Kentucky clerk’s office will issue marriage licenses — without the clerk

Comments (3)
  1. Sherron Schiewe says:

    Kim Davis is in contempt of court. Her job requires that she follow the laws of the land and as of now, the law of the land recognizes same sex couples legal right to marry. If her conscience prohibits from signing their marriage license, then she should resign her job and let someone else do it. This is a woman who has been married four times and committed adultery with the man who is now her husband while she was married to her third husband. I understand that was before she became a born-again Christian, but I can’t help but question her sincerity here. Her lawyers have their own agenda, which doesn’t include her spiritual welfare. We believe in separation of Church and State. Freedom OF religion and Freedom FROM religion are some of the reasons our early ancestors left Europe to settle in the United States. How would Kim Davis and her lawyers feel if a Muslim took over her job and subsequently insisted that all prospective wives wear a hijab? Sound far-fetched? Not so much if we allow everyone to decide which laws they choose to obey based on their flavor of the month religion. She’s giving all of us Christians a bad name.

  2. HL says:

    It would be easy to cite Ms. Davis’s adultery as some from of hypocrisy, but I think that would be wrong. whatever sins she committed or continues to commit are laid on Christ. Further, I will leave off wondering if she ever issued a marriage license to someone going through the same sorts of infidelities simply because the couple was heterosexual and the state can grant such marriages without offending most Christians. In other words, we are selective in how we take offense. But, that too, is laid, by us on Christ.

    Quite simply, same sex couples are not married, no matter what the state says because marriage cannot be entered into by a same sex couple, no matter what they call it. It is simply world approval of sin. That’s nothing new and no Christian should be party to approving such sin.

    The issue I have and that any Christian ought to have is whether a Christian can participate at all levels of government. Certainly, we have the freedom and it is right and proper to serve but, if that service demands that we turn a blind eye to doctrine in the keeping of the law according to our governmental position, as in issuing a marriage license to all persons legally entitled to a marriage license, what do we do? Is the signature, even if we don’t believe that the couple is married, promoting this same-sex couple doing something they would not already be doing? Are we stopping the sin if the sin is committed in their hearts? Were they chaste prior to marriage and are we saying “go for it”? The same for a heterosexual couple. Do we examine the fitness beyond the letter of the secular law of the ones before us, asking for a license? Shouldn’t we, if we are earnest in our desire to fulfill God’s Law and refrain from publicly condoning sin?

    I would say that, if a Christian clerk would have no cause to search a man and a woman to see if they divorced for proper, scriptural cause, or that there were not children born to others that these people ought to be married to, then that clerk has no reason not to sign a license for anyone else that is deemed fit to marry, legally.

  3. Lisa Clark says:

    On the contrary, Ms. Schiewe, Ms Davis should be applauded for standing up for her beliefs. The American public has been mightily misinformed about the “separation of church and state” issue. No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it mandate this so-called “separation”. We have been hoodwinked by another poor decision but a Supreme Court judge, Justice Hugo Black; an ex-kkk member who hated Catholics. He took a private letter of Thomas Jefferson’s addressed to the Danbury Baptists, and used it in a ruling against the Catholic Church. It has since been used by secularist, atheist judges and others to try and limit and control the public expression of religion. The First Amendment gives us freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. As to allowing everyone to decide which laws they choose to obey, there have been several cases of laws not being followed without repercussions. Why did the DOJ not follow the law with regard to DOMA? Why does Colorado allow recreational use of marijuana when it is clearly illegal according to federal law ? The difference between those cases and Ms.Davis is that those other cases were not challenged by the courts or a judge. This is not about justice or equality, but about the government using it’s power to make an example of Ms. Davis. She is being held without bail, even criminals are allowed bail. The judge could’ve made a religious accommodation for Ms. Davis, or the gay couple could’ve gone to another office if they really wanted to marry. And does it really matter that Ms. Davis’ life is full of problems and mis-steps, like all of us ? Are we not all sinners “saved by grace?”