Same-sex marriage news from Kentucky
Two recent events which indicate Kentucky is evolving despite the best efforts of Ken Ham and the bible-babblers.....
The anti-gay judge who refused to hear adoption cases involving LGBT adoptive parents has resigned before being booted from office on ethics and misconduct charges:
A Kentucky Family Court judge who refuses to hear adoption cases involving gays and lesbians will resign amid an ethics and misconduct inquiry.
Judge W. Mitchell Nance submitted a letter of resignation to Gov. Matt Bevin on Wednesday, saying he will retire on Dec. 16, according to documents made public Thursday by the state's Judicial Conduct Commission.
In April, Nance drew national attention when he said he would no longer hear adoption cases involving "homosexual parties" because he believes allowing a gay person to adopt could never be in the child's best interest.
The Barren and Metcalf county judge further said he would recuse himself from such cases because ethics rules require judges to do so when they have a personal bias or prejudice.
Last month the commission, which investigates complaints of judicial misconduct and wrongdoing, notified Nance that it was charging him with multiple violations of judicial ethics rules, including those banning bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation.
It also scolded Nance for creating a local rule for handling cases without prior approval from the state's chief justice.
The commission told Nance it was initiating formal proceedings against him, which could have led to private or public sanctions up to and including removal from office.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, together with the Fairness Campaign, the ACLU of Kentucky and University of Louisville law professor Sam Marcosson filed a complaint with the commission in May asking for Nance's removal from the bench.
The groups argued his actions were eroding public confidence in the courts and showed he was failing to perform judicial duties impartially and diligently.
.
Next, the state has been ordered to pay $222,695 to the couples (same-sex and opposite-sex) who were denied marriages by the bigoted county clerk Kim Davis. It's a real shame for the rule of law and for the taxpayer's pocketbook that Davis can't so easily be expelled from office due to her misconduct and poor ethics. This is getting expensive for a poor state......their clueless bigotry and poor electoral choices also resulted in the state paying $1,115,633 to the Kentucky couple who won in Obergefell v Hodges.
ASHLAND, Ky. (CN) – A federal judge ruled Monday that Kentucky taxpayers are still on the hook for attorney fees for the couples who sued Kim Davis, a county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.
In July, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Kentucky to pay $222,695 to the attorneys of April Miller and others, after they won a favorable judgment against Davis. Bunning also awarded an additional $2,008 in other costs.
Gov. Matt Bevin and Terry Manuel, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for the Libraries and Archives, appealed the ruling, claiming the fees should be assessed against Davis and the Rowan County Clerk’s Office.
The governor and commissioner, who were third-party defendants in the case, argued that Davis did not represent Kentucky when she acted against the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges because her behavior was not directed or approved by any state official.
Bunning once again found the argument unpersuasive, and rejected the appeal on Monday.
“The Commonwealth of Kentucky is liable for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs because defendant Kim Davis acted on behalf of the Commonwealth when she refused to issue marriage licenses,” the judge wrote in his 14-page decision .
https://www.courthousenews.com/kentucky-taxpayers-must-foot-bill-kim-davis-case/
.
And while Davis claims not to hate gays she was just in Romania trying to get that government to deny them the basic civil rights she has enjoyed at least 4 times. Once a dumb bigot, always a dumb bigot...........maybe Kentucky will think twice before electing another bible-babbling theocrat to a secular public office, but until then Davis will remain the Mullah of Rowan County.
Despite these legal setbacks, Davis has continued her crusade against gay rights and recently visited Romania, where she advocated against gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently not legal in Romania, but some conservative politicians there want to specifically ban it via a constitutional amendment.
Tags
Removed, Context (BT)
I yes, "snowflake"... The term we applied to lib nutjobs who wore diaper pins after crooked Hillary lost...
Removed, Skirting (BT) You're the one "hoping" that SCOTUS will reverse a civil right of your fellow Americans.
Except the court has never in its entire history, overturned or rescinded a right once granted.
So, your entire argument lies in the hope that since they have never done something, they won't do it in this case?
Honestly, I don't even know if there is a same sex marriage case anywhere on the SCOTUS docket, but I imagine if there is, it is unlike any case they have heard before...
Please cite a single instance of a federally recognized right being withdrawn after it has been established, or of a lawfully granted marriage being reversed
Why?
If the Supreme Court hears a case, it would be new. And as for the "lawfully granted marriage being reversed", you look it up, I'm positive it has happened, but I don't care enough to look it up.
And you are absolutely wrong in saying that.
so you think that advocating the Supreme Court reverse their same sex marriage decision thusly setting a precedence to take away civil rights from a group of citizens constitutes having a positive view of the LGBT community ? please explain this.
If the Supreme Court hears a case, it would be new.
It would be constrained by established precedent, much as the Obergefell ruling was constrained by Loving v Virginia. In both cases the dumb bigots were unable to explain what legitimate secular interest a state might have in the race or gender of one's spouse. That's ultimately why your side lost both times.
.
And as for the "lawfully granted marriage being reversed", you look it up, I'm positive it has happened, but I don't care enough to look it up.
I've looked it up.....it's never happened as several courts have noted. That's why I asked you to cite such an example.
It's also related to the basis for why the 9th Circuit struck down Prop h8 and why SCOTUS struck down Colorado's Amendment 2, that it's unconstitutional to remove a recognized civil right from a disfavored class of persons.
So, your entire argument lies in the hope that since they have never done something, they won't do it in this case?
Nope. The argument is based on already established legal precedent with respect to the Constitution.
established legal precedent
Then homosexuals would lose. The court has said that just because you choose to act in a particular matter, you do are not granted a privilege, or a right. Therefore, a person who chooses to have sex with a monkey, or a child, or a member of the same sex, does not get any special exemption from established procedure.
Spoken like a true caveman! Morning Cap'n, donut?
Then homosexuals would lose.
They already won, almost unanimously too. They won the right to marry through the courts, especially the SCOTUS. You seem to be a proponent of removing rights from citizens?
The court has said that just because you choose to act in a particular matter, you do are not granted a privilege, or a right. Therefore, a person who chooses to have sex with a monkey, or a child, or a member of the same sex, does not get any special exemption from established procedure.
You must be confused. Sex isn't the issue. What does sex have to do with the right of marriage? Funny how you bring up pedophilia and bestiality too. Last I checked, those things were already illegal. Marriage, same sex or otherwise, is not.
I love how the left obsesses over that woman, it is great entertainment every time they get on their Kim Davis kick again!
I bet the Commonwealth of Kentucky isn't entertained. With this ruling, every state with like statutes, should be scrambling to cover their butts. When states see a filing from the ADF, they now need to make a cogent decision on how to protect themselves from being liable for the cost of the ADF pursuing it's agenda.
In reality, this isn't about Kim Davis, it's about the Religious 'right's' constant rinse and repeat litigation. Now that states like Kentucky will be footing the bill, they will have to decide whether to use their authority to remove or criminally penalize county officials who refuse to 'faithfully discharge or perform their public or fiduciary duties'. States can no longer pretend that they have no responsibility to police county officials.
So while you may be greatly entertained, taxpayers who will be footing the bill for Kim Davis and her ilk should be pissed off.
I bet the Commonwealth of Kentucky isn't entertained.
From comments on Facebook articles posted by news outlets in the area, neither are the locals.
Most blame her. Some blame the couple who sued her. I guess some people never learn.
I love how the left obsesses over that woman, it is great entertainment every time they get on their Kim Davis kick again!
Right.. LOL But it's not the left that wants to legislate women making health care choices on their own. And the left is obsessed? LMAO!!!
LOL But it's not the left that wants to legislate women making health care choices on their own.
Actually, you are very wrong on that point, you are wrong in more ways than one! lol..
1. Both Democrats, and Republicans want to legislate women making health care choices on their own, or do you really think any government system is just going to let you do what you want when you want??
2. Nevermind, if you don't understand #1, then you are not worth wasting the time.
Both Democrats, and Republicans want to legislate women making health care choices
Why has the US government ever legislated women's health care choices? What criteria is used to justify a bunch of male lawyers and businessmen in elected office making health care decisions for women?
it seems odd to me that many of the conservative minded cheer for Kim Davis - even tho she refused to do her job and just lived off of the government paychecks (which is something i thought they were against ?). it also seems odd that many of the conservative minded want to create a larger government to have them regulate the combination of genders allowed to obtain a marriage license.
the taxpayers of Kentucky.
Perhaps they will consider their votes a little more carefully in future. Between her and Grant County's economy being sunk with the help of Ken Ham's ark, maybe they'll start to realize that mixing religion and government is costly and cut it out.
You'd think that now that Kentucky stands to lose their health care system that the dimwits would regret voting for Bevin and Trump, but I've heard some interviews about KYnect where these dimwits seem unable to connect their votes with the adverse consequences of those votes. They can't all be that dumb can they?
They can't all be that dumb can they?
No. Just enough of them to screw over the rest.
I never understood the right leaning, religious, conservatives and their obsession with gay people. Most people that I know are secure in their sexuality and do not give a shit what someone else does in their own bedroom. It amazes me that some people can feel so threatened by the LGBT community.
It makes me think that they are just not secure with their own selves or feelings. Otherwise why would they give it a second thought or even a crusade.
It makes me think that they are just not secure with their own selves or feelings. Otherwise why would they give it a second thought or even a crusade.
My thoughts exactly. As a straight guy I spend zero seconds per day obsessing about what gay folks do in bed, but the bible-babblers seem to spend a great deal of time fantasizing about it. And we know that the most vocal of the homophobes tend to be the ones deepest in the closet.
As a straight guy I spend zero seconds per day obsessing about what gay folks do in bed
You sure obsess about all things LGBT here. And why do you label everyone who doesn't agree with you as a bigot?
A certain percentage of people are born genetically wired to be LGBT, it is not a choice. Neither is being born to be straight a choice.
Many straights, secular or otherwise, are simply not comfortable being around gay people, or can't accept the lifestyle.
Does that make them bigots, and if so why??
Many straights, secular or otherwise, are simply not comfortable being around gay people, or can't accept the lifestyle.
Does that make them bigots, and if so why??
Substitute "black" or "Jewish" for gay. Would that sound bigoted? It does to me.
Now, imagine that we granted or denied civil rights based on such traits as "black" or "Jewish". Would that be bigoted? Of course it would.
Substitute "black" or "Jewish" for gay. Would that sound bigoted? It does to me.
Me, too.
Many straights, secular or otherwise, are simply not comfortable being around gay people,
They are not comfortable around openly gay people. Why?
can't accept the lifestyle.
What lifestyle? Do gays live in different houses, drive different cars or ???
From everything I have heard and read, the main objection to homosexuals are that Christians do not approve of their sex lives.
Other adults consensual sex lives are none of any of the various Christian sects' business - period. Do Christians constantly look at people and wonder how they have sex? Evidently, there is a group that does obsess about other people's sex lives and are doing everything in their power to corral everyone into having their Yahweh approved sex for procreation purposes only.
I suspect there are a lot of erotophobia inside the various Christian sects that obsess about other people's sex lives and try to force the US government to regulate education on sexual intercourse, and regulate access to birth control because it interferes with Yahweh ordained procreation.
It is this type of thinking that makes it imperative that the US Supreme Court remains secular and upholds the separation of church and state. Erotophobes need education and counseling. Erotophobes should not be allowed positions in government to try to legislate anyone's sex life.
In "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack of Sexual Conservatism" (after Peggy McIntosh 's influential "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"), TJ Bryan says, "Since power-based hierarchies in society form a matrix of domination , I understand that erotophobia occupies a supportive space adjacent to isms and phobias like classism , racism , sexism , ableism , homophobia ."
In his book The Politics of Lust , author and sexual activist John Ince examines three distinct cause and effect forces that fuel erotophobia: "antisexualism," the irrational negative response to harmless sexual expression; "nasty sex," which includes rape and violent pornography; and "rigidity," the inability to enjoy "playful and spontaneous" sex. Ince also argues that social inequality and politics are inter linked with erotophobia and that overcoming erotophobia is one of the first steps to a truly democratic society. [5]
Furthermore, they are not comfortable around openly gay people who have the same inalienable rights as stated by Thomas Jefferson when our country was founded.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
In his book The Politics of Lust, author and sexual activist John Ince examines three distinct cause and effect forces that fuel erotophobia: "antisexualism," the irrational negative response to harmless sexual expression; "nasty sex," which includes rape and violent pornography; and "rigidity," the inability to enjoy "playful and spontaneous" sex. Ince also argues that social inequality and politics are inter linked with erotophobia and that overcoming erotophobia is one of the first steps to a truly democratic society.
I'm sure that's one of the motives of certain kinds of Christian extremists like Southern Baptists. The other big ones are patriarchy and misogyny of which homophobia seems to be a derivative of both, where being attracted to the same sex is a violation of rigid gender roles, and where maintaining the status of men over women is important. Thus male homosexuality is seen as a reduction in the status of a man and is thus a far more serious threat to society than female homosexuality.
Societies which aren't patriarchal (or where gender equity is greater) tend to be far less homophobic and transphobic. I think the bible-babblers current panic over transgender folks reveals the same issue with rigid gender roles.
You sure obsess about all things LGBT here.
I'm concerned when any group of persons is unjustly denied civil rights, but unlike the bible-babblers you won't find me ranting about other people's sex lives or other such irrelevancies. My concern is civil rights and this group simply happens to be the issue of the day and the one which the dumb bigots in red states have been persecuting most recently. When I was growing up the issue was whether mixed-race couples would be allowed to marry.......in fact the marriage I enjoy today wasn't legal in Kentucky in 1966, thanks to exactly the same kind of dumb bigots who thought that bigots deserved special rights and privileged status which should be denied to the people they hate.
And while one of my kids is gay I was concerned about these civil rights issues long before I had kids or even got married. That's probably because my parents didn't teach me to be a dumb bigot, and because I grew up aware of what civil rights violations were.
.
Many straights, secular or otherwise, are simply not comfortable being around gay people, or can't accept the lifestyle.
Does that make them bigots, and if so why??
Yes, they're quite obviously dumb bigots. Sounds like they need to grow up. Very funny too that you think sexual orientation is some sort of "lifestyle" rather than a trait like handedness or eye color. Or is there a "blue eyed lifestyle"?
are simply not comfortable being around gay people, or can't accept the lifestyle.
That doesn't make you a bigot. It's people who try to make gays existence or their relationships illegal, who are bigots. It's when you try to use the power of the state to discriminate against citizens that you don't like. The Constitution already allows you to be as big a bigot as you want inside your own church. That should be enough.
are simply not comfortable being around gay people, or can't accept the lifestyle.That doesn't make you a bigot. It's people who try to make gays existence or their relationships illegal, who are bigots.
Would you say that someone who admitted that they "weren't comfortable being around blacks or Jews, and can't accept their lifestyle" wasn't a bigot?
In my view they most definitely are bigots it's just a question of whether they act on that bigotry and try to harm the people they "aren't comfortable being around." Those are the bigots who really matter.
.
The Constitution already allows you to be as big a bigot as you want inside your own church. That should be enough.
Exactly.
Who is online
31 visitors
I wonder if the taxpayers in the red states will ever learn that bigotry, hate and theocracy are both un-American and rather expensive?
The evangelical right wing is doing everything they can to push for their own brand of sharia law in the USA. The truly believe that "freedom of religion" only applies to their religion, (cult). These people are as anti-American as they come.
Great article, but I am off to bed.
The better question is, do they really care?
I think hate Trumps their financial sense.
Either hate and/or stupidity.
I love it! Davis should post that on her office door.
I remember her "case" very well, a flow chart is exactly what you need to follow her BS. She really represents the high and mighty "moral right" soooo well....said no one ever.
I don't care who you are, that's some funny shit right there.
Thank you! It does however reveal a problem common to most state governments, the fact that except for impeachment there is no easy way to remove even the lowest of elected officials......and impeachment was never going to happen in a GOP-controlled legislature which shares the same bigoted views as Davis.
In contrast most judges are held to a standard of judicial ethics. Given Judge Nance's inability to fairly interpret our secular laws without the lens of his bigoted cult, he never should have been on the bench in the first place but at least there was a procedure to remove a bad judge.
Never ceases to amaze me that these religious bigots worship a "God" that some how hates all the same people they do. Pretty convenient. Sad thing is that if Jesus were alive today, it would be the evangelical christians that would be trying to crucify him for being a 'liburul'.
Kimmie might want a heads up......she's also being sued under 42.USC.1983 in her personal capacity (rather than official capacity as clerk) for her deliberate actions to deny the civil rights of two different sets of plaintiffs in the cases "Ermold v Davis" and "Yates v Davis"......and both cases have been given the green light by the district court and are now headed to the 6th circuit court of appeals. The district court had erroneously dismissed one of these cases but the appeals court reinstated it.
These section 1983 claims could easily bankrupt Kimmie even with all the money which gullible bigots donated to her cause (or really to Liberty Counsel's anti-LGBT cause).
I love how the left obsesses over that woman, it is great entertainment every time they get on their Kim Davis kick again!
You love the fact that she was derelict in her duties, or that she is a hypocrite being married multiple times and claiming family values. She is a bigot with a capital B.
We don't obsess, we just wonder how "small government conservatives" can support this obvious governmental over-reach. We are just glad the freedom to marry consenting adults is finally given more weight than some judges personal religious belief.
Yes, it was obvious, the government could never get something like that passed on a ballot, because the vast majority always vote against gay marriage, so the only way they could do it is to stack the courts with as many liberals as obuma could find. Not to worry though, let Trump get another Supreme Court judge, and it will be a slam dunk against gays having special rights when it gets to the supreme court.
Only a vast majority of Republicans did so, and note that those dumb bigots lost the last 4 times the issue was on the ballot.
No surprise though that you think the civil rights of a disfavored minority should be subject to the whims of the majority. I suspect you have no clue why civil rights exist.
.
Only those who are themselves accustomed to special rights and privileged status think that equal rights are "special rights". The privileged are always the ones who find equality to be oppressive.
Same sex marriage is the law of the land, if you think it will be reversed, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Correct, the liberals and their gay agenda lost the last 4 times the issue was ever on a ballot. Glad to see you understand that the liberals are bigots.
We'll see.
No we won't see. It is settled law.
Equal rights is not (and should not ) br put to popular vote. And what exactly is the "gay agenda?"
Nope. SSM is a legal right, established and settled by the SCOTUS. So there's nothing left to see, or argue.
LOL. Bummer for your ilk that you've now got an unbroken losing streak in both our courts of law and in the court of public opinion. Anti-LGBT folks like you truly are dinosaurs.
Please cite a single instance of a federally recognized right being withdrawn after it has been established, or of a lawfully granted marriage being reversed without the consent of both spouses.
What's even worse for the dumb bigots is that because these bans were found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment that means they were always unconstitutional since the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868. So various courts have been retroactively recognizing those marriages......even in certain cases where the couple was unable to marry before one of the spouses died.
are you seriously advocating for the Supreme Court to reverse a decision thusly setting a precedence of taking away civil rights from a group of citizens of this country ? seriously ?
and this is all because you have a negative attitude towards the LGBT community ? wow....
It's probably because he no longer has any reason to feel superior to gays. His sense of privilege is broken.
Depends on cases currently waiting for a Supreme Court decision, doesn't it?
So, you are saying a Supreme Court decision has never been overturned? Hint: There are quite a few, just sayin...
And you are absolutely wrong in saying that.
Removed, Skirting (BT) from the big bad supreme court ruling that same sex marriage is legal.
Blankie, safe space, play doh? Sounds like what you may have needed when Trump kicked Clintons ass, lol!
As I've said, Supreme Court decisions have been overturned many many time throughout our history.
Only SCOTUS can overrule SCOTUS, and it's only explicitly reversed its own rulings a few times in the entire history of the court, like in Lawrence v Texas where SCOTUS explicitly reversed their own ruling In Bowers v Hardwick and said: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled." Otherwise they normally just create subsequent precedent regarding part of a ruling.
But what they have never done is reversed a civil right once they've recognized it. Nor would it be practical for the court to do so in regards to a kinship and property rights contract like marriage. But keep your hopes up! You might want to hold your breath until you get what you want.
Love the deflection. This isn't about Trump or Clinton. Removed, CoC (BT), that will make SCOTUS change the law.
Except the court has never in its entire history, overturned or rescinded a right once granted.
That should be our new National Anthem.
Awesome movie too. Totally underrated. Remember