Setting an example
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Kim Davis has repeatedly and consistently stated that she does not hate gays, she simply feels that marriage is defined by Gawd as man/woman. No one has come up with any evidence to the contrary. Not one report of an anti-gay statement. So they make **** up and wingers like you spread it.
Hold on. She's a recent convert to the God scene, no doubt because she felt like a loser for her 3 divorces but that still doesn't give her the right to use her religion to deny equal opportunities to others. How far do you take this attitude is the slippery slope.
Seems the tide is turning on her......
Nearly three in four Americans say that when a conflict arises between religious convictions and the need to treat everyone equally under the law, the law should prevail, according to new results from an ABC News/Washington Post poll out Tuesday.
And in the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses with her name affixed to them because of her opposition to same-sex marriage, more than six in 10 say she should be compelled to issue them.
Among those surveyed, 74 percent said that equality under the law should trump religious beliefs, while 19 percent said that one's personal convictions are more important. Just 33 percent said that Davis should not be required to issue the licenses, compared with 63 percent who said that Davis should do so despite her religiously-based objections.
Davis returned to work on Monday, vowing not to interfere with the issuance of licenses by her deputy clerks but also refusing to authorize them with her name.
Read more: Kim Davis: Majority of Americans say Kentucky clerk should have to issue licenses - POLITICO
I agree with you completely, as I've said consistently.
I take it you intend your comment on the recency of her conversion to cast doubt on its authenticity? How very droll.
And then there's your "analysis" of her motivation. Pulled straight out of your a*s for one reason and one reason only: you disagree with her, and therefore you feel compelled to hate and insult her.
Can't you see that you are no different from the conservative jerks you hate?
When was the last time the Vatican so publicly distanced itself from an individual visitor to the Pope.
But the part that makes this especially noteworthy is that the Vatican coupled their refusal to endorse Kim Davis's "position" with the news that Pope Francis did have a private meeting in Washington with an openly gay longtime friend of the pope and that man's partner.
Don't read too much into that one, either; the official position of the church is one of opposition to same-sex marriage and anyone hoping for that to change had better park themselves down for a good long wait. But the Vatican distancing itself from Davis and her case is an unusual move.
Francis’ meeting with Kim Davis “should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi said in a statement. “Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” Lombardi said in the statement. “Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability.”
It seems that Davis was brought to meet the visiting pope at the invitation of certain other Catholic officials—whether Francis himself was angered by the move depends on who you believe—it's not going down well with Kim Davis's publicity hounds lawyers, who pretty flatly accused Pope Francis of lying. That'll go well.
But the part that makes this especially noteworthy is that the Vatican coupled their refusal to endorse Kim Davis's "position" with the news that Pope Francis did have a private meeting in Washington with an openly gay longtime friend of the pope and that man's partner.
Don't read too much into that one, either; the official position of the church is one of opposition to same-sex marriage and anyone hoping for that to change had better park themselves down for a good long wait. But the Vatican distancing itself from Davis and her case is an unusual move.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky Monday filed a motion in federal court seeking to recover $233,058 in attorneys’ fees and other expenses associated with the lawsuit it brought on behalf of several couples last year when Davis shut down marriage license operations in Rowan County, where she is the elected county clerk, rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land.
Both Davis and Rowan County are named as defendants in the motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. But “the motion does not call for Davis to personally pay the fees,” ACLU spokesman Ryan Karerat told BuzzFeed.
The organization aims “to send a message to government officials that willful violations of individuals’ rights will be costly,” ACLU of Kentucky legal director William Sharp said in a press release.
“It is unfortunate that an elected official sought to use her office to withhold government services on the basis of her religious beliefs,” ACLU of Kentucky executive director Michael Aldridge said in the same release. “And it is equally regrettable that the county may now have to pay for her misuse of that office and her refusal to comply with the court’s orders.”
When Davis shut down marriage license operations at her office in shortly after the marriage equality ruling, she said issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples conflicted with her Christian beliefs. After U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered her to comply with the law and issue licenses to all eligible couples, she still refused, and then Bunning found her in contempt of court. She spent five days in jail last fall as a result, then was released because her deputies were serving same-sex couples, bringing Rowan County into compliance.
Eventually the state of Kentucky changed its marriage license forms to remove the names of county clerks, first by Gov. Matt Bevin’s executive order, then by legislation, and this satisfied Davis’s objections.
Last month Bunning dismissed the suits brought against Davis, noting that the state’s actions rendered them moot. “In light of these proceedings, and in view of the fact that the marriage licenses continue to be issued without incident, there no longer remains a case or controversy before the Court,” he wrote.
But the fact that marriage licenses are being issued without discrimination means the ACLU and its clients prevailed, therefore entitling the organization to recoup the costs, ACLU officials said. “Courts recognize that when successful civil rights plaintiffs obtain a direct benefit from a court-ordered victory, such as in this case, they can be entitled to their legal expenses to deter future civil rights violations by government officials,” Sharp said in the ACLU of Kentucky’s release.
ACLU Sues Kim Davis and Her County for $233K in Legal Fees | Advocate.com
Both Davis and Rowan County are named as defendants in the motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. But “the motion does not call for Davis to personally pay the fees,” ACLU spokesman Ryan Karerat told BuzzFeed.
The organization aims “to send a message to government officials that willful violations of individuals’ rights will be costly,” ACLU of Kentucky legal director William Sharp said in a press release.
“It is unfortunate that an elected official sought to use her office to withhold government services on the basis of her religious beliefs,” ACLU of Kentucky executive director Michael Aldridge said in the same release. “And it is equally regrettable that the county may now have to pay for her misuse of that office and her refusal to comply with the court’s orders.”
When Davis shut down marriage license operations at her office in shortly after the marriage equality ruling, she said issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples conflicted with her Christian beliefs. After U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered her to comply with the law and issue licenses to all eligible couples, she still refused, and then Bunning found her in contempt of court. She spent five days in jail last fall as a result, then was released because her deputies were serving same-sex couples, bringing Rowan County into compliance.
Eventually the state of Kentucky changed its marriage license forms to remove the names of county clerks, first by Gov. Matt Bevin’s executive order, then by legislation, and this satisfied Davis’s objections.
Last month Bunning dismissed the suits brought against Davis, noting that the state’s actions rendered them moot. “In light of these proceedings, and in view of the fact that the marriage licenses continue to be issued without incident, there no longer remains a case or controversy before the Court,” he wrote.
But the fact that marriage licenses are being issued without discrimination means the ACLU and its clients prevailed, therefore entitling the organization to recoup the costs, ACLU officials said. “Courts recognize that when successful civil rights plaintiffs obtain a direct benefit from a court-ordered victory, such as in this case, they can be entitled to their legal expenses to deter future civil rights violations by government officials,” Sharp said in the ACLU of Kentucky’s release.
ACLU Sues Kim Davis and Her County for $233K in Legal Fees | Advocate.com
That's the problem with government workers doing stupid things. It's the taxpayers who have to pay for their effups........
A judge has issued a ruling in federal court requiring the state to pay money to couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Rowan County clerk.
In June of 2015, Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to several same-sex couples on the heels of a federal ruling legalizing gay marriage. The ACLU filed the suit on behalf of the couples; April Miller and Karen Roberts, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez and Kevin Holloway, and L. Aaron Skaggs and Barry W. Spartman.
U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ruled against Davis, awarding the couples more than $222, 695 in attorneys' fees and $2,008.08 in costs to the plaintiffs.
"We are pleased with today's ruling, and we hope this serves as a reminder to Kentucky officials that willful violations of individuals' civil liberties, such as what occurred here, will not only be challenged but will also prove costly," said William Sharp, legal director ACLU of Kentucky. He added, "It is unfortunate that Kentucky taxpayers will likely bear the financial burden of the unlawful actions and litigation strategies of an elected official, but those same voters are free to take that information into account at the ballot box."
Judge David Bunning wrote in his decision that county clerks are generally classified as 'county officials,' but that Kim Davis represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky by issuing - or not issuing - marriage licenses. He ruled that Davis' authority over marriage licenses came from the state, and that the state could have taken action against her when she refused to issue them.
"Davis represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky when she refused to issue marriage licenses to legally eligible couples," the court order reads. "The buck stops there."
In the county that elected Kim Davis, opinions still vary on her actions. But most people WKYT's Garrett Wymer talked to around town on Friday evening were upset about the ruling, for one reason or another.
"That's not what tax dollars should be for," one woman said. "I don't think that state tax dollars should have to go to pay for private lawsuits against any individual."
Other folks said they just do not like that their tax dollars have to go to a situation that they say never should have happened in the first place.
One Twitter user tweeted at WKYT's Garrett Wymer that the cost should be taken out of Davis' salary.
Judge awards couples who sued Kim Davis more than $200,000 in fees
A judge has issued a ruling in federal court requiring the state to pay money to couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Rowan County clerk.
In June of 2015, Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to several same-sex couples on the heels of a federal ruling legalizing gay marriage. The ACLU filed the suit on behalf of the couples; April Miller and Karen Roberts, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez and Kevin Holloway, and L. Aaron Skaggs and Barry W. Spartman.
U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ruled against Davis, awarding the couples more than $222, 695 in attorneys' fees and $2,008.08 in costs to the plaintiffs.
"We are pleased with today's ruling, and we hope this serves as a reminder to Kentucky officials that willful violations of individuals' civil liberties, such as what occurred here, will not only be challenged but will also prove costly," said William Sharp, legal director ACLU of Kentucky. He added, "It is unfortunate that Kentucky taxpayers will likely bear the financial burden of the unlawful actions and litigation strategies of an elected official, but those same voters are free to take that information into account at the ballot box."
Judge David Bunning wrote in his decision that county clerks are generally classified as 'county officials,' but that Kim Davis represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky by issuing - or not issuing - marriage licenses. He ruled that Davis' authority over marriage licenses came from the state, and that the state could have taken action against her when she refused to issue them.
"Davis represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky when she refused to issue marriage licenses to legally eligible couples," the court order reads. "The buck stops there."
In the county that elected Kim Davis, opinions still vary on her actions. But most people WKYT's Garrett Wymer talked to around town on Friday evening were upset about the ruling, for one reason or another.
"That's not what tax dollars should be for," one woman said. "I don't think that state tax dollars should have to go to pay for private lawsuits against any individual."
Other folks said they just do not like that their tax dollars have to go to a situation that they say never should have happened in the first place.
One Twitter user tweeted at WKYT's Garrett Wymer that the cost should be taken out of Davis' salary.
Judge awards couples who sued Kim Davis more than $200,000 in fees
Well, it is a relief from one kind of christian killing the other kind of christian over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
I always thought it should be about resisting temptation oneself, not forcing ones' views on anyone else, especially at the tax payers expense. Obviously the woman acted on hate and NOT on love.
As it so often does, it looks like ol' jebus may have died for nothing.
For those who claim to believe in Jebus what a waste of a good example of giving that was.
I always thought it should be about resisting temptation oneself, not forcing ones' views on anyone else, especially at the tax payers expense. Obviously the woman acted on hate and NOT on love.
As it so often does, it looks like ol' jebus may have died for nothing.
For those who claim to believe in Jebus what a waste of a good example of giving that was.
To be fair to her, did she divorce them or they her? If they divorced her, you couldn't then blame her for their decisions.
Though granted if they divorced her, why would she then turn to them for advice on the sanctity of marriage unless they'd reformed somehow.?
I do believe he is correct in what he says about the supreme Court making law. We have the same issue in Canada whereby the courts are making laws and not the individuals we elect to parliament.
That is the point Huckabee was making; Congress makes the laws not the courts. He is simply saying that until Congress makes the necessary changes, the courts cannot enforce a law that hasn't been passed yet. The courts can make a ruling, but, if I am understanding the U.S system of government, there are other branches of governance (I.e Congress) that must be involved in the making of laws. Otherwise you have the "judicial tierney" he was talking about.
I did not hear him say in this interview that he was against same sex marriage (which he may well be). I heard him saying that there is a system in place to make and/or change laws that, under the Constitution, needs to be followed. So I'm thinking the whole interview was disingenuous and trying to show religious intolerance rather than his objection to how this law was (not) implemented.
Huckabee was making one point; Steponopolis was trying hard to make like Huckleberry was a bigot. If that is what Steponopolis wanted to address, he should have come out and said so.
JMHO
