ASHLAND, Ky. — A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples.

The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., was ordered detained for contempt of court and later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release.

Instead, on a day when one of Ms. Davis’s lawyers said she would not retreat from or modify her stand despite a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Judge David L. Bunning of United States District Court secured commitments from five of Ms. Davis’s deputies to begin providing the licenses. At least two couples planned to seek marriage licenses Friday.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Judge Who Jailed Kentucky Clerk Is No Stranger to ControversySEPT. 3, 2015
Outside Courthouse, Kim Davis Is Seen as a Villain and a HeroSEPT. 3, 2015
video
Same-Sex Couple Confronts Kentucky ClerkSEPT. 1, 2015
Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk of courts, shut her office door after denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple in Morehead, Ky., on Wednesday.
Kentucky Clerk Who Said ‘No’ to Gay Couples Won’t Be Alone in CourtSEPT. 2, 2015
Same-sex marriage supporters, left, and opponents, right, faced off Tuesday at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Ky.
Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying CourtSEPT. 1, 2015
Kim Davis, an elected clerk, at work in Rowan County, Ky.
Supreme Court Says Kentucky Clerk Must Let Gay Couples Marry AUG. 31, 2015
document
Appellate Ruling on Issuing Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex CouplesAUG. 27, 2015

“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
Continue reading the main story
Breaking News Alerts

Sign up to receive an email from The New York Times as soon as important news breaks around the world.

The judge’s decision to jail Ms. Davis, a 49-year-old Democrat who was elected last year, immediately intensified the attention focused on her, a longtime government worker who is one of three of Kentucky’s 120 county clerks who contend that their religious beliefs keep them from recognizing same-sex nuptials. Within hours of Ms. Davis’s imprisonment, some Republican presidential candidates declared their support for her, a sign that her case was becoming an increasingly charged cause for Christian conservatives.

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny,” Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said in a statement.

A lawyer for Ms. Davis, Roger Gannam, sharply criticized the ruling and portrayed it as a stark warning to Christians across the country.

“Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Mr. Gannam said after a hearing that stretched deep into Thursday afternoon. “And she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what belief is.”

In Washington, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said he had not discussed the judge’s decision with President Obama, but he added that it was not up to Ms. Davis to defy the Supreme Court.

“Every public official in our democracy is subject to the rule of law,” Mr. Earnest said. “No one is above the law. That applies to the president of the United States and that applies to the county clerk of Rowan County, Ky., as well.”

What are your opinions on that?

I respect this woman's desire to stand up for her convictions, but she should have just quit. I wouldn't work at a meat factory where they butcher animals, and she shouldn't work for the clerk's office where she is required to give licenses for gay marriages. Leaving her job is the only legal (and imo honorable) way for her to stay true to her convictions.

Actually her lawyers offered a compromise, her name being removed from the marriage certificate. I love how almost all of the mainstream media ignore that one big point.

Was this offer rejected by the opposite side, or by the judge? It sounded to me like the judge was being needlessly heavy handed. I honestly don't know if such certificates would be equally valid, or if she would be properly executing her duties under that kind of compromise.

Hello Sileia,
Glad you are back posting .

My option is bravo, for this lady, to stand for her beliefs. I have read many cases of people refusing to issue marriage certificates & also at least 2 judges who have refused to perform the ceremony, (& their shifts were rotated.). The woman in question is just being used and made an example of... sadly.

Like them, I feel, this is not "homophobia" (fear of homosexuality , funny how people try to miss use that word) but rather the word "marriage ", ( a Holy Covenant between a husband & wife & God... male & female), that is almost always the issue. Most people, could care less in this country what two consenting adults do sexually. And if they do care.. oh well, they have to right by religious freedom not to associate & pray for them.

But to the 4 major religions of the world, homosexuality,is one of the following.. sin ,abomination, perversion.. And of course, there was NO vote to pass gay marriage. In fact few states passed it with a vote.
The Supreme Court pushed this through, when only 10%-14% of the population is homosexual & the majority of this country is Christian/Protestant... so many Anericans, of ANY Faith, are disturbed by the injustice of forcing minority/ agenda beliefs on the entire country. We went from 14-24 states that had it legalized (without most voting at all), to ALL 50 states & territories in ONE hour. Many, including Senators & Constitutionalist do NOT see this as legal & therefore do NOT acknowledge it as law. Many people did NOT know the Supreme Court was even voting on it that day.
Many states, still have sodomy, fornication & adultery STILL on the books, as it was ALWAYS , each state's right to determine. Since each state/ majority did NOT vote in favor of gay marriage, technically these laws still stand.

Personally, I would be happier if another word was chosen, other that 'marriage', like perhaps 'life partner'.
I see nothing wrong with wanting health benefits,, insurance, inheritance for someone else.

As far as this woman refusing, & people trying to call her a Christian hypocrite, that is a comical manipulation tactic. Because NO, by her faith & Holy Bible/ Levitican Law, & probably whatever Pastoral teaching she goes by, she is not. No matter if she had 3-4 husbands. Sin is sin, & there are over 830 of them in The Holy Bible. But there are also abominations, which in her mind & faith, gay marriage is. A church or a Pastor/ Rabbi etc... may say, divorce is wrong, God doesn't like it etc... But it does NOT say, in The Holy Bible, that a woman cannot divorce. In fact, it says " If a woman asks for a decree of divorce, give it to her".

* Dramatic Music.... I am posting to my friend Sileia... I really do not care what MOST of you think.*

Hooray for the clerk, for standing ground on beliefs.

Those two "couples", should have done the honourable thing, and applied for their licenses in a different county.

Are they going to put all the councilmen from all the cities who refuse to obey federal law to form sanctuary cities in jail?

Is Obama going to jail for refusing to obey immigration law?

Is Hillery going to jail for exposing national secrets to theft?

If you're not prepared to follow the rules and laws of your city and country, you shouldn't apply for a job at the community hall. If you want to take the rules of your religion over all other rules in the world, including those of your country, your town and those of other people, you should be a clerk in your own church and nowhere else. Who has the right of inflicting his own religious dogmas on other people? Nobody.
Is America a Protestant dictatorship, like the England of Cromwell? Your constitution is based on the accomplishments of the French Revolution: well, people like this clerk apparently don't know, or simply don't know it includes freedom, equality for all. (this includes freedom of faith, right? Why should the rules of one religion be imposed on everybody? It's totally contradictory to all the American Constitution stands for. I guess this person and all her fans have totally forgotten that.

I agree. For whatever reason she didn't do her job. Putting her in prison seems a bit harsh....to me.

a wedding ceremony performed in a church or synagogue involves prayer, scripture and God. People who are not religious have been getting married for years outside of a church service.


what is my opinion on this
I have no problem with someone's religious convictions or beliefs but if she has broken the law by doing so then she should face the consequences.

Got any news from the northern Hebei Province in China?

The judge.

this argument really doesn't apply when the RULES for which you originally agree are drastically changed

anyone applying specifically for marriage license after the point marriage was redefined,, shouldn't have applied

but we have thousands who applied for and loyally worked the job whose duties have since changed,, if there is a compromise I believe it should be considered,,,

I agree, many people have been willing to accept consequences of breaking laws that they felt were unjust or invasive,,,

Seems like maybe this judge took personal offense at some things, and might not have been interested in a reasonable compromise.

To my understanding she didn't just 'apply' for her position, she was elected. Elected officials don't get to refuse service to people religious or not that don't theologically align with their FREELY CHOSEN religion. If the citizens obey State and Federal laws, they cannot be denied their Constitutional Rights. Seeing as how the United States Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriages do not apply for religious exception for officials who are serving the State which as part of the drafting of our Constitution is SEPARATE from their church, temple, etc... the only thing that has changed here is that the States are being held to the Constitution under which they were founded. I don't agree with same sex marriage personally but nor do I believe in Hinduism. That doesn't give me or any elected official the power to deny a marriage to a person of that religion that is a citizen trying to conform to LEGAL marriage status as REQUIRED by State Law.
It was not her duty to blaspheme specifically. It was not her duty to preform the CEREMONY at all. The Magistrates perform the actual ceremony. It WAS her duty to produce a LEGAL (under State law) DOCUMENT.
I think she is entitled to HER opinion, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the State of Kentucky and the county she served didnot elect her under God's authority. The audacity to denounce Supreme Court ruled processing of marriage LICENSES from behind bars.... I'd say she's stoking the fire under the cauldron she CHOSE to crawl into, not the judge. Terrorist organizations claim to act under the authority of their God(s)

Judges don't get to do anything they want to or only what they believe in. When a new law is passed, or an old law is amended, they have to rule based on those LEGAL State or FEDERAL laws
depending on what court they are in or what case is presented. County courts can't make Federal rulings. The charges are divided and remanded to the appropriate court. Federal courts and specifically the U.S. Supreme Court can abolish State laws IF they are found to be unconstitutional. They did so Nationwide, not just in Rowan county KY. She objected for religious reasons, her position is not religious nor is the document it is her elected duty to produce. The Supreme Court compelled her to comply with Federal law, she refused knowing the penalty. They gave her an opportunity to step down if she couldn't bring herself to perform her LEGAL obligatory duty to her constituents for RELIGIOUS reasons. She CHOSE not to compromise. The citizens wishing to pay for the production of a LEGAL document didn't ask for her to be held in contempt or jailed. When one openly defies a judges orders, those are the LEGAL consequences.

In my country, when you enter the Civil Service, you get to swear an official oath to obey and follow the laws of your country at all times and in all circumstances, regardless of any other rules of behaviour that contradict it. You break that oath, you're tld to go find an other job.
If you don't want to touch meat, you don't go working in a meat factory: if you only want to obey Moses, you go to work in a Old Testament church, not in Civil Service. A Civil Servant is a servant of the Law of their country, and of nothing else.

I agree law suits wouldn't have been necessary: she should have been reprimanded or at the worst fired by her superior for not doing her job properly, and that's it. My guess is, it got out of hand because of the bad press it recieved. The City felt it had to patch up their blazon by making some sort of an example of her. Silly, really. They made it bigger than it's worth.
Is America a secular country, or is it a religious dictatorship, like Saoudi Arabia? I get the feeling Protestant Americans are becoming more and more fanatic. This woman now feels she's a Holy Martyr, while all she really is, is a bad civil servant who didn't do her job right. Firing her would have sufficed, as far as I'm concerned. That's what would have happened in my country. But the media have blown it out of proportion.

I note that for many of you the solution seems to be "Well if she doesn't like it she should quit." is your mantra. Well a couple of points.

1) The clerks position, and handing out marriages licenses was taking place looong before the decision by the Supreme Court. So arguably, she can say her job description has changed, and she doesn't like the change. Let's say next week your boss comes to you and says you are now doing the work of another employee plus your own for no increase in pay or benefits. Don't like it? Think it's unfair to you? Then live your opinion, and just quit your job the next day. Explain to the bank taking back your car and house in 4 months how you are making a statement.
2) Much has been made that she can't just claim her belief system as justification for denying people service, and how she needs to just suck it up and do it. Ok, no problem. YOU own a coffee shop. You notice the same group of 4-5 guys come in every Saturday morning and talk about their fantasy of molesting kids. Seems they belong to NAMBLA, an organization that believes men and underage boys should be allowed romantic relationships without fear of legal or moral punishment. This is a 10 out of 10 on the 'ewww gross' scale. The law says people can talk about whatever they want. Free speech right? However the conversations are offensive to your staff and surrounding customers. You gonna ask them to leave and not come back because the conversation is morally offensive to you and others? Can you in good faith continue to provide them a place to meet and by doing so tacitly encourage their conversations and behaviors? Your moral compass has no right to decide to whom you will provide your services?
3) Same problem again, if you owned the infamous 'Christian bakery' and a pedophile comes in wanting you to bake a cake saying "Molest Kids!". You gonna say 'Nope. Sorry. That's where I draw the line.'? Go ahead, have a conscience, but based on recent legal case law, be prepared to lay out a 6 figure settlement cheque, because you don't get to refuse anyone, anymore.

I'm not saying I agree with her defying the court, however there's no provision for her supervisor to step in? Appoint another employee the duty of handling the 'gay people'? What happens when she's sick or goes on vacation? Do they just stop handing out licenses until she comes back to the office? I'm sure some other arrangement could have been made instead of forcing her to go to jail for her beliefs.

Funny though how we have to conform to other religious beliefs in the workplace. Some companies prohibit ham sandwiches or other pork products so as not to offend Muslims or Jews on staff. Many companies provide rooms in offices for Muslim prayer. Funny how they are referred to as multi-faith rooms, like anyone can go at any time and pray. Since Christian faiths don't have a 5 times a day rule like Islam, can you really tell your boss you want 5 prayer breaks a day for Jesus? We have companies that must allow hijabs and burkas in the workplace, regardless if they present a safety hazard. So a Muslim woman working a machine with exposed running gear can wear her hijab even though it might strangle her if it gets caught.

We've had cases in Canada where Sikhs didn't want to wear motorcycle helmets over their headgear. Where they didn't want to wear helmets during military training on a grenade range. Where they insisted they be allowed to carry knives called kirpans since it is used to defend their religion from those who would insult it or them. Our police departments came up with colour co-ordinated turbans for those wanting to serve. So the blue turban for being in uniform, and the white one for working undercover?

In the end I applaud this woman for living her morals and values, even though it has cost her some freedom. How this comes to a conclusion for her (and other Christians) is going to be interesting.