KY clerk jailed over gay marriage finally gets what she wanted the whole time

KY clerk jailed over gay marriage finally gets what she wanted the whole time April 18, 2016

Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin just did what no other state leader has been able to do so far by passing a bill that reasonably satisfies both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

The bill, signed by Bevin on Wednesday, changes marriage licenses in the state to a single form that will no longer include the county clerk’s name and gives a space where applicants can check whether they are they bride, groom or spouse, according to The Daily Caller. That way, if a clerk has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, their name won’t be attached to the license and couples can fill it out however they would like.

You probably remember the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, who was caught up in a media firestorm last year for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her belief in traditional marriage. She was sued and sent to jail for five days and has faced unprecedented public scrutiny ever since.

But now, Gov. Bevin has assured that what happened to Davis can never happen to another by using a common sense approach. He emailed this statement to Reuters:

“We now have a single form that accommodates all concerns. Everyone benefits from this common sense legislation. There is no additional cost or work required by our county clerks. They are now able to fully follow the law without being forced to compromise their religious liberty.”

Davis’s representative, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, praised the new bill:

“The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government. County clerks should not be forced to license something that is prohibited by their religious convictions. To provide a license is to provide approval and places a legal authority behind the signature. We celebrate this legislative victory. County clerks are now able to fully follow the law without being forced to compromise their religious liberty.”

And that’s how it should be done in America. It’s a win-win for everyone and deserves to be applauded.

Join the only movement that can stop government overreach. Click the button below to support a Convention of States team in your state.


", the city council had republicans, douche."

Now You Can Legally Defecate and ..."
"I've been telling America this since Springfield. But America is a Feminist Nation, and she ..."

Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, ..."
"This specific article may or may not be correct, but that fatherlessness is directly correlated ..."

Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, ..."
"For all your attempts to derail the truth this, the direct connection between fatherlessness and ..."

Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RH

    Other than the government wanting “a piece of the action”, they should have NO BUSINESS in the union of marriage. It’s an old throwback to the post civil war era.
    If a couple wants to be married, it should be between them, and their church, chapel, or whoever does them, NOT the government.
    Personally, I think marriage between to people of the same sex is immoral & wrong, but it should be a private thing, non of the governments business.

    • DrexelLake

      Better be careful. The mentally ill Liberals will call you a hater and a bigot unless you agree with them. Sad but true. I agree with you though.

    • Exactly.

    • $136305622

      So would it just be a contract rather than having to get the license from the state? You are probably on to something. It would require the removal of a TON of laws (which might be a good thing…)

  • MHC

    Praise the Lord!

    • DCKeene

      ‘Praise the lord’ for hatred and bigotry surviving in a redneck ignorant state, is what you really mean.

      • DrexelLake

        LOL You are such a nice person yourself. Am I a bigot too for believing marriage is still between a man and women as it has been for thousands of years. Your close mindedness needs no explanation.

        • DCKeene

          LOL. Not a historian, are you?!

        • smg77

          Yes, you are a bigot.

      • MHC

        You know what’s funny about people like you? You’ve been brainwashed by the Left to think that because someone’s belief system says that something is wrong that it’s a matter of hate.

        Believing homosexuality is sinful and not condoning it is not the same thing as hate.

        You wouldn’t take an alcoholic to a bar, would you?

        And what’s even funnier is that you probably think religious people are gullible and brainwashed.

        • DCKeene

          Not funny…but really feeling sad for the ignorant who are sheeple to the inbred religion who can’t think for themselves. Really just idiots being told what to think by other idiots.

          • MHC

            Man, you just described Liberals perfectly.
            “Anyone who disagrees with us is a hateful bigot. It doesn’t matter why!”

      • flyingmonkey589

        You are a disgusting creature.

        • DCKeene

          Nope. Someone with a brain. You are an ignorant inbred.

          • Ignorant gay or ignorant inbred. There’s really no difference at all. Any and all “proof” that gay is okay is proof incest is as well.

          • DCKeene

            You’re logic is so flawed. But you can’t argue with idiots, so I’ll just leave you be. Take care and lay off the meth pipe.

          • flyingmonkey589

            Haven’t you been getting enough anal sex lately? Or maybe you need Midol.

  • Matt Bevin is a man of his word. It’s only April and he has accomplished more common sense legislation/solutions than the previous administration did in the 8 years. This is what a Constitutional Conservative leader looks like folks! A President like Cruz can do the same. We can fix this country. It is possible.

    • jenderissues abound

      You had me til Cruz…

      • DCKeene

        He had me until his first letter ‘M’. Cruz injecting his kind of religo-fascism scares the masses. He doesn’t understand the concept of ‘separation of church and state’. Not everyone in this country is a right-wing christian and shouldn’t have to live under a theocracy. Under his belief system, we would be no better than Iran or ISIS-held territory.

  • DCKeene

    Inbreeding is destroying the brain cells of Americans.

    • Inbreeding is as natural as homosexuality, no difference.

      • DCKeene

        I think you are arguing against your own interest, moron. C’mon, give a cognitive response, rather than a 5th grade one. (Only proving my point, little boy)

        • Actually you are not intelligent enough to have discourse with. An intelligent person would have ask why I said what I did, without the need to insult. An idiot would reply as you did.

          • DCKeene

            LOLOLOLOL. You’re so cute. Go to bed…but I think the meth might prevent that. Maybe tomorrow, when you aren’t so stupid, you can see what I was talking about. Night, night, moron.

          • Yep you’re an idiot.

          • DCKeene


          • Daniel Hammond

            He is right gay is a mental disease

          • DCKeene

            Your PhD in Psychology is from?

  • Tricia Anthone

    Kim Davis was right to refrain from issue but not only for the reason she stated. At such time as the State of Kentucky conceded that it’s law was unconstitutional, Kentucky was WITHOUT a law under which to issue any marriage license to anyone. Had she cited the LACK OF A LAW, she might have avoided a jail term because it would have been tough to argue in the face of the States’ capitulation to the SCOTUS’ decision.
    Kentucky should have defended its law, but that would have fallen to its Attorney General. He refused to do his job – DEFEND his state’s law – on guess what grounds? Conscientious objection – the same right denied the clerk. Guess one needs a JD in Kentucky to be granted the right of conscience.
    Not only does this case threaten the sovereignty of the States, it mischaracterizes legal marriage as a RIGHT. The right to form a marital bond is NOT subject to governmental regulation. What the STATES do in “licensing marriage” is confer a RECOGNITION of STATUS on the couple – they don’t “permit” or withhold permission to marry! Since the question before the court WASN’T “can these people get married” but rather, “Is the STATE compelled to recognize” the SCOTUS decision was flawed.
    The STATE of Kentucky further compounded the wrong in two ways: FIRST, the Executive of the State took its marching orders directly from the Federal Judiciary. Even if they wanted to cede to the SCOTUS decision, they should have passed a new law in their own Legislature. The executive of the State executes the LAWS of the STATE.
    Further they punished a state clerk for failing to issue an UNLAWFUL license. No matter her stated reasons for not issuing, she LACKED THE AUTHORITY of a STATE LAW under which to issue. She was correct in refraining.

    • Daniel Hammond

      No where in the 14th does it state gays have a right to marriage but if your going by equal treatment then that means all smoking bans are illegal too!

      • Tricia Anthone

        I hear you on that! The reason they were able to win the court’s agreement, (beside the actual left-leaning inclination of the court) is that they’d framed this in “civil rights” terms, did “gays” have the same rights. It should have been framed around State’s sovereignty – do states retain the right to describe what they license. No “rights’ in the 14th amendment sense of the term were involved.

  • $136305622

    This shows the problem with the sincerely held religious belief shenanigans. Doesn’t davis still have to issue the license? Yeah, her name isn’t on it but she is still supporting same sex marriage. The problem is technically everyone who had a hand in getting the couple to the courthouse supported them. Why doesn’t the car salesman, had station attendant, bank teller, Macy’s salesman, barber, parking attendant, etc get to exercise their elvis freedom? It is all farcical, THAT is what davis proved: the religious belief is not sincere and the behavior is not logical or reasonable in a society.

    • Mark Langford

      You are wrong on all counts. It definitely is a religious belief. This definitely does fix the problem. And selling cars, gas, clothing, or haircuts is a completely different thing than witnessing and affirming a marriage. But what I find interesting is, you can’t take this article to mean “good news”. All you see is, “she got away with not having to affirm the gay marriages! This is B.S.!”….it reveals your true desire: to force the actual conversion of thought of all people to affirm gay relationships. Guess what. We don’t have to.

      • $136305622

        So she does not have to issue the license? How does a couple get the actual license? I am being completely sincere – if I walk into the office and ask to get married, I would think someone has to hand me a license. That is enabling, witnessing and affirming my marriage. So I am just confused how one gets around that if one has sincerely held beliefs. Why don’t you support the rights of religious people who sell cars, gas, clothing and give haircuts? Seriously. If I work at Marriott and have to serve at a gay wedding and I believe it is wrong, shouldn’t I have a right to not serve it?

        Finally, I am sorry to say that you misunderstood my comment because no where can one read that I see “she got away with not having to affirm gay marriages! This is B.S.!” That is your projection. I merely pointed out that she is still affirming gay marriages if she gives the piece of paper to the couple….

    • GrFace

      She first didn’t want any licenses issued to the point of illegally threatening to fire employees that followed the court order. Now she claims she’s getting what she always wanted. Never underestimate how far a narcissist will go to safe face.

  • Shawnie5

    This is a good solution but an even better one would be the one being weighed by several states right now — to get rid of marriage licensing altogether and go instead to contracts executed by the parties themsleves and simply filed into the marriage records. That way no one has to underwrite, confer, affirm, officiate, or be involved in any way. It could even be e-filed like taxes already are. Many possibilities.

  • Shawnie5

    This is a good solution but even better would be the plan that is on the table in several states — to eliminate marriage licenses altogether and replace them with contracts executed by the parties themselves and filed into the marriage records. They could even be e-filed like taxes are. No one need undersign, issue, affirm, officiate, or otherwise participate. Many possibilities.

  • Under the Mercy

    To be sure, Kim Davis did not win sitting in jail or the law which gives consenting adults the freedom to marry whom they choose. The right wing extremist detest freedom for all.

  • Helen Wilson

    Strange how her religious objections never got in the way of her three divorces!