KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The law says:

 

 

 

 

So it would seem that, contrary to Kim Davis's claim that the licenses cannot be valid without her signature, the law explicitly states that the signature of a deputy clerk is perfectly legal. She doesn't even seem to know the law she's refusing to implement!

 

Kim Davis doesn't know the law?  Shocked, I say I am SHOCKED!

[Peach]

It seems that her stance is spreading. I came across this today and lower down in the article, it mentioned Casey County, who seems to be headed in Kim Davis' direction.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/clerk-who-fought-gay-marriage-freed-from-jail/ar-AAe4jjf?ocid=ansmsnnews11

 

Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who recently bicycled more than 400 miles across Kentucky in solidarity with Kim Davis, called her jailing a "total injustice." He is not related to her.

 

He said he is not issuing any marriage licenses, and suspects the conflict could come to his county next. He said only one same-sex couple has inquired about a license in his county and was told there were no licenses being issued, and that's the last Davis heard from them.

 

He said he, too, would be willing to go to jail.

[*Lulu*]

Kim Davis doesn't know the law? Shocked, I say I am SHOCKED!

Maybe the candidate-who-shall-not-be-named explained things to her today?

[FaithManor]

Maybe the candidate-who-shall-not-be-named explained things to her today?

SNORT!!

[albeto.]

 

It seems that her stance is spreading. I came across this today and lower down in the article, it mentioned Casey County, who seems to be headed in Kim Davis' direction.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/clerk-who-fought-gay-marriage-freed-from-jail/ar-AAe4jjf?ocid=ansmsnnews11

 

Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who recently bicycled more than 400 miles across Kentucky in solidarity with Kim Davis, called her jailing a "total injustice." He is not related to her.

 

He said he is not issuing any marriage licenses, and suspects the conflict could come to his county next. He said only one same-sex couple has inquired about a license in his county and was told there were no licenses being issued, and that's the last Davis heard from them.

 

He said he, too, would be willing to go to jail.

 

 

nm

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Refraining from sarcasm will help the discuss advance, rather than stall.

[justasque]

The law says:

 

 (1)  A marriage license which provides for the entering of:

1. (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.  

 

 

So it would seem that, contrary to Kim Davis's claim that the licenses cannot be valid without her signature, the law explicitly states that the signature of a deputy clerk is perfectly legal. She doesn't even seem to know the law she's refusing to implement!

 

What about the other part though?  

 

"(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;"  

 

Mrs. Davis is the county clerk; it is her authorization statement, addressed to the officiant of the marriage, which says that the officiant is authorized to unite the couple in marriage.   The way I read it, the deputies can issue the license, but only Mrs. Davis can authorize the officiant to marry the couple. This is how I parsed it:

 

"An authorization statement of Mrs. Davis 

for any officiant (who is authorized to perform marriage ceremonies) 

to unite in marriage the persons named (on the license);"  

 

[justasque]

Then there's this part, which might speak to whether it's allowed to change what goes into a particular blank (county name instead of clerk's name):

 

402.110 Marriage license to be uniform and completely filled out. The form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout this state, and every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures provided in the form prescribed by that section. In issuing the license the clerk shall deliver it in its entirety to the licensee. The clerk shall see to it that every blank space required to be filled by the applicants is so filled before delivering it to the licensee.

 

As an aside, I'd love to see a copy of the Kentucky Marriage Manual.  They don't have such a thing in my state.

 

402.270 Marriage manual -- Preparation by Human Resources Coordinating Commission for distribution to marriage applicants. (1) The Human Resources Coordinating Commission of Kentucky shall prepare a marriage manual for distribution to all applicants for a marriage license. The manual shall include, but not be limited to, material on family planning, proper health and sanitation practices, nutrition, consumer economics, and the legal responsibilities of spouses to each other and as parents to their children. (2) When the manual is approved it shall be printed by the Human Resources Coordinating Commission. Copies of the manual shall be sent to the county clerk of each county. Each county clerk shall give a copy to each applicant for a marriage license.

[goldberry]

Well that just makes things even more confusing. :confused1:  I thought she was arguing against letting others issue them because her name would always be on the licenses, no matter what — as if they were printed on the licenses.  If there's just a blank line there and the deputy clerks are signing their own names and typing their titles as deputy clerks, she has no grounds for objecting whatsoever. 

 

Yeah,I'm not getting it either.  Removing her name from the form was one of her initial demands, wasn't it?  Now she's decided that's not good enough?

 

[Audrey]

Yeah,I'm not getting it either.  Removing her name from the form was one of her initial demands, wasn't it?  Now she's decided that's not good enough?

 

 

She's decided that's not dramatic enough.

[happi duck]

The Kim Davis rally used the song Eye of the Tiger...without permission!!

 

You'd think a "gettin' outta jail" rally would be more careful about crossing every "T" and dotting every "I".

 

I am just so puzzled by all the hysteria over this. What part of the oath to do her job was not understood?

[LucyStoner]

The Kim Davis rally used the song Eye of the Tiger...without permission!!

 

You'd think a "gettin' outta jail" rally would be more careful about crossing every "T" and dotting every "I".

 

I am just so puzzled by all the hysteria over this. What part of the oath to do her job was not understood?

Poor Survivor. That song gets used by so many people and causes to which they'd rather not have their song attached.

[happi duck]

Poor Survivor. That song gets used by so many people and causes to which they'd rather not have their song attached.

Yes! I'm glad they spoke out!

 

I looked it up because my immediate thought after "noooo! Not Eye of the Tiger!" was "did Survivor give permission for this?!"

 

Now off to see if YouTube has the Eye of the Tiger outtake from Supernatural...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Go get 'em Survivor!

[SKL]

I don't understand the need to use an official's name on a document like this in the first place.

 

Where I live, we write certain tax checks to whatever individual happens to be treasurer at that moment.  Never made sense to me.

 

As for the topic at hand, it surprises me to see people act surprised that some officials aren't accepting the Supreme Court ruling.  I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened more.  Like every other controversial change, it will settle down.

[Guest]

Ok, I watched some of the press conference last night. Gag.

My parents are farmers. My Dad wears denim overalls and a big straw hat 99% of the time. He puts on real pants for birthday parties, church and (I would assume) NATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCES. Imnsho, they are really playing this up.

[Artichoke]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Knock it off.

[BrookValley.]

Ok, I watched some of the press conference last night. Gag.

My parents are farmers. My Dad wears denim overalls and a big straw hat 99% of the time. He puts on real pants for birthday parties, church and (I would assume) NATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCES. Imnsho, they are really playing this up.

 

You know, I've seen some memes making fun of Kim Davis' appearance (her hair, etc.) and I really feel that, not only is how she looks completely and utterly irrelevant, it just hurts the credibility of the opposing opinion. It's petty and just detracts from the real issue. But when I saw her husband at the press conference? That's the same thought I had--they are playing this up. Not that there's anything wrong with overalls and the big hat (like I said...irrelevant), but that they are trying far, far too hard to make themselves into some sort of picture of a movement (or someone is trying to make a symbol out of them, anyway). But the overalls at the press conference just created an over-the-top caricature that really just makes it that much harder to take them seriously. 

[BrookValley.]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Please just let this one go.

[poppy]

I don't understand the need to use an official's name on a document like this in the first place.

 

Where I live, we write certain tax checks to whatever individual happens to be treasurer at that moment.  Never made sense to me.

 

As for the topic at hand, it surprises me to see people act surprised that some officials aren't accepting the Supreme Court ruling.  I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened more.  Like every other controversial change, it will settle down.

 

"Not accepting" is one thing. I know a whole lot of govt employees who are displeased about this thing or that.  (Really, like most people who have bosses). Refusing to serve is another.  It's  kind of, sort of, almost like civil disobedience..... except you hurt members of long-belittled minority, and get paid to do it.

[Ravin]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Let it go.

[*Lulu*]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Quotes deleted post

[Guest]

You know, I've seen some memes making fun of Kim Davis' appearance (her hair, etc.) and I really feel that, not only is how she looks completely and utterly irrelevant, it just hurts the credibility of the opposing opinion. It's petty and just detracts from the real issue. But when I saw her husband at the press conference? That's the same thought I had--they are playing this up. Not that there's anything wrong with overalls and the big hat (like I said...irrelevant), but that they are trying far, far too hard to make themselves into some sort of picture of a movement (or someone is trying to make a symbol out of them, anyway). But the overalls at the press conference just created an over-the-top caricature that really just makes it that much harder to take them seriously.

I think they are worried about backlash now that people know how much she makes. $80k is a ton of money in that town!

[zoobie]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
SO far off topic...

[Artichoke]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Now you're just picking a fight.

[zoobie]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Quotes deleted post

[albeto.]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Move on, please...

[albeto.]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Quotes deleted post

[DragonFaerie]

Yes! I'm glad they spoke out!

 

I looked it up because my immediate thought after "noooo! Not Eye of the Tiger!" was "did Survivor give permission for this?!"

 

Now off to see if YouTube has the Eye of the Tiger outtake from Supernatural...

 

OT- I LOVE Dean doing "Eye of the Tiger."  Cracks me up every time.  :lol:

[albeto.]

nm 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
This actually does break community guidelines RE discussing the faith held by other members.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

If the original topic still bears discussing, discuss it. If not, the thread has served its purpose and should close.

 

SWB

[BrookValley.]

I absolutely think the original topic still bears discussing. If I get a vote.  :laugh:

 

The story is still unfolding (with Davis heading back to work, and supposedly with the intent to halt the issuance of licenses again). Plus, I think the overall discussion is not only interesting but important in the context of the progress (or change, or whatever you want to call it. Obviously my personal bias considers it progress) happening in our country right now. 

 

Let's not close it yet, please. 

[idnib]

I would also like to keep the thread open.

 

Davis has taken a few days off but returns to work on Friday and has said she will go back to doing what she was doing before. I guess we have a bit of a lull until that happens.

 

I'm interested in whether she follows through and if she ends up back in jail.

[FaithManor]

I'd like to keep it open pending her actions on Friday when she returns to work. It's of national interest to everyone, and it could spark some states to take action in advance of potential problems with the county clerk position. It is possible that state legislatures may decide to change the process for removing a county clerk from office by impeachment, therefore a full session of the legislature which is very costly, to a judicial committee ruling on violation of oaths or something which would allow a panel of judges to remove a clerk from office for refusing to uphold the law. This would then allow, in many states, for an emergency election to take place while the most senior deputy clerk serves in the interim.

 

It happens. It isn't as though every county clerk in the land serves their entire term of office. Family emergency, illness, injury, death, offered a better position in the government, you name it. Real life happens to them too, so streamlining the mechanism for replacement is probably a good idea. I would hope that this is at least thought about in each state.

[Pam in CT]

I absolutely think the original topic still bears discussing. If I get a vote.  :laugh:

 

The story is still unfolding (with Davis heading back to work, and supposedly with the intent to halt the issuance of licenses again). Plus, I think the overall discussion is not only interesting but important in the context of the progress (or change, or whatever you want to call it. Obviously my personal bias considers it progress) happening in our country right now. 

 

Let's not close it yet, please. 

:iagree:

 

This is a real-time civics case study.

 

The SCOTUS made an important decision.  Some citizens are immensely pleased with that decision and other citizens are outraged.  Real lives are affected by it.  Existing state laws really have been rendered legally invalid.  State and local governments really do now need to work out their response within the new legal framework.  The transition really will be disruptive and difficult.

 

We're watching history being made.  We're an education board.  There truly aren't many fora out there with the kind of diversity we have here.  It'd be really great if we could manage to carry on talking.

 

 

 

 

 

ETA aren't many, not are.  (Good grief.  There sure aren't.)

[Truscifi]

I saw an article saying at least one of the deputy clerks said he will continue issuing licenses no matter what Kim Davis says when she returns to work. I suppose she could fire him to stop him. Or try to anyway.

 

I would also like to see this thread stay open.

[*Lulu*]

I saw an article saying at least one of the deputy clerks said he will continue issuing licenses no matter what Kim Davis says when she returns to work. I suppose she could fire him to stop him. Or try to anyway.

 

I would also like to see this thread stay open.

 

I would imagine the county would end up with a wrongful termination suit if she did that. I'm not sure they can afford the cost of settling that sort of case.

 

I mean, how do you justify firing someone for following the court's orders?

[Truscifi]

I would imagine the county would end up with a wrongful termination suit if she did that. I'm not sure they can afford the cost of settling that sort of case.

 

I mean, how do you justify firing someone for following the court's orders?

 

Hopefully someone higher up would have the sense and the authority to override her. Though from what I've seen so far of this mess I'm not actually all that hopeful.

[FaithManor]

There just has to be some other way to get rid of her besides impeachment. We once had a local judge that did some rather bad hanky panky and ended up removed from office rather quickly despite being elected to his position. He also ended up losing his bar license in Michigan. It wasn't all that convoluted really. The sad thing was that it involved some pretty extreme sexual harassment, and apparently the women had reported it to the proper authorities, and the case got lost in some paper shuffle so it wasn't acted on with any haste thus causing them to file a hostile workplace environment suit, and our county, poor enough as it is, ended up paying out a hefty sum. Well, I should say the county's liability insurance paid, but the reality is that this caused the tax payers to then have to pay much larger insurance premiums. GRRRRRRRR....

 

But still, once the fur hit the fan and another judge got a hold of the complaint, it did not take long to fire his bum. He was determined not to resign - my guess is because this would be an admission of guilt in the matter. Maybe Kentucky is just profoundly different from Michigan.

[MrsBasil]

Yeah,I'm not getting it either.  Removing her name from the form was one of her initial demands, wasn't it?  Now she's decided that's not good enough?

 

 

I mean it's almost like her protests were about more than just getting her excused from having to sign off on forms allowing gay marriages so as not to violate her own personal religious beliefs.  Weird.

[FaithManor]

I mean it's almost like her protests were about more than just getting her excused from having to sign off on forms allowing gay marriages so as not to violate her own personal religious beliefs.  Weird.

To be honest, it smacks of wanting national attention and going out of her way to get it.

[BrookValley.]

To be honest, it smacks of wanting national attention and going out of her way to get it.

 

Yes, though I think it's more likely she's being used as a pawn by specific group in an attempt to prove that religious freedom is being curtailed by the SCOTUS decision. 

[kahlanne]

Haven't researched this yet but someone posted an article this morning from back in 2012 where Judge Tony Parker refused to perform marriages for years yet no actions were brought against her. Does anyone know what makes the two cases different other than one being a Christian against SSM and the other a gay judge wanting equal rights to all? I foresee hearing lots about this in the coming days and thought some of you might be knowledgeable or at the very least have an opinion.

 

Here is a direct quote from the article found here...

http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me-10102160.html

 

“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,†Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.â€

 

[*Lulu*]

My in-laws are from Kentucky, and fairly involved in their city and county governments. It seems like the system favors the employee, as every single case I can think of (even a couple massively ridiculous ones) have come out in the employee's favor.

[CAMom]

I hope we can keep the thread open. It's expanding my mind and causing me to really think hard about some things. :)

 

I saw the "pep rally" after she was released. I'm conservative. I'm a Christian. It really made my skin crawl.  :blush5:

[Stacia]

Since Davis has not been at work for quite a few days (between court, jail, & rallies), is she using vacation time, unpaid days off, or what?

 

I'm curious how that works...

[FaithManor]

Haven't researched this yet but someone posted an article this morning from back in 2012 where Judge Tony Parker refused to perform marriages for years yet no actions were brought against her. Does anyone know what makes the two cases different other than one being a Christian against SSM and the other a gay judge wanting equal rights to all? I foresee hearing lots about this in the coming days and thought some of you might be knowledgeable or at the very least have an opinion.

 

Here is a direct quote from the article found here...

http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-refuses-conduct-marriages-cant-performed-me-10102160.html

 

“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,†Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.â€

Is performing wedding ceremonies a requirement of the job or just an option? I know that magistrates officiate, but I don't know if they are legally required to and in some cases a "justice of the peace" is maintained in each county. So, maybe the actual job requirements for a judge, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, etc. are different.

 

 

Hmmmm.....

 

I know that there are judges around here that occasionally officiate for family members, but I was thinking about these same family court, civil court, and criminal court judges and can't remember a time when anyone unrelated to one of them said, "I'm going to have judge so and so marry us." Must think about this. I better go looking through the county website to see what it says about judges jobs around here.

 

Does anyone know if there has to be vows or an officiant anyway? In some countries the license signed in front of witnesses is enough to be married, no official required except that the license must be filed within a certain time frame or it becomes invalid. Were this the case, would it absolve judges from being required to perform ceremonies? Do we have any lawyers in the hive willing to dive into this?

[kahlanne]

Is performing wedding ceremonies a requirement of the job or just an option? I know that magistrates officiate, but I don't know if they are legally required to and in some cases a "justice of the peace" is maintained in each county. So, maybe the actual job requirements for a judge, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, etc. are different.

 

 

Hmmmm.....

 

I know that there are judges around here that occasionally officiate for family members, but I was thinking about these same family court, civil court, and criminal court judges and can't remember a time when anyone unrelated to one of them said, "I'm going to have judge so and so marry us." Must think about this. I better go looking through the county website to see what it says about judges jobs around here.

 

Does anyone know if there has to be vows or an officiant anyway? In some countries the license signed in front of witnesses is enough to be married, no official required except that the license must be filed within a certain time frame or it becomes invalid. Were this the case, would it absolve judges from being required to perform ceremonies? Do we have any lawyers in the hive willing to dive into this?

 

See that is what I was wondering as well. I thought someone here might know because I am pretty clueless about such things.

 

[Word Nerd]

It'll be interesting to see what happens Friday or whenever she goes back to work. More drama, I'm sure.

[Word Nerd]

Since Davis has not been at work for quite a few days (between court, jail, & rallies), is she using vacation time, unpaid days off, or what?

 

I'm curious how that works...

 

I'd guess she's getting paid as usual.

[*Lulu*]

It'll be interesting to see what happens Friday or whenever she goes back to work. More drama, I'm sure.

That is like saying I think the sun will set in the west today; I wouldn't place bets against it.