
The United States Supreme Court
A homosexual duo left the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk's office early Tuesday "red-eyed and shaking," according to the Associated Press, after the clerk, citing "God's authority," refused to issue them a marriage license despite a court order.
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.
Advertisement - story continues below
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. Davis, however, continued her position of not issuing marriage licenses for anyone in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision June 24 creating a right to "same-sex marriage."
TRENDING: Chuck Norris happy to work with Hungarian president 'fighting for that better future'
Law-enforcement officers told both "gay"-rights activists and the clerk's supporters to leave.
Randy Smith, who was among Davis' supporters, said he was aware that Davis might go to jail on contempt charges for defying the federal court order.
Advertisement - story continues below
"But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, [who] has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said.
When asked on whose authority she would not issue licenses, Davis replied, "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.
In a statement Davis released shortly after her office opened Tuesday, she said the fight is about religious liberty.
Advertisement - story continues below
"I have worked in the Rowan County Clerk's office for 27 years as a deputy clerk and was honored to be elected as the clerk in November 2014, and took office in January 2015. I love my job and the people of Rowan County. I have never lived any place other than Rowan County. Some people have said I should resign, but I have done my job well. This year we are on track to generate a surplus for the county of $1.5 million," she said.
"In addition to my desire to serve the people of Rowan County, I owe my life to Jesus Christ who loves me and gave His life for me. Following the death of my godly mother-in-law over four years ago, I went to church to fulfill her dying wish. There I heard a message of grace and forgiveness and surrendered my life to Jesus Christ. I am not perfect. No one is. But I am forgiven and I love my Lord and must be obedient to Him and to the Word of God."
She said the she will continue to serve the people of the county, who elected her.
"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience. I want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned – that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking. I never sought to be in this position, and I would much rather not have been placed in this position. I have received death threats from people who do not know me. I harbor nothing against them. I was elected by the people to serve as the county clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience."
Advertisement - story continues below
The ACLU of Kentucky, which is representing the same-sex duos, immediately told a federal judge he has no choice but to hold Davis in contempt of court.
AP later reported Rowan County attorney Cecil Watkins said he was informed of a federal court hearing on the issue in Ashland scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday. Watkins reported Davis and all of the deputy clerks in her office were ordered to attend.
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."