By in Breaking News

Kim Davis Digging in Her Heels Remains Jailed

One of the biggest controversies in the news right now is the story of Kim Davis, elected Rowan County, Kentucky clerk, who has refused to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

According to CNN.com, Davis became an Apostolic Christian four-and-a-half years ago, when she adopted "God's law," and now uses that as her moral justification for refusal to adhere to the June 2015 law passed by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing for same-sex marriage, which she considers a sin against the sanctity of marriage.

On her fourth marriage (three times divorced), Davis excuses her own sin because it was before her religious conversion.

Davis, a Democrat, has stirred up controversy within the country on this issue. It has become major debate in the already-divided Republican party.

Davis has been found in contempt of court for her actions and was jailed on Thursday. She will remain jailed, until such time she issues the licenses.

Some would say that it "will be a cold day in hell" before that happens.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Sources: CNN.com and NYTimes.com

* * * * * * * * * * * *

© Copyright 2015- Coral Levang - All Rights Reserved.

Coins: 5041, $7.56, 37%

| | | | |


Image Credit » https://pixabay.com/en/marriage-equality-lesbian-gay-749536/ by butwait

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.

Comments

MegL wrote on September 5, 2015, 1:18 PM

There are some issues I would dig my heels for but not this. It's not her business to decide who can or can't marry.

Feisty56 wrote on September 5, 2015, 1:23 PM

I found this tweet by Rachel Held Evans on Kim Davis and feel it says it all, as far as I'm concerned: "No one's being jailed for practicing her religion. Someone's being jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion." What a political football this has become! I don't know how interested you might be in this, but here's an article explaining how GoFundMe.com has changed their policy about allowing law-breakers to seek money via their site: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/04/1418212/-Kim-Davis-won-t-be-getting-rich-because-GoFundMe-has-changed-it-policy?detail=email

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 1:29 PM

MegL She has never lived outside of this county in Kentucky in her 49 years of life, according to what I have read. The county has a total area of 286 square miles (740 km2), home to about 23,300 people, and primarily a dry county (no alcohol sales allowed), except for the county seat in Morehead. Her mother was elected and served for nearly three decades before she was elected. Kim was deputy clerk. Her son is also a deputy clerk. This sounds typical of this type of rural southern US and the majority of people that live there.

I agree. It is her business to uphold the laws set forth by being a government official. If she does not want to do so, based on her religious conviction, then she should have stepped down from the position. Period.

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 1:33 PM

I agree, Feisty56 . I have no problem with her right to religious freedom, but she should have resigned, then gotten on her bandwagon. I was also glad to see that GoFundMe took a stand on this one. Had Mrs. Davis been anywhere other than the protection of her small town, where she is a big fish in a little pond, she would have been eaten alive. And she claims to not like the publicity. I doubt that.

alexdg1 wrote on September 5, 2015, 1:44 PM

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

morilla wrote on September 5, 2015, 1:46 PM

On her side of the argument is the idea that one should be able to work in Government and still hold to their religious beliefs. In Kentucky, you can get a marriage license in any county, I believe. They've also talked of allowing her 'underlings' the authority to issue the licenses; but, that's potentially problematic in that, as the County Clerk, her name is still on them. (It's created some legitimate concerns in that there is a question regarding the legality of issuing licenses without her 'consent' as the elected official tasked with the duty; bringing into question the 'long-term' legality of doing so. There's also the potential issues of allowing them to do so and releasing her, despite her refusal to comply with the Court order.) In short, the idea is that she should not be 'discriminated' against as a Government employee simply for the 'convenience' of those who don't wish to go 'out of the county' for a license or wish to 'make a statement.' (Despite the insistence that "oaths mean something" by the plantiffs and the Judge, there is legitimacy in pointing to be obligated to an "Higher Law" and the obligations encumbered upon one in that, while "Government oaths" may mean something, so does religious belief .)

Against her is the thought that one must set aside their personal issues as an elected Government official. Just as a Judge must decide cases based on the Law and not personal, religious beliefs, the County Clerk must also act based on the Law as it exists. There's also the fact that she has the option to resign if she feels her convictions and her duties conflict. (Some of that depends on how you see it in the context of "Render unto Ceasar... and unto God.") But, in that context, she has said that if she resigns, she'd have no "Voice for God's word;" a position which is, in many respects, untenable in that the resignation would give her that voice and proselytizing is, as already noted, contrary to the position itself.

Basically, there's 'right and wrong' on both sides; depending on your own, personal convictions . Either way, however, this was one of the 'ripple effects' predicted by the minority in the Supreme Court decision. When you issue such a decision on this type of 'hot topic' social issue based on a 'personal agenda' and don't allow the System or society a chance to 'adjust' to that decision on a number of different levels, you are going to create problems. (That's part of what Scalia was saying in that 'gay marriage' was 'winning' in terms of public opinion; but, to have "5 lawyers impose" their personal agenda preemptively - something Roberts said, as Chief Justice, he wasn't even sure the Court had the Constitutional Authority to mandate - short circuits the 'democratic process.')

Last Edited: September 5, 2015, 1:53 PM

JohnRoberts wrote on September 5, 2015, 2:28 PM

This is a sticky wicket of a situation. I understand her feelings but she has a job to perform and many of us perform tasks we don't particularly like. Her refusal is grounds for dismissal. Where does one draw the line between job and religious beliefs. Does a vegetarian Hindu waitress refuse to take orders from meat eating customers because it offends her religion? There are other kinds of examples one could think of. Remember the Muslim woman hired at Abercrombie Fitch fired because she refused to remove her burka which was a violation of the store's dress code. Can a Christian refuse to be paired with an atheist on a project because their beliefs are offended?

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 2:53 PM

I do not excuse it, but I think that it plays a part in it. You are right, she is not innocent of the world. I think that some of the small towns, not simply in the south, there is a small-minded attitude. We have them here in the west, too. emoticon :winking:

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 2:56 PM

Brilliant quote. Whether one believes in a god or not, this is truth. Some just cannot debate their stance philosophically, without having the "because the Bible tells me so" to fall back on.

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 2:59 PM

*nods* I find this to be a fascinating story, and how it will pan out in the end will be subject of many a debate in law schools, et. al., for many years to come.

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 3:02 PM

I agree with your stance. But then, I have been known to dig my heels in a time-or-two on matters I hold as important. I wonder how many were tired of hearing things from me.

I am not sure that we will ever seen the end decision of this one. It will be argued well into the next few decades, I am sure.

Feisty56 wrote on September 5, 2015, 3:05 PM

Or the atheist refuse such a pairing?

CoralLevang wrote on September 5, 2015, 3:06 PM

I think you bring up some great points of discussion, JohnRoberts , but I would also say, "...or vice versa?" where the Christian and the atheist are concerned.

As a career transition trainer and coach, I have often posed the question, "Why in the world would someone want to work or stay somewhere that is not a good fit." The answer I hear most often is "Money." She makes $80K a year. I make about 40% of that doing something that I love doing, where I can make a difference...or think I can. LOL

Last Edited: September 5, 2015, 3:07 PM

JohnRoberts wrote on September 5, 2015, 3:18 PM

Good point but atheism isn't considered a religion thus not falling under freedom of religious practice.

wolfgirl569 wrote on September 5, 2015, 6:50 PM

I too feel she should step down from her position if she feels that strongly about it. In the meantime she is where she belongs. No one else can pick and chose what laws to follow and most of us have not even taken an oath to do so. But if we break one we would be in jail. For her I feel it is even more fitting because she swore to uphold the countries laws when she got elected

DWDavisRSL wrote on September 5, 2015, 7:47 PM

It is interesting how this woman picks and chooses which sins she's going to get upset about. Is she quizzing young couples as to whether they've had sex outside of marriage? Is she questioning older couples about their divorce status? She has every right to believe what she believes, but if her selective religious beliefs are going to interfere with her job, she should resign her position.

CoralLevang wrote on September 6, 2015, 2:59 AM

Some might argue that the laws she is breaking were not in place when she took her oath, so that she wasn't bound by those laws to uphold them.

CoralLevang wrote on September 6, 2015, 3:02 AM

And if with the sexual commandments, would she hold all to the same? Would she not issue a drivers' license because one has used her Lord's name in vain?

DWDavisRSL wrote on September 6, 2015, 8:59 AM

A very good point. She seems to want to pick and choose which sins she's going to get in high dudgeon over.

wolfgirl569 wrote on September 6, 2015, 10:18 AM

But that dont stand as she took that oath knowing that laws are constantly being added or changed. So her oath still stands as she took it. To honor the law.

seren3 wrote on September 6, 2015, 12:50 PM

CoralLevang Interesting post and comments too! If she had been fired for refusing to do her job would she then have filed a wrongful termination suit? (At her own expense?) Is she being paid while in jail?
At work, I have an array of religious observers and genders coming into our office. Should I in any way diminish my duties or manners regarding them my boss would fire me instantly. It is not in my job description to discriminate. What a fiasco! What would the media do without her?

CoralLevang wrote on September 6, 2015, 1:22 PM

You bring up some interesting questions, i.e. payment in jail.

BarbRad wrote on September 6, 2015, 5:51 PM

Why is it that we let violent criminals out of jail because the jails are overcrowded, but we still have room for political prisoners? And that's what this is. Obama doesn't enforce laws he doesn't like, but nothing happens to him.

BarbRad wrote on September 6, 2015, 6:00 PM

She should enforce the laws, and if her conscience prevents her from doing that, she should resign or be fired. That is an appropriate consequence. Jailing her is not appropriate and is wasteful. It seems punishments for being politically incorrect are getting worse than for actually robbing or raping someone.

PriscillaKing wrote on September 13, 2015, 5:57 PM

Hell is in Michigan and gets plenty of cold days emoticon :smile: I think people who think it's immoral to do a job should find a different job. Now there's a Muslim who doesn't want to serve alcohol to people. What next? I can imagine actual "religious" groups forming just to have rules like "When thou writest a document, thou shalt not go over it again" or "It is *wrong* to go to work before 10 a.m." or "Thou shalt not sweep the office floor." Even though I think serving alcohol verges on racism, and the felt need for same-sex marriage reflects actual discrimination against unmarried people and ethical people should be focusing on *that*...even in Kentucky nobody's too ignorant to know that, if you don't want to do a job, you quit.

PriscillaKing wrote on September 13, 2015, 6:02 PM

With the driver's license, if she were the DMV licensing official rather than the county clerk, she'd be evaluating *only* their driving skills. I think a better analogy would be issuing hunting licenses if you don't believe in hunting, or liquor licenses if you're a teetotaller.

CoralLevang wrote on September 13, 2015, 7:12 PM

Most do not focus on what it truly important