Now if could just get Lois Lerner into one…

Via USA Today

The Rowan County, Ky., clerk who was jailed last week for failing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples was ordered released from jail Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning, who jailed Kim Davis for contempt of court Thursday, ordered her freed from jail, saying he was satisfied her deputies have complied with his order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex and straight couples.

In a two-page order, Bunning ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to release her on the condition that she shall not “interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.

If she does, Bunning said, “appropriate sanctions” will be considered.

He ordered court-appointed lawyers for the deputies to report every 14 days on their compliance.

Davis’ lawyers did not immediately respond to questions about whether she will comply with the order.

Bunning said a report by lawyers for the four couples who sued Davis said that five of the six deputies — all but Davis’ son — are issuing licenses, as promised under oath that they would do.

“The court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell and this court’s August 12, 2015 order,” Bunning said. “For these reasons, the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.”

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
20 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Chuck says:

    Why didn’t they think of having deputy clerks issue those licenses in the first place, instead of jailing this woman?

    I’m glad she’s out, when there are so many other people more deserving of jail roaming the streets.

    • Pat_S says:

      Davis refused to authorize her deputies to issue licenses which was in defiance of a court order. That’s why she was sent to jail. Four of the five deputies said they were willing to issue licenses. The fifth is her son.

  2. Piquerish says:

    I see two wrongs in this. She is wrong to accept taxpayer pay for a public job that she does not perform completely, no matter her religious beliefs. Authorities are wrong for jailing her for misfeasance, which is a firing offense, and they could have and should have sacked her. Or … she could have, should have, resigned in protest, held her presser and gone off to tilt new windmills.

    • Maynard says:

      Two problems with your logic of why Davis is wrong, and why I wouldn’t want her to resign in protest. First, they changed the rules on her; she had no conscientious objection to the job in the first place, but a guy in a robe declared she had to do this thing, and then another guy in a robe locked her up. Thus she was subjected to judge, jury, and executioner, without any choice or input from either her or her elected representatives. So much for government of We the People. Second, and more importantly, I don’t want people of faith to be forced out of their government jobs. Knowing that the faithful are integrated into our government gives the rest of us a certain degree of assurance that some in the ranks will refuse to follow ungodly orders, and thus stand as a critical example at a critical juncture. Otherwise, there will be no brakes on the potential for government evil, and they know it and we know it.

      • Pat_S says:

        Her job is to file the paperwork as required by law. This function does not require or imply her approval of the couples filling out the forms. Her objections on any basis to couples filing for a license are irrelevant.

        Religious freedom allows her the right to worship as she pleases and to live her life according to what she believes her religion requires. She cannot through her job willfully impose hardships on others or deny to others what is lawfully permitted to them based on her personal religious beliefs. That should be common sense.

        What can be done to accommodate her depends to what extent she finds her job in conflict with her religious beliefs, especially if the rules changed after she took the job. She cannot turn the job inside out so that those she serves must serve her instead.

        We may wish that all laws come directly from the people or certainly most of them. Regardless of how a law comes into being, The Law isn’t rendered discretionary simply by asserting a religious objection. We must be secure that The Law protects each of us in our own lives and that we are not supplicants to either our neighbors opinions or a God different than the one we believe in.

        • Maynard says:

          This argument would be stronger if they had jailed Gavin Newsom when he issued same-sex marriage licenses in then-violation of state law, or if they jailed the sanctuary city politicians who violated immigration law and protected violent criminals, resulting in injury and sometimes death to Americans. I’m sick of being on the side that plays fair and loses because the other side cheats and the referee always lets them get away with it. Between the fundamental illegitimacy of judicial activism and the blatant application of double standards, the heartland is quite reasonably coming to view the government as unaccountable and even criminal.

          • Pat_S says:

            When the court told Gavin Newsom to stop, he stopped. Kim Davis didn’t stop when the court ordered it. That’s why she went to jail.

            Interesting to note that Kim Davis’ defense team, Liberty Counsel, submitted an amicus brief to stop Newsom from issuing licenses. They argued that public officials had to perform their ministerial duties regardless of whether they agreed with the law.

            Judicial activism is pernicious but Kim Davis is no hero in the cause of liberty.

            p.s. Davis declared she was following God’s law so I presume for her it wouldn’t matter if the people voted in favor of gay marriage.

          • Maynard says:

            Pat, I don’t believe for a moment that Gavin Newsom could have been jailed no matter what he did, and I’m sure you don’t either. Newsom just danced with a little more craft.

            I doubt I’ll ever accept the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in my heart, but if the advocates had follow the rule of law, I would have respected the law. And with just the tiniest bit of patience, they could have done that and won. The trend of public acceptance does seem to be tilting in their direction. They could have won their battles in the legislatures and the elections, and then people like me would have to shrug and acknowledge that, yes, we lost; it’s sad but fair. But the advocates instead jumped the gun and overturned the elections and are now intent on shutting down public debate and punishing their opponents. This is the stuff of dictatorships and tyrannies; when we see it happen in other countries, we recognize it as such. And the manner of the “victory”, and the meanness of the follow-up, highlights what some of us have understood all along: That same-sex marriage is not a quest for “equality”, as we’ve been told, but rather an act of anger. The outspoken advocates of same-sex marriage don’t want to coexist, they seek to destroy.

            I know that Tammy disagrees with some of what I’ve said here, and I’m fine with that. I know if Tammy were making the rules and I didn’t like those rules, at least I’d come away with a sense that my views had been respected, and that the goal was true tolerance and, as much as realistically possible, commonality and win-win. That’s not what we see going down here, and everybody knows it, although some won’t admit it.

            Peggy Noonan’s look at the opinions of the dissenting SCOTUS Justices, “The High Court’s Disunited State”, was interesting. I mention her because she’s thoughtful and somewhat moderate; in fact she even endorsed Obama in 2008 (for which some will never forgive her). She points out that the dissenting opinions indicate that this ruling will tear open wounds rather than lay the issue to rest. Noonan’s conclusion: “You can hardly get more ominous, more full of warning, than these opinions.” Strong words, especially from someone with a sense of history. Bad times are coming, and it’s a damn shame because it shouldn’t have been necessary.

      • MaryVal says:

        She did not surrender a single one of her constitutional rights when she took a government position, including her freedom of religious belief. It’s not a requirement for holding office; in fact, a religious test as a requirement for holding government office is specifically forbidden by the constitution in article VI, paragraph 3.

      • midget says:

        So true Maynard. In Esther’s words ” And if I perish,I perish.”

  3. robscaffe says:

    “We may wish that all laws come directly from the people or certainly most of them. Regardless of how a law comes into being, The Law isn’t rendered discretionary simply by asserting a religious objection. We must be secure that The Law protects each of us in our own lives and that we are not supplicants to either our neighbors opinions or a God different than the one we believe in.”

    Perhaps we should ask Kate Steinle what she thinks…Wait, she’s dead, thanks to a mayor and city council who are continuing to violate federal law while basking in their own moral superiority, why aren’t they in jail? Then there is BO, and Hillary, I could go on.

    Also Anthony Kennedy, the man who brought us this debacle:
    From “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America” By Mark R. Levin
    Recently, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a 2003 speech to the American Bar Association, spoke out against federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws that the courts- and Kennedy-are obliged to uphold: “I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.”
    Kennedy again decried the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee when he said, “I do think federal judges who depart downward are courageous.”
    This is a remarkable declaration. We have a Supreme Court justice praising judges who violate federal law, and almost no one noticed, and even fewer cared. I doubt Kennedy would be so complimentary about lower court judges-or legislators-defying his Court’s rulings.

  4. Pat_S says:

    I thought the controversy surrounding Kim Davis was religious freedom. Evidently others think it is about equal opportunity law-breaking. I’m not sure I want to be onboard with that either.

    • ashleymatt says:

      I’m with you all the way, Pat_S! You are the voice of reason on this. My other friends (left and right) on Facebook seem to have gone insane saying that now Christians are being put in jail for being Christians. To me, this woman acts like a typical Democrat. Going to jail and being a martyr was exactly what she wanted.

      • Pat_S says:

        Thanks Ashley. I always respected your rationality. 😉

        I accept the sincerity of the Christians with strong beliefs on the matter of gay marriage. I think emotions got out of control and exaggerated a situation that does not qualify as a defense of religious freedom into something like martyrdom. Then a political element got added in.

        All the concerns about the government increasingly ruling by fiat are well-founded. I share them.

  5. robscaffe says:

    Equal opportunity, that’s a stretch. There is clearly one set of rules for the left, their leaders and cronies, and another for those of us that don’t buy into the construct. It’s not just about religious freedom, but about tyranny and the dismantling of this society. In a civil thoughtfull age the matter could have been settled by legislation or the ballot per Maynard’s excellent post. Instead we have rule by decree, 4 political hacks and one schizophrenic lawyer/judge, further unleashing the leftists mobs to torment and destroy the lives of Christians and pretty much everyone else who don’t share their ideology. So our betters have spoken, we should all suck it up and move along or get onboard. I just wish someone could tell me where we are going.

    • Maynard says:

      Dunno where we’re going, but with posts like that, I can tell you where you’re going: Straight to Obamacare-sponsored sessions of Ludovico technique.

      • robscaffe says:

        I’m OK with the aversion to violence part. But the aversion to touching a naked woman part- I don’t know…

        But more importantly, how would the Ludovico treatment affect my Obamacare deductible, and what about the cost of all those drugs?. I still work for a living so I don’t get the subsidy. Bet it’s expensive.

        Now you have me worried, guess i haven’t thought this through -Just kidding folks! I’m cured! I take it all back.

You must be logged in to post a comment.