Kentucky clerk again defies Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

A Kentucky county clerk continues to defy federal court rulings by refusing to issue any marriage licenses so as to avoid issuing same-sex licenses as well.

A Kentucky county clerk, defying a new U.S. Supreme Court decision and citing “God’s authority,” rejected requests for marriage licenses from same-sex couples on Tuesday in a deepening legal standoff now two months old. Citing her religious objections, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court in June ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

On Monday the same court rejected Davis’ request for an emergency order allowing her to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples while she appeals a federal judge’s order requiring her to issue them. Eight people filed a federal lawsuit against Davis in July challenging her office’s policy of not issuing marriage licenses to any couples – gay or straight.

I do not support any government official who arbitrarily decides to not follow the law. The issue here is whether the Supreme Court ruling itself followed the law. There are many legal experts who would say no.

Either way, this story illustrates the coming persecution of Christians and Jews whose faith tells them that any support of homosexual activities is wrong. You see, it is no longer acceptable to the homosexual community for these religious people to simply leave homosexuals alone and allow them to do what they want, as has been the case for the past half century. It is now demanded that the religious participate and endorse homosexual behavior, even if it goes against their own deeply held beliefs.

I want to point out again that no homosexuals have been prevented from living their lifestyle during this whole same-sex brouhaha. They remain free to live as they wish. The only people being persecuted are Christians, merely because they have refused to endorse that behavior. With these facts in mind, who do you think are the fascists?


  • hondo

    She is not issuing any marriage licenses – gay or straight. This may well be the only option available for the time being. Its time States rethink being in the Marriage business at all, including JPs performing ceremonies. Civil union only for all with a simple tax form and legal contract you can get/pick up at your local DMV or other gov’t office. And the form must be specific! No multiples, farm animals, pets, toasters, robots, family members etc. If not, someone will sue – just because they can.

    None of this has anything to do with marriage. The left doesn’t give a damn about gays. where ever the left came to power, then end up prosecuting them – Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc. Its about attacking those they hate, and societal traditions and beliefs.

    Just saying no may well be a useful fight back tactic. If enough started saying no, and ignoring the Fed and left – well – then what? Will they send in SWAT teams and armored vehicles to enforce their laws with the threat of violence?
    Wedding cakes or else – or else what?

  • Cotour

    It is a very interesting situation, she is an elected official so she can not be fired and her name appears on the marriage document. Is there a bait and switch aspect to this or because she is an elected official and sworn to up hold the existing or now modified law.

    “The clerk said that she never imagined that a day would come in which she would be commanded to violate her Christian beliefs, highlighting her opposition to having her name on the document.”

    I suppose a judge could fine and / or imprison her? Does this end with jail or having to wait until a new election?And what if she is reelected? Then what?

  • Ted Savas

    It is interesting to note that slavery was the law of the US, and had been upheld by Chief Justice Taney (a Democrat) in the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision.

    And yet, looking back now, whom to do we hold out as heroes? The people who defied the law–right? Those who helped slaves escape, those in government positions that . . . fought the Civil War, others.

    We cannot, however, have a civil society if government officials can unilaterally do or not do their jobs because of how they happen to feel or based upon what they believe. It is a real problem.

    However, what came first, gay marriage or religious freedom? What came first, the First Amendment with religious freedom, or the right to “marry” someone with the same genitalia?

    I come down on the side of the clerk. I would rather live in a society free of reeducation camps–or worse, which is where we are heading, one solitary step at a time.

  • Steve Stein

    This has never been about gay “rights”. It has been about forcing acceptance. Well when you force something on people you better be prepared for push back. There it is.

  • pzatchok

    If I were her I would start a movement to adopt a work place rule or even gasp a federal law.

    Something along the lines that she cannot be forced to do something against her religious beliefs or penalized for it as long as she was working before the law changed.
    She took the job in good faith that it would not conflict with her religion. Just because a law changes is not reason enough to force her to give up her religion or force her out of a job.
    They can find another job in the office for her. Or even in another office.

  • Cotour

    She is an elected official, she can not just be “reassigned” in her work, the people elected her to do or have the responsibility for a particular job, she is an expression of the peoples will. I think she would have to resign or recalled or wait until she could be defeated in another election. That being said she does take an oath I assume to execute the duly passed laws that existed both before and after her empowerment.

    She could argue that she would not have run for the office if she understood that this new interpretation of the law was a reasonable reality. I do not know how much traction that argument will get though. She may win on principle but loose on the law.

    The womans entire personal marriage history is now being trotted out for all to see, and its not very pretty. The court hearing should be very interesting.

  • Edward

    It is interesting to note that the defense “I was only doing my job” is no defense when committing a great crime. In this case, the government is requiring the job of violating her own religion: a violation so great that the First Amendment prevents the government from forcing her to perform such a violation.

  • Hondo

    Interesting how “just saying no” triggers a firestorm of anger. Think we need many more “just saying no” to a lot of things.

  • pzatchok

    I wasn’t just thinking of her but of all the other people who work in her office.

    She might be the elected officer of her department but what if the desk clerk who personally handles the face to face work did what she was doing?

    Of even in other offices all across the country?

  • PeterF

    It has been said that her choice is “Obey the law, or resign”.

    So, is the intended result of anti-religeous “law fare” to force anyone with deeply held beliefs (particularly Christians) to violate their beliefs or be eliminated from official public service?

    How would Satan get better results if he wanted to take Christianity and/or morality out of the legislative process?

    I wonder how the left would react if the clerk was being required to issue a permit to build a dam that would flood a favorite old-growth forest…

  • PeterF

    imprisoned for religious beliefs? How long do you think she will be willing to remain incarcerated?
    How long do you think the judge will keep her in prison?
    Jailed for contempt of a contemptible court!

    Some have theorized that this event is a skirmish in the continuing battle between good and evil.
    Will she be impelled to deny her faith? Will they try to force her to deny her savior three times?

  • Cotour

    I have to assume that if she has come this far she is going to go all the way, what ever that may be.

    Can one choose which law as a matter of religious conscience or a subjective feeling as to what is “right” to follow as an elected official? I know some very highly placed elected officials who certainly do not follow duly passed law and absolutely do what their personal subjective judgement tells them is the “right” thing to do. Without opposition what so ever from duly elected other officials. And those people have pens and phones. I am actually think of one particular highly placed elected official.

    There is a cat wondering around and it is out of its bag, does anyone know a method of how to get a cat back in their bag once it has been released from its bag?

  • Cotour

    Here is another aspect to this “gay” issue, apparently if you are gay you should be allowed to do what ever the EF you please?

    Male prostitution / escort , isn’t that what that nut that just killed those two “racist” news reporters last week was prior to becoming a murderer?

    There will come a point in the future, in the real world, where all this BS will come to a screeching halt.

  • D. Messier

    She’s in jail because she’s refusing to fulfill her legal obligations as clerk. She was elected to uphold the law. Laws are not static. They change all the time. If this new law conflicts with her religious and moral views and she cannot in good conscience support it, she needs to resign.

    This happens all the time. Officials resign from governments over policies they can’t support. CFO leave companies rather than doing things they think are illegal. Workers find other jobs when they get fed up with their employers’ questionable ethics and practices.

    States getting out of the marriage business has echoes in the past. There were fears the South would abandon public education rather than enroll African Americans in white schools.

    “Living their lifestyle” now includes the right to marry. County clerks can’t stand in the way of that.

  • Cotour

    Someday a robot / algorithm / self aware program of some sort will perform all such functions, problem solved.

    As they will eventually decide all legal issues, no bias, no prejudice.

    But who will initially program them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *