Kim Davis Removes Her Name & Name of County from Marriage Licenses for Sodomites – Is She Back in Hot Water?
Following her release from jail, after spending five days there due to an illegal and unlawful order from Bush appointee US District Judge David Bunning, Kim Davis has allegedly stepped back into office and upheld Kentucky law by removing her name, as well as the county’s from the marriage licenses issued to sodomites.
The attorney for one of the deputy clerks in Kim Davis‘ office says Davis disobeyed a federal judge’s order when she altered marriage license forms for same-sex couples.
In a separate filing Friday, attorneys for the gay couples who sued Davis appear to agree.
Deputy Clerk Brian Mason has been issuing marriage licenses in Rowan County over the objections of Davis, the elected county clerk who believes same-sex marriage is a sin. Davis spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge’s order that she issue the licenses.
OK, let’s go over this again. Kentucky law is clear regarding marriage. If you don’t get this, then there is no hope for your understanding. Not only is it a part of the Kentucky constitution, but the specific statute reads:
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.
If that is law, then the law is being followed.
Furthermore, Kentucky says that for Kim Davis to sign marriage licenses for sodomites would be a violation of law and her duty as clerk of court.
Statute 402.080 states, “No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.”
That is the law people. The supreme court decision is not law. It’s an opinion, just read the top of the page! The supreme court has no authority to make law, legislate from the bench or otherwise. They certainly were not granted permission to rule on state law in the Constitution. They are limited in their scope of what they rule on.
Those who are authorized at the federal level to make law are members of Congress, and even that, is extremely limited.
The person in violation of the law is Brian Mason. One has to wonder if he is a closet sodomite by issuing the licenses, but nevertheless, he is acting criminally.
Masons’ attorney, Richard Hughes, claims the altered forms are would not be valid and violate the judge’s order.
Well, they would be valid as they are a part of state law. No federal law exists nor is it authorized, so she is in no violation there either. Did Brian Mason sign those illegal marriage licenses for sodomites? Then he is in violation of numerous laws of the State of Kentucky. He should be removed from office and justice be administered upon him for his blatant disregard for the law. If he signed Kim Davis’ name to the documents, then he should be arrested for forgery. As far as I can read Kentucky law, it is the clerk of the county, not the deputy clerk, who is to issue marriage licenses.
So far, conservative media has played this out as an issue of “religious conscience.” It is not. It’s a matter of law. When unlawful laws arise, then we may speak of the issue of conscience. As for Davis refusing Judge Bunnings’ orders, that most definitely was an issue of conscience as she determined not to only follow God’s Law, but the laws of the State of Kentucky.
My advice to Liberty Counsel would be to make a call to Oath Keepers and remove your objection to them interposing themselves between federal marshals and Kim Davis. And second, make this about the law and the restraints of federal government on the elected federal representatives rather than “religious conscience.” After all, she is the one who will be imprisoned wrongfully.