“We would like them to release her from jail and provide reasonable, sensible accommodation so she can do her job,” one of her lawyers, Horatio Mihet, said in a statement. “That would be taking her name off of marriage licenses in Rowan County and allowing her deputies to issue the licenses.”
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear’s office said Monday he won’t respond, noting that the conflict was a “matter between her and the courts.”
On Sunday, her lawyers appealed the contempt of court motion that sent her to jail five days ago. Her lawyers said they’d file arguments to back up their appeal later Monday or Tuesday.
Davis was reading the Bible in jail and “exudes gentleness and peace,” Mihet said.
“Her spirits remain high,” he said. “She was brought to tears when she heard that so many people outside the jail and around the country are praying for her.”
Supporters of Davis rallied Monday outside the home of U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning, who found Davis in contempt of court, CNN affiliate WCPO reported, and also outside the jail where she’s being held, CNN affiliate WSAZ reported.
martyr
1.
a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2.
a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause:
a martyr to the cause of social justice.
3.
a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering:
a martyr to severe headaches.
4.
a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.
Huckabee has shown that he has no respect for the rule of law. He is supremely ignorant of the Constitution and has shown he would trash it at a moment’s notice.
Do we want that kind of ignorant person anywhere near the presidency–or in any government office?
If an elected official, let’s say a governor, is against the death penalty because of his religion, should he be allowed to shut down executions in his state? Should he be able to stop the imposition of death sentences in his state?
How about a governor or other elected official who is against war and/or the draft. Should he or she be permitted to stop the draft or enlistment process in the state as a matter of conscience? Let’s say a governor or other elected official is against abortion as a matter of conscience. Should a governor have the power to summarily stop all abortions in the state?
Is there any law a governor or other elected official is not free to ignore because it goes against his or her conscience–the Constitution be damned?
LL
Huckabee has shown that he has no respect for the rule of law. He is supremely ignorant of the Constitution and has shown he would trash it at a moment's notice.
Do we want that kind of ignorant person anywhere near the presidency--or in any government office?
If an elected official, let's say a governor, is against the death penalty because of his religion, should he be allowed to shut down executions in his state? Should he be able to stop the imposition of death sentences in his state?
How about a governor or other elected official who is against war and/or the draft. Should he or she be permitted to stop the draft or enlistment process in the state as a matter of conscience? Let's say a governor or other elected official is against abortion as a matter of conscience. Should a governor have the power to summarily stop all abortions in the state?
Is there any law a governor or other elected official is not free to ignore because it goes against his or her conscience--the Constitution be damned?
LL
What about "sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
And don't forget San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_2004_same-sex_weddings
Huckabee has shown that he has no respect for the rule of law. He is supremely ignorant of the Constitution and has shown he would trash it at a moment's notice.
Do we want that kind of ignorant person anywhere near the presidency--or in any government office?
If an elected official, let's say a governor, is against the death penalty because of his religion, should he be allowed to shut down executions in his state? Should he be able to stop the imposition of death sentences in his state?
How about a governor or other elected official who is against war and/or the draft. Should he or she be permitted to stop the draft or enlistment process in the state as a matter of conscience? Let's say a governor or other elected official is against abortion as a matter of conscience. Should a governor have the power to summarily stop all abortions in the state?
Is there any law a governor or other elected official is not free to ignore because it goes against his or her conscience--the Constitution be damned?
LL
What about "sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law. They are and were anti democracy, unconstitutional and defy US law.
And don't forget San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_2004_same-sex_weddings
I know. I am against those actions, too. They are anti-democracy, unconstitutional and defy US law.
Lois
What about “sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
This is another skewed conservative talking point that has already been debunked. The so called "sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/debunking-myth-sanctuary-cities
Cap't Jack
Gavin Newsome of SF spoke out when he was compared to Kim Davis and, in his defense, he DID stop issuing marriage licenses when ordered to do so by the courts; Kim on the other hand, has defied all courts.
None of this is over. Kim Davis is being used as the poster girl for “Christian Persecution” to get religious freedom laws passed at state levels and, at the federal level, the “First Amendment Defense Act.”
Gavin Newsome of SF spoke out when he was compared to Kim Davis and, in his defense, he DID stop issuing marriage licenses when ordered to do so by the courts; Kim on the other hand, has defied all courts.
None of this is over. Kim Davis is being used as the poster girl for "Christian Persecution" to get religious freedom laws passed at state levels and, at the federal level, the "First Amendment Defense Act."
And in all of the hubbub the fact that this woman took an f'ing Oath of Office never seems to make an impression on any of them
Gavin Newsome of SF spoke out when he was compared to Kim Davis and, in his defense, he DID stop issuing marriage licenses when ordered to do so by the courts; Kim on the other hand, has defied all courts.
None of this is over. Kim Davis is being used as the poster girl for "Christian Persecution" to get religious freedom laws passed at state levels and, at the federal level, the "First Amendment Defense Act."
And in all of the hubbub the fact that this woman took an f'ing Oath of Office never seems to make an impression on any of them
Yes, I wonder why she didn't refuse to take the oath unless it had a religious escape clause. That would have saved her and everyone else from this situation. They probably would have refused to seat her.
The Kenticky Oath of Of office for County Clerks:
"I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
She could have asked for a religious exception at the time, but she didn't. So she took the oath under false pretenses knowing she would violate it. Mighty Christian of her.
Lois
"I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."
She could have asked for a religious exception at the time, but she didn't. So she took the oath under false pretenses knowing she would violate it. Mighty Christian of her.
What about “sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
This is another skewed conservative talking point that has already been debunked. The so called "sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/debunking-myth-sanctuary-cities
Cap't Jack
Well, they may not have been designed that way, but it's what they've become.
Not all undocumented immigrants are helping local police apprehend criminals. I would bet it's no more than a bare 1%.
Lois
What about “sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
This is another skewed conservative talking point that has already been debunked. The so called "sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/debunking-myth-sanctuary-cities
Cap't Jack
Well, they may not have been designed that way, but it's what they've become.
Not all undocumented immigrants are helping local police apprehend criminals. I would bet it's no more than a bare 1%.
Lois
You "cooperate with the police" every day Lois, like most people. You plug the meter, you drive somewhere near the speed limit, you don't rob any liquor stores, and if you did happen to see something, which is rare for anyone, and the police asked you a question, you'd answer it to the best of your ability. Just like most people.
Intelligent and well written article by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar regarding the KimDavis charade that the god people are forcing on USA
IDEAS RELIGION
Kim Davis Is Not a Patriot
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar @kaj33 Sept. 7, 2015
… On Sunday, around 300 supporters gathered outside the jail where Kim Davis,
the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is being held.
They waved signs like “Kim Davis for President" and “We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men."
The crowd in itself is not newsworthy—you can get 300 people to support pretty much anything
(in England’s 2001 census, almost 400,000 people stated their religious preference as Jedi).
What makes this situation especially significant is that also offering their support to Davis were presidential candidates
Mike Huckabee, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz.
Cruz said, “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith…
I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally."
Perhaps Sen. Cruz forgot all the black and white Christian women who were arrested during the Civil Rights era.
And the Christian women suffragists arrested in support of voting rights.
And the Christian lesbian women arrested in support of gay rights. All for their belief that God wanted all people to be treated equally.
Huckabee agreed with his colleague: “I thank God for Kim Davis, and I hope more Americans will stand with her."
Walker explained, “You have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there.
It’s a fundamental right." I’m not sure where exactly “out there" is,
but here in the U.S. you don’t have that right if it interferes with the fundamental legal rights of others,
especially if you are a government employee. Jindal lauded Davis by saying that taking a stand as she did is “an important part of the American way."
He’s right. Using religion to justify bigotry, exploitation of the poor, religious persecution, and war is part of the American way,
but it’s an inglorious part that we have worked hard with noble resolve to put in our past.
Americans have a long history of using religion to rationalize atrocious behavior. …
http://time.com/4024556/kareem-abdul-jabbar-kim-davis/
Davis and her supporters make me sick. You think they’d be standing behind her, praising her ‘faith’ and ‘conviction’ and ‘righteousness’ if she’d denied marriage licenses to interracial couples? Interfaith couples? Sadly, some people probably would. This country nauseates me sometimes.
Religion is the greatest excuse for hatred and shield for bigotry that has ever existed.
She should just exempt herself from her job if she’s not up to doing her duties. To hell with the little ego man talking in her head.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/16/federal-court-to-kim-davis-file-your-kentucky-religious-exemption-claim-in-kentucky-state-court/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na
September 16, 2015
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — which is in charge of appeals from federal courts in Kentucky (among other states) — refused to issue a preliminary injunction in favor of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who doesn’t want her name or office listed on Rowan County marriage certificates. For more details on the religious exemption Kim Davis appears to be seeking, see this post; but right now the important conclusion is that her strongest claim, the one under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), has to go to state court rather than federal court:
[Kim] Davis maintains that the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples burdens her sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Kentucky Constitution, and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Davis has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on her federal constitutional claims. We need not address the merits of her claims under Kentucky law because the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution precludes the federal courts from compelling state officials to comply with state law. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 105-06 (1984).
One of the fascinating aspects of this is that we have the GOP throwing its support behind someone who refuses to do all the work that her position requires and yet still takes money from the government. Isn’t one of the traditional GOP platforms that people should work hard and earn their money rather than take free handouts from the government?
I think I will go on welfare and declare that God told me that to work is sinful. Then I will have time to run for office as a Republican.
What about “sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
This is another skewed conservative talking point that has already been debunked. The so called "sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/debunking-myth-sanctuary-cities
Cap't Jack
Well, they may not have been designed that way, but it's what they've become.
Not all undocumented immigrants are helping local police apprehend criminals. I would bet it's no more than a bare 1%.
Lois
You "cooperate with the police" every day Lois, like most people. You plug the meter, you drive somewhere near the speed limit, you don't rob any liquor stores, and if you did happen to see something, which is rare for anyone, and the police asked you a question, you'd answer it to the best of your ability. Just like most people.
Wow! i'm a pretty good citizen, then.
Lois
What about “sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
This is another skewed conservative talking point that has already been debunked. The so called "sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/debunking-myth-sanctuary-cities
Cap't Jack
Well, they may not have been designed that way, but it's what they've become.
Not all undocumented immigrants are helping local police apprehend criminals. I would bet it's no more than a bare 1%.
Lois
You "cooperate with the police" every day Lois, like most people. You plug the meter, you drive somewhere near the speed limit, you don't rob any liquor stores, and if you did happen to see something, which is rare for anyone, and the police asked you a question, you'd answer it to the best of your ability. Just like most people.
Wow! i'm a pretty good citizen, then.
Lois
Yes, now, really, do you think only 1% of undocumented immigrants are acting that way?
What about “sanctuary cities"? They defy federal law.
This is another skewed conservative talking point that has already been debunked. The so called "sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/debunking-myth-sanctuary-cities
Cap't Jack
Well, they may not have been designed that way, but it's what they've become.
Not all undocumented immigrants are helping local police apprehend criminals. I would bet it's no more than a bare 1%.
Lois
You "cooperate with the police" every day Lois, like most people. You plug the meter, you drive somewhere near the speed limit, you don't rob any liquor stores, and if you did happen to see something, which is rare for anyone, and the police asked you a question, you'd answer it to the best of your ability. Just like most people.
Wow! i'm a pretty good citizen, then.
Lois
Yes, now, really, do you think only 1% of undocumented immigrants are acting that way?
It wasn't suggested that the undocumented immogrants were simply following the law. They said they are working with the police to identify criminals, and I quote village atheist:
The so called “sanctuary cities" are not providing sanctuary for illegal immigrant criminals as they claim. Local police do not round up and arrest undocumented immigrants, as they cooperate with the local police in apprehending criminals.
When a person feeds the meter, doesn't break the speed limit and doesn't rob liquor stores and otherwise follows the law, it would be wrong to say he is "cooperating with local police im apprehending criminals." I still say that the ones who help apprehend criminals make up no more than 1% of the undocumented population.
This doesn't mean that I think immigrants should be "rounded up" indiscriminately, but to imply that undocumemted immigrants in sanctuary cities are all helping catch criminals is plain wrong and a ridiculous statement to make. There are far more criminals on the streets who should be rounded up than there are people helping the police.
Lois
My point was, it’s perfectly normal for only a small percentage of people to “cooperate with police" in the way you are using the phrase. People don’t normally go out of their way to apprehend criminals, they leave it up to the police. That undocumented immigrants SHOULD be helping catch criminals is the ridiculous statement.
Rather than defying US law and making communities less safe, they give undocumented immigrants a safe avenue to report crime and “cooperate" with the police. As the article V.A. says, “ these policies make it safe for immigrant crime victims and witnesses to report criminals to the police and help put them behind bars. Critics claim that these cities and states provide “sanctuary" to undocumented immigrants, but research shows that the opposite is true."
