KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[Greta]

No, that's not factually correct. The judiciary did not become the final arbiters until Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. It was a huge controversy at the time, as some who disagreed with John Marshall foresaw the ramifications if the judiciary was strengthened in such a manner that it could act above the law.

 

Here's a relatively simple but thorough explanation: http://www.ushistory.org/us/20e.asp

I apologize. I should have simply said that this is the system we have.

[Pam in CT]

re: 14th/Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, historical context and Tyranny of the Majority:

More on the 14th...The equal protection clause reads:

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

It was ratified in 1868, and was written largely to counter the "Black Codes", state laws  in former Confederate state designed to bring a return to slavery-like conditions.  "Freedman" (anyone who was black) could be whipped or imprisoned and put to hard labor if they were caught without an employer's note in public, and they were forbidden from owning property, voting, testifying in court, owning a weapon, gathering in public, and so on. 

 

The 14th amendment was controversial, of course, but it did become law of the land through the Congress and it did become part of our constitution.   States  can't make a law that discriminates against a portion of its citizens. The federal government can't either, which is why DOMA was short-lived.   All citizens are protected by the Constitution no matter which state they live in. And it's the Supreme Court's role to determine what that protection looks like. So striking down ssm bans isn't "legislating" so much as reviewing laws that have been passed to see if they are constitutional.

 

The context to Black Codes is important.  They arose in a context in which (white) legislative majorities in certain geographic regions realized that if blacks were allowed to vote,  they wouldn't have a white majority anymore.  That idea was so disruptive to the existing order that (white) legislative majorities passed legislation severely curtailing blacks' ability (among other things) to vote.  The prevailing (white) powers realized that if they were in the legislative minority position, they might not much like where that might go.  So they fought with every tool they had.

 

It wasn't a pretty process, but we ended up with the 14th Amendment, which explicitly protects minorities, Constitutionally, from Tyranny of the Majority.  A number of pp have pointed out that a majority of Americans do today support same sex marriage.  This is true, but it's actually not the Constitutional question.  SCOTUS ruled that state bans of SSM/legislation defining marriage as one man/one woman/etc deprive some citizens of equal privileges and protection under the law.

 

SCOTUS did not write new law; it struck down these state laws as unConstitutional.  Even if they're popular.  That is what the 14th Amendment does -- protects minorities against popular yet unfair legislation.  

 

It's easier and less volatile to see what "popular yet unfair" looks like in hindsight (white majorities limiting blacks from voting/ from attending neighborhood schools, male majorities limiting women from voting, etc).  It may also be easier to see as a member of a minority group (race / faith tradition / linguistic group).

 

But it happens to ALL of us, that our patchwork system of representation and checks and balances doesn't go our way.  Sometimes our candidate doesn't win, laws pass that we virulently disagree with, SCOTUS decides the way we think is wrong.  That's what happens, in a pluralistic society where we all get some, but none of us get total, say.  It's irritating when it happens.  

 

So protection from Tyranny of the Majority ultimately protects us all.  Every one of us.  Because on some days, some issues, each of us is aligned with the majority; but on others (ie, for many on this board, homeschooling) we're in the minority.  Because demographics change who comprises the majority.  Because even the same individuals change positions over time.  

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zoobie]

Zoobie, I don't know how to best answer this. You either truly don't have the context and knowledge to know what this term means in a historical context, or you're being argumentative, or throwing out a red herring, or ?? something else.

 

So assuming the best--that you are honestly asking for information:

 

No, it is not code for "not Muslim." Islam is not even a consideration. Islam arrived on the scene far later in history (thousands of years) than ancient Hebrew law, law which was God-given and reflected his character and attributes. Some of The Law was unchangeable and could be generalized to all nations, all times. (Principally, the (abridged version of) The Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not murder, lie, steal, etc. Thou shalt honor God, not have other Gods, honor your father and mother, and so on.) Other parts of the law were highly specific for the age and geography in which it was written, things like dietary and hygiene commandments and so on. And then there was law enacted by religious leaders which was more akin to the burdensome regulations issued by bureaucracies in the US.

 

That is the "Judeo" part, the law stemming from the tradition that included Judah (the name of one of the sons of Abraham and therefore of one of the tribes within the Hebrew nation /Judea (the region)/Jew/Jewish (referring to the race of people or their religion or nationality.)

 

Some of us see Christianity, at least in the area of laws and moral guidelines, as an heir to the Hebraic law. Yet it was a law that was perfected and completed by Jesus Christ, when He summed it up as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." So, Christian law is an "heir" in a manner of speaking, to Judaic law.

 

Back to the founding of America and to tracing why we are based on Judeo-Christian principles and laws. The "Christian" part comes into play, in part, as British Common Law had several periods of development in which it was influenced by either church jurisprudence which was closely tied to government, through the Normans, or later by canon law. Thus, British Law has been influenced by the Judeo tradition mentioned above. More notably, culturally, Britain was a Christian nation.

 

We see the Judeo-Christian influence any time we look at the founding fathers' (and others') influential writings and public discussions at the time of the development of this nation, and it is particularly vividly illustrated when one looks at the early artifacts from the founding of the nation--buildings, monuments, etc.--and the quotes and inscriptions on them. Just one example: the inscription on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof," is a quote from Leviticus, one of the books of the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament -- revered by Jews and Christians alike.

 

There is some very good, balanced, back and forth discussion on the term "Judeo-Christian" here: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-does-judeo-christian-mean.html

 

To the best of my knowledge, the early thinkers and the Founding Fathers who shaped America were not drawing on Islamic tradition, although I may stand corrected. Certainly the founding fathers were not repeatedly quoting and referencing the Quran. That is not to disparage or diminish the scholars and scientists within the Islamic tradition; it's just that the Islam was not a factor in the particular geo-political-religious roots of this nation.

I understand what it means. I don't understand why you are focusing on that as the reason for why the US is "blessed." Much of the West is based on a similar background. Are we more or less "blessed" than say the United Kingdom? Why are people so hot to trot out Judeo-Christian tradition for the basis of forming laws yet are so damn afraid of Islam and its (as yet theoretical in the US) influence? The "Judeo" usually seems attached as a throwaway for the extreme Christians to pat themselves on the back for being culturally diverse. I don't know many Christians who would actually want to follow the whole of Judaic religious law (the overturning of such being a main draw to early Christiantity and all), but a couple of verses here and there are "tradition" as long as they agree with their worldview.

[Halftime Hope]

Begging everyone's pardon if you have put a question to me in this thread; I tried to get to as many as I saw earlier, but I'm out of time.  I'm going to have to bow out.  Life beckons, and I don't know if I'll be able to get back here in the next few days.  Tiling, a lot of lovely new tile, is on the docket.  Yaay!

[Mommy22alyns]

It is the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. In what way are the justices overstepping their bounds when they do just that?

 

SCOTUS has made rulings I disagree with. But our government is set up so that the judicial branch has a function. I can't proclaim that their decisions are illegitimate just because I happen to disagree with them. SCOTUS has a job to do, and they do it.

 

 

Legitimate question: Would you be saying the same thing if the decision had gone the other way?

[QueenCat]

 

On a different note, regarding "that pesky Constitution", I think that following the Constitution, and not inventing new meanings and extensions that the founders surely must have meant, would serve us well. 

 

But then we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote.

[melmichigan]

Hand picking quotes from the founding fathers has the same problem as hand picking quotes from religious text.  I find both to be problematic.

[livetoread]

Just an aside, one would have to either establish a theocracy or ignore a majority of commandments if one was seeing the Ten Commandments as timeless principles upon which to base a gov't. They are really kind of the antithesis of religious liberty. In fact, I think most Christians would be hard pressed to come up with justification for any laws based on the Ten Commandments except for murdering, stealing, and maybe bearing false witness and adultery on the civil side.

 

Do we really want laws against having other gods before the Jewish one? I am always puzzled when the Ten Commandments are referenced as an important basis for our laws. They are either obvious (don't murder) or strongly theocratic.

[Haiku]

Legitimate question: Would you be saying the same thing if the decision had gone the other way?

 

Yes. I would be frustrated and angry, but yes. As I mentioned before, SCOTUS has made multiple rulings I don't agree with. I still recognize that their function is to interpret the Constitution even if they arrive at conclusions I don't like or think are incorrect.

 

Courts frequently make decisions that I, in my infinite wisdom, know are wrong. ;) I deal. :D

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Legitimate question: Would you be saying the same thing if the decision had gone the other way?

 

I would criticize the decision and then would then support efforts to reverse it via the legislative process (ie an amendment if needed).

[Haiku]

I would criticize the decision and then would then support efforts to reverse it via the legislative process (ie an amendment if needed).

 

Yep. I'm a huge fan of expanding people's rights. Not so much with restricting them. SCOTUS tends to be far more conservative than I am, so when they say something is a right, I generally (but not always) agree with them. 

 

FWIW, I have been of the opinion for over 25 years that marriage equality is a 14th amendment issue. Although I am no great legal scholar or thinker, I'm not at all surprised that it eventually dawned on people that you can't parcel out civil rights to some people and not others and then claim that all people are treated equally under the law. While I can understand that people have religious convictions against homosexual behavior and marriage, I would expect people also to recognize that civil rights are for everyone, not just the people you agree with. A civil marriage is a civil contract and is not related to a religious marriage. I have a civil marriage with my husband (we were married by a mayor in a ceremony that never referenced anything religious) which entitles me to legal rights and protections that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what people believe their god desires for marriage. If I want to enter into a civil contract with the person I love, who that person is (short of them not being able to consent) should be of no concern to the state.

 

ETA: There are plenty of people who marry for reasons other than love, and I support their right to do so, as well.

[Mommy22alyns]

Yes. I would be frustrated and angry, but yes. As I mentioned before, SCOTUS has made multiple rulings I don't agree with. I still recognize that their function is to interpret the Constitution even if they arrive at conclusions I don't like or think are incorrect.

 

Courts frequently make decisions that I, in my infinite wisdom, know are wrong. ;) I deal. :D

 

 

I would criticize the decision and then would then support efforts to reverse it via the legislative process (ie an amendment if needed).

 

 

Thank you both for your answers.  :)

[justasque]

A few news updates from the Bluegrass Politics twitter feed:
 

Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics  
Christian group says it "will converge on the neighborhood of" Judge Bunning & demand his arrest by police. http://bit.ly/1Neu9EL  ^JC
 

Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

Carter County will shut schools Tuesday to avoid traffic crunch w/ GOP prez hopeful [a pres candidate]* visiting for Kim Davis jail rally. ^JC
 

Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

Kim Davis' lawyers say the county clerk is "at peace" in jail, reading Scripture about "suffering for the gospel & the power of God." ^JC
 

Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

One problem with holding special session of Ky Leg for Kim Davis: House & Senate chambers gutted for upgrades. ^JC

Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

Kim Davis asks 6th Circuit appeals court for "emergency relief" from Gov Beshear, to get "religious exemption" from her duties. ^JC

 

*Edited to remove candidate's name.  I don't want to veer into presidential politics.  I was interested in the school closing aspect.

[Pawz4me]

 

A few news updates from the Bluegrass Politics twitter feed:

• Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics  

  Christian group says it "will converge on the neighborhood of" Judge Bunning & demand his arrest by police. http://bit.ly/1Neu9EL  ^JC

 

That's some serious nuttiness there. :blink:

 

[justasque]

A few news updates from the Bluegrass Politics twitter feed:

 

Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics  

Christian group says it "will converge on the neighborhood of" Judge Bunning & demand his arrest by police. http://bit.ly/1Neu9EL  ^JC

 

 

From the link above.  Discuss?

 

-- Christians from across the nation will converge on the neighborhood of Federal Court Judge David Bunning, today. Judge Bunning has illegally and with malice charged Mrs. Kim Davis, with contempt of his court order forcing her to legitimize illegal marriage certificates to individuals of the same sex in Rowan County.

We are calling for the sheriff of Rowan County to immediately arrest Judge David Bunning upon his entering the courthouse on Thursday, Sept. 10 for illegally incarcerating Davis and impeding her from performing her duties as county clerk. Judge Bunning is in contempt of the Court of Almighty God and the constitutions of both Kentucky and the United States.

Kim Davis has broken no law. There is no law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States that would force her to issue marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex.

She is not in violation of God's Law: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24

She is not in violation of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

She is not in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky section 233a: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

She has not violated any US or Kentucky law! There is no Kentucky or US law that makes same sex marriages legal or instructs clerks to issue licenses for them. The Supreme Court cannot make law – only the legislative branch of our government (Congress) can make law and Congress has made no such law!

Judge David Bunning is in contempt of God's Law, and the laws contained in both constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

[fraidycat]

That's some serious nuttiness there. :blink:

 

That's a nice way of putting it. :)

[melmichigan]

 

A few news updates from the Bluegrass Politics twitter feed:

• Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics  

  Christian group says it "will converge on the neighborhood of" Judge Bunning & demand his arrest by police. http://bit.ly/1Neu9EL  ^JC

   

• Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

  Carter County will shut schools Tuesday to avoid traffic crunch w/ GOP prez hopeful Mike Huckabee visiting for Kim Davis jail rally. ^JC

   

• Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

  Kim Davis' lawyers say the county clerk is "at peace" in jail, reading Scripture about "suffering for the gospel & the power of God." ^JC

   

• Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

• One problem with holding special session of Ky Leg for Kim Davis: House & Senate chambers gutted for upgrades. ^JC

   

  Bluegrass Politics â€@BGPolitics 

• Kim Davis asks 6th Circuit appeals court for "emergency relief" from Gov Beshear, to get "religious exemption" from her duties. ^JC

 

I need a face palm emoticon.  It has nothing to do with religion, but simply the fact that some of the authors of these articles really don't understand how their own government works.  :confused: 

 

 

[Haiku]

It has nothing to do with religion, but simply the fact that some of the authors of these articles really don't understand how their own government works.  :confused: 

 

And how. Very scary!

[Stacia]

Propaganda.

 

I sure hope the sheriff of Rowan County is not as uneducated & ill-advised as some of the 'agitators' seem to be.

[albeto.]

 

From the link above.  Discuss?

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[Leav97]

I need a face palm emoticon.  It has nothing to do with religion, but simply the fact that some of the authors of these articles really don't understand how their own government works.  :confused: 

 

It's also very possible that they do understand how the government works.  They know there is a % of the population that won't read much past the headline and doesn't understand how all of this works.  Their goal is to reach that section of the population and make them angry.

 

And that is why education is a key to democracy. 

[KarenC]

That's some serious nuttiness there. :blink:

 

The governor of KY is Steve Beshear.  He has refused to call a special session of the KY legislature to address her refusal.  One reason he has refused is that is cost $65,000 a day for the special session.  Also, the capital is under renovation.  Steve Beshear's son, Andy, is running for Attorney General this fall.  Kim Davis supporters are trying to convince people not to vote for Andy since his father has not called for a special session.

 

Also, we vote for a new governor this fall.  One candidate, Matt Bevin is a Kim Davis supporter and plans to meet with her in jail.  The other candidate, Jack Conway, refused to legally defend KY's ban on gay marriage.  

 

It should be an interesting election season.

[KarenC]

Propaganda.

 

I sure hope the sheriff of Rowan County is not as uneducated & ill-advised as some of the 'agitators' seem 

Oops. Sorry

[BrookValley.]

 

From the link above.  Discuss?

 

-- Christians from across the nation will converge on the neighborhood of Federal Court Judge David Bunning, today. Judge Bunning has illegally and with malice charged Mrs. Kim Davis, with contempt of his court order forcing her to legitimize illegal marriage certificates to individuals of the same sex in Rowan County.

We are calling for the sheriff of Rowan County to immediately arrest Judge David Bunning upon his entering the courthouse on Thursday, Sept. 10 for illegally incarcerating Davis and impeding her from performing her duties as county clerk. Judge Bunning is in contempt of the Court of Almighty God and the constitutions of both Kentucky and the United States.

Kim Davis has broken no law. There is no law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States that would force her to issue marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex.

She is not in violation of God's Law: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24

She is not in violation of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

She is not in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky section 233a: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

She has not violated any US or Kentucky law! There is no Kentucky or US law that makes same sex marriages legal or instructs clerks to issue licenses for them. The Supreme Court cannot make law – only the legislative branch of our government (Congress) can make law and Congress has made no such law!

Judge David Bunning is in contempt of God's Law, and the laws contained in both constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

 

 

There's so much ignorance here, starting with 1) "God's Law" (whatever that means, because we all know there are a zillion different interpretations of religious doctrine among Christian denominations) is irrelevant; this isn't a theocracy, and 2) no, the SCOTUS cannot make a law--what they can do is deem a law(s) unconstitutional, which is what has happened across the country. It is now illegal (against the law) to refuse to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses. It ain't all that complicated. And then the court told her she was not following the law, and she refused to comply. So she was jailed for being in contempt of court. She did break the law. 

 

But what gets me about this kind of ignorance is it just feeds the false persecution complex, which really, Kim Davis has just become a pawn for. You've got these supporters falling all over her to hold her up as some sort of martyr, but they've completely missed the mark (intentionally or unintentionally) about what this is about or even how the system works. And in the process, they're just creating more unnecessary divisiveness. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

From the link above.  Discuss?

 

-- Christians from across the nation will converge on the neighborhood of Federal Court Judge David Bunning, today. Judge Bunning has illegally and with malice charged Mrs. Kim Davis, with contempt of his court order forcing her to legitimize illegal marriage certificates to individuals of the same sex in Rowan County.

We are calling for the sheriff of Rowan County to immediately arrest Judge David Bunning upon his entering the courthouse on Thursday, Sept. 10 for illegally incarcerating Davis and impeding her from performing her duties as county clerk. Judge Bunning is in contempt of the Court of Almighty God and the constitutions of both Kentucky and the United States.

Kim Davis has broken no law. There is no law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States that would force her to issue marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex.

She is not in violation of God's Law: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24

She is not in violation of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

She is not in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky section 233a: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

She has not violated any US or Kentucky law! There is no Kentucky or US law that makes same sex marriages legal or instructs clerks to issue licenses for them. The Supreme Court cannot make law – only the legislative branch of our government (Congress) can make law and Congress has made no such law!

Judge David Bunning is in contempt of God's Law, and the laws contained in both constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

 

 

 

= my immediate reaction

[Word Nerd]

They want a county sheriff to arrest a federal judge because he's in contempt of God's law?  :confused1:

 

[Guest]

They want a county sheriff to arrest a federal judge because he's in contempt of God's law? :confused1:

Sure!! Cause, 'Merica!!

[BrookValley.]

 

= my immediate reaction

 

That's not how any of this works!  :laugh: 

[KarenC]

Kim Davis is in jail in Carter County.  There is a protest today outside the jail.  They closed the schools in the county in anticipation of traffic and crowds near the jail.  Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz and supposed to meet with Kim Davis today.  

 

I will be so glad when this is over.  

[brehon]

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

And it's corollary "Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man".

 

This has served me incredibly well in my professional career, sad as that is to say.

 

And this group is seriously calling for a county sheriff to arrest a *federal judge*?!? Oh, my. This ought to serve as a national wake-up call for the need for good (or, heck, even OK) civics lessons for all citizens. Sheesh.

[*Lulu*]

And it's corollary "Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man".

 

This has served me incredibly well in my professional career, sad as that is to say.

 

And this group is seriously calling for a county sheriff to arrest a *federal judge*?!? Oh, my. This ought to serve as a national wake-up call for the need for good (or, heck, even OK) civics lessons for all citizens. Sheesh.

No joke.

 

If your understanding of government is primarily through the explanations of news anchors, political/religious group leaders, or talk radio you probably have more than one wrong piece of information.

[Stacia]

And this group is seriously calling for a county sheriff to arrest a *federal judge*?!? Oh, my. This ought to serve as a national wake-up call for the need for good (or, heck, even OK) civics lessons for all citizens. Sheesh.

 

The sad thing, to me, is that the students in that county won't be getting their lessons today. Cancelling school because of a media circus like this? I have a problem with the fact that the adults/leaders participating in this media circus see their show/platform as being more important than school there today.

[justasque]

And she's out.

 

Here is the judge's order, releasing Mrs. Davis, and ordering her not to interfere with her deputy clerks issuing licenses to all legally eligible couples:

http://juryverdicts.net/Released.pdf

 

 

On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt and jailed her for her refusal to issue marriage licenses, directly or through her deputy clerks, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of August 12, 2015. After remanding Defendant Davis to the custody of the U.S. Marshal, five of her six deputy clerks stated under oath that they would comply with the Court’s Order and issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. (Docs. # 75; 78 at 121-170). On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report at the Court’s behest. According to the Report, Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office.1 The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell and this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

 

1. Defendant Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith. Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.

 

2. CJA counsel for the five (5) deputy clerks who indicated they would comply with the Court’s Order shall file a Status Report every fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order unless otherwise excused by the Court. Within those reports Counsel shall report on their clients’ respective compliance with the Court’s August 12, 2015 Order enjoining the Rowan County Clerk from enforcing her “no marriage licenses†policy, as well as its Order of September 3, 2015 requiring them to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples in compliance with the Court’s prior Order.

 

[Footnote]  1) While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County†rather than “Kim Davis†appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.  [Article about this alteration here.]

[idnib]

The sad thing, to me, is that the students in that county won't be getting their lessons today. Cancelling school because of a media circus like this? I have a problem with the fact that the adults/leaders participating in this media circus see their show/platform as being more important than school there today.

 

I would be so angry if I had to take a day off work/lose money/pay a babysitter because school was suddenly cancelled for this reason.  The actual President comes to visit SF on a regular basis and that's a hassle with the closed streets, the motorcade and protestors, but nobody closes schools over it. 

[poppy]

And she's out.

 

Here is the judge's order, releasing Mrs. Davis, and ordering her not to interfere with her deputy clerks issuing licenses to all legally eligible couples:

 

http://juryverdicts.net/Released.pdf

 

 

On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt and jailed her for her refusal to issue marriage licenses, directly or through her deputy clerks, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of August 12, 2015. After remanding Defendant Davis to the custody of the U.S. Marshal, five of her six deputy clerks stated under oath that they would comply with the Court’s Order and issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. (Docs. # 75; 78 at 121-170). On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report at the Court’s behest. According to the Report, Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office.1 The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell and this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

 

1. Defendant Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith. Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.

 

2. CJA counsel for the five (5) deputy clerks who indicated they would comply with the Court’s Order shall file a Status Report every fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order unless otherwise excused by the Court. Within those reports Counsel shall report on their clients’ respective compliance with the Court’s August 12, 2015 Order enjoining the Rowan County Clerk from enforcing her “no marriage licenses†policy, as well as its Order of September 3, 2015 requiring them to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples in compliance with the Court’s prior Order.

 

[Footnote]  1) While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County†rather than “Kim Davis†appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.  [Article about this alteration here.]

 

Wow. It sounds like she got everything she wanted.  Her name isn't even on the licenses. 

That should diffuse the protesters.

She is still collecting her $80,000 I assume.

 

 

 

[Pam in CT]

Wow. It sounds like she got everything she wanted.  Her name isn't even on the licenses. 

That should diffuse the protesters.

She is still collecting her $80,000 I assume.

 

 

The evidence suggests that what she wanted was the protesters/media spotlight (along with the $80,000) -- given that the judge offered the substantively same deal last week, and she refused; and that her attorneys are evidently still claiming that the deputy-signed licenses are not valid.

 

 

That said, I'm glad she's out.

[kahlanne]

I can't help but feel like it is a win. Marriage licenses will be issued to all as the law requires and she doesn't have to compromise her beliefs by allowing her name on the license. I originally thought she should resign but am happy with this compromise.

[albeto.]

I can't help but feel like it is a win. Marriage licenses will be issued to all as the law requires and she doesn't have to compromise her beliefs by allowing her name on the license. I originally thought she should resign but am happy with this compromise.

 

They didn't have to have her name on the license before, right? Others could have signed it? So she wasn't bound to this. 

 

She was held in contempt of court for impeding legal process, she's been released with the caveat she will no longer do so. 

 

I'm not sure I see the compromise you do. 

[bibiche]

I can't help but feel like it is a win. Marriage licenses will be issued to all as the law requires and she doesn't have to compromise her beliefs by allowing her name on the license. I originally thought she should resign but am happy with this compromise.

Clearly I am not as charitable because I can't help but feel the grandstanding was an obscene waste of resources and sets a terrible example.

[Word Nerd]

They didn't have to have her name on the license before, right? 

 

Until now her named was printed on the licenses even if she wasn't the one signing them.

[kahlanne]

They didn't have to have her name on the license before, right? Others could have signed it? So she wasn't bound to this. 

 

She was held in contempt of court for impeding legal process, she's been released with the caveat she will no longer do so. 

 

I'm not sure I see the compromise you do. 

 

[Footnote]  1) While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County†rather than “Kim Davis†appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.  [Article about this alteration here.]

 

Originally Kim Davis appeared on the marriage licenses and now it will state Rowan County. The compromise is for all people to be able to receive a license as law requires without her having to compromise her beliefs by having her name on the actual license or be the one to issue the license as the law came into effect after her entering office.

[kahlanne]

Clearly I am not as charitable because I can't help but feel the grandstanding was an obscene waste of resources and sets a terrible example.

 

I can understand this position as well. I thought it would be better for her to resign from the beginning but am happy with the compromise.

[albeto.]

She had the option to pass that authority (illustrated by name on the license) on to others in her office, right? 

 

So her name was on the license, but it didn't have to be. The solution she has now was available to her before this whole circus began. 

[kahlanne]

She had the option to pass that authority on to others in her office, right? 

 

So her name was on the license, but it didn't have to be. The solution she has now was available to her before this whole circus began. 

 

No, it is my understanding that originally she could have passed the authority on to others to sign but the actual license would still have her seal with her name on the license. It wasn't until today that it is replaced with Rowan County.

[Word Nerd]

I can't help but feel like it is a win. Marriage licenses will be issued to all as the law requires and she doesn't have to compromise her beliefs by allowing her name on the license. I originally thought she should resign but am happy with this compromise.

 

I'm not sure she will see it that way.

An attorney for Davis said in a news conference Friday afternoon that Davis thinks the licenses that her office issued Friday are void.

"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," attorney Mat Staver said Friday after meeting with Davis in the Carter County jail in Grayson.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586_marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&rh=1#storylink=cpy

[poppy]

[Footnote]  1) While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County†rather than “Kim Davis†appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.  [Article about this alteration here.]

 

Originally Kim Davis appeared on the marriage licenses and now it will state Rowan County. The compromise is for all people to be able to receive a license as law requires without her having to compromise her beliefs by having her name on the actual license or be the one to issue the license as the law came into effect after her entering office.

 

And the gay couples getting married in that county will have a collectors item, I guess.  Marriage licenses altered- the only ones in Kentucky without a county clerk signature - because she is disgusted by their union.  Have a nice wedding!!

[kahlanne]

I'm not sure she will see it that way.

An attorney for Davis said in a news conference Friday afternoon that Davis thinks the licenses that her office issued Friday are void.

"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," attorney Mat Staver said Friday after meeting with Davis in the Carter County jail in Grayson.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586_marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&rh=1#storylink=cpy

 

Hmmm...I am sure she and many like minded believers will not see it this way.  I am not sure what to say to the rest.  Personally, I'm tired of it all.

[albeto.]

She's just the latest reason people increasingly see the xian faith as a farce and power-hungry machine and leave it with no regrets, so it all works out in the end. 

[FaithManor]

[Footnote]  1) While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County†rather than “Kim Davis†appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.  [Article about this alteration here.]

 

Originally Kim Davis appeared on the marriage licenses and now it will state Rowan County. The compromise is for all people to be able to receive a license as law requires without her having to compromise her beliefs by having her name on the actual license or be the one to issue the license as the law came into effect after her entering office.

To be honest with you, I don't see the value in saying the name of the sitting clerk on these documents anyway. At any time a person my die, get sick and resign, move away, etc. Not every clerk fulfills the entire term for a variety of reasons. The county is issuing the license, it is not the actual action of the clerk. The clerk is just making sure that those that apply fulfill the requirements of the law. The government body of issuance should have been the name on the document to begin with and the signature of the clerk or deputy clerk at the bottom with a seal like that of notaries. That makes sense to me. This also then saves the loss to the tax payers of wasted documents/stationary every time a new clerk is voted in to office.

[mommaduck]

I have a question:

 

If this was a Muslim and they refused to issue ANY business licenses for their term, because they would also have to issue them for those that sell pork, non-halil (excuse spelling), alcohol, and tobacco products, because it's against their religious belief AND they prevented any clerks in their office of any other faith from doing so also, then those that support Kim Davis now would also support a Muslim Clerk under the same?

 

Think about how you answer that question. Is this REALLY about her religious freedom or is this really about gay marriage? (Ftr, Kim Davis' beliefs should have also kept her from issuing licenses for business because of the alcohol and tobacco sales as well as and licenses for people that are remarrying, as all those are things the UPC hold strongly against).