She had sex with her third husband while married to her first husband, that’s adultery in anybody’s book (or Book).
^heh.
Huh. That I hadn’t caught. I read that she had kids while unmarried (between one and two/four), but I assumed that they were by her next husband. I guess that’s what I get for assuming.
I’m gonna need a flowchart.
Right, so she is an adulterer, so according to Jesus the first divorce is legitimate. So as long as she’s only having relations with her second husband who is also her fourth husband (not to mention her first cousin), she’s not currently living in sin. I think.
You’re gonna need a bigger flowchart.
Please tell me that isn’t one of those sex things.
She filed an appeal (pdf) today over something minor that happened in the hearing that sent her to jail. It took me some reading to figure out what it was about, so I’ll share what I figured out.
Apparently the original order was for her to grant licenses to the 4 couples who sued her. When they filed for contempt, the four couples also asked the court to clarify or modify the order to include “other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.”
Technically, Bunning is not allowed to expand a judgement that is on appeal and Davis’ case is on appeal. But he still ok’d it, saying “We’ll just include that as part of the appeal. . . . And the Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if that’s appropriate.”
She is asking that the Sept 3 “Expanded Injunction” that ordered her to license all eligible couples and not just the 4 should be nullified and that Bunning’s release order which required her to not interfere with licenses be nullified because that applies to everyone, not just the original 4 plantiffs.
It should be no big deal in the common sense world, but legally, it’s something she can legitimately complain about and if she does win this one little nitpick we’ll never hear the end of it.
Any legal minds want to explain what will happen with this? This will be decided as part of the appeal to the original order to give licenses to the 4 original plantiffs. She’ll most certainly lose that one, but can the appeals court expand that order to include everyone or will we be back to square 1 where she has to grant 4 licenses then stop and wait to be sued by more people?
She just can’t stop harassing gay people, that fucker. The darkness must be blinding in her world to have so much hate
Wait, is she married to her cousin? I can’t find any info about that and cousin marriage is illegal in KY.
Married #1,
adulterous insemination by #3,
divorced #1,
birthed bastard twins,
married #2,
twins adopted by #2,
divorced #2,
married #3,
divorced #3,
married #2,
Finds JAYSUS PRAISE THE LORD!
Now she’s on a crusade to save the sanctity of marriage.
Proof that if there is a god, he’s fucking with her mind.
Marriage certificates are here. I cannot find a cite, but have been told that an Ancestry.com search revealed that Darold and Vondal Bailey are siblings. And note the name given as the clerk at the time of the marriages – Jean W. Bailey aka Norma Jean Withrow Bailey.
One would think that was a clarification and not a modification - since while it was only 4 that were suing, other couples were impacted - and that was clear.
SO the intent of the original order was well beyond just the 4 couples.
She’ll lose this, just like she’s lost every other arguement she’s brought forth.
ETA - she was still in contempt, since she said she would not issue licenses to the 4 - regardless of the clarification to the order.
Born-agains can born-again themselves as often as they like, and nothing else counts as being christian without being born again.
Which means they can sin as much as they like.
God’s plan has a flaw.
Thank you. It’s all reasonably clear now.
If you’re born-a-goon anything’s forgivable. The sky’s the limit.
Bingo!
I read through some of that pdf, it contains a transcript of the contempt hearing, and Bunning actually calls it a modification and does say it doesn’t make sense for the original order to only address the 4 plantiffs (pages 81-82). It should have addressed everyone, it sounds like that was overlooked in the original hearing.
You’re right, she’ll lose everything eventually and she was still in contempt for the 4 plantiffs. But technically she might be right about this minor nitpick of courtroom procedure. I hope she can’t use it to proclaim any type of victory.