ADVERTISEMENT

EXCLUSIVE: Kentucky Clerk: "This is a fight worth fighting"

bigbadjohn45

All American
Jul 9, 2010
4,301
24
38
EXCLUSIVE: Kentucky Clerk: "This is a fight worth fighting"

By Todd Starnes

Published September 03, 2015
FoxNews.com

1441287657629.jpg

Sept. 1, 2015: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis listens to a customer following her office's refusal to issue marriage licenses at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Ky. Although her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied, Davis still refuses to issue marriage licenses. (The Associated Press)

UPDATE: A federal judge has ordered a defiant Kentucky clerk to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning told Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis she would be jailed until she complied with his order to issue the licenses. Davis said "thank you" before she was led out of the courtroom by a U.S. marshal. She was not in handcuffs.

Bunning also warned deputy clerks around the state that they could suffer the same fate should they refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Davis has refused to issue marriages licenses for two months since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. She argues that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses.

I’m very steadfast in what I believe. I don’t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I’m not. It’s easy to talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

- Kim Davis, clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky

Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver, who is representing Davis, called the ruling “outrageous.”

“If this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty,” Staver told me.

He said Davis will be fingerprinted and photographed “just like a criminal.”

“This cannot be tolerated,” he said. “This is ultimately going to spark a huge debate around the country. This is not the kind of country – this is not the America that our founders envisioned.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kim Davis could become the first Christian in America jailed as a result of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.

“I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail, I sure am,” Mrs. Davis told me in an exclusive interview. “This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.”

“This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.”

Davis is the clerk of Rowan County, Ky. – a small patch of earth in the northeastern part of the state. She was elected last November – taking the place of her mother, who held the position for nearly 40 years.

It’s fair to say that issuing marriage licenses was something of a family business – until the day the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

Davis is a devout Apostolic Christian, and she knew that should gay marriage become legal, she could not and would not sign her name on a same-sex marriage certificate.

“I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave,” she said, pondering her choices. “And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.

So when that day came, she issued an edict: No more marriage licenses would be issued in Rowan County. It was a decision that would bring down the wrath of militant LGBT activists and their supporters.

“They told my husband they were going to burn us down while we slept in our home,” she said. “He’s been told that he would be beaten up and tied up and made to watch them rape me. I have been told that gays should kill me.”

Liberty Counsel, the public interest law firm that represents Davis, says forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses violates her religious beliefs. But the courts don’t seem interested in that argument.

A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, an appeals court upheld that decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. Should Davis continue to defy the law, she could be fined or sent to jail.

No matter what the court decides, Davis says she will not violate her religious beliefs – and she will not resign her post.

“I’m very steadfast in what I believe,” she told me. “I don’t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I’m not. It’s easy to talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”

The mainstream media and the activists have been ruthless. They’ve portrayed her as a monster – a right-wing, homophobic hypocrite. She’s been smeared by tabloid-style reports on her checkered past. They’ve written extensively about her failed marriages.

It’s true, she’s been married four times. But what’s missing in the mainstream media coverage is the context. Her life was radically changed by Jesus Christ in 2011, and since then she has become a different person.

“My God in heaven knows every crack, every crevice, every deep place in my heart,” she said. “And he knows the thoughts that are in my mind before I even think them. And he has given me such a beautiful and wonderful grace through all of this.”

She once lived for the devil, but now she lives for God. She’s a sinner saved by grace.

“I had created such a pit of sin for myself with my very own hands,” she told me.

So how does she handle the reporters and talking heads who call her a hypocrite?

“All I can say to them is if they have a sordid past like what I had, they too can receive the cleansing and renewing, and they can start a fresh life and they can be different,” she said. “They don’t have to remain in their sin, there’s hope for tomorrow.”

Davis did not seek the national spotlight. She had no intention of becoming a spokeswoman for religious liberty, and she bristles at the idea that she is a hero of the faith.

“I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place,” she said. “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”
 
Flash, we as Christians need to pray for Kim and ask God to bless and protect her. God bless her for standing up for God's law and not man's law!
 
This women is essentially imposing her religious beliefs on others. This is much different than the baker who refuses to make a cake for a gay couple.

I'd love to know what you guys would think if a Muslim got a job at the DMV and then decided to not offer driver's licenses to women.

Or a Quaker refusing to offer a hunting license.
 
Doug, remember, when all the left and social liberals swore–SWORE, mind you, that gay marriage wouldn’t harm anyone, and that no one at all would ever be forced to choose between going to jail for following their faith?

So, now we have homosexuals imprisoning Christians for following their faith. Gosh, who could ever have predicated that?

Weren’t we all mocked for “slippery slope” fallacies? And yet, here we are, with the government jailing Christians for following their beliefs, and homosexuals being the ones wielding the handcuffs.

This should come as no surprise. It's obvious the two homosexuals seeking "marriage" were shopping for a Christian county clerk they could confront--just like the ones who went to the Christian baker and florist. There were plenty of other options they could've chosen; however, they kept coming back to her. Why do you suppose that was, Doug? I'm sure you know the answer.
 
So, now we have homosexuals imprisoning Christians for following their faith. Gosh, who could ever have predicated that?

This simply isn't what's happening in this case. She's not being jailed for her belief. She's being jailed because she refuses to perform the duties of her office.No matter how much she wants to think it is, this has never been and never will be about her religion.

She's a government employee, her salary paid by taxpayers to perform a civic duty that she refuses to do.

She's part of a government that's of the people, for the people, and by the people - the people have stated that they want gay marriage. You don't have to like it, but you have to perform the duties of the office. If she refuses, she's essentially imposing a one woman theocracy.

She's making herself a martyr, no one else is.

Again, how is this any different than a Muslim at the DMV refusing to allow women to get a driver's license.

And as for slippery slopes - this is one you absolutely don't want to go down. I get all the talk about how private enterprises should be able to choose who they serve. They risk thier jobs, but people will vote with their wallets - so be it.

But this is a government civic duty.

Do we really want the police to choose who they can help and when? Or firefighters? Do we want individual IRS employees targeting certain segments of folks because they disagree with thier lifestyles?


FWIW, I don't believe this woman is sincere one bit. This is a massive publicity stunt - there'll be a book deal and a bunch of TV interviews and she'll profit quite handsomely off of this.
 
As Jefferson ignored the unconstitutional Sedition Act and as Lincoln ignored the unconstitutional Dred Scott, any and all government entities can and should ignore the unconstitutional Obergefell (SCOTUS decision).

Doug, don't forget that many Americans didn’t believe in certain Supreme Court rulings pre-civil war, either. Like when they proclaimed that Dred Scott was not a citizen. I challenge anyone on the left or right to says she’s out of line for taking a stand on this. If she’s out of line for taking a stand for her beliefs, then so were the many who opposed slavery and stood up against those laws.

She’s acting in a most-traditional, revolutionary and American manner. More power to her.

And, as to her sincerity, I notice you didn't question the sincerity of the two homosexuals screaming for their "marriage" license: Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz (the two homosexuals seeking a "marriage" license). They acknowledged they could have sought a license in their home state, or in another Kentucky county, but said they had the right to get one wherever they chose. Again, there were plenty of other options they could've chosen; however, they kept coming back to her. Why do you suppose that was, Doug? I'm sure you know the answer.
 
She’s acting in a most-traditional, revolutionary and American manner. More power to her.

Hiding behind that shield means that pretty much means anyone can committ any illegal act and claim it's a "traditional, revolutionary, and American manner".

Do we really want to go down this road?

You don't have to like all the laws. But you can't pick and choose which laws to obey. And if you don't like them, there's avenues to change them.

Again I pose the question - how is this any different than a Muslim who refuses to grant a driver's license to a woman? Would you be so quick to defend him and his beliefs?




And, as to her sincerity, I notice you didn't question the sincerity of the two homosexuals screaming for their "marriage" license: Robbie Blankenship and Jesse Cruz (the two homosexuals seeking a "marriage" license). They acknowledged they could have sought a license in their home state, or in another Kentucky county, but said they had the right to get one wherever they chose. Again, there were plenty of other options they could've chosen; however, they kept coming back to her. Why do you suppose that was, Doug? I'm sure you know the answer.

Because they're grandstanding and publicity seeking.

Sure, but they're not breaking any laws.
 
Hiding behind that shield means that pretty much means anyone can committ any illegal act and claim it's a "traditional, revolutionary, and American manner".

Do we really want to go down this road?

You don't have to like all the laws. But you can't pick and choose which laws to obey. And if you don't like them, there's avenues to change them.

Again I pose the question - how is this any different than a Muslim who refuses to grant a driver's license to a woman? Would you be so quick to defend him and his beliefs?






Because they're grandstanding and publicity seeking.

Sure, but they're not breaking any laws.

You don't have to like all the laws. But you can't pick and choose which laws to obey. And if you don't like them, there's avenues to change them.

Obey God as ruler rather than men, as long as the two don’t conflict, you follow men, if they do, you obey the Higher Authority.

Again I pose the question - how is this any different than a Muslim who refuses to grant a driver's license to a woman? Would you be so quick to defend him and his beliefs?

Davis is refusing to issue marriage licenses to EVERYONE. In your hypothetical, the Muslim would be violating the EPC of the 14th Amendment since, presumably, she/he would be issuing driving licenses to men.

BTW, I notice you still haven't answered my question regarding the sincerity of the two homosexuals screaming for their "marriage" license. These two homosexuals acknowledged they could have sought a license in their home state, or in another Kentucky county, but said they had the right to get one wherever they chose. Again, there were plenty of other options they could've chosen; however, they kept coming back to her. Why do you suppose that was, Doug? I'm still waiting for your answer.
 
You don't have to like all the laws. But you can't pick and choose which laws to obey. And if you don't like them, there's avenues to change them.

Obey God as ruler rather than men, as long as the two don’t conflict, you follow men, if they do, you obey the Higher Authority.



That's a pretty scary quote to the millions of other American's who don't believe the same things that you do. That sounds like what ISIS is saying to justify what they do to others.

Besides, you have chosen to live here in this great melting pot with people who think differently than you do - you cant seriously believe that your beliefs exempt you from following laws that benefit this great society.



Again I pose the question - how is this any different than a Muslim who refuses to grant a driver's license to a woman? Would you be so quick to defend him and his beliefs?

Davis is refusing to issue marriage licenses to EVERYONE. In your hypothetical, the Muslim would be violating the EPC of the 14th Amendment since, presumably, she/he would be issuing driving licenses to men.

But violating the equal protection clause would be ok with you because the Muslim would be obeying the higher power, rather than the law it conflicts with, right?



BTW, I notice you still haven't answered my question regarding the sincerity of the two homosexuals screaming for their "marriage" license. These two homosexuals acknowledged they could have sought a license in their home state, or in another Kentucky county, but said they had the right to get one wherever they chose. Again, there were plenty of other options they could've chosen; however, they kept coming back to her. Why do you suppose that was, Doug? I'm still waiting for your answer.

I havent answered because their motivations are completely irrelevant. Government services should be available to all, regardless of race, creed, lifestyle etc.
 
Kentucky Marriage Law is ONE MAN ONE WOMAN as Amended to the State Constitution in 2011 by 75% popular vote. No other kind of marriage is legal in Kentucky.

The US Supreme Court ruling this past summer was illegal.

They used the 14th Amendment, which only applies to rights mentioned in the US Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution, neither straight nor gay. Thus, the 10th Amendment has precedent and it is a state right decided by state law. KY law states that same sex marriage is not legal. Thus, Kim is right and all those justices are wrong.

Plus, the US Constitution states that only the legislature can pass laws. Thus, the Supreme Court illegally created new illegal law.

You have no point, unless you can…
1) Point out where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution, and
2) The Supreme Court can pass laws.

The Constitution explicitly guarantees the free exercise of religion; it’s explicitly guaranteed. Justice Kennedy's marriage exists nowhere in the Constitution, and, in reality, nowhere except in Kennedy’s flawed and incorrect opinion.

The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of state law. The State Supreme Court is. The only thing the US Supreme Court can do with a state law is compare it to the US Constitution.

So, Kim Davis was actually following the law, STATE law, and the judge doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to tell her differently.

Also:

" I haven't answered because their motivations are completely irrelevant. Government services should be available to all, regardless of race, creed, lifestyle etc."

Doug, this is where you're completely wrong. The fact that the two homosexuals came to Davis and demanded their homosexual "marriage" has everything to do with this. This is no longer about gay couples wanting to get marriage licenses; it is about forcing one, particular clerk to sign them. They KNEW Davis was a Christian and wanted to make sure that they "showed her up" to force her to issue a license--contrary to her Christian beliefs. They could've gone anywhere else to obtain the license--but they came to her. Again, why?? The answer is obvious: they were "clerk shopping" to make their point--that their perverted, ungodly relationship is somehow now "legitimized"--just because five lawyers wearing robes have chosen to undefine marriage as God intended it to be (between one man and one woman).

Again, may God bless Kim Davis and everything she stands for!

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT