If You Have To Travel To Get Treatment For Your Work Injury, You Are Entitled To Re: Fill & Download for Free

I can't speak for narcissists and I don't view them as a single monolithic entity of rigid, lockstep response. Yes, they have a strongly correlated set of behaviors, but within that diagnostic criteria, there still exists a wide variety of presentations.Narcissism, like everything, exists on a spectrum. I can only relate what my personal experience was as a recipient of a NPD partner's response to my suffering, tempered in assessment by my subsequent immersive study of NPD.So my answer is experiential, not clinical, but I hope it will be helpful all the same…There were many times I suffered during my enmeshment with my ex. Some of my suffering was at his direct hand, due to his explicit behaviour. Other times, my suffering was born of everyday slings and arrows, variations that all people experience: loss of loved ones to death, physical pains or illness, work difficulties, etc. I'm going to make a non-exhaustive list below of the circumstances of my suffering, and the way my NPD ex responded.Here we go:The suffering:When my sister and only sibling was suddenly diagnosed with a malignant skin cancer while at a dermatology appointment and whisked off to surgery immediately, right in the middle of a workday to have it removed, necessitating that her face skin be cut open, peeled back, scraped, excised in a large part and then reattached, here is what I experienced in the way of response by my ex:The NPD ex response:During a long back and forth text conversation wherein he had been upset about his prospects as a performer and worrying endlessly about details related to launching a Fringe Fest piece I was assuring him about and helping him launch, I mentioned how I was worried sick about my sister and scared. My ex immediately stopped responding to me right then and there for an entire day and a half. Just stopped cold mid-conversation entirely. I could see he was still active online. Complete silent treatment. No reciprocal words of assurance, support or comfort. Just ghosted me the second I detoured from delivering nonstop focus on him. I texted a couple times to ask why he went silent and was met with more silence.The next time we spoke he was back on his worries, acted as though no schism occurred, and never mentioned my sister or asked how she was doing.The suffering:After this same ex killed a pet cat I was in extreme anguish about this.The NPD ex response:He proceeded to rage, blame me and deliver gaslighting galore. I have an extended post about this elsewhere if you're into reading about the horrific effects of gaslighting and narcissistic injury/rage upon recipients of narcissistic abuse.The suffering:I had been targeted with misogynistic harassment at my workplace such that it became publicly disruptive to my work.The NPD ex response:Said I was clogging up his phone with too many texts and I'd "figure it out," please stop texting.The suffering:A family member (grandmother to my niece and nephew, brother in law's mom) passed away suddenly and even though she had been getting on in years, I was unprepared. My ex was on his way to my place to meet for dinner after an AA meeting (my ex was 10 years sober). When he arrived, I was outside waiting, having a smoke, pacing, anxious to see him come down the block so I could have his comfort and shoulder.The NPD ex response:Upon arriving, seeing my distress, and hearing of her passing, he immediately replied with flat, uninflected tone, dead eyes and a blank facial expression of slightly dismissive annoyance:"So what, you didn't even know her. Why do you care?"I can't describe how robotic his tone sounded. It was bizarre.(This assessment of his, btw, was entirely incorrect - she was a loved, present family member of 30 years and the only grandmother my niece and nephew ever really knew. We have a very small, tight family - it's not like we had some vast family of far flung, numerous and unknown relatives. He pulled that comment out of his ass and it had zero foundation to be made.)He then incorrectly assumed I was smoking outside (of my own apartment!) to show consideration to him and patronizingly, condescendingly, bizarrely gave me thanks for "thinking of him and choosing to smoke outside so as to honor his preferences and please him."Yes dude, that's why I'm pacing outside and ran to your arms the second you came down the street. I wanted to show off that I had trained myself to please you. Sure thing.Mind you, no such discussion of smoking preferences had ever occurred previously re: how I comport myself in my own domicile. The only reason I was outside is because I knew he'd be arriving shortly and was so anxious to see his face and seek his comfort. I felt cooped up alone in the apartment with my sadness. He had seized upon a complete non-issue to simultaneously ignore my grief, make it about him, my purported submission to him and to deliver a condemnation obliquely about my smoking indoors.When I stared at him in astonishment and corrected him on all that, he just stared blankly, said "Oh." and stood like a cardboard cutout as I tried to hug him to feel a little bit of succor. He literally stood like a statue, stiff and unmoving as I held him, never even lifted his arms to hug back. I may as well have wrapped my arms around a telephone pole.He then detached from me and started to excitedly describe his AA meeting, the cool and funny guy in a wheelchair that he met there who had prevailed over his addictions so as to become such a great and sober inspiration, focused on what dinner I would be cooking for him, went around the corner with me to a market to get spinach to go with his steak where he entirely walked off, abandoning me in an aisle alone and refused to even shop with me (I paid, of course) and generally spent the rest of the evening in very good cheer, never once mentioning my not-six-hours-dead beloved relative.He never inquired again, not even giving condolences on the day of the funeral and certainly not attending! After the funeral I went to his place where he was happy to show how he was faring in a scrabble game variation he was playing against a friend instead of coming along or supporting me and my family. No mention of my day, just occasional texts asking me when I'd be on my way to him, my ETA and oh, could I pick stuff up for him enroute?He also made sure to mention that this friend had cooked him a wonderful lasagna that I would be allowed to have exactly one (measured by him) forkful of to prove how good it was and which he made clear he would not be sharing with me as it was just too tasty. When I arrived it was brought out with great flourish, my bite was meted out, compliments to the friend's culinary skills given and then it was wrapped back up and put away where I was forbidden to touch it again. This was immediately upon my arriving, hours after burying my relative.I was to be allowed to eat the week old "jambalaya" he had made into which he had dumped every expiring fridge meat, vegetable and spice in the cupboard until it was a scorching, over cooked, congealed mess. He became angry when I instead ordered my own lasagna in from a local Italian place, saying he was offended I did not appreciate that he cooked for me. He didn't eat that mess himself though. (He kept up that offense and indignation at my not being grateful for his rare "cooking" for me well into the next week, nursing that narcissistic injury.)At no point did he say anything about the funeral or inquire as to how I or my family was doing. Ever.He did all this in front of that friend.The suffering:We had broken up (there were few of these over the course of our relationship) and did so during a disagreement on a train to his apartment where I was to have spent the night. It was after midnight. Upon arriving at his stop and plans to split pretty much assured, I was sad and upset but resigned. I expected that I would be able to spend the night as it was late, I was tired and traveling late night on trains is generally not smart because the neighborhoods intervening his place and mine (a very long, multi-train switching affair) were rough and sometimes dangerous.I didn't even plan to sleep in the same bed, I just wanted somewhere safe to be until morning.The NPD ex response:You're trying to trap me, and don't give me your manipulative crocodile tears.The suffering:I was sad because my cat was ill and I wasn't sure if she was going to make it after cancer surgery. I had given (as is, IMHO, normal with a partner) considerable time, money and emotional support for him when one of his cats was ill. Now my cat was ill. I reached out to him to express my fears and sadness.The NPD ex response:"You're making me sad with your sad stories. I'm trying to write here and you're disrupting my ability to write. The reason my ex was so good is because she kept it light and happy. I have to go now, you're bumming me out. I don't have time for negativity."The suffering:During sex, he had started to hurt me and I said as much. It resulted in internal injury, infection and pain.The NPD ex response:During sex: "It only hurts because I'm doing this thing that hurts you." (I won't give precise details, he basically replied during sex that what I said was hurting me is why I was hurting. Thanks for the tautological sex talk, dude.)He continued vigorously with the sex even though I was crying out in pain.Later, when I ended up torn up inside, contracted a vicious UTI, had to go to emergency care and needed antibiotics and painkillers, he asked why I didn't speak up during sex. I reminded him that I did, he actually acknowledged, replied as he did and that he kept going.He then said "Oh, well I'm very sorry, I'm afraid that you'll think I'm some kind of sadist now."To which I said I did wonder about that which launched him into a self pity litany about how I thought him a bad man, he only wanted to please me and how much that hurt him and he was sorry and since I was hurt so bad it would be okay if I missed my faithful attendance of his show while recovering that week. That I should just stay home and recover. He said that magnanimously.The only reason he discovered I was laid up is because I had snoozed out on painkillers after coming home from urgent care and hadn't responded to his calls & texts pre-show demanding delivery of his traditional quadruple espresso latte, lemon cake and energy drinks.That's something I had originally done a few times in the beginning as a kindness before his show because I'd get myself a Starbucks prior to the venue opening to enjoy backstage with him and hadn't wanted to rudely show up with just coffee for myself. This morphed into an exploitative expectation and entitlement on his part where I was not only expected to fetch him the most loaded, giant and expensive coffee combo Starbucks offered every show, but was also expected to bring all manner of sundry items according to his whims prior to the show whether or not it was on my way or if I had plans to do so for myself. All on my dime, of course.He hadn't missed me per se, he missed his perks. He hadn't reflected on the violent, abusive sex prior, hadn't wondered if I was personally okay, hadn't contacted me earlier -- he wanted his latte and I was late and absent in responding to his demands.He never came by to be with me during this recovery, sporadically checked in via text and then tried to get me to give him my painkillers afterwards, saying that if I didn't I would be disinvited from attending his show.Ugh. I could go on and on. And on. Big and small, this is the characteristic response I got on every manner of interaction where reciprocity would be expected.From the smallest selfishness like buying me a cake in a grandiose show of generosity in front of another woman who he also wanted to "treat" but could not do without looking bad for not also buying his actual partner something, then eating it entirely before I got home, (stating with a smirk and laugh that I should take comfort in how much he enjoyed it and it was something I should think of as being a loving partner to enjoy his pleasure)…to killing the cat and trying to make it my fault — the sheer absence of empathy and overweening self regard can drive a person to despair. Then you get gaslighted on top of it to feel that your responses are the dysfunctional ones and they are the long suffering righteous one putting up with your outrageously labile emotional reactions.It's a good way to lose your mind. A very efficient way to entirely break down a person's reality and supplant it with corrosive manipulations and coercion.This is what day in, day out interaction is like when you are dealing with a hermetically sealed, self-reinforcing, ego-syntonic disordered person. It is the death of a thousand paper cuts and the occasional vivisection by sword. Just an average day in the life. At least that was my experience. I'm sure there are lesser and (god help us all) greater levels of pathological narcissistic disordered behaviors but my (very partial) list here is to depict what it's like from the experiential, recipient level using my first hand experience.It's exhausting and heartbreaking and entirely corrosive to emotional and psychological health, not to mention physical safety.Thanks for reading. ❤

Although this link has been posted in a comment, I want to specifically post a link to the actual judgment.It's a model of clear thinking, and should be read beginning to end for a full overview: Google ScholarEdit to add: I've added the full text below for those who cannot click the link:________________________________APRIL MILLER, et al. Plaintiffs.v.KIM DAVIS, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants.Civil Action No. 15-44-DLB.United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division at Ashland.August 12, 2015.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERDAVID L. BUNNING, District Judge.I. IntroductionThis matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2). Plaintiffs are two same-sex and two opposite-sex couples seeking to enjoin Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from enforcing her own marriage licensing policy. On June 26, 2015, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage, Davis announced that the Rowan County Clerk's Office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anycouples. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Davis, an Apostolic Christian with a sincere religious objection to same-sex marriage, specifically sought to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples without discriminating against them. Plaintiffs now allege that this "no marriage licenses" policy substantially interferes with their right to marry because it effectively forecloses them from obtaining a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy poses only an incidental burden on Plaintiffs' right to marry, which is justified by the need to protect her own free exercise rights.The Court held preliminary injunction hearings on July 13, 2015 and July 20, 2015. Plaintiffs April Miller, Karen Roberts, Jody Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, Barry Spartman, Aaron Skaggs, Shantel Burke and Stephen Napier were represented by William Sharp of the Americans for Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and Daniel Canon. Jonathan Christman and Roger Gannam, both of the Liberty Counsel, and A.C. Donahue appeared on behalf of Defendant Kim Davis. Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins and Jeff Mando represented Defendant Rowan County. Official Court Reporters Peggy Weber and Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the Court submitted the Motion pending receipt of the parties' response and reply briefs. The Court having received those filings (Docs. # 28, 29 and 36), this matter is now ripe for review.At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence. One is the fundamental right to marry implicitly recognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Each party seeks to exercise one of these rights, but in doing so, they threaten to infringe upon the opposing party's rights. The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage? For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative.II. Factual and Procedural BackgroundPlaintiffs April Miller and Karen Roberts have been in a committed same-sex relationship for eleven years. (Doc. # 21 at 25). After hearing about the Obergefelldecision, they went to the Rowan County Clerk's Office and requested a marriage license from one of the deputy clerks. (Id. at 25-26). The clerk immediately excused herself and went to speak with Kim Davis. (Id. at 28). When she returned, she informed the couple that the Rowan County Clerk's Office was not issuing any marriage licenses. (Id.). Plaintiffs Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez, a committed opposite-sex couple, had a similar experience when they tried to obtain a marriage license from the Rowan County Clerk's Office. (Id. at 36).Both couples went straight to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins and asked him to issue their marriage licenses. (Id. at 30-32, 36). Blevins explained that, under Kentucky law, a county judge executive can only issue licenses when the elected county clerk is absent. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.240. Because Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, Blevins concluded that she was not "absent" within the meaning of the statute. (Id.). Therefore, he did not believe that he had the authority to issue their marriage licenses. (Id.).Plaintiffs Barry Spartman and Aaron Skaggs also planned to solemnize their long-term relationship post-Obergefell. (Id. at 42-44). Before going to the Rowan County Clerk's Office, they phoned ahead and asked for information about the marriage licensing process. (Id.). They wanted to make sure that they brought all necessary documentation with them. (Id.). One of the deputy clerks told the couple "not to bother coming down" because they would not be issued a license. (Id.).Seven neighboring counties (Bath, Fleming, Lewis, Carter, Elliott, Morgan and Menifee) are currently issuing marriage licenses. (Doc. # 26 at 53). All are less than an hour away from the Rowan County seat of Morehead. (Id.). While Plaintiffs have the means to travel to any one of these counties, they have admittedly chosen not to do so. (Doc. # 21 at 38, 48). They strongly prefer to have their licenses issued in Rowan County because they have significant ties to that community. (Id. at 28-29, 47). They live, work, socialize, vote, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. (Id.). Quite simply, Rowan County is their home.According to Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk's Office serves as a "pass through collection agency" for the State of Kentucky. (Doc. # 26 at 24-25). She and her six deputy clerks regularly handle delinquent taxes, oversee elections, manage voter registration and issue hunting and fishing licenses. (Id.). A portion of the fees collected in exchange for these services is used to fund the Office's activities throughout the year. (Id.). The remainder is remitted to the State. (Id.).Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage licenses.[1] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple must first go to the county clerk's office and provide their biographical information to one of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.[2] Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk's office for recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080.The Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives ("KDLA") prescribes the above-mentioned form, which must be used by all county clerks in issuing marriage licenses.[3] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.100, 402.110. It is composed of three sections, which correspond to the steps detailed above: (1) a marriage license, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk; (2) a marriage certificate, to be completed by a qualified officiant; and (3) a recording statement, to be completed by a county or deputy clerk. The marriage license section has the following components:(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100(1) (emphasis added).Davis does not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they will bear the above-mentioned authorization statement. She sees it as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which runs contrary to her Apostolic Christian beliefs. (Id. at 42). Four of Davis' deputy clerks share her religious objection to same-sex marriage, and another is undecided on the subject. (Id. at 49). The final deputy clerk is willing to issue the licenses, but Davis will not allow it because her name and title still appear twice on licenses that she does not personally sign. (Doc. # 29-3 at 7).In the wake of Obergefell, Governor Beshear issued the following directive to all county clerks:Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.(Doc. # 29-3 at 11). He has since addressed some of the religious concerns expressed by some county clerks:You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you're also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, th[e]n obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.(Doc. # 29-11). Davis is well aware of these directives. Nevertheless, she plans to implement her "no marriage licenses" policy for the remaining three and a half years of her term as Rowan County Clerk. (Doc. # 26 at 67).III. Standard of ReviewA district court must consider four factors when entertaining a motion for preliminary injunction:(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits;(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable harm;(3) whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of such an injunction.See Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 1998). These "are factors to be balanced, and not prerequisites that must be met." In re Eagle Picher Indus., Inc.,963 F.3d 855, 859 (6th Cir. 1992) (stating further that these factors "simply guide the discretion of the court").IV. AnalysisA. Defendant Kim Davis in her official capacityPlaintiffs are pursuing this civil rights action against Defendants Rowan County and Kim Davis, in her individual and official capacities, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .This statute "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (internal quotations omitted).At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights by obtaining injunctive relief against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk. Because official capacity suits "generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," one might assume that Plaintiffs are effectively pursuing injunctive relief against Rowan County. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55 (1978). However, Rowan County can only be held liable under § 1983 if its policy or custom caused the constitutional deprivation. Id. at 694.A single decision made by an official with final policymaking authority in the relevant area may qualify as a policy attributable to the entity. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,475 U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986). Whether an official acted as a final policymaker is a question of state or local law. Id. However, courts must avoid categorizing an official as a state or municipal actor "in some categorical, `all or nothing' manner." McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., Ala., 520 U.S. 781, 785 (1997). They key inquiry is whether an official is a "final policymaker [] for the local government in a particular area, or on a particular issue." Id. Accordingly, the Court will focus on whether Davis likely acted as a final policymaker for Rowan County regarding the issuance of marriage licenses.While Davis is the elected Rowan County Clerk, subject to very little oversight by the Rowan County Fiscal Court, there are no other facts in the record to suggest that she set marriage policy for Rowan County. After all, the State of Kentucky has "absolute jurisdiction over the regulation of the institution of marriage." Pinkhasov v. Petocz, 331 S.W.3d 285, 291 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011). The State not only enacts marriage laws, it prescribes procedures for county clerks to follow when carrying out those laws, right down to the form they must use in issuing marriage licenses. Id.; see also Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.080, 402.100. Thus, Davis likely acts for the State of Kentucky, and not as a final policymaker for Rowan County, when issuing marriage licenses.This preliminary finding does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from obtaining injunctive relief against Davis. While the Eleventh Amendment typically bars Plaintiffs from bringing suit against a state or its officials, "official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the state." Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). This narrow exception, known as the Ex Parte Young doctrine, permits a federal court to "enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law." Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). "It rests on the premise-less delicately called a `fiction,'-that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign immunity purposes." Va. Office for Prot. and Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1638 (2011). Because Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Davis from violating their federal constitutional rights, this Court has the power to grant relief under Ex Parte Young.[4]B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction1. Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the meritsa. The fundamental right to marryUnder the Fourteenth Amendment, a state may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This "due process" clause has both a procedural component and a substantive component. See EJS Prop., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012). Procedural due process simply requires that the government provide a fair procedure when depriving an individual of life, liberty or property. Id. By contrast, substantive due process "protects a narrow class of interests, including those enumerated in the Constitution, those so rooted in the traditions of the people as to be ranked fundamental, and the interest in freedom from government actions that `shock the conscience.'" Range v. Douglas, 763 F.3d 573, 588 (6th Cir. 2014).Although the Constitution makes no mention of the right to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified it as a fundamental interest subject to Fourteenth Amendment protection. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes as violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). After all, "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Id. This right applies with equal force to different-sex and same-sex couples. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2604-05 (2015) ("[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment same-sex couples may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.").If a state law or policy "significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right[, it] cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978). A state substantially interferes with the right to marry when some members of the affected class "are absolutely prevented from getting married" and "[m]any others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements[,] will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry." Id. at 387 (invalidating a Wisconsin statute that required individuals with child support obligations to obtain a court order before marrying).However, "not every state action, `which relates in any way to the incidents of or the prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.'" Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d 1130, 1134 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386). States may impose "reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship." Id. at 1135. If the statute does not create a "direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married" or significantly discourage marriage, then it will be upheld so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Id. (quoting Zablocki 434 U.S. at 387-88 n. 12); see also Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47, 54 n.11 (1977) (upholding a Social Security provision that terminated secondary benefits received by the disabled dependent child of a covered wage earner if that child married an individual who was not entitled to benefits).The state action at issue in this case is Defendant Davis' refusal to issue anymarriage licenses. Plaintiffs contend that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly interferes with their right to marry because they are unable to obtain a license in their home county. Davis insists that her policy does not significantly discourage Plaintiffs from marrying because they have several other options for obtaining licenses: (1) they may go to one of the seven neighboring counties that areissuing marriage licenses; (2) they may obtain licenses from Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins; or (3) they may avail themselves of other alternatives being considered post-Obergefell.Davis is correct in stating that Plaintiffs can obtain marriage licenses from one of the surrounding counties; thus, they are not totally precluded from marrying in Kentucky. However, this argument ignores the fact that Plaintiffs have strong ties to Rowan County. They are long-time residents who live, work, pay taxes, vote and conduct other business in Morehead. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that Plaintiffs would prefer to obtain their marriage licenses in their home county. And for other Rowan County residents, it may be more than a preference. The surrounding counties are only thirty minutes to an hour away, but there are individuals in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel.[5]This argument also presupposes that Rowan County will be the only Kentucky county not issuing marriage licenses. While Davis may be the only clerk currently turning away eligible couples, 57 of the state's 120 elected county clerks have asked Governor Beshear to call a special session of the state legislature to address religious concerns related to same-sex marriage licenses.[6] (Doc. # 29-9). If this Court were to hold that Davis' policy did not significantly interfere with the right to marry, what would stop the other 56 clerks from following Davis' approach? What might be viewed as an inconvenience for residents of one or two counties quickly becomes a substantial interference when applicable to approximately half of the state.As for her assertion that Judge Blevins may issue marriage licenses, Davis is only partially correct. KRS § 402.240 provides that, "[i]n the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk." The statute does not explicitly define "absence," suggesting that a traditional interpretation of the term is appropriate. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015, Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster, (describing "absence" as "a period of time when someone is not present at a place, job, etc."). However, Davis asks the Court to deem her "absent," for purposes of this statute, because she has a religious objection to issuing the licenses. While this is certainly a creative interpretation, Davis offers no legal precedent to support it.This proposal also has adverse consequences for Judge Blevins. If he began issuing marriage licenses while Davis continued to perform her other duties as Rowan County Clerk, he would likely be exceeding the scope of his office. After all, KRS § 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage licenses when Davis is unableto do so; it does not permit him to assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to perform. Such an arrangement not only has the potential to create tension between the next judge executive and county clerk, it sets the stage for further manipulation of statutorily defined duties.[7] Under these circumstances, the Court simply cannot count this as a viable option for Plaintiffs to obtain their marriage licenses.Davis finally suggests that Plaintiffs will have other avenues for obtaining marriage licenses in the future. For example, county clerks have urged Governor Beshear to create an online marriage licensing system, which would be managed by the State of Kentucky. While these options may be available someday, they are not feasible alternatives at present. Thus, they have no impact on the Court's "substantial interference" analysis.Having considered Davis' arguments in depth, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have one feasible avenue for obtaining their marriage licenses-they must go to another county. Davis makes much of the fact that Plaintiffs are able to travel, but she fails to address the one question that lingers in the Court's mind. Even if Plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? The state has long entrusted county clerks with the task of issuing marriage licenses. It does not seem unreasonable for Plaintiffs, as Rowan County voters, to expect their elected official to perform her statutorily assigned duties. And yet, that is precisely what Davis is refusing to do. Much like the statutes at issue in Loving and Zablocki, Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy significantly discourages many Rowan County residents from exercising their right to marry and effectively disqualifies others from doing so. The Court must subject this policy apply heightened scrutiny.b. The absence of a compelling state interestWhen pressed to articulate a compelling state interest served by her "no marriage licenses" policy, Davis responded that it serves the State's interest in protecting her religious freedom. The State certainly has an obligation to "observe the basic free exercise rights of its employees," but this is not the extent of its concerns. Marchi v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Serv. of Albany, 173 F.3d 469, 476 (2d. Cir. 1999). In fact, the State has some priorities that run contrary to Davis' proffered state interest. Chief among these is its interest in preventing Establishment Clause violations. See U.S. Const. amend. I (declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"). Davis has arguably committed such a violation by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.[8] In such situations, "the scope of the employees' rights must [] yield to the legitimate interest of governmental employer in avoiding litigation." Marchi, 173 F.3d at 476.The State also has a countervailing interest in upholding the rule of law. See generally Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 171 (1972) ("The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, . . . is the great mucilage that holds society together."). Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the Court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.For these reasons, the Court concludes that Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' rights without serving a compelling state interest. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, this first factor weighs in favor of granting their request for relief.2. Potential for irreparable harm to PlaintiffsWhen a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of a constitutional deprivation claim, it follows that he or she will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Courts have also held that a plaintiff can demonstrate that a denial of an injunction will cause irreparable harm if the claim is based upon a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights."); see also Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir .1998) (finding that the loss of First Amendment rights for a minimal period of time results in irreparable harm); Ohio St. Conference of NAACP v. Husted, 43 F. Supp. 3d 808, 851 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (recognizing that a restriction on the fundamental right to vote constitutes irreparable injury).The Court is not aware of any Sixth Circuit case law explicitly stating that a denial of the fundamental right to marry constitutes irreparable harm. However, the case law cited above suggests that the denial of constitutional rights, enumerated or unenumerated, results in irreparable harm. It follows that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from Davis' "no marriage licenses" rule, absent injunctive relief. Therefore, this second factor also weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.3. Potential for substantial harm to Kim Davisa. The right to free exercise of religionThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). This Free Exercise Clause "embraces two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act." Id. at 304. "The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." Id. Therefore, "[c]onduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." Id.Traditionally, a free exercise challenge to a particular law triggered strict scrutiny.See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 (1963). A statute would only be upheld if it served a compelling government interest and was narrowly tailored to effectuate that interest. Id. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated slightly from this approach. See Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). While laws targeting religious conduct remain subject to strict scrutiny, "[a] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532; see also Smith, 494 U.S. at 880 (stating further that an individual's religious beliefs do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate")."Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied." Babalu, 508 U.S. at 532. A law is not neutral if its object "is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation." Id. at 533 (finding that a local ordinance forbidding animal sacrifice was not neutral because it focused on "rituals" and had built-in exemptions for most other animal killings). The Court has not yet "defined with precision the standard used to evaluate whether a prohibition is of general application." Id. at 543. However, it has observed that "[t]he Free Exercise Clause `protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment,' and inequality results when a legislature decides that the governmental interests it seeks to advance are worthy of being pursued only against conduct with a religious motivation." Id. at 542.While Smith and Babalu do not explicitly mention the term "rational basis," lower courts have interpreted them as imposing a similar standard of review on neutral laws of general applicability. See, e.g., Seger v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 453 F. App's 630, 634 (2011). Under rational basis review, laws will be upheld if they are "rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest." Id. at 635 (noting that "[a] law or regulation subject to rational basis review is accorded a strong presumption of validity"); see also F.C.C. v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)(stating generally that laws subject to rational basis review must be upheld "if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification").In response to Smith and Babalu, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. It prohibits the government from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," except when the government demonstrates that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Id. Although Congress intended RFRA to apply to the states as well as the federal government, the Court held that this was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' powers under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 512 (1997). Free exercise challenges to federal laws remain subject to RFRA, while similar challenges to state policies are governed by Smith. See, e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).For purposes of this inquiry, the state action at issue is Governor Beshear's post-Obergefell directive, which explicitly instructs county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis argues that the Beshear directive not only substantially burdens her free exercise rights by requiring her to disregard sincerely-held religious beliefs, it does not serve a compelling state interest. She further insists that Governor Beshear could easily grant her a religious exemption without adversely affecting Kentucky's marriage licensing scheme, as there are readily available alternatives for obtaining licenses in and around Rowan County.[9]This argument proceeds on the assumption that Governor Beshear's policy is not neutral or generally applicable, and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny.[10]However, the text itself supports a contrary inference. Governor Beshear first describes the legal impact of the Court's decision in Obergefell, then provides guidance for all county clerks in implementing this new law. His goal is simply to ensure that the activities of the Commonwealth are consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.While facial neutrality is not dispositive, Davis has done little to convince the Court that Governor Beshear's directive aims to suppress religious practice. She has only one piece of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that Governor Beshear "is picking and choosing the conscience-based exemptions to marriage that he deems acceptable." (Doc. # 29 at 24). In 2014, Attorney General Jack Conway declined to appeal a federal district court decision striking down Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-12). He openly stated that he could not, in good conscience, defend discrimination and waste public resources on a weak case.[11] (Id.). Instead of directing Attorney General Conway to pursue the appeal, regardless of his religious beliefs, Governor Beshear hired private attorneys for that purpose. (Doc. # 29-13). He has so far refused to extend such an "exemption" to county clerks with religious objections to same-sex marriage. (Doc. # 29-11).However, Davis fails to establish that her current situation is comparable to Attorney General Conway's position in 2014. Both are elected officials who have voiced strong opinions about same-sex marriage, but the comparison ends there. Governor Beshear did not actually "exempt" Attorney General Conway from pursuing the same-sex marriage appeal. Attorney General Conway's decision stands as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on an unsettled legal question. By contrast, Davis is refusing to recognize the legal force of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence in performing her duties as Rowan County Clerk. Because the two are not similarly situated, the Court simply cannot conclude that Governor Beshear treated them differently based upon their religious convictions. There being no other evidence in the record to suggest that the Beshear directive is anything but neutral and generally applicable, it will likely be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.The Beshear directive certainly serves the State's interest in upholding the rule of law. However, it also rationally relates to several narrower interests identified inObergefell. By issuing licenses to same-sex couples, the State allows them to enjoy "the right to personal choice regarding marriage [that] is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy" and enter into "a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 135 S. Ct. at 2599-2600. It also allows same-sex couples to take advantage of the many societal benefits and fosters stability for their children. Id. at 2600-01. Therefore, the Court concludes that it likely does not infringe upon Davis' free exercise rights.b. The right to free speechThe First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Under the Free Speech Clause, an individual has the "right to utter or print, [as well as] the right to distribute, the right to receive and the right to read." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)(citing Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943)). An individual also has the "right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977) (invalidating a state law that required New Hampshire drivers to display the state motto on their license plates). After all, "[a] system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Id.While the Free Speech Clause protects citizens' speech rights from government intrusion, it does not stretch so far as to bar the government "from determining the content of what it says." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,135 S. Ct. 2239, 2245-46 (2015). "[A]s a general matter, when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and carries out its duties on their behalf." Id.That being said, the government's ability to express itself is not unlimited. Id. "[T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government's speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government's speech." Id. (stating further that "[c]onstitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may [also] limit government speech").This claim also implicates the Beshear directive. Davis contends that this directive violates her free speech rights by compelling her to express a message she finds objectionable. Specifically, Davis must issue marriage licenses bearing her "imprimatur and authority" as Rowan County Clerk to same-sex couples . Doc. # 29 at 27). Davis views such an act as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, which conflicts with her sincerely-held religious beliefs.As a preliminary matter, the Court questions whether the act of issuing a marriage license constitutes speech. Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to "authorize" same-sex marriage. A close inspection of the KDLA marriage licensing form refutes this assertion. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the county clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry.The Court must also acknowledge the possibility that any such speech is attributable to the government, rather than Davis. See Walker, 135 S. Ct. at 2248 (finding that specialty license plates are government speech because the government has exercised final approval over the designs, and thus, chosen "how to present itself and its constituency"). The State prescribes the form that Davis must use in issuing marriage licenses. She plays no role in composing the form, and she has no discretion to alter it. Moreover, county clerks' offices issue marriage licenses on behalf of the State, not on behalf of a particular elected clerk.Assuming arguendo that the act of issuing a marriage license is speech by Davis, the Court must further consider whether the State is infringing upon her free speech rights by compelling her to convey a message she finds disagreeable. However, the seminal "compelled speech" cases provide little guidance because they focus on private individuals who are forced to communicate a particular message on behalf of the government. See, e.g., W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)(striking down a state law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag). Davis is a public employee, and therefore, her speech rights are different than those of a private citizen.[12] Garcetti v. Ceballos,547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006)."[T]he government may not constitutionally compel persons to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition of public employment," but it does have "a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 156 (1983); Waters v. Churchill,511 U.S. 661, 671 (1994). Accordingly, "[w]hen a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, (1973) (stating that "neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution" invalidates the Hatch Act's bar on partisan political conduct by federal employees)."[T]wo inquiries [] guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech." Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418 (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Ill., 391 U.S. 563, 563 (1968)). First, a court must determine "whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern." Id. (explaining further that this question often depends upon whether the employee's speech was made pursuant to his or her official duties). Id. at 421. If the answer is no, then the employee's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 421 ("Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen."). If the answer is yes, a court must then consider "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Id.(stating further that the government's restrictions "must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity's operations").The Court must adapt this test slightly because Davis' claim focuses on her right notto speak. In this context, the first inquiry is whether Davis refused to speak (i.e. refused to issue marriage licenses) as a citizen on a matter of public concern. The logical answer to this question is no, as the average citizen has no authority to issue marriage licenses. Davis is only able to issue these licenses, or refuse to issue them, because she is the Rowan County Clerk. Because her speech (in the form of her refusal to issue marriage licenses) is a product of her official duties, it likely is not entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to succeed on her compelled speech claim.c. The prohibition on religious testsArticle VI, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Under this Clause, "[t]he fact [] that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution." Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (striking down a state requirement that an individual declare his belief in God in order to become a notary public); see also McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)(invalidating a state law that prevented religious officials from serving in the state legislature).Davis contends that "[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation, amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office." (Doc. # 29 at 20). The Court must again point out that the act of issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met thelegal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval. The State is not requiring Davis to express a particular religious belief as a condition of public employment, nor is it forcing her to surrender her free exercise rights in order to perform her duties. Thus, it seems unlikely that Davis will be able to establish a violation of the Religious Test Clause.Although Davis focuses on the Religious Test Clause, the Court must draw her attention to the first half of Article VI, Clause § 3. It requires all state officials to swear an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Davis swore such an oath when she took office on January 1, 2015. However, her actions have not been consistent with her words. Davis has refused to comply with binding legal jurisprudence, and in doing so, she has likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents. When such "sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied." Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2602. Such policies simply cannot endure.d. The Kentucky Religious Freedom ActKentucky Constitution § 1 broadly declares that "[a]ll men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned .. . [t]he right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences." Kentucky Constitution § 5 gives content to this guarantee:No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.Kentucky courts have held that Kentucky Constitution § 5 does not grant more protection to religious practice than the First Amendment. Gingerich v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Ky. 2012). Such a finding would normally permit the Court to collapse its analysis of state and federal constitutional provisions. However, the Kentucky Religious Freedom Act, patterned after the federal RFRA, subjects state free exercise challenges to heightened scrutiny:Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.350.Davis again argues that the Beshear directive substantially burdens her religious freedom without serving a compelling state interest. The record in this case suggests that the burden is more slight. As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk. The Court therefore concludes that Davis is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free exercise rights under Kentucky Constitution § 5.4. Public interest"[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm'n, 23 F. 3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994). Because Davis' "no marriage licenses" policy likely infringes upon Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry, and because Davis herself is unlikely to suffer a violation of her free speech or free exercise rights if an injunction is issued, this fourth and final factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' Motion.V. ConclusionDistrict courts are directed to balance four factors when analyzing a motion for preliminary injunction. In this case, all four factors weigh in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein,IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 2) against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from applying her "no marriage licenses" policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. G:\DATA\Opinions\Ashland\15-44 MOO Granting Mtn for Preliminary Injunction.wpd[1] This task requires relatively few resources, at least in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 24-30). Davis testified that her Office issued 212 marriage licenses in 2014. Marriage licenses cost $35.50. (Id.). Of that sum, the Office retains $21.17, and remits the remaining $14.33 to the State. (Id.). Thus, Rowan County Clerk's Office made about $4,500, or roughly 0.1% of its annual budget, from issuing marriage licenses in 2014. (Id.). Davis also estimated that the task of issuing marriage licenses occupies one hour of one deputy clerk's time per week. (Id.).[2] A couple is "legally qualified" to marry if both individuals are over the age of eighteen, mentally competent, unrelated to each other and currently unmarried. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.010, 402.020(a)-(d), (f).[3] Only one aspect of the form has changed since Obergefell-whereas the marriage applicants were once referred to as "Bride" and "Groom," they are now identified as "First Party" and "Second Party."[4] In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that the Court need not decide whether Davis is a state actor or municipal policymaker in order to grant injunctive relief. The Court's preliminary finding on this matter does not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs from arguing the "municipal policymaker" theory in the future. The Court simply seeks to ensure that it is indeed able to grant injunctive relief against Kim Davis in her official capacity.[5] The median household income in Rowan County is $35,236 and 28.6% of the population lives below the poverty line. See United States Census Bureau, Rowan County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. For the entire state of Kentucky, the median household income is $43,036 and 18.8% of the population lives below the poverty line. Id.[6] See also Jack Brammer, 57 County Clerks Ask Governor for Special Session on Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, The Lexington Herald Leader (July 8, 2015), 57 Kentucky county clerks ask governor for special session on same-sex marriage licenses; Terry DeMio, Boone, Ky. Clerks Want Same-Sex License Law, Cincinnati Enquirer (July 9, 2015), Page on cincinnati.com ession-address-sex-marriage-issues-clerks/29919103/.[7] Even if the Court were inclined to accept Davis' interpretation of the term "absence," it would have doubts about the practicality of this approach. Judge Blevins is the highest elected official in Rowan County. (Doc. # 26 at 7). He is frequently out of the office on official business. (Id.). While Judge Blevins would not have to process a large number of marriage requests, he might not be regularly available for couples seeking licenses. Thus, the Court would be concerned about Judge Blevins' ability to perform this function as efficiently as Davis and her six deputy clerks.[8] Although it is not the focus of this opinion, Plaintiffs have already asserted such an Establishment Clause claim against Kim Davis in her official capacity. (Doc. # 1 at 13).[9] Davis further develops this argument in her own Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 39) against Governor Beshear and KDLA Librarian Wayne Onkst. That Motion is not yet ripe for review.[10] In Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that free exercise claims involving neutral and generally applicable laws may still be subject to heightened scrutiny if asserted alongside another constitutional right. If the Court concludes that the Beshear directive is neutral and generally applicable, Davis argues that strict scrutiny must still apply because her free exercise claim is coupled with a free speech claim. (Doc. # 29 at 23). However, this proposal fails because Davis' free speech rights are qualified by virtue of her public employment. See Draper v. Logan Cnty. Pub. Library, 403 F. Supp. 2d 608, 621-22 (W.D. Ky. 2005) (applying the Pickering balancing test to a combined free exercise and free speech claim asserted by a public employee). The Court will discuss this concept further in the next section.[11] Davis refers to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky's decisions in Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542, 545 (W.D. Ky. 2014), and Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 539 (W.D. Ky. 2014). Judge John Heyburn held that Kentucky's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages "violate[] the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review." Bourke, 996 F. Supp. 2d at 544. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated these cases with several similar matters originating from Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and reversed them. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014). The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari on these cases, now collectively known asObergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).[12] Most free speech cases involving public employees center on compelled silence rather than compelled speech. See, e.g., Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48 (focusing on a district attorney's claim that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her free speech rights). "[I]n the context of protected speech, the difference is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees `freedom of speech,' a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say." Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796-97.

October 2017. I’m currently fighting to remain part of my family after I ‘Woke Up’ to the reality that my father was an abuser. This was something that I’d kind of known for a very long time, but for many reasons I had denied for most of my life…..up until I had my ‘breakthrough moment’.My ‘breakthrough’ was in the form of a ‘breakdown’ (or so I thought at the time) whilst General Manager of my families multi-national business. The cause of my breakdown being the emotional, psychological and financial abuse I had suffered at the hands of my controlling Narcissistic father for most of my life, the worst of which being the seven years I was running the business autonomously after my father lured me back to his lair with more lies and false promises after I’d spent a decade out in the real world on my own. Unfortunately rather than face this like a man or a parent who actually cared for their own child, my father instead denied all responsibility and set about obliterating my life instead?It was the ‘last straw‘ as far as my father was concerned! I believe he decided right there and then that it was time to dispose of his eldest son once and for all? I assume this was because of the attention that my ‘breaking’ subsequently shone on our dysfunctional and enmeshed family after I exposed my families dirty little secret to the world? I had broken Rule numero-uno…..the punishment for such a crime being the obliteration of the perpetrator, which in this case….meant the obliteration of My-Self!Alas….I had finally woken up and I faced reality. I was what’s known as the ‘Scapegoat’ of my family, and I had been for my entire life!Twelve years I had worked for the family business. A dedicated and high-performing employee. My first tenure was 20 years earlier, which I quit after only four years because my father is not a good man to work for and he treated me like a dog, so much so that I was on anti-depressants for most of my final year before I eventually resigned at the end of my fourth year!After venturing out on my own…. I instantly embraced my freedom, I found success and happiness and was loving life….albeit back then I had no idea that I had actually ‘escaped’ from what I now understand was an abusive relationship?Ten years later my father ‘hoovered’ me back to the business with false promises that things would be different this time, misleading me to believe that he would quickly retire and transition out of the business….then hand the reigns over to me? From that moment onwards I was running the families AU$30M business, but my father although officially retiring within two years after my return, continued his control and denigration of me the entire time. This was in spite of the fact that the business was performing better than it ever had under his leadership, or that I had garnered the family more than $15M profit during the six years I was leading the business…..a business that won many accolades during the period too.But…….when I woke up…..I did the one thing the experts say that you should never ever do? I accused my Father of being a Narcissist, and shone a spotlight on our dysfunctional family. This was not an attempt to expose my families dirty little secret, I simply could not handle it any more….or in the words of my therapist ‘I simply decided that I’d had enough’!This being why I’m no longer employed, no income, no care or concern…and I am no longer welcome in my family? Any support I did have was withdrawn, which forced myself and my kids to move out of our home and lease it out to strangers so I could continue to pay the mortgage….ensuring I did not lose my home as well! I was diagnosed as having incurred a stress-related psychological injury and was unfit for work, something that over the following 12 months was confirmed by six independent doctors! Yet….it does not seem to mean anything to those that are supposed to care for me…..this being my family. Instead I am accused of being evil and bad, but if you were to ask my family what I have actually done, they would not be able to give you an answer…..because they can’t even tell me what it is that I am supposed to have done?The letter my father sent me the day of my breakdown (below) I Naively and foolishly accepted as being genuine at a time where I was truly broken and vulnerable, still wanting to believe that my father actually cared about me. Shame on me for being so naive? No! Shame on him for being so callous and evil.The content of the letter in no way whatsoever align’s with the reality of what followed….this of course being something that my father has been pardoned for, as he always has been and always will! Every single one of his false offers of support and/or concern was reneged on and withdrawn over the months that followed, which is something that I am expected to just accept and move on, because this is what my father demands!I now accept that I’ve endured years of bullying and ‘abuse’ at the hands of my father, all of which was enabled by his ‘Yes Man’ and henchman (my younger, naive and under-qualified Golden Child brother). My brother is someone that I’ve reached out to for help countless times over the years, only for him to respond each time that I deserved the treatment I received from my father, and it was my fault, and to ‘stop being a victim’?The thing is….unless you’ve experienced or been exposed to Narcissistic Abuse yourself, it’s impossible (as in it’s literally impossible) to come even close to understanding it? The majority of folk almost always jump to the conclusion that it’s more so about the Victim being weak or fragile…. Yet they don’t even understand what Narcissistic Abuse is?The people that have experienced it however refer to it as ‘soul-rape’ or ‘abuse of the spirit’!It’s basically abuse of the mind and of the soul…and anyone who has experienced Narcissistic Abuse will tell you that it’s absolutely insidious and truly evil….because that’s exactly what it is!Even though my younger brother has hurt me time and time again, deep down I still love him knowing that he too has been abused and manipulated, it’s just that his situation and his experience within our family is different to my own. Unlike myself my brother has no reason to face the reality that our family is sick and enmeshed? He has no reason to try and understand that our father is abusive because he has nothing to gain but instead has everything to lose by facing this! If the day ever comes that my brother finds the courage to say ‘No’ to my father….which is something he has never done nor do I believe he ever actually will….he may just see for himself that his older brother was telling the truth all those years ago?What was the Catalyst for my ‘Breakthrough’?I had just had a whirlwind 12 month relationship with a German tattoo model. I’d briefly met my princess at a festival for only a matter of seconds, before seducing me online then quite literally moving into my home ‘just like that’, and before I knew it, I’d fallen in love within the first 24hrs….but from the start I knew something wasn’t quite right, but I ignored it!A few months into our relationship ‘My German’ mentioned that she’d once been diagnosed as having Narsissistic Personality Disorder…. which at the time meant absolutely nothing to me, up until the moment I was discarded that is?The discard led me to doing what many ‘Survivors‘ of Narcissistic abuse find themselves doing ‘Post-discard’! I powered up my laptop, opened up my web-browser and began looking for answers to try and understand what the hell I had just experienced? This was when I discovered the answers I had been searching for my entire adult life. This was my ‘Aha’ moment!It was like a million lightbulbs going off all at once! I discovered that my father was a Covert Narcissist and my family was ‘enmeshed’, and the Psychological breakdown I had suffered at work was in fact a Breakthrough…rather than a Breakdown!I am the second person in my family to have been broken by my father, the first being my poor mother who has been in and out of institutions for that past eight years with extreme anxiety and depression, and to date none of the treatments have been successful……because the doctors have been treating the symptoms rather than the cause, and I now understand my mother to be suffering at the extreme end of Narcissistic Victim Syndrome.After my breakthrough in May 2017 and declaring publicly that my father was an abuser, I have been ostracised from my entire family who are unable to accept what is happening, mainly because they are all in denial. Even my mother defends the actions of my father…but over the years she has comforted me dozens of times when I broke down because of my fathers targeted abuse, but each time Mum telling me that she doesn’t know why he treats me this way and that she’s sorry? Not once did she help me or do anything about it…..not once! Now though… this is something she states she does not remember ever doing…..a symptom of her cognitive dissonance and her sub-conscious blocking of painful memories to protect herself and maintain a ‘safe position’ relative to what she has experienced during her horrendous and abusive 40 year marriage to her Narc. I know that in the past, during times when I wasn’t around to be the primary target of my fathers abuse as the chosen ‘scapegoat’ my mother took the brunt of his abuse. The other members of my family allow it to happen, they know no better, it’s an unconscious thought?Like many ACON’s, it was whilst learning about the love-bombing, devaluing and the final discard I had experienced in my relationship with my diagnosed Narc Ex-Fiancé the German Princess when I woke up to reality! It’s an indescribable realisation! The moment you first discover that you grew up with a Narcissistic Parent! Over the next six months I became engrossed in learning everything I could about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Scapegoating. It’s how we start the healing process and snap back into reality….albeit it’s a terrifying journey!The hardest thing about this whole journey has been learning about what was happening to me as it was actually happening, and the overwhelming helplessness of it all! You literally have no way of stopping the destruction of yourself….and by your very own parent? I was terrified….I still am terrified! The fear and distress drains every ounce of your energy, and it destroys your soul.But I want to survive, and I now know I will survive. All the research on Covert NPD and the effects it has on those within the enmeshed family unit has allowed me to accept that I am not responsible for any of this. I understand that it’s the only way my family have ever known. When you are raised in an enmeshed family….you simply do not know that the way your family operates is toxic and dysfunctional. To the enmeshed family it’s normal….even though deep down you all subconsciously know that there is something wrong, it’s just not allowed to be raised or discussed, so it’s never accepted as reality?This is what sends you into an intense and uncontrollable fight or flight mode…..a crazy person in the eyes of anyone who is witnessing your distress, with your family subsequently pulling in more ‘flying monkeys’ to play their part. The most easily manipulated being those who already have a tiny little spark of animosity towards you that’s ready to be used against you, and is quickly turned into a fully fledged fire. In my case the ‘flying monkey’ best equipped to cause me pain and distress, but more importantly used to prevent me from leaving the toxic filth was my ex-wife! She has since unwittingly joined in….and is now the only thing stopping me from going full no contact and healing, because she has been swindled by my family, and has refused to keep my family from seeing my children. She doesn’t understand that for me, the idea that she ‘might’ let the kids interact with my family is something that causes me immense distress. And the more you protest your innocence, the more they believe the lies and the gaslighting that you are crazy and deranged. Eventually they become one of the ‘mob’, actively participating in the abuse, always justifying to themselves why you deserve it, because just like your family….they believe they are the victim and you are the one who is ‘bad’. The frustrating thing for me being that this is exactly why I pleaded with my ex-wife in the beginning to “please stay away from my family because I knew she was primed to join in, Unintentionally or not, it is still a conscious decision which side to take in the beginning, when importantly anyone with any sort of moral compass knows that it should be about what’s best for our children, which is certainly not siding with the people who have abused and hurt the kids dad? Even though I wrote her a letter six months earlier that asserts that this would be the precise outcome, she too has now devalued me and has even stated that it is me that needs to ask for her forgiveness? The Flying Monkeys are so convinced that you are the bad guy that even if the Narc owned up and took full responsibility for all the hurt they created (something that will never happen of course) the ‘Flying Monkeys’ would still blame you! It’s because they have been tainted by the toxic scapegoating, and their character is likely such that they have actually enjoyed watching and partaking in the show….thus they will never be able to accept that they have been manipulated, or have caused you additional hurt by abusing you by proxy. To accept this takes strength, humility and compassion, something they lack, which allowed them to be manipulated in the first place. When you protest your innocence and exhibit distress, anxiety, fear and of pain that is beyond words, they of course see this as you being crazy and insane……..even though if they bothered to read up on ‘Smear Campaigns’, of ‘Gaslighting’ or ‘Being Discarded’…..they would see that the exact situation they are now playing a part in, aligns with the very behaviour and events that you have been screaming about for months on end.I have two beautiful, intelligent and loving kids 7&8 who are my world…..and always will be. Nobody within the immediate or extended family has even questioned my fathers actions towards me, and now I’ve been financially ruined and kicked to the curb.I so wish people would ask themselves why?The family violence act has a clause in it that covers this very situation, for this very reason……something that I do not want to use, as the ones who lose in the end are my kids…..whether they lose me or their mother…..the alternative being that I just give in, but that will literally eat me up inside and I will never be able to heal?My ex-wife, who up until now I had shared a cohesive and reasonably amicable ‘divorced-parents’ relationship with that was focused on what was in the best interest of our kids, has joined in on the ‘lets get Jarrod and act like we’re not getting him’ game…..convinced by the mis-truths of my family that I’m insane……and god it hurts so much! If she knew the truth, which I know is an inevitability in the years to come, she would be truly horrified with her actions…..but this is something that I would forgive her for in a heart-beat if she could somehow be educated to accept that I am actually the victim here…not my family, not her….but me….and of course our beautiful kids who are being impacted by this more and more each day, but she doesn’t want to believe that this is what is is……..which of course requires a person to ignore the facts and instead believe the bullshit? She has been sucked into the toxic filth……and is convinced that she knows better than me, even though one of the reasons why we separated many years ago was that she didn’t want to end up like my mum as a result of the damage she has incurred from my dad? I’ve begged her hundreds and hundreds of times to please just stay out of it and keep away from my family, knowing all too well that she was primed to be manipulated into being used as a tool to cause me further distress….ruining everything we had created for our kids, simply because she feels sorry for my family! Which is what she subsequently did by continually expressing to me that this isn’t as bad as it really is, all based on a false (and partly innocent but partly ignorant) belief that all families are like hers, not understanding the deep psychology of what’s actually happening in my enmeshed family, understanding that some families are different, and ignoring the clear signs because it makes you uncomfortable is dangerous. Thus she has been applying pressure on me, to force my kids back into the home where I have just accepted I was abused for most of my life, the entire time claiming that she is not, yet here we are, she is in alliance with my family and has taken their side? She is being used against me to apply pressure so the family get what they want, which is access to my beautiful children with total disregard to my rights as a parent…..whilst forcing me to rot in the gutter….whilst they of course tell everyone, including me that they love me? Eventually this culminated in my ex calling psych services on me twice, both times the authorities stating that they should not have been called. She then got lawyers involved, removing the kids from my care insinuating that I’m a risk, even though my Psychologist and the workcover Psychiatrist, plus my own Psychiatrist…all three of them have formally evaluated and reported that my family are toxic, that I have incurred psychological injury (not an illness….but an injury), as a result of my families abusive behaviour! One even recommending that I do all I can to get my ex wife to relocate with me interstate…..which she of course scoffed at and dismissed? Yeah what would he know?My ex is unable to see that my families love, although they make out they care…. is painfully poisonous and it is dangerous! She’s a good Mum, she loves our kids and they adore her…..and she is important to me because she is important to the kids. Unfortunately my ex-wife believes that only she is important to the kids and I am of no value…….which demonstrates that she does not understand the true meaning of what is ‘in the best interest of the kids’……this being the crux of the problem! If she understood this she would have kept out of it in the first place with my wellbeing being and the kids wellbeing the focus, rather than her incorrect belief that she knows what is happening just because she thinks she does……even though all of the experts have stated otherwise? It’s so frustrating and it is this above all else that has destroyed me.She is ruining her kids mental health, ruining the close and special bond and friendship they had with their father, then insisting that remaining in contact with the family that abused the kids dad (me), treating him like trash which is so inhumane and calculatingly cruel, that this is what is best for the kids? Then claims to want to raise happy kids with good morals and values? WTF? It’s mind numbing? It just does not make any sense?I have been in therapy for seven months, and have grieved my loss and accepted that I am powerless to remain part of my family. I understand that my childhood was very different to what is classed as ‘ideal’. I am ready to move on and enjoy my life, but I am scared that I will lose my precious children sooner rather than later. I’ve accepted that I might….and in fact it’s likely I will…..but fucked if I’m gonna just let it happen!Narcs are horrendous animals. For the average person from a healthy family, the suggestion that a father could be capable of doing this to his own child, a child who has given so much of his life to their dad, well it is unimaginable? It is literally impossible for anybody to understand the depth of the trauma, unless they have also experienced it. There have been times where I have questioned my own sanity, and times where I genuinely have felt like I was fighting for my life……which in a way I was! My life as I knew it has been taken from me. But I know I will be ok.My father behaves very much like a child whenever he’s in conflict with another family member (or any other person for that matter!) His number one focus is ensuring that he’s never required to take responsibility for any of his actions….especially if the other person is noticeably distressed or has hurt feelings. He will not be made to feel anything less than perfect. Instead using deceit and lies to denounce and reject any accusation that he may have caused pain or hurt to another, he is ruthless at ‘justifying’ his own unacceptable behaviour by magnifying every mistake and error of judgement that the other person has made over their lifetime, then heaping these ‘failings’ into a big pile to shame and smear the other person…..painting them as a bad person, grossly exaggerating the impact or gravity of their past failings, successfully distracting others, and shamelessly redirecting their focus to unrelated matters that had already been dealt with. Successfully avoiding the original issue, never having to take responsibility for his own unsatisfactory and immoral behaviour.Based on a discussion I had with my mother six weeks ago, and according to both our memories, my father has never apologized to either of us for any of his behaviour that significantly hurt us or caused us concern throughout our lives. Thus the suggestion being that during the past 40 years, my father, the man who has not hugged or said I love you to any of his three children or his wife during this time, who’s wife is a manic depressant with Anxiety and depression (Narcissistic Victim Syndrome), his eldest son has grown up never feeling good enough and has reached out to help directly to his father and to other family members countless times over his life only to be told that his father “Was Never Going To Change” which culminated in the end with his son suffering a nervous breakdown due to the relentless negative assertions and pressure from his father in the workplace even after 12 years of basically floorless dedication to the family business. This man has never said SORRY….not once…never? He has not once acknowledged that his negative behaviour, whether it be conscious or not…. may be impacting on any of his family members? It is literally INSANE!!He is a true coward and only ever thinks of his own poor victim mentality.In the meantime I will simply try to be the good person I am, and focus on my gorgeous children, and just hope that old mother Karma will look after me through this dark period of my life.NARCISISM (in the Covert form) is a horrid manipulative beast. It is the embodiment of pure evil, and it causes terror to the innocent victims of its putridity.Update as of 18th of November 2017.My father has ‘reframed’ (re-written the history) of my breakdown I suffered whilst working within the family business now 6 months ago now claiming that I myself resigned from my position, cruelly implying that the day of my breakdown was instead my ‘planned last day of work’??????????The betrayal is painful and disgustingly inhumane! It really does test ones resolve to not go and do something silly in retaliation! I immediately filed a workers compensation claim knowing that I was about to be royally shafted and kicked to the curb, as well as knowing all too well that I was genuinely suffering from the stress-related Psychological injury I have been diagnosed with which has been exacerbated as a result of the abuse I’ve continued to receive post injury in the 6 months since my breakdown. I knew I would be in a bad way without the correct support networks in place which would make it even more difficult for me to move forward like I know I need to. My father subsequently contested the claim whilst he and my brother deceitfully re-assured the other members of my family that they would do everything they could to ensure the claim was accepted. I knew otherwise, as of course the reality being that during the investigation process, both my father and brother (the Golden Child) blatantly lied to the regulator….this time by stating that my father actually Terminated my employment six months earlier due to me supposedly misusing company funds. I am not even aware of the details of this accusation, which makes it even harder to accept. They stated that being that my father is such a nice guy, he gave me 6 months of continued employment to enable me to find another job and not cause me any unecessary hardship? The end result being that my claim was rejected due to the false statements given by my father and Golden Brother…falsely stating that my breakdown was in effect, just me being disgruntled because of my earlier dismissal.But my wider family knew this not to be the case and there was a brief 24hr period where my mother and sister both told me they knew dad was in the wrong and they would both support me until it was sorted out….because it simply was not right to treat me this way! I was of course elated at the time as I believed that even my father could not manipulate his way out of this obvious mess? But within 24hrs my father had called in the Psychiatrists to medicate my mother and was talking about involving the police because I was now supposedly threatening to kidnap my mother which he was very worried about?And away we go again??I have now lost custody of my children as a result of my fathers decitfullness as my ex-wife has been manipulated into believing that all of this is in my head and I was obviously mentally unwell and a danger to my kids?I have since earned my ex’s trust back and have been with my children again, however it is now at a point where the only things my evil father has not yet taken from me are my home and my liberty/freedom. I have reluctantly agreed with the views of my close friends who are supporting me, and brother in law who is intelligent enough to see this for what it is, that I need to do what the Psychiatrist advised me and remove myself from the toxic environment whilst I still have my freedom and my sanity! Next week I will be relocating interstate, leaving my children, my home and my friends behind me because my father is as evil as they come…..and I am being slaughtered. I know I need to go because I am fear that the continued abuse will result in me losing my cool, then doing something drastic to end it all, and the drastic measures will be directed at my abuser and not myself. And my ex-wife who I know is trying to push me to explode so she can then paint me as the bad guy, thus I will be the villain, and the kids and I will lose…..which I will not allow to happen, so I need to get away from it ASAP.My last hope is the Workplace Employment Regulator. My hope being that the authorities are learned enough regarding toxic individuals allowing them to see the truth, and assist in halting the relentless attack on my soul. This combined with the fact that my father has broken multiple laws….laws that he of course does not abide by because he believes that he is above the law.If this fails….then all hope appears to be lost, at least for now, until I can rebuild again…..and live MY LIFE like I am supposed to, as is my right as a human being!The most frustrating thing for me in all of this is the ‘victim shaming’ by those around me who struggle to accept the idea that a big 40 year old bloke like myself can be….and still is being…..abused by his father. And they continue to find this truth difficult to swallow, regardless of the obvious destruction I have incurred in such a brief period of time as a result of my fathers actions? It’s hard to feel such pain and be told by those that you care for that it is you who needs to just ‘get over it’….and stop letting him get to me?Update January 2018My FWA case was unresolved and I was issued a certificate to take the matter to court. The ironic thing being that my father used the Employer Advocate ‘Employsure’ to defend himself, with myself being the one to employ the services of Employsure approximately four years earlier as the companies ‘advocate’ to represent the company in the event that an employee was to take the employer to court relating to an industrial dispute? My father was not prepared to negotiate, knowing full well at the time I had no cash and no means to mount a defence in court, thus I had to let it go? The system is broken! Unless you have money to defend yourself then the system does not work?In December 2017 the kids and I were forced to vacate my home as I had no income, only $2,000 left to redraw from my home loan, and was diagnosed as being unfit for work due to psychological injury.After leaving the kids and relocating to NSW to stay with a friends family, my ex-wife has been exposing the kids to my family. I applied for an IVO against my father and added the kids to the order to ensure that my ex-wife is prevented from exposing the kids to my family. It was almost impossible trying to convince the court that I needed assistance, but eventually I got there and the application was processed.I have appealed the Work Cover decision using a No Win No Fee law firm and hope that I can achieve a result?Abuse is Abuse no matter if you are a 40 year old man or a five year old kid!Abuse is never ever ok, and remaining silent about known abuse is enabling the abuse to continue.Listen to the victim, understand that their distraught and ‘crazy’ behaviour is a sign that what they are saying is true…….and if you choose to instead take their abusers side, that then makes you an abuser too, whether you admit it or not is irrelevant!Update as of August 2018I have now been living interstate since the beginning of the year. Living with a new family, a family of a very good friend, with his wife and their two teenage daughters. Living with a loving family alone is therapeutic in itself, but I have also been attending regular therapy with the primary focus being on healing as I have accepted that I cannot change the situation with my family which is something that I fully understand and no longer have a desire to change.My Workers Compensation appeal was recently settled out of court due to the evidence showing that my father and brother lied during the investigation.Eight months of hard slog to get the justice I deserved, not because of the money (which in the end was a pittance), but because I wanted the truth to succeed over the lies, but the result was literally ignored and dismissed by both my family and my ex-wife, so I now wonder why I even bothered?I have travelled eight times this year already back to see my children and to bring them interstate to stay with my new family during the school holidays. It has been really hard because my eldest in particular is struggling with the situation and in between visits when we Skype every couple of days, his eyes are filled with tears. His heart is hurting because of the distance and the unfair position we find ourselves in. Being an intuitive and empathetic child he knows daddy is hurting and he texts me pictures of Rainbows and Love Hearts during the week and tells me that he loves and misses me. I do not understand how his mother can do what she is doing knowing how much he hurts because of it, I guess she turns a blind eye to it and tells herself it’s not what it is?I realised earlier in the year that My ex-wife has her own motives which are driving her and likely have been the entire time?? It’s money….She feels entitled to my money, even though I am unemployed and a victim of Family Mobbing?I signed documents earlier in the year which resigned my position as Director if the family trust, which is where my fathers $60M is bequeathed on his death, so by signing the docs I have effectively been disinherited. By signing the docs I received my equity in the trust being several hundred thousand dollars, which is why I signed the docs so I had access to funds enabling me to pay for my legal fees and travel costs to see the kids. I held off for as long as I could, but eventually had no choice (which is why my father made sure my Work Cover claim was rejected, knowing I would have no source of income and eventually would be forced to sign them).My family then provided the confidential documents to my ex-wife and encouraged her to apply through child support to access the cash by asking for the funds to be counted as income?She has since done so and Child Support (which is a broken system and so heavily weighted in her favour) have ruled I must give her a portion of the cash?I have objected and await the decision but I know I will not win on this one? The system is being used as a tool to financially abuse me, it’s a horrible situation, and is just plain wrong. I’ve supported her and the kids since the day we separated, going above and beyond what I was required to do, and the first time that I am the one down on his luck, she dishonestly kicks me when I am down….because she believes she is entitled to do so?I am now full No Contact with my family and have been for several months. I’ve been in therapy all year, focusing on healing and am working through EMDR therapy which is so effective at dealing with my trauma.I will continue with my healing journey and when I’m ready I plan to return to be with my children, returning to the Hornets Nest because I have no choice.My father recruiting my wife for this very reason, ensuring that rather than escaping my family, I am forced to return to my home town because I will not allow my children to be tainted by the sickness of my family. Well played father, you have now hurt two little children who were not yours to harm and who looked up to you just as I once did, in addition to hurting your own!The thing is, I am healing well and have found my strength again. I have found the strength to stand in my truth and when I do return I think my family will see that I am not who I once was, and my father and brother in particular will know what it is like to feel fear, because I have had my turn, but I have overcome my fear.Update October 2018I have now put plans in place to return home to be with the children. I have my support systems in place and have been offered a job (which I have accepted) with a local business who are taking over from The Department of Human Services managing the cases of indigenous children in ‘out of home care’ and ‘child protection’. My role will be developing the Policy and Procedures for the business, basically developing their procedures to guide the organisations staff when managing the care and safety of the children who have been impacted by family violence.My friends have come together to help me transition back into my old life, and I will be living in temporary accomodation in a caravan on a friends property until I am able to move back into my farm at the end of the year once my tenants have vacated the property once their lease is up at the end of the year.The kids and I are excited about my return and I am looking forward to returning to my old life albeit without my family. I have several relatives who have been supporting me throughout the past year who are aware that the issues within my family are not what my family have asserted, albeit they are still struggling to understand the whole picture, but they are supporting me with my return home.It is going to be very tough to leave my new family who have been a source of strength for me for the past year, but the kids are my priority and they need their daddy to come home and be there for them like I always have been. I have travelled 11 times this year to maintain my relationship with the kids since I have relocated albeit their mother has not contributed at all, and I fear is going to continue to make it difficult for me to take my place as the involved and loving parent I have always been, but I will not be bullied by her or my family any longer! I am ready to return and am strong in my truth and am prepared for the resistance that I know I will face on my return.