Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis in Custody

[cletus1]

They just put her in jail. 




Kentucky Clerk Fighting Gay Marriage Has Wed Four Times

A fellow gay marriage-resisting county clerk says 'that's forgivable.'


[img=652x0]http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/ee4763c/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fdb%2F21%2F5d832f024655965d00117aaa54b2%2F150901-editorial.jpg[/img]
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, right, is pictured at her office in Morehead, Ky., on Tuesday.

By Steven NelsonSept. 1, 2015 | 4:37 p.m. EDT+ Mo

The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life. 

The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008.

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.

Davis has described her desire to strictly adhere to the Bible in stark terms and thus far has shown no sign of bending to court orders on same-sex marriage. She said Tuesday she fears going to hell for violating "a central teaching" of the Bible if she complies with the orders.

[GPnative]

Of note, she is only being held on a contempt of court charge because she is not actually breaking any laws.
I think some people miss the distinction, the SCOTUS (courts) do not make laws.

[Valuesize]

This is simple. She will need to decide if she wants to do her job or find another. 

[tvguy]

As if Kentucky needed another reason for the rest of the country to think they are all ignorant rednecks.

[cletus1]

Of note, she is only being held on a contempt of court charge because she is not actually breaking any laws.
I think some people miss the distinction, the SCOTUS (courts) do not make laws.

Yes, she is refusing to comply with a court order, thus the contempt charge. Some people have suggested that she should have simply be fined not jailed, but the judge said he was not convinced that others would not pay the fine for her. The purpose of contempt is coercive and jail for most people is certainly more coercive then paying money. 

I am obviously pleased she is sitting in jail. 

[tvguy]

Of note, she is only being held on a contempt of court charge because she is not actually breaking any laws.
I think some people miss the distinction, the SCOTUS (courts) do not make laws.

Yes, she is refusing to comply with a court order, thus the contempt charge. Some people have suggested that she should have simply be fined not jailed, but the judge said he was not convinced that others would not pay the fine for her. The purpose of contempt is coercive and jail for most people is certainly more coercive then paying money. 

I am obviously pleased she is sitting in jail. 

Yeah I was a bit puzzled why someone who is not actually breaking any laws is sitting in jail.

Where did you see that Cletus? They didn't say that in the article did they?

[bbqboy]

When did contempt of court not become breaakng the law?

[Valuesize]

What am I missing here. Why is she not simply fired for not doing the job she was hired for? 

[cletus1]

Of note, she is only being held on a contempt of court charge because she is not actually breaking any laws.
I think some people miss the distinction, the SCOTUS (courts) do not make laws.

Yes, she is refusing to comply with a court order, thus the contempt charge. Some people have suggested that she should have simply be fined not jailed, but the judge said he was not convinced that others would not pay the fine for her. The purpose of contempt is coercive and jail for most people is certainly more coercive then paying money. 

I am obviously pleased she is sitting in jail. 

Yeah I was a bit puzzled why someone who is not actually breaking any laws is sitting in jail.

Where did you see that Cletus? They didn't say that in the article did they?

I did not say that, GPnative did.

I simply clarified that her charge is contempt of court.

[bbqboy]

What am I missing here. Why is she not simply fired for not doing the job she was hired for? 

She's an elected official. She can only be removed by impeachment, or maybe a recall, but she was just elected last November.

[GPnative]

Of note, she is only being held on a contempt of court charge because she is not actually breaking any laws.
I think some people miss the distinction, the SCOTUS (courts) do not make laws.

Yes, she is refusing to comply with a court order, thus the contempt charge. Some people have suggested that she should have simply be fined not jailed, but the judge said he was not convinced that others would not pay the fine for her. The purpose of contempt is coercive and jail for most people is certainly more coercive then paying money. 

I am obviously pleased she is sitting in jail. 

Yeah I was a bit puzzled why someone who is not actually breaking any laws is sitting in jail.

Where did you see that Cletus? They didn't say that in the article did they?

I did not say that, GPnative did.

I simply clarified that her charge is contempt of court.

The contempt charge is what I heard on the radio, along with idiots who keep saying "she has to abide by the law" or she's "not above the law" which rubs me the wrong way because it dumbs down the masses that court decisions are "laws" when they most certainly are not. She has not broken any law.

Congress makes laws, courts rule decisions and opinions

[cletus1]

UPDATE:


A defiant county clerk in Kentucky who has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples says she will not accept a compromise that would have let her out of jail.


Attorneys for gay couples had proposed that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis be let out of custody if she promised not to interfere with her deputies, but the clerk refused.


Five of the six deputies have told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that that they will issue the licenses, though some of them said they were reluctant to do so.


The lone holdout is Davis' son. The judge says he won't face any fine or jail time since the other deputies have agreed to issue the licenses.

This is a breaking news update. Check back later for more.

[tvguy]

Of note, she is only being held on a contempt of court charge because she is not actually breaking any laws.
I think some people miss the distinction, the SCOTUS (courts) do not make laws.

Yes, she is refusing to comply with a court order, thus the contempt charge. Some people have suggested that she should have simply be fined not jailed, but the judge said he was not convinced that others would not pay the fine for her. The purpose of contempt is coercive and jail for most people is certainly more coercive then paying money. 

I am obviously pleased she is sitting in jail. 

Yeah I was a bit puzzled why someone who is not actually breaking any laws is sitting in jail.

Where did you see that Cletus? They didn't say that in the article did they?

I did not say that, GPnative did.

I simply clarified that her charge is contempt of court.

The contempt charge is what I heard on the radio, along with idiots who keep saying "she has to abide by the law" or she's "not above the law" which rubs me the wrong way because it dumbs down the masses that court decisions are "laws" when they most certainly are not. She has not broken any law.

Congress makes laws, courts rule decisions and opinions

 Whatever? Aren't decisions made by judges based on laws? This seems like a semantics game to me.

The woman is in jail for being in contempt of court.

You call people idiots who keep saying "she has to abide by the law" Well she has to abide by the court orders that say she HAS to issue marriage licenses to gays. She refused so she went to jail.

I guess defying court orders is not breaking a law??? Seems pretty close to me.




http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2015...-jail.html

 

[Valuesize]

What am I missing here. Why is she not simply fired for not doing the job she was hired for? 

She's an elected official. She can only be removed by impeachment, or maybe a recall, but she was just elected last November.

OK, then that complicates things. 

[cletus1]

What am I missing here. Why is she not simply fired for not doing the job she was hired for? 

She's an elected official. She can only be removed by impeachment, or maybe a recall, but she was just elected last November.

OK, then that complicates things. 

She can stay in jail for the life of the Grand Jury which is 18 months. They can call for another Grand Jury when this one expires and do it again. I believe two Grand Juries is the max. 

[GPnative]

Yes, she is refusing to comply with a court order, thus the contempt charge. Some people have suggested that she should have simply be fined not jailed, but the judge said he was not convinced that others would not pay the fine for her. The purpose of contempt is coercive and jail for most people is certainly more coercive then paying money. 

I am obviously pleased she is sitting in jail. 

Yeah I was a bit puzzled why someone who is not actually breaking any laws is sitting in jail.

Where did you see that Cletus? They didn't say that in the article did they?

I did not say that, GPnative did.

I simply clarified that her charge is contempt of court.

The contempt charge is what I heard on the radio, along with idiots who keep saying "she has to abide by the law" or she's "not above the law" which rubs me the wrong way because it dumbs down the masses that court decisions are "laws" when they most certainly are not. She has not broken any law.

Congress makes laws, courts rule decisions and opinions

 Whatever? Aren't decisions made by judges based on laws? This seems like a semantics game to me.



 

No, A judge may give their opinion of what a law says, but that is a big damn difference over actually making laws or making decisions based on laws. Words matter....and people thinking or trying to make the point that court decisions vs. making laws is just semantics shows the effectiveness of how easily people have been dumbed down to this fact.


If their decisions were based on laws, then they would of had to rule that homosexuals could NOT be married, as there is plenty of laws on the books in multiple states saying just that.

[Cuzz]

This is the oath of office taken by the Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis. This is from the Kentucky Constitution.

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God. "

Damn good thing she isn't into dueling in her free time.

[tvguy]

Yeah I was a bit puzzled why someone who is not actually breaking any laws is sitting in jail.

Where did you see that Cletus? They didn't say that in the article did they?

I did not say that, GPnative did.

I simply clarified that her charge is contempt of court.

The contempt charge is what I heard on the radio, along with idiots who keep saying "she has to abide by the law" or she's "not above the law" which rubs me the wrong way because it dumbs down the masses that court decisions are "laws" when they most certainly are not. She has not broken any law.

Congress makes laws, courts rule decisions and opinions

 Whatever? Aren't decisions made by judges based on laws? This seems like a semantics game to me.



 

No, A judge may give their opinion of what a law says, but that is a big damn difference over actually making laws or making decisions based on laws. Words matter....and people thinking or trying to make the point that court decisions vs. making laws is just semantics shows the effectiveness of how easily people have been dumbed down to this fact.


If their decisions were based on laws, then they would of had to rule that homosexuals could NOT be married, as there is plenty of laws on the books in multiple states saying just that.

OK  fine but this dumbed down person still believes judges hand out jail time, probation community service or whatever when they have determined someone broke a law.


Where did I ever state that judges make laws?


I said Aren't decisions made by judges based on laws? and you said "no" 

Really? And then you went on to pass on your wisdom that judges don't make laws. I never said they did.

All I said was that it seemed to me it was semantics meaning it's just the way people use words.I don't believe I've ever heard someone saying any judge just made a law while he was on the bench.

[cletus1]

This woman is not a victim. She is an activist and she just violated a court order. Where are my rule of law friends. Believe what you want, but comply with the law. It's Biblical and stuff. Right?

[chuck white]

This woman is not a victim. She is an activist and she just violated a court order. Where are my rule of law friends. Believe what you want, but comply with the law. It's Biblical and stuff. Right?