KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Joules]

 

TranquilMind, on 04 Sept 2015 - 5:28 PM, said:

Ah, that may be the missing link. Perhaps you would be OK with someone refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple based on religious belief.

  See this for some of the Scriptural justifications

That is a sermon by Bob Jones from 1960..... rest assured, Bob Jones University did eventually lift their ban on interracial dating and marriage. 40 years after that sermon.

 

 

Thanks for the link; I hadn't ever read that.  Though long and circuitous, it was worth the read.

 

I've definitely heard echoes of the ideas from old Southerners, and can now see the sermons that gave them such strong opinions.  He created a very compelling Biblical argument for them, though for most of our generation, the holes in the logic are huge.  Hopefully, someday my grandkids will look back on today's sermons with similar perspective.

[Joanne]

I just read that she didn't become a Christian until 4 years ago- after all of her marriages. I think a lot of newer converts to any religions or way of thinking can be very passionate and dogmatic. Didn't we have a discussion about a new athiest who was being sort of aggressive in fb posts? Or essential oil converts. :) Not excusing her. Just clarifying that one point and starting to understand a bit more why she is doing this. Perhaps she feels so strongly because this had been a "sin area" in her life. (quotes because she views them as a sin area not judging divorce or divorced people). Again not excusing just musing.

 

 

No, you are right. It's a known and observable pattern. It's also written about as Fowler's Stages of Faith.

[Joanne]

Not true at all.

They are practical, reality-based arguments.  Men and women have children together and legal protection exists for families.   Women and women or men and men do not reproduce.  They can have any relationships they like, and do.  But that is not the purpose of marriage, which exists to create and protect families. 

 

 

Please provide factual, legal, secular, non faith based support for this assertion. I'd accept historical, even.

[poppy]

Thanks for the link; I hadn't ever read that.  Though long and circuitous, it was worth the read.

 

I've definitely heard echoes of the ideas from old Southerners, and can now see the sermons that gave them such strong opinions.  He created a very compelling Biblical argument for them, though for most of our generation, the holes in the logic are huge.  Hopefully, someday my grandkids will look back on today's sermons with similar perspective.

 

It's not a great essay structurally, but it was a radio address-  meant to be spoken.  Dr. Jones was known for his conversational style that seems rambling but is quite clever. It just does not translate as well on paper.

[Joanne]

You are right about this.  The desire is for conservative Christians to just shut up and disappear instead of adhere to the legal and moral standards that have always prevailed, until now. 

 

It's unbelievable that people can't see this. 

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them?  Or remove that duty to another state office?  What difference could that possibly make?

 

Because it isn't about that.  It is about silencing this viewpoint. 

 

 

Actually, the "desire" is to secularize a nation predicated upon separation of church and state. The (Judeo)Christian over culture has had a far-reaching hold that still exists, in abundance, in our institutions and settings.

 

(For me) It's not about silencing the viewpoint. I'd rather educate and transform.

 

Ms. Davis is free to hold a viewpoint. She should not be free (as a compensated government employee) to impose that viewpoint on citizens seeking the services of an ostensibly secular government.

[Frances]

I just read that she didn't become a Christian until 4 years ago- after all of her marriages. I think a lot of newer converts to any religions or way of thinking can be very passionate and dogmatic. Didn't we have a discussion about a new athiest who was being sort of aggressive in fb posts? Or essential oil converts. :) Not excusing her. Just clarifying that one point and starting to understand a bit more why she is doing this. Perhaps she feels so strongly because this had been a "sin area" in her life. (quotes because she views them as a sin area not judging divorce or divorced people). Again not excusing just musing.

I agree that the newness of her faith is likely at play here. But I don't understand why she hasn't refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced individuals. How can she justify condoning adultery (her belief, not mine)?

[LucyStoner]

I just read that she didn't become a Christian until 4 years ago- after all of her marriages. I think a lot of newer converts to any religions or way of thinking can be very passionate and dogmatic. Didn't we have a discussion about a new athiest who was being sort of aggressive in fb posts? Or essential oil converts. :) Not excusing her. Just clarifying that one point and starting to understand a bit more why she is doing this. Perhaps she feels so strongly because this had been a "sin area" in her life. (quotes because she views them as a sin area not judging divorce or divorced people). Again not excusing just musing.

She's newly on fire for UPC but she's been a Christian before and at least two of her previous marriages were in conservative churches. Unless we are thinking UPC is only way to be a Christian (please, no!) I really reject this narrative her supporters are pushing that nothing she did prior to 4 years ago matters.

 

She was re-re-reborn or something? She still continues to live in a mariage that started in adultery and ended two other marriages. That's an ongoing state of sin as I understand it so why is she above the bible but not homosexuals?

 

This is more rooted in anti-gay sentiment than in religious conviction.

[albeto.]

I agree that the newness of her faith is likely at play here. But I don't understand why she hasn't refused to issue marriage licenses to divorced individuals. How can she justify condoning adultery (her belief, not mine)?

 

Because she repented of her harlotry (remarriages), but those stubborn gays are not only refusing to repent, they have the audacity to be proud. They even dare to get married. Legally. In front of god and everyone. 

[mommaduck]

She's newly on fire for UPC but she's been a Christian before and at least two of her previous marriages were in conservative churches. Unless we are thinking UPC is only way to be a Christian (please, no!) I really reject this narrative her supporters are pushing that nothing she did prior to 4 years ago matters.

 

She was re-re-reborn or something? She still continues to live in a mariage that started in adultery and ended two other marriages. That's an ongoing state of sin as I understand it so why is she above the bible but not homosexuals?

 

This is more rooted in anti-gay sentiment than in religious conviction.

 

Yes, this is what UPC believes. They do teach that they are the only true Christians. They also do believe that you can lose your salvation and be reborn again and again. Yes, they believe that nothing you did "before" matters.

[LucyStoner]

Yes, this is what UPC believes. They do teach that they are the only true Christians. They also do believe that you can lose your salvation and be reborn again and again. Yes, they believe that nothing you did "before" matters.

See, I believe being a good person and not cheating is important my whole entire life regardless of my religious beliefs. And when I make big mistakes, I have to own up to them rather than getting to get reborn for the 14th time. But then again, what would a heathen know?

[Matryoshka]

No, the protection we are afforded in the Constitution is for free exercise of religion, and historically that has encompassed elements of both belief and action.   There is a very good treatment of the subject (free exercise of religion) and of the seminal case law which informs its application at http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/139/free-exercise-of-religion.

 

 

Your rights end where someone else's begin.  If you have a belief that compels action that infringes on someone else's civil rights, no, you don't get to do that action, no matter how sincere and deeply held your belief of its necessity is.  Let's take that thinking to an extreme:

 

So, if someone has a sincerely held religious belief that all people should convert to their particular "one true" religion or die, because they sincerely believe their holy book or God says so, then by that measure it's perfectly okay - not just okay, but morally imperative - to act on that belief and kill the infidels.  I guess we should stop jailing the ISIS terrorists, then, because that's exactly their thought process...

 

No, denying someone their right to a civil marriage is not  as bad as killing them, but the logic is the same.  Your rights end where someone else's begin.

[*Lulu*]

Your rights end where someone else's begin.

This cannot be repeated enough.

[zoobie]

 

TranquilMind, on 04 Sept 2015 - 5:28 PM, said:

Ah, that may be the missing link. Perhaps you would be OK with someone refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple based on religious belief.

See this for some of the Scriptural justifications

That is a sermon by Bob Jones from 1960..... rest assured, Bob Jones University did eventually lift their ban on interracial dating and marriage. 40 years after that sermon.

I've tried that. She dismisses it as irrelevant because it's not her version of Truth.

[mamajag]

Here is my major issue. She's refusing to perform her duties to license a secular legal construct based on her definition of a sacred religious ritual. The two are very, very separate things. She has no power to do anything in the realm of sacramental marriages. That is for the priest/pastor to accomplish. 

[TranquilMind]

 

 

 

Then what is the Supreme Court for - American Idol votes? SCOTUS did not "make" a new law, they struck down an existing law that was deemed unconstitutional. Do you make the same argument for legal desegregation of schools or interracial marriages -- other things that kept happening over and over... 

It changed the very definition of marriage.  That's a pretty new law, that marriage no longer means X, it means Y now. 

[TranquilMind]

Actually, the "desire" is to secularize a nation predicated upon separation of church and state. The (Judeo)Christian over culture has had a far-reaching hold that still exists, in abundance, in our institutions and settings.

 

(For me) It's not about silencing the viewpoint. I'd rather educate and transform.

 

Ms. Davis is free to hold a viewpoint. She should not be free (as a compensated government employee) to impose that viewpoint on citizens seeking the services of an ostensibly secular government.

Eh, never mind.  No point in bothering.

[Joanne]

It changed the very definition of marriage.  That's a pretty new law, that marriage no longer means X, it means Y now. 

 

 

It hasn't changed the definition of marriage. It still means that consenting adults can have the benefit of the legal protection, rights, and cultural support of a sanctioned union.

[TranquilMind]

It hasn't changed the definition of marriage. It still means that consenting adults can have the benefit of the legal protection, rights, and cultural support of a sanctioned union.

"Consenting adults" is not the meaning of marriage.  Never was, and never will be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Please provide factual, legal, secular, non faith based support for this assertion. I'd accept historical, even.

Here's an overview from a mere 8 years ago from Cornell.

 

 

Source: www.law.cornell.edu

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

[mommaduck]

Court documents of Kim Davis being brought before the courts by two straight couples and two gay couples for refusal to issue marriage licenses.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/277469999…
~~After an evidentiary hearing and full briefing by the parties, this Court entered a preliminary injunction on August 12, 2015, barring Davis, in her official capacity, from enforcing the “no marriage license†policy against Plaintiffs. [RE #43.] In doing so, the court found that the policy directly and significantly interferes with the right to marry by preventing Rowan County residents, including those for whom travel is difficult or impractical, from obtaining marriage licenses in their home county. [id at 11-12.] The Court also noted that a contrary ruling could lead other clerks across the state to adopt similar policies, thus amplifying the burden on marriage — a result made foreseeable by the fact that “57 of the state’s 120 elected county clerks have asked Governor Beshear toCase: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB Doc #: 67 Filed: 09/01/15 Page: 2 of 8 - Page ID#: 1478 3call a special session . . . to address religious concerns related to same-sex marriage licenses.†[id . at 12.] The district court ultimately held that Davis’ “no marriage license†policy should be subjected to heightened review, concluding: 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 statues at issue in
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1968)] and Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)], Davis’ “no marriage licenses†policy significantly discourages many Rowan County residents from exercising their right to marry and effectively disqualifies others from doing so. [ Id . at 14.] Applying heightened review, the district court concluded not only that the “no marriage license†policy failed to serve a compelling governmental interest, but that it actually undermined the state’s countervailing (and compelling) interests in preventing Establishment Clause violations and in upholding the rule of law. [ Id . at 15.] Thus, the Court held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. [ Id . at 15-16.]~~

 

 

 

Even for those that want to say they are different, they were handled by the law in the EXACT SAME MANNER. The issue with the County Clerks are the EXACT SAME ISSUES dealt with after Loving v. Virginia and are being declared by those County Clerks on the EXACT SAME RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. So, if people want to undo all of this and give in to these clerks, then we need declare several decades of marriages null and void. Who wants to go down that road; raise your hands? No? Only the KKK members? BJU? Okay, well, we already knew about you two...anyone else? Bueller? ;)

[*Lulu*]

"Consenting adults" is not the meaning of marriage. Never was, and never will be.

m

 

This is historically true. We have centuries of arranged marriages, child brides, widows marrying brother-in-laws, shotgun weddings, etc.

 

I don't actually give two shakes what the meaning has been.

 

Meanings change

 

Societies evolve

 

Religious majorities become minorities

 

But, fear not, we are governed by a document that protects the rights of the minority as well as the majority.

[poppy]

Here's an overview from a mere 8 years ago from Cornell.

 

 

Source: www.law.cornell.edu

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

 

That is a snapshot from 8 years ago.

It's not longer accurate. 

And 50 years ago, it would not have been accurate.

And 200 years ago, if you were a slave, it was illegal for you to marry at all. 

 

You ignore any talk about interracial marriage, so how about age of consent? It wasn't until the 1960s that we had marriage-age minimums as part of federal law. For most of Christian history girls married as early as 12. There were girls who married younger than that in colonial US (likely for property purposes, who knows if consummated).  There is absolutely Biblical justification for that. Times change. Marriage has changed.

[Guest]

lol What? "Under English Common Law" the United States is actually just a cutesy nickname for the big British colony over yonder.

[Mimm]

The fact is, different societies get to define marriage in ways that make sense for them. In Biblical times and places, that could mean one man, any number of women. For us, in the past, it was one man, one woman. Now it's two consenting adults. I read of a small group of people in, I think Asia somewhere, where women are marrying more than one man (a man and his brothers so as not to split up the family land). This makes sense for them, so this is how they are defining marriage.

 

TM, No matter how many times you say "this doesn't change the real definition of marriage" that doesn't make it true. Marriage has not had a single definition in all places and in all times. I do realize that for you, marriage has a very specific definition but people have the right to change the laws of their country to reflect their evolving beliefs and, to bring this back to the main point, that does mean that if a person wants to work as a representative of an earthly government, they are obligated to obey the earthly laws.

[zoobie]

m

 

This is historically true. We have centuries of arranged marriages, child brides, widows marrying brother-in-laws, shotgun weddings, etc.

 

I don't actually give two shakes what the meaning has been.

 

Meanings change

 

Societies evolve

 

Religious majorities become minorities

 

But, fear not, we are governed by a document that protects the rights of the minority as well as the majority.

In addition to how much I like that I chose my husband and I wasn't traded for two sheep and some goats to some dude my dad found when I was 14, I like being able to consent for sex. Or not. Marital rape is a newfangled concept too. (Though apparently it hasn't trickled down to all sects yet, per the Doug Wilson and Duggar threads.) The "traditional marriage" people don't ever seem to address these aspects.

[Mergath]

"Consenting adults" is not the meaning of marriage.  Never was, and never will be.

 

You're right of course. Traditionally, young girls could be one of several brides who didn't have to give consent to be sold to a strange man and raped whenever the husband felt like it.

 

I, for one, am so very glad we have changed the traditional meaning of marriage. Traditions die because we reach a point where we know better and so we do better. The tradition that women were sold to men changed because we learned that women are people, too. The tradition that a person had to marry within the same race changed because we figured out that the color of your skin doesn't matter. The tradition that you have to marry the opposite sex changed because we realized that love is a heck of a lot more important than whether you pee sitting down or standing up.

 

I will never understand why people hold up tradition as an argument against gay marriage. When have traditions ever been a good thing?

[melmichigan]

Kim David is like a Jew living in Nazi Germany, not hardly.  :001_rolleyes:  I can't believe the stuff coming out of her lawyers mouth.

[Mimm]

Kim David is like a Jew living in Nazi Germany, not hardly.  :001_rolleyes:  I can't believe the stuff coming out of her lawyers mouth.

 

He actually said that? How incredibly offensive. :glare:

[zoobie]

He actually said that? How incredibly offensive. :glare:

There are some interesting articles about whether she's receiving effective assistance of counsel or being used by the hate group as a guinea pig of sorts. Liberty Counsel is an offshoot of Liberty University, and they are *very* outspoken on their hatred of homosexuals and the "homosexual agenda." Gay people are compared to terrorists, all kinds of crazy tin foil hat stuff about people being forced into being gay, etc. (See also thread about why people join cults... Kim Davis seems a pretty good target to me.)

[Mergath]

There are some interesting articles about whether she's receiving effective assistance of counsel or being used by the hate group as a guinea pig of sorts. Liberty Counsel is an offshoot of Liberty University, and they are *very* outspoken on their hatred of homosexuals and the "homosexual agenda." Gay people are compared to terrorists, all kinds of crazy tin foil hat stuff about people being forced into being gay, etc. (See also thread about why people join cults... Kim Davis seems a pretty good target to me.)

 

Ooooohhhh. That explains a lot.

[Peach]

The LExington Herald-Leader posted this today:  http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html

 

Now, her husband is being quoted:" We don't hate nobody," Joe Davis said. Gesturing to marriage-equality demonstrators nearby, he said, "We just want the same rights they have. They say, 'We're gonna make you accept us whether you want to or not.' Well, we don't want all this forced on us."

 

It also mentioned that he called the judge a coward and a bully for not respecting his wife's beliefs. 

 

This reads, to me, as if he's trying to turn this around and make it into discrimination against her and that boggles my mind.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html#storylink=cpy

[Laura Corin]

Here's an overview from a mere 8 years ago from Cornell.

 

 

Source: www.law.cornell.edu

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. 

 

What the West has lost is the concept of Legal Concubinage, which was another recognised legal form of match in the Middle Ages.  It's described here; the article is also an interesting discussion of the many forms that marriage has taken.  In the absence of legal concubinage, marriage has inevitably become a portmanteau that has to contain all forms of legal coupledom. 

 

ETA: this quotation is also interesting:

 

in Scotland it was possible to marry by the exchange of consent in the presence of witnesses until 1940.

[Joules]

Back to some comparisons made earlier.  An article showed up this morning about a Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html

It is different because she made arrangements for another attendant to do the serving rather than refusing to let anyone on the plane do so (and I'm pretty sure she didn't insult the passengers who ordered alcohol.)

 

It will be interesting to see how a wide variety of these cases play out in court (and if the staunch supporters of Davis fall on the same side when it is applied to everyone's beliefs and not just theirs).

 

[livetoread]

It also mentioned that he called the judge a coward and a bully for not respecting his wife's beliefs.

 

This reads, to me, as if he's trying to turn this around and make it into discrimination against her and that boggles my mind.

 

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html#storylink=cpy

My husband is an attorney, and all he could say after reading some of the husband's comments was, "You don't ever get into a power struggle with a federal judge. Ever."

[ktgrok]

My husband is an attorney, and all he could say after reading some of the husband's comments was, "You don't ever get into a power struggle with a federal judge. Ever."

 

My husband spoke with some attorneys recently who said the exact same thing. A federal judge has about the most power of any individual in the country. You aren't going to win that one. 

[ktgrok]

And for those talking religious liberty....how about the religious rights of those that want to get married? They need the marriage certificate to get married in their church. By refusing to issue the licenses she is preventing them from exercising their religious rights. 

[zoobie]

Back to some comparisons made earlier. An article showed up this morning about a Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html

It is different because she made arrangements for another attendant to do the serving rather than refusing to let anyone on the plane do so (and I'm pretty sure she didn't insult the passengers who ordered alcohol.)

 

It will be interesting to see how a wide variety of these cases play out in court (and if the staunch supporters of Davis fall on the same side when it is applied to everyone's beliefs and not just theirs).

The biggest difference is that she's not an elected official acting on behalf of the government. This county is now dry because I became a Muslim 4 years ago and I say so. I don't care about the laws. I am going to abuse my power of office and impose my religious beliefs on my electorate.

[mommaduck]

(Thank you to the friend that pasted this on Facebook)

 

http://awomanscholar.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-early-church-redefined-marriage.html?m=1

[ktgrok]

(Thank you to the friend that pasted this on Facebook)

 

http://awomanscholar.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-early-church-redefined-marriage.html?m=1

 

Ha, I actually got it from this thread :)  We've come full circle. 

[mommaduck]

Oops. I just saw it on your page :P I must've missed it here.

[Ipsey]

Ha, I actually got it from this thread :)  We've come full circle. 

 I know the author. I'm going to tell her to watch her blog hit stats on that piece. :)

 

I'm so glad it's starting to go around. ;)

[mommaduck]

On Kim Davis' closing that she wasn't a Christian during her first three marriages and divorces.

 

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/09/04/22812510/the-federalist-baptists-arent-christians

[justasque]

...

in Scotland it was possible to marry by the exchange of consent in the presence of witnesses until 1940.

This is still true in Pennsylvania, though you do need a license first. There are two forms of the marriage license, the regular one and the Quaker one. Anyone may choose the Quaker form, whether they are Quaker or not. With this license, the couple signs the form, two witnesses sign the form, the signature part gets torn off and sent back to the courthouse, and that's it. Back in the day, it came with a coupon for Chik-Fil-A; not sure if it still does.

[Laura Corin]

This is still true in Pennsylvania, though you do need a license first. There are two forms of the marriage license, the regular one and the Quaker one. Anyone may choose the Quaker form, whether they are Quaker or not. With this license, the couple signs the form, two witnesses sign the form, the signature part gets torn off and sent back to the courthouse, and that's it. Back in the day, it came with a coupon for Chik-Fil-A; not sure if it still does.

 

I think that the point of the Scottish one was that you didn't need a licence at all.

 

For that matter, until about ten years ago, there was still a form of marriage in Scotland that was kind of an assumption:

 

There was a type of irregular marriage called "marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute" which could apply to couples who had lived together and were thought to be married. 

 

My understanding is that if the woman took the man's name, and everyone thought that they were married, then they had the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple.  It was abolished in 2006.  Just another good example of there not just being one thing that is called 'marriage'.

[justasque]

The LExington Herald-Leader posted this today:  http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html

 

...

 

From the link:

 Davis, an Apostolic Christian, was elected county clerk last fall. She is expected to remain in the Carter County jail until she agrees to obey Bunning's order or until Bunning changes his mind.

 

Staver, Davis' attorney, said he will file legal actions to appeal the contempt finding and to have the clerk released from jail, although he could not predict how long this might take.

 

Davis never expected to find herself behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, Staver said, but she "slept well last night. She slept with a very good conscience."

 

Outside the Rowan County courthouse Friday, Davis' husband, Joe, said he spoke to his wife by telephone late Thursday, and he reported "she's in good spirits."

 

"She will stay in there for however long it takes," Joe Davis said. "She will not back down. She'll never resign. Nope."

 

Joe Davis called Bunning a "coward" and a "bully" for not respecting his wife's religious beliefs. He also blamed Gov. Steve Beshear for not calling the legislature into special session to amend the state's marriage laws to protect Kim Davis — and other county clerks — from having to issue marriage licenses they find personally objectionable.

 

"We don't hate nobody," Joe Davis said. Gesturing to marriage-equality demonstrators nearby, he said, "We just want the same rights they have. They say, 'We're gonna make you accept us whether you want to or not.' Well, we don't want all this forced on us."

 

Having been quoted in news stories myself, I know that they are sometimes not at all accurate in conveying what a source is saying.  However, if it is true that Mrs. Davis did not expect to find herself in jail, and given her husband's comments which do not show an understanding of the legal complexity of the case or her legal position, I continue to be concerned that Mr. and Mrs. Davis do not have legal advisers who are giving them realistic expectations of how this case is likely to play out.  If she refuses the judge's orders that she either issue licenses or allow her staff to do so, she is likely to stay jailed until January at the earliest, when the legislature has the opportunity to amend the marriage law to take her signature off of the licenses.  Even at that point, she will still face consequences of having deprived four couples of their civil right to marry.  And she has very, very little chance of changing the Supreme Court's decision to strike down laws that restrict marriage to couples of opposite sexes.  Mrs. Davis has led what has likely been a rough life, emotionally, with adultery and three failed marriages in her past.  I hope that she and her husband get some competent legal council who will help them have a realistic understanding of what they are risking, and how this case is likely to play out.

[Word Nerd]

In Colorado you don't even need any witnesses. The bride and groom may opt to solemnize their own marriage ceremony by signing their own names to the license instead of having an officiant do it, then sending it to the county clerk to be recorded.

[mommaduck]

 

"We don't hate nobody," Joe Davis said. Gesturing to marriage-equality demonstrators nearby, he said, "We just want the same rights they have. They say, 'We're gonna make you accept us whether you want to or not.' Well, we don't want all this forced on us."

 

 

Aside from his obvious ignorance...who is forcing him to get "gay married"? Who isn't accepting his marriage?

[Mergath]

 

The LExington Herald-Leader posted this today:  http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html

 

Now, her husband is being quoted:" We don't hate nobody," Joe Davis said. Gesturing to marriage-equality demonstrators nearby, he said, "We just want the same rights they have. They say, 'We're gonna make you accept us whether you want to or not.' Well, we don't want all this forced on us."

 

It also mentioned that he called the judge a coward and a bully for not respecting his wife's beliefs. 

 

This reads, to me, as if he's trying to turn this around and make it into discrimination against her and that boggles my mind.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

Yes, this poor couple is having forced upon them the inability to make other adults do (or not do) what they want based on religious belief. How terrible for the Davises.  :001_rolleyes:

 

I don't understand how anyone could say that with a straight face. Also, never once have I heard any gay person say, "We're gonna make you accept us whether you want to or not." I've only ever heard, "I just want the same rights as everyone else." World of difference between the two.

[Mergath]

 

Having been quoted in news stories myself, I know that they are sometimes not at all accurate in conveying what a source is saying.  However, if it is true that Mrs. Davis did not expect to find herself in jail, and given her husband's comments which do not show an understanding of the legal complexity of the case or her legal position, I continue to be concerned that Mr. and Mrs. Davis do not have legal advisers who are giving them realistic expectations of how this case is likely to play out.  If she refuses the judge's orders that she either issue licenses or allow her staff to do so, she is likely to stay jailed until January at the earliest, when the legislature has the opportunity to amend the marriage law to take her signature off of the licenses.  Even at that point, she will still face consequences of having deprived four couples of their civil right to marry.  And she has very, very little chance of changing the Supreme Court's decision to strike down laws that restrict marriage to couples of opposite sexes.  Mrs. Davis has led what has likely been a rough life, emotionally, with adultery and three failed marriages in her past.  I hope that she and her husband get some competent legal council who will help them have a realistic understanding of what they are risking, and how this case is likely to play out.

 

Assuming this is the case, I've tried to muster up the tiniest spark of sympathy for Kim Davis, but I can't do it. Every time I try, I see her smug, smirking face as she happily denies people their rights. As far as I'm concerned, not having a decent lawyer to help her talk her way out of the mess she's gotten herself into is karma.

[poppy]

Aside from his obvious ignorance...who is forcing him to get "gay married"? Who isn't accepting his marriage?

I believe he is saying her right to prevent the marriages should be respected as much as their right to request a license.