Kentucky Clerk Remanded to Custody for Refusing to Issue Marriage Licences to Gay Couples

Kim Davis  a Kentucky clerk at the center of the national debate over gay marriage was found in contempt of court by a federal judge after she defied the Supreme Court by refusing to issue marriage licenses in protest of same-sex marriage.

District Judge David L. Bunning ordered Kim Davis to be taken into custody by federal marshals "until she complies" with a court order.

Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, has become the most prominent elected official to refuse to abide by a Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal across the United States.

The US Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal in June.

Ms Davis, who has said she is obeying "God's law," was escorted out of the courtroom.

"You can't be separated from something that's in your heart in your soul," said Ms Davis to US District Judge David Bunning, and said the Supreme Court's ruling conflicts with her beliefs as a born-again Christian. "I promised to love Him with all my heart, mind and soul because I wanted to make heaven my home."

The judge said he had "no alternative" but to jail her.

Her five deputy clerks were told they may issue licenses to all marriage applicants and that they would also faces fines or jail if they refused to do so.

The plaintiffs in the case had asked the judge to fine Kim Davis until she complied, but the judge said that he wasn't convinced fines would have compelled Davis to issue licenses.

A lower court had ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses, despite her religious objections. She appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court to ask that the lower court's decision be put aside while she waited for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to issue an opinion on the matter.

The Supreme Court denied that stay, tacitly ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis remained steadfast in her refusal.

In a motion filed with the court, her lawyers argued that it is presently "impossible" for Davis to comply with the court order because it would "irreparably and irreversibly violates her conscience by directing her to authorize and issue same sex marriage licenses bearing her name and approval."

Some legal scholars disagree with that assessment.

Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia University who heads the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, explained it to NPR's Robert Siegel earlier this week:

    FRANKE: She has absolutely no legal ground to stand on. As a public official, she's supposed to abide by the law and perform her public duties, which are issuing marriage licenses to qualified couples. Same-sex couples are now qualified to marry in the state of Kentucky, so she is refusing to do her job.

    SIEGEL: But are there protections - even for public officials - for some religious convictions that might, in some ways, conflict with someone else's performance of the same job?

    FRANKE: Of course. Kim Davis has all sorts of religious liberty rights secured under the First Amendment and under other laws. But they are not at stake in this case. All she's asked to do with couples that come before her is certify that they've met the state requirements for marriage. So her religious opposition to same-sex marriage is absolutely irrelevant in this context.

It's worth noting that in an amicus brief filed yesterday, Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers asked the court to "temper its response."

The laws of the state, argues Stivers, have not yet caught up with the Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage legal across the whole United States.

In fact, Stivers argues, state law currently contains penalties for performing prohibited marriages — such as those between people who are "nearer of kin ... than second cousins" — but does not contain penalties for refusing to issue licenses to those who are permitted to marry.

So, Stivers argues, the court should slow down and let the legislature sort this out before holding Davis in contempt.

Since Davis is an elected official she cannot be fired from her job. Instead, she would have to be impeached by the state's House of Representatives and tried by the state's Senate and many believe that to be an unlikely course of action.

Author's Score
Up Votes
Down Votes
Voted on
0 articles, Fastest Growing Free Local & Social Classifieds, #1 Free Social Classifieds
gay marriage, gay marriage,gay couples, gay couples,supreme court, supreme court,relationships, relationships,marriage equality, marriage equality,healthy foods, healthy foods,relationship mistakes, relationship mistakes,

Recent Articles

MBA Vs PGDM What do MBA and PGDM rely on? MBA (Master of Business Administration) is a degree, while PGDM (Post...
Through scanning, the process of document management has become easy. Foremost, finding that you kept days,...
As the year nears its closing, Apple this week officially unveiled the best of 2019 awards on the App Store. Along...
Intermediate exams are known to be more advanced than matric. This is reflected in the lengthy syllabus and more...
What is Quantum Computing?   Even though conventional computers can do many amazing things but in simple,...
Backpage EscortsEscorts Canada, TorontoEscorts VancouverEscorts CalgaryEscorts Ottawa

Copyrights © 2020 Voticle. All Rights Reserved.