Update:

Kim Davis Freed From Jail in Kentucky Gay Marriage Dispute

GRAYSON, Ky. — Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples, walked free Tuesday after five days, but she and her lawyer would not say whether she would abide by a court order not to interfere with the issuance of licenses by her office.

Five of her deputies in the Rowan County Clerk’s Office have been issuing marriage licenses since Friday, after telling Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would do so. Judge Bunning sent Ms. Davis to jail last Thursday for defying his order, but in a two-page order on Tuesday, the judge said that he would release her because he was satisfied that her office was “fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.”

The order came with a stern warning: “Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples,” and that the deputies would report to him every two weeks. “If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.”

A short time later, Ms. Davis spoke briefly to a rally of cheering supporters outside the Carter County Detention Center here, where she had been held. She walked on stage to thunderous applause, the song “Eye of the Tiger” playing, her hands held aloft in triumph by her lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, and Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor. She broke into tears.

“Thank you all so much, I love you all so very much,” she said after composing herself. “I just want to give God the glory. His people have rallied and you are a strong people. Just keep on pressing. Don’t let down. Because He is here.”

Ms. Davis walked out of the detention center about 2:35 p.m., flanked by Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Staver and her husband, Joe, and apparently dressed in the same clothes she wore during a court appearance last Thursday. Reporters asked repeatedly if she would abide by Judge Bunning’s order, and not interfere with the processing of licenses by her office, but Ms. Davis remained silent.

more after the jump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

Hope she learned a thing or two. You have no right to deny anyone a chance at happiness.

Well, I agree.  But I think it should read:

You have no right to deny anyone their rights. 

These same sex couples aren't getting married because they actually want to receive equal treatment but to simply make a statement? That's totally not nonsense made up by sombebody who has never met the people being discriminated against.

Also, what beliefs? Do you mean the religious traditions that the Clerk in question repeatedly ignored when she divorced three times (among other actions taken against the traditions that she falsely claims to uphold).

Now I know this might be shocking but this woman is not being persecuted based upon her beliefs but instead her actions. If somebody thinks that I should be harmed for whatever reason that's something we tolerate unless they attempt to act upon these beliefs (at which point they are punished for their actions). This clerk violated the law, was found in contempt of court and (rightfully) did not receive special treatment based upon her "beliefs".

America does not enforce traditional marriage and has not done so for quite some time.
It is not the American government's place to enforce the traditions of one religious system over all others as it is an inherently secular organization.
The vast majority of "religious" individuals opposing same sex marriage do not observe Judeo-Christian traditions themselves.
The clerk acted illegally and was provided ample opportunity to correct her actions or vacate her position.
The clerk was well aware of the consequences of her actions before she was arrested.
The clerk was not persecuted for her beliefs but for acting illegally upon those beliefs.
Having "traditional" beliefs does not excuse individuals from failing to act in accordance to the law (and rightfully so).

If you actually adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine by, for example, opposing things such as divorce or women from having authority over men; that still does not allow you to inject those values into government institutions in violation of established laws.

America no longer has the traditional societal model it did when it was founded. The government does not and should not enforce the values of one religion over all citizens. Individuals do not and should receive the privilege to ignore the law or violate the rights of others based upon their beliefs, even in the rare cases that they actually adhere to these beliefs without picking and choosing what is convinient for themselves like enormous hypocrites without any theological consistency (and therefore no basis in the actual traditional belief systems they claim to uphold).

Marriage is not an unqualified right. One cannot possibly arrive at this conclusion by any means of logic or common sense. 

If you believe that same-sex couples should not qualify for the right to marry may I ask why? Does it involve religious doctrine that we ignore when we allow divorce and interfaith marriages? Does it involve traditional values that the government does not enforce and the majority of the citizenry fails to abide by? Does it involve a set of standards that we don't actually require heterosexual couples to adhere to when getting married? I'd honestly like to see a well thought out answer that doesn't involve double standards or picking and choosing traditions from belief systems that we routinely ignore.

Actually, according to the US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, equality is an unqualified right, so anything the Government allows for one group of people, cannot be denied to another.  You can disagree, but, the Supreme Court and Federal court > your opinion.

And by the way, nobody's saying you can't disagree with the law (well, to be fair, I don't know everyone elses opinion, I'm speaking for me), I'm simply saying the right thing to do is extricate yourself from situations where you're going to use that opinion to either break the law, or enforce your ideology on others. 

I have not authorized the use of Eye of the Tiger for use by Kim Davis and my publisher will issue a C&D. This does not reflect my views.

— Jim Peterik (@jimpeterik) September 9, 2015

View on YouTube

I don't think you get it.  If two people meet the legal requirements to marry then they are within their rights to marry.  You can't take that right away from them based on a personal 'belief'.  You have no right to deny anyone their rights under the law. No more mental gymnastics.  I didn't say marriage was unqualified right.  I said that if two people are withing their legal rights to marry then YOU have no right to deny them. 

If two sets of people would like to get married by the government, then the government has the option of not allowing either couple to get married or allowing both.  

I agree that a government sanctioned marriage is not an unqualified right.  However, the if the government has laws in place to allow federally recognized marriage, they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of any protected classification, unless they have some kind of a legitimate reason to not allow it for one particular group.

They can choose to abolish federal marriage altogether, but they cannot pick and choose who gets to be married.

Well she didnt according to what i heard she will continue to do this.