Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

By Jon Herskovitz

(Reuters) – The lawyer for a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses said his team filed on Sunday a notice of appeal over a contempt ruling that landed her in jail.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, 49, who refused to issue the licenses due to her Apostolic Christian belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, said she was prepared to remain in jail where she has been reading a Bible since her incarceration for contempt on Thursday, her lawyers said.

Davis was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to follow the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning.

Davis’ stance has come to symbolize the cultural gap over gay marriage in the United States. Some social conservatives say she is being denied religious freedom. Others say that with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June making same-sex marriage legal nationwide, Davis is defying her duty as a public servant by refusing to implement the law of the land.

“The contempt order itself was unlawful,” Roger Gannam, a lawyer for Davis, told Reuters. Gannam is an attorney with Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian religious advocacy organization that said it would back her legal fight.

The notice of appeal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and officially starts the appeals process.

In Davis’ absence on Friday, deputy clerks issued marriage licenses to at least four same-sex couples at the offices in Morehead, Kentucky, where rival groups of demonstrators supporting Davis and the applicants protested outside.

Bunning had ordered Davis in August to issue the licenses. Her request for a stay of his order was denied by a U.S. appeals court and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, she is waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio, to rule on her request to set aside Bunning’s ruling. In denying the request for a stay on the order, the appeals court said there was little chance she would prevail.

On Saturday up to 500 supporters gathered outside the Kentucky jail where Davis is being held to offer their support.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas; Editing by Phil Berlowitz and Cynthia Osterman)

Photo: David Jordan, a member of Chirst Fellowship in North Carolina, preaches in support of the prayer rally at the Carter County Detention Center for Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, who remains in contempt of court for her refusal to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, in Grayson, Kentucky September 5, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Tilley

  • Paragryne

    Any presidential candidate who supports this woman must step down.

    • TZToronto

      Supporting her position is tantamount to denying the authority of the Constitution. If that’s the case, then any candidate supporting her is saying that the Constitution has only limited authority. Any oath of office claiming to protect and defend the Constitution would be a lie. You’re right.

  • Grannysmovin

    God’s Law is the 10 Commandments, and not one of the ten references homosexuality or same sex marriage.

    • David

      Sorry Granny…she didn’t break a “law”. She refused to obey a Federal Judge. There is a far greater Judge than the one in Kentucky.

      • Grannysmovin

        When she faces Judgement day she will face her maker and answer for her choices as will we all. However, here on earth she is in contempt and that is breaking the law of our land.

        “Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” – Mark 12:17

        • David

          The so called “law of the land” changes with the wind. God’s law doesn’t.

          • Grannysmovin

            God’s Law is the 10 Commandments and not one of them references same sex marriage, homosexuality or ignoring the law of the land.

          • I doubt that Buddhists in this country have a set of 10 commandments. They have many more opinions on the proper way of living.

          • jmprint

            Yeah like covering the women from head to toe, because men, will sin if she is not covered.

          • johninPCFL

            So any Amish clerk would then be free to deny gun licenses? PETA members free to deny hunting licenses? Jehovah’s Wtinesses free to deny business licenses to hospitals, blood banks, and trauma centers?

            No. If you can’t do your job, quit.

          • Of which God are you speaking? We are a nation of many religions. We are not a Christian nation.

          • jmprint

            Then why was she an adulterer? it only changes when there is convenience.

          • guestieguest

            Which God? Kali doesn’t seem to have issues with homosexuality. Zeus doesn’t seem to care.If we’re going to base our laws on the laws of “God,” then which one? If you want to live in a theocracy, you have a few options across the sea you could try ?

          • David

            Try the one true God. His Son was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

          • guestieguest

            What makes your God so legitimate? Some men wrote a book about him? And you “devote” your lives to a doctrine that you only cling to when you’re sad or wanting to deny rights from other people? Please, don’t use God as an excuse for your personal bigotry. She’s embarrassed for you when you do that. I pray that you learn what true love and understanding is. Blessings and I will remember you during my meditiation and ritual work. May the Gods smile on you ??

          • David

            My God is legitimate because He created EVERYTHING. Some men did write a book (actually a collection of 66 books) about Him and his Son. My God is my 365-24/7 God. He is not my 911 God. I don’t want anybody’s “rights” denied. I want God’s law followed. I don’t dislike homosexuals because they sin differently than I do. True love is doing what our God commands, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Have a blessed day.

          • guestieguest

            Funny, because I believe the same about my Goddess. I’m sure many others can too. The issue is that your Gods laws do not trump mine. I wish nothing, but hope and light for you.

      • She broke the law of the land. We are a country of laws. The Supreme Court settled this. She must obey the law when carrying out her duties. She swore to uphold the law when she was sworn in.

        • David

          “She broke the law of the land.” Please be so kind as to provide the chapter and section of the U.S. Code that she violated. You can’t. She violated a Federal Judge’s order.

          • The Supreme Court ruled that gays have the same legal rights as non-gays. This makes her kind of bigotry a hate crime. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution which is the very basis for law in this country.

          • DEFENDER88

            Glad you said that.


            Hope everyone remembers that when the right for individuals to bear arms comes up again.

          • David

            Paul– She defied a Judge’s order. She didn’t break a law. A “law” is a piece of legislation adopted by a State’s or the Federal Govt’s Senate and House and signed by the Governor or President. She was found in contempt. To be in contempt, there has to be a Court order. She defied a Judge’s order.

          • The Supreme Court was presented with a law and had to rule whether it was constitutional. They ruled that all laws restricting the rights of gays and lesbians are NOT constitutional because they limit the rights of some Americans. While the Supreme Court cannot make law, it is bound to determine the constitutionality of laws that were made in violation of the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Since all of the bigoted laws concerning gays and lesbians violated the most basic law of the land (the Constitution), they were nullified. In other words, they protected the rights of a discriminated class by clarifying the Constitution. When publicly elected officials are sworn in, they take an oath to abide by the Constitution. She broke the most basic part of that oath. The woman in question is a scofflaw because she is a public official who violated her oath of office. It’s actually very simple. She can get herself out of jail by doing her job or she can quit on principal. Personally, I think she should be impeached.

          • David

            So, she didn’t break a “law”, she defied a Judge’s order.

          • She broke the law of the land (the Constitution). Seems to me that the Constitution is a body of laws. She also broke the oath of office which would also seem to be a law. She would not be in office in the first place if she refused to take the oath of office (also a law). There is no “God’s law” referenced in the Constitution. That would be would be impossible since the USA was not founded as a Christian nation. The Constitution protects the rights of worshipers and non-worshipers equally. It also forbids the establishment of any national religion. The founders were well aware of the dangers of state religions. They knew that a state religion would only lead to strife. Just look at what is happening in the middle east. The founders were well aware of the dangers given the evil carried out in the name of religion by the British government of the time. They could also look back to the crusades, the 100 Years War, etc.

          • David

            Of course there is no specific “law” that she broke. She defied a judge’s order. If she broke a “law” there would be a punishment provided. There isn’t involved with contempt. How long is she sentenced for? Only so long as she defies the judge!

          • Robert Eckert

            There is actually a class A misdemeanor in Kentucky for an official refusing to perform her duties, carrying up to twelve months in prison if I recall correctly. Contempt, however, lasts as long as the person refuses to comply.

          • Robert Eckert

            The law in Kentucky is that the clerk of the county where the couple resides “shall” issue a marriage license (this is mandatory language) if they meet the requirements. There is no question that the two were of age and not closely related, which are the only remaining requirements. There is no requirement that the two be of opposite genders, because that has been stricken from the law as unconstitutional. It is not up to her to decide that that requirement should still be there, anymore than it is up to her to refuse a license to a couple because she thinks they are too ugly to be married.

          • David

            She is jailed for CONTEMPT not for breaking a law.

          • Robert Eckert

            Yes, and will remain jailed for as long as she will not comply; that is how contempt works. But you were asserting that she is not in violation of a statutory law, and that is false: she could also do a year in prison AFTER however long she chooses to spend in jail for contempt.

          • David

            She is not in violation of a statutory law. Where and when was her trial? When you break the law you still are entitled to a trial by jury aren’t you?
            What law school did you graduate from?

          • Robert Eckert

            SHE IS, TOO, IN VIOLATION OF STATUTORY LAW, as I showed you. There is the “shall issue” language in the statute defining her office, as well as a criminal statute for nonperformance of duties.

            “Where and when was her trial?” August 12 before Judge Dunning. He found that there was no excuse for her violation of the law and ordered her to comply. She sought a stay of his order pending appeal. She defied the order even when no stay was in place, and continued to defy when all stays had been exhausted and the Supreme Court unanimously decided not to stay anything further.

            ” When you break the law you still are entitled to a trial by jury aren’t you?” Not in a case seeking injunctive relief. If she were prosecuted for the class A misdemeanor of nonperformance of duties (which carries prison time in far less pleasant circumstances than the lockup where she now is), then she would be entitled to a jury.

            “What law school did you graduate from?” University of Pittsburgh.

          • David

            Robert —
            Her hearing before Judge Dunning was not a “trial” and you know it. You may believe that she “allegedly” broke the law. Where was the trial held on that issue? With regard to “injunctive relief”, maybe you should go back and retake your Remedies class. This was not a case seeking injunctive relief. Moreover, injunctions are used to command a person “NOT” to do something. They don’t command people to “DO” something.
            What he found was that she defied his previous order and was in contempt.
            J.D. Univ of Okla ’82

          • Robert Eckert

            “Her hearing before Judge Dunning was not a “trial” and you know it” It is called a “bench trial”; that’s the name for it when there is not a jury.

            “You may believe that she “allegedly” broke the law” She blatantly broke the law, as every judge from Dunning up to a unanimous Supreme Court agrees.

            “This was not a case seeking injunctive relief.” She refused to grant the license, so the plaintiffs sought an injunction ordering her to do so, which was granted.

            “Moreover, injunctions are used to command a person “NOT” to do something. They don’t command people to “DO” something. ” They can go in either direction. An injunction saying NOT to do something is also called a “prohibition” while an injunction saying to DO something is also called a “mandamus” but the term “injunction” covers both.

            “What he found was that she defied his previous order” The order was to comply with the law, after he found that her previous conduct was in violation of the law.

            “J.D. Univ of Okla ’82” You should ask them for a refund.

          • David

            Maybe you can pass your state’s bar exam with some extra help. Bench trial? That would mean that she would have had the option for a jury trial, but elected to go in front of the judge. NOPE!!!! This wasn’t a ‘bench trial’. We both know that it was a show cause hearing, not a trial, and she was found in contempt.
            Broke the law? What court has found that she broke a law? There is no court that has made such a finding. What the judge found was that she didn’t obey his order.
            Mandamus is an order from a superior court to an inferior court, government official, etc. to perform a ministerial act. There was no Writ of Mandamus filed in this matter.
            We don’t have ‘Prohibitions’ in Texas and Oklahoma.
            I got my money’s worth. Did you?

          • Robert Eckert

            “Maybe you can pass your state’s bar exam with some extra help” Passed it on my first try decades ago.

            “Bench trial? That would mean that she would have had the option for a jury trial” No. Not when the case is in equity.

            “This wasn’t a ‘bench trial’. We both know that it was a show cause hearing” The bench trial was August 12. Her conduct was found to be unlawful and an injunction issued. You asked me when the case was tried, and I told you, but you did not bother to read. The show-cause hearing came after she repeatedly defied the injunction, in the absence of any stay.

            “What court has found that she broke a law?” The Eastern District of Kentucky.

            “What the judge found was that she didn’t obey his order.” The order was issued after the bench trial on August 12 pursuant to the finding that her conduct was unlawful.

            “Mandamus is an order from a superior court to an inferior court” It was in older usage the name for any injunction commanding any official to perform a legal duty. Nowadays the term “injunction” is used whether the command is positive (do this) or negative (don’t do this) and the archaic word “mandamus” is only used in a few states for court-to-court commands. Your claim was that “injunction” is never used in the positive sense: that is simply false.

            “We don’t have ‘Prohibitions’ in Texas and Oklahoma” The archaic term “writ of prohibition” is still used in a handful of places for negative injunctions, but the general term “injunction” is understood everywhere, and does not distinguish positive from negative.

            “I got my money’s worth” It does not appear so.

          • David

            Passed two bar exams on my first try 30+ years ago. Texas and Oklahoma
            Apparently you now understand that she wasn’t found “Guilty” of breaking a law, she was found in contempt for failing to follow the judges’ order.
            Eastern District of Kentucky did NOT find that she broke a law. It found that she was in contempt of the court’s order.
            In Texas and Oklahoma it is a mandamus for court to order something done — not an injunction. “General term”? You might want to ask for a refund. Here we don’t rely on “general terms” that is “understood everywhere”. We use the specific terms.

          • Robert Eckert

            “Apparently you now understand that she wasn’t found “Guilty” of breaking a law” I did not say it was a criminal verdict. I told you it was a finding of the court that her behavior violated the law (she does not have discretion over whether to issue the licenses, the language is “shall” issue) and was therefore enjoined to obey the law.

            “she was found in contempt for failing to follow the judges’ order” The order issued because she was found to be violating the law.

            “Eastern District of Kentucky did NOT find that she broke a law.” Incorrect.

            “It found that she was in contempt of the court’s order.” Yes. She was found to be in violation of the law, was ordered to obey the law, and was then found to be in contempt of the order that she obey the law.

            “In Texas and Oklahoma it is a mandamus for court to order something done — not an injunction.” I was informing you that centuries ago there were separate words for positive and negative injunctions. Both of the old words now have only restricted applications in few jurisdictions. The general term “injunction” is used for both positive and negative commands. You asserted that an injunction never is a positive command to do a certain thing. That was erroneous.

          • David

            Robert —
            I have enjoyed our conversation. But, you are wrong. She was not jailed for “violating the law”. She was jailed for ignoring the judge’s order.
            The order may have been issued for her being in violation of the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law, but she wasn’t found in contempt for that. She was found in contempt of not following his order. I would assume that, even in Pennsylvania, one cannot be found in contempt for violation of a law. Contempt is reserved for violation of a court’s order. Well, at least here in Texas and Oklahoma it is…Have a blessed day.

          • Robert Eckert

            “She was not jailed for “violating the law”. She was jailed for ignoring the judge’s order. ” That’s correct. But you kept insisting that the court did not find she violated the law. OF COURSE the court found that she violated the law. That is why there was an order in the first place.

            “The order may have been issued for her being in violation of <s?the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law” FIFY

          • David

            Robert —
            Sorry, I am too stupid to understand the last half of the last sentence. Probably because I graduated from OU.
            Have a blessed day.

          • Robert Eckert

            Then I should explain it to you, because it is actually a very vital point for a lawyer to understand. In your sentence, all those words “the current SCOTUS interpretation of” need to be scratched out. What a court says the law is, that IS the law, until it is overruled. No court in the US can overrule the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court says the law is, IS the law.

          • David

            Robert —
            The email you sent has the last part of that sentence garbled. What the Supreme Court says the law is, IS the law — for now, at least. E.g. “Separate but equal.”
            We both are aware that our law is a little ‘schizophrenic’. On one hand we follow precedent set by courts many years ago (stare decisis). On the other, our law is growing, changing and accommodating the society we live in (e.g., current SCOTUS ruling on “gay” rights).
            I am now told that the Clerk has been released by the Judge! She is not to interfere with other people in her office issuing marriage licenses. Ah well!

          • Robert Eckert

            “The email you sent has the last part of that sentence garbled” I was trying to do strikethrough but Disqus grabbed the html and made a hash of it. It did render unreadable the words in your sentence that did not belong there.

            “On one hand we follow precedent set by courts many years ago (stare decisis). On the other, our law is growing, changing and accommodating the society we live in (e.g., current SCOTUS ruling on “gay” rights).” Yep. You claim to be a lawyer and yet you act surprised to hear about how our system functions.

            She will do something stupid and go back to jail, this time for criminal contempt, probable sentence 30 days and served in a federal pen rather than the local lockup. She has pretty much promised to do this.

          • David

            Robert —
            Not only do I “claim” to be a lawyer, the State Bar of Texas and Oklahoma Bar Association “claim” that I am also. Maybe because they want those annual membership fees?

          • Robert Eckert

            Then nothing that I have told you on this thread should be news to you. And you should not be surprised that court rulings are good law until and unless the issue is reconsidered, in which case the new ruling is law, which you openly defy at your peril.

          • Thanks Robert. I really don’t understand David’s reasoning.

          • jmprint

            She has a get out of jail card, it’s called resignation.

          • The judge ruled that the Supreme Court’s ruling stands. That’s how it works in this country. Maybe she should move to the Vatican.

          • Being in contempt of court has the same penalties as law as you define it. Anyway, this does not let the bigot off the hook. You can’t just tell a judge that you refuse to carry out a law. The validity of bigoted laws concerning gay marriage was decided by the highest court in the land. No matter how you try to twist this, she was in violation of her oath of office which is codified into law. The Supreme Court is there to hold up or strike down laws. In this case, the Supreme Court corrected laws that denied equal protection under the law. I may not like the outcome Bush v. Gore, but it is the law of the land because the Supreme court ruled against my interpretation of the voting laws. Get over it. The woman believes that the ruling of the Supreme Court went against her beliefs. You can’t just pick and choose what laws you believe to be fair or unfair.

          • A judge’s order has the force of law and must be obeyed. The law states that the judge may do this when the person in=s in contempt of court. Therefore she violated a law. Many of our laws are British Common Law.

          • David

            Not true. What law school did you graduate from?

          • I have spoken with my lawyer about this and he agrees. My lawyer is no slouch and works for a large firm in Boston.

          • David

            Really? Well I have been practicing law for 33 years. The judge’s ruling is not “law”. She violated his order and was found in contempt.

          • Please explain to me then the powers of the judiciary and what an elected official must do when they are in contempt of court(s) – federal lower, upper, and Supreme.

          • David

            Generally the judiciary has the power to decide issues based upon the existing law and some courts have the power to determine if a law is “constitutional”. If an official is in violation of a court order, they can end up in jail. To avoid jail, they have to obey the judge’s order or get a stay of that order from a higher court.

          • Well, by that reasoning, I can deduce that the judge determined that she had both broken a law and disregarded the Constitution. Was she not legally bound to uphold both her oath of office and the Constitution? What is the legal status of breaking an oath of office? Is the Constitution a legal document?

          • tomtype

            So it has the force of law. The Judge in his ruling is enforcing the law. She was breaking the law concerning the duties and responsibilities of her office and what they shall do.

          • ayungclas

            Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:
            Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

            “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.”

          • David

            What is your point?

          • jmprint

            She was ordered by a judge to obey the law of the land, and didn’t. Contempt of order, gets time in jail.

      • jmprint

        And that greater Judge tells us to not condemn and you shall not be condemned. She is condemned.

        • David

          She was not condemning. She chose not to enable.

          • tomtype

            She chose not to enable anyone to get married. Sounds like she favors that very Christian approved process called “shackin’ up.” What else am I to conclude?
            And is she now saying that even those different sex marriages her clerks approved are not legal? Hey, in three years when they want to break up, can they call her as a witness in the divorce trial to testify that they don’t need a divorce because they were not married? And the kids are illigitimate?
            What a can of worms!

  • FT66

    Where is she appealing to? To god!!! The Supreme Court is not going to waste their time even reading it.

  • kimbanyc

    These FauXXtians are bigots….Plain and simple

  • jiro tanaka

    She is not a hero, just a plain arrogant individual who hides on her fake Christian faith. A four time wed woman and three time divorcee and bore a child from a man who she was not married at the time, please, is it worth defending that bigotry. Give me a break.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Wow…Do I EVER think this KY Dixie Belle is amusing. “She sho nuf does know how to milk y’all all…don’t she?”

    Let’s pretend she isn’t the Right Wing Poster Girl for “My way or the Highway.”

    For a Dixie Belle married four times and having kids she can’t even be sure belong to one of the 4 husbands, she sho ‘nuf has lot o’ guilt to repent for.

    All that remains for the right wing who know they are losing ground under their feet is to convert all of us whether we want to be converted or not.

    The man and woman whose owes no guilt has no reason for conversion. Those who own massive guilt don’t want to repent alone. Little Kimmie hates. Not just gays. But herself mostly. Like all wingers. What else is new?

    • anothertoothpick

      She chose this punishment. The judge gave her a choice and she chose punishment.

      Should we not defend the rights of religious people to punish themselves?

  • elw

    She will never prevail, no one took her religious freedom away. She could have quit any time she wanted to. Instead she choose to take away the rights of others to get married in her County. She can get out of jail anytime she is willing to resign her position or agrees to start issuing marriage licenses to all couple applying or them.

  • Patricia McCullough

    I am amazed that her “lawyers” are still allowed to practice. They are NEVER allowed to tell their client to break the law, and no matter what their religious beliefs, they know this has NO chance. None, zip, zero, nada.

    • Can’t she be impeached or can’t there be a recall election? She is completely disobeying her oath of office.

      • silas1898

        She can’t be impeached until the Legislature is in session – in January. But being KY, it’s not likely they would.


    Guns are my issue(I have them)(and take heat in here for it) and I am not Gay so I should just keep quiet here, But DAMN.
    Religious intolerance just pis*s me off.

    For those who don’t know. (ie Did not have to grow up in it.)
    She appeals to the Fundamental Evangelicals.
    As they used to say where I grew up – “your gonna burn in Hail”.:)
    To them being “Gay” is the work of the “Devil” and is all mental and can be fixed with prayer and counsel 🙂
    However, otherwise, they are usually sane, thoughtful and very good people.

    Fundamental Religious intolerance/dogma, for “every/anyone” who does not believe the exact same as you.
    Isn’t that what ISIS is doing?

    Now – Try to take my guns away, and I may get religious on you 🙂

    We all have our issues I guess.

    • Kurt CPI

      Ha ha, LOL! In defense of your self-cited “issue”, owning a gun is legal. Discrimination, at least on the part of a public employee, is not.

      • DEFENDER88

        Guns legal? Except where it is not legal like NJ, Detroit, NY, DC.

        And many in here would make them illegal everywhere and dis-arm me.

        A lot like what she was doing – imposing her belief system on others.

        So I avoid those places – but have to drive thru Detroit next week.

        A traffic stop would likely put my wife and I in jail.
        And me a retired firearms instructor and her a nurse.

        The same type insanity as what she was doing.

    • Robert Eckert

      I am rather anti-gun, but if you apply for something like a concealed-carry permit, whatever, and meet all the legal qualifications according to the latest court interpretations, and the clerk refuses out of some pacifistic belief, that would be very wrong, and if the clerk was specifically ordered to obey the law and refused, that calls for time in jail to think about it.

      • DEFENDER88


        Obey the law.
        We are about to head north on a trip.
        My wife and I both have permits, in fact I am a State and DHS certified Instructor(Im retired but teach police as a volunteer) .

        We have to plan our trip around states and cities that do not recognize our permits(ie reciprocity). Its a patchwork city/state system.

        We need a National Permitting system that includes mental health checks, testing in handling, safety and Defensive Shooting(I teach that also). Most permit systems now use NICS(FBI) criminal background checks. I would like to see mental health checks included. As it is now we instructors have to catch/question/flag mental cases – not the best way.

        She(the clerk) had the option to just quit, but NO she “MUST” impose her religion on every one else.

        Sounds a lot like what ISIS is doing.

        I feel the same way about states that don’t allow/issue permits. NJ for one.

        Chicago, Detroit, NYC, NJ – I am not allowed to carry my gun thru these places! Where I need it most!

        About as insane/ignorant as what she is doing.

        • jmprint

          I agree with you on gun control, what you are speaking of is the control I would like to see. I don’t want to take anybody’s guns, but I don’t want to make it easy for guns to be sold at trade shows.

          • DEFENDER88

            The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done by “dealers” and they have to do a NICS(ie FBI Criminal Background check). I once tried to buy a gun from a dealer at a show 2mi from my house but they would not sell to me because it was across the state line.

            Only private sales avoid this(NICS) but those are typically very few at gun shows.

            Most gang bangers and other thugs get most of their guns by stealing them. Sometimes a “straw buyer”.

            The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done by “dealers” and they have to do a NICS(ie FBI Criminal Background check).

            Only private sales avoid this but those are typically very few at gun shows.

            The biggest “payoff” in reducing gun violence is dealing with the current Black on Black drug gang crime problem, it is nation wide.

  • Wayne Thorson

    I would guess she is trying to bring up the famous monkey trial of 1925. I hope she doesn’t get all the publicity that did.

  • Concerned

    She, like all of her ilk is a phony. She has clearly been told that she can dupe her fellow travelers and make a lot of money. Anyone who contributes to her is nothing but a dupe or a sucker and there are plenty of them out there.

  • Kurt CPI

    There is no basis for appeal. Her job description includes processing marriage licenses. If she refuses to do her job, she should be fired like any other employee of of any other company or institution. She should never have been thrown in jail any more than a plumber should be thrown in jail for refusing to clean drains. The judicial system should not find any cause to spend taxpayer money. It’s a simple case of openly refusing to do the job the people are paying for.

  • LawBear

    Assuming Roger Gannam attended and graduated from an accredited law school (a rather large assumption) he must have slept through constitutional law class. My puppy knows there is nothing to appeal.

  • Phil Temmer

    Dumb move, throwing this nitwit in jail. Makes her a martyr and stirs up the Bible thumpers.

    Better move – withhold her salary if she refuses to do her job, have other employees handle the processing of marriage certs.

    If she doesn’t want to work for free, then she can find employment elsewhere.

    • Robert Eckert

      “have other employees handle the processing ” That’s what she refused to allow while she was on the outside.

  • Böcker

    Keep Kim Davis in jail until she acknowledges that one this is the law of the land and she will do her job or two she resigns. BTW there is no such thing as religious liberty.

    • Thanks to all of the above for setting our pet Christian attorney right. The Constitution is a religion neutral document. Christians have no more or less rights than the rest of us.

  • John Murchison

    Im thinking it extremely rare that a judge would over rule anothers contempt ruling. It would undermine judges across the country to limit a contempt of court especially when the judge is being willfully disobeyed.

  • jmprint

    Insubordination is cause for firing, she is refusing to do her job, she should resign. Nobody is asking her to participate in the marriage. She has issues with her signature being on the marriage license, then allow others to sign and move on.

  • tomtype

    It seems Kim learned something in the slammer. That all the residents were innocent, even when they plainly did it. So, now Kim joins the rest of the innocents in our containment system. I hope, at least, they are not paying her for the time spent at the Graybar Hotel. She gets three squares and a bed at county expense.