Attorney for Kim Davis Says ACLU Wants ‘Her Scalp to Hang on the Wall’ as New Accusations Filed

DavisMOREHEAD, Ky. — An attorney for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis state that they believe that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wants “her scalp to hang on the wall” after the organization filed a motion in court on Monday accusing Davis of interfering with her deputy clerks by altering the marriage licenses to remove her name and other identifying information.

As previously reported, when Davis returned to work on Sept. 14, she announced in a press conference that while she would not stop her deputies from issuing the licenses, the documents would not bear her name—as her request from the beginning of the battle was that the licenses bear the name of another authority.

“Any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it,” Davis stated. “Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order.”

She then proceeded to replace the documents with those that do not include Davis’ name, nor the name of any deputy clerk or even the county. They simply require the deputy clerk’s initials with a notarization stamp.

“Davis immediately began interfering with the Deputy Clerk’s issuance of marriage licenses upon returning to her office on September 14,” the ACLU asserted in its filing on Monday. “The marriage licenses currently issued by the Rowan County Clerk’s Office are so materially altered that they create a two-tier system of marriage licenses throughout state.”

“The adulterated marriage licenses received by Rowan County couples will effectively feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the government’s position is that LGBT couples are second-class citizens unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this court’s intervention and order,” it asserted.

While the motion does not ask that Davis be sent back to jail, some opine that there is a possibility that it could still occur. The ACLU rather requested that Davis be fined and that another person be assigned marriage license duties in the clerk’s office.

  • Connect with Christian News

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Davis in court pro bono, said that Davis has done no wrong in removing the identifying information from the licenses, as the documents were allegedly approved by both the governor and the state attorney general’s office.

“Kim Davis has made a good faith effort to comply with the court’s order and has not prevented the issuance of marriage licenses by Deputy Clerks,” he said. “While these licenses do not have her name on them, the governor said last Monday they were valid. Judge Bunning also said licenses issued while she was in jail without her name were valid.”

Staver stated that he believes the ACLU rather has a personal vendetta against Davis.

“The American Civil Liberty Union’s motion to again hold Kim Davis in contempt reveals that their interest is not the license but rather a marriage license bearing the name of Kim Davis,” he remarked. “They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Peter Leh

    She seem to be a very unethical person.

    Is integrity STILL a christian virtue? Or does it go out the door when dealing with the blacks, or women, or gays, or the disabled, or religion?

    • Wayne Snell

      You talk about ethics and virtue but what is your standard of right and wrong? The Bible doesn’t say that being black, female, disabled or even having another religion is an abomination. It does say that homosexuality is. Anyone who truly believes in God’s Word as his/her standard of right and wrong will not agree to be a part of it. You commit the fallacy of equivocation and category when you list homosexuality with these other things.

      • Peter Leh

        apples and oranges.

        i don’t have to believe homosexuality is “good” and support equal protection to american citizens.

      • Peter Leh

        “You commit the fallacy of equivocation and category when you list homosexuality with these other things.”

        not if you keep it in the context of equal protection. 🙂

        • Josey

          murder, assault, adultery, incest, sexual perversion, etc, all are choices not something someone has no control over as being born that way.

          • Peter Leh

            see my other comment to you.

          • Josey

            no thks

          • Peter Leh

            ok thanks for the conversation…

      • KD Elkins Gaur

        People who choose to bury their head in the sand will often forget about that. They would rather appease their own guilty conscience, no matter how unnatural in weakly excepting mans laws over Gods laws, natures laws. I guess they think they can get away with it. Jesus said we will pay every wit of that which we’ve done unto another. Well, encouraging His other children to sin because it suits their weaknesses to do so, telling others it’s OK to sin, no matter how little it is, that very same sin is stacked upon their own pile of sins. So it’s their choice, if they want to keep piling, then let them. All we can do is pray for them that they too see what we see. To Love ALL, yes, but never condone their sins.

      • Josey

        exactly right!

      • Angel Jabbins

        Excellent comment! It is about morality. It is about God’s law. It is about the created order that God established. Skin color, disability, being female…have nothing to do with morality and nothing to do with choice. Homosexuality Is all about behavior as is the evil of abortion…both issues are about choices people make and now they want to force those choices on those of us who are opposed to such things and then call us the bigots, the haters, the intolerant.
        In the last days evil will be called good…good called evil. Is there any doubt we are nearing the judgment of God?

        • respectourdifferences

          “It is about morality. It is about God’s law.”

          Then why was she issuing marriage licenses to couples where either, or both, had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery?

          • Shannon Brault

            There is an allowance for divorce in the bible so your argument falls flat.

          • Peter Leh

            “There is an allowance for divorce in the bible so your argument falls flat.”

            not at all. does Davis INQUIRE if the marriage is allowed? She certainly has taken the liberty to be with 3 husbands herself.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I think, yes, divorce laws are way too lenient today. That was not the case years ago. Certainly not in Bible times. But it does not carry the conflict of conscience that gay marriage does in regards to issuing licenses. Why someone got a divorce would take some investigation into each and every situation. It is not a cut and dried situation and would take time to sort it all out. She has not been given that task of deciding the morality of every single divorce that crosses her desk. Some are justified, some are not. Gay marriage IS a cut and dried matter…two man, two women…never before in the history of mankind has gay marriage been legal and celebrated. There is no grey area there…none at all.

            She had those divorces before she became a Christian….was a non-believing person and that is what many non-believers do (since they don’t have to worry about what God thinks)…divorce…and some, many times. Has she divorced since becoming a Christian? If so, then yes, she is a hypocrite. To my knowledge, she has not.

          • respectourdifferences

            “She has not been given that task of deciding the morality of every single divorce that crosses her desk.”

            She has not been given the task of deciding the morality of ANY marriage. She has been given the task of issuing marriage licenses to those who are qualified to receive them.

            “Gay marriage IS a cut and dried matter.”

            Where is it mentioned, specifically, in the Bible?

          • Angel Jabbins

            Homosexuality condemned as immoral and against God’s law: Genesis 19: 1-13, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9.
            Gay marriage, per say, is not addressed in the Bible nor does it need to be since it already clearly states that homosexuality behavior is sinful. Marriage cannot/does not sanctify it.

            “While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin.Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

            Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage,Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

            The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history…..”

            Rest of article here: (loose spaces: http: //www. gotquestions. org/gay-marriage. html)

          • respectourdifferences

            So it’s not mentioned specifically in the bible. Got it. Thanks

            “The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history…..”

            An example of Christian hubris. For most of history, marriage was considered to be between one man and many women, and still is in many places. So, no, the “biblical viewpoint of marriage” has NOT “been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history….”.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Homosexual behavior is clearly condemned in the Bible…no need for any mention of gay ‘marriage’. Why would the Bible have to specifically condemn it when it has already condemned the behavior and says it is an abomination. Gay marriage then is totally unthinkable. You twist things to mean what you want them to. And YES, marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman. Tomorrow it may be one man, one dog or one woman, two men, one daughter, one father…the way things are going…anything is possible when you remove all the moral guideposts and thumb your nose at God.

          • respectourdifferences

            “And YES, marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman. ”

            That is simply historically false. In addition, there are many places where marriage, at this time, is not limited to one man and one woman. Like, for instance, the US.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Gay ‘marriage’ is immoral from the ‘get-go’….no grey area there at all. Some divorces are justified…abuse, abandonment, infidelity. You cannot compare the two.

          • respectourdifferences

            “Some divorces are justified…abuse, abandonment, infidelity. ”

            What about the rest of them? What about the ones where the reason is “we just don’t want to be married anymore”; “we fell out of love”; “we grew apart”; “we aren’t happy”; etc.? Those all result in a person living in adultery, a state of Biblical sin.

            “You cannot compare the two.”

            Agreed. From a Biblical perspective, two people of the same gender entering into a civil contract is in no way comparable to people who are adulterous seeking to remarry.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Whether you like it or not, the US WAS founded upon Christian principles and ideals. Even in countries where other religions (Islam, Hinduism, even Communist Atheism) have more influence than Christianity, no society since the beginning of time, until this generation, has ever sanctioned, legalized, and celebrated same sex marriage. It has been inherently wrong in many cultures and religions because people know deep down that is immoral and unnatural. The anus was not made for sexual relations…it was made for filth and that ought to tell you something!

          • respectourdifferences

            “Whether you like it or not, the US WAS founded upon Christian principles and ideals.”

            If that is true, then how do you explain that the Constitution provides protections which directly conflict with seven of the ten Biblical commandments?

            “The anus was not made for sexual relations…it was made for filth and that ought to tell you something!”

            Yes, it tells me that you seem quite obsessed with thoughts of anal sexual relations.

          • Peter Leh

            she has been a baptist for over 20 years i believe. Unless baptist is not chrisitan….

            “She has not been given that task of deciding the morality of every single divorce that crosses her desk.”

            i dont know about that. It seems to be her position she will not “participate in sin” by issuing a marriage license. Scripturally is is cut and dry on divorce and what constitutes adultery after a divorce.

            IF that is her position… and indeed it is….She cant overlook one sin and cherry pick another IF she is servicing BOTH.

          • respectourdifferences

            A very limited allowance. Outside of that, divorce is not allowed. Why isn’t she checking to determine the basis for divorce and then refusing licenses if the reasons fall outside of Biblical allowances?

    • KD Elkins Gaur

      There is absolutely NO COMPARISON! So don’t even try it. Christianity is not allowed to condemn others of their sins, but they’re not allowed to condone their sins either. This is where the problem lies as it conflicts with her moral conscience. There needs to be a separate licensing department for homosexuals. This way, there’s no offending, or conflict with either of the parties. It should have been put in place from day one. FYI: Define ‘Virtue’—
      noun
      1.
      moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
      2.
      conformity of one’s life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.
      3.
      chastity; virginity:
      to lose one’s virtue.
      4.
      a particular moral excellence.
      Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue.
      5.
      a good or admirable quality or property:
      the virtue of knowing one’s weaknesses.
      6.
      effective force; power or potency:
      a charm with the virtue of removing warts.
      7.
      virtues, an order of angels.
      Compare angel (def 1).
      Idioms
      9.
      by /in virtue of, by reason of; because of:
      to act by virtue of one’s legitimate authority.

      • Peter Leh

        “There needs to be a separate licensing department for homosexuals.”

        like a “colored” water fountain?

        Naw we have tried this before … remember?

        i do understand what you are saying. in the past the “civil union” was discussed but went nowhere. so now THAT ship has sailed. What is left is just plain…. marriage. (on a civil level)

        • Josey

          sexual preference is in no way the same as skin color in which the baby born has no control over their skin pigmentation but sexual acts are choices, big difference!

          • Peter Leh

            skin color is in no way the same as choosing a religion. Yet IT is protected the same as those we have no choice: race, age, sex, disability.

            SO Josey…. unless you are advocating removing the religious protection from the protected groups the argument is DOA. 🙂

          • Shannon Brault

            Not really. The question isn’t one of law, but of morality. In terms of your morality, Josey is bang on. In terms of law, you’re right.

            What bothers me about you is that you fail to understand how one’s beliefs and convictions are so much a part of them that they can’t shed them when they go to work. So to say that an elected official cannot have protections and accommodations under the law is ridiculous! People are not machines. Even elected officials must be allowed protections and accommodations.

            I also remind you that you need to look to Kentucky law to determine whether or not she broke a law. Kentucky law states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. SCOTUS has no authority over marriage because marriage isn’t covered under the Constitution. Now, if it were Canada…. That would be a different story.

          • Peter Leh

            “What bothers me about you is that you fail to understand how one’s
            beliefs and convictions are so much a part of them that they can’t shed
            them when they go to work”

            being a business owner myself and a conservative christian i assure you i do.

            “So to say that an elected official cannot have protections and accommodations under the law is ridiculous!”

            And she does have protections. what she is doing is making up her own rules. If the county clerk in hood county, Texas can do it.. why not Davis?

            “Kentucky law states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.”

            which is the conundrum for Kentucky right now. I just read NC give the option of officials to do ALL licenses or none. Which seems more appropriate. Of course Davis is just plain discriminating. As a business man and apparently as a elected official i can assure you that is NOT allowed.

          • respectourdifferences

            “I just read NC give the option of officials to do ALL licenses or none.”

            I believe the NC law applies to performing civil marriage ceremonies. Not the issuing of licenses.

          • Peter Leh

            that may indeed be true

          • respectourdifferences

            “Even elected officials must be allowed protections and accommodations.”

            So a Clerk who is Hindu should be allowed to refuse a business license to a citizen who wants to open a steak restaurant? A Clerk who is Muslim should be allowed to refuse a business license to a woman?

            “I also remind you that you need to look to Kentucky law to determine whether or not she broke a law.”

            She didn’t break a law. She is refusing to perform the duties of her oath of office.

            “SCOTUS has no authority over marriage because marriage isn’t covered under the Constitution.”

            SCOTUS has ability to rule on the constitutionality of any law – marriage or otherwise.

          • Blaylock

            found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS

          • Angel Jabbins

            Sorry, but religious freedom was guaranteed by our founding fathers many of whom, if they were not Christians, did have a belief in God and adhered to many of the morals and principles of the bible (would not have approved gay marriage). If we truly want to change all that now, it can be done, I suppose. We can thumb our noses at the wisdom of the founders and rewrite the Constitution. However, that needs to be done by the rule of law…representation of the people…the vote of the majority. If the majority of Americans today really want to take away the freedom of religion…let ’em do it…at the ballot box…not through the courts…which is rule by the elite few…. the founders warned against that. Oh, but we know better than they…we are so much more ‘enlightened’ today…..

          • respectourdifferences

            “Sorry, but religious freedom was guaranteed by our founding fathers”

            The Constitution provides no protection regarding discrimination based upon religious belief. It only provides the guarantee that Congress will not pass a law prohibiting religious expression.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Passing a law…(actually no law was passed…it came by a tyrannical edict of the Court)…making gay marriage legal..that forces a person to violate their religious beliefs IS passing a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Watch and see….this ‘law’ WILL force people of faith into corners more and more….heavy fines, prison time…probably one day be moved into Christian ghettos. Tolerance for everyone except those who fear God enough obey Him.

          • respectourdifferences

            “actually no law was passed”

            Correct.

            “that forces a person to violate their religious beliefs”

            “Forced” means that you have no option but to obey. Who has been “forced” to violate their religious beliefs?

            “IS passing a law”

            But you said no law was passed. So which is it? Was a law passed or was a law not passed?

            “this ‘law’ WILL force people of faith into corners more and more….heavy fines, prison time”

            Again, unless there is no option, no one can be “forced”. Ms. Davis, like everyone else, is free to resign. She cannot be “forced” to violate her religious beliefs. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than hysterical hyperbole.

            Tell me about the rights of citizens to receive a marriage license in Rowan County. Are those rights meaningless based merely upon Ms. Davis’ religious beliefs? Should a Clerk who is Hindu be allowed to refuse a business license to a citizen who wants to open a steak restaurant? Should a Clerk who is Muslim be allowed to refuse a business license to a woman?

            Part of the oath Ms. Davis took states: “I will……….faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality”. She is willfully violating her oath and is forcing people who are entitled to receive a marriage license to go elsewhere for one. If anyone is “forcing” something on others, it is Ms. Davis. How is that reasonable?

          • Peter Leh

            “that forces a person to violate their religious beliefs IS passing a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

            same as the SBC and the blacks. Does not matter if we think the SBC was wrong. They believed it and the union said … no.

            rightful so.

          • Peter Leh

            religious freedom is guaranteed. Freedom was not. But that pesky little phrase in the declaration: “All men are created equal”

            really seem to eat at the contradictions of this country’s behavior.

            “However, that needs to be done by the rule of law…representation of the people…the vote of the majority.”

            Still trying to justify majority rule of equal protection under the law, eh?
            Won’t work never did.

            “We can thumb our noses at the wisdom of the founders and rewrite the Constitution” “which is rule by the elite few…. the founders warned against that. Oh,
            but we know better than they…we are so much more ‘enlightened’
            today…..”

            oh indeed we are in many ways. ( not their fault.. but our benefit) you would not wish to go back and live in the day of the founders.. you have it too good today. you would only do it if your were white christian male (not irish, german or italian descent) I mean a real white man. 🙂

          • respectourdifferences

            Sexual acts are not seeking a marriage license. Citizens are.

    • Names_Stan

      “Or does it go out the door when dealing with the blacks, or women, or gays, or the disabled, or religion?”

      You forgot the poor. Ever since the pope mentioned them today, they’ve caught more ire than the blacks and the gays.

      • Peter Leh

        that too.

        my comments are based on the historical fact of southern white christian prohibiting equal protection to american citizens … one which Davis is continuing that historical pattern

    • jael2

      Integrity? You mean the Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of integrity that includes purity, morality, uprightness, and honesty?
      Well, if that’s the case Kim Davis has exhibited that character. She has agreed with God who instituted marriage between one man and one woman, and has honored her own Kentucky State Constitution that only acknowledges marriage between one man and one woman. She has honored the voters of Kentucky desires, when they voted by a 75% to 25% margin that marriage is between one man and one woman.
      Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil….

      • Peter Leh

        Is violating a court order, dereliction of duty, prohibiting the right of american tax paying citizens fall under “integrity”?

        Do you job… or leave. those are the ONLY two ethical choices you have. Anything else is political grandstanding.

        “She has agreed with God who instituted marriage between one man and one woman”

        good for her. Tell me then…. why has she three husbands?

        “and has honored her own Kentucky State Constitution that only acknowledges marriage between one man and one woman.”

        So those constitutions that keep american citizens as close to slavery should be honored as well? As we have history before us to review. We now know the state constitution cannot trump american civilian liberties.

        ASk the blacks.

        “She has honored the voters of Kentucky desires, when they voted by a 75%
        to 25% margin that marriage is between one man and one woman. ”

        Again.. with history before us to review. We now know one cannot vote away equal protection.

        Ask the blacks.

        “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil….”

        Indeed. you do not have to call evil good… to see evil be evil.

        Prohibiting american citizens equal protection under the law is the evil the SBC had to (finally) apologize for in 1995 (not 1885 mind you).

        Seem the SBC and southern christians like Davis did not learn from history or their request for forgiveness.

        “the past is not dead… it is not even past”

  • gofwallace

    It is her right to be accommodated under the law.

    • Peter Leh

      so she be accommodated. But what how? as she is the FINAL arbitrator? IT comes from her or it does not come at all.

      Moreover she is AN ELECTED OFFICIAL….. not an employee. She sought this position then did not fulfill the duties.

      this is ALL on her

      • gofwallace

        She has not broken the law on the books. A new law needs to be written that takes in to consideration this circumstance. She is not the only official that will not have her name associated w this…she is the onebeing “made an example” .

        • respectourdifferences

          She refused to issue ANY marriage license. That is a violation of her oath of office.

          Do you believe that a Clerk who is Hindu should be allowed to refuse to issue a business license to a citizen who wants to open a steak restaurant? How about a Clerk who is Muslim refusing to issue a business license to a woman?

          • gofwallace

            First of KY law had not changed. If it has [I do not think a new law has been established] or will be established as such does she not have the right to say I request an exception to this law and there needs to be provisions [written into the law] to allow my personal beliefs?

          • Peter Leh

            Well it kind of has. the issue is what will kentucky DO about the new laws

          • gofwallace

            Well that is true…she is just asking that her name not be associated with this sort of situation. In looking at the Bible it is clear that with regard to being prejudice with blacks. It is wrong. It is very clear about homosexuality and how we are to respond. God did smote two cities which archaeologists have found BTW.

          • Peter Leh

            “Well that is true…she is just asking that her name not be associated with this sort of situation.”

            seem she is doing MORE than that.

            “In looking at the Bible it is clear that with regard to being prejudice with blacks. It is wrong.”

            Well, the SBC and southern christian denominations from 1845 to 1995 would disagree with you. 🙂 Nor does it matter if the SBC believed, which they did, they were on god’s side. But IF they were wrong in prohibiting the equal protection of tax paying american citizens back then…. when they go out and oppose equal protection AGAIN to tax paying american citizens are still wrong?

            Same pattern… but on the wrong side of history. But they swore they were on the right side of god THEN, presently christians believe they are on the right side of god NOW. Same song 2nd verse

            “It is very clear about homosexuality and how we are to respond”

            it is indeed clear.: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”

            So when your neighbor tells you she were kicked out of the hospital room and can’t be with her terminal spouse of 55 years… what do you do?

            When your neighbor has to pay taxes on the home he and his spouse lived in for for 55 years or lose his home because his spouse died. … what do you do?

            When your neighbor cant buy insurance for her spouse, when other married couples can. what do you do?

            Meanwhile in Texas a man and a woman can shack up, not marry at all and be common law in just two years. As citizen is that fair? Just? Equally Protected?

            See I am not talking “sin’ but “justice” for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS. There are just as many “sinners” BEFORE ssm than after. So if god is angry it aint over “justice” for the least of theses.

            if you dont do justly and love mercy as god commands… what is that called? What is Davis doing to her neighbor?:

            “Oh, can’t you see it’s such a sin? ‘Cause He brings people to you door
            And you turn them away as you smile and say
            God bless you, be at peace and all heaven just weeps
            ‘Cause Jesus came to you door you’ve left Him out in the street”
            Keith Green

            or you can just say what many have said: “Well, that is what you get for being gay” oh and “heaven just WEEPS”

            Two consenting adults in ameica have the right to live the life THEY want within the law… not the life WE want them to live. That is OVERSLEEPING our bounds.

            Moreover IF it is shown SSA is immutable… we sir, are in trouble for how we have treated our neighbor. you AND me both.

            “God did smote two cities which archaeologists have found BTW.”

            oh yes he did. indeed. we should all take that to heart and make sure we don;t make the same mistake they did. BTW what WAS that mistake according to Ezekiel?

            “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she
            and her daughters had
            1 arrogance
            2 abundant food
            3 careless ease,

            4 she did not help the poor and needy.

            5 they were haughty

            6 committed abominations before Me.

            Damn… did you see all that took place BEFORE we got to #6?! I always thought God hating gays was the #1 reason. 🙂

            1-5 can be argued Sodom was destroyed because they did not take care of their neighbor. Will you? Who is your neighbor? are you doing justly to your neighbor or standing in the way of their god given rights as an american tax paying citizen to equal protection under the law as Davis is doing?

          • respectourdifferences

            “In looking at the Bible it is clear that with regard to being prejudice with blacks. It is wrong.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your belief in that regard, those who argued against allowing interracial marriage believed otherwise.

            “God did smote two cities which archaeologists have found BTW.”

            While archeologists may have found the cities, they have no found proof that God smote them.

          • respectourdifferences

            She is seeking an accommodation to not perform the duties of Clerk. Accommodation laws apply to businesses. Accommodation laws to not apply to duties of elected officials.

          • gofwallace

            So she has no rights…I do believe she has a right to pursue the request. People are demonizing her for not supporting something that as far as I know no major religion supports and some religions take this a bit further.

          • respectourdifferences

            She is free to pursue whatever request she cares to. With that said, there is no “right” for an elected official to refuse to do his/her job based upon the official’s religious beliefs.

            “People are demonizing her for not supporting something that as far as I know no major religion supports and some religions take this a bit further.”

            I think “demonizing” is a bit hyperbolic, however, her support is not the issue. She is free to support or not support whatever she cares to. The issue is her doing the job she swore an oath to do. An oath which includes the phrase: “that I will …….. faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality”. Please note: “without favor, affection, or partiality”. She is violating her oath. An oath she swore to God that she would not violate.

            Regarding issuing marriage licenses to people who have been divorced, she said “that is between them and God”, yet regarding issuing licenses to two citizens of the same gender, she has decided to act as God’s proxy and violate her oath. That is hypocritical.

            If, based on her religious beliefs, she feels that she is no longer able to perform the duties of her job “without favor, affection, or partiality”, then she should resign. Her latest excuse for not resigning, as she explained in an interview Wednesday with Megyn Kelly on FOX is: “If I resign I lose my voice,” Davis said.

            She would, of course, not lose her voice. She would still be free to speak her mind as she chooses. What she would lose is being in the limelight.

            She continued in the interview saying: “Why should I have to quit a job that I love, that I’m good at?”

            She clearly does not love her job, as a portion of her job is causing her great angst. How can you rate yourself as “good” at a job when you refuse to do part of it in violation of the oath you took?

        • Peter Leh

          let me ask you this as a side note…

          of all the thousand of county clerks in the country Davis is the only ONE doing this. So is she the ONLY TRUE BELIEVER in the whole country… or a KOOK?

          it seems to me IF what she is doing is “right” the line of civil disobedience forms to the left.. no?

          • gofwallace

            I read of another County Clerk in KY [I do not know if they are sanctioning him] and also her son who works for her refuses. There are some states like NC and Utah which refuse to comply corporately

          • Peter Leh

            so i wonder why only Davis is in the media? they seem to cover all the businesses that have refused service to homosexuals.

          • gofwallace

            BTW she is not a kook. If this was brought up as an US Constitution Amendment, as it should be, it would fail. Up and until the Federal Reserve and Income Tax [a temporary tax BTW] were established in 1913 for it to be a permanent Federal law superseding state law an Amendment was supposed to happen. The Executive branch expansion has changed the entire dynamics and balance of Federal law and created what could be argued as a fascist country.

          • Peter Leh

            well the problem is equal protection is not up for a vote. You can’t vote equal protection away as the white southern christians did for years

          • respectourdifferences

            “If this was brought up as an US Constitution Amendment, as it should be, it would fail.”

            Why should it be?

          • Peter Leh

            “There are some states like NC and Utah which refuse to comply corporately”
            ok i just googled it:

            http: //www. breitbart. com/big-government/2015/09/04/north-carolina-and-utah-laws-allow-clerks-to-refuse-same-sex-marriages/

            It seems” the North Carolina legislature passed a law allowing state officials to opt out of performing all marriages”

            of course opting out of ALL marriages not what Davis is doing. She is cherry picking the sins she will or will not serve. What you do for one you do for all.

            “Similarly, in Utah, Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed a bill in March
            allowing state officials to refuse to marry any couples, including
            same-sex couples, for religious reasons.”

            Here it is unclear if it is all or nothing. If state official can discriminate against one group over another it will be struck down.

          • gofwallace

            Thanks for researching. The following is from a KY lawyer friend of mine. The Supreme Court has provoked a constitutional crisis. The 14th Amendment, drafted at the end of the Civil War, has nothing to say about homosexual marriage. In fact, marriage is mentioned nowhere in the federal constitution. Marriage has historically been a matter to be addressed by state law. And, the 10th Amendment specifically gives authority to the states, over all matters not mentioned in the federal constitution. There are sound legal arguments on both sides of this question. The battle is far from over. There is a strong argument that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction and authority in the Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) ruling.

          • Peter Leh

            if am sure it is far from over. However there is precedent of the feds overturning the states marriages laws, no? Virgina’s anti racing mixing laws for example?

          • gofwallace

            Tomato tomahto. Man/woman and man/man two very different things…not even close to being the same. If one really looks at it closely the whole Federal system has gotten unwieldy in the 20th Century with the expansion of the Executive branch, the reduction in state rights slowly but surely, the ineptness of the Congress and SCOTUS knowing their responsibilities and bounds as well.

          • Peter Leh

            citizen/citizen and citizen/citizen. seems like there all tomatoes to me. 🙂

          • gofwallace

            Your opinion. Normal tomatoes populate. I base my beliefs on God’s word. I also do not expect you to understand this but it is not natural, normal, wrong in the eyes of God [according to all major religions as far as I am aware of] and should not be included as a normalcy of any society. It is only being supported by the “liberals” as a way to depopulate the earth. I have had gay friends in life. Once they feel you are comfortable with them the very sick jokes and other perverted aspects of their life come out. Pro creation is what I support. I apologize if I have offended but scripture is very clear.

          • Peter Leh

            “Normal tomatoes populate.”

            Here we go. So my aunt and uncle cannot “populate”…. are they now not ” normal” people? Not deserving of all rights to american citizens under the law? (this is rhetorical no need to answer)

            The answer is of course not.

            “I also do not expect you to understand this but it is not natural,
            normal, wrong in the eyes of God [according to all major religions as
            far as I am aware of] and should not be included as a normalcy of any
            society.”

            Why would i not understand this? As i have stated many times… history is before us for all to read?

            “I have had gay friends in life. Once they feel you are comfortable
            with them the very sick jokes and other perverted aspects of their life
            come out.”

            sorry to hear this. I have heard similar things from those who are “chrisitans”. Do not think the gay community has cornered the market on perverts.

            “I apologize if I have offended but scripture is very clear.”

            Does the offense come from what we believe or what we DO?

            I can believe all i wish. when I use that believed to deny an american citizen their rights.. like we did to women, blacks, currently the gays.. indeed many are offended now and in the future.

          • gofwallace

            Peter, you and I do not agree on this quite simply…she is asking for accommodation forsomething she considers immoral…you don’t think deserves to have that right. You can bully people into forcing something that quite frankly is abhorrent. All this could be taken care of by changing the wording on the Amendment involved…and see if it passes. A 5-4 decision is not a mandate…nor should it be. May all seek God and the the peace beyond all uunderstanding. Know the Truth

          • Peter Leh

            “Peter, you and I do not agree on this quite simply…she is asking for
            accommodation forsomething she considers immoral…you don’t think
            deserves to have that right.”

            not at all. i never said she should not be accommodate. The clerk in hood county texas could do it … why not Davis? This is on Davis if other can do it too,

            “A 5-4 decision is not a mandate…nor should it be. ”

            i agree on both. it never should have gotten to the SC if people did the right thing. If they dont then the court steps in. 5-4 is the same as 9-0 at the end of the day.

          • respectourdifferences

            “Man/woman and man/man two very different things…not even close to being the same.”

            They are very close to being the same thing from a standpoint of two citizens being allowed to marry.

            “the reduction in state rights slowly but surely”

            What state rights have been reduced slowly but surely?

            “SCOTUS knowing their responsibilities and bounds as well.”

            One of their responsibilities is to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, when cases regarding the constitutionality of state laws come before them. in what way did they exceed those bounds?

          • respectourdifferences

            “The 14th Amendment, drafted at the end of the Civil War, has nothing to say about homosexual marriage.”

            Nor did it say anything about interracial marriage, nor did it limit equal protection under the law to issues of race.

            “The battle is far from over.”

            How so?

            “There is a strong argument that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction and authority in the Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) ruling.”

            Really? What strong argument is that?

      • Angel Jabbins

        She sought an accommodation…sought it for months before the Supreme (kangaroo) Court made its infamous decision. Just an accommodation for her sincerely held religious convictions…not to have her name stamped on the licenses. Having her name on the license does make her a participant in gay marriage which she feels is immoral because it is a stamp of approval. Her name does not have to be on those licenses to make them legal as long as the governor and state atty. general have sanctioned them. They have said they are legal documents. It is all about forcing someone to violate their conscience. Makes no difference that she is ‘AN ELECTED OFFICIAL’. She is still a citizen with rights which she does not shed when she walks through the door of the county clerk’s office. Maybe they should hold a vote of confidence election and let the people who elected her decide. If they vote her out, then she is out. If not, give her the stinking accommodation and stop the all the stupid clamor over nothing. The gays got what they wanted, but they are after blood now…going after the jugular…going to rub it into the faces of people of faith and force them to not only accept their immoral lifestyle, but to partake as well in it whether it violates their consciences or not. Nice bunch of people…not an ounce of tolerance or grace on their side…no ‘co-exist’…none.

        • Michael C

          She did not request the accommodation of the removal of her name from marriage licenses until just before the hearing leading up to her jailing. Up until that point, she had not defined her desire for accommodation.

          As has become abundantly clear, the simple request for the removal of her name from licenses is not sufficient for her. She demands an accommodation far beyond the simple removal of her name. It is yet unclear as to what will satisfy Kim Davis.

          Her demands, based on her actions since her release from jail, are unreasonable.

          Davis is not seeking religious freedom, she is protesting. This is not about finding reasonable compromise for her. This is about the willful defiance of a court ruling that she disagrees with.

          Let’s all stop pretending.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I cannot find the article right now, but I read that she DID indeed begin seeking an accommodation back in January of this year.

            Mountain out of a molehill. It truly is. No one is being denied their right to get a license…those that are being issued are legal. Period.

          • Michael C

            I’ve read that too. Here’s a snippit from Billy Graham’s website.

            “I urged and beseeched them to get legislation on the floor while we still had time to protect clerks who had religions objections to same-sex marriage,” she said. “I got only one response, and nothing happened.”

            No mention of the simple removal of her signature. No clear description of what an accommodation would look like.

            In early July, Davis and 56 other Kentucky clerks sent a letter to Gov. Bashear requesting a $300,000+ special legislative session to “address the issues that have been caused in this transition.” Again, the letter did not provide a clear description of what a possible accommodation would look like.

            “…those [licenses] that are being issued are legal. Period.”

            That’s unclear. The courts and the Governor were comfortable with the validity of the licenses issued by the deputy clerks while Davis was in jail. The licenses that are currently being issued from Davis’ office have been severely altered upon Davis’ return.

        • Josey

          I have read some comments from those who are from Kentucky and they are in agreement with Mrs.Davis on this, so perhaps those who want to force this behavior down the throats of those whose conscience and faith say it is wrong are afraid of a vote. I wonder if that Governor will get elected again if the Lord tarries.

          • Peter Leh

            the behavior of getting a required civil marriage license from a county clerk? I was unaware that was “forcing a behavior down the throats”

          • Josey

            that’s cause you don’t get it period

          • Peter Leh

            oh yeah.. i forgot you dont wish to discuss it. 🙂

          • Angel Jabbins

            Yep, you are right, they wouldn’t want a vote. They want courts to decide everything now because that is the ONLY way they could have gotten this through to become law. The people were side-tracked completely, and in states where the electorate did vote on the gay marriage issue, the majority voted against it. The Court just completely ignored that, overruling the mandate of the people.

            They have their liberal judges in place now and that is how they want it…no representation for the majority of the people.

          • Josey

            Yes, I still recall the statement Obama made before the ruling that he’d make us all buckle to this agenda.

          • respectourdifferences

            Issuing marriage license is not a “behavior”.

            Since she is free to resign, she can’t be “forced”.

        • Peter Leh

          just as there is a difference in rights of a business and a citizen ( as you and i have gone over) there is a difference in the rights of a citizen and an elected official.

          You may agree to disagree but we BOTH can predict where this will go.

          • Angel Jabbins

            She is not a business. She is a citizen who does not leave her conscientiously held beliefs at the door as she enters her job…gov’t elected official or otherwise.

            Yep, it will end up at the Supreme Kangaroo Court and those same 5 justices can dictate to the rest of us whatever their latest whims are. The Republic of the US….may it rest in peace.

          • Peter Leh

            “She is not a business.”

            Indeed, different rights and regulation.

            She is the representative of the county was was voted to perform certain tasks and services for the citizenry.

            “She is a citizen who does not leave her conscientiously held beliefs at
            the door as she enters her job…gov’t elected official or otherwise.”

            Totally agree. I have seen nowhere anyone suggesting otherwise.

          • respectourdifferences

            “She is a citizen who does not leave her conscientiously held beliefs at the door as she enters her job.”

            She is not required to leave her beliefs at the door. She is required, as the oath she took says, to perform her duties “without favor, affection or partiality,”

            “Yep, it will end up at the Supreme Kangaroo Court”

            It’s already gone to the court. The full court – all justices – denied her request.

          • Angel Jabbins

            It has not reached the Supreme (Kangaroo) Court….yet. Not that it will make any difference in the climate we have today.

          • respectourdifferences

            She appealed the actions of the District Court judge to the Supreme Court. They did not grant her appeal.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Well, what did I tell ya…not by this Court.

        • respectourdifferences

          “Makes no difference that she is ‘AN ELECTED OFFICIAL’. ”

          Actually, it does make a difference. Accommodation laws apply to businesses. They do not apply to elected officials being able to pick and choose which portions of their job they will perform based upon their personal religious beliefs. Should a Clerk who is Muslim be allowed to refuse a business license to a woman? Should a Clerk who is Hindu be allowed to refuse a business license to someone who wants to open a steak restaurant?

    • respectourdifferences

      What law provides that an elected official must be accommodated in the fulfillment of their duties based upon the official’s religious beliefs?

      • Peter Leh

        i dont know either…

        • respectourdifferences

          That’s because there isn’t one.

  • Josey

    So what’s the problem if the judge and the governor both have said the licenses issued w/out her name are valid. ACLU does want to make an example out of her, they want to intimidate other’s in public office that if you stand up for your religious convictions they will do to you what they are doing to her. But the People of God have no need to fear man in any capacity whatsoever, they might get away with killing the body and throwing those who stand for God into jail just like in the days of the apostles if God the Ruler of all allows it for Christians are subject to Him and His will above all. This truth remains they can never snatch one of these that believe and obey Jesus Christ out of His Mighty Hands. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, what can man do to me as David the psalmist declared. Jesus Christ will deal with all these that reject Him soon enough.

    • Michael C

      From my understanding, the judge and the governor were accepting of the licenses issued while Davis was in jail.

      I don’t know that they’ve issued an opinion on the post-Davis-altered licenses.

    • respectourdifferences

      “ACLU does want to make an example out of her, they want to intimidate other’s in public office that if you stand up for your religious convictions they will do to you what they are doing to her.”

      Funny how some people want elected officials to fulfill their oath of office and not make decisions on what part of their job they will do and which citizens they will serve and which they will not based upon the official’s personal religious beliefs.

      The next thing you know, they are going to start requiring a Clerk who is Hindu to issue a business license to a citizen who wants to open a steak restaurant or a Clerk who is Muslim to issue a business license to a woman.

  • Nidalap

    Well, I guess we’ll get to see what these ‘mystery sanctions’ that the judge threatened her with are now…

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/107717006956852938988/posts PDS The Christian View

    I wish it were me instead of Kim Davis. I see no reason to feel singled out for being a Christian. What ever happens is in the Lord’s hands and if it is freedom great, if it is prison great, blessed be the name of the Lord no matter what is in the future.

  • Cady

    Do the other people in the office have religious freedom? If the asst clerk’s religious beliefs say that government authority should be obeyed, why cannot they issue licenses without interference?

    • respectourdifferences

      Because Ms. Davis wants to…using the analogy so many are fond of using….”cram her religious beliefs down their throats”.

    • Shannon Brault

      They can.

    • Peter Leh

      Davis also forbade any county employee to issue a license at one point, if i remember correctly. She is the clerk she is the boss.

      • Josey

        What exactly does your profile symbol stand for, just curious, looks like a partial arabic symbol. what does it mean?

        • Blaylock

          get a grip!

          • Josey

            Get a grip?? Didn’t know you were answering for Peter Leh, it’s a simple question of curiosity, what does it have to do with you?

        • Peter Leh

          that is correct. in solidarity to our christian brothers being slain.

          https: //www. facebook. com/IamaNazarene

          • Josey

            thank you for the response, I was just curious to what it meant and that was all I could find about it.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    The ACLU speaks of “The adulterated marriage licenses…” That sounds like a license for immorality, not marriage – isn’t that exactly what they are demanding? They want to adulterate marriage, and make it equivalent to blatant homosexual immorality. Not only do they do these things themselves, but they approve of those who practice them.

  • Josey

    Bottom line is behavior is not a civil right, it is a choice. This ruling isn’t about civil rights as was slavery or skin color, it is an insult to what MLK did for people.

    • respectourdifferences

      A “behavior” is not seeking a marriage license. Two citizens are seeking a marriage license that they are legally allowed to receive.

      • Josey

        I disagree with the legality of it. What law was made? It was a ruling by five justices is all and it can be changed with the impeachment of those justices, it is not legal under the constitution and using the 14th amendment as justification for it is not correct either for the 14th amendment does not grant such authority and it takes courageous people to stand up and say enough against this tyranny.

        • ltneid

          You have the right to disagree with the legality of the decision, which means absolutely nothing. Impeaching the justices could remove them from the court, but would do nothing to their rulings.
          Regardless of how you feel about it, their decisions carry the weight of law.

        • respectourdifferences

          “I disagree with the legality of it.”

          That is certainly your right.

          “What law was made?”

          None. A law was struck down.

          “it can be changed with the impeachment of those justices”

          What would be the basis for impeachment? Even it they were impeached, it would not change the ruling.

          “and using the 14th amendment as justification for it is not correct either for the 14th amendment does not grant such authority”

          The 14th Amendment provides the protection that state laws cannot violate protections provided by the Federal Constitution. Issues of the Federal Constitution are handled by Federal courts. If the Federal judiciary were not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of state laws, how would the protections provided by the 14th Amendment be secured?

          “enough against this tyranny.”

          How is it tyrannical for the Federal judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of state laws?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Fortunately, Marriage remains an institution overseen and defined by God, Regardless of what the Unites States and its government subsidiaries declare, Marriage will always be between one man and one woman. Legal “marriage” is just a State authorized contract, nothing more. Multitudes are simply living in adultery or fornication, since they have not sanctified themselves before the LORD and committed to Holy Matrimony before Him.

    If God is telling Kim Davis to resist this wicked, man-made “law”, then she should continue to do so. If she is simply being an upstart and wanting to fight for her personal vindication, then she will answer to God for a false show. Either way, homosexuality is a cancer spreading in the USA and the world. Its fruit is death and darkness, and those who embrace it love Evil.

    • Dave_L

      You said; “Legal “marriage” is just a State authorized contract, nothing more. Multitudes are simply living in adultery or fornication, since they have not sanctified themselves before the LORD and committed to Holy Matrimony before Him.”

      “And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:” (Luke 20:34)

      “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,” (Matthew 24:38)

      • FoJC_Forever

        Your knowledge and application of the Scriptures is only natural, in error, and incomplete, since you do not have the Holy Spirit. You need to get saved and quit this online dribble of yours.

        You are a fake, a fraud, an online deceiver and pretender. You may fool some, but not those of us who follow Jesus (the) Christ.

        • Dave_L

          I quoted two Scriptures that refuted your claims. You cannot support much of what you say at any given time from Scripture.

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, you quote Scripture to make yourself look like a Christian. Satan quoted Scripture too. Just quoting a Scripture doesn’t prove anything.

            I don’t give you Scripture because I’m not going to give what is holy to a dog, or cast my pearls to a pig, as Jesus instructed.

            You like to have Scripture battles. Word fights. These are useless and only generate strife, which is what you desire.

          • Dave_L

            Scripture please?

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    One thing that has not been mentioned in this discussion is that in her previous appearance before the court, Ms. Davis stated under oath that she did not have the legal authority to alter the marriage licenses. The ACLU’s filing quotes the specific portions of the law concerning marriage licenses, which states that “Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license.” It also states that the “form of marriage license prescribed…shall be uniform throughout this state.” Ms. Davis’ alterations of the forms clearly violate this law. It would seem that on the face of it, she is not in compliance with the conditions of her release, and could be returned to jail.

    • Shannon Brault

      Considering Kentucky’s Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and that the US Constitution doesn’t address marriage at all, then any marriage licenses issued in Kentucky for same-sex marriage are ALL illegal and therefore void.

      • Blaylock

        are you dense? SCOTUS found your marriage laws to be unconstitutional. Thanks for playing

      • respectourdifferences

        You have no idea how the law works.

  • Shannon Brault

    Everyone seems to have forgotten three facts.
    1. The US Constitution doesn’t address marriage. It leaves that up to the State.
    2. SCOTUS is federal and can only rule on laws addressed in the US Constitution.
    3. Kentucky’s constitution states that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    • ltneid

      1. The Constitution does address equality. SCOTUS used the same reasoning and amendment in Loving v Virginia to grant biracial marriage.
      2. They used the Constitution (14th Amendment) to make their decision.
      3. All states’ laws and constitutions must comply with the US Constitution.

      • Josey

        People tend to forget that 16 legislatures out of 38 failed to ratify the 14 amendment and in 1868 3/4ths of states didn’t ratify this amendment and until such a ratification is completed any state has the right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment not to mention it was about skin color not sexual choices.There are several reasons the 14 amendment isn’t even constitutional, research it and you will see that these groups pushing this use it as intimidation and most people aren’t educated about this amendment which these groups count on in their use of intimidation. American people should rise up against this intimidation and learn about the 14 amendment so that weapon is removed against them in their using it for wrongful purposes.Stand your ground when these groups throw around this illegal constitutional argument and watch these groups go running off with their tails between their legs, the problem has been a lack of education concerning this amendment that shuts schools down and programs down w/out even so much as a fight.

        • ltneid

          Quick, contact the Supreme Court. They are waiting for your input on this so they can finally put that pesky 14th away.
          And nowhere in the amendment is equal protection restricted to skin color. I believe the phrase used is “all persons.”

    • Blaylock

      you need another class in government

  • WGB

    I respect her and her decisions. She has kept her word both to the government and God. Licenses are being issued and she has not compromised her beliefs=everyone’s rights have been honored.
    God bless Kim.

  • Mike Huck

    AP BREAKING NEWS ALERT: ITS BEING REPORTED THAT KIM DAVIS HAD 2 ABORTIONS,ONE IN 1995 AND ANOTHER IN 1998

  • Mike Huck

    WE PLAN TO REARREST KIM DAVIS MONDAY MORNING THEN FLY HER TO AN ISIS CAMP IN SYRIA