Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Seawytch]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

What law did she violate?

As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

What law did she violate?

As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.

That's not a law. Which law did she violate?

 

[Faun]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

What law did she violate?

The Constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed. doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.

I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience. While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.



(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2



(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3



A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3


A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3


Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. Pg.4



(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5




There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5

I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.

I did see one case mentioned Baker v. Nelson

which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.

You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?

The issue of Baker being a controlling precedent had been questionable for some time as it was from a prior era in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.

some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.

Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.

Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........


“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:

“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .

In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.


Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom

archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.

To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......

Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.

 

[Debra K]

No, you invalidated it. Through your failure to understand what Marriage is.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.

Hateful. Gays never had to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or live in ghettos. Theirs is a sexual dysfunction, and they don't know what oppression is, and neither do you.They buy out rich white punks like you and portray themselves as victims. They can't have children, and they don't need to get married. And we all know it is that simple.

Well, apparently not ALL know it is that simple. the Supreme Court, for example.

Sometimes we over complicate things. Simplicity and elegance go hand in hand. So far, I am reading a lot of people beating their chests like naked apes and trying to intimidate us into thinking gays iare on parity to hetroseualy. Humans do not reproduce by whatever sexuality is popular, kids. Biology 101. Love whomever you want, for what ever reason. But it won't make babies. And marriage IS about protecting and encouraging our offspring, it's not a prize for sexual dysfunctional whiners.

Again, you just told me that I have no reason, or right, to get married, since my reproductive days are over. Frankly, you are starting to piss me off. Where do you get off telling me that my marriage is not worthy enough to have been validated?

That you marry without the means to reproduce, IN NO WAY alters the PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE!

Exactly. The ability to reproduce is not a requirement. The parties to the marriage contract incur mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support. Accordingly, mental cruelty, infidelity, and non-support are grounds for divorce based on fault, i.e., breach of a contract obligation.

I have a hammer sitting on my bench holding down paperwork. That HAMMER is being useful as something other than what it built to do. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMMER.

A merchant is not forbidden from selling a hammer based on how the hammer will be used. It's none of the merchant's business if the hammer will be used as a paper weight or an instrument to pound nails into wood, etc.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, for the PURPOSE of PROCREATION.

You are confusing a civil contract with a physical act. Copulation sometimes results in a pregnancy. But the promise to copulate for the purpose of producing offspring is not a prerequisite to forming a valid contract of marriage. It is lawful for people to use birth control, and the use of birth control dispels the notion that people copulate solely for the purpose of procreation. In case you haven't noticed, both heterosexual and homosexual persons raise children. Your animus directed at a class of people is harmful to society.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience. While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :

I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.

I did see one case mentioned Baker v. Nelson

which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.

You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?

The issue of Baker being a controlling precedent had been questionable for some time as it was from a prior era in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.

some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.

Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.

Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........


“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:

“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .

In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.


Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom

archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.

To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......

Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.

What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already

 

[Debra K]

...Kim Davis's office is obligated to perform the state function of issuing marriage licenses. She disagrees that marriage can exist between two people of the same sex. However, the state of Kentucky has little choice other than to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court. Davis's opinion is completely irrelevant to performance of her job. If she will not allow her office to preform their function, then she has to go just like any employee who finds their conscience will not allow them to do their job.

True.

Also irrelevant, to the question of whether or not Davis is, indeed, engaged in Civil Disobedience, rather than simple law-breaking or failure to execute her office.

The ruling is new, the public blood is 'up' over this, and her jailing did more to elevate her to the status of Martyr and Folk Hero than it did to tarnish her image or that of her dept.

In truth, it seems likely that Davis is not simply 'still swinging after the bell has rung'.

Rather, it seems likely that Davis is 'priming the pump' for the NEXT round in what promises to be a long-running battle for America's soul.

Every time that someone takes a hit in a lawsuit or goes to jail for refusing to submit to wickedness, as many perceive this ruling to be, the more fence-sitters (and that number is vast) will be driven into the Opposition camp. Support for Gay Marriage may have grown in recent years, but it's a far more fragile thing than Gay advocates will ever admit.

And, of course, if Liberals lose the general election in 2016, keeping both chambers of Congress in Conservative hands, and if the Conservatives take the White House as well, with someone sufficiently forceful and motivational to lead the charge, who knows? Individuals can be swayed. Fresh challenges can be mounted. Old rulings can be overturned.

We live in interesting times, and it seems likely that it's about to grow even more interesting in the near future; just not in the way that the Gay Mafia might be hoping for.

Your crystal ball and my crystal ball see and foretell different things.

Most onlookers view Kim Davis's actions as repugnant to basic human decency. Her supporters, although vocal, are small in number. They serve to draw public attention to the existence of the hate and oppression of a minority group of persons. Most people find hate and oppression to be reprehensible. It is equally appalling that Kim Davis portrays herself as God's voice and vessel and justifies the deprivation of people's civil rights under the guise of God's authority. The Bible warns against false prophets.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's not a law. Which law did she violate?

United States Code isn't a law?

That's news.


>>>>

 

[Asclepias]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

What law did she violate?

As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.

That's not a law. Which law did she violate?

The one that got her thrown in jail and will get her incarcerated once more should she chose to break it again.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

The Supreme Court invalidates laws, when they are unconstitutional. Exactly what they did in this case making gay marriage bans illegal. Care to try again?

 

[Debra K]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

The Supreme Court has the power to decide cases and controversies.

In this country, we resolve disputes peaceably by resorting to courts of law. Plaintiffs brought claims against the State of Kentucky alleging the state prohibition against same sex marriage deprived the Plaintiffs of liberty and equal protection under law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Defendant State denied the allegation. Thus, there was a case and controversy. The case went through the appeals process and wound up at the United States Supreme Court. The Court applied the law to the facts and determined that the State of Kentucky was indeed violating the Plaintiff's rights secured by the due process and equal protection clauses. That is not an act of legislating; that is an act of adjudicating a case and controversy for the peaceful resolution thereof.

Do you understand?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

What law did they make? Statute please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

What law did she violate?

As posted in another thread by WorldWatcher
Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.

That's not a law. Which law did she violate?

The one that got her thrown in jail and will get her incarcerated once more should she chose to break it again.

Which law would that be?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

What law did they make? Statute please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.

 

[Skylar]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

What law did they make? Statute please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.

The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.

She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

What law did they make? Statute please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.

The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.

She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.

We are a nation of laws. No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.

So what law did she violate?

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[Skylar]

The surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.

What law did they make? Statute please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.

The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.

She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.

We are a nation of laws.

We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.

You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.

No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.

A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated.

Which wasn't necessary in this case.

Tell us, are all the other clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couple there wrong?

 

[Skylar]

No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated.

Which wasn't necessary in this case.

Tell us, are all the other clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couple there wrong?

120 counties, each with on average, 6 clerks. All but 2 will issue the licenses.

But they are all wrong.....and only Kim Davis and her kid are right? That seems......improbable.