Judge orders Christian clerk freed from jail
But gives condition for Kim Davis and her deputies
Kim Davis
Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has been jailed since last week for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was ordered released Tuesday by a federal judge.
The order from Judge David L. Bunning came just a few hours before a major rally calling for her freedom.
Bunning also ordered the Rowan County clerk not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
The deputy clerks have been granting licenses to homosexual and heterosexual couples since Friday.
Bunning said he was satisfied the Rowan County clerk’s office is now complying with the recent Supreme Court decision that green-lighted “same-sex marriage” across America.
Staver, in a statement sent to WND, said the order will allow Davis to restore some normality in her life.
“We are pleased that Kim Davis has been ordered released. She can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell, where she was incarcerated like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions. She is now free to return to her family, her coworkers and the office where she has faithfully served for the past 27 years”
He said Liberty Counsel would “continue to assist Kim and pursue the multiple appeals she has filed.”
Staver previously told NBC News the condition to allow deputy clerks to grant licenses to homosexuals was unlikely to suffice.
“We’re back to square one,” Staver said. “She’s been released, but there’s been no resolution.”
To avoid discrimination, Davis, a Democrat, had refused to issue any marriage licenses.
NBC reported Bunning had threatened further “appropriate sanctions” if she didn’t continued to follow his instructions.
More sanctions are likely, NBC said, because Davis had vowed she would not allow any licenses to be issued from her office, even if she wasn’t the one signing them.
The law in Kentucky requires that her signature be on the licenses.
“She told the court Thursday,” Staver said, “that she can’t allow licenses to go out under her name and her authority that authorize a marriage that collides with her conscience and religious conviction, and Kim is not changed on that position.”
Davis’ lawyers several times have argued that an accommodation can be created so that the licenses do not require her signature, but the judge instead decided to imprison her.
Bunning roped Davis’ deputy clerks into the case last week even though they were not parties, ordering them to issue the licenses under his threat of jail time.
He is demanding status reports every 14 days detailing their compliance with his order.
Bunning previously admitted that the dispute was over a conflict between two constitutional rights – Davis’ enumerated right in the Constitution to free exercise of religion and the Supreme Court’s newly created right of “same-sex marriage.”
Critics have condemned the Supreme Courts ruling on marriage in June as being as faulty as the Dred Scott case that affirmed slavery.
Davis’ lawyers, with Liberty Counsel, had just filed an emergency motion with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals charging that the judge, Bunning, had created a criminal contempt case against the clerk without notifying her and had violated her rights to due process by jailing her.
They noted that Bunning himself seemed uncertain whether or not licenses issued without Davis would be valid.
The attorneys suggested the case makes it look as though Bunning “sought to vindicate [his] own authority and punish Davis for past actions.”
“Thus, Davis is entitled to heightened due process, which she did not receive,” the filing explained.
Bunning also violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act by jailing Davis, the attorneys told the 6th Circuit.
“It is not for the district court or any court to question the reasonableness or scriptural accuracy of Davis’ beliefs about marriage, to which she testified at the contempt hearing,” they said. “Indeed, judges should not determine whether Davis’ religious beliefs are ‘mistaken’ or ‘insubstantial.’ … Instead, the ‘narrow function’ … in this context is to determine whether the line drawn reflects ‘an honest conviction.’”
Giving her the choice of violating her beliefs or going to jail certainly “burdens” her religious faith, they wrote.
“Moreover, the compelling government interest inquiry, which the district court omitted in its contempt order, ‘requires the government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’ – the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religions is being substantially burdened,’” they said.
Davis has received support from some Republican presidential candidates, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
As an elected official, she could be removed from office only by the legislature, which doesn’t meet until winter.
Huckabee earlier criticized the judge for a decision that “undermines the Constitution.”
Even before the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, in which five lawyers decided to redefine marriage, Davis had written to lawmakers asking them to address the issue and protect clerks who had a religious objection to same-sex marriage.
The Kentucky Clerks Association also recommend that the names of clerks be removed from the forms, Staver revealed.
The Supreme Court’s decision was criticized by Chief Justice John Roberts as having no constitutional foundation. Deciding votes also were cast by two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, who publicly had advocated for same-sex marriage while the case was before the court. They refused demands that they recuse themselves from the case.
The case illustrates the unwillingness of many Americans to accept the Supreme Court’s imposition of “gay marriage.”
WND reported when James Dobson, the high-profile Christian commentator, author and broadcaster, warned the U.S. Supreme Court before it created same-sex marriage that it was about to constitutionalize sin.
He said the case ultimately isn’t about marriage. Fundamentally, he contends, it’s a way to open up vast new avenues to attack Christianity.
Dobson, who founded the highly influential groups Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, and now runs Family Talk. charged in his monthly newsletter that the Supreme Court’s decision was “an expression of hostility toward people who take their Christianity seriously.”
He said the decision by five justices will prove disastrous for America.
His view is supported by the four dissenting justices, who argued the decision had no connection to the U.S. Constitution and likely will be used to attack Christians.
Dobson wrote: “We are convinced that this unconstitutional decision, issued by five unelected, unaccountable and imperious justices, will ultimately prove to be as catastrophic as Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 and Roe v. Wade in 1973. It will touch every dimension of culture.”
He said the decision is not about same-sex marriage, except only tangentially.
“Many gay and lesbian groups have admitted that marriage has never been their primary objective. Instead, it is about everything else,” he wrote.
“What’s at stake is the entire culture war.”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/judge-orders-christian-clerk-freed-from-jail/
Bunning also ordered the Rowan County clerk not to interfere when her deputy clerks issue marriage licenses.
The deputy clerks have been granting licenses to homosexual and heterosexual couples since Friday.
Bunning said he was satisfied the Rowan County clerk’s office is now complying with the recent Supreme Court decision that green-lighted “same-sex marriage” across America.
Staver, in a statement sent to WND, said the order will allow Davis to restore some normality in her life.
“We are pleased that Kim Davis has been ordered released. She can never recover the past six days of her life spent in an isolated jail cell, where she was incarcerated like a common criminal because of her conscience and religious convictions. She is now free to return to her family, her coworkers and the office where she has faithfully served for the past 27 years”
He said Liberty Counsel would “continue to assist Kim and pursue the multiple appeals she has filed.”
Staver previously told NBC News the condition to allow deputy clerks to grant licenses to homosexuals was unlikely to suffice.
“We’re back to square one,” Staver said. “She’s been released, but there’s been no resolution.”
To avoid discrimination, Davis, a Democrat, had refused to issue any marriage licenses.
NBC reported Bunning had threatened further “appropriate sanctions” if she didn’t continued to follow his instructions.
More sanctions are likely, NBC said, because Davis had vowed she would not allow any licenses to be issued from her office, even if she wasn’t the one signing them.
The law in Kentucky requires that her signature be on the licenses.
“She told the court Thursday,” Staver said, “that she can’t allow licenses to go out under her name and her authority that authorize a marriage that collides with her conscience and religious conviction, and Kim is not changed on that position.”
Davis’ lawyers several times have argued that an accommodation can be created so that the licenses do not require her signature, but the judge instead decided to imprison her.
Bunning roped Davis’ deputy clerks into the case last week even though they were not parties, ordering them to issue the licenses under his threat of jail time.
He is demanding status reports every 14 days detailing their compliance with his order.
Bunning previously admitted that the dispute was over a conflict between two constitutional rights – Davis’ enumerated right in the Constitution to free exercise of religion and the Supreme Court’s newly created right of “same-sex marriage.”
Critics have condemned the Supreme Courts ruling on marriage in June as being as faulty as the Dred Scott case that affirmed slavery.
Davis’ lawyers, with Liberty Counsel, had just filed an emergency motion with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals charging that the judge, Bunning, had created a criminal contempt case against the clerk without notifying her and had violated her rights to due process by jailing her.
They noted that Bunning himself seemed uncertain whether or not licenses issued without Davis would be valid.
The attorneys suggested the case makes it look as though Bunning “sought to vindicate [his] own authority and punish Davis for past actions.”
“Thus, Davis is entitled to heightened due process, which she did not receive,” the filing explained.
Bunning also violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act by jailing Davis, the attorneys told the 6th Circuit.
“It is not for the district court or any court to question the reasonableness or scriptural accuracy of Davis’ beliefs about marriage, to which she testified at the contempt hearing,” they said. “Indeed, judges should not determine whether Davis’ religious beliefs are ‘mistaken’ or ‘insubstantial.’ … Instead, the ‘narrow function’ … in this context is to determine whether the line drawn reflects ‘an honest conviction.’”
Giving her the choice of violating her beliefs or going to jail certainly “burdens” her religious faith, they wrote.
“Moreover, the compelling government interest inquiry, which the district court omitted in its contempt order, ‘requires the government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’ – the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religions is being substantially burdened,’” they said.
Davis has received support from some Republican presidential candidates, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
As an elected official, she could be removed from office only by the legislature, which doesn’t meet until winter.
Huckabee earlier criticized the judge for a decision that “undermines the Constitution.”
Even before the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, in which five lawyers decided to redefine marriage, Davis had written to lawmakers asking them to address the issue and protect clerks who had a religious objection to same-sex marriage.
The Kentucky Clerks Association also recommend that the names of clerks be removed from the forms, Staver revealed.
The Supreme Court’s decision was criticized by Chief Justice John Roberts as having no constitutional foundation. Deciding votes also were cast by two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, who publicly had advocated for same-sex marriage while the case was before the court. They refused demands that they recuse themselves from the case.
The case illustrates the unwillingness of many Americans to accept the Supreme Court’s imposition of “gay marriage.”
WND reported when James Dobson, the high-profile Christian commentator, author and broadcaster, warned the U.S. Supreme Court before it created same-sex marriage that it was about to constitutionalize sin.
He said the case ultimately isn’t about marriage. Fundamentally, he contends, it’s a way to open up vast new avenues to attack Christianity.
Dobson, who founded the highly influential groups Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, and now runs Family Talk. charged in his monthly newsletter that the Supreme Court’s decision was “an expression of hostility toward people who take their Christianity seriously.”
He said the decision by five justices will prove disastrous for America.
His view is supported by the four dissenting justices, who argued the decision had no connection to the U.S. Constitution and likely will be used to attack Christians.
Dobson wrote: “We are convinced that this unconstitutional decision, issued by five unelected, unaccountable and imperious justices, will ultimately prove to be as catastrophic as Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 and Roe v. Wade in 1973. It will touch every dimension of culture.”
He said the decision is not about same-sex marriage, except only tangentially.
“Many gay and lesbian groups have admitted that marriage has never been their primary objective. Instead, it is about everything else,” he wrote.
“What’s at stake is the entire culture war.”
Copyright 2015 WND
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/judge-orders-christian-clerk-freed-from-jail/
17 comments:
I'm not a Christian but no one has the authority to override one's own religious convictions. The 1st amendment, to the constitution, guarantees free speech and freedom of (and/or) from religion and the Supreme court has no authority to change the intent or meaning of that. If a clear intention is not spelled out in the constitution, it does not apply.
If she is that hell bent against doing what is the job she was hired to do, then maybe she should submit her resignation and step aside. That goes for her deputies and anyone else in similar positions. If youhave a problem doing your job, move on or expect to get fired. You should have taken your personal objections into consideration long BEFORE you accepted the position you were hired to do, and get paid to do.
ANON 7:33: YOU DO NOT MAKE SENSE OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. FIRST OF ALL...READ THE ARTICLE ON THE SUPREME COURT. SUPREME COURT CANNOT MAKE LAW. POLICY IS NOT LAW NOR CAN YOU MAKE LAW FROM THE BENCH. OUR SO REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS ARE THE ONLY ONE'S WHO CAN MAKE LAW BUT THAT OFFICE HAS BEEN HIJACKED TOO BY THE FRAUDULENT CORPORATION. DO YOUR RESEARCH AND YOU ARE THE PROBLEM SPREADING YOU IGNORANCE AND DISINFO. THE SUPREME COURT IS THE ARM OF THE CORPORATION AND THE CORPORATION'S STATUE, CODES AND ORDINANCES DO NOT APPLY TO LIVING BREATHING NATURAL MAN OR WOMAN. THEY ONLY APPLY TO CORPORATIONS. SO THE CORPORATION CAN MAKE ANY LAW OR POLICY THAT THEY WANT WHICH [SHOULD ONLY] APPLY TO CORPORATE EMPLOYEES; BUT THE PROBLEM COMES IN WHEN THE JURISDICTION IS OVER-REACHED TO THE MAN OR WOMAN ON THE LAND, AND...IT DOES. IT DOES BECAUSE THEY HAVE USURPED JURISDICTION WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE (AT FIRST) AND THEN OUR PERMISSION NOW. SO WHEN THEY MAKE THESE RULINGS IF AFFECTS EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ON THE LAND NO MATTER IF THEY ARE JUST STATUTE CODES AND ORDINANCES WHICH ONLY APPLY TO THE COPORATION; BUT POLICY NOR STATUTE CODES AND ORDINANCES ARE [NOT] LAWS!
SECOND...KIM DAVIS HAD THAT JOB PRIOR TO MANIPULATION OF THE FRAUDULENT AND FAKE LAW OF GAY MARRIAGE. SO SHE SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO QUIT NOR DOES SHE DESERVE TO GET FIRED. WAKE UP!!!
THE PEOPLE ARE TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT GAY MARRIAGE AND BY THE STATES AND VOTING IN THE STATES THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE BUT LET THEIR STATES DECIDE, AND...THEY HAVE BUT THE FRAUDULENT SUPREME COURT OR OTHER FRUADULENT COURTS HAVE RULED AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S WISHES MAKING THIS COUNTRY A DICTATORSHIP THROUGH THE SUBVERSION OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND USURPATION OF THE TRUE CONSTITUTION. DO YOUR RESEARCH AND WAKE UP! THIS WOMAN HAS HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AND SHE IS RIGHTING THE WRONG AND BRINGING TO THE FOREFRONT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO SPEAK AS THAT RIGHT HAS BEEN STOLEN BY FORCE BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION/THE FRAUDULENT CORRUPT COURTS!
Anonymous 7:33 PM... You will have to answer to the great judge GOD for that some day !
Were they issuing same sex marriage contracts 27 years ago?
They sent this woman to prison to RE-EDUCATE her. When someone asked the judge why they didn't just fine her the judge said, "I did not believe that a fine would make her change her mind." That statement and state of mind is a NAZI state of mind. So send kim to jail to MAKE her change her mind or in other words RE-EDUCATE her. DISGUSTING!
And how do you look into the future and see that a court decision such as this is going to be made after you take a job?
There are several vague references in the constitution, such as the ninth and tenth amendments. Do these amendments protect the rights to gay marriage? Does a person have the right to marry whom ever he/she chooses? Do you have a right to impose your will on others and tell them who they can and cannot marry? I am not a proponent of gay marriage, but these questions have me stumped.
Bunning previously admitted that the dispute was over a conflict between two constitutional rights – Davis’ enumerated right in the Constitution to free exercise of religion and the Supreme Court’s newly created right of “same-sex marriage.”
Here is the real problem. The Supreme is not suppose to be creating rights for anyone and reason now that we have a conflict.
They are suppose to enforce laws that we already have, not create laws as that is the job of the Congress.
Only the Congress are to create laws. Judges and Presidents were not given that authority by the Constitution. All laws from them are unconstitutional, period. Ken T.
They didn't have this unconstitutional ruling as it is not a law and can't be because it is unconstitutional on the face of it.
Even new laws are not suppose to be made that conflict with other laws and our constitutional rights.
Don't worry though as this new ruling from the Supreme Court will be gone within the next 7 to 10 days then she can sue as all involved in her incarceration are just corporate employees and are impersonating government officials. Ken T.
1. Marriage is a Sacrament instituted by God. No matter how man tries to manipulate and distort it's meaning and purpose he will fail and consequently if insistent in attempting to destroy this Holy Sacrament then man will bring down on himself wrath. Proven over and over throughout history. Sin never holds favor for long.
2. A Marriage license issued is a bogus document and only contracts two parties who agree they are incompetent to raise a family and turns over any offspring to the care of the State. It is deceptive and coercive. For a valid marriage you just need the commitment of the man and woman and witnesses to testify to their sincerity. It would also help to understand what a Traditional Catholic marriage entails which would assure a peaceful society.
Re:7:33 P.M.
This lady took this job before mental cases like you ruled from the so called bench.
Belief in God is necessary,belief in government is deadly.
I am awake, thank you very much.
I read and understand what is posted, both article and comments. Believe it or not, I do. Do you understand my point?
I may not like or agree with it. It's my right and opinion, just as what you posted is yours. This is not lack of understanding, disinformation, or ignorance.
The article and comments are your points, which are well taken and understood. They are not my point. This does not make it disinformation or ignorance.
There may be parts of your job, for whatever reason, you have strong objections to doing. Any or all of them may be legitimate, but you have to do it because it's your job, like it or not. Are you going to refuse to do that part of your job because of those objections, and tell your boss so? Most likely, you won't get carted off to jail, which I will give you, in this case, it was a little extreme, but it would be impressive if you still have a job by the end of the day. Or are you going to look for another job, and submit your resignation? The options I see are, do your job, resign, or get fired.
That was the sole point of my post. No more, no less. Whether or not you saw it as lack of understanding, disinformation, or ignorance, I'm sorry, but that is solely your issue, not mine.
So I will.
What is it to you if I did?
You strongly object to a part of your job for whatever reason, but have to do it because it is your job. Refuse to do your job? Most likely not get carted off to jail, but impressive if you still have a job. Or resign, and look elsewhere? That is my sole point. No more. No less. Sorry if you don't see it that way, and I will answer to God on that at anytime.
All here have made their point. It's their right. I get it. But it was not my point.
Is their way of looking at it the ONLY way?
I understand where I was coming from. Do you?
And who are you? An expert on mental cases?
For your information...I am a mental case...a mental case that was brought up and trained that when you are hired, and get paid to do a job, you do the job. If you have any problems, either before you were hired, or since, or objections to doing any part or all of that job that you were hired to do, you should have taken those into consideration before you accepted the position. Nobody forced you to either take the job when it was offered, or nobody forced you to stay. If there was any part of that job you had any objection to doing, either suck it up and do your job anyway, or look elsewhere for another job, or have the balls to go to your boss and tell him/her to their face you refuse to do the job, and the boss has the pleasure of saying 'You're fired!"
Yes...I am a mental case!
If you read my post, and understand it, that was, is, and will always be my only, sole point of posting it, which is just as much my right to do as you and everybody else. If you can't, or dont want to try to understand where and how my point was connected to this whole thing, I'm sorry, but that would be your issue, not mine. Being as you wish to spend all your time judging somebody you dont even know as a mental case, instead of asking in a respectful, human way where it is I was coming from, I say you didn't want to put forth any effort toward trying to understand, and continue to think that your way on any issue is the only way.
Like I said, I am a mental case, and I believe in God. :)
Let me clarify...
I hope you were referring to the "so called bench" of the Supreme Court as the mental case (Anon 7:33). I totally agree with you, and it's not limited to just the Supreme Court. To further clarify, I am NOT one of those who are in any way connected to the bench. I apologize for accusing you of doing so. It was not so much directed at you specifically as it was to those who outright attack others because they don't understand a viewpoint different from their own.
For amazing enlightenment, check this very different viewpoint on SCOTUS decision out, which could clarify many issues ...http://scannedretina.com/2015/07/06/wait-a-moment-how-can-it-be-illegal-for-people-to-get-married/
Post a Comment