Kim Davis’ Legal Team Declines Oath Keepers’ Offer to Protect Her Against Unlawul Arrrest

Kim Davis_Getty ImagesKim Davis photo courtesy Getty Images

 

Upon request by Kim Davis’ legal team, Oath Keepers is canceling the planned security detail for Mrs. Davis in Morehead, Kentucky.

Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’ legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning.    We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.

Oath Keepers will NOT be conducting a security detail for Mrs. Davis.  We always seek the full consent and cooperation of anyone we protect, and we must respect their wishes if they decline that protection.   Anyone who was planning on going to Morehead, KY to serve on the security detail are now asked to not do so.   We do thank you most sincerely for your willingness to step up, as unpaid volunteers, in defense of due process.   That was a very honorable intent, and we commend you.

This is a free country, and of course you are free to still go there on Monday and peaceably assemble to express your support for her due process rights and your opposition to arbitrary arrest if you want to, but Oath Keepers will not be conducting a security detail, and she apparently does not want anyone else to do so.   Therefore, we encourage you to save your gas money and time off work for another security detail, at another time (such as for our planned upcoming operation to guard Texas border ranches against drug cartel violence and invasion).

We have not talked to Mrs. Davis directly, and therefore we don’t know her reasoning or ultimate intent, but we do note that civil disobedience where the person is willing to allow themselves to be unlawfully arrested and are willing to go to jail to make a point, is a time honored, respectable, and honorable American tradition going back to Henry David  Thoreau.  We must respect that if it turns out to be her chosen strategy.  There is more than one way to skin a cat, and such non-resistant civil-disobedience can be a powerful tool in resisting tyranny.  Or it may be that she is confident of making an accommodation.   We don’t know, but regardless we will respect her wishes and stay out of it.

Of course we still support her right to due process, and we still oppose the abuse of the contempt power by this judge, who has a documented history of using his position to coerce people for political purposes, such as his egregious and Orwellian 2006 order forcing high school students to undergo gender “sensitivity” training – which was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007, with the appeals court noting that it was a violation of the student’s First Amendment protected rights, and that they had cause to seek damages.    The man has done this before, and he will do it again.

I want to personally thank retired Missouri police officer John Karriman, retired Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman, Army veteran Allen Lardieri (and his WV team), as well as Kentucky Oath Keepers Point of Contact Jeff Johnson (101st Airborne veteran),  Morehead, KY Oath Keepers leader Doug Robinson (Army Corps of Engineers), and SC Oath Keeper Mouse Prosen, who all took the time to step up and be counted as leaders, as well as all of the brave, honorable men who were gearing up across the nation to take a stand against judicial tyranny.   Hat’s off to all of you, and we are honored to call you brothers.   We apologize sincerely for any inconvenience.   Please pass the word so that we don’t have volunteers wasting their time, gas, or days off unnecessarily.  Save it for the next call up.

For the Republic,  an especially for the Bill of Rights,

Stewart Rhodes

 

PS- A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO OUR CRITICS:

As for the many harsh critics of our offer to protect Mrs. Davis, it is frankly sad that so many Americans cannot understand taking a stand in defense of someone’s due process rights regardless of who that person is, what they stand for, or what they are accused of doing or have done.   That should not matter, and all that should matter is our common ground of the Bill of Rights and the hard-won rights of due process and in particular jury trial.   As I told one person who wrote in:

You can’t see past your opposition to what she did long enough to see our point about due process and the dangers of having judges use their contempt power like a magic wand to put people into indefinite detention till they submit.  Please try to focus on the due process rights of the accused, not on the particular crime.   I would, and have, stood up for the due process rights or anyone, regardless of the accusations made against them.  I did so during the Bush Admin, when I stood up for the due process rights of Yasir Hamdi and Jose Padila, both of whom are Muslim Americans who were held in indefinite detention by Bush.  I also stood up for the due process rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.   And the paper I wrote at Yale Law about that won Yale’s top prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights.  But that was during the Bush years, and was a harsh criticism of what a Republican was doing to Muslims. so the leftist professors at Yale ate it up.

Now, with the shoe on the other foot, leftists are apparently as blind to the bedrock issues of due process for someone they despise – Davis – as the Bush supporters were when it came to someone they despised – Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi.

Clearly, in America, what matters most is whether the accused is seen as a “good guy” or a “bad guy” and if seen as being bad, then there is zero concern for due process and people will clamor for expedited punishment.   I suppose that is just a reflection of human nature.  But sad nonetheless.

Now, after a cycle of the Republicans in power, and then the Democrats, with both exponentially growing the military industrial complex, national security surveillance state over us, I see that Orwell was right when he said “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”  It doesn’t matter to me whether it is a right boot or a left boot.  Or whether you think the person being smashed deserves it.  I oppose it.  – Stewart

 

 

 

 

 

Categories: All, Featured, Oath Keepers

About Author

Stewart Rhodes

Stewart is the founder and National President of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor, former member of Rep. Ron Paul’s DC staff, and served as a volunteer firefighter in Montana. Stewart previously wrote the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine. Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper “Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status” won Yale’s Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

Comments

  1. Oathpapa 11 September, 2015, 20:51

    Wear sensible shoes while frantically backpedaling so you don’t clip your heels!

    I frankly feel sad that you would try to frame all critics into a couple simplistic packages. You’re acting in the manner we’re opposed to, sir.

    Reply this comment
    • Dr. Clifford N. Alford 11 September, 2015, 23:15

      You are right. She was in violation of her Oath of Office and should either have obeyed the decision of SCOTUS or have resigned in protest. This was pointed out to the Oath Keeper national leadership by a fair number of us, and rather than admitting that they made a mistake, they are acting like Obama and crew, and are trying to scare us into submission by mudding the water with an unrelated issue as this was never about due process, but was about the fundamentalist Christian view of gay marriage. SCOTUS made an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Fine. If anyone doesn’t like it, and a lot of people don’t, then it is up to the US Congress to debate the issue, and either support the decision, or to pass a law against it.

      It is better to be villified by these people for standing up for the truth than to hide comfortably in the background and say nothing. Speaking out when we see something wrong is what Oath Keepers are supposed to do, and if we see our own organization heading into error then it is our duty to say so whether anyone else thinks so or not. So, hang in there, and keep on speaking up when you see something that may be wrong, and don’t quit. They would probably like for us to do that right now, but will likely get over it when they settle down a bit.

      Reply this comment
    • Jeff Johnson 11 September, 2015, 23:25

      Oathpapa, I did not see you at Morehead. You have no idea of the dedication and conviction of those who were there. This decision was reached after many hours of emotional debate and discussion. It was NOT a decision reached lightly, but it was the right decision. If you wish to be involved in the decision-making process, I suggest that YOU “stand in the gap” next time!

      Reply this comment
  2. Andy 11 September, 2015, 22:46

    Thank you for being willing to support those whose rights are violated. Indeed it speaks volumes about your response to Mrs. Davis’ wish to not be protected. There will be plenty more who will pray for and need your defense. You are the TRUE protector of civil rights in this country, and I support and applaud each and every one of you.

    Andy

    Reply this comment
  3. bonni 11 September, 2015, 22:49

    You can only try.. she is Democrat.. Hard headed??

    Reply this comment
  4. marlene 11 September, 2015, 22:51

    Just whose side is her “legal” team on? As the bible says about lawyers, so it is. But I, among many, applaud the Oath Keepers and would never say no to their offer of anything – they are America’s watchmen on the wall – patriotic, strong, courageous, gallant and conscientious. We love you Oath Keepers! PS: Trump was right when he suggested that she could have avoided the controversy because God said the same thing. However, even if God used her to glorify Him, her one victory will not change much because It Is Written that we will all suffer because, as Jesus said: “They will hate you because they hated Me first.”

    Reply this comment
  5. Dotell 11 September, 2015, 22:56

    Democrat is correct. And supposedly doesn’t agree with OKs and she supports illegals/the liberal (sic) agendas. Must be why they have shushed her up. She got her moments of fame and some calling her a “martyr” or some kind of hero. Figures. So much for knee-jerk reactions while the propaganda and back and forth about the laws continue.

    Reply this comment
  6. Mary 11 September, 2015, 22:59

    God Bless you for your patriotic heart and willingness to help those who are being persecuted!

    Reply this comment
  7. henrycat 11 September, 2015, 23:08

    The attorneys are smarter that OK in that they know that they have a losing case but Mrs. Davis still needs representation. OKs, don’t waste your money or your time…. you are on the wrong side….

    Reply this comment
  8. Journe 11 September, 2015, 23:17

    Thank you for your messages re Oathkeepers standing up for
    Our Rights , not the specific persons choices. All too often, it seems
    we are reacting alot but forgetting about our Constitutional , & Bill of
    Rights. The Agenda or beliefs of individual are importanť but Oathkeepers were standing for her legal standing with this Judges
    obvious personal action to jail her. This is a legal decision that may go Higher court by her lawyers or not. I Think Kim was surprised by All her Supporters as those Haters are out here everywhere, unless it is them who dont get their Legal rights . Now, kim can go back to her job, but her Deputys in office, can, will sign the marriage license,
    she doesnt have to. Doubt this is End of this situation. I AM PERSONALLY VERY DISTURBED OVER ALL THE ANGER, HATE, AND
    MORALITY CHANGES IN AMERICA, THUS GLOBALLY. I THANK
    OATHKEEPERS.

    Reply this comment
  9. Ono 11 September, 2015, 23:22

    I have been following OK’s, since it’s inception and I am philosophically aligned with the organization.
    I am an American Peace Corps Volunteer in a former communist country in Eastern Europe, (preferring anonymity for sensitivity/political reasons).
    Keep up the good work, their are many of us here who are allied with you philosophically, we take our oath to support and defend the Constitution.

    Reply this comment
  10. Joe 11 September, 2015, 23:23

    The “Oath-Breakers” is more like it. I have defended these people for so long, as I was constantly told that they were crazy, or domestic terrorists – I thought they stood for something great – defenders of the Constitution… And now they offer to forcibly support a criminal, violating her legal responsibilities, and denying the 14th amendment equality rights to all citizens – If you Oath-Breakers refuse to fight for all citizens, and support criminals breaking the law, then everyone who has criticized you was right – you are no more than a domestic terrorist organization. You have lost my support, both vocally, and financially.

    Reply this comment
    • Defilade 12 September, 2015, 00:16

      Did you any of the articulates they sent out? They are protecting the Bill Of Rights and The Constitution, not this woman’s beliefs. read a little farther and don’t do the knee jerk reactions.

      Reply this comment
  11. Vinny 11 September, 2015, 23:36

    I am happy they declined the Oath keeper support / assistance. This is her problem and regardless of your convictions, this is the type of an issue we Oath Keepers must avoid. We, now more than ever, collectively, need to prepare ourselves to defend our Sovereign Free Enterprise Constitutional Republic from NUMEROUS adversary’s, both foreign and domestic, that are on our doorstep and have designs to bring this nation down. The threat is real and the confrontation imminent. Let’s all stay connected and on the same page. Our future depends on it…..God Bless America !!

    Reply this comment
  12. Chip 11 September, 2015, 23:53

    My guess is that she is “half-awake”. She get’s the violation of her “religious freedom” part. She just hasn’t figured out who the bad guys are yet. And clearly, she’s not up to speed on Oath Keepers yet. :-)

    Reply this comment
  13. John 11 September, 2015, 23:58

    “(…) I see that Orwell was right when he said “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” It doesn’t matter to me whether it is a right boot or a left boot. Or whether you think the person being smashed deserves it. I oppose it.”

    KUDOS Stewart! And those who do not understand this, stand with tyrants and against liberty. Oath Keepers know it. All who stand for liberty and justice, not only in the US of A but all over the world know it. God Bless!

    Reply this comment
  14. Michael 12 September, 2015, 00:00

    The ones whose rights are being violated are the pro-equality taxpayers of Rowan County, who are not receiving the services their taxes fund, and the 5 employees of adulteress (Matt. 19:9) Kim Davis whose consciences, dignity and beliefs she is violating. Where is the protection for these people? Where are the armed guards for the employees who anti-gay activist Davis would not allow to issue licenses when they wanted to? Obviously, your group, just like many others, has decided that only one version of “conscience” is acceptable under the new end times Counterfeit Christianity.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 12 September, 2015, 08:15

      Like it or not, Kim Davis is the ONLY one of the governmental Oath takers to actually KEEP her Oath, and Ky’s law.

      Ky does NOT recognize marriage as being between anyone other then a man and a woman.

      Why are you so worried about how many divorces, if any, she might have had? Who cares, this IS a constitutional issue.

      Reply this comment
  15. Eric 12 September, 2015, 00:01

    Seems to me the best solution is to accomodate her sincerely held religious beliefs by having another staff member sign the licenses. Why an exemplary employee should be put through the wringer and or fired for THIS issue is absurd.
    I don’t understand the legal nuances, but trust Stewart to make such a decision because it is constitutionally solid. Those outside Oathkeepers, especially those without an understanding of the Constitutionality of the issue will surely think we are a terrorist organization. After all, if a federal judge issues an order to arrest the woman, who are we to interfere?

    Reply this comment
    • NeoVictorian 15 September, 2015, 13:40

      That very solution was offered to Davis to accommodate her beliefs. She turned it down, as it would still have her seal on the license.

      Reply this comment
  16. OIF3VET 12 September, 2015, 00:06

    It makes me sick how people are so quick to criticize the oathkeepers. As a combat veteran I can assure you that we fight for the rights of every american. It doesn’t matter what race, gender,political affiliation, religious beliefs etc. ALL Americans are guaranteed the right to a jury trial of their peers. Whether you agree if that person is guilty or not guilty is null and void. That is up to the jury to decide. I am so sick of people barking off at the mouth with no action to back it up. Were any of the critics at bundy ranch,or the mines in the northwest, or protecting recruiters who have been neutered by their own government. I didn’t think so. Words withot action is fluff. God bless the oathkeepers for what they do. No one else seems to have the balls to. My friends did not die in vain so you woosey Americans can run your mouths and then go back to watching t.v. I stood in the gap, will you? God bless real americans

    Reply this comment
  17. John 12 September, 2015, 00:08

    Joe, you are missing the point. Oath of office MUST be first and above all to defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and forget not, Lex iniusta non est lex or, in plain English, “An unjust law is no law at all” and must be opposed. The Laws of Nature, God’s Law, trumps all else, and that is the point. Not oath breaking here, just plain, straight oath keeping! I trust you would support the Nazi practice of killing all Jews? That was law and expected. Or any other form of abuse and tyranny for that matter.

    Reply this comment
    • jimmy hoffa 12 September, 2015, 03:43

      No John, the oath keepers are wrong in this situation. The constitution was not written from God’s Law. She has a right to her belief, but, has no right to discriminate against anyone not believing in her beliefs. The Nazi statement is all BS, John.

      Define Gods laws, John. As well as the religion (s) that believe in those laws.

      Reply this comment
    • NeoVictorian 14 September, 2015, 13:48

      So in cases where the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the Bible are in conflict, the Bible wins? Sorry, I didn’t swear an oath to a Theocracy.

      Reply this comment
  18. J.R. 12 September, 2015, 00:37

    When she took the job, they did not day she would have to participate in a sodomy ritual. Had they included this in her job title, she wouldn’t have taken the job. As a teacher, my job description said nothing about teaching the homosexual lifestyle. If the day comes where it is demanded, I’m not doing it. Are you going to put me in jail for not obeying that law? You can’t make anyone participate in a vile immoral activity when it was not in the job description. We should be proud that this simple woman had the guts and grit to stand against the gaystoppo.

    Reply this comment
    • henrycat 12 September, 2015, 02:52

      J.R., it’s the old “red light” thing again,,,,,,, If you move away from an area and come back two years later and run a red light that wasn’t there forever before you moved and you blast through it, try explaining that to the Officer that stops you…..

      The Supreme Court issued a “lawful order” and that trumps any argument that the County Clerk has. Doesn’t matter what her personal beliefs are…. she has to obey the law…….. She was in control of her own fate and decided to go to jail…. there were alternatives… If you don’t like the law, set about to have it changed. Otherwise we will have a continuation of Anarchy ala Obama….. I’m not gay or in favor of marriage other than traditional marriage.. Get over it…. She is just…… flat….. wrong….. If this type of twisted thinking is acceptable, what will you do when a group wants to impose Sharia on you??? If this keeps up, we may live to see the day… Please support Civil Law for all citizens of the U.S., not Anarchy…

      Reply this comment
      • Hank53 12 September, 2015, 04:31

        henrycat, Congress makes the laws, not the supreme court. The judicial branch has the least powers of all three, and it ain’t makin’ laws. There is no law passed by Congress that legalizes gay marriage, if you think there is, then show me and everyone else. You can’t. Go back and study history and the way it was all set up. WallBuilders can help you. You will be simply fascinated by how intelligent our Founder’s were.

        Reply this comment
        • henrycat 12 September, 2015, 05:14

          Here is the story on DOMA. The Supreme Court did not make any law regarding Gay Marriage… Sorry to burst your bubble….

          The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor), DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as “spouses” for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA’s passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples.

          Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. By defining “spouse” and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors’ benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers (18 U. S. C. §115), laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.[1]:23–24

          Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA’s repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional and that although the administration would continue to enforce the law while it existed, it would no longer defend the law in court. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

          Reply this comment
  19. crazy joe 12 September, 2015, 00:44

    Joe Joe Joe wakeup

    Reply this comment
  20. Ivan Berry 12 September, 2015, 00:54

    Stewart, I am totally in agreement with your stand. The low information voters and those of religious claim have no grounds to legitimately complain. In the first instance, they obviously do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; in the second, they avoid the admonition of Christ for those without sin to cast the first stone.
    It has been my experience that in debates between individuals with critical thinking skills, it is possible to persuade with a reasoned argument. The Collective, progressive and utopian mind cannot understand your reasoning, decisions nor rational arguments, one way or the other. They are not taught how to think any longer, but learn by rote to spew forth sound bites, and have been told what to think so as to inforce their assumed positions on any subject. The nuances of our founding documents, their reason for coming into existance and their bearing on all our lives totally escape them.
    I am so thankful that I was able to discover and join your organization at last. Only regret that it occurred so late in life that my actions in support are so limited due to age and infirmity. I thank you, Sir, and all that you stand for and propose to achieve through the efforts of like-minded Americans.

    Reply this comment
    • Dale 12 September, 2015, 01:26

      You are correct sir, I can’t understand how this Constitutional organization focuses on due process, while ignoring the 1st & 14th Amendments. And my critical thinking is quite intact, so please do clarify this for me.

      Reply this comment
  21. Sean 12 September, 2015, 01:22

    It’s hard to believe this is about protecting peoples rights. No one wanted to stand up and protect the rights of the people requesting a marriage license, just the rights of the person denying someone else an American freedom. As someone who has lived on the short end of that stick and tried to fight fairly with due process for decades, it is disheartening to finally “win” and then be categorized as denying someone else their right.

    There is no winning for people like me.

    Reply this comment
    • Jimbo 12 September, 2015, 04:08

      Sean, if you’re trying to say that you are homosexual in your comment, please realize that the lifestyle is bad for your health and well being. You will be subjected to diseases and increased domestic violence in those relationships. Please seek healing from that philosophy, there is a great plan and purpose for your life and others are depending on you to save their lives by being in that elevated position. God loves you and He needs you to serve others for His kingdom.

      Reply this comment
      • Pherd 12 September, 2015, 06:30

        Sean didn’t suggest that he was homosexual in his comment. Your reply just shows your bigoted automatic response to criticism. And before it begins, no I am not homosexual, I am heterosexual and happily married (to someone of the opposite sex since it obviously matters to you). I will state forthright that I am a believer in marriage equality. I love my wife of 17 years and fall in love with her more every day, and other people’s relationships are totally irrelevant to this. If a same-sex couple getting married devalues your marriage then I personally feel that you should look to the lack of value in your own relationship. If you want to see a devaluation of marriage maybe you should look to reality TV, Josh Duggar, or Kim Davis (on her 4th marriage). I personally think that if you are a private business owner you should have the right to refuse service to anyone. But, if you are an elected official and swear an oath to perform the duties of that office you should do so or step down from that office if your conscience prevents you from doing your duty.

        Reply this comment
      • Ben in oakland 12 September, 2015, 16:40

        I am am gay.. Every sentence you stated about what is going to happen to me as a gay man is simply untrue– untrue for me, untrue for anyone I know, untrue for anyone I have known in my 65 years.

        God loves me just as I am. He has blessed me with great health– I still run 6 minute miles. He has blessed me with wonderful friends, a great husband, a terrific career, and a great family.

        Stop hiding behind God to defend your own prejudices.

        Reply this comment
    • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:09

      Your taking this personally, you should not. You should read the Constitution of the the United States of America. Had you that information you would have known you had been duped. For those supreme court judges who supposedly made same sex unions legal did not have the authority to do so. Supreme Court judges are to determine if a law meets Constitutional requirements. It is congress and only congress whom can enact law. There are 3 branches of government. The executive branch which is the President deals with the military and foreign policies, Congress is the only branch that can pass laws and have their hands on the purse strings and last but not least is the Judicial to ensure that all laws are constitutional. That is a fact. Another fact is that Kentucky Legislatures did pass a law to define marriage as being between one woman and one man. Kim Davis under her oath of Office had no choice, for had she issued a marriage license she would have committed both a federal and state crime. If you can not support the fact that she was upholding her oath of office which is to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The judges selling the public on that they had the authority to legislate laws which is not true and is a crime as they have violated their oaths of office. Furthermore, homosexuals need to quit referring to their relationships as a marriage when what they should be called is civil unions. It illuminates all opposition. I do believe your being played by traitors within our government whom want to create a fight between different groups within this nation.

      Reply this comment
      • Ivan Berry 12 September, 2015, 21:37

        Barbara56, in an actually Federated union as we were founded, there are 4 branches. Many overlook that the 4th are the States that made up the Federation in the first place.
        And yes, one aim of the cultural changers is to pit us against one another–divide and conquer.
        As a further thought to see what response it generates, I have a question: If you were faced with a deadly enemy, which would you rather have, a heterosexual watching your back or a homosexual watching your backside? Or is that too, just too politically incorrect?

        Reply this comment
        • Highway67 13 September, 2015, 13:41

          What happened to separation of church and state? This woman works for the public and is claiming religious reasons for not doing her job. I could support the constitution issue is she had not spouted the religious reasons. Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

          Reply this comment
          • SM Day 13 September, 2015, 16:55

            “Separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution.” It is another twisted opinion foisted on this country by SCOTUS predicated on a statement of Jefferson’s in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in October 1801: Chief Justice Hugo Black, in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, is the judiciary culprit.

            Jefferson was writing against the domination of specific sects, Black was engineering Washington against religion in general at the state level, there is a major difference in the interests and you cannot connect them by reading the establishment clause, only by misinterpretation.

      • uttertosh 13 September, 2015, 20:09

        Kim Davis under her oath of Office had no choice, for had she issued a marriage license she would have committed both a federal and state crime. If you can not support the fact that she was upholding her oath of office which is “to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The judges selling the public on that they had the authority to legislate laws which is not true and is a crime as they have violated their oaths of office”

        Then why did she focus on it being her ‘religion’? The bible, and Our Lord Jesus Christ, make it patently clear that being gay is NOT a sin.

        What book do YOU read that tells folks they can’t be gay? Cos it sure isn’t the Bible. (Go on, quote me a verse that Jesus tells us that gayism is a SIN. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist)

        All of your (and her) assertions about the Bible are FALSE.

        Reply this comment
    • Rob 12 September, 2015, 22:50

      Please show me where was anybody thrown in jail without a trial from the 4 couples? You also understand that she refused to issue it to “STRAIGHT COUPLES” as well I know the media didn’t actually explain this to you because they wanted Kim Davis to look like a bigot and claim that she was discriminating against gay’s. BUT YET SHE WASN’T

      She ended up in jail without the right to a trial, without the right to question her accusers, her 5th and 6th amendment rights were taken away from her without due process. She didn’t leave her state to try and PUNISH somebody like the gay couple from Ohio traveled over 200 miles through several counties to find a Christian that would not give them a license so they could try and persecute her.

      So only person’s constitutional rights that were violated was Kim Davis. her first, amendment rights to freedom of religion, her 5th amendment right to due process, and her 6th amendment right to a speedy trial by a impartial jury and a public trial.

      The gay couple could have easily stayed in their home state, their home county and have been married but they didn’t actually care about getting married they wanted publicity, they wanted to go fulfill their anti-christian agenda.

      Reply this comment
      • Bob Justice 27 September, 2015, 19:22

        You don’t get a trial when you are held in contempt of court. It is a punishment imposed by a judge when you fail to obey his direct order. A judge can hold you until you comply or for the remainder of his term if you don’t.

        Reply this comment
  22. fish2rv p 12 September, 2015, 02:06

    A worthy cause and I;m glad to be an Oath Keeper (from the civilian ranks).
    I know there was at least one Woman coming with our Central KY contingent,,, So a Shout Out to all the Female Patriots who showed up in Grayson and for the brave E.B. who was going to “Lay it on the Line for our Constitution this time if called upon.

    Reply this comment
  23. mark 12 September, 2015, 02:32

    Usually when an employee refuses to do the job they were hired to perform it results in counseling and/or being fired if no resolution is found. Putting an employee in jail for being insubordinate just should not be done.

    Reply this comment
    • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:22

      Kim Davis did do her job. Fact of the matter is the Federal Judges violated their oaths of office when they declared their ruling law. They do not have the authority to legislate laws. See United States Constitution of the United States. If defines the responsibilities of the three branches of government. Judges can not legislate laws. Second, in 2002 Kentucky State Legislatures whom do have the authority to pass laws, passed a law in 2002 which defined marriage as being between one woman and one man. The only remedy for this is !. Ky legislatures must void out the 2002 law. Or 2. Issue marriage license as they defined in 2002 and issue a civil union license for homosexuals.

      Reply this comment
  24. DJ 12 September, 2015, 03:03

    So, I’m a public official that issues gun licenses. My deeply held religious beliefs are that guns are instruments of the devil. Therefore, I will not issue gun licenses. Forcing me to issue gun licenses or throwing me in jail for failure to do my job , I believe, is a violation of “religious freedom”. Will the “Oath Keepers” stand guard to prevent federal or state officials from forcing me to issue gun licenses?

    Reply this comment
    • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:27

      You should learn facts before you spout out your opinion. Your so wrong in your assessment it is disturbing. My advise to you is first read your Constitution of the United States of America where you can learn what each of the 3 branches of government can and can not do. Second in 2002 Kentucky Legislatures did pass a law (they can do that judges can not) that defined marriage as being between one woman and one man. She would have violated the law and her oath of office had she issued a license to a homosexual couple. Kentucky failed to provide her with a civil union license which would have protected her and the couple. You really should learn some things.

      Reply this comment
      • NotEvenWrong 12 September, 2015, 07:44

        @barbara56 – I’ devout Jain and Asian American. Jainism is 3000 year old religion with 10s of millions of followers. My religion strickly prohibits participating or supporting violence toward any other human being. If I’m am government official, should I refuse to give gun licenses to protect my religion freedom and guilt conscious? I’m not talking about same sex marriage or what supreme court is doing. I’m asking you a simple question – should I or shouldn’t I? And if your answer is yes, please also let us know if you would protect an American Muslim who refuses to give marriage license to a pregnant women because child before marriage is strickly prohibited in Islam. And rest assured, muslim clerk do not want to see her name on such a marriage license of such a misguided person. Would you consider this as victory of religious freedome? Please answer yes or no and please do not degrace in to supreme court judges etc. I want to make sure if you take religious freedom of every American seriously or is it about religious freedome of American Christians.

        PS: When you write or say the word “God”, do you mean Chritian God or Muslim God? You know, two are different with different goals and personality. So it’s probably better to qualify your statement like “My God loves every one” instead of “God loves everyone” so we know which God you are talking about.

        Reply this comment
        • Cal 12 September, 2015, 19:35

          First, this is NOT about religion(s).

          This is about the Constitution of the United States of America. What powers were delegated and what were retained by the states and the people. The Separation of Powers which is the bedrock of our constitutional republic that ALL Oath Takers, ALL who serve within our governments are under contract of and take a lawfully binding Oath to take and KEEP.

          Under the Separation of Powers both the state and general (federal) governments are further broken up in the duties and authorities assigned to the BRANCH that they are serving within. Those who are elected within the Legislative branch are the ONLY ones in THIS nation that can LAWFULLY delegated the authority to create laws/regulations/etc that are binding on the people. No one who serves within either the executive or the judicial branch was given that authority, matter of fact, because it is assigned to then legislative branch it is FORBIDDEN to the other two branches within the general government.

          It is always best to understand what our LEGITIMATE government is – constitutional republic – and what those that serve within them are ALLOWED to do – and most important, what they are NOT ALLOWED (FORBIDDEN) to do. To do that one must read the US Constitution; and for those that serve within state governments read both the US Constitution and the state Constitution where one is serving.

          This is about the US Constitution, state Constitutions, actions that those Domestic Enemies and Traitors that serve within the general (federal) government are doing to destroy our nation from within in bits and pieces over time.

          Hope this helps to clarify your misunderstanding.

          Oh, and I do not care what your religion is as long as YOU and those who practice it here in America do not work to destroy the US Constitution, America and her people. If so, I will fight you as I am the Traitors and Domestic Enemies doing so today, and I will – or others like me – arrest, prosecute, and carry out the penalty given if need be. You see, MY line is the US Constitution and you or no one else is allowed to cross it.

          Reply this comment
          • SM Day 13 September, 2015, 17:03

            That is the best reason for being an Oath Keeper I have ever read….thank you.

            In 1801 Jefferson directed this to the Rhode Island Assembly: “Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others, and several states as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each state severally the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom. This wise distribution, if carefully preserved, will prove, I trust from example, that while smaller governments are better adapted to the ordinary objects of society, larger confederations more effectually secure independence and the preservation of republican government.” [Emphasis mine].

          • Dred Scott 13 September, 2015, 18:33

            Just curious, but do the oath keepers consider the 14th amendment to be legal? And what do you make of preamble to the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”?

      • Frank Sellers 13 September, 2015, 23:23

        You’re ignorance of the law is pathetic, barbara56; any US Supreme court ruling overrules any existing state law. Are you really that ignorant, or are you are you hoping others will be so you can deceive them into believing your lies?


        [Editor’s Note: Frank, please try to be a bit more nice. Your tone of speech is abrasive, and while I’m allowing it to stand, I would appreciate your consideration for other readers here. If you perceive some as being ignorant, you may certainly say so, but let’s try to be less confrontational while making a point, yes? Thank you.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor]

        Reply this comment
    • Ivan Berry 12 September, 2015, 21:51

      Probably, DJ, if you were denied due process. Not based upon your belief sustem, but on the law.
      However, the 2nd amendment does not require a license. I would prefer that no civilians were involved in issuing either a gun nor a marriage license. One Texas State Representatives. has sponsored a bill to take out licenseing by government for marriage.

      Reply this comment
  25. Jimmy Hoffa 12 September, 2015, 03:33

    Up until this, I have backed the Oath Keeper. Yes, she has her constitutional right for her religious beliefs. That said, she does not have a constitutional right to discriminate against anyone. Whom does not have the same religious belief. She gets paid by the tax payer not the church!

    Sorry Stewart Rhodes, you need to read the constitution again and set your religious beliefs aside on this one.

    Reply this comment
    • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:33

      Stewart Rhodes is not the person who need to read the Constitution my friend. Those judges issued a ruling that is not law. Congress is the only branch of government that can pass laws. Laws can not be legislated from the bench. Those are called rulings. Second in 2002 Kentucky Legislatures did pass a law which they defined marriage as being between one woman and one man. She would have violated the law and her oath of office had she issued a marriage license because Ky defined marriage as being one woman and one man and homosexual couple does not qualify for a marriage license. Until Kentucky issues a civil union license homosexuals can not have a ie: marriage. Or else kentucky legislatures will have to change the law. Still those judges said it would be up to the states, Kentucky took their stand and defined marriage in 2002.

      Reply this comment
      • Craig Sawicky 12 September, 2015, 13:53

        The Justices issued THEIR INTERPRETATION ,which is effectively the LAW OF THE LAND until Adjustments have been made. Rights were being violated or denied based on the INTERPRETATION by others of Religious Writings. .

        Reply this comment
      • flopdog 12 September, 2015, 22:54

        Rubbish. The Supremacy Clause means states can make no law that disagrees with federal law. KY can make a law that “forbids same sex marriage” but it will be unconstitutional due to Obergefell, and unenforceable.

        Why do so few people actually understand the law?

        Reply this comment
        • Shorty Dawkins 12 September, 2015, 23:39

          flopdog,

          You are mistaken. The States can make no law that is in conflict with the Constitution, NOT Federal Law. Federal must also NOT contradict the Constitution.

          Reply this comment
          • sp 13 September, 2015, 17:37

            And the constitution provides for equal protection. This woman was violating people’s constitutional rights and you people are defending her. I think it is time to drop the whole ” we want to defend the constitution” Facade.

  26. Bob Russe;; 12 September, 2015, 03:48

    I agree with Kim Davis that she has not violated the law nor a legal court order. I also agree that her rights under the Constitution were violated and fail to understand why her lawyers would decline the help of the OathKeepers organization. If I was physically able I would join in any effort such as this or the Texas border event but I am seriously disabled from a stroke I suffered on Aug. 19, 2014. I can barely walk and my left arm is non-functional at this time. God bless Kim and all those willing to defend her. I truly wish I could help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sincerely, Bob Russell Claremore, Oklahoma

    Reply this comment
  27. Reconsct 12 September, 2015, 03:59

    I have been keeping an eye on the Oathkeepers website for sometime now, and been on the fence as if to become a full member or not. ( 19 year disabled Army vet, multiple deployments) Something though about this entire situation with Mrs. Davis though just rubs me completely the wrong way and makes me have further questions about the organization.
    I understand the need to upkeep your oath. However; as clerk her oath first and foremost was to the folks of the county. She had more than ample opportunities to either step down, or atleast step out of the way if her conscience was causing her internal conflict. Mrs. Davis DID NOT go to jail for her “Christian values”, no Mrs. Davis went to jail ultimately for forcing her Christian values on others. As part of my oath to defend the Constitution, I take freedom of religion very seriously, and that includes any religion as well as no religion that any individual would choose to follow or not .

    That brings me to the second issue that raises concern to me. I myself have no professed faith. It appears to me atleast that the Oathkeepers are basically prescribing the Christian faith to their members. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if not, would I even be welcome? How would such a group operate in good faith that states they defend the Constitution; whose cornerstone is freedom of religion, and then say *as long as it’s a branch of the Christian faith.

    Thank you in advance for any honest answers. I only ask because I would like clarification prior to joining up. Up to this point I’ve totally agreed with everything else you all have been involved with.

    Reply this comment
    • Dave 12 September, 2015, 04:40

      Hum…kinda like LGBTQs are forcing their values on all of us! And a supreme court that stepped out of bounds, and became arbitrary law makers. Do you have first amendment rights, or don’t you!

      So, the first amenment reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless you’re a government employee!” Oh wait. There’s something wrong. Oh well. Oprah’s on, got to go.

      Reply this comment
    • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:38

      You should learn history and you would then know exactly why Kim Davis doing what she did was in keeping her oath of office and keeping her from committing a criminal act. I would suggest that you start with the United States Constitution. It clearly defines each branch of governments roles and responsibilities. No where in that document are judges given the authority to legislate law. Second in 2002 Ky legislatures which do have the authority to create laws passed a law defining marriage as being between one woman and one man. Nor has Kentucky provided her with civil union license for homosexual couples.

      Reply this comment
      • Chuck63 13 September, 2015, 03:34

        I agree with you barbara56 100%. This is an emotional issue for many because their reasoning is blinded by their hatred of the Christian faith. You are correct, the Supreme Court has not been granted power by the Constitution to make laws. Our founders considered British history where kings packed the royal courts with servants loyal to their agendas. The founders embraced the separation of powers doctrine espoused by Charles de Montesquieu. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuals are harshly prosecuted and can even face the death penalty. By contrast I don’t see what Kim did as persecution. The 1st. Amendment of our Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Since Congress is restrained from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, how in the world can people think that the Supreme Court can make such a law when they are not even permitted to make laws. BTW there is no mention in the Constitution of government employees being exempt from these guaranteed religious freedoms. Our government today appears to be just winging it.

        Reply this comment
        • NeoVictorian 14 September, 2015, 21:28

          Chuck, by your reasoning, any government official should be allowed to perform their jobs by the dictates of their faith, and not the duties of the office they hold. Because if not, then their ‘free exercise of religion’ is being infringed upon.

          Should I go to the DMV to renew my drivers license, DNR to get a hunting license, county clerks office to file paperwork, etc etc.. I should not be subject to whichever -personal- beliefs the person on the other side of the counter holds. They have a job, with defined duties. I expect them to do it. They can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, Taoist, Sikh, ad nauseum.. I don’t care, as long as they do their job. Its not hating ‘faith’, its not having any room for their faith interfering with the performance of their duties.

          Reply this comment
    • Cal 12 September, 2015, 07:52

      I am only a member, but hopefully this will put to rest your doubts.

      “…clerk her oath first and foremost was to the folks of the county.”

      No, her Oath was to the Kentucky Constitution and the US Constitution. Kentucky does NOT recognize marriage except as between a man and a woman. She kept her Oath by no longer issuing marriage licenses to anyone until a decision could be made by the appropriate branch of the Kentucky government – the legislative.

      “… Mrs. Davis went to jail ultimately for forcing her Christian values on others.”

      No she went to jail because the judge… here, read it for yourself so that you can get it right from legal briefs.

      https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/090815_Emergency_Motion_to_Stay_Contempt_Order_%28brief_only%29.pdf

      But in reference to your comment about her religion, she did not force her beliefs on anyone,she voiced them; and there really is a difference.

      “It appears to me atleast that the Oathkeepers are basically prescribing the Christian faith to their members”

      As in throughout American, some of us do, some of us do not. Though you might consider this from Patrick Henry.

      Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

      Reply this comment
      • highflight 12 September, 2015, 15:24

        Well put and to the point. Ms Davis is following Kentucky law that is in this case constitutional. We are oath keepers, the oath is to the foundation of all other constitutional law: the constitution of these united states.

        MOLON LABE

        Reply this comment
  28. Calvin John 12 September, 2015, 03:59

    Most of us have strong feelings about religion and homosexuality. I have VERY strong opinions and feelings about both, but I refuse to let them blind me from seeing the clear Constitutional issues in this case.
    It was not the propriety of Oath Keeper’s offering assistance at issue here, but whether our limited resources make it feasible. That was the Oath Keepers’ leadership’s call. Would that Oath Keepers could get involved whenever Child UnProtective Services denies parents due process and snatches their kids for the “crime” of spanking (as opposed to beating the tar out of) their kids! Sadly, we can’t.

    Stewart clearly articulated the due process issue. There are others:

    1) The Constitution NOWHERE authorizes the Feds to redefine marriage; if government should be involved in marriage (and this imo is not the time to argue the point), the Constitution clearly puts the power at the State level (Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment);

    2) Even if the Feds DID have that power, whatever happened to ALL Federal legislative power being vested in Congress, NOT the courts (Article 1, Section 1?

    3) I am tired of reading that Kim Davis “broke the law”. She upheld her Oath to defend both Federal and State Constitutions. The Kentucky Constitution, by a ¾ majority, was amended to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. She upheld it, for which she went to jail. The judge who jailed her had the audacity to say “An Oath is an Oath”, while blatantly following a rogue SCOTUS legislation from the bench.

    Read Marbury v. Madison, the case the set the stage for judicial review, the courts declaring laws unconstitutional. I think the justices who articulated such respect for the Constitution (last third of the decision) would be turning over in their graves if they knew what a hash modern Supreme Courts have made of the Constitution’s authority. I daresay they’d be similarly appalled by the blind ignorance with which too many Americans, including people who write on Oath Keepers message boards, accept SCOTUS decisions as if they have the force of law.

    So to those out there who wouldn’t recognize the Constitutional issues of this case if they bit you in the butt, yet think you can publicly lecture Stewart Rhodes because you think you are better Constitutional lawyers than he, I say:

    DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Or, if you have, then give us the fruits of your labor, instead of taking cheap shots at our leader.

    Reply this comment
    • Don 12 September, 2015, 04:54

      K you shot yerself in the foot with the first argument: “The Constitution NOWHERE authorizes the Feds to redefine marriage”.

      The Constitution also NOWHERE authorizes the redefinition of the recipe for ketchup. The SCOTUS however DOES have the authority to interpret the constitutionality of current law.

      Guess what? They found that the current recipe for ketchup is unconstitutional. Doesn’t mean that you have to change YOUR recipe but you can’t impose yer recipe on others.

      I think that there is a good chance that you don’t “get” this analogy or even know what the word “analogy” means.

      Reply this comment
      • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:45

        No you are very uninformed. Judges passed a ruling, it is not a law. Ky Legislatures passed a law in 2002 whereas they amended the state constitution to define marriage as being between one woman and one man. Hummm what was Kim to do??? She would have violated her oath to office. It was the media that told you it was a religious issue it wasn’t Kim Davis. Seems to me the issue is Kentucky can not legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Easy solution they need to issue civil union licenses. Problem solved.

        Reply this comment
    • wingnut 15 September, 2015, 00:43
  29. sam 12 September, 2015, 04:18

    just when I was begining to think your organization wass a good one you come up with protecting someone who tool the constitution and craped on it. you realy need to rethink this one.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 13 September, 2015, 16:48

      “… you come up with protecting someone who tool the constitution and craped on it.”

      You are mistaken, the Oathkeepers is NOT defending the judge’s unlawful and Oath breaking action. They are defending the clerks lawful and Oath Keeping action.

      The leaders here know the Constitution of the United States very well, and I think you are media taught it – which means that you need to read it for yourself.

      If you join, which I do recommend, you still need to understand the US Constitution and our Separation of Powers written into it, at least your state’s Constitution so that you can actually recognize when there is a real constitutional wrong being committed on the part of those that SERVE WITHIN our governments (yes, plural).

      I am trying to keep this short (something I am not known to do) so I will not teach it to you here.

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”
      (This would be the judge who used “misbehavior” which requires him to be removed after charged and prosecuted with a JURY trial, something he was denying the clerk – and many others who serve within our governments.)

      Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
      (This is where we are today.

      Truthfully, I am hoping you are just here posting as a paid government shill trying to cause dissension in the ranks here, because I find it too disheartening that anyone is that ignorant of the government in which they play a major part. Though that would be bad for you when we remove the domestic enemies and traitors who currently serve within our governments and replace them with decent people; then charge and prosecute ALL who were working to destroy our nation from within.

      Reply this comment
  30. A non-hypocritical vet 12 September, 2015, 04:35

    Let me get this straight: An organization named “Oath Keepers” wants to support a government official who is violating her oath of government?
    She is refusing government services to the public. Plain and simple. Court order IS the law. Refusing to do your job based on personally held beliefs is NOT the law, but TYRANNY.

    I had considered the publicly stated mission of Oath Keepers to be a worthy one, but now I see the true intent: to push far-right social conservative policies and support Christian exceptionalism and tyranny upon the public. I did not volunteer my life to protect the “right” of the government, as represented by Kim Davis, a public official, to impose it’s religious will upon the citizens.

    Reply this comment
    • barbara56 12 September, 2015, 06:16

      Kim Davis is the only person in this drama who did not violate her oath to offices. Judges do not have the authority to legislate laws see United States Constitution of America. Furthermore, in 2002 Kentucky State Legislatures did pass a law defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. If she had issued a marriage license to a homosexual couple she would have been in violation of Ky state law as it defined marriage as being between one woman and one man. The only thing she could have issued though it’s not available would have been a civil union license. So seems to me the issue lies in Ky. They are going to have to issue marriage licenses to one man and one woman and to homosexual couples a civil union license.

      Reply this comment
      • Mike 12 September, 2015, 17:07

        Barbara, I’m going to respond to this because your erroneous argument seems to be the one I’m reading most frequently.

        Please stop saying that judges can’t make laws. That is a demonstrably false statement. They do make law, and it’s called case law. Just because it isn’t voted on doesn’t mean it is void. Your argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the functions of the judicial branch as set forth in the Constitution, and the separation of powers between branches.

        Next, within case law there is this thing called “supremacy” whereby a higher courts ruling supersedes that of a lower court. Guess which court has the most “supremacy?” If you said the Supreme Court, you’d be right. They ruled on the marriage issue based on their Constitutionally granted right to interpret the Constitution as amended. This case law can ONLY be overturned via a Constitutional amendment, either by a vote in the legislative branch, or by a Constitutional convention of the states. That is the ONLY way to invalidate case law as ruled on by SCOTUS. This is the Constitution functioning as intended.

        Finally, this case was never about the authority of SCOTUS, per our Dear Leader, but rather about a violation of due process. However, this argument also relies on the idea that case law as ruled by SCOTUS isn’t valid, as SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue of when a contempt charge is civil vs. criminal, and in this case the charge was obviously civil in nature. This completely changes the type of due process warranted, and the argument that a jury trial was necessary was just plain wrong.

        Reply this comment
        • Luc 12 September, 2015, 18:52

          Thank you Mike, I was about to chime and and say exactly the same thing. And, yes, as an atty, I agree with you.

          This situation has made me greatly rethink the OK, sadly. Stewart has gerrymandered a very strained interpretation of due process.

          Glad Ms. Davis’ lawyers declined. Had OK shown up armed, they would have been instantly branded a terrorist organization, and I’m afraid the US Marshalls would have left nothing but smoking boots.

          I’m afraid though much PR damage has been done. And I think the membership will decrease over this action.

          Reply this comment
          • Ivan Berry 12 September, 2015, 22:36

            So case law supercedes the supreme law of the land? And Supreme Court Justices can keep establishing new precidents at will by changing their rulings by the changing of the makeup of the Court. Boy, that’s really smart. The only binding of a SCOTUS ruling then is to the case at hand and following like cases until a later constituted Supreme Court changes the rule.
            Boy, lawyers’ tricks are really grand.

          • Ivan Berry 14 September, 2015, 18:09

            Oh, and by the way, has anyone noticed that in the Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1, 1st clause, “The judicial Power…shall be vested in one supreme Court,and…” and that “supreme” is rendered in lower case?

          • Mike 17 September, 2015, 03:36

            Ivan, please STFU. The Constitution grants the authority to interpret it to the courts. Saying a Supreme Court ruling supersedes the law of the land is ridiculous, since they interpret the Constitution, and in fact define the “law of the land.”

            Further, lawyers “tricks” are, frankly, what made this a great country. Except, they aren’t so much “tricks” as they are maneuvers that create freedom where it before didn’t exist under Monarchs.

            Try not to take your frustrations with the tax code out on civil rights attorneys.

  31. Dave 12 September, 2015, 04:48

    Oh well … sounds like you may have been freed up for a larger event in Nevada! But, honestly, I’m not sure I would touch that one either. 5 million is a lot for a piece of dirt in Nevada. as you all know, you have to pick your battles. And, no matter the battle, the media is going to paint crazy extremists all over it.

    I think the important battles are just around the corner, better to stay clean until then.

    Reply this comment
  32. Don Waas 12 September, 2015, 04:48

    Judges are the biggest violators of their oath. With out court integrity your right are void. The oath keepers should focus on this issue. http://www.judicialimmunitynecessaryevil.com/petition.html

    Reply this comment
  33. papaj 12 September, 2015, 05:31

    How can it be a law if congress didn’t vote on it?,

    Reply this comment
  34. HardCase 12 September, 2015, 08:14

    The County Clerk who went to jail for disobeying a ruling from the Supreme Court.

    This woman swore an Oath to do her duties so on and so forth to the best of her abilities. She then BROKE her oath, not just insubordination, she created a media circus. Now Oathkeepers wants to have their name drug through her shit…. I thought you where about holding a higher standard, not serving some ELECTED Officials Bidding.

    Plans on Picketing a judges house, come on now. Stop worring about the symptoms of a broken system, if you treat one symptom (((Firing an insubordinate clerk)) you will still have gay men and lesbian women….OH decided life treatment on life support, gay soldiers whose heart is torn to peices as his partner comes home in a black bag for a military funeral and is handed a flag…

    Now I will make a shocking coffesion just so you know I’m not some “paid government operative as Alex Jones would call me. In fact I would not even be posting anything to do with this shithead from Kentucky.

    It was my respect for Oathkeepers what you did at the Bundy Ranch, Fergussion, and the daily lives you carry yourself in a way that makes people want to follow you.

    Please support her how ever you wish, but do not let it tarnish the name of Oathkeepers.

    Reply this comment
    • woody 12 September, 2015, 19:24

      Thank you for your confused and un-related diatribe response to a valorous attempt b y Oath Keepers to protect someone persecuted by a tyrannical Govt.

      Reply this comment
  35. Tom 12 September, 2015, 15:01

    Hardcase, do you even have the concept of the Law. She was following the laws of Kentucky. Kentucky Law says marriage is between a man and a women. She has to follow Kentucky Law. Judges do not make laws. The Kentucky Legislative branch of govt. has to change the Law. So there fore the Oath Keepers are upholding there oaths by protecting her from undue process.

    Reply this comment
    • ShadowSokar 13 September, 2015, 22:54

      She wasn’t following Kentucky Law. The supreme court made all laws defining marriage between one man and one woman, null and void. This was due to the 14th amendment. The Supreme court did not make a law, it only voided one that was not kosher with the Constitution of the United States and was denying rights to citizens.

      The supreme court was more than happy to sit and let the states handle the issue by going through the lesser courts of the the different districts. It wasn’t until two of the districts were in conflict that the Supreme Court allowed the case to be tried before them again. Once the ruling was made by the Supreme Court, that law which was in Kentucky’s books was considered null and void. She broke the law at that point by denying the marriage license to not only gays but she also denied straights their licenses as well. And the funny part is the gays in the case only wanted her fined not sent to jail. it was the judges decision to send her to jail for contempt of court. She had her day in court, and the judge told her she had to issues licenses. she refused so she was held in contempt.

      She could have easily stepped aside and let her clerks to issue licenses to gays, but she forced her religious beliefs onto them. In a government that is to be neutral to all religions of the citizens that it protects, she was destroying the founding principles of our nation.

      Reply this comment
      • SM Day 14 September, 2015, 05:41

        The 14th Amendment was not legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution, and has only been given the life it has by judges with agendas and supported by an illiterate electorate.

        Reply this comment
  36. Mike 12 September, 2015, 16:25

    This is just ridiculous, and let me say that the damage is now done, and there’s no going back from this.

    Look at the comments you’ve been getting from your membership. The only people coming out to support this decision are extreme Christian fundamentalists who believe the Constitution is superseded by the Bible, and Sovereign Citizens who think they have the power of the courts to interpret law unto themselves.

    There doesn’t seem to be any due process violation here. The Supreme Court has held that imprisonment is only criminal in nature (i.e. imprisoned for a “crime”) if the imprisoned cannot end their imprisonment by complying with a lawful order, and her legal team admitted as much in their written appeal. That lawful order was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

    There was no “crime” alleged which means that the imprisonment of Kim Davis required only the due process of a civil proceeding, which does not require a trial by jury, or an indictment.

    So, for a perceived due process violation not based in actual law you set our organization on a path to likely armed confrontation with officers and agents of the government carrying out a lawful order. With this decision our organization may well move from an unwarranted spot on the SPLC extremist list, to a warranted spot on the terror watch list.

    I’ve realized that my Oath to the Oath Keepers means very when compared to my Oath to my Country and my Constitution. To avoid any conflict between those Oaths I am renouncing my membership effective immediately.

    Reply this comment
    • Bill 12 September, 2015, 22:13

      A huge amount of damage has been created here by Stewart’s ignorance of the law. Fortunately – due to Kim Davis’ lawyers declining Oath Keepers offer to “protect” her – the much greater public damage to Oath Keepers has been avoided. Had Oath Keepers’ “security detail” become involved in a firefight with federal marshals acting in accordance with the law, that could very well have been the end of Oath Keepers.

      The problem is that Stewart, in his ignorance, confused civil due process with criminal due process and tried to jump into this battle on the wrong side. Stewart, you need to carefully pick your battles and do so only with competent legal advice. In this case an apology is due the membership from you along with a promise to consult competent legal advice in the future.

      What anyone’s religious convictions are is immaterial. When an elected official refuses to accomplish the duties of her office, as in this case when Kin Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to anyone, same sex or opposite sex, it would have been appropriate for her to either resign her elected position or allow her subordinates to issue those licenses. That is what the judge ruled in response to a federal civil lawsuit that properly came before him. She was jailed until she decided to do one of those two things. She has been released with the instruction to do one of those two things. Where it goes from here is up to her.

      Oath Keepers has absolutely no business becoming involved with this situation.

      Reply this comment
      • NeoVictorian 14 September, 2015, 21:16

        I agree that Oathkeepers ‘dodged a bullet’ here. Thankfully, Davis’s legal team didn’t want the Oathkeepers around.. though the cynic in me suspects it’s because they didn’t want anyone taking up any of Davis’s time in the media spotlight. This is her ’15 minutes of fame’ and she’s going to ride it into the ground.

        -Had- the Oathkeepers engaged with federal marshalls performing their lawful duties, it would cast the OK in the mold of the radicals the center and left press speak of them in regularly. And if they had -not- engaged, in the mold of paper tigers. All growl and no bite. Lose/lose.

        Reply this comment
  37. Terapin 12 September, 2015, 17:39

    You people are clueless on the Supreme Court and Marriage
    The court has to make gay marriage legal
    Its equal rights.
    How soon we forget that American soldiers were threatened with Jail due to absurd marriage laws.
    My father, a Navy petty officer and Korean war vet could not move to any state he wanted to after he completed his service.
    If our family moved to Virginia in the late 50’s, they would have been thrown in jail simply due to their marriage.
    If the Navy recognized my parents marriage, then they should have the right to move to any state in the nation.
    My father, a Korean War vet, would have been arrested and thrown in jail if he decided to move to Virginia. Simply due to his marriage to my mother.
    This was not settled till the Supreme Court stepped in and made my parents marriage legal in all 50 states.
    My father was a Korean War vet, my mother is from Asia.
    Only the supreme court could make my parents marriage legal in all 50.
    Love always wins
    Support Veterans and their right to Marry

    Reply this comment
  38. Henry 12 September, 2015, 18:20

    Thank-you for your service. I stand with Outhkeepers

    Reply this comment
  39. GoldenBB 12 September, 2015, 23:45

    For the LAY LAWYERS and the real Lawyers here that have expressed their agreement with and loyalty to the subversion that our judicial branch has committed with CASE LAW. As you are apposed to the straight forward protections and easily spelled out directions contained in the Constitution of the United States of America spelling out succinctly what the separation of powers are concerning the three branches of a Republican form of government. You have made your oaths not to the American Constitution at all. You have made your oaths to the Queens Bar of Maritime Admiralty, which is in fact Admiralty Law of the Seas. That is why you Esquires have no loyalty to the Law of the Land or the people of this nation. That is in turn why you guild has been undermining and circumventing the constitution for over one hundred of years now.

    Your Case Law in other words is an open attack on the constitution that some of us have bled for and some of our brothers and sisters have even given their lives for.
    To wit, you are the domestic enemies within our midst and those of us who have given our solemn oath to uphold and defend the constitution know you only too well as the domestic within. So don’t come in here and shake your treasonous finger stating that case law (which is in fact color of law which is no law at all) takes any supremacy what so ever over the law of the land, the United States Constitution.

    I’ll let the true American people on here finish this most appropriate joke concerning the profession of lawyer, this will explain my utter disdain for most of you who profess to be a councilor of law.

    What are 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

    Reply this comment
    • Mike 17 September, 2015, 04:15

      Not an attorney here, but I have actually read things.

      Your argument is one for the Sovereign Citizens movement, not for constitutionalists.

      I understand how you may be confused. Words, are in fact, confusing when you find they don’t mean what you’d like them to mean.

      Words like liberty, legislation, case law, Constitution, and even Queen have meaning. Meaning to a large group of people (i.e. society) as opposed to just your decrepit mind.

      It will in fact take something akin to a revolution to institute your ideals. I imagine it would look almost identical to the first Dark Knight movie. Replete with the terrible voice acting.

      Reply this comment
  40. Jason 13 September, 2015, 05:12

    For all of you who claim that Kim Davis broke her oath, or that just because she is an elected official that she has to obey the new ‘law of the land’ (even if it violates her conscience), or that the Supremacy clause takes precedence over state law, you all are just spewing the same BS lies the media and politicians tell you. Sad.

    IMPORTANT FACT: there is no binding law in America which imposes gay marriage upon all 50 states.

    I encourage each of you to spend 9 and half minutes to watch this video: https://youtu.be/LpZWajE5tjc. Best selling author and national talk radio host, Carl Gallups, explains this issue from a CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE better than anyone else has to date. If you want the real truth, and not the myths the brainwashers in the media and Washington you to believe, then watch it! If 9.5 minutes is too long a commitment, then here’s a 2 minute summary:

    Since there is no actual law in the Constitution defining gay marriage, there can not be due process for something that doesn’t exist. The definition of marriage is a self-evident truth since the founding of our nation. The equal protection clause, part of the 14th Amendment, was written to protect freed slaves and makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about marriage (homosexual or heterosexual).

    So this issue goes far beyond Kim Davis. It is more about the unconstitutional SCOTUS gay marriage ruling. SCOTUS can NOT make laws. It can only rule on the Constitutionality of existing laws that have been made by Congress and signed by POTUS. That is what the Constitution says and limits them to. Yet there is no federal law defining homosexual marriage.

    In fact, the only federal law the U.S. HAS EVER HAD that defined marriage was the Defense of Marriage Act proclaiming that marriage was between a man and a woman only. It was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Yet in 2013, SCOTUS struck down that law proclaiming that the federal government (including SCOTUS) has no Constitutional authority to define marriage. Now get this… they said only the STATES have that right (U.S. vs Windsor). In that case, SCOTUS said “federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.” SCOTUS obviously understood their Constitutional boundaries then… what has changed between then and now?

    In short:

    1) The Supreme Court can NOT make law, it can only interpret the Constitutionality of existing law.
    2) The supreme court has not ruled on any federal law defining marriage as homosexual since there is NO federal law in existence defining gay marriage.
    3) In 2013, the Supreme Court said in the Defense of Marriage Act that if any federal agency attempted to define marriage for the states, it would be unconstitutional and illegal to do so, thus they struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
    4) To now say that gay marriage is the law of the land is a display of ignorance of Constitutional law and an attempt to deceive the American public.
    5) No state, no county clerk, no U.S. judge, no pastor or otherwise is obligated to perform or acknowledge a gay wedding based on the ruling by SCOTUS, which was simply an unconstitutional and illegal opinion.

    Based on those facts, the judge who illegally threw Kim Davis in jail violated HIS oath. She was obeying Kentucky law, which was approved by the voters, was essential defended by SCOTUS in 2013, and which can NOT be overruled by SCOTUS. This truly has nothing to do with religion and has EVERYTHING to do with Constitutionality. As Stewart Rhodes said, do we really want judges throwing people in jail at their whim? Whether you share in Kim Davis’ beliefs or not, that judge had no constitutional authority to jail her for the false, over-abused charge of ‘contempt’. And if she had just quit like many of you say she should have done, then she would have just been giving in to the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling, thereby breaking her oath.

    Carl repeated it over and over, and I’ll say it again as well: There is no binding law in America which imposes gay marriage upon all 50 states. Wake up America and see the bigger picture here! In case you missed it, here’s the link to that video again: https://youtu.be/LpZWajE5tjc.

    Reply this comment
    • Ivan Berry 13 September, 2015, 14:11

      Jason, an excellant explanation that justifies the OathKeepers’ actions as well as the meanings of due process and equal protections. Any right thinking person would have known that the founders never intended us to be ruled by a court run by judges who could MAKE law at a whim. Thank you.
      I have now put Carl’s Home page in my “Favorites.”

      Reply this comment
    • Bill 13 September, 2015, 15:44

      Everyone has an opinion. Opinions vary. What the US Constitution says in the 14th Amendment is “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States:”

      It does not say “black citizens”. It means all citizens, all races, all religions, and all genders. All citizens are to be treated equally with equal rights, privileges, and immunities. Like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that means any citizen can marry any other person.

      But Oath Keepers involvement in this situation, according to Stewart Rhodes, was supposedly only because a jury trial was not allowed – so the 14th Amendment would not apply to involvement in this situation, nor would the Supreme Court decision. Stewart said above “As for the many harsh critics of our offer to protect Mrs. Davis, it is frankly sad that so many Americans cannot understand taking a stand in defense of someone’s due process rights regardless of who that person is, what they stand for, or what they are accused of doing or have done. That should not matter, and all that should matter is our common ground of the Bill of Rights and the hard-won rights of due process and in particular jury trial.”

      Then we find out that this situation involved civil due process, not criminal due process, and a jury trial is clearly not required by the US Constitution or anything else. The 6th Amendment says “In all CRIMINAL prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”

      Reply this comment
      • Bill 13 September, 2015, 18:24

        Correction: There is a typo in my previous post and no way to correct it. It should read 6th Amendment instead of 7th. The 6th Amendment says “In all CRIMINAL prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”


        [Editor’s Note: I repaired your previous post at your request. Thank you.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor]

        Reply this comment
      • Ivan Berry 13 September, 2015, 22:33

        But Bill, the 11th Amend. does not specify criminal law from civil law in it’s exclusion from the Judicial power of the United States from suits in law between one of the States by Citizens of another State.

        Reply this comment
        • Bill 14 September, 2015, 00:59

          What you say is correct but I fail to see that it has anything to do with this situation. There are no icebergs in this situation either.

          I understand the purpose of that amendment to be keeping the Feds out of lawsuits (which do not involve federal law) against a state from persons who happen to live in another state or in a foreign country. Just because the person suing a state comes from outside that state is not cause to involve the Feds when no federal law is involved in that suit. It might be assumed that if the suit crosses state lines that the Feds need to be involved – but this amendment says no.

          Reply this comment
          • Bill 14 September, 2015, 05:29

            It should be obvious and go without saying that the 11th Amendment deals with “any suit in law or equity . . .” That is civil, not criminal. There is nothing about criminal in the amendment, so of course – as you say – it “does not specify criminal law from civil law in it’s exclusion . . .”

  41. Liberty Sanders 13 September, 2015, 14:14

    One thing that I learned during my law enforcement career is that the worst form of mental illness is unrestrained religious fanaticism. I am astonished at the people here who are so blinded by religious fervor that they are unable to grasp the plain facts of this case. This woman swore to perform certain duties and then publicly stated that she would not do so. A court ordered her to fulfill her responsibilities and she still refused to do so. She DESERVED to go to jail, and if I had my way she would have stayed there until she issued her first gay marriage license from her jail cell.

    The federal government cannot legislate concerning marriage, this is quite true. But the SCOTUS can determine the constitutionality of laws passed at state level. The fact that Kentucky passed a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is completely irrelevant. In this country NO group of citizens can band together to vote away the rights of other citizens. It is unconstitutional. It is UnAmerican. And it is disgusting.

    I tender my resignation from the Oathkeepers effective immediately. If wild-eyed religious nutjobs are going to be permitted to turn this organization into a lynch mob wherein religious fantasy trumps the rule of law it means there is no further room for me here.

    Reply this comment
    • Bill 14 September, 2015, 06:00

      That was a clear and concise analysis. I’m sorry you feel it necessary to resign from OK. I’m holding off on a decision until after I see what kind of damage control Stewart Rhodes comes up with. If any.

      This ridiculous and totally unnecessary incident is costing OK some of our best, most clear thinking members – but that is nothing compared to the firestorm that would have been if the “security detail” had fired on federal marshals. One side of that confrontation would have either backed down or been shot down – and it would not have been the federal side.

      Reply this comment
      • Mr. Ed 15 September, 2015, 14:56

        Bill-wasn’t that the same results that could have happened at the Cliven Bundy ranch? Except the feds backed down there.

        Reply this comment
    • Chuck63 14 September, 2015, 14:54

      The highest law of the land,, our Constitution guarantees religious freedom for individuals, while prohibiting Congress from making any laws that favor one establishment of religion or another. Years ago, a Christian friend told me about an experience she had in class while studying law. While her professor was teaching on the strategies of winning a case, she asked him, “What about truth”. His reply was, “Truth is irrelevant”. There are going to be huge problems with actual justice when truth is disrespected to the point of being regarded as irrelevant. As Bill Clinton once said, “Character doesn’t matter”. Those who believe that truth is irrelevant and character doesn’t matter pose a serious danger to our liberties. Our Constitution guarantees individual religious freedom and does not make an exception to those freedoms, should homosexuals demand a person violate their beliefs in order to serve them. Earlier someone argued that the Supreme court can indeed make laws through a string of mangled precedents. Our founders citing Britain as a bad example of government and never intended a Supreme court, through a series of agenda inspired precedents, to perform a 180 on any of the sound principles in our Constitution. We are bombarded by gay rights agenda items in the news. My idea of freedom is, freedom from being forcibly enlisted into being an active part of the homosexual support system.

      Reply this comment
      • Tom136 15 September, 2015, 03:00

        She has the right to follow whatever religion she wishes, however, it is against that same amendment that she nor any other government official may impose any religion or further any religion upon anyone in an official capacity.

        Wishing to not be a part of the gay agenda is one thing, but part of that same freedom allows people the right to be free of the Christian agenda too.
        As a straight southern baptist, I still feel the need to protect equally all rights under the constitution whether they fall under my views or not.

        Reply this comment
        • Chuck63 15 September, 2015, 22:15

          Joseph Goebbels Quote:
          “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

          We as a people need to be careful to think for ourselves and avoid accepting beliefs that go against our better judgement even if it means being branded intolerant. On January 10, 1963, the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled “Communist Goals for Taking Over America.” It’s of interest to me anyway, that in the long list of goals, Number 26 reads: Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” As an older guy I remember how much better off America was before the Progressive, Leftist movement promoted it’s brand of morality and successfully convinced many, that traditional values had to go. In the 60’s and 70’s my father earned an average salary and my mother didn’t need to work. Their mortgage payment was $142 per month. Utilities and gasoline were dirt cheap. Gasoline was around 28 cents per gallon. Having lived in a different era where traditional values were accepted as the norm, I can clearly see that the values espoused by politicians and lawyers such as “Character doesn’t matter” and “Truth is irrelevant” have eroded our standard of living. All one needs to do is look at Detroit in the Liberal / Progressive portfolio of accomplishments.

          Reply this comment
        • GENESIS 26:24 16 September, 2015, 14:49

          Tom

          You are exactly right, the whole point of our constitution is to protect the rights of ALL individuals regardless of any religious or non-religious agenda or belief , as in the issues of gay rights. Don’t forget also our war on drugs which has turned into a war on people to choose their own poison, we had alcohol prohibition and ended up the same way, why have we continued this war on people, it has only created over populated prison’s , drug trafficking and a war zone all the way thru Mexico
          And is more than likely what has lead to the creation and demand for the more dangerous uncontrolled substances ie… crack,meth,ghb, and X
          Using your religious beliefs to controls others boils down to governmental terrorism. We are getting closer and closer to the point of losing the Foundation of Our Constitution everyday

          Reply this comment
      • Vallihuldun 17 September, 2015, 02:12

        Your religious beliefs are your beliefs. The government does not have any right to force you to violate your beliefs. However, You DO NOT have the right to force your beliefs on anyone else! This means, that if you are a member of the KKK, you can work anywhere you are qualified, but if you refuse people service on the grounds that “My beliefs say that black people don’t deserve that!” you should expect to face disciplinary actions.In the private sector, expect to be fired. You may also face a civil lawsuit. If you work for the public, expect to be fired. Also, it is a reasonable use of a judge’s power to order you to do the job that you swore to do. If you have a moral objection, you can resign or ask to be transferred. Being transferred is a “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION” and protected by law.
        You CAN NOT refuse to fulfill your oath of office. You can not refuse to do your job. You can not selectively preform your duties on the basis of who YOU believe should or should not receive something that is someone’s right BY LAW.
        When I heard that Oath Keepers had offered to protect this… woman… and I use the term loosely, I didn’t believe it. Unfortunately, it was all too true. WHY? I’ve supported you guys for a while, but this has been the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen you do. Not only do you go against your OWN OATHS that you swore to fulfill, you do so in the most public manner possible. Now, millions of people who have never heard of Oath Keepers and the GOOD that they have done, get their first impression of them as a bunch of right-wing, religious zealot nutcases, who want to shoot any government official who attempts to mess with this contemptible woman.
        Quit defending this action. This had nothing to do with defending the Constitution. It had everything to do with ignoring the Constitution to push a religious agenda. So admit you fucked up, learn from it, and I hope we can move on. This VERY BAD move has hurt Oath Keeper’s support very badly. It has also shaken the faith of those of us who still believe in Oath Keeper’s stated mission.
        You can not simply ignore or defend this. Admitting you are wrong is hard, but in this case, you ARE, and you need to do so. Otherwise, I fear for the future of what used to be an organization I was proud to support.

        Reply this comment
        • Allen 17 September, 2015, 14:24

          You’re right, this whole Kim Davis thing is my very first impression of the Oath Keepers. Since I view it as important to seek all sides of an issue, I started researching and ended up here. I was pleasantly surprised to read their mission statement and I agree with each point wholeheartedly. However, I can’t understand the Oath Keepers defending an oath breaker. I do understand taking issue with contempt jailing of civilians, but a government representative who uses her position to force her beliefs on others–a person who can’t be fired–has to be dealt with. She broke her oath. She used her government position to oppress others. She disobeyed a court order. She can’t be removed from office forcefully. What’s left to do? To be honest, I feel like if the Oath Keepers’ motivations were are pure as their mission statements, they would have been there to challenge her rather than defend her.

          Reply this comment
    • Moman 14 September, 2015, 20:06

      Why do you feel it is required she be jailed? why not just fire her and absolve her of her pension under the breach of employment contract with the government? the jailing is unnecessary, so is the financial punishment they want to invoke, and there are other people in her office I am sure that had no conscience issues with issuing these licenses.

      they also wanted to revoke her right to trial by jury, from what I am reading, which is a constitutional right.

      you also neglect that We The People, are suppose to be the final arbiters of the constitutionality of a law, NOT THE SCOTUS! in original intent.

      either way, I again re-iterate the incarceration is a strong arm tactic, she should have just been terminated from the position for failure to perform duties of office.

      Reply this comment
      • Some Fur 15 September, 2015, 07:10

        The issue has to do with Kentucky lacking a legal system to revoke her position as an elected official, or even a system of recall. Essentially, jailing her for contempt of court was the only real option left due to Kentucky state law.

        Too tired to get into the exact details, but it’s quite simply that there is no current federal ruling that could trump Kentucky’s lack of system to deal with elected officials outside impeachment by the state legislature. Trying to find her an impartial jury would be near impossible, as she has a few salivating supporters, and the mass hordes wanting to know why some woman not doing her job is getting our tax money to sit on her ass and discriminate against people.

        Moreover, she’s not being accused of a crime, she’s violating her duty and vows.

        Reply this comment
        • Moman 16 September, 2015, 21:03

          then that is Kentucky’s problem, the last line in your reply says it all though really, she is jailed, but not for a crime.

          which makes the detainment against one’s will illegal.

          the trial could be held outside the state, if necessary to create an impartial jury, besides, there is also a reason why potential jury members are interviewed first.

          Reply this comment
          • Bob Justice 27 September, 2015, 18:58

            The crime is contempt of court. Failure to obey a judge’s order is contempt. The judge can fine you, jail you or both.

    • Redchillismoke 15 September, 2015, 20:15

      The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” An elected official has the individual right of Freedom of Religion. However, that stops with the individual and the right to worship how they see fit as it applies to themselves.

      This nation is secular and not ruled by any one particular set of laws based on any particular religion. That is the beauty of our nation and that was also the point. That was the ruling by SCOTUS, they did not create any laws.

      As an elected official, Kim Davis is in effectively making her variant of Christianity a law in refusing to do her duties based on her own personal beliefs. She swore an oath to the People of Kentucky and she is breaking that oath. To protect her directly violates the First Amendment and it violates every individuals’ liberties.

      I agree with Liberty Sanders. Moreover, I also am removing my support, along with my persons from OathKeepers. I refuse to associate myself with a group that directly violates Constitutional law for all Americans in favor of a select group.

      We did not swear our oaths to protect some Americans, we swore them for every American.

      Reply this comment
    • CritiKiL 18 September, 2015, 20:30

      You took the thoughts right out of my mind! I concur and tendered my membership for the same reasoning. #KimDavis was jailed, NOT for practicing her religion, but for using the government to force others to practice her religion. SCOTUS is the law of the land and she swore an ‘oath’ to uphold the law. As an “employee of the courts” her personal religious beliefs should have never intertwined with another’s personal beliefs and rights under law. If she didn’t want to #DoHerJob then she should’ve resigned when she saw that it conflicted with her religious beliefs. Yet she chose to perpetuate against our own governments way of making people have equal rights in this country. If you cannot follow the :laws of our land’ then you cannot commit treason like the rebels did when they wanted to keep their way of life in making profit in the economy – off the backs of slaves. They call things like that: “treason for a reason” and she should’ve been stripped by a higher authority once she violated her oath to uphold authority of this United States of America. Don’t help me pack, I’ll just leave with the shirt on my back.

      Reply this comment
    • Shade O'gray 29 September, 2015, 12:56

      I was considering joining OK but after I saw the position of OK about this case I have to sadly say I have reconsidered. What she was doing was wrong. She was forcing her religious beliefs on others through her Government job. What happened to separation of church and state? This is why that separation needs to be there. I am personally shocked OK would support this person. You keep this up I am sure your ranks will thin. You should reconsider your leadership.

      Reply this comment
      • Elias Alias 29 September, 2015, 19:34

        I think you should watch this brief interview with Stewart Rhodes and Jesse Ventura. This topic comes up in the interview, and Stewart lays out the direct truth regarding due process and the judge’s error. Oath Keepers is not supporting the woman’s religious belief, but we are supporting her right to due process. So just listen to this, and let us know if Stewart’s statements make sense to you. Thank you.

        https://www.oathkeepers.org/returning-fire-stewart-rhodes-with-jesse-ventura/

        Thank you for reading here and for posting your comment.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor

        Reply this comment
        • Kay 6 October, 2015, 02:52

          Nope. Stewart did NOT “lay out the direct truth regarding due process and the judge’s error”. He didn’t come close. Heck, he didn’t even try.

          Frankly, it seems to me that you (and the people arguing that her “due process” was violated) don’t honestly know what “due process” *OR* “contempt of court” actually are. (As far as Stewart is concerned, why on earth would *HE* claim such a thing??? He should know better.)

          You see, Kim Davis *DID* get her due process!

          To start off…and I’m just dealing with the court stuff because that’s all that “due process” and “contempt of court” relate to…plaintiffs who were denied their marriage licenses sued Kim Davis. She lost the lawsuit. Davis then filed appeals. She kept losing. She kept refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses…or allowing any of her staff to issue them. So the judge issued a stay, barring Davis from continuing to apply her “no-marriage-license rule”. She then appealed that stay all the way to the Supreme Court. She lost every step of the way (and SCOTUS refused to hear her appeal, thereby upholding the judge’s ruling.)

          Yet she still kept refusing to issue marriage licenses as required by the judge’s ruling. She was even offered a REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION by not having to issue them herself and merely allow any of her staff who was willing to issue them do so. (Turns out *all* but her son was willing to! But she would not allow them!!! Like it or not, that was imposing *her* religious beliefs on others…a right NONE of us have.)

          So, because she STILL wouldn’t allow marriage licenses to be issued, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit asked the judge to hold Davis in contempt of court. So the judge called Kim Davis and her staff (as well as the plaintiffs) to his court. She was given yet another opportunity to agree to obey the judge’s order. And she yet again refused. So the judge found her in contempt of court…and sent her to jail.

          So, Elias. Just WHERE was her due process denied??? Heck, even HER attorneys have never claimed she was denied due process!!! Don’t you think *they* would have if *they* had thought her due process HAD been denied??? But they didn’t.

          Now they DID file an appeal regarding the order holding her in contempt of court. BUT!! At NO POINT did *her* attorneys even suggest that she was denied due process. And, considering that she was always with legal representation and always got her day in court…repeatedly…there is ZERO logic in Stewart’s claim about her “due process” being denied. ZERO.

          Reply this comment
  42. Sassi Filly 14 September, 2015, 00:07

    With MUCH appreciation for the willingness and intelligent understanding that NO MATTER the party of Due Process oppression, THE TRUE LIBERTY LOVERS shall rise and say no.

    It is sad that the media has so deceptively reported and there is not much rise against that abusive power that ALSO contributes to destruction of Due Process. LYING to the people to rouse their weak human character of caring more about WHO is the party than the DUE Process involved. IN THIS CASE, the governor has clearly been in contempt of not only SCOTUS ruling page 27 that clearly says protections must be given following their IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE statement of emphasis, then saying clearly persons, organizations, may adhere to their belief in opposing partaking of gm in any way.

    The litmus test of reasonable accommodations has clearly being ruled on in various cases that show Ms. Davis AND ANY person of faith may request accommodation. KY law passed in 2013 protects even elected persons.

    WHAT THE MEDIA has done is to hide the fact that the governor did lie saying no revision can be done outside special session and followed by his refusal to accept that a person in workplace is allowed religious accommodations. HE LIED I say this because if you look at the Release order, bottom of page one it CLEARLY shows the forms were altered to say Rowan County Clerk. YET it was a partial amendment simply to make it look like they gave her an amendment and she still is not happy. A GAME and a fat lie because..well..if the governor did not have authority to order a revision to the licenses…then think about that..WHO DID AUTHORIZE IT? THE FACT a partial revision was done is evidence it could be done and was due to her. SO WHY ONLY PARTIALLY AMEND THE FORM WHY PARTIALLY give her the requested accommodation? GIVING half an accommodation then the media hiding the fact a revision was done, not a single word was mentioned. ONLY today did they even share a link to see the order for themselves. THAT is after much communications to many media sources demanding fair and unbias reporting. SO they think by providing a link to the order without mentioning the fact the revision was partially done, is in some way unbias fair and balanced reporting that SCOTUS ruling has repeatedly ruled media is accountable to.
    THE FACT the governor did say no alterations could be done outside special session is just untrue.

    I am sure the founder of this organization is familiar with the Yale University article about HOW a Federal JUDGE CAN be removed and does NOT always required Impeachment. see http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-to-remove-a-federal-judge

    do believe the subversive actions to ignore SCOTUS ruling pg 27 applying the instructions only to gays and not people of faith or even recognizing instead actually rewriting the ruling by saying a belief is only an opinion contrary to what SCOTUS has ruled time and again a belief is defining and spelling it out on numerous occasions. BY reducing a belief to an OPNION, it subjects “opinions” to become an item of free speech that can then be turned into discrimination and hate speech which is the propoganda now being spilled into the population of ignorance via the media. TRYING now to criminalize even free speech.

    Indeed one politician announced he was pushing for passing a law to disallow even other politicians to be allowed to say gayness is a sin because it is “harmful”. The Judge act of calling it an opinion rewrote religious rights that without holding him accountable for not only trampling on due process, but trying to rewrite religious speech and in contempt of SCOTUS ruling. HE is using power of Stare Decisis in a very dangerous war. IF he succeeds because people do not unite to have him legally removed from office then his detain without due process and indefinite will be law of the land via Stare Decisis. IT IS the open door to such destruction of due process. TYRANNY is what Judge Bunning has done.

    I truly believe a democratic process of our Republic still exists and the absolute power to fight such is UNITY. PEOPLE MUST UNITE to seek removal of Judge Bunning or at THE VERY LEAST HE MUST be disciplined by his superior Chief Justice or Judicial Removal Commission. IT MUST BE PUT IN WRITING that his act was abuse of power and reverse his actions. NOT just for sake of the party it affects but for sake of ALL citizens such orders can affect.

    A petition to seek Chief Justice Tracey Wise has been fulfilled and a letter requesting her to evaluate the unethical acts canon violations of Judge Bunning with legal argument to support, shall be mailed to her and to the Circuit Court seeking removal of ANY Federal Judge who supports endless detention due process violation and can be proven to be involved in any conspiracy to, with deception, thwart the rights of any citizen. PATTERNS of such conduct go far beyond and innocent error Judges must be allowed to make, as unfortunate as that is, even Judges are human and do error. BUT obvious patterns of abuse of power and thwarting liberty must be dealt with by seeking discipline and ceasing of further actions by their superior as first step and removal of any Judge who refuses to stop such abuse of power, if such actions can not be heard by SCOTUS which will leave no other option to we the people but to seek their removal.
    PLEASE join this effort of support by emailing fightthefight7@yahoo.com THANK YOU OATHKEEPERS for maintaining the integrity of the true intention of this nations creation. I am a war Veteran and it was not just a salary to me to serve this country.

    Reply this comment
  43. Liberty Sanders 14 September, 2015, 02:55

    Elias Alias, why has my last message not been posted?

    [Editor’s Note: Wow, LS; I’m not sure. What did your last message say? Lemme kno’ and I’ll see if I can find it.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

    Reply this comment
  44. NeoVictorian 14 September, 2015, 14:12

    Were any actual Civil/Criminal justice lawyers consulted before the Oathkeepers took the position they did? And if so, could -they- please post their views on the subject in an article on the Oathkeepers site?

    We’re getting a LOT of ‘well, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read some, so I KNOW what the situation is’ here.

    Reply this comment
  45. Big Al 14 September, 2015, 15:58

    “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”-George Washington

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”-John Adams

    I am pretty sure history is full of lessons from those that have gone astray from Gods commandments and have mocked his judgements. You are free to believe what you want or not believe, but the founders seemed to think it did matter. In the end, we were created with the freedom of choice, whether it be for religious freedom or electing those that rule over you. I for one choose life and freedom because that is the way we were all created by God, to follow his commandments and benefit from a prosperous life and prosperous nation led by just and moral individuals. This is not religious zealotry, but life without the moral and just fundamentals outlined by the Creator only lead to decay of life in general full of willful destruction. Just my opinion folks…
    Semper Fi
    God, Family & Country

    Reply this comment
  46. MLaw 15 September, 2015, 01:14

    I have been a Tree of Life member and financial supporter of Oath Keepers for some time. It is interesting that Mr. Rhodes unilaterally threw Oath Keepers in support of someone who failed to keep her oath. Mr. Rhodes, she took an oath. She failed to uphold her Oath. She had her due process and the Court ordered her to uphold her oath and to perform a job. She failed to do so and they brought her back in a second time where she protested and was held in contempt. Reminds me of conscientious objector status when I was in. Guess what, they appeared before the panel and then were discharged. Why should she be held to any less of a commitment?

    She is not an employee. She ran for office. She was elected. She took an oath. She violated that oath. I am a christian and it breaks my heart that certain lifestyles are chosen, but as a Christian, we don’t judge. Our Supreme Court found that laws that discriminate against same sex marriage is unconstitutional. There is no more dispute, gays are a protected class.

    No one has a right to impose their religion on anyone. Separation of Church and State is as powerful as our 2nd Amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms. Are we really defending religious liberty here, because, if we are, are we prepared to defend Sharia?

    She got her due process and her Due Process rights were not violated. This was a major affront to my belief in this group and its mission. Too often, Oath Keepers is throwing itself into situations that are marginalizing the original mission as you promoted and rallied for.

    I read your response. It is severely lacking in support as to her violation of due process, granted, the humble law school I went to may not compare to Yale, but Due Process is not very complicated.

    Here is my problem. You argue that support for sending members as a Security Team are based on your legal interpretation. Where exactly is that in Our Mission? When did OUR mission include taking up arms against our fellow citizens over a legal interpretation?

    What happened to our mission of education? Now Oath Keepers is an armed Militia? I am a little confused as you stressed at great length on how WE are NOT a militia? What business do we have offering to provide security?

    You may be correct, in the end, that there was some violation of her Due Process rights, that is up to her legal team to play out. We are NOT a legal support team.

    8.04 of our Bylaws “… All Oath Keepers Members and Associates shall possess and maintain high moral and ethical standards and uncompromised integrity for continued membership in Oath Keepers. All members are to conduct themselves in a courteous and lawful manner at all times….”

    I think we have left our Bylaws behind.

    Reply this comment
  47. Tamara 15 September, 2015, 06:01

    I am incredibly proud of Kim Davis’s courage. For the non religious citizens to ask that the religious citizens allow them the freedom to live in the ways they desire and to treat them in a respectful manner when they come in contact with one another is one thing and morally is a decent request. And when the non religious citizens make request to the government and the government decide to grant the request that is fine but it is not just nor is it decent for the religious citizens to have to take part in carrying out the request that the government decide to grant when doing so does to them exactly what everyone is trying to get away from doing to those that are sending out these request. It is not just for the religious citizens to have to go against their way of life, having their religious rights and freedoms taken away. We need more Kim Davis’s.

    Reply this comment
  48. Kitty 15 September, 2015, 19:54

    Unfortunately, the Federal Government overruled Kentucky’s States Rights Law! Our States Rights are now stepped on by the Law of the Land!! Not happy about that…. however,
    Davis is a religious nut, and no true Christ follower that I can see. She is elected so has to be impeached, not fired…I believe? If she swore an oath, she must stick by it, so I think she’s grandstanding.

    Reply this comment
  49. Howisthisdifferent 17 September, 2015, 04:39

    Dear Stewart Rhodes,

    Your PS-

    “PS- A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO OUR CRITICS:

    As for the many harsh critics of our offer to protect Mrs. Davis, it is frankly sad that so many Americans cannot understand taking a stand in defense of someone’s due process rights regardless of who that person is, what they stand for, or what they are accused of doing or have done. That should not matter, and all that should matter is our common ground of the Bill of Rights and the hard-won rights of due process and in particular jury trial.”

    OK…no. Kim Davis is denying the rights of individuals who went through due process and the courts finally said they were allowed to be married. You’re protecting the rights of someone who is violating, not only the law, but the rights of OTHER AMERICANS. Stop it. You people disgust me. Take your toys and go home. If you’re pissed that you were picked on as children, see a shrink. Don’t peacock and strut around bullying other Americans because you want to push your agenda. If you come to my town and try and bully my people, the courts, or due process, and I’ll be the first to stand in your way…and I’ve got more “toys” than you.

    Reply this comment
  50. Heydummiesyourewronggohome 17 September, 2015, 04:47

    The Federal Government overruled Kentucky’s States law because it went against the rights of a group of Americans that have the same rights as all Americans. The right to pursue happiness. Same reason the Federal government stepped in and gave women the right to vote, or blacks the right to have the same freedoms as whites. If you think different, you’re a religious fanatic in step with the Taliban and ISIS. If your only argument is “God said…” or “The Bible said…” shut it. That’s not my law. That’s your personal belief and it shouldn’t be imposed on others. You’re wrong. Go away.

    Reply this comment
  51. Mark 17 September, 2015, 17:32

    I’m a dummy because I believe in a higher moral authority? You’re Christianity to the Taliban or ISIS, and I’m the dummy? That’s rich.
    I don’t think Oathkeepers goes far enough and happen to agree with the take of Matt Trewhella when he’s says we are fighting a losing battle.
    The Bottom Line…
    http://www.gospelapplied.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Oleg-Trewhella-on-Kim-Davis-Extended-version.mp3

    https://lessermagistrate.com

    Reply this comment
  52. jsears 17 September, 2015, 19:04

    I just signed up today. And the very first thing I see on the page is that OK wanted to defend and protect Kim Davis. Being a retired deputy Sheriff and a military veteran, I too, swore to defend and protect,and to enforce the Constitution. I didn’t/don’t always agree with the laws that we must live by here in this wonderful country. But I abide by them. Kim Davis has not. Here is the oath that she took when she became Clerk of Courts:

    30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
    Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the
    Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in
    presence of the Circuit Court: “I, ….., do swear that I will well and truly dis
    charge the
    duties of the office of ………….. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
    skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
    opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing
    and preserving in my office all
    books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
    knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
    duties of my office without favor, affection o
    r partiality, so help me God.” The fact that
    the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
    Effective:
    January 2, 1978
    History:
    Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2,
    1978

    The last line, ” …….and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”, is where she is FAILING to keep her oath of office. Without favor, affection or partiality means that she CANNOT decline to issue same sex marriage certificates, simply because and regardless of her religious beliefs, if she does decline to issue those licenses, she is choosing to show favor, a be partial.

    Let it be known that I am NOT a big fan of same sex marriages. But I am a fan of making a promise and keeping it. And when she swore to that oath, she made a promise to follow the law. If she is so hell bent on her religious beliefs, what about the vows she took two or three times that says “til death do us part”? Have all of previous husbands died? I don’t believe they have. She seems to pick and choose which oaths she wishes to live up to. And if she cannot abide by the law, then she should be in jail, or be dismissed and or prosecuted from the Clerk’s position for Nonfeasance in Office.

    All that being said, if OK is willing to aide and abet Kim Davis in her criminal behavior, I am not sure that this is the place for me. I am, however, willing to stay on board for a time to see where this goes, and if this is the norm or an isolated instance.

    Reply this comment
  53. TripleN 19 September, 2015, 21:46

    I joined OK a couple of months ago (US Army veteran) as I thought this was an organization that defended the Constitution. I am shocked that OK would align themselves in any way with Kim Davis and the groups that are supporting her. She is clearly a government official denying Constitutional rights to US citizens. I am personally giving up my membership to OK if this is not rectified.

    Reply this comment
  54. Bill 20 September, 2015, 17:41

    My last three posts were censored and not posted. I would at least like to have my resignation from Oath Keepers posted. In my view I am still an oath keeper – but I will not be part of an organization which unlawfully offers armed protection to an oath breaker.

    Reply this comment
  55. Mike 21 September, 2015, 21:54

    What this all boils down to is the woman was given the choice of obeying either her government or her God and she had to choose her God. She could not simply “do her job” in this case any more than a decent German official could have simply done his job implementing the Nazi’s “final solution” during WWII. The oath she took when she became Clerk of Courts does not trump her own conscience.

    She believes that marriage was created by God, not the government and therefore she cannot facilitate any marriage that does not meet his criteria, even if it meets the government’s. She believes that homosexuality is a sin that destroys a person’s eternal soul and her God commands her to care for the souls of others. Now her government is suddenly commanding her to facilitate this sin. She is not merely being ordered to let others make their own decisions, mind you. She is being ordered to literally issue licenses to sin, which she believes will destroy the souls that her God has commanded her to care for.

    Now you may not agree with her beliefs but try to see this from her perspective. Suppose this whole issue were in regards to marriage between an adult and a child instead of same sex individuals. Assuming you do not approve of pedophilia, imagine being in the minority with your fellow citizens generally being of the opinion that this is an acceptable relationship provided it is consensual. Imagine that public opinion has shifted towards the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to children as well as adults and that it is therefore unconstitutional to deny even a young child’s right to marry a 45 year old man if he is “in love” and at least old enough to speak and decide for himself if he wants to get married. Would you still side with the government?

    In a constitutional republic (this was never intended to be a pure democracy), should an individual, even a public servant, be expected to follow orders in violation of their own conscience or given enough leeway to avoid that predicament whenever possible? If the people collectively decide it is the former, then the American experiment has already failed and it is indeed a lost cause.

    Reply this comment
  56. RONGIL 22 September, 2015, 17:50

    Thing is, she broke no law in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Our Judicial branch cannot write laws nor abolish laws. That is the sole responsibility of the Legislative branch. SCOTUS did not legalize gay marriage in this nation. They rendered an opinion on same sex marriage bans stating that they were unconstitutional. According to how things are supposed to work, not how they want us to believe that they do, that law in Kentucky was to have gone back to the state legislature to be abolished, not in the courts. A Federal judge cannot order Davis to break an existing law, neither can he jail her for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. I was just in court yesterday where a judge, a prosecuting attorney and a defense attorney all stated during their instructions to us as potential juries that courts do not make laws nor can they abolish laws. If we do not like a law, we must petition the legislature to abolish it, not the courts. So sad how this government fed media deceives us into implied consent with their lies.

    Reply this comment
  57. Jedi Pauly 3 October, 2015, 15:51

    For everyone’s information, no federal judge has the authority to order a county clerk to issue a ‘marriage licence’ to a Gay couple because that is a misuse of the Positive Law when no State or federal law exists which defines marriage to be between members of the same sex. There is no such law to enforce. Just like the issue with Obama, who is not a lawful “natural born Citizen”, the judges are just deluded and insane, pushing their own religious opinions upon society and holding people in contempt if they do not adopt the violent false religious opinions of the judges. This is not the rule of law. It is the rule of men. The judge has no lawful authority to hold Kim Davis in contempt because she is obeying the law. It is the judge who is not.

    Reply this comment
    • crazy 11 October, 2015, 22:57

      Try reading that pocket constitution of yours there Jedi.
      For someone theoretically dedicated to defending it, you sure are clueless about it.

      Reply this comment
  58. Ky attorney mama 17 October, 2015, 15:27

    why was your group in Morehead to support Kim Davis if now the news states you hate Kim Davis?

    Reply this comment
  59. anti-tyrant 25 January, 2016, 01:50

    This lengthy thread is case-study-perfect evidence why govt should not sanction relationships between two people. There are just too many ways of looking at the issue, and, seriously, when govt gets involved in the personal (not contractual, which would be ‘public’ and not personal) relationships between two Citizens, it is meddling with our freedom of association. Govt recognition of marriage is unConstitutional and should be universally banned from the USA. The USA *was* a liberty-based political system in its virgin form. Not anymore. Now everyone’s personal morality has the force of govt associated with it. Does anyone see this going well for everyone? Changing gears…. you want equal treatment under the law? Really? How about we treat Obama or Hillary the same as you would be if you committed numerous acts of dangerous treason against the USA….? What do you suppose would happen to you if YOU ‘mishandled’ the SLIGHTEST shred of classified information? (I know what would happen … I have ‘been there’.) ….Thousands of American Citizens have been robbed, raped and murdered by Obama’s “pen and phone”…. but he’s still “king”. And what about the 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms?? That ‘right’ is HARDLY treated the same across the United States. In fact, my concealed carry license will get me a FELONY charge and prob conviction in MANY States. Hardly ‘equal treatment under the law’ throughout the USA. Back to original topic. Marriage is NOT in the Constitution anywhere, but”‘aiding and abetting the enemy” is, and so is the Citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms”. Somehow ‘equal treatment under the law’ isn’t so equal anymore. If we were to look at the USA as a political system, audit it as though it were an engineering system or a computer program, we would conclude this country is royally screwed up and is NOT what was written and is NOT what was intended by our Founders. If I could ‘divorce’ my wife without the govt destroying my family, I would. I hate govt meddling in my personal affairs, and so should you.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*