Judge Rules Against ACLU as Kim Davis Hasn’t ‘Interfered’ With Issuance of ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

Davis-compressedMOREHEAD, Ky. — A federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that Kentucky clerk Kim Davis did not violate his order not to interfere with her deputies’ issuance of “marriage” licenses to homosexuals when she removed her name and other identifying information from the documents.

As previously reported, Davis had requested last year that then-Gov. Steve Beshear allow for her name to be removed from any marriage licenses as the U.S. Supreme Court was set to consider the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

After the high court opinion was issued in June, she was among those who refused to issue licenses—at least not with her name on them. Davis, who attends a Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal assembly, said that she would do so if her name was removed from the documents.

Her refusal soon went to court via a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and in September, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered that Davis issue the licenses despite her religious identity. As she continued to refuse to issue the licenses, Bunning ordered that she be placed behind bars until she was willing to comply. In the meantime, the judge arranged for a deputy clerk to sign the licences in her absence.

She was released from the Carter County Jail five days later after her attorneys filed an appeal of the contempt order, and also because Bunning was satisfied that her deputy clerks were providing the licenses instead. He stipulated her release on the condition that she not interfere with her deputies.

When Davis returned to work days later, 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. She issued new licenses that simply required the deputy clerk’s initials with a notarization stamp.

The ACLU consequently filed a motion asking that Davis be found in violation of Bunning’s order not to interfere.

  • Connect with Christian News

“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,” it said.

In December, newly elected Gov. Matt Bevin issued an executive order allowing clerk’s names to be removed from licenses, thus granting Davis her initial request.

On Tuesday, Judge Bunning ruled that Davis had not violated his order since “gay marriage” licenses are still being issued by Davis’ office and that the forms she utilized would still be considered by the state as valid.

“[T]he Rowan County clerk’s office is issuing marriage licenses to individuals eligible to marry as needed,” he wrote. “There has been no indication that Davis has continued to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses since September 20, 2015. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that any altered licenses issued between September 14, 2015 and September 20, 2015 would be recognized as valid under Kentucky law, making re-issuance unnecessary.”

Some Christians have considered Davis’ move as a compromise that is not acceptable for one who professes Christ.

“We’re still allowing the evil to continue, and it totally nullifies the interposition of the lesser magistrate in abating the just judgment of God,” Matt Trewhella, pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and author of “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate,” told Christian News Network.

“It’s extremely important for people to understand that the interposition of the lesser magistrate abates the just judgment of God,” he said, “but with the path they’re taking in Kentucky, it will not.”


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
  • [email protected]

    It is important to note that Kim Davis and Liberty counsel both stated that they did not believe the marriage licenses issued by the deputy clerks were valid, a point they latter relented on. the task of the court was to ensure that same-sex couples could get marriage licenses at the office and as long as that is happening then they are in compliance. if the court had found that the altered licenses were not valid then Kim Davis would have been found to be interfering and likely would have gone back behind bars.

    • afchief

      ” if the court had found that the altered licenses were not valid then Kim Davis would have been found to be interfering and likely would have gone back behind bars.”

      That is a lie! There is NO federal law for homo marriage. NONE! Only a SCOTUS opinion. The SCOTUS cannot make, change or remove laws. Only Congress can. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

      Kim Davis should sue the feds. She would win big time!!!

      • [email protected]

        the federal courts have the power of judicial review to strike down laws that violate the constitution. they did this before with marriage when they ruled that bans on inter-racial marriage violated the constitution and they did it again here finding that bans on same-sex marriage violate the constitution. so the bans have been struck down by the court and without them to ban same sex couples they must be allowed to marry. so no, this is not a lie.

        also Kim Davis would not win any such lawsuit, indeed she already lost in her attempt to block same sex couples from getting married with that defiance of the court order ending when she went behind bars.

        • afchief

          Really? Show me where in the Constitution that the SCOTUS can strike down laws.

          Waiting…………………………………………………….

          If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

          Marriage is NOT mentioned in the Constitution and is therefor a States issue in accordance with the 10th amendment, period!!!!

          • [email protected]

            so is it your position that SCOTUS was wrong to strike down state bans on Inter-racial marriage? should those bans be re-instated unless they are removed by the state?

            And yes the courts do have agents to enforce their rulings…that is one of the things that the federal marshals do and I will note that it was the federal marshals that took Kim Davis into custody becasue she attempted to defy the court on this and taking her into custody then allowed marriage licenses to be issued in accordance with the court order.

          • afchief

            Are you really this ignorant of law?!?!? The SCOTUS or feds have NO authority to change, make or strike down laws.

            IF YOU THINK SO, THEN SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

            Waiting………………………………………………………………………….

          • [email protected]

            I notice you ignored the question at hand so here it is again.

            so is it your position that SCOTUS was wrong to strike down state bans on Inter-racial marriage? should those bans be re-instated unless they are removed by the state?

          • afchief

            Alabama voted to remove inter-racial marriage in 2000. The SCOTUS gave an opinion on it 13 years before the vote. A SCOTUS opinion means NOTHING!!!!

          • [email protected]

            and yet the ban was unconstitutional and unenforceable from the time of the ruling. removing it from the state law at that point only brings the law on the books into agreement with the law in practice.

          • afchief

            No it wasn’t!!! If so, why did Alabama bring it to a vote in 2000?

            You are totally ignorant of law.

            I told you there are ONLY two ways to make, change or strike down laws. Have you forgotten already?

            Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • [email protected]

            states take action on unconstitutional and unenforceable laws for 2 reasons.

            #1 it cleans up the law on the books and removes language that is no longer in affect and therefore serve no purpose on the books. allowing it to stay only serves to make the law less clear.

            #2 such language can come to be seen as an embarrassment to the state and thus they remove it to end the embarrassment of having it on the books. so in terms of a ban on inter-racial marriage it was an indication of racist law making and thus at some point the state will want to remove it to improve their image.

          • afchief

            Nope! That is a boldface lie!!!! Courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            KNOW THE LAW!!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            Laws will not change as often as judges change. Judges cannot rule on a law unless someone takes a case to court. The person or group taking a case to court must have “standing”, that is, show that they have been hurt.

          • afchief

            A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!!

        • afchief

          Let me help educate the liberal cranium. I know it’s hard, but we’ll try!!!

          “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

          The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

          http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

        • afchief

          More education!!!!

          “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

          For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

          The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

          http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • Bob Johnson

            True neither the courts nor Congress controls the army (the enforcement part of the government).

            Actually, the ruling was Worcester v Georgia in 1832. The 1831 case Cherokee Nation v Georgia the court agreed with Jackson. Jackson’s use of the US Army to remove the Cherokee lead to the infamous “Trail of Tears” and the forced relocation of 15,000 and 4,000 deaths.

          • afchief

            Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

            Courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

  • FoJC_Forever

    I think her primary issue was not wanting to be seen as approving abhorrent behavior. This issue was blown out of proportion and did nothing to stop the onslaught of the homosexual agenda from spreading like cancer in America and the world.

    It’s wise to consider the reality that governments of all sizes across America have rejected God and are being driven by a demonic agenda to oppress those who are seeking the LORD. Even the fake Christians who compromise will be pressured to compromise even more. The Devil wants the name of Jesus (the) Christ associated with lunacy and immorality, but his End is near.

    The Promise is at hand. Those who continue to seek the LORD will be tried, but we shall inherit Eternal Life as we continue to follow Jesus (the) Christ.

    Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

    • Kimberly Rock

      I hope you don’t mind, I am adding this when I share this article… Since your name is different here (I’m guessing, lol) it won’t allow people to locate and attack you on FB…

      Great post… Thank you…

      • FoJC_Forever

        Since my name is different here? Is there someone on FB that appears to be me?

    • acontraryview

      “It’s wise to consider the reality that governments of all sizes across America have rejected God ”

      Governments cannot accept or reject a religious being. Individuals do that.

      “and are being driven by a demonic agenda to oppress those who are seeking the LORD”

      How are people who believe in God being “oppress”ed?

  • Simon Timothy

    You can not stop certain evil by yourself but can stay away from associating yourself with it. She has not compromised her faith at all, she has stood for the truth. Let God protect her!

  • SSGT_Randolph

    Kim Davis’ goal was to force the public to adhere to her personal religious beliefs. Thankfully, with the help of the judicial system, same-sex couples are rightfully served just as opposite-sex couples are served, and Ms. Davis can still perform her job duties. It’s a win-win.

    • afchief

      Sorry, but there is no federal law for homos to marry. Only a SCOTUS opinion. It changes NOTHING!!!!. If is up to the States to define marriage. Only in 3 States is homo marriage legal.

      • [email protected]

        even if same sex marriage was only legal when passed by the states you are ignoring all the states that passed same sex marriage via the legislature for example New York or Hawaii and also the states where it was passed by the state courts not the federal courts. if your contention is that it must be left up to the states then state courts and state legislature also count in addition to votes at the ballot box so your number is off even under that argument.

        • afchief

          Homo marriage is only legal in 3 states. No more. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. The people in those three states voted for homo marriage. The other states have not.

          • [email protected]

            Perhaps you should read a reply more carefully. you just said that laws can be made “by an act of the Legislative Branch” and yet you insist on the number 3 which ignores the states in which same-sex marriage was approved by the state legislature. Same sex marriage was passed into law by the legislature in: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and DC. so even using your limited number the number would be 12 states, not 3.

          • afchief

            No, it is ONLY 3 states. Not 12.

          • [email protected]

            In three states the people voted for same sex marriage at the ballot box thus making it legal. In an additional 9 states the state legislature voted for same sex marriage and the Governor signed it into law thus making it legal. Right now you are just showing your ignorance on the matter so perhaps you should go do some research.

          • afchief

            Yes, 3 states voted for it and approved it. Whether or not state legislatures approved it the people can still overturn it in the ballot box.

          • [email protected]

            there is not always a mechanism to send laws passed by the legislature to the voters and even when that mechanism exists it is not always used. so in the 9 other states i listed: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and DC. same sex marriage was approved by the legislature, signed into law by the governor, and there was NO public vote on the matter. as you yourself said something does not need to be subjected to a public vote to become law.

          • afchief

            The people still have the right to overturn it at the ballot box.

          • [email protected]

            but they did not in any of those 9 states it was passed into law by the legislature and there was no vote to overturn it at the ballot box and so same sex marriage is the law on the books in 12 states as passed by the legislature or public vote.

          • afchief

            If so, only in those 12 states. The people can STILL put it on a petition to overturn the legislature.

          • [email protected]

            yes it is so and you can go look it up for yourself if you want. but thanks for admitting that you were wrong and that it is 12 states and not three as you insisted.

          • afchief

            That’s the way law is made, changed or struck down in America. If true homo marriage is only legal in 12 states.

          • [email protected]

            It was passed by legislative action or public vote in 12 states and DC. in the others same sex marriage was allowed either by state or federal court rulings. that is the reality of the situation and that is why the states are complying with the ruling from the courts. if they did not have to do so they would not but they do which means that however much you insist that they do not need to comply with the ruling from SCOTUS the states do not agree with you and they do comply.

          • afchief

            Sorry, but I KNOW the law. And you have shown me NOTHING!!!! There actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books. They only told us that it did, and we believed it, and told others to believe it.

          • [email protected]

            your characterization of the 2013 and 2015 rulings does not actual match what they said. perhaps you should study them both more and try again. here is a hint, the second was NOT about the federal government declaring what is or is not marriage but rather state laws complying with the federal constitution.

            and if you want to pretend that the states do not need to comply with the ruling then go right ahead. they are complying so clearly they do not agree with your declaration that they do not need to do so.

          • afchief

            You are the typical homo who lies. That is exactly what they said!!!

            Silly homo, marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal Constitution. That is why 39 states have it in theirs.

            There is NO federal homo marriage law. If so, show me the law.

          • [email protected]

            saying that something violates the federal constitution is NOT the same as saying that the federal government should declare what should be done on a certain matter. the federal government and the US constitution are not the same thing and can not be used interchangeably.

            again if your going to say that the ruling is wrong becasue marriage is not in the constitution then you also have to toss out the ruling from SCOTUS striking down bans on inter-racial marriage. simply put your argument ignores how the system works and insists upon a view that is not reflected in the reality of our system of government. Nor is your idea a system that we should prefer as it would completely gut the power of Judicial review allowing states to keep unconstitutional laws if they want to.

          • afchief

            Silly homo who has NO knowledge of the law!!! Let’s take it one step further; Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. That’s right, there is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

          • Bob Johnson

            In California that would be The Reproductive Privacy Act (2003), specifically,
            Cal. Health & Safety Code 1233460 et seg

          • Bob Johnson

            In Florida, abortions are legal up to “viability” or the third trimester
            Florida code Title XXIX Chapter 390

          • acontraryview

            “That is exactly what they said!!!”

            If that is “exactly what they said” then show me the quote from the ruling where they said that.

          • afchief

            In 2013 the SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional because they declared it was not the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.

            In 2015 the SCOTUS declared all state bans on homo marriage void because it is in the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.

            This is called schizophrenia and Judicial Tyranny!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “In 2015 the SCOTUS declared all state bans on homo marriage void because it is in the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.”

            No, that is not what the court said. Your statement is false.

          • afchief

            You are a LIAR and I will not converse with you.

            BYE!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Why do you continue to accuse me of lying when you are unable to cite anything I have said that is a lie? Do you not observe the Bible’s prohibitions on bearing false witness?

          • acontraryview

            “In 2013 the SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional because they declared it was not the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.”

            No, that is not what they declared. What they said in their ruling is the Federal Government may not deny federal marriage benefits on the basis of gender to those who are legally married.

            “In 2015 the SCOTUS declared all state bans on homo marriage void because it is in the jurisdiction of the federal government to declare what is and is not marriage.”

            No, that is not what the court said in their ruling. They did not place the jurisdiction of marriage with the Federal Government. They ruled that state laws which banned marriage based upon gender were a violation of the protections provided by the Constitution. Just as when they ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. That ruling did not place marriage laws under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

            “This is called schizophrenia and Judicial Tyranny!!!!”

            Your posts are what are called a complete misunderstanding of both court rulings, the Constitution, and the law. No exclamation points needed. They are self-evident.

      • acontraryview

        Well, since before the ruling there were many states in which two citizens of the same gender were not allowed to marry, and after the ruling two citizens of the same gender are now allowed to marry in every state, clearly something has changed. Therefore, your statement “It changes NOTHING!!!!” is false.

  • violetteal

    It’s not over yet. The ACLU and the LGBT community are bent on destruction. I had deep sympathy for LGBT matters for years, but they overstepped their original goal of equal rights.

    • Pollos Hermanos

      Yeah, how dare they get all uppity and ask to be treated the same as everybody else.

      I sincerely doubt the depth of your “support”.

      • afchief

        Sorry, but marriage is STILL up to the States. NOT the feds!!!

        • Pollos Hermanos

          You are correct, and as long as the states have marriage laws that comply with the 14th Amendment, we will have no problems.

          • afchief

            Nope! The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage. The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws.

            The most decisive reason that 14th amendment does not apply is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

            The U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            NOPE!!!

            The 14th Amendment was broadly written by John Bingham and did not mention race specifically. If you can find race mentioned in the amendment, please show us. Personally I’ll defer to the words of Bingham.

            “a simple, strong, plain declaration that equal laws and equal and exact justice shall hereafter be secured within every State of the Union,” guaranteeing “equal protection” for “any person, no matter whence he comes, or how poor, how weak, how simple—no matter how friendless.”

            You can stomp your feet all you want to but history is not on your side.

          • afchief

            What? Are you really this dense?!?!?! Please tell me you have a few brain cells left in the homo cranium?!?!?!? Why do you think the 14th amendment was written? Try to think!!!! I know it is hard. But try!!!! Homosexuality was against the law in ALL states in 1866!!!! Think man, think!!!

            Again, the 14th amendment does NOT cover gay marriage, period! When the Founders put in the amendment process it was for changing the Constitution when the need arises by amendment. The reasons for the 14th Amendment were handled by it and it is a brick wall. A wall that you cannot go back jump over insert things that were never there or take things out that were there all the time and be Constitutional.

            In the first case the Slaughterhouse Rules Case where the 14th amendment was attempted to be used both Chief Justice Miller in the majority opinion and Justice Field in the minority opinion agreed that the 14th gave no new privileges or immunities to the people.

            There is NO homo marriage law. NONE!!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            I have the words of the author of the 14th Amendment on my side. What do have other than a tantrum, zero legal knowledge and impotent rage?

          • afchief

            You do? Then why were amendments needed for women and blacks to vote?

            LOL!! Yes, more proof that homosexuality truly is a mental disorder!!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Yet here we are because of the 14th Amendment, gays are getting married and there is absolutely ZERO you can do to stop it.

            All you can do is sit on a Disqus comment thread and stew about other people. What a sad little life you lead.

          • afchief

            Nope, there is NO federal law for homos to marry. Only in 3 states.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            You’d better do something about it quickly because they’re getting all gay married EVERYWHERE and every state is treating them equally under the law.

            What are you going to do about it?

          • afchief

            If they are then they are breaking the law.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Really? So why aren’t they in jail then? Why are all government agencies (both federal and state) treating them as married?

            How do you explain this anarchy? What do you plan on doing to stop it?

          • afchief

            Their licences are NOT valid!!! In my state of Florida our Constitution reads;

            Arictle 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

          • [email protected]

            and that was struck down as a violation of the Federal Constitution and thus it has no impact. it is still on the books but unenforceable. it has no legal weight and thus its function in the law is no different then if it was not there at all.

          • afchief

            Struck down by who? The SCOTUS? The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!!!

          • [email protected]

            If a law violates the constitution it is ruled to be unconstitutional and it remains on the books in an unenforceable state until it is either changed to comply with the constitution or removed. so yes it is still on the books but it is unenforceable. However i would agree that the state legislature should certainly work to remove unconstitutional laws from the books.

          • afchief

            You must have a hard time reading!!!! You have shown me NOTHING in the Constitution that states the SCOTUS can strike down laws. NOTHING!!!

            Read!!!

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

            READ!!!!

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • [email protected]

            your exclamation marks do not change the reality of how our system works. the courts have the power of judicial review and laws have no legal or controlling power once they have been struck down as unconstitutional. they may remain on the books for a time before they are eventual removed but they have no controlling power after that point. denying that is not going to change the way that things actually happen.

          • afchief

            You still have not shown me where in the Constitution the SCOTUS can strike down laws. Here let me help the little tiny winy homo cranium;

            Waiting………………………………………………………………………..

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • acontraryview

            You provided it yourself. Article III, Section 2.

          • afchief

            Let me further help in your education of Constitutional law.

            The Supreme Court versus Congress

            Even though the Constitution gave the lawmaking powers to the Congress, courts have become the predominant policy making body in the nation. In fact, on public tours of the Supreme Court, one often hears the ridiculous claim that “this is the building from which all the laws in the land emanate.” The Supreme Court, fully believing its own propaganda, regularly strikes down or rewrites the laws of Congress to conform to its own predilections and edicts.

            For example, in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to correct an earlier Supreme Court decision that weakened a long-standing First Amendment protection for religious groups. That Congressional act reinstituted protection declaring that a government entity must not interfere with a religious body unless it had “a compelling state interest” for doing so. When a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, sought to accommodate its burgeoning membership but was denied a building permit to expand its facilities, the church invoked relief under RFRA, claiming the city had no “compelling state interest” in denying the church expansion. The Court ruled otherwise, striking down Congress’ attempt to protect religious bodies from government intrusion. While most decried this decision for weakening the rights of religious bodies, there was a far greater question at stake.

            Congress invoked Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in passing RFRA to protect religious freedoms from further governmental encroachment. Yet even though the Congress had acted on the power explicitly given it in the Constitution, the Court struck down the law, refusing to be corrected by Congress and warning that Congress should not attempt to correct a Court ruling. Significantly, Congress cited the Constitution as its authority for passing RFRA, but the Court did not cite the Constitution as its authority for striking RFRA down. The Court instead pointed to its own previous decisions, thus elevating its rulings higher than the Constitution itself. As it explained, “Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.” The Court then rebuked Congress, warning that its judicial edicts must be treated “with the respect due them.” In short, we the Court demand that you the Congress adhere to our opinions regardless of what the Constitution says.

            Obviously, the Supreme Court considers both itself and its decisions supreme over Congress. However, the Constitution disagrees – it deliberately empowers Congress with greater power. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the salaries for judges, determine the size of the Judiciary, establish the scope of the Judiciary’s jurisdiction and the types of cases which come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot serve without the approval of Congress, and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied. These are just some of the “constitutional arms” for Congress’ “powers of self-defense” (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton).

            The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

            The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

            Federalist #78 then proclaims:

            The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

            Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

            Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

            http://www.wallbuilders. com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=104

          • acontraryview

            This is not a question of the ability to enforce their ruling. It is a question of ruling that a law violates the Constitution. In the vast majority of cases, states comply with a SCOTUS ruling. As we saw in Alabama, after the ruling on segregation, the state balked at complying. When it did so, the federal government sent in troops to ensure the ruling was adhered to.

          • acontraryview

            “If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution.”

            Since the court has ruled that the law is no longer enforceable, it does not have to be rewritten. As you have pointed out, It wasn’t until 2000 that Alabama removed laws that banned interracial marriage. Based upon your assertion, all marriage licenses issued to interracial couples prior to 2000, were invalid. That is false.

            “NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!!!”

            Since valid marriage licenses are being issued to same gender couples in every state, obviously something has changed.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Why is every single government official in Florida respecting the SCOTUS ruling then?

            Why does the Florida Constitution legally look like this?

            Arictle 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

          • afchief

            That is a LIE!!!!!! Go read it!!!!

            https://www.flsenate. gov/Laws/Constitution#A1S27

          • Pollos Hermanos

            So same sex couples are NOT getting married in Florida?

            What color is the sky where you are?

          • afchief

            More proof that you are a liar!!!!

            Like I said their licences are NOT VALID!!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Under what authority? Yours? You’ve yet to explain why the entire state is treating them as valid.

            Why are they doing that?

          • afchief

            The law!!!

            There is no federal law for homos to marry. NONE!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Yet its still happening and there is nothing you can do about it other than throw a fit.

          • afchief

            Sorry Mr. homo, but their licences are not valid in the states that have not approved homo marriage. That IS the law!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Really? Name a state that doesn’t recognize a marriage license from a gay couple.

          • afchief

            Read the states constitution. It will tell you if homos can marry in that state.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Not the question I asked. All 50 states are honoring marriage licenses from their state as well os others. It’s totally happening. What exactly are you prepared to do about it?

          • afchief

            How many times do I have to tell you???? If homo marriage is not legal in that state, their licence is not valid!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Not the question. Are gay marriages legally honored in all 50 states? Yes or no.

          • afchief

            Silly homo who has NO understanding of law. The correct question is; is their licence valid in that state where homo marriage is NOT legal. NO!!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Why are they being honored in all 50 states then? Why do you seem to know the law better than every lawyer and elected official in the country?

          • afchief

            Silly homo who has NO understanding of Constitutional law. How many times do I have to tell you the SCOTUS does not make, change or strike down law. We have all been programmed with cleverly crafted lies and propaganda. It has often been stated that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

            The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

            Homos marriages that have not been approved by the people or state legislatures are NOT valid in those states.

            THAT IS THE LAW!!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            You’re adorable. Ok, I think you’ve sufficiently made a fool of yourself. Thank you for your delusional and just plain crazy legal analysis. Enjoy the Fantasyland you live in.

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • Pollos Hermanos

            It can but you’ve put forth a level of crazy denial that I can’t even categorize. Your level of denial is that of Baghdad Bob.

          • afchief

            I’m telling you what the law is. However, it does not sink in that little homo cranium of yours.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            You are a crackpot and I suspect you’re completely insane.

          • afchief

            Then show me the federal homo marriage law?

            Show me the federal abortion law?

            Waiting…………………………………

          • Pollos Hermanos

            14th Amendment, we’ve covered that.

            Why do you refuse to explain why everyone in the country is issuing licenses if your half baked legal theory is true?

            Answer the question.

          • afchief

            You are proof that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The 14th amendment does NOT cover homo marriage. The most decisive reason that 14th amendment does not apply is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

            The U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            So you refuse to answer as to why every state in the union, literally thousands of legal professionals are issuing and honoring licenses for same sex couples.

            Answer the question.

          • afchief

            I already did! Do you really have a hard time comprehending???? If they are issuing licences in the states where homo marriage has not been approved, they are NOT valid!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            They are being issued in every state in the union. All 50. Obviously thousands of people do not follow your nutty crackpot legal theory.

          • afchief

            Then Mr. homo show me the federal homo marriage law.

            Waiting……………………………………………………………………..

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Already did. 14th Amendment. Every state in the union is now issuing licenses based on that ruling.

            Your tantrum is getting boring. You lost, I won, you are powerless to stop it.

            Please continue to worry and complain about what other people do with their lives though because I’m sure it will cause an early death for you and at this point I’m sure we’d all be better off.

          • afchief

            Bye! I’m done dealing with stupidity!!! When the 14th amendment was written packing fudge was against the law in ALL states.

            Since you have been given over to a reprobate mind i.e. a liar, truth will never sink in that little tiny winy homo cranium!!!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Meanwhile, in the real world, gays will continue to get married legally without your blessing.

            It’s impossible to prove to somebody that the grass is green when they swear up and down that it is red.

            You sir are that level of dumb. CONGRATS!!!

          • afchief

            Read and educate that tiny winy little homo cranium. If that is possible!!!

            February 16, 2016
            Did Justice Scalia Already Give Us the Solution to the Problem of Filling His Seat?
            By Selwyn Duke

            A nation of laws, not lawyers.

            Laws — not judicial decisions.

            There is a difference. Note that Scalia complained of decisions “unabashedly based not on law,” clearly drawing a distinction between decisions and laws. Conclusion? An executive branch upholding illegal decisions is, by definition, not safeguarding the rule of law.

            And an executive branch that defies ignores illegal court decisions is preserving the rule of law.

            “Defies” is crossed out above because that term can connote resistance to authority. But the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being. What “authority” over all and sundry does it have? Some will now answer, “Judicial supremacy!” Let’s examine that.

            The legislative branch has the power to make law because the Constitution grants it. The executive branch has the power to enforce law because the Constitution grants it. And the courts exercise judicial supremacy — where its decisions constrain not just its own branch but the other two as well, making it not a “co-equal” branch but a super-legislature/über-executive — because ____________?

            The answer has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court unilaterally declared the power in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.

            That’s right: Like an upstart seizing the reins in a palace coup, the Supreme Court assigned the Supreme Court its oligarchic power, all without the force of arms. It’s a nice con if you can pull it off.

            This isn’t how our system is meant to work. A governmental branch derives its power from the Constitution — not from itself. And how dangerous is this usurpation? Founding Father Thomas Jefferson warned in 1819 that judicial supremacy’s acceptance would do nothing less than make “our constitution a complete felo de se” — a suicide pact. He explained:

            For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial supremacy] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation…. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.

            Abraham Lincoln, who ignored the Dred Scott decision, also agreed. As Princeton University professor Robert George put it while conducting a December interview with Senator Ted Cruz, Lincoln said “that to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases, no matter what, no matter how usurpative, no matter how anti-constitutional, would be for the American people — and I quote now the Great Emancipator — ‘to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’” Jefferson was even more pointed, writing in 1820 that judicial supremacy is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” And so it has come to pass. We’re now reduced to arguing about how the next appointed oligarch will shape us wax people.

            Satirist Jonathan Swift wrote, mocking the legal profession in Gulliver’s Travels, that it is a maxim among lawyers “that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again…” no matter how preposterous. Just as bad, however, is when we abide by judicial supremacy again and again, simply because it has been done before. Part of what motivates this deference is ignorance and (bad) habit, and part is cowardice and political expediency. After all, hiding behind unconstitutional court rulings allows politicians to avoid making difficult decisions. When Ohio governor John Kasich said last June after Obergefell that faux marriage is “the law of the land and we’ll abide by it,” he was essentially stating “Hey, don’t look at me. The Court did it!” Of course, he also said that now “it’s time to move on,” which he was more than happy to do. He has got his political career to consider — Constitution be damned.

            Any president, governor or legislator worth his salt would do his duty and tell usurpative judges to go pound sand. Some will say that this would set off a “constitutional crisis,” but newsflash: we’re already experiencing a constitutional crisis. This occurs not when the Constitution is protected by bringing to heel those who trample it, but when that trampling is allowed to go unanswered.

            By the way, you know who else apparently questions judicial supremacy? Barack Obama. He has shown willingness to ignore the courts; in fact, he has been so dismissive that a federal appeals court actually ordered the administration in 2012 to submit a letter stating whether or not it recognized the judiciary’s “power.”

            Of course, Obama will defy constitutional laws; in contrast, “conservatives,” being conservative (as in reluctant to take bold action), won’t even ignore unconstitutional rulings. It’s an old story. Liberal-controlled localities have been nullifying (ignoring) federal immigration and drug laws for decades. But conservatives consider nullification — even in the defense of legitimate freedoms — some kind of radical action, despite Jefferson’s calling it the “rightful remedy” for all federal usurpation. And “conservative” justices tend to feel constrained by “precedent,” even the unconstitutional variety, yet don’t expect any liberal Scalia replacement to bat an eye at overturning constitutional precedent that contradicts the leftist agenda. Is it any wonder conservatives never saw a cultural or political battle they couldn’t lose?

            One might say conservatives fight by Queensbury rules while liberals operate no-holds-barred, but it’s not even that. Though conservatives are allowed to throw punches, they prefer to stand and block and be a punching bag — while the liberals throw sand in their eyes and kick off their kneecaps.

            Calling the Court a “threat to American democracy,” Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent, “[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” We won’t talk the court out of its power-mad, usurpative bent. Only power negates power. It’s time to stop acting like impotent fools and start showing the Court how impotent it really is.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/articles/2016/02/did_justice_scalia_already_give_us_the_solution_to_the_problem_of_filling_his_seat.html#ixzz40NKO7rt4

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Yet nobody is listening to you and all 50 states are issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples AND treating them as valid under the law.

            Not only that! They’re also honoring licenses from out of state based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

            Your sad little world must be very frustrating when literally millions of people are completely ignoring your “legal brilliance”.

            How do you cope?

          • afchief

            You people who pack the fudge are only 2% of the population. Homos don’t care about marriage. They want to destroy marriage. It is ALL about sex to them. Perverted, deviant and dangerous sex. Homosexuality is sin. It is death!!!

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Rant rant rant rant rant. Nobody cares what you think.

            Personally I think your obsession with all things gay says a heck of a lot more about you than it does anyone else. Don’t try to exorcise your demons by attempting to punish everyone else.

          • mic1969

            Ohio.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            You sure about that?

          • acontraryview

            There is no federal law for heterosexuals to marry. NONE!!! So, based upon your logic, their licenses are invalid.

          • acontraryview

            From the Brevard County Clerk of Courts:

            “May I obtain a license to marry my partner of the same gender?

            Yes. As of 01/06/2015, applicants may marry partners of their own gender.”

            From the Escambia County Clerk’s office:

            “Can I marry a person of the same sex as I am?

            Yes.”

            Every county is Florida has the same information. The licenses are issued by the county. The licenses are valid. Your assertion to the contrary is false.

          • Bob Johnson

            You do realize the constitutional amendments where written to be generally applicable, that is, to cover a large number of cases? Like the second amendment uses the term “arms” instead of muskets or flintlocks.

          • afchief

            Are you trying to justify the 14th amendment that was written for free slaves? That was written at the time when homosexuality was against the law in all states. That was written before women and blacks could vote.

            Your point?

          • acontraryview

            Just as it was used as a basis for striking down laws which prohibited interracial marriage.

          • acontraryview

            “The most decisive reason that 14th amendment does not apply is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union.”

            How is that relevant? When the 14th Amendment was passed, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Yet, the 14th Amendment was basis upon which the court ruled that such laws violated the protections provided by the 14th Amendment and thus were not enforceable. If we utilize your, ahem, logic, then their ruling regarding interracial marriage was incorrect. Is that what you believe?

        • acontraryview

          Who said it wasn’t?

    • [email protected]

      how exactly has the LGBT community overstepped the goals of equal rights? could you list some examples of what you see as over-stepping equal rights?

    • acontraryview

      “The ACLU and the LGBT community are bent on destruction.”

      Destruction of what?

      “but they overstepped their original goal of equal rights.”

      How so?

  • Michael C

    The important thing is that all citizens of Rowan County are being served in accordance with the law.

    There are some errors in this reporting, specifically in reference to the sequence of events.

    Davis claims that the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples was a concern of hers from the moment she took office. She claims to have written letters to legislators in January of 2015 about this. Nowhere is there any documentation that the removal of her name would be a sufficient accommodation.

    In late June, 2015, the eligibility for gay and lesbian couples to marry became legally recognized in the United States. Mrs. Davis chose to no longer allow marriage licenses to be issued in Rowan County. She offered no official statement and made no official religious accommodation request.

    Several days later, a lawsuit was filed against her Office by several couples who were denied service. No official religious accommodation request was submitted by Davis or anyone else in the Office.

    In early July, a number of clerks sent a letter to the Governor requesting the calling of a $300,000 special session to create an exemption from duty for clerks who did not wish to serve all eligible citizens of their respective counties. There was no mention of an accommodation to remove Clerk’s signatures from licenses in this letter.

    Davis continued to refuse to allow anyone in the Office to issue marriage license for the next couple months.

    At the end of August, mere days before Davis was jailed for contempt, her lawyers submitted a stay application to the Supreme Court. In this document, a few possible accommodations were presented, including the removal of any reference to Davis and her elected Office from licenses or the completely new creation of a “statewide, online marriage license process.”

    This was the first time the “signature accommodation” was ever suggested by Davis or her lawyers and it wasn’t even presented to state officials.

    Davis’ lawyer, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, saw that Davis had no way of winning and was in need of spin. He pretended that Davis had been making a simple request all along when that clearly wasn’t the case.

    In December, newly elected Gov. Matt Bevin issued an executive order allowing clerk’s names to be removed from licenses, thus granting Davis her initial request.

    Matt Bevin was elected, in part, for his promise to “protect” the religious liberties of County Clerks. While he did remove the Clerk’s names from licenses, he did not remove all references to their elected Office as Davis had demanded. Also, his executive order removing the signatures from licenses specifically notes that Clerks will remain required to sign their names to marriage certificates.

  • Michael C

    There is no evidence that Kim Davis requested the accommodation of the removal of her name and title of Office from marriage licenses until days before she was jailed for contempt in September of 2015.

    • afchief

      So what? There is NO federal law requiring her to marry homos anyway.

      • Michael C

        I see you are desperate to find someone to argue with you.

        • afchief

          The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • [email protected]

            It is true that there is not a federal law mandating same sex marriage however bans on same-sex marriage have been found to be unconstitutional thus they are no longer operational and thus same-sex couples can get married. so your point about there not being a federal law does not have any impact on the ability of gay couples to get married.

          • afchief

            It sure does. Marriage is NOT mentioned in the federal Constitution. That is why 30 states defined marriage in their Constitution in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion and nothing more!!!! You still have a hard time reading!!!!!!

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • [email protected]

            so in that case you would also say that SCOTUS was wrong to strike down bans on inter-racial marriage and that when they did the state did not need to follow it. right? based on the argument you are making we must also believe that to be true.

          • Bob Johnson

            Not only that, as an originalist, the second amendment “arms” only means straight-bore, flintlock muskets. And the first amendment means only the “press” and does not include radio, television, or the Internet.

          • afchief

            You really cannot comprehend? Can you? I have shown you time after time that the SCOUTS does NOT make, change or strike down laws.

            Why are you so hard of comprehending?

            If you believe otherwise than show me the law!!!

          • Michael C

            I wouldn’t say that your comments offend me. That’s not the word I would use.

            If you show me the Federal law requiring Davis to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, I’ll show you the law requiring her to issue license to gay and lesbian couples.

          • afchief

            Whatever the state has in their Constitution. It is up to the States to define marriage, not the feds.

          • Michael C

            …like banning interracial marriage.

          • Josey

            I’m beginning to wonder if all that poop contamination is having an effect on the brain, excuse the analogy, I know it’s gross but a fact.

    • Josey

      what difference does it makes, she still requested her name be removed before being thrown into jail, it was a simple accommodation that governor beshear refused her, good bye to gov. beshear and good riddance, welcome Gov. Matt Bevin… haha

      • Michael C

        Well, that’s not clear. The suggested accommodation does not appear to have been submitted to Judge Bunning, Gov. Bashear, or any State legislator. The suggestion was accompanied by other options in a Supreme Court stay application.

        Actually, I don’t know if Davis or her lawyers ever actually made an accommodation request to any Kentucky official.

  • Chrissy Vee

    :O ♪~♫~♫~♪~♫~♪~♪~♪~♪

    • Josey

      bwahahaha….love it Chrissy…the old song and dance…haha

      • Chrissy Vee

        😀

  • Jo Lux

    If Ms. Davis felt she couldn’t in good conscience carry out her duties, the noble move would have been to give up her 80k salary and resign.

    • Nidalap

      Heartening that you would only expect such nobility from Christians. For any other group, you’d likely argue quite loudly for accommodation…

      • Jo Lux

        Not really. I’m Christian, but respect separation of church and state. Government officials must follow the law of the land. If anyone is unable to act as an agent of the “secular government”, he or she should not take the job.

        • Nidalap

          Excellent! If accommodations are allowed under the law, you’re all for them! Understood! 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            If I understand correctly, Davis initially didn’t ask for accommodation. Instead, she instructed everyone else in her office to not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, am I wrong?

          • Nidalap

            So…if accommodations are allowed under the rule of law, you’re all for them…correct? 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Yes, but none of the couples came to her office asking for a marriage license should have been refused and greatly and unfairly inconvenienced. If she didn’t want to issue it herself, she should’ve let others take care of it right away.

          • Nidalap

            You mean the couples who traveled right past counties whose clerks would have given them the licences with no trouble in order to BE so inconvenienced? Cry me a river…

          • Jo Lux

            They exposed Davis’s wrongdoing as a government official. I firmly believe the government must remain secular, otherwise we’ll lose our freedom. What if an uber-orthodox Jewish refuses to grant a business license to seafood restaurants who handle shrimps and crabs because of his beliefs? Is he allowed to do that?

          • Nidalap

            Do you always throw hypothetical arguments against real life situations like this?
            What if an uber-secular group within the government started trying to get all practicing Christians ousted from their posts? Oh wait… 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Same thing. Secular groups cannot impose their secular beliefs on the religious either. They cannot demand Christian churches marry homosexuals, if the pastors are not willing to do so.

          • Nidalap

            And yet, fairly recently a Texas mayor started demanding to see the sermons of pastors in her city to see if they might have a message she disapproved of. She was so very secular too. Her secularity alone didn’t seem to offer the protections you think it does…

          • Jo Lux

            I think that’s wrong. I don’t support what this mayor did, just as I don’t support what Kim Davis did.

          • Nidalap

            Well then! You must be pleased as punch at this outcome! Licenses being doled out, clerk getting to keep her job. No one out of sorts except the ACLU and most folk can probably live with that! 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Well, I was very disappointed to see many Christians treated Davis as if she was a hero of some kind. If she did what she did, because she thought she was standing up for the Bible, she couldn’t have given marriage licenses to divorcees either. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is clear on this.

            10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

            But she only chose to pick on homosexual couples. And many Christians cheered. Clearly they don’t know their Bible.

          • Nidalap

            Really now? And were you speaking out against her all along…or did you just start when THIS came about? 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            I just pointed out the fact that she doesn’t know her Bible while she claims she is standing up for the Bible. That’s all.

          • Nidalap

            So…if one hasn’t been taking a stand for the Bible, is it better to start taking a stand somewhere, or to just continue to let things slide? 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            If you say you stand up for the Bible, don’t cherry-pick. And if you’re a government official, don’t use the Bible to change the law of the land. We are not a theocracy, is all I’m saying.

          • Nidalap

            Indeed. We also have religious protections under our law too. That means you can’t force someone to either violate their faith, lose their job, or go to jail. Secularism IS a religious belief. A fully secular State is just another form of the theocracy that seems so very terrible, wouldn’t you say? 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Then all the religious people who work in Davis’s position should have the same right.

            What if a devout Catholic holds the same job as Ms. Davis and refuses to issue a marriage license when either of the couple was a divorcee? Not only that, he/she instructs everyone else in his/her office not to issue it? How about a staunch Baptist (or Mormon) not issuing a liquor license to any stores or restaurants? … would that be his/her religious liberty?

          • Nidalap

            You keep giving me “what ifs” while I keep disqussing the “what is”.

            “What is” is this: Ms. Davis has a job, the parameters of which were changed by a court decision. That change required an accommodation be made for folks with her specific needs. As you can see, the accommodation has finally caught up with her needs.

          • Jo Lux

            I’m saying if she needs to be accommodated, everyone else has to. That’s fair. Don’t you agree?

            How about Christian post office delivery person not wanting to handle Playboy magazine and the like? Does someone else have to deliver it to accommodate his religious beliefs? Or should he get a different job where he doesn’t have to deal with such material that violates his conscience?

          • Nidalap

            In the other examples you cite, the materials were a known quantity when they accepted the job. This was clearly not so in this case. She could not have known she would be required to condone a perversion of marriage as part of her duties.

          • Jo Lux

            Laws of this country are always subject to change. Didn’t Ms. Davis know that when she took the oath as a government official?

          • Nidalap

            She should have seen a fundamental change in the very definition of the bedrock known as marriage? That’s quite a stretch and you know it.

          • Jo Lux

            It doesn’t matter she could’ve known or not. Before women won suffrage, I bet many people couldn’t see it coming. Would that be a good reason for government officials to refuse letting women vote even after the law has passed?

            No one is making Davis to violate her conscience, if she doesn’t like the new requirement in her job, she is free to quit.,

          • Nidalap

            Actually, she is free to stay! Didn’t you read the story? 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Only if she doesn’t interfere with others issuing a marriage licence to same-sex couples. She shouldn’t have instructed others not to, in the first place.

          • Nidalap

            That would be the accommodation. She no longer is required to have her name associated with the perversion of marriage, so all-good, hep-cat! 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Her office should have prepared for this accommodation before any couples (gay or straight) were inconvenienced. Her job is to serve the public, which she failed spectacularly.

          • Nidalap

            So try to get her voted out! If she’s failed as greatly as you say, it should be a simple matter, right? 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            Yeah, I’d like to see her go, but I don’t live in Kentucky.

          • Nidalap

            Take your cue from the FFRF! They reach into other communities, all unasked, all the time! 🙂

          • Jo Lux

            These arrogant Christians who think their personal beliefs should be respected above anyone else’s gave birth to FFRF. Instead of inviting non-believers to come Christ, they make non-believers reject Christianity before they even have a chance to know the true love of God. These Christians are doing disservice to spreading the Gospel.

          • Michael C

            …yet, according to the newly elected Governor of Kentucky, Kim Davis’ signature is required on all marriage certificates in Rowan County.

          • Nidalap

            Uh-huh. If that were the case, the ACLU wouldn’t be whining about the still-valid licenses. 🙂

          • Michael C

            Google “This Executive Order requires modification only to the existing “Marriage License” form but not to the “Marriage Certificate” form and “Certificate of Marriage” form.”

          • Nidalap

            Hmmm…pulls up a bunch of old stuff. Do you know the exec order number? 🙂

          • Michael C

            We’ll see if the mod allows the link to the PDF published by Liberty Counsel. Executive Order 2015-48.

            The wording above comes directly from that order yet I have only seen but no news outlets seem to be reporting that bit.

            The Executive Order states that signatures will be removed from marriage licenses but then it specifically states that marriage certificates will not be altered. Marriage certificates require the name of the County Clerk and the signature of the issuing clerk.

          • Josey

            As stated before she instructed those under her not to issue the licenses based on the fact that her name would be signed as the clerk, that since has been removed which is what she requested to begin with, get your facts straight.

          • Jo Lux

            I’ve said this to someone else before, but I’ll say it to you now.

            Rowan County should have prepared for the accommodation before any couples (gay or straight) were inconvenienced by Davis’s personal beliefs, before Davis had a chance to “abuse” her position as a county clerk.

            Her job was to serve the public including those who don’t share her beliefs. Davis failed to do her job because of her self-righteousness, which is shameful.

          • Michael C

            Being that a federal judge ruled Kentucky’s marriage ban to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution in July of 2014 (5 months before Kim Davis took office) and Mrs. Davis herself testifies that she had concerns about issuing marriage licenses to gay couples upon her entry of office in January of 2015, I’d say, yes, gay couples requesting marriage licenses was a “known quantity” upon accepting the duties of her office.

          • acontraryview

            “She could not have known she would be required to condone a perversion of marriage as part of her duties.”

            The issuance of a marriage license by an elected official does not equate to that official personally condoning or not condoning the action. If that were the case, then why was she issuing marriage licenses to people who had been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery? Wouldn’t that be condoning something the Bible says is a sin? Why is she issuing divorce certificates for people who got divorced for reasons other than adultery? Wouldn’t that be condoning something the Bible says is a sin?

            She is an elected official. She does not have the right to determine what portions of her job she will do and what portions she will not, based upon her personal religious beliefs. She is there to fulfill the obligations of her job “without favor, affection or partiality”

          • acontraryview

            “You keep giving me “what ifs” while I keep disqussing the “what is”.”

            When you suggest that something should be allowed, it is reasonable to look beyond the single application under discussion.

            “Ms. Davis has a job, the parameters of which were changed by a court decision.”

            Ms. Davis took an oath to execute the functions of her job, which included the issuance of marriage licenses that are legally allowed, “without favor, affection or partiality”. The parameters of her job were not changed.

            “That change required an accommodation be made for folks with her specific needs.”

            There is no such requirement.

          • acontraryview

            “That means you can’t force someone to either violate their faith, lose their job, or go to jail. ”

            Please cite where the Constitution provides such a protection.

            “Secularism IS a religious belief.”

            How so? By definition, secular (“denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis) is not a religious belief.

            “A fully secular State is just another form of the theocracy”

            Theocracy: “a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.” How would a fully secular state meet that definition?

          • Michael C

            Well, not really. When the pastors sued the city, city attorneys requested any communications related to the subject of the pastor’s lawsuit. That request played poorly in the media and was rescinded.

          • Nidalap

            Yes really! What were the pastors suing about in the first place? 🙂

          • Michael C

            The four couples that filed a lawsuit against her resided in Rowan County.

          • acontraryview

            It’s not a question of workplace accommodations. Ms. Davis took an oath which includes “will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality”. She violated that oath. Nothing more complicated than that.

          • acontraryview

            Actually, she instructed everyone in her office to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

        • Josey

          You don’t even understand separation of church and state and what was meant by that by the founding fathers of this nation, if you did you’d understand that it was made to protect religion and faith as written in the whole of the letters Jefferson wrote and adams, not just in the one line the government now uses leaving out the context involved in it. but what can we expect since it is taught now that way in the schools. How convenient and instead of students researching history as it was written most inept students just prefer to believe what is now taught, most take the lazy way out instead of doing their own research of seeking out the truth of what our founding father meant.

          • Bob Johnson

            Kim Davis, as Rowan County Clerk, an elected government position, is the state.

          • Jo Lux

            And it protects the faith of all others, including those who don’t believe in the God of Abraham and also atheists and agnostics too! You should know that one of the key figures in crafting separation of church and state was Thomas Paine. He was a Deist and did not believe in the Christian God.

    • afchief

      Why resign? She is breaking NO law!!!

      • Jo Lux

        One doesn’t have to break a law for him or her to resign. Willfully failing to do one’s job is a good enough reason to resign, if you ask me.

        • afchief

          Show me the law she broke.

          • Jo Lux

            I said “One doesn’t have to break a law for him or her to resign.”

            Can you read?

          • afchief

            She was/is doing her job she was hired to do. No need to resign.

            Again, what law did she break?

          • Jo Lux

            Davis’s job is simply to confirm that a person fulfils the legal criteria for marriage. She doesn’t get to approve or disapprove of their pairing using her own moral standard. She just needs to affirm whether or not the couple meets the legal criteria, which gay couples do meet, under the current law of the land. So, yes, Davis failed to do her job.

            BTW, why do you keep asking if Davis broke the law?
            I repeat, I said “One doesn’t have to break a law for him or her to resign.”

            Also, these people did not brake the law, but they all resigned.

            Michael DeWayne Brown – the director or administrator of the FEMA
            Alberto R. Gonzales – the 80th United States Attorney General
            George Tenet – Director of US Central Intelligence
            Katherine L. Archuleta – the director of the United States Office of Personnel Management
            Anthony Kapel “Van” Jones – President Obama’s Special Advisor on Green Jobs

          • afchief

            Nope! There is no homo marriage law of the land. NONE!!! There is a SCOTUS opinion, but no federal law.

            KNOW THE LAW!!!!

          • Jo Lux

            In the United States of America, same-sex marriage has been “legal nationwide” since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

            Clearly you are the one who doesn’t know the law or the legal system of this county.

          • afchief

            Nope! The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            If you believe otherwise, then show me the law.

          • Jo Lux

            Then please explain to me why the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ordered Davis to issue licenses “as required by law”.

            Are you saying you know more about the law than they do?

          • afchief

            Because we have all been programmed with cleverly crafted lies and propaganda. It has often been stated that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

            The SCOTUS has never been able to strike down laws. NEVER! No where in the Constitution does it state the SCOTUS has this authority. No where! For instance, the SCOTUS ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

          • Jo Lux

            Why don’t you tell that to your governor and tell him to do something about it if that’s what you believe. Better yet, why don’t you run for office and change all of what you think is wrong about our legal system. Otherwise you are just whining.

          • afchief

            Nope, what I say is the truth.

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • Jo Lux

            Then bring your case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
            Telling me all that doesn’t help your cause at all. Not even a half inch. Well unless you really don’t want to make the effort and you just want to keep whining.

          • afchief

            This is NO case. This IS the law!!! What part do you not understand? If you believe otherwise then show me in the Constitution where the SCOTUS can make, change or strike down laws. Then I will show you where they can’t.

          • Jo Lux

            The part I don’t understand about you is why you’re wasting your time telling me that. If what you say is true, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky will have to consider your argument and bring back the ban on same-sex marriage, right? So tell them, not me. Convince them and you’ll get want you want, right?

          • afchief

            This is NO case. My point is the “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

            Bear in mind that offering an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made,changed or struck down by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • Jo Lux

            What part of “convince the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky” do you not understand?

          • afchief

            What part of the law do you not understand???? There is no federal homo marriage law. NONE!

            If you believe otherwise, then SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!

          • Jo Lux

            TELL THAT TO the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky!!!

          • afchief

            Homo marriage laws in states that have not made them law are not valid. That IS the law!!!!

            Courts do not make laws. A court decision does not carry the force of law, and it most certainly does not “change” the law.

            SHOW ME THE LAW!!!!!

          • Jo Lux

            What are you trying to achieve by convincing me? And I don’t know what kind of law degrees you have, but I trust the experts at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky more than you. I’m not gonna change my mind no matter what you say until you change the minds of the people at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

          • afchief

            I’m telling you what the law is. That the SCOTUS cannot strike down or make any laws. NONE!

          • Jo Lux

            I hate repeating myself but, if what you say is true, why doesn’t the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky follow what you say?

          • afchief

            Because they do not know how our Constitution system works. If there is a federal for homos to marry, then show it to me. There is ONLY a court opinion which changes nothing. In fact, show me the federal abortion law that made Roe v. Wade legal in all states. Guess what? You can’t!!!!!

            Until we are willing to challenge the lies that we’ve been taught and fight back on the proper premise, we will continue running around the tree trying to head off the wolf at the pass.

            The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

          • Jo Lux

            “they do not know how our Constitution system works”

            ??? You mean the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ???

            OK, if you know the law better than they do, why don’t you run for governor and fix the system yourself. Babbling in online forums doesn’t achieve what you want. You should know that, if you are so smart.

          • Quantz

            Violate a Supreme Court ruling sometime, let’s see what happens to you.

          • afchief

            Show where a SCOTUS opinion is law? Show me the federal abortion law? Show me the homo marriage law?

            Waiting…………………………………………….

          • Bob Johnson

            Richard M. Nixon

    • Josey

      No, she shouldn’t have to give up her job, the constitution is with her on this but more importantly Almighty God is with her, too bad so sad for all you anti christs who want every Christian out of public office. You don’t like God’s word dictating to you right from wrong, too bad! He is your Creator as well as Creator over all, He’s omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, He has no beginning nor end where we are His creation not the other way around. He is over all, one day soon you will find that out and bow your knee to Him as Lord whether by choice or force. Glory, honor and all praise to the King of Kings forever!

      • Jo Lux

        Then why don’t we repeal no-fault divorce law? After all the Bible says divorce is prohibited except for a case of adultery. Right?

        Most anti-gay people don’t talk about the issue of divorce because if we had to follow the Bible on this, it might affect “you” or “people you care about” one day, so you conveniently choose which part of the Bible to follow and give other issues (divorce/remarriage) that the Bible also says are sins a total free pass. Hypocrites! What did Jesus say about them?

        I’m a Christian, I believe in God. But I DO NOT IMPOSE my faith onto others.

  • acontraryview

    Well that should put that issue to rest.

  • Kangaroo52

    They hate her because in their world, they never meet anyone like her. They’ve never encountered anyone with a conscience, a moral sense, someone who would take a stand for their faith, so to them, she is a freak, something less than human, something that should be destroyed. They love having someone to hate. It’s really the only intense emotion they have. Hate fills up the big void inside, a void that in a mentally healthy person would be filled with love. People whose lives are totally centered in sexual pleasure with as many partners as possible can’t comprehend someone who would take pleasure in doing the right thing. It would be like trying to explain Rembrandt to someone born blind.

    • Jo Lux

      Many anti-gay Christians claim that they’re standing up for what the Bible says. But if so, then don’t they have to be against divorce/remarriage as well? (except in the case of adultery for divorce, and in the case of spouse’s death for remarriage)

      Why don’t we hear a strong outcry for banning divorce/remarriage from the same Christian crowd? These people should be trying to repeal no-fault divorce law, if they wanted to stand up for the Bible. After all, 1 Cor. 7:11 reads:

      “But if she does [divorces], she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.”

      Let’s face it, if all government officials start doing what Ms. Davis did, at what point does it cease to be acceptable for a person to “deny legal rights to others” based on their religious beliefs?

      Catholics can refuse to issue a license for remarriage, or certificate for divorce. Baptists can refuse to issue a liquor license. Muslims can refuse to issue a drivers license to women. Hey, Mormons can refuse to give Starbucks a business license… Where does it end?