Saturday, September 05, 2015

Info on the county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses

From a Facebook post

https://www.facebook.com/j.russell.lloyd/posts/10156080792350249?fref=nf

So the saga continues. For those of you who are not very political or are not from our fair (usually) Commonwealth, Judge David Bunning imposed a sentence of incarceration for civil contempt on Kim Davis, the County Clerk of Rowan County for her failure to comply with an Order from his Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The sentence is for a violation of an Order of the Court; not because Ms. Davis is Christian and not because Ms. Davis believes that same sex marriage is a sin.

There are two (2) types of contempt: criminal and civil. Contempt is defined, in this case, as a willful and intentional violation of an Order of the Court. Criminal contempt means that you are in jail (or otherwise punished) for a sentence certain. Civil contempt means that the contemnor (Kim Davis) is in complete control of the duration of their punishment. Once you cease to defy an Order of the Court, the punishment stops.

A couple of things to know:

First, Judge Bunning was appointed by President Bush (43) and is the son of retired Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning. He is a conservative through and through. The Bunnings do not take their political beliefs lightly.

Second, this is the only time that I can remember seeing a contemnor get through an entire appellate process before being required to comply with a Court Order. Usually, one is required to comply with an Order of the Court regardless of the appeal. If compliance is refused, then a contempt sentence is enforced, regardless of whether or not you are appealing the Order. Kim Davis got special treatment on this issue.

Kim Davis is in jail because she willfully and intentionally violated an Order of the Court. She received all the due process allowed her (all the way to the US Supreme Court). She no longer has any cause (good or otherwise) to refuse compliance with a Court Order in a Nation of Laws.

Third, Judge Bunning threw Ms. Davis a life preserver. After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much. Ms. Davis' guarantee of personal religious freedom does not extend her the right to impose those beliefs on others, particularly when she is acting as the government.

Predictably, an outcry of judicial tyranny and religious persecution has arisen. This is not religious persecution. In the United States, we do not examine the sincerity or reasonableness of your religious beliefs in the public arena. You can believe any and everything in the name of your faith. However, the government may not deny you services based upon the religious belief of the government, its agents or employees. When that happens, then a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment occurs, which is precisely what happened when Ms. Davis refused to issue marriage licenses under "God's Authority".

As far as judicial tyranny goes, the outcry is completely unwarranted. Ms. Davis is subject to the jurisdiction (read authority) of the Court. She got access to justice in a way that few will ever experience. She was given special consideration at every step. This is not tyranny by any conceivable definition of the word, and to call it tyranny diminishes the claimant.

For those who may be tempted to take the outcry seriously, let me ask you to consider whether you would tolerate a government that denied you access to services and status available to everyone else because of religious beliefs that you did not share. If we are to continue to be a nation of laws, then we must do so much better. We must stop giving attention and authority to those who seek to take us back to a time when the government cried "God Wills It" and the cry became law.

No comments:

Post a Comment