Marriage clerk cites ‘God’s authority’ to defy federal court


Kim Davis, right, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., speaks with David Moore after refusing to issue him a marriage license on Tuesday. Photo: Timothy D. Easley/Associated Press

A homosexual duo left the office of the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk’s office early Tuesday “red-eyed and shaking,” according to the Associated Press, but without a marriage license after the clerk there cited “God’s authority” to decline to issue the document.

Clerk Kim Davis’ appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a lower court’s order to issue the licenses was rejected late Monday.

And on Tuesday, she was barraged by catcalls of “bigot” when she met people lined up waiting for services.

AP reported James Yates and Will Smith Jr. “marched” into the office to get a marriage license, even though Davis stopped issuing any marriage licenses the day the Supreme Court created the right to “same-sex marriage.”

Sheriff’s officials told both “gay”-rights activists and the clerk’s supporters to leave a short time later.

Randy Smith, who was among Davis’ supporters, says the group knows Davis might go to jail on contempt charges for defying the federal court order.

“But in at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” he said.

Davis had said briefly, when asked on whose authority she would not issue licenses, “Under God’s authority.”

One homosexual activist said, “We’re not leaving until we have a license,” AP reported.

“Then you’re going to have a long day,” Davis reportedly said.

WND reported late Monday that the full U.S. Supreme Court, including two justices who openly performed “same-sex wedding” ceremonies while the issue was before them, denied Davis’ request for a stay of a judge’s order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis’ attorneys with the nonprofit Liberty Counsel had asked for a stay as her case developed at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said Davis “certainly understands the consequences either way.”

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th District, was one of two justices, along with Ruth Ginsberg, who defied conventional judicial ethics and performed a “same-sex wedding” while the Obergefell case establishing the legality of same-sex marriage was under consideration.

She had received the request for a stay in the Davis case and referred it to the whole court.

But the justices refused to consider Davis’ constitutional religious rights and, without comment, refused to act.

Read Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage in the WND Superstore!

Those who have raised complaints about Davis’ refusal to issue licenses to same-sex couples pointedly have bypassed more than 100 other locations in Kentucky where they could obtain licenses.

Liberty Counsel has noted that even the district court, which issued the order against Davis, admitted that the case presented a “conflict” between “two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.”

One was the enumerated right to religious freedom, the other the newly created marriage right.

Staver had argued: “Providing religious conviction accommodations is not antithetical for public employees. Throughout our history, the courts have accommodated people’s deeply held religious beliefs.

“The Supreme Court’s marriage opinion does not suggest that religious accommodations cannot be made or that people have a fundamental right to receive a marriage license from a particular clerk,” he continued, referencing the original opinion.

“There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’ First Amendment rights,” he said.

“The SSM Mandate demands that she either fall in line (her conscience be damned) or leave office (her livelihood and job for three decades in the clerk’s office be damned). If Davis’ religious objection cannot be accommodated when Kentucky marriage licenses are available in more than 130 marriage licensing locations, and many other less restrictive alternatives remain available, then elected officials have no real religious freedom when they take public office.”

The courts have misbehaved already, the document argues.

“No court, and especially no third-party desiring to violate religious belief, is fit to set the contours of conscience,” Liberty Counsel argued. “For if that were true, a person who religiously objects to wartime combat would be forced to shoulder a rifle regardless of their conscience or be refused citizenship; a person who religiously objects to work on the Sabbath day of their faith would be forced to accept such work regardless of their conscience or lose access to state unemployment benefits; a person who religiously objects to state-mandated schooling for their children would be forced to send their children to school regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to state-approved messages would be forced to carry that message on their vehicles regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to capital punishment would be forced to participate in an execution regardless of their conscience or lose their job; a person who religiously objects to providing abortion-related and contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees would be forced to pay for such coverage regardless of their conscience or face staggering fines.”

Those are examples showing “that the majority who adhere to a general law” do not “control the dictates of individual conscience,” Liberty Counsel argued.

The Obergefell decision, in fact, recognized the religious rights of Americans, even while creating the new right to “same-sex marriage.”

“Obergefell unanimously held that First Amendment protections for religious persons remain despite SSM,” Liberty argued.

WND reported earlier that “gays” were demanding Davis be charged with official misconduct.

Davis also has has filed a separate lawsuit against her governor for violating her religious rights.

In Obergefell, the four dissenting Supreme Court justices – John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – all warned that creating the new right of same-sex “marriage” would war against the existing right of religious exercise embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

“And here we are, two months later, and it is already happening,” Staver said.

Liberty Counsel warned two years ago, Staver said, that religious freedom would be replaced by the new “right” to a “same-sex marriage.” They were roundly criticized by the left for resorting to “scare tactics” and “conspiracy theories.”