert that she would not interfere. She refused knowing full well that she would resume being a guest of the US government.

  • David Frensley

    So true. But she will be used for a long, long time by Democrats and other gay activists and anti-Christians long after the GOP slicksters have left her to her government job. Remember, Republicans hate government employees as badly as the lefties hate Christians.

  • David Frensley

    So she represents “the people.” How intolerant of “The Left” to persecute her. They should practice what they preach about the stupidity of preaching the myth about the separation of Church and State.

  • Ed

    David, I think lefties don’t hate Christians as you state, but rather, despise them, and for good reason. Believing in loony old man in the sky stories in this day and age and in the face of our modern understanding of the world really is cause to be looked down upon.

    This conservative also despises Christians. So, wake-up call time for you. It’s not simply a right/left thing,

  • Jack

    It’s not just ‘lefties’ who hate Christians. Pretty much all sane people do.

  • David Frensley

    “For now at least, it appears that the licenses will be issued. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents four couples who sued her, said its goal has been achieved.”

    All this to do about four anti-Christian marriages? Hasn’t Ms. Davis been involved in at least three herself?

  • Larry

    What myth? The only people who claim the separation of church and state is one are those who hate religious freedom and wish to impose their version of Sharia upon our land.

    “The First Amendment has two clauses that are relevant here. One is the Establishment Clause, and the other is the Prohibition Clause. Congress may not prohibit free worship, and that is what so many claim, wrongly, is being violated. But it is also not empowered to establish any religion, nor to enact any laws favoring one religion over the other. Permitting a state employee to foist her religion upon others, denying them a fundamental right as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell, would be to give government, through this agent, the power to impose religious doctrine and viewpoint. That it cannot do. Ms. Davis is in effect establishing religion by using her governmental powers to impose her religious views.”
    -George Takei

    Even washed up actors know more than you. 🙂

  • Larry

    “Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others. If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side? In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American.”
    -George Takei

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/09/george-takeis-take-on-the-kim-davis-rally-was-great-his-response-to-a-troll-was-even-better/

  • Sister Geraldine Marie, OP, RN, PHN

    Ms. Davis is not forcing anyone to accept her beliefs. She is stating her own which she has a right to do under the Constitution regardless of whatever position she holds. If she took an oath to uphold the Constitution, that is just precisely what she did! The judge and justices should be relieved of their offices and taken to jail for violating their oaths.

  • Larry

    Bullcrap. She is forcing an entire county office to accept her religious beliefs as their own and deny access to services people are entitled to under the law. Religious freedom means nobody ever has to give a crap what you or anyone else thinks God says, nor can you force them to. Davis is trying to force people to accept her beliefs by coercive force of her public position. Its a disgusting abuse of public power.

    You and her supporters are a truly vile, cretinous, bunch. If this was a clerk was some religion other than Christianity or engaging in a form of discrimination they disagreed with, they would be readying a lynch mob as we speak. Any notion of respect for our democratic system or religious freedom goes out the window. Its purely a matter of letting Christians do whatever the hell they want. Its morally repugnant.

  • Jihadi Jimmy

    Clerk Kim Davis has given all believers a lesson in faithfulness and perseverance. Now here’s the other point I want you to think about. Kim Davis is also giving the entire country a civics lesson. Because she knows what federal judges either don’t know or don’t care to recognize, and that is that Allah is the source and the author of law and government, and that any purported law that is not harmonious with his word can’t be law and is not law.

  • w. f. kammann

    Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. Why not keep your self-righteous judgement in check, Sister? The judges and justices did their job; this clerk didn’t. Remember Savonarola: “In 1495 when Florence refused to join Pope Alexander VI’s Holy League against the French, the Vatican summoned Savonarola to Rome. He disobeyed and further defied the pope by preaching under a ban, highlighting his campaign for reform with processions, bonfires of the vanities, and pious theatricals. In retaliation, the Pope excommunicated him in May 1497, and threatened to place Florence under an interdict. A trial by fire proposed by a rival Florentine preacher in April 1498 to test Savonarola’s divine mandate turned into a fiasco, and popular opinion turned against him. Savonarola and two of his supporting friars were imprisoned. Under torture, Savonarola confessed that he had invented his visions and prophecies. On May 23, 1498, Church and civil authorities condemned, hanged, and burned the three friar.

  • Tom

    Sister, in your version of the United States, who get’s to decide what the U.S. Constitution requires? According to the Constitution itself, that authority is vested in the Supreme Court. The court has ruled in this matter; Ms. Davis, in her capacity as a public official, has no authority to overrule that decision.

    In a free country where religious liberty is guaranteed, the solution to the apparently unresolvable conflict between Ms. Davis’ sincerely held beliefs and the duties of office (which she assumed freely and under oath) is obvious: she should resign as County Clerk.

    Or is it possible that the benefits of government employment and the promise of a state pension trump the demands of Ms. Davis’ conscience?

  • For the record that is the “Free Exercise” clause. Madison’s stroke of genius (I think it was Madison) was to make the free exercise and establishment clauses dependent upon each other.

    Conservative Christians seem to be heavily invested in the alternate reality that the establishment clause simply means that there is no state religion (although they believe that we are a Christian nation). The 14 words mean exactly what they say. Laws must have a secular purpose.

    Ms. Davis’ greatest transgression was to impose her beliefs on others including the civil servants who report to her and gay couples. Marriage equality is unarguably the law of the land and establishes a constitutional right for gays — something that Ms. Davis wants to frustrate.

  • Greg1

    Last time I checked, there were dozens of other offices these homosexual pairs could have gone to for licenses.

  • Larry

    Last time I checked, separate but equal was not a valid argument for discrimination.

  • Richard Rush

    I agree, Greg1. . . Just as black people could have gone to another lunch counter if they were hungry, or if they didn’t want to ride in the back of the bus, they could have taken a taxi. But noooooooo!, they had to have civil rights. And they were so selfish that they didn’t even care how much they hurt white people by taking away their supremacy.

  • Richard Rush

    If you want to talk about myths, you should be focusing on your religion, not the Constitution.

  • jihadi jimmy

    You realize I have to issue a fatwa against you. I promise to make it painless, for a few seconds.

    Christians understand Sharia better than inams do. They demand that God’s law overrides man’s secular laws. They demand all submit to the one true God. They ensure people are not participating in sin. How is your that not following the great precepts Allah has written for us?

    More ironically, I was quoting a Christian above. The concept was right, all I did was correct the mention of God with the correct term Allah. That was the best description of holy Sharia law to come from a wayward infidel.

  • Greg1

    Richard, the 14 Amendment became part of our Constitution to address exactly your concern; it was drawn up and approved to address race, and national origin, not to afford homosexuals the right to marry each other. All homosexuals already had the right to marry another of the opposite sex. In time, this will be reversed.

  • Larry

    What part of equal protection under the law do you not understand Greg?

    That means no special rules for Christians and other rules for different faiths. It also means discriminatory laws require justification. You have none. Or at least none which our laws have to consider.

  • Richard Rush

    Greg1 said,“All homosexuals already had the right to marry another of the opposite sex.”

    Would you want your straight daughter to, unknowingly, marry a gay man? If not, I assume it would be okay for someone else’s daughter, right? These dysfunctional marriages have been common throughout history as a way for gay people to survive in a virulently hostile world, but that is better for society than allowing same-sex marriage, right?

    How about if the man is ex-gay? If he’s no longer gay, that should be okay, right? And again, if not, I assume it would be okay for someone else’s daughter, right?

    So, wouldn’t it benefit society if gays were regarded as full equals so they would feel comfortable marrying someone they truly love, rather than faking an op-sex marriage in order to survive in a hostile world? Or do you still fell that dysfunctional marriages produce a better society because they are in conformance with the toxic myths you use to validate your bigotry?

  • George Nixon Shuler

    Without separation of church and state, government becomes tyranny. The only “myth” is that entangling of church and state is good for anything but oppression. Where church and state are entangled, freedom is a joke. This is not Iran.

  • Larry

    A civics lesson to the lugnuts who do not understand how the Supreme Court or the 14th Amendment works.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2015/09/civics-lesson-refuting-a-court-ruling-isnt-a-law/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=friendlyatheist&ref_post=for-harvard-freshmen-non-religious-students-outnumber-christians

    I am tired of explaining it to the ignoramuses who want to claim our judiciary has no power to speak of.

  • Larry

    A civics lesson to the lugnuts who do not understand how the Supreme Court or the 14th Amendment works.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2015/09/civics-lesson-refuting-a-court-ruling-isnt-a-law/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=friendlyatheist&ref_post=for-harvard-freshmen-non-religious-students-outnumber-christians

    I am tired of explaining it to the m0r0ns and l1ars who want to claim our judiciary has no power to speak of.

  • Pingback: Freed Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Won’t Return to Work Until Friday or Monday()