Someone in public office is subject to the laws of the land according to my understanding. Let's say Kim was of a religion that didn't accept a marriage between Jews and Christians. So she refuses to issue a marriage license. I'd say she should be out of a job because of the ever popular subject of the separation of Church and State. This prevents someone who is say a Muslim and acts in relation to Sharia law which as we know would be contrary to the law of the land. To quote The Donald "your fired". Kim's jail time was a little harsh. Kim is now a martyr in some eyes. Now we know why the Founding Fathers believed in this separation.

No hypothetical argument. She was elected by Kentucky voters and swore to follow laws of the State of Kentucky which clearly define marriage.

"402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."

For those who take issue with this, there are means to change State Law. But until that happens, were she to issue licenses in violation of Kentucky state law would she not then be jailed for violating the state laws that she swore to follow? But for now, States issue marriage licenses and federal government does not. If the argument is that the recent Supreme Court decision makes the state laws unconstitutional, then some that are yelling the loudest about this clerk's action should also be yelling about sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration laws on a daily basis and no one objects.

I would also argue that this matter has been portrayed by some as a separation of church and state issue, which in my opinion is not the case. It is an issue of states rights and state laws vs. Federal law. I know of no such thing as a Federal Marriage License and the issuance of Marriage Licenses has always been a responsibility of individual states and the laws that deal with those licenses has never been a federal matter. Ditto for drivers licenses etc. If posters to this blog want to give all responsibility to the federal government then you miss out on what the founding fathers had in mind.

Very good information. Thanks :BigApplause:

Exactly!!!

Before you condemn this women who was really following the laws of the State of Kentucky as she swore to do, you might want to refresh your collective memories and re-read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. It's not too hard to find via Google or any other search engine. Once again, marriage laws and licenses are a state responsibility.

So, it is okay if a state were to change their laws and once again make it illegal for people of different races to marry? For some odd reason, I thought this fell under civil rights, not state rights. Miscegenation was against the law in several states. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws. Many felt that such marriages were an obscenity and did their best to prevent these marriages, including county clerks refusing to sign the marriage certificates. I see no difference between the Court allowing same sex marriage today and allowing mixed race marriages in the past. there are times when civil rights should trump state rights. That's one of the reasons there was a civil war here.

So you believe we cannot live in a lawless society. have you been paying attention to the Obama Administration? Have you been paying attention to the Clinton scandal(s)?

Do you recognize that the same people who would never consider walking out of a store with an item that they didn't pay for are the same people who would not give a second thought about downloading a pirated song or movie

The bigger picture here is a stand for religious rights which the gay community knew would be an obstacle..and for that matter Justice Kennedy if he followed his reading .

The Jewish solution was the law. Dred Scot was the law. so those who didn't accept the cited authority were lawless? It all comes down to who's ox is being gored, doesn't it?

Go clerk and i hope more people follow your example and that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage fight back because those supporting the gay community are also supporting their goal of eliminating gender.

Personal Best Regards:

Personal Best Regards:

Interesting bit of history worth reviewing. Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 2 years before the date cited in Kentucky's Statute that define marriage in the same way. In this case, one might think that Kentucky was only mirroring federal law. Meanwhile, Kim Davis was not enacting laws or changing them. She is now in jail for following her state's law. How do you feel about cities not choosing to follow immigration laws that are Federal Laws? Are they not trumping ( pardon the pun) Federal laws especially since Federal Laws are the law of the land governing immigration.

What's civil rights have to do with this? That doesn't even make sense. If the definition of marriage (not civil union) is a man and a woman, then no one is having their rights trampled upon. Almost all religions believe that homosexual behavior is deviant behavior. And since the majority of America is religious and not atheist, then that should hold some water.

If this state documents a requirement that marriage licenses must be issued to one man and one woman, then she is right in performing her duty. If this is so, then she has been falsely arrested, and will be vindicated. That is, IF politics and political correctness doesn't win out, and justice prevails.

The U.S. Supreme Court made same sex marriage a civil right when it handed down its ruling. It will take an amendment or the Court overturning its own, recent decision to change that law. I don't see either happening in the near future, do you? Ms. Kim did not argue that she was following Kentucky law in refusing to issue the marriage license. She claimed religious freedom. Following Kentucky law became moot with the SC ruling. In this case, Federal law wins, whether we like it or not.

It really is time for y'all to suck it up, hitch up your big boy panties and accept that the law of this land allows same sex marriages, just as black-white marriages and integration are the law today.

Ms. Kim had options. She could have resigned. She could have had another clerk issue the license. Instead, she went the route of refusal and publicity. I'm surprised she didn't try to block the courthouse door.

Civil rights are based on race and gender, not sexual deviants. The court said, it was discrimination against the sexual deviants if they wished to get married. The law is the law. But, if the state law says that marriage licenses will be issued to one man and one woman, that's the way it is until they change it, regardless of what the court says. The court can say that discrimination is illegal but the court can NOT make law. They can interpret the law only. The state has the right to NOT issue marriage licenses if they so desire, or they can be charged in violation of a court decision, but they can not lawfully charge that woman if she is following her job description. If the court charged her with issuing a marriage license wrongfully, then it would be an invalid license, regardless of her signature. Now, if the documentation she was proceeding on did not state the definition of marriage or the procedure for handling such marriages as defined, then she would be wrong and should have resigned if she did not wish to do her job. Her religious convictions are invalid when doing her job. If she feels that she can't perform her job based on religious convictions, then she is not a competent employee of the county and should be removed. I also feel the same way about Obama, but it's kind of hard to force an emperor to step down.

God don't care what the supreme court says. God will stand behind this woman and against the ones that jailed her.

Interesting points. You may be aware that the Defense of Marriage act from Bill Clinton became the law of the land by a large majority vote in Congress in 1996. It wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 2013. In 2011 The Obama administration decided the DOJ would not defend it in court. There was no outcry about the administration choosing what laws of the land it would follow. Same as it's lack of willingness to enforce immigration laws when sanctuary cities violate federal laws. I guess what bothers me the most if I can offer my opinion about what has happened to our country's laws, is that some choose to pick and choose what laws must be followed and which ones can be ignored. Keep in mind the laws of the State of Kentucky have yet to be changed as they define marriage and Kim Davis swore upon being elected to follow the laws of her state. Today Snowden is considered a traitor because he gave away classified information, while former Secy. of State Clinton choose not to protect classified information and follow State Dept. rules. Have we become a nation that picks and choose what laws and rules to follow. If so, we are headed down a slippery slope.

Homosexuality has been with us for millennia , but for millennia every civilization in history has outlawed it in various ways, even if sometimes turning a blind eye to it. Marriage, applying natural law dating back to the Stoics, has always been understood to be between a man and a woman.

Thus, when someone argues the Supreme Ct (actually 5 lawyers with an agenda) in effect repeal what has been the natural law for 1000s of years, it's not hard to understand why most people have had enough. As in way more than enough ...