Gay Marriage / Gay Rights

[pyropappy]

The law is not on Davis' side.

After the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, Davis filed a lawsuit in federal court objecting to Governor Beshear's order that the state’s clerks issue same-sex marriage licenses. She lost there and in district court. Strike 1.

So, she appealed that district court decision. She lost again in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Strike 2.

Then, she got a district court to grant her a stay while her Supreme Court appeal was pending. That stay expired yesterday and the Supreme Court rejected Davis' emergency motion to have it extended. Denied, legally, yet again.

I believe the Supreme Court will uphold the lower courts' rulings and she will lose there too. If so, that will be Strike 3 for Davis.

And, as it stands, the government is in fact in the business of issuing marriage licenses. Davis' objection is not about government's involvement in marriage. Instead, she believes that she's above the law when it comes to performing her oath-sworn duties because, according to her, God's law trumps the law of the land (and, in her mind, God doesn't want gays to be married).

So, the gay community has a Supreme Court ruling, in writing and not subject to interpretation, stating that same sex couples have the same rights to marry as hetero couples anywhere in the country. And, government employees, -- elected, appointed or hired --are bound to abide by that ruling. Kim Davis, on the other other hand, is armed only with her interpretation of what God would want if he/she/it were here today; her personal beliefs only.

I think Davis is going to lose her SC appeal and she's going to lose her job (unless she complies with the law) - as it should be. But right now, the system is working in favor in regards to timing. Since she's elected by the people, she can't be fired outright like a hired or appointed government employee. Impeachment takes time and the state legislature isn't in session now, so that's not an immediate option. I hope she's held in contempt of court and fined or jailed, and that either her compliance with the law or her removal from office can thereby be secured quickly.

Not so fast there, you are running on a double edge sword down a slippery slope. The majority decision on gay marriage considered religious conviction in its majority decision:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

If the SC fails to act in her behalf they are admitting she has no 1^st amendment freedoms. That is going to open a very serious can of worms.