Kim Davis is in jail because her conscience, due to her religious beliefs, prevented her from issuing marriage licenses that she would attest to, when signing. Otherwise, she didn't want to officially attest to something she might not agree with, or was unconscionable.
Some gay couples wanted a license, so they sued in Federal Court. The judge ordered her to issue marriage licenses. When she wouldn't, he held her in contempt and sent her to jail.
Some side with judge, and think his actions were appropriate. They believe the judge acted correctly in demanding Kim Davis issue marriage licenses, and sign the document.
Some side with Kim Davis. They believe the judge acted beyond his capacity and violated her rights.
Personally, I think the entire mess could have been avoided. Kentucky could have changed the form, or gone through the process of removing Kim Davis from her elected office. Of course, that would have taken time, might have not yielded the intended results, and the problem would have continued. Still, it was the correct method and those that didn't like the method could have changed it through the legislative process.
Those wanting the license, could have gone to another county. The clerks in those counties were issuing licenses to same sex couples.
So, we now have Federal Judge holding a woman in jail, without breaking any law, and he won't let her out, unless she signs marriage licenses she refuses to sign. The judge, who I feel didn't have the wisdom or experience to hold his office, now can't back down, even if his contempt order is beginning to look like a petty, arbitrary decision.
How will this end? It's going to get ugly. The radical gay activists have thrown down the gauntlet, without thinking of the perception of the public. Their rights don't supersede the rights of others, and with a woman in jail for no other reason than refusing to sign a document, their platform is shaky and they are only a very small percentage of the population. The process required by the Constitution was bypassed, judicial activism is removing the rights of other individuals, and the public is becoming angry at the audacity.
So what is the real issue? The right of an individual to determine their heirs and the automatic right to benefits allowed to heterosexual couples. That was not asking much, but Social Security benefits, and many pensions, prevent such things. Instead of changing the wording for legal rights of individuals, the entire definition of marriage was changed. I call that foolishness, but apparently, foolish behavior is common with government officials.
In Case You've Wondered
My blog is where my wandering thoughts are interspersed with stuff I made up. So, if while reading you find yourself confused about the context, don't feel alone. I get confused, too.
If you're here for the stories, I started another blog: scratchingforchange.blogspot.com
One other thing: sometimes I write words you refuse to use in front of children, or polite company, unless you have a flat tire, or hit your thumb with a hammer.
I don't use them to offend; I use them to embellish.