Txdigest.com

judge orders release of Kim Davis --- http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/09/08/jud ... kim-davis/ ---

Yes, she has reached an understanding apparently. She is obligated to NOT interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses. My question is will she honor that agreement. I'm not sure she will. After all, she gave up on "God's authority" pretty quick and she hasn't shown much in the way of respect for the judicial process (because...you know...God's authority".

We will have to see if she obeys the law this time. Frankly, my money is on NO...but, maybe she really didn't like jail. At any rate, this doesn't look like the "as long as it takes" we were hearing last week. Maybe she needs to get on with the talk circuit, her FOX appearances, the book, the movie (Lifetime) and counting her money. You know, she only makes 80k a year (and that in a county where the average income is just under 14k a year) so she probably needs to rake in the cash...if for no other reason than to promote her particular form of Christian Sharia.

But, just to remind everyone...she was jailed for contempt of court...not for her Christian beliefs. Religious freedom is not a license to ignore the laws you don't like. Hey, isn't that one of the things you people like to accuse Obama of? How does that work? If it is okay for her why not for him? Please don't tell me he is a Moslem and so not entitled to religious freedom however he may express it.

I think the one thing this whole case has highlighted that Americans are among the most self-righteous and hypocritical people on Earth. And we are so self deluded that we don't see it. Not only that, some of us get real annoyed when it is pointed out to us. Ain't that weird. However, it has been interesting to watch the Right, always big on the Founders and original intent, turn on perhaps the Founders greatest creation, the Supreme Court, because they lost on some of their key social agenda items...even with a partisan majority on the Court. Now, explain why that isn't hypocritical.

just MORE info , pretty much the same news !! --- http://nypost.com/2015/09/08/kentucky-c ... from-jail/ ---

AND , unless I am mistaken , she gets to keep her job . Next stop is court and more judges I suppose !!

If most employees refused to do their jobs they would be fired. That's what I think should be done with that woman. But she's Kentucky's burden. Good thing she doesn't work for me because she would be fired with cause.

she looks to be doing good so far Sue , gets to keep her job as this goes to court . Might take years . ----------------------- Also heard , don't know for sure but her son who works doing the same job is also refusing to issue 'gay' licenses' .

Sounds like she won..for now.

The Ol Gal is following the Law of Kentucky and her oath of officeand violating no Law of the US; just violating a Judges Orders; and it looks like he backed down; for now.

I fail to see how she won. She agreed NOT to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses in exchange for release from jail. Let's see, that would seem to indicate that she agreed to comply with the Court's order and was no longer in contempt. It looks to me as if SHE tossed in the towel...not the Judge. She resumes her previous course at significant risk of further sanctions and a return to jail.

Yeah, that is an odd sort of "victory". You people are REALLY reaching.

Judge Doofus has made an even bigger legal mess....

The Marriage Laws of Kentucky were struck down by 5 of the 9 SCOTUS Judges; and NO Marriage Laws have replaced it......yet.

I think the Judge needs to be locked up for attempting to enforce a non-existent "Law" via a Court Order.

I need to run that by one of my Lawyer friends

Remember this Lesbian Judge in Dallas County ?

Who locked her up for refusing to follow the Law ? Hmmm ? G&^D@*^ Gaystpao !!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-texas-judg ... d=15784189

Castle Doctrine wrote:I fail to see how she won. She agreed NOT to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses in exchange for release from jail. Let's see, that would seem to indicate that she agreed to comply with the Court's order and was no longer in contempt. It looks to me as if SHE tossed in the towel...not the Judge. She resumes her previous course at significant risk of further sanctions and a return to jail.

Yeah, that is an odd sort of "victory". You people are REALLY reaching.

Agreed.

looks like she won by keeping her job as she continues to fight . To me that's a win . Don't think that she is trying to stop the other clerks from doing as they see fit . She just doesn't want to be seen as supporting 'gay' marriage by personally issuing 'license' as that's against her religious beliefs .

ralph wrote:looks like she won by keeping her job as she continues to fight . To me that's a win . Don't think that she is trying to stop the other clerks from doing as they see fit . She just doesn't want to be seen as supporting 'gay' marriage by personally issuing 'license' as that's against her religious beliefs .

Her job is to follow the law of the land; not to follow her religious beliefs. If she wants to do that, she needs to resign and form a church.

bodine wrote:

ralph wrote:looks like she won by keeping her job as she continues to fight . To me that's a win . Don't think that she is trying to stop the other clerks from doing as they see fit . She just doesn't want to be seen as supporting 'gay' marriage by personally issuing 'license' as that's against her religious beliefs .

Her job is to follow the law of the land; not to follow her religious beliefs. If she wants to do that, she needs to resign and form a church.

The law of the land..is sometimes wrong, immoral or both.

People of great strength stand against such tyranny from courts.

too me , she has won her battle , keeps her job , doesn't issue gay licenses and the fight continues Bodine . That's current , don't know what the next gov employee judge will do though .

Someone please direct me to the clause in the constitution that defines marriage, then explain how the SCOTUS made a law.

bodine wrote:

ralph wrote:looks like she won by keeping her job as she continues to fight . To me that's a win . Don't think that she is trying to stop the other clerks from doing as they see fit . She just doesn't want to be seen as supporting 'gay' marriage by personally issuing 'license' as that's against her religious beliefs .

Her job is to follow the law of the land; not to follow her religious beliefs. If she wants to do that, she needs to resign and form a church.

What Law ?

Sangersteve wrote:Someone please direct me to the clause in the constitution that defines marriage, then explain how the SCOTUS made a law.

Well, since you asked, Sir, I'll be glad to. Put it is fairly complicated so you will have to follow closely.

First, there is no such clause in the Constitution. But, that really isn't the issue. You see, the Constitution and attendant Amendments contain a great deal of language pertaining to discrimination against various classes of citizen and/or the attempts to justify such discrimination. Now, here is where it gets complicated (and I expect you are getting lost and confused). The SCOTUS ruled that these protections from discrimination now apply to marriage law in all states. In effect, they struck down ALL discriminatory clauses, conditions or restriction...not the entire law. The existing laws concerning marriage will work just fine absent these discriminatory terms. Remember when the SCOTUS gutted the VRA? They didn't strike down the whole law...just one section. I bet that didn't bother you, Sir...not one bit.

So to summarize, the Constitution doesn't define marriage but has a great deal to say about discrimination. The SCOTUS did NOT make a law. They ruled that discriminatory elements of existing laws (for all States) were now null and void based on the language of the Constitution. I think that is fairly clear. But, if you need elaboration I'll be glad to answer any additional questions you may have. Or, I could recommend a good basic Civics Text...that would probably help you more.

Hope you had a great Labor Day, Sir.

Red Oak wrote:

bodine wrote:

ralph wrote:looks like she won by keeping her job as she continues to fight . To me that's a win . Don't think that she is trying to stop the other clerks from doing as they see fit . She just doesn't want to be seen as supporting 'gay' marriage by personally issuing 'license' as that's against her religious beliefs .

Her job is to follow the law of the land; not to follow her religious beliefs. If she wants to do that, she needs to resign and form a church.

What Law ?

In her case, it would be the laws of the State of Kentucky as they pertain to marriage absent the discriminatory clauses struck down by the SCOTUS. I'm sure you dislike the answer but it is accurate and you DID ask.

ralph wrote:looks like she won by keeping her job as she continues to fight . To me that's a win . Don't think that she is trying to stop the other clerks from doing as they see fit . She just doesn't want to be seen as supporting 'gay' marriage by personally issuing 'license' as that's against her religious beliefs .

Ralph, there was never any question of her retaining her job. She is an elected official and would have to be impeached. The composition of the State government makes it effectively impossible for that to happen.

When she was refusing to allow willing deputies to issue licenses she most certainly was stopping (not just trying) her deputies from issuing licenses. Her problem is that she doesn't approve of the SCOTUS ruling and she decided she had a dodge to avoid doing her job as it was effected thereby. If you don't think that is the case do some research.

Since her job was never in danger (except from maybe a recall) how can keeping it be a win? She left jail agreeing to allow the licenses to be issued. The issuance of licenses was the issue. I'm sure a lot of folks would have liked to be able to fire her but she knew the limits of what they could do and what she could get away with. What she appears to have wanted was her 15 minutes of fame.