KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[zoobie]

I ask this sincerely...the Supreme Court ruled on one case that same-sex marriage is constitutional. However, the Court does not make laws. It only rules on confusing or unclear aspects of law, or on contested rulings from lower courts. It is then the legislative branch's job to repeal and pass laws in accordance with the judicial branch's rulings. So how is she breaking the "law of the land"? The laws have yet to be changed...unless I'm not correctly remembering the 3 branches and their separate roles.

You're missing some nuances perhaps.

 

The Supreme Court said laws restricting marriage based on sex or race are unconstitutional. States going through the motions of repealing the laws is a formality. The Supreme Court ruling makes it illegal for them to enforce the laws. It took Alabama until 1999 to consider removing miscegenation laws from its books: http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/12/interracial.marriage/

 

Saying a law is flat out unconstitutional is different from interpreting a law, which they also may do. If they overturn a conviction because the state law was too vague for example, the state legislature may rewrite the law. (The state can't go back in time--revision applies from passage/signage forward.) Once the law is found unconstitutional, the only "remedy" would be passage of a new amendment to the US Constitution.

 

When will you be teaching US government to your kids? The subject is fascinating! :)

[zoobie]

Yes, this is getting at what's interesting me. A similar case in a different state, that was *settled* within a month, cost the taxpayers $43,000+. This one has dragged on for three months, is nowhere close to any kind of resolution, the legal costs continue to escalate, jail costs are now piling on as well, and unless a solution is found this woman will continue to collect her $80,000 salary plus the county will have to expend the cost of benefits for three and a half more years.

 

$tick $tick $tick

 

 

Right. And the articles I've read suggest that even if impeachment proceedings were initiated, the current legislature appears disinclined to go through with it.

 

Which really is analogous to the environment after Brown v. Board of Ed, when legislative bodies in some areas did not have a majority in place who were willing to ratify compliance with the law.

 

 

This woman is not Rosa Parks. This woman is George Wallace.

Yeah, I saw a tweet that said Kim Davis is not Rosa Parks. Kim David is the woman who demanded Rosa Parks' seat.

[MomatHWTK]

I ask this sincerely...the Supreme Court ruled on one case that same-sex marriage is constitutional. However, the Court does not make laws. It only rules on confusing or unclear aspects of law, or on contested rulings from lower courts. It is then the legislative branch's job to repeal and pass laws in accordance with the judicial branch's rulings. So how is she breaking the "law of the land"? The laws have yet to be changed...unless I'm not correctly remembering the 3 branches and their separate roles.

 

This might help explain further:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

[zoobie]

This might help explain further:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

I would caution that the Heritage Foundation's essays explaining the Constitution will not be pure academic work. They're a very conservative, political think tank and lobbying organization. The text of the Constitution should be legit. Hopefully.

[MSNative]

Is Kim Davis different from Gavin Newsom, the SF mayor who ordered same sex marriage licenses to be issued despite the fact that is was against the law at the time? Should he have been forced to resign?

 

"SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously Thursday that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, because both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5685429/ns/politics/t/court-annuls-san-francisco-gay-marriages/

 

It seems to me that they both did the same thing- ignored the law that they found morally wrong.

[MomatHWTK]

Zoobie, can you suggest a better resource?  I have been looking for reference materials to offer up and have started a thread here.  Thanks. 

[MomatHWTK]

Is Kim Davis different from Gavin Newsom, the SF mayor who ordered same sex marriage licenses to be issued despite the fact that is was against the law at the time? Should he have been forced to resign?

 

 

 The situation was remedied by a S.C. ruling.  I imagine had it not, there is a legal process in place for removal of officials and an option for the legislature, courts, etc. to trigger that system.  The defendent in this case has not been "forced to resign," she had the option to resign or face the legal consequences for the violation of a court order.  She cannot be "forced to resign;" she can be impeached.

 

:rant:

 

Seriously folks, and I am going to be snarky here, we have laws, we have a Constitution, we have a system.  Learn it, understand it and work with it or change it.  But making stuff up- this whole "Why can't we do this? Why can't we do that?" thing is just annoying.  For your children's sake- learn how your nation is governed or at least make them learn it so there's hope for the next generation.  :rant:

 

 

ETA:  I realize I should have simply stated my thoughts on knowing the law without responding to anyone's specific post.  I had thought to delete portions of my post, but they had already generated a response.  So, MSNative, apologies- I shouldn't have quoted your post when my "rant" was really directed more broadly.  I stand by my assertion that it is imperative for all of us to know the laws by which we are governed.  If you don't know them, you can't improve them. 

[Peach]

 

Why Kentucky allows nepotism in the hiring of clerks and setting of the salaries of their own family members, I have no idea.

 

I was reading about this issue this morning, an article regarding the office had issues licenses to two gay couples by the deputy clerks...except one. Apparently her son is one of her staff.  According the news bit I read, all the deputy clerks had agreed to issue the licenses except him. 

[MSNative]

Thank you for clarifying MomatHWTK

[MomatHWTK]

nm

[Word Nerd]

 

 

Seriously folks, and I am going to be snarky here, we have laws, we have a Constitution, we have a system.  Learn it, understand it and work with it or change it.  But making stuff up- this whole "Why can't we do this? Why can't we do that?" thing is just annoying.  For your children's sake- learn how your nation is governed or at least make them learn it so there's hope for the next generation.  :rant:

 

On a related note, I think it's kind of funny that some posters are insistent that the judge should ignore the law and remove her from office for ignoring the law.

[mommaduck]

I was reading about this issue this morning, an article regarding the office had issues licenses to two gay couples by the deputy clerks...except one. Apparently her son is one of her staff.  According the news bit I read, all the deputy clerks had agreed to issue the licenses except him. 

 

And he stated that he's willing to refuse "even if it means death". Well, we know who the real Drama Queen is now.

[MomatHWTK]

On a related note, I think it's kind of funny that some posters are insistent that the judge should ignore the law and remove her from office for ignoring the law.

 

 

Yes, I think my visceral response is due to the fact that I fear anarchy more than I fear waiting for the legal process to work its way out- regardless of which side of an issue I find myself. 

[merry gardens]

nm

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
This thread is not partisan. And this post involves name-calling.

[Mergath]

Is Kim Davis different from Gavin Newsom, the SF mayor who ordered same sex marriage licenses to be issued despite the fact that is was against the law at the time? Should he have been forced to resign?

 

"SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously Thursday that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, because both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5685429/ns/politics/t/court-annuls-san-francisco-gay-marriages/

 

It seems to me that they both did the same thing- ignored the law that they found morally wrong.

 

From a legal standpoint? No.

 

From a moral standpoint? Absolutely.

 

He stood up and gave people their rights when they were being unconstitutionally denied to them. Yes, he broke the law, but for a darn good reason.

 

Kim Davis is violating a federal ruling in order to deny people their rights because her personal choice of religious book says some people are icky.

 

Not the same thing at all.

[Mergath]

nm 

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Mergath
Please don't respond to name-calling with additional personal attacks.

[mommaduck]

nm

 

This is NOT about politics. This is about the Law, a legal proceeding, and religion. For the record, there are conservatives, centrists, and liberals on this thread...mostly in agreement. You don't have to read this thread. You don't have to participate. We don't try to limit discussion simply because we may not agree with another person or group of persons.

 

And ftr, this issue IS relevant to several people on this board. There ARE LGBT homeschooling parents on here. There are many here that do not have LGBT marriages within their faiths, but do believe in the secular right of others being able to practice their faiths and beliefs (including LGBT marriage). Yes, there are even Christians like me that do not want a Theocracy of any sort. A theocracy would limit our rights of faith. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed deleted content.

[merry gardens]

This is NOT about politics. This is about the Law, a legal proceeding, and religion. For the record, there are conservatives, centrists, and liberals on this thread...mostly in agreement. You don't have to read this thread. You don't have to participate. We don't try to limit discussion simply because we may not agree with another person or group of persons.

 

It's about politics. She's an elected official. Calling on elected officials to resign relates to politics.

[Mergath]

It's about politics. She's an elected official. Calling on elected officials to resign relates to politics.

 

SWB and her helpers check in here pretty regularly. If she felt that this thread fell into the kind of politics she doesn't want here, she would have locked or deleted it.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Mergath
This could have been said without the rudeness.

[Guest]

Nevermind, not going down that rabbit trail.

[Word Nerd]

Tip: If you feel a thread violates board rules, use the Report button rather than calling other posters names. 

[merry gardens]

nm 

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
More rudeness.

[mommaduck]

It's about politics. She's an elected official. Calling on elected officials to resign relates to politics.

 

If this were about politics, it would be drawn along party lines. It's NOT. It's about her breaking the law and her claiming it's due to her religion. It's legal and religious. I'll be putting you on ignore now, because your only purpose on this thread is to get it shut down. You apparently don't respect other people's beliefs or freedom to discuss law and religion. She's a clerk. She's not running for POTUS. 

 

BTW, I'm betting you don't know the political party she was running with for election nor the political party of the judge. Otherwise, you might not be crying "politics" so much.

[MSNative]

From a legal standpoint? No.

 

From a moral standpoint? Absolutely.

 

He stood up and gave people their rights when they were being unconstitutionally denied to them. Yes, he broke the law, but for a darn good reason.

 

Kim Davis is violating a federal ruling in order to deny people their rights because her personal choice of religious book says some people are icky.

 

Not the same thing at all.

I should have worded that better. Are KimDavis's actions different than Gavin Newsom's. And you and I agree that from a legal standpoint, they aren't.

[mommaduck]

nm

Edited September 4, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Don't escalate, please.

[Mergath]

nm 

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Mergath
Stop.

[Haiku]

This thread has gone on for multiple days and pages and no one has removed it due to violating the ban on politics, so I'm assuming TPTB at TWTM don't think it's political.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed deleted content.

[mommaduck]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

 

 

2014 election
In 2014, Bailey chose not to run for re-election.[12] Davis then ran for county clerk as a Democrat.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Bunning

 

 

On September 4, 2001, Bunning was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

 

Now, you want to claim that this is political...with all the Liberal Democrats coming down on a Conservative Republican? Because that is NOT the way of it. This is OBVIOUSLY not a party thing or a political thing. It's about someone not doing their job and being held in contempt of court...and holding EMPLOYEES hostage between their job and the law.

[zoobie]

No one is talking politics. (I think the Clerk ran as a democrat? LOLZ.) This is US Government, and it's fascinating to see the interplay between the branches. This is the living, breathing Constitution. It's awesome!

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed deleted content.

[QueenCat]

I ask this sincerely...the Supreme Court ruled on one case that same-sex marriage is constitutional. However, the Court does not make laws. It only rules on confusing or unclear aspects of law, or on contested rulings from lower courts. It is then the legislative branch's job to repeal and pass laws in accordance with the judicial branch's rulings. So how is she breaking the "law of the land"? The laws have yet to be changed...unless I'm not correctly remembering the 3 branches and their separate roles.

 

States can't make laws denying someone's civil liberties. That is why this applies to all laws that did such a thing.

[MrsBasil]

I should have worded that better. Are KimDavis's actions different than Gavin Newsom's. And you and I agree that from a legal standpoint, they aren't.

I am pretty sure Newsom stopped allowing license issuing once the Supreme Court ruled the marriages were invalid.

 

Morally, I think the difference is that Davis is using her job to deny rights that have already been granted by the Supreme Court to a minority group and Newsom was using his job to grant rights to a minority group. That these rights don't effect anyone who is not wanting to use them (no one has to have a same sex marriage and no religious institution is forced to participate) leads me to stand with Newsom, but not Davis.

 

If Newsom continued to issue licenses after the Supreme Court ruling that annulled the marriages and was jailed in contempt of court for continuing them, then yes, that would have been correct from a legal standpoint-I think. I don't think I would have considered him jailed based on his moral beliefs but on his contempt of court.

[zoobie]

Is Kim Davis different from Gavin Newsom, the SF mayor who ordered same sex marriage licenses to be issued despite the fact that is was against the law at the time? Should he have been forced to resign?

 

"SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously Thursday that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, because both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5685429/ns/politics/t/court-annuls-san-francisco-gay-marriages/

 

It seems to me that they both did the same thing- ignored the law that they found morally wrong.

He gave people special access to a government service. If a court had ordered him to stop and he defied the order, he should've been held in contempt. Kim Roper is denying people access to a government service. She's refusing to do her job and preventing others from doing theirs. She was ordered by the court to cease her behavior, she defied the order, and she's being held in contempt.

 

I am more sympathetic to the mayor's reasoning. All people deserve equal access to government services under the constitution. We can't deny based on race, sex, and so forth. Kim Davis is denying people access to government services based upon her personal religious beliefs. No laws, no constitution. Her personal religion is preventing citizens from accessing the government. I would always err on the side of overensuring access than under.

[MrsBasil]

PS: if it's uncomfortable, don't read. :). As an overweight woman I do not read threads about weight loss or weight issues here due to many people's comments. They hurt and I feel uncomfortable, so not reading them makes visiting here a more pleasant experience.

[QueenCat]

If this were about politics, it would be drawn along party lines. It's NOT. It's about her breaking the law and her claiming it's due to her religion. It's legal and religious. I'll be putting you on ignore now, because your only purpose on this thread is to get it shut down. You apparently don't respect other people's beliefs or freedom to discuss law and religion. She's a clerk. She's not running for POTUS. 

 

BTW, I'm betting you don't know the political party she was running with for election nor the political party of the judge. Otherwise, you might not be crying "politics" so much.

 

Well said. I've actually been surprised that almost everyone that I know irl thinks she is wrong. Democrats, Republicans, all sorts of Christians, etc.

[LucyStoner]

I ask this sincerely...the Supreme Court ruled on one case that same-sex marriage is constitutional. However, the Court does not make laws. It only rules on confusing or unclear aspects of law, or on contested rulings from lower courts. It is then the legislative branch's job to repeal and pass laws in accordance with the judicial branch's rulings. So how is she breaking the "law of the land"? The laws have yet to be changed...unless I'm not correctly remembering the 3 branches and their separate roles.

This is the exact argument that the defense in US v Brittian used to try and defend him refusing a license to an interracial couple after Loving v. Virginia.

 

When Alabama finally formally removed the section of their constitution which banned interracial marriage, it went to the voters. A full FORTY percent of voters voted no, to not remove it. In 2000. This is why the branches of government are needed to check each other. Without the court, believe me, bans on "miscegenation" would have been the law for decades longer. That is appalling.

 

Laws must be constitutional. The Supreme Court arbitrates that, not the legislature.

[SKL]

FWIW I think the parallel to the SF case is excellent.  Both broke the law because they personally disagreed with it.  Both of them should have been sanctioned if their actions prevented the law from being carried out (even temporarily).

 

I would support the KY clerk if all she had done was hand off the responsibility to someone else.  But her preventing all legal ways for the law to be carried out went beyond just washing her hands of it.  I don't agree with all constitutional cases, but I think it's pretty clear that a government official doesn't get to impose her religion on everyone else.  However, I think it is worth considering whether job descriptions should have some sort of escape clause for personal religious beliefs - so there is an established procedure (hand off to other person etc.) that allows business to continue.  This would apply to all sorts of things, e.g., photos of women who cover their faces, providing "health care" one believes is morally wrong, etc.  Because it's not always as simple as "this is the law now, do it."

 

People who refuse to see the comparison to the SF case are blinding themselves to reality.  Your agreeing with the guy's opinion doesn't make the law disappear.  It's that kind of attitude that apparently has half of the Republican candidates vowing to support this KY clerk without reservation.  Unless there are some facts I'm unaware of, I think that makes them look ridiculous.  But it's the same when the tables are turned.

[mommaduck]

This is the exact argument that the defense in US v Brittian used to try and defend him refusing a license to an interracial couple after Loving v. Virginia.

 

Laws must be constitutional. The Supreme Court arbitrates that, not the legislature.

 

May I quote this elsewhere?

[melmichigan]

FWIW I think the parallel to the SF case is excellent.  Both broke the law because they personally disagreed with it.  Both of them should have been sanctioned if their actions prevented the law from being carried out (even temporarily).

 

I would support the KY clerk if all she had done was hand off the responsibility to someone else.  But her preventing all legal ways for the law to be carried out went beyond just washing her hands of it.  I don't agree with all constitutional cases, but I think it's pretty clear that a government official doesn't get to impose her religion on everyone else.  However, I think it is worth considering whether job descriptions should have some sort of escape clause for personal religious beliefs - so there is an established procedure (hand off to other person etc.) that allows business to continue.  This would apply to all sorts of things, e.g., photos of women who cover their faces, providing "health care" one believes is morally wrong, etc.  Because it's not always as simple as "this is the law now, do it."

 

People who refuse to see the comparison to the SF case are blinding themselves to reality.  Your agreeing with the guy's opinion doesn't make the law disappear.  It's that kind of attitude that apparently has half of the Republican candidates vowing to support this KY clerk without reservation.  Unless there are some facts I'm unaware of, I think that makes them look ridiculous.  But it's the same when the tables are turned.

Catch me up please if you will, was he ordered to stop issuing them and failed to follow that order?  If so then yes, he should have been held in contempt of court.  

[KarenC]

How about redesign the marriage licenses to be stamped with the state's seal instead of requiring her signature to be on it?  

 

I don't suppose a recall election was a possibility?  Though you always run the risk of people voting to keep her in, so then that wouldn't work either.  I never claimed to know what the solution is.

The KY legislature meets for about 4 months a year.  They are scheduled to meet in Jan.  and I'm sure will be the issue will be addressed then.  I doubt she will be impeached.  I think they will modify the clerks' responsibilities.  It cost $65,000 a day in KY to call a special session.  As a taxpayer, I do not want to pay to indulge her religious beliefs.  

[LucyStoner]

May I quote this elsewhere?

Of course.

[LucyStoner]

FTR, Newsom stopped when ordered by the court. And the licenses were invalidated.

 

The difference is that Kim Davis has not complied with a court order. Repeatedly. After the Supreme Court refused to hear her case.

 

Kim Davis can't be intolerant and then demand people tolerate her intolerance. The same goes for her supporters. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance.

[LucyStoner]

No one is talking politics. (I think the Clerk ran as a democrat? LOLZ.) This is US Government, and it's fascinating to see the interplay between the branches. This is the living, breathing Constitution. It's awesome!

 

 

It's a facinating civics study all the way around. My 7th grader is doing US History this year and we've discussed this in detail. It's a great example, as you say, of the interplay between branches. Highly relevant to our homeschooling experience right now.

[idnib]

Is Kim Davis different from Gavin Newsom, the SF mayor who ordered same sex marriage licenses to be issued despite the fact that is was against the law at the time? Should he have been forced to resign?

 

<...>

It seems to me that they both did the same thing- ignored the law that they found morally wrong.

 

And when Newsom was told to he had overstepped his bounds and the 4000 marriages were declared void, he stopped. Therein lies the difference. A person can challenge a potential gray area and force a court ruling. Davis was given a ruling and chose to defy it. Again, she's in jail for contempt, not for her moral stance. While I don't agree with her behavior, I do believe people have a right to challenge the law and get a court's response. She got that and made her decision.

 

nm

It's about politics. She's an elected official. Calling on elected officials to resign relates to politics.

 

While I have no doubt this thread has already been brought to the attention of TPTB and they have (so far) allowed it to continue, please report it if you feel it is breaking board rules. That's preferable to taking about the boards on the boards. 

[MSNative]

And when Newsom was told to he had overstepped his bounds and the 4000 marriages were declared void, he stopped. Therein lies the difference. A person can challenge a potential gray area and force a court ruling. Davis was given a ruling and chose to defy it. Again, she's in jail for contempt, not for her moral stance. While I don't agree with her behavior, I do believe people have a right to challenge the law and get a court's response. She got that and made her decision.

 

 

But it wasn't a gray area. It was clearly against the state statutes and he knew it. He just didn't agree that it was morally correct. And just like Davis, he ordered others to follow his moral code when he ordered the city clerk to issue the gay marriage licenses. That's where I have a problem with both of them. It's one thing to challenge a law you find morally wrong. It's another to order others to do something illegal. (I don't know if the SF clerk was on board or not. All the articles I read just say he ordered them to start issuing licenses. That puts the clerks in a bad position.)

 

I agree with you that people have the right to challenge the law and face consequences for their choices.

[mommaduck]

I'm pretty sure the difference is still that he ceased when he was told to. I'm not certain all the particulars on that case as to gray area vs not gray area.

[LucyStoner]

Well said. I've actually been surprised that almost everyone that I know irl thinks she is wrong. Democrats, Republicans, all sorts of Christians, etc.

And on these boards, this thread has drawn agreement from people of very diverse religious views as well.

[SKL]

If he ceased when told to cease breaking the law, then yes, that is a difference.  However, he still broke the law.  If I cease stealing or shooting or beating my spouse after a judge orders me to cease, does that mean I don't need to be sanctioned for the prior theft / shooting / beating?

 

My comment was toward the posters here who indicated that because they agreed with him morally, there was no parallel.  There was a clear parallel at least up to the point where he ceased his lawbreaking.

[albeto.]

I'm pretty sure the difference is still that he ceased when he was told to. I'm not certain all the particulars on that case as to gray area vs not gray area.

 

The other difference is that the mayor of San Francisco appealed to the California Constitution's equal protection clause as giving him authority to grant same-sex marriage licenses. People argued his appeal was erroneously applied and, while the courts settled the dispute, he suspended the activity. Davis appealed to a vague and amorphous divine revelation and refused to suppress the activity even though the courts had already settled the dispute. 

[Joules]

If he ceased when told to cease breaking the law, then yes, that is a difference.  However, he still broke the law.  If I cease stealing or shooting or beating my spouse after a judge orders me to cease, does that mean I don't need to be sanctioned for the prior theft / shooting / beating?

 

 

The penalty for theft/shooting/beating is often jail.  The penalty for issuing (in one case) or not issuing (in the other) is not usually jail.  That's why neither one of them was arrested when they first made their statements by issuing or not issuing.  After the courts ruled, the mayor complied and the clerk refused, finding herself in contempt of court, which is a jailable offense.

[justasque]

I'm pretty sure the difference is still that he ceased when he was told to. I'm not certain all the particulars on that case as to gray area vs not gray area.

 

Another difference is the idea of "standing" - that is, who has legal standing to bring a suit against them.  Basically, to have standing, a person has to have been somehow affected (usually harmed) by the person's actions.  In the case of Mrs. Davis, the couples who cannot get licenses have been deprived of their civil right to obtain a civil marriage license.  Thus, they have standing to sue, which they did.  Her jailing is a sort of sidebar to their larger case.  In the case of Mr. Newsome, it is more complicated.  He was granting "extra" civil rights, not limiting them.  Who, then, did he harm?  Who would have standing to sue?  

 

I am NOT a lawyer, so I probably have the details wrong, but I thought this might be an interesting point of comparison.

 

I do think that religious beliefs - even and especially minority religious beliefs, should be accommodated, wherever practically possible.  In this case, the KY legislature had plenty of time to craft a law that allowed same-sex marriage while putting into place reasonable accommodations for people like Mrs. Davis (such as a redesign of the license so that it would not require her signature).  However, the legislature chose not to do this, but rather to dig in their heels and stick with a complete ban on civil marriage for same-sex couples.  They knew this case was before the Supreme Court, and would be decided when they were on hiatus.  The legislature could have worked together, thoughtfully, with each other and with various interest groups, to balance the needs and religious beliefs of same-sex couples and their families, with the needs and religious beliefs of those who feel same sex marriage (including civil marriage), is sinful.  It would have been a delicate job, but doing so would have avoided this kind of situation, where someone like Mrs. Davis - who is actually on the same "side" as the majority of the legislators - ends up in jail.  Had the legislators been truly respectful of her position, they would have acted sooner - before they went on hiatus - to pass a carefully crafted law that was a win-win for all Kentucky citizens.  Because they chose not to accommodate the needs of the same-sex-couple families in KY, they ended up in the position they are in now.