The Truth About The Arrest of Kim Davis

THE FACTS ABOUT KIM DAVIS ARREST

With everyone making the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis political, let's break it down. Davis is in jail for one reason only, not complying with a Federal Judges order. Thus putting her in contempt of court.

To be clear (because opinions out there are providing false information) the Judge is a Republican Conservative Catholic Appointed Judge. He stated in short he does not even agree with SCOTUS decision on Marriage Equality. But people can NOT pick and choose what laws or court orders they choose to follow.

In 2006 SCOTUS stated that indeed government officials 1st amendment rights are indeed knowingly restricted and that is clear upon taking your oath of office.

Keep in mind Davis oath swore to God she would preform her oath of office despite her personal objection to anything . She makes $80,000

To make a FAIR comparison for Christians who object, if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses due to their religious  objections in issuing a license to someone who believes in a different God. How would you react? 

If a Mormon DMV Clerk refused to register a vehicle because it is against their beliefs?

If a police officer or fire fighter refused to render aid or respond properly to a call because of their religious beliefs ect.... Where should it end???

This is why the 2006 SCOTUS decision was made for those who hold govt jobs.....in fact the jailing of Kim Davis will protect religious freedom as it asserts the above possibilities won't occur...

Where did this all come from? False information given to society that if you site religious objections, you can discriminate without penalty... This is not at all true... AT BEST it means it's a POSSIBLE defense , in Davis case the judge stated in her case it is not a viable legal defense for her to violate her oath of office and not preform her duties in which she swore she would and in which she gets paid to do so.

Jordan Letschert

Kentucky Clerk Davis Jailed

BREAKING: As expected, Davis refused to go back to the Courthouse. She communicated through her lawyers and told Judge Bunning that she would not allow her Deputy Clerks to issue marriage licenses.
Davis will remain in jail. Judge Bunning has told the Deputy Clerks to begin issuing licenses tomorrow, otherwise they will be held in contempt. 5 of the 6 agree, the hold out was Davis's son.
Davis makes $80,000 dollars paid in part by those she denied their right as defined by SCOTUS under the 13th Amendment.... 

Here is the oath of office that all Kentucky clerks and deputies including Davis takes before assuming their duties:
"I, -----, do swear that I will well and truly discharge 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 or partiality, so help me God."
All hearings have ended.

Justice Kennedy noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear in previous rulings "that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment." On the other hand, he wrote, "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."

Marriage is the Law of the Land

Great Facebook post on Legal Vs religious argument

"I say this with sincere love to my many friends who are passionate fundamentalist Christians who believe that the SCOTUS’s decision yesterday on marriage equality is an abomination to themselves and to God: As a lawyer, I need to attempt to set the record straight. 

Our country was created by our founding fathers very deliberately to prevent the establishment of a national religion from our governance. The Church - Catholic or Anglican - was central to almost every other country in the world historically, especially England from which our founding fathers separated. It was critical to our founding fathers that one central religion NOT be declared and NOT be incorporated into our Constitution or governance. They understood that an establishment of a national religion would ultimately abridge the very rights they believed were fundamental and were meant to be recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights and ultimately the Constitution. 

Religion-based loss of basic rights had been their experience in England and they wanted to prevent that here.

The fact is that this decision yesterday was a LEGAL decision about the scope of our Constitutional rights as humans and US citizens. It was not about religion, religious beliefs or religious freedom. It is about equal rights, just as the decision in this country to give women the vote and the decision to abolish slavery were about equal rights. Any decision regarding the scope of a constitutional right (whether passed by Congress or interpreted by the SCOTUS) is a legal decision, not one based in religion or morality.

Rights are not and should not be up for a popular vote or up to the states to determine. Rights are absolute and cannot be dependent upon anything other than the fact that the person is a human being and is a citizen of the US. If those two conditions are met, YOUR belief system about what is MORALLY or spiritually right or wrong does not matter and should not. You should be glad that is the case, because it would be just as easy for another religion to take over and curtail your rights as a Christian (something that has happened throughout history).

In fact, one religious party believing they know the truth for all humans is how terrible oppression starts - that is how Naziism started, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klu Klux Klan, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS - the most destructive, hateful, murderous periods of human history have arisen directly out of one religious group (ironically, most of these examples were lead by Christians) believing their religion and religious beliefs were THE truth, and therefore they had the right to take away the rights (and lives) of those who lived or believed differently than them. 

Our founding fathers wanted to prevent that outcome. So does our current Supreme Court. THAT is the law of the land and I could not be more grateful to be an American than when human rights are protected. I don’t have to agree with you to believe with all my heart and soul that YOUR rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be protected against oppression or prejudice. LGBT US citizens deserve exactly the same treatment. God Bless America.

p.s. Those railing against the decision of marriage equality as a basic constitutional right are confusing the idea of constitutional (i.e human) rights with certain types of behavior (the stuff they call "sin"). But human rights are inherent in all human beings and US citizens - not doled out based on who is behaving "well" and who isn't. All US citizens should have the equal right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, regardless of the "sins" they commit. The only behavior that should curtail your constitutional rights is if you commit a crime (a felony) and are convicted. But even then, criminals can still marry, have kids, own property, work and live in our communities. The only things they can't do is vote and carry firearms. If committing a sin was a barrier to receiving basic constitutional rights in this country, we would all be in big trouble, not just the LGBT community."

Supreme Court Just Showed Their Hand

This was posted by a friend :

After reading Kerry v. Din, it appears the Supreme Court tipped their hand today on where they will fall on same-sex marriage. 

The opinions in the cases had an obvious undertone regarding the scope of constitutional due process rights to marriage. While the majority opinion was comprised of all the Conservative justices, Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito refused to join the opinion in whole and focused only on the judgment writing "...rather than deciding, as the plurality does, whether Din has a protected liberty interest, my view is that, even assuming she does, the notice she received regarding her husband's visa denial satisfied due process." 

This rationale offered by Kennedy, having originated in Court precedent (Kliendienst), was not contested by the four liberal Justices, rather they merely disagreed that the Consular Officer's statement was not adequate for denying the visa application.

My official marriage equality prediction now sitting at a 6-3 opinion. 

Oh how far America has come...

2016 Election

A friend posted this on Facebook and is an interesting perspective 

"Presidential dreams are becoming increasingly dreary for Republican hopefuls. Currently, the primary field is so wide open (with 16 contenders) that, even with the GOP identity crisis aside, the establishment candidates are polling at record lows. Given the identity crisis of who the Republican party is and needs to be, this election is becoming more and more of an election for Hillary to lose, rather than the GOP's to win.

When November 8, 2016 rolls around, Hillary will start... yes, START... with a minimum of 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. This is due to the "Democratic Blue Wall" (Google It). As many political strategists will say, Hillary is almost guaranteed Colorado because of the rapidly growing Hispanic population. Gaining Colorado gives Hillary 9 more electoral votes, bringing her to 256. Hillary is also likely to take Virginia because of the influx of Northerners (the D.C. crowd) who lean very left. If she pulled this off she would be at 269. 

This would leave Hillary needing one vote. Yes, one electoral vote. Given that Republicans start every election with 191 electoral votes, the necessity to win the big toss up states (Florida and Ohio) leave the smaller states, of which Hillary needs one, untapped.

If Clinton doesn't need Ohio or Florida, though she would likely win at least one, she would just need Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And with a boatload of money and no real primary challenger, she'll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.

Let this sink in... 16 years of a Democratic President and 4 (I REPEAT 4) Supreme Court Nominations."

Regards

Jordan Letschert 

SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Justice Didn’t Know Marriage Can’t Legally Involve Churches or Religion

With the first day of hearings taking place before the United States Supreme Court, an awkward happening occurred when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts found out that both religion and religious establishments have nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage.

The uncomfortable exchange began when Chief Justice Roberts asked famed gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto why she believed that we should “force churches and religious leaders to preside over a homosexual wedding that, when taken as a whole, would offend their moral conscience.”

Although she seemed taken aback, Bonauto replied with little to no hesitation.

“Well, I’d cite the U.S. Constitution, previous Supreme Court decisions, and the Treaty of Tripoli.”

Chief Justice Roberts then asked Bonauto to elaborate on her answer.

Bonauto replied, “Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that the intent and function of the 1st Amendment was that the country could never establish any laws based on, or supporting, a specific religious view. He stated that ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.'”

She then continued by stating that, “This court has ruled in this manner time after time, and even the Treaty of Tripoli, which was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate way back in 1797, clearly stated that our government was not established on any specific religious tradition. Not to mention, priests and churches will not be forced to marry anyone.”

Bonauto concluded by accurately saying, “Indeed, it is a fact that all you need to get married would be another person, a trip to a courthouse, a witness, and a signed document. When people get married in a church, it isn’t recognized by the government without the legal documentation.”

It was at this point that those in the court witnessed Chief Justice Roberts begin to whisper to fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Alito. Justice Roberts then became visibly red in the face at this point and some reports even state that you could audibly hear Roberts say, “Really!?”

From www.youreadygrandma

Regards 

Jordan Letschert 

Florida HB 7111

Despite Florida being a highly Republican state in our House and Senate, lawmakers who pride themselves on smaller govt, literally make up problems to pass legislation so their names can be put on a bill.

Case and point HB 7111 which OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED in the Fl House . This broadly worded bill would allow adoption agencies who receive TAX PAYER FUNDS to turn around and arbitrarily discriminate against QUALIFIED parents. 

Rather than an up or down approval to adopt a child in need of a loving home, this bill would allow the tax funded agency to say no based on sexual orientation, marital status, ect... Thus bringing up the constitutionality of the bill.

Despite Republicans in the Fl house stating it is NOT discriminatory to the LGBT community, they rejected nearly 29 amendments to the bill which would specifically carve out the ability to discriminate solely for being gay.... 

One main supporter for the bill actually tried to reinstate a 1977 law that BANNED gay tax paying citizens the right to adopt children in need of a safe, loving home. This 1977 law was ruled unconstitutional in 2010

Sadly the Fl House passed this bill, but the Fl Senate has held it up in the Rules comittee which consists of 8 Republicans and 0 Democrats refusing to vote as even they feel it may be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional

Additionally , the Senate was hoping to entice Foster parents of 160 children to permanently adopt with a tax incentive of $5,000-10,000 thus, this House Bill put that at risk as 33% of the Foster homes could be affected by HB7111

Now let's stop for a second and ask why our legislatures in the House not only voted on this discriminate bill but even created it... After all these agencies gladly accept tax payer money and operate under a govt issued business license... How many of the adopted kids complained? Perhaps that was the driving force... NOPE NOT ONE... In fact when the sponsor of the bill was asked he could not even answer basic facts about agencies, complaints ECT... He had no clue as to the facts....

As facts would have it at MOST 2 religious organizations were concerned about this... That's it 2.. When was the last time 2 cases of complaints got our legislatures to do something.

Rep. Ray Pilon who represents Sarasota Fl.. Stated he had to vote his "conscious and church" ... What happened to voting the will of those you represent... He also stated gay people could still go to a public agency... I compare that to separate but equal.. Like when we use to tell black citizens which water fountain to use or which bathroom to use.... It is SHAMEFUL.... He declined to respond to my request for a meeting...but will most likely not be re elected in 2016 as he votes for himself and his church not for Sarasota. 

Hopefully this bill will never be passed, if so, it will cost Fl tax payers $1 million a year to house 160 foster children who could be adopted..

Regards

Jordan Letschert