• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Remember Kim Davis

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Of course you would defend the outrageous government overreach and redefinition of marriage.
Calm down and reread everything I have written. I am coming at this from the historic BAPTIST position on religious liberty.

Moreover, we are a nation that believes in the rule of law. As a literal agent of the government, she has no right add or subtract qualifications for issuing marriage licenses. Her role is to determine whether applicants meet the correct standards of law and issue or deny licenses based on the legal criteria. If someone cannot do that in good conscience, they need to resign.

‘it is nonsensical to claim that following the law is government overreach.

She did NOT impose her opinion on others. She simply said she would not sign it but one of her clerks would. Why was that an issue? It should not have been an issue.
You’re engaging in revisionist history. The actual facts of the case are quite different than you have claimed here. You have likely been misled.

There are a number of different legal filings for every stage of the case, but the summation of the facts found at the beginning of this filing should be helpful to you so you don’t perpetuate falsehoods.

It is people like you who LET [LGBT people] DO THIS that keep our country going down down DOWN the toilet.
It may surprise you to know that almost no one asks me for permission to do much of anything, save for two persons under my authority at work. It’s weird that you would blame me for the actions of private citizens.
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Calm down and reread everything I have written. I am coming at this from the historic BAPTIST position on religious liberty.

Moreover, we are a nation that believes in the rule of law. As a literal agent of the government, she has no right add or subtract qualifications for issuing marriage licenses. Her role is to determine whether applicants meet the correct standards of law and issue or deny licenses based on the legal criteria. If someone cannot do that in good conscience, they need to resign.

‘it is nonsensical to claim that following the law is government overreach.


You’re engaging in revisionist history. The actual facts of the case are quite different than you have claimed here. You have likely been misled.

There are a number of different legal filings for every stage of the case, but the summation of the facts found at the beginning of this filing should be helpful to you so you don’t perpetuate falsehoods.


It may surprise you to know that almost no one asks me for permission to do much of anything, save for two persons under my authority at work. It’s weird that you would blame me for the actions of private citizens.
You are a liberal. We get it. You are ok with letting our country go to trash, and you are ok with religious freedom being trampled upon.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are a liberal.
No, I am a Christian coming from the historic Baptist perspective in faith and practice. I realize that many do not know what that means or want to understand it. It’s easier to slap a false label on someone one disagrees with than to engage with them using scripture and facts.

We get it. You are ok with letting our country go to trash
No, not at all. I’ve been working quite hard over the last five years to call people back from fascism to democracy.

…and you are ok with religious freedom being trampled upon.
Nope. I am a passionate defender of religious liberty for everyone, including Kim Davis. You just had the facts of the case fouled up but won’t admit it for some reason. Instead, you attack me for the shortcomings of your argument.

You can do much better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsr

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
No, I am a Christian coming from the historic Baptist perspective in faith and practice. I realize that many do not know what that means or want to understand it. It’s easier to slap a false label on someone one disagrees with than to engage with them using scripture and facts.


No, not at all. I’ve been working quite hard over the last five years to call people back from fascism to democracy.


Nope. I am a passionate defender of religious liberty for everyone, including Kim Davis. You just had the facts of the case fouled up but won’t admit it for some reason. Instead, you attack me for the shortcomings of your argument.

You can do much better.
This country is closer to fascism today than it was under Trump if that is what you are insinuating....

And no, I do not have the facts fouled up. I live in KY.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And no, I do not have the facts fouled up. I live in KY.
Living in Kentucky does not make one infallible.

Is there as issue or inaccuracy with the court summary of the facts in evidence (as linked earlier)? If so, why didn’t Ms. Davis’ attorneys not dispute the background facts of the case?
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Living in Kentucky does not make one infallible.

Is there as issue or inaccuracy with the court summary of the facts in evidence (as linked earlier)? If so, why didn’t Ms. Davis’ attorneys not dispute the background facts of the case?
The facts are she gave an option for it to continue. The real story is her religious beliefs being trampled upon. That's the story, nothing else. The fact that you ignore that is astounding Mr. "I champion the baptist faith."
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Living in Kentucky does not make one infallible.

Is there as issue or inaccuracy with the court summary of the facts in evidence (as linked earlier)? If so, why didn’t Ms. Davis’ attorneys not dispute the background facts of the case?
And coming from someone who says we need to go back to democracy from facism for the last five years?
 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
IMO the idea of secularism has proven false over the past 120 years. The government cannot be a neutral arbiter between religions. When the Government has no religion, government becomes religion. A question like this assumes that we should treat all religions equal. We shouldn't. Christ is King of all.

Kim should be lauded for standing for what's RIGHT while the Muslim should be fired for standing for what's WRONG.

God is correct in all things and allah, and his child-marrying "prophet" are wrong in all things.

I am totally unashamed to ditch secularism and create a judicial system based off God's law and Word. We already use Common Law, based on the Bible, so we're already halfway there.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The facts are she gave an option for it to continue. The real story is her religious beliefs being trampled upon. That's the story, nothing else.
So you are claiming that the facts below, determined by the courts and Ms. Davis’ legal representation, are largely false?


II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Obergefell , reaffirming that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and holding that same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right. Obergefell , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609. Accordingly, Kentucky's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the Constitution, and Kentucky could no longer "exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples." Id. at 2605.

Just hours after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell, Defendant Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, unilaterally decided that her office would no longer issue marriage licenses to any couples, same-sex or otherwise. (Doc. # 43 at 1). That same day, Plaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts, who had been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years, decided to get married. (Doc. # 21 at 25). Four days later, Ms. Miller and Ms. Roberts went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license. Id. at 26. The couple's request was denied and they were informed of the Rowan County Clerk's "no marriage license" policy. Id. Two opposite-sex couples—Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez and Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier—as well as another same-sex couple—Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs—claimed to have suffered a similar fate when they requested marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. Id. at 36, 42–44.

On July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Aaron Skaggs, and Barry Spartman (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a civil-rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Rowan County, Kentucky and Kim Davis, individually and in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. # 1). Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. # 2). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claimed their constitutional rights were violated by the Rowan County Clerk's "no marriage license" policy, which refused marriage licenses to couples who were otherwise legally entitled to marry. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and requested seven specific types of relief: (1) class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, (2) a preliminary injunction, (3) a permanent injunction, (4) a declaratory judgment, (5) damages, (6) attorneys' fees and costs, and (7) a trial by jury. (Doc. # 1 at pp. 10–14).

In response, Davis filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. # 32), opposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 29), and filed a Third–Party Complaint (Doc. # 34) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against then–Governor of Kentucky, Steven Beshear, and the Commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, Wayne Onkst (collectively "the State Defendants"). In her Third–Party Complaint, Davis claimed that the "Commonwealth of Kentucky, acting through Governor Beshear, deprived [her] of her religious conscience rights guaranteed by the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and laws, by insisting that [she] issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples contrary to her ... sincerely held religious beliefs." (Doc. # 34 at ¶ 1). Davis further claimed that Governor Beshear was "not only liable to Davis for Plaintiffs' claims," but "also obligated to effect Kentucky marriage licensing policies that uphold Davis's rights of religious conscience." Id.

The State Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss Davis's Third–Party Complaint. (Docs. # 92 and 157). Those motions were denied as moot, in accordance with the Sixth Circuit's Remand Order. (Doc. # 182).

After the 2015 Kentucky gubernatorial election, newly elected Governor Matthew Bevin, in his official capacity as Governor of Kentucky, was substituted as Third–Party Defendant in place of former Governor Steven Beshear. (Doc. # 155). Similarly, Terry Manuel, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives, was substituted as Third–Party Defendant in place of Wayne Onkst. (Doc. # 170).

On August 12, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2), and preliminarily enjoined Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. (Doc. # 43). Davis appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Docs. # 66, 82, and 83). The Sixth Circuit denied Davis's request to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal and held that "n light of the binding holding of Obergefell , it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk's Office ... may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court." Miller v. Davis , No. 15-5880, 2015 WL 10692640, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 26, 2015) (Doc. # 28–1 therein). Davis further appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which also denied her application for stay. Davis v. Miller , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 23, 192 L.Ed.2d 994 (2015).

Despite this Court's directive and her failed appeals, Davis refused to comply with the Court's Order. (Doc. # 67). Therefore, the Court ordered Davis, as well as her deputy clerks, to appear for a contempt hearing. (Doc. # 69). On September 3, 2015, the Court found Davis to be in contempt of the Court's Order and remanded her to the custody of the United States Marshal pending compliance. (Doc. # 75). That same day, the Court modified the preliminary injunction and clarified that Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, was "preliminarily enjoined from applying her 'no marriage licenses' policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs or by other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky. " (Doc. # 74) (emphasis added).

The Court appointed CJA Attorneys to represent the deputy clerks. (Doc. # 75).

Davis also attempted to appeal those Orders, but to no avail. (Doc. # 112) (Sixth Circuit Order denying Davis's motion to stay the September 3, 2015 Modified Preliminary Injunction Order for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure); (Doc. # 140) (Sixth Circuit Order denying Davis's appeal of the September 3, 2015 Contempt Order as moot); (Doc. # 147) (Sixth Circuit Order denying Davis's renewed motion for a stay of the September 3, 2015 Preliminary Injunction Order).

Five days later, on September 8, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Status Report indicating that they had obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk's Office without incident. (Doc. # 84). Accordingly, the Court lifted the contempt sanction, released Davis from custody, and ordered her not to interfere with her deputy clerks' efforts to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. (Doc. # 89). On September 14, 2015, Davis returned to work at the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Doc. # 120). However, the Court continued to monitor compliance with its Orders and required the deputy clerks to file Status Reports regarding their compliance and the issuance of marriage licenses. (Doc. # 89) (requiring Status Reports every fourteen days); (Doc. # 130) (limiting required Status Reports to every thirty days); (Doc. # 163) (requiring Status Reports every ninety days).

While multiple appeals were pending before the Sixth Circuit, the Kentucky General Assembly passed Senate Bill 216, which removed county clerks' names from the prescribed marriage license forms. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. Because the parties agreed that the change in the law rendered the consolidated appeals moot, the Sixth Circuit granted Davis's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals. (Doc. # 179). In its July 13, 2016 Order, the Sixth Circuit remanded the matter to this Court, "with instructions to vacate" the August 12, 2015 and September 3, 2015 Preliminary Injunction Orders. Id. After the mandate issued (Doc. # 180), this Court complied with the Sixth Circuit's instructions and vacated the Preliminary Injunction Orders (Doc. # 181), denied all pending motions as moot, and dismissed and struck this matter from the Court's active docket.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Obergefell , reaffirming that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and holding that same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right. on Orders (Doc. # 181), denied all pending motions as moot, and dismissed and struck this matter from the Court's active docket.

So does this mean that States/Commonwealths will be required to allow to Cousins, Siblings, parents/children -- ect to be married - regardless of relationship.

Could this also be the begging of allowing polygyny.?
Or how about this - three people all married to each other?
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Calm down and reread everything I have written. I am coming at this from the historic BAPTIST position on religious liberty.

Moreover, we are a nation that believes in the rule of law. As a literal agent of the government, she has no right add or subtract qualifications for issuing marriage licenses. Her role is to determine whether applicants meet the correct standards of law and issue or deny licenses based on the legal criteria. If someone cannot do that in good conscience, they need to resign.

‘it is nonsensical to claim that following the law is government overreach.


You’re engaging in revisionist history. The actual facts of the case are quite different than you have claimed here. You have likely been misled.

There are a number of different legal filings for every stage of the case, but the summation of the facts found at the beginning of this filing should be helpful to you so you don’t perpetuate falsehoods.


It may surprise you to know that almost no one asks me for permission to do much of anything, save for two persons under my authority at work. It’s weird that you would blame me for the actions of private citizens.
Just to be clear, if memory serves and I have slept a couple times since this story came out, at the time she refused I don’t believe the state had passed legislation to allow same sex marriage, although the SCOTUS had ruled.

So, the legislature had the responsibility to correct the laws, which they hadn’t.

peace to you
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So does this mean that States/Commonwealths will be required to allow to Cousins, Siblings, parents/children -- ect to be married - regardless of relationship.

Could this also be the begging of allowing polygyny.?
Or how about this - three people all married to each other?
No.

If you want to know what Supreme Court decisions mean, the first and best place to find out is to actually read the decision for yourself.

Here’s a link to the decision in question.
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
No.

If you want to know what Supreme Court decisions mean, the first and best place to find out is to actually read the decision for yourself.

Here’s a link to the decision in question.
It’s 103 pages long.

Historically, if I remember correctly, the state of California had voted by 2/3 majority to change its constitution to prohibit same sex unions. A single state judge, who is gay, ruled the constitution of California unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS refused to hear that case on appeal, (thank you justice Roberts) so the ruling stands.

In essence, a single gay judge in California has forced same sexual marriage on the entire country.

peace to you
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just to be clear, if memory serves and I have slept a couple times since this story came out, at the time she refused I don’t believe the state had passed legislation to allow same sex marriage, although the SCOTUS had ruled.
As I understand it, the guiding legal principle in this case it that a “law” ceases to remain a law if it is found to be unconstitutional after all appeals are exhausted by the Supreme Court ruling against it.

I would hope that County Clerks would be given advance guidance to act within the law if there were a landmark case pending before the Supreme Court that would significantly affect their responsibilities. However, I have no faith that the State of Kentucky would make such provisions.

So, the legislature had the responsibility to correct the laws, which they hadn’t.
If is my understanding — and I could definitely be wrong here — that the State Supreme Court and Legislature would amend the legal code as a formality, but anything remaining on the books contrary to the Supreme Court decision would be unenforceable. Anyone who deliberately and knowingly tried to enforce the now unconstitutional laws would be subject to discipline/lawsuits.

This may be why Davis stopped issuing ALL marriage licenses for a short time. She may have been attempting to get guidance as to how to perform her job according to the Supreme Court’s decision. That would certainly be understandable, although unfortunate for those planning their wedding. But for her to commence issuing licenses, but only to opposite sex couples made her actions illegal.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It’s 103 pages long.
Yes, so what?

If we are going to try to talk about Supreme Court cases as Christians, we should do our homework instead of being told what to think by others.

However, if you look at the document, the official decision is only six pages long (pages 1-6). The rest of the pages are commentary on the thinking of the various Justices regarding the decision, some for and some against.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Remember Kim? She was the county clerk that would not issue a marriage licence
to a hom0se/al couple.
And she ended up in jail - so we called that persecution against Christians.


So lest SUPPOSE - you walk into a town clerks office -
and the Town Clerk was a Muslim - and she would* not issue you (a female) a marriage license
until:

A) you covered her face.
B) she told you come back tomorrow so her assistant would issue the certificate
C) She recommended you go to a nearby town to get your license.

Or would you storm out looking for the nearest lawyer to sue the Town?
Different reason. Same illegal behavior. Same punishment.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So even if something is legal - does that make it moral?
No but if you choose to break the law you should be prosecuted. I believed that getting drafted to kill Vietnamese was immortal. Thank goodness I failed the physical.
 
Top