Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who made a splash last summer with her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, wants an appeals court to officially forget all about the incident and make the case go away.
Kim Davis Wants The Law To Forget That Time She Defied The Supreme Court On Gay Marriage
So this is her lawyer's argument?[/QUOTEKim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who made a splash last summer with her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, wants an appeals court to officially forget all about the incident and make the case go away.]
15 minutes officially over.
"In a motion filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, where Davis is contesting an earlier contempt order against her, her lawyers asked for the whole matter to be dismissed because of recent developments in Kentucky law.
Specifically, Davis’ attorneys noted that the state legislature recently removed a requirement that county clerks sign their names to marriage licenses. This change to the law provides “the very religious accommodation Davis sought from the beginning of this litigation,” her lawyers wrote in their petition, thus effectively rendering the whole case moot."
B.S. - She did the offense under the then current statute, and she did it with intent, knowledge of the statute, cognizance of her actions, and public notoriety.
She should live with it like, anyone else!
Kim Davis Wants The Law To Forget That Time She Defied The Supreme Court On Gay Marriage
Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who made a splash last summer with her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, wants an appeals court to officially forget all about the incident and make the case go away.
15 minutes officially over.
Oh this is great. I got a speeding ticket last year in South Carolina but the speed limit has since been changed to 5 MPH faster. So i will now go back and contest this ticket. And ask for my fine back.
Kim Davis Wants The Law To Forget That Time She Defied The Supreme Court On Gay Marriage
[/QUOTEKim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who made a splash last summer with her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, wants an appeals court to officially forget all about the incident and make the case go away.]
15 minutes officially over.
She used government power to enforce personal belief against the free practice of rights and liberties by the People. As far as I'm concerned, she should be in jail.
I'm feeling very stupid right now. Can somebody translate the premise of her lawyer's argument into cretin for me?
I'm feeling very stupid right now. Can somebody translate the premise of her lawyer's argument into cretin for me?
:lamo"God isn't as important now as God was at the time."
I'm feeling very stupid right now. Can somebody translate the premise of her lawyer's argument into cretin for me?
Notably, the legal team for the same-sex couples who were turned away by Davis — they were seeking licenses after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide — will not oppose the clerk’s latest move.
“We agree that Kim Davis’s appeals should be dismissed,” Daniel Canon, one of those lawyers, said in an email to The Huffington Post. “Once the new Kentucky law becomes effective, all loving couples seeking to obtain marriage licenses will be able to do so on an equal basis.”
What was the state law regarding gay marriage when she refused to sign the marriage certificates?Kim Davis Wants The Law To Forget That Time She Defied The Supreme Court On Gay Marriage
So this is her lawyer's argument?
"In a motion filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, where Davis is contesting an earlier contempt order against her, her lawyers asked for the whole matter to be dismissed because of recent developments in Kentucky law.
Specifically, Davis’ attorneys noted that the state legislature recently removed a requirement that county clerks sign their names to marriage licenses. This change to the law provides “the very religious accommodation Davis sought from the beginning of this litigation,” her lawyers wrote in their petition, thus effectively rendering the whole case moot."
B.S. - She did the offense under the then current statute, and she did it with intent, knowledge of the statute, cognizance of her actions, and public notoriety.
She should live with it like, anyone else!
Thats what should have happened in the first place. The SCOTUS decision left several states in opposition to the SCOTUS ruling and no timetable to change it.That the lawsuit should be dismissed since the marriage licenses that she issue without her name would now be valid under the new law an thus there is no suit to be had.
Note that even the opposing side agrees
Not sure of the exact details, but her lawyers are claiming that the circumstances have changed since she was found in contempt. I believe they're referring to the change occuring where an employee can now recuse themselves from providing marriage certs as long as another employee will do it for them.What was the state law regarding gay marriage when she refused to sign the marriage certificates?
I wish I could find a job like that!
Not sure of the exact details, but her lawyers are claiming that the circumstances have changed since she was found in contempt. I believe they're referring to the change occuring where an employee can now recuse themselves from providing marriage certs as long as another employee will do it for them.
I wish I could find a job like that!
The thing that changed is that county clerks no longer have to sign marriage certificates in Kentucky.
So...since she does not have to sign them...Kim feels that her god will not condemn her to hell for all of eternity for having done so.
The thing that changed is that county clerks no longer have to sign marriage certificates in Kentucky.
So...since she does not have to sign them...Kim feels that her god will not condemn her to hell for all of eternity for having done so.
If you think about this, why would signing it be more of a sin than issuing it?
Beats me. But the whole controversy seemed contrived.
Her lawyers...the other sides lawyers...and the fact of the matter is that the state law supported her position. Sure...the Supreme Court ruling invalidated the State law but at BEST what that meant was that there WAS no law regarding marriage in Kentucky. The whole problem should have and could have been avoided.Not sure of the exact details, but her lawyers are claiming that the circumstances have changed since she was found in contempt. I believe they're referring to the change occuring where an employee can now recuse themselves from providing marriage certs as long as another employee will do it for them.
I wish I could find a job like that!
Ah, so your saying the judge ordering her to issue the licenses gave an invalid directive?Her lawyers...the other sides lawyers...and the fact of the matter is that the state law supported her position. Sure...the Supreme Court ruling invalidated the State law but at BEST what that meant was that there WAS no law regarding marriage in Kentucky. The whole problem should have and could have been avoided.
Remember, she's wasn't charged with a state or federal crime - but with contempt of court.
She was following her sworn mandate. Uphold the laws and Constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did.Ah, so your saying the judge ordering her to issue the licenses gave an invalid directive?
Remember, she's wasn't charged with a state or federal crime - but with contempt of court.
Yes, but her god did not issue the contempt order, the presiding Judge did!The thing that changed is that county clerks no longer have to sign marriage certificates in Kentucky.
So...since she does not have to sign them...Kim feels that her god will not condemn her to hell for all of eternity for having done so.
Kim Davis Wants The Law To Forget That Time She Defied The Supreme Court On Gay Marriage
She used government power to enforce personal belief against the free practice of rights and liberties by the People. As far as I'm concerned, she should be in jail.
Ie she used her 1st amendment rights to protest something that violated it which the government doesn't have the power to do. in fact the government must make
an attempt to provide a religious exception for her. they did not.
now they have. imprisoning people for constitutionally guarded rights not a good idea.
Ie she used her 1st amendment rights to protest something that violated it which the government doesn't have the power to do. in fact the government must make
an attempt to provide a religious exception for her. they did not.
now they have. imprisoning people for constitutionally guarded rights not a good idea.
Shes free to say as she likes. She is not free to use her power as a government official to infringe upon the free exercise of rights by the individual. That's tyranny.
Shes free to say as she likes. She is not free to use her power as a government official to infringe upon the free exercise of rights by the individual. That's tyranny.
Vance, are you trying to re-litigate this issue?She was following her sworn mandate. Uphold the laws and Constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did.
please see the religious exception laws. the government is not allowed to violate her religious rights.
you are right the government forcing people to violate their rights is tyranny so why do you support tyranny?
she was finally able to get them to just let her clerks sign them without her signature.
which they should have done to begin with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?