Posted on Sep 1, 2015
Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses; What is your opinion on this article?
43.3K
697
346
47
47
0
LGBTQ+
Family
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 105
2
2
0
Exclusive. Just conducted an interview with Cecil Watkins, the Rowan County Attorney. Watkins (who to my knowledge) hasn't given any interviews.
Watkins indicates that Kim Davis "does not represent" Rowan County and is not representative of its inclusive values.
From Day One, Watkins told David I "will not and cannot support" you in her defiance of the law. Not only that he was clear he would not represent her as the law in the case of same sex marriage is clear.
While he has no stance on same sex marriage, well-established federal law must be followed.
Watkins wanted to emphasize several other things.
First that everyone who works at the courthouse has endured cursing as they enter the building. And it's not just at her office. Everyone in the courthouse is scared to come to work.
Second that Liberty Counsel will leave Kim Davis high and dry when this charade is over. Watkins thinks the funds they raise off the case should go to Rowan County.
Finally and most importantly he has learned that deputy clerks would issue lawful marriage licenses. They are simply afraid to do so. And if Judge Bunning instructs them to do so . . . they will.
Davis has put, in the words of Watkins, her employees and everyone in the courthouse in a "terrible position."
Watkins, in his role as the County Attorney, will be in court tomorrow for the hearing at 11:00 in Ashland. He is pictured being sworn in.
Ed. Note - The takeaways from the Watkins interview are clear. Davis is acting alone in her zealous mission. Her conduct has terrorized not just her staff but everyone that works in the courthouse. And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their "religious liberty" mission.
Shannon Ragland
Kentucky Trial Court Review
Watkins indicates that Kim Davis "does not represent" Rowan County and is not representative of its inclusive values.
From Day One, Watkins told David I "will not and cannot support" you in her defiance of the law. Not only that he was clear he would not represent her as the law in the case of same sex marriage is clear.
While he has no stance on same sex marriage, well-established federal law must be followed.
Watkins wanted to emphasize several other things.
First that everyone who works at the courthouse has endured cursing as they enter the building. And it's not just at her office. Everyone in the courthouse is scared to come to work.
Second that Liberty Counsel will leave Kim Davis high and dry when this charade is over. Watkins thinks the funds they raise off the case should go to Rowan County.
Finally and most importantly he has learned that deputy clerks would issue lawful marriage licenses. They are simply afraid to do so. And if Judge Bunning instructs them to do so . . . they will.
Davis has put, in the words of Watkins, her employees and everyone in the courthouse in a "terrible position."
Watkins, in his role as the County Attorney, will be in court tomorrow for the hearing at 11:00 in Ashland. He is pictured being sworn in.
Ed. Note - The takeaways from the Watkins interview are clear. Davis is acting alone in her zealous mission. Her conduct has terrorized not just her staff but everyone that works in the courthouse. And all for a foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their "religious liberty" mission.
Shannon Ragland
Kentucky Trial Court Review
(2)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
Then why in the hell isn't she fired? She's put the whole courthouse in jeopardy. Regardless of your personal opinions, when you are a clerk of the court or any other public position, you still have to follow the laws regardless. Same with Law enforcement. SMH
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I am not sure why she has become such an important person. I am baffle she is a clerk for cry not loud fire her for not doing her job and hire someone that can do the job.
(2)
(0)
SGT John Rauch
she is in an elected position, she cannot be fired, she is important because she has the guts that other americans wish they had because she stands for something, she may disagree with gays but that dose not mean she hates them, that being said, she should resign her position now that she has made her point and fired up the national debate on the issue, I would have made the same decision she did, but would also have resigned
(3)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
She sure does stand for something, she stands for "I don't agree with how you live your life, whether it affects me or not, because it offends my religion, so I'm going to use the power of my elected office to deny you what the law said you're entitled to, because I don't believe in separation of church and state".
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for democracy.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for democracy.
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
If she doesn't follow the law of the land, she should be removed by legal means. If we will not (and should not) allow Sharia Law, we cannot allow Christian Fundamentalism.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not a particularly big fan of gay marriage but she's in the wrong. She took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Courts have ruled on this issue. If it upsets her that much, she should resign her office.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
What law did she break? Congress never passed a same-sex marriage law nor has Kentucky. The supreme court cannot make up laws. All the ruling said was that states could not ban them, now it is up to the states to re-write the laws. Until then there is no law supporting it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Though I haven't read this whole thread, let's take a look at some things:
1. It is against the law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Regardless of what the Supreme Court's opinion is. Unless and until the Legislature of the Commonwealth write legislation to be presented the Governor, that is the way it is.
2. The Supreme Court of the United States offers OPINIONS, they do NOT make laws. Just because they said same-sex marriage is legal, does NOT make it so. Many of the states have laws on the books prohibiting same-sex marriage, they all must go through the same process to change their laws.
3. SCOTUS misapplied the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/how-scotus-perverted-the-equal-protection-clause-of-sec-1-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
4. And, since marriage is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, SCOTUS over-stepped its authority. Just my humble opinion, yours may vary.
1. It is against the law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Regardless of what the Supreme Court's opinion is. Unless and until the Legislature of the Commonwealth write legislation to be presented the Governor, that is the way it is.
2. The Supreme Court of the United States offers OPINIONS, they do NOT make laws. Just because they said same-sex marriage is legal, does NOT make it so. Many of the states have laws on the books prohibiting same-sex marriage, they all must go through the same process to change their laws.
3. SCOTUS misapplied the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/how-scotus-perverted-the-equal-protection-clause-of-sec-1-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/
4. And, since marriage is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, SCOTUS over-stepped its authority. Just my humble opinion, yours may vary.
How SCOTUS perverted the "equal protection" clause of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
By Publius Huldah 1. Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves by means of thousands of quotes ...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
Since Kentucky have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Kim Davis could have petitioned for accommodation so she did not have to be forced to issue marriage certificates, which is a part of the job she was publicly elected for. Why didn't she? Did she want to go to jail?
The answer is simple, she wanted attention and she got it. She wanted to be a martyr, but it really doesn't work that way. She could have just given her employer the chance to accommodate her situation, and she would no longer be liable for breaking the law.
This makes her a clown.
Since Kentucky have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Kim Davis could have petitioned for accommodation so she did not have to be forced to issue marriage certificates, which is a part of the job she was publicly elected for. Why didn't she? Did she want to go to jail?
The answer is simple, she wanted attention and she got it. She wanted to be a martyr, but it really doesn't work that way. She could have just given her employer the chance to accommodate her situation, and she would no longer be liable for breaking the law.
This makes her a clown.
(1)
(0)
SGT John Rauch
but how many times would she have been required to violate her beliefs before the accommodation set in? I dont believe it would have been an expedited process
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
So, an elected official refuses to abide by the established law, and gets thrown in jail for continuing to not abide by the law. Personally I believe she should be fired, but I believe jail is over the top.
Here's an interesting question though. Are not the President, and the Attorney General required to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, and signed into law? Since this IS the case, I wonder if those celebrating this clerk's imprisonment, were calling for, and would have celebrated a like punishment for Pres Obama, and AG Holder for failing to faithfully execute the DOMA (defense of marriage act) signed into law by Pres Clinton? You see, on 2011 Pres Obama's Justice department under AG Eric Holder unilaterally decided this law was unconstitutional, and refused to defend it in court. We're they both, then guilty of NOT faithfully executing the laws of the United States? Just curious.
Here's an interesting question though. Are not the President, and the Attorney General required to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, and signed into law? Since this IS the case, I wonder if those celebrating this clerk's imprisonment, were calling for, and would have celebrated a like punishment for Pres Obama, and AG Holder for failing to faithfully execute the DOMA (defense of marriage act) signed into law by Pres Clinton? You see, on 2011 Pres Obama's Justice department under AG Eric Holder unilaterally decided this law was unconstitutional, and refused to defend it in court. We're they both, then guilty of NOT faithfully executing the laws of the United States? Just curious.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PFC Al Sethre - PFC; It appears that the issue has been resolved in that Ms. Davis is not going to issue any marriage licenses personally and she is also not going to prevent other people from exercising their "freedom of religion" by issuing marriage licenses.
The weight of the judicial authority (and not just American judicial authority) is REALLY against Ms. Davis' position.
Imagine if her position was that she would not issue marriage licenses to "mixed race" couples on the grounds that "The Bible" says not to.
Do you think that she would have the slightest bit of support from any rational person?
The weight of the judicial authority (and not just American judicial authority) is REALLY against Ms. Davis' position.
Imagine if her position was that she would not issue marriage licenses to "mixed race" couples on the grounds that "The Bible" says not to.
Do you think that she would have the slightest bit of support from any rational person?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google