United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Claire Valofaro
Post Date: 2015-09-01 10:04:38 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 28836
Comments: 339
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" - this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her. On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis was in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant the licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt of court, which can carry steep fines or jail time. As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold to leave her office after they were denied a license Tuesday morning - the couple's fourth rejection. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras. "We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said. "Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him. From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground." Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job." Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience." Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. After Tuesday's denials, the rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that the attorneys file that day to have Davis held in contempt. Shortly after Davis' remarks in her office, the sheriff's office cleared the room and building of those gathered to support both sides of the issue. The two groups lined up on the lawn, on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters have told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job." Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail. "But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said. Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting. "I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 258.
#19. To: cranky (#0)
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
Not really. Public officials have to swear an oath to obey the Constitution as well as the state and local laws. If anything,an elected official is under a bigger burden to obey the law than a mere employee.
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/0...me-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 Breaking news...
There was never any doubt that she would issue licenses, resign, or go to jail.
How long will she spend in the Rowan County Hilton?
That's up to her.
How much do they charge a night? From what I hear it is something like 20 or 30 bucks. Will she still be on the payroll? Just some down home financial interests in my mind. I'm sure she could do some sort of gofundme endeavor and become a millionaire with all the funding from the fundies. Hey, I made a dilly.
I think so. They can't fire here, she's elected. My impression is she has the support of the state and local government. If they had a sense of urgency, they could act to remove her from office. She refused an agreement to be released if she would authorize subordinates to issue the licenses. It's the same moral question. I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up.
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain. Silly faggots, dicks are for chicks.
Only Davis has the authority. The deputies cannot act unless Davis delegates to them the authority to do so. She refused. The only way to remove her is impeachment in the KY House and trial in the Senate.
It states that the source of all power of the Counties and county offices exist and operate only under auhtority delegated by the state. One of the required officers of counties in Kentucky is the County Clerk. The County Clerk cannot make up the rules of his/her duties and responsibilities. Perhaps you know the legal basis for how the Clerk can prevent the Deputy Clerks for conducting the legal business of the Office which authority is delegated to the Clerk's Office by the state?
Deputies get their authority by delegation from the elected official. The authority is delegated to the elected official, not the general office. If she does not grant, or withdraws delegation of authority, they do not have it. The office has been issuing NO licenses whatever since the SCOTUS decision.
I believe that you are wrong (see post 149). This is the link to the pdf www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf.
The authority belongs to Kim Davis as the elected County Clerk. No deputy has any authority except as delegated by Kim Davis, the County Clerk. The authority is not given to the county clerk's office, it is given to the County Clerk, the elected official. Then the elected official can delegate the authority to subordinates. Or not. She has a job to do. She is not doing it. She claims a new obligation (issuance of same sex marriage licenses) violates her faith based moral convictions. The Feds can order such licenses be issued, but cannot issue them, and cannot force her to issue them, but can penalize her for refusing to issue them. So, she sits in jail. As long as she chooses to sit in jail, and the state does not act to remove her from office, one may view a big middle finger going from Kentucky to Washington, D.C. If it goes on for a few months, what does the Fed do? Can they order the state to call a special session of the state congress?
If the duputies issue the licenses as they appear to have agreed to do, then the Fed doesn't have to do anything at all - other than perhaps give Davis the finger as she rots in jail. This is not a win situation for her, even if the state is passively on her side.
I see this morning that one of the clerks has issue a license. I have seen no report of how the clerk was authorized to do so, or if he had the authority, why no licenses were issued for the past month or so.
I see this morning that one of the clerks has issue a license. I have seen no report of how the clerk was authorized to do so, or if he had the authority, why no licenses were issued for the past month or so. Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority?
No. The below excerpt from USA Today makes clear that the clerks expressed reservations, the judge said the couples can choose whether or not to take the risk, and the lawyers for Davis also called into question the legality of such issuing of licenses. This all depends on whether Kim Davis is acting alone or if she is part of an organized effort to defy Obergefell, and who is supporting her. If the state is backing her, and Fed orders the issuance of licenses, they can tell the clerks to go ahead and obey his order. Kim Davis will get out of jail and notify a Kentucky court of the unlawfully issued licenses, and Kentucky can declare any such marriages null and void. [excerpt] Kim Davis' lawyers also called into question whether any licenses issued in her absence would be legal. But Bunning said couples will have to decide whether to take that risk on their own. He indicated that he would lift the contempt charge against the defiant county clerk if deputies began issuing marriage licenses but said he was reluctant to release Kim Davis on Friday because of the possibility that she would stop the process and again try to go through the courts in a sort of ping-pong match. He also warned Nathan Davis against interfering with same-sex couples getting marriage licenses. Allowing Kim Davis, who previously has said she is an Apostolic Christian, to defy a court order could create a ripple effect among other county clerks, Bunning said. Two other clerks in the state — Casey Davis in Casey County and Kay Schwartz in Whitley County — also had stopped issuing marriage licenses but have not had lawsuits filed against them. "Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," said Bunning, who said he also has deeply held religious beliefs. "Oaths mean things."
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions. But she and now every Christian in the US now know that they will be thrown in jail if they refuse an order from the federal government which compromises their conscience.
I suppose she swore an oath (or affirmed) to faithfully execute the duties of her office, but at a time when said duties did not include condoning same-sex marriage, something her moral standards will not permit her to do.
She can always resign and even seek another office. She, and anyone else, including local and state governments are on the losing side of the issue. I guess it is possible the states can defy the Fed and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays while they continue to issue such licenses to straights - welcome to the next potential civil war (which Christians will lose).
Or the clerks can issue fraudulent licenses at Federal direction, and the state can invalidate them later. This is only one county, not the whole state. It cannot issue licenses selectively without invoking a whole bunch of Federal anti-discrimination sanctions. But it can just stop issuing licenses at all, and not discriminate against any group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Texas Same Sex Marriage in Texas
Or the clerks can issue putatively valid licenses at federal direction, which the state will ratify or lose federal funds and suffer other retaliatory measures. Nobody is going to fight this the way that the racists fought desegregation. The racists were numerous - even majoritarian in their areas - and they still lost. The only proper response is for Christians to turn back to the Law of God, refresh their understanding of it so that they cease to take foolish and suicidal political stances, and instead live as a growing and prosperous community apart, one that will have many advantages over the secular community.
Where is a federal constitutional requirement for states to issue marriage licenses. If a state chooses not to issue marriage licenses, where is the federal jurisdiction to require them to do so? Suppose, hypothetically, that the great state of Kentucky chose to make the issuance of marriage licenses optional by county. They could be issued to all, or nobody, at the county option. What is the Federal jurisdiction? What offense has the state committed to incur Federal sanctions?
Suppose, hypothetically, that the great state of Kentucky chose to make the issuance of marriage licenses optional by county. They could be issued to all, or nobody, at the county option. What is the Federal jurisdiction? What offense has the state committed to incur Federal sanctions? Certainly the state need not issue marriage licenses at all. The state could simply declare: if you check a block on a form that says you are married, then you are married. No licensing, no tracking, no ceremonies, nothing. That is what the states SHOULD do, and what the law SHOULD be: you are married if you say you're married. Period. If you and a woman say you are married, then you are - with all that entails before gods and men. However, if the formal state of marriage carries with it federal and state financial and legal benefits - and it does - then the state cannot impose undue burdens upon people seeking to obtain their federal rights. States should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all. There should be no formal state process for marriage. Marriage is private, and should be thus. Nor should the state be in the business of "enforcing" marriage beyond the enforcement of any other contract. Marriage USED to matter because states enforced sexual laws: it was illegal to have sex out of wedlock, and they punished it. But those laws were religious based. Religion has faded from the law, so now it is not illegal to have sex outside of wedlock, though it is a breach of contract if you do it and you're married. Noe, the policing of marriage matters for Social Security benefits, estate law, and alimony law: property is assigned based on the existence of that contract. That was the chief benefit of the gays pressing so hard: now they get their partner's social security benefits. That's prety significant. The problem is that all of these laws and all of these theories hang on air and do not ultimately work out logically at the edges. Things end up being an assertion of power.
#261. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#258)
Since when does the state speak for god(s) - except for Obama's administration that is. "The problem is that all of these laws and all of these theories hang on air and do not ultimately work out logically at the edges. Things end up being an assertion of power." Bingo. The only rights that one has are those that he can defend. When might makes right one is usually f*cked big time. The status quo will be maintained until someone or something mightier comes along (e.g. - a superior outside force, a successful internal revolution) but that only changes who becomes the f*cker and who becomes the f*ckee.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#23. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government...
#47. To: Fred Mertz (#23)
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
#69. To: sneakypete, All LFers (#47)
“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
#71. To: Fred Mertz (#69)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
#72. To: nolu chan (#71)
#73. To: Fred Mertz (#72)
How long will she spend in the Rowan County Hilton?
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
#81. To: Fred Mertz (#74)
Will she still be on the payroll?
#102. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#81)
I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up.
#105. To: SOSO (#102)
but five of her deputies agreed to issue the licenses themselves,
#140. To: GrandIsland, SOSO (#105)
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain.
#149. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#140)
Only Davis has the authority. The deputies cannot act unless Davis delegates to them the authority to do so.
#152. To: SOSO, GrandIsland (#149)
Perhaps you know the legal basis for how the Clerk can prevent the Deputy Clerks for conducting the legal business of the Office which authority is delegated to the Clerk's Office by the state?
#156. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#152)
The authority is delegated to the elected official, not the general office.
#162. To: SOSO (#156)
I believe that you are wrong (see post 149).
#163. To: nolu chan (#162)
If it goes on for a few months, what does the Fed do?
#180. To: SOSO (#163)
#189. To: nolu chan (#180)
#197. To: redleghunter, SOSO, Vicomte13 (#189)
Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority?
Among Davis' deputies, the holdout was her son, Nathan Davis. Yet as the other deputy clerks individually answered Bunning's questions under oath, several had reservations in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, partly based on religion and partly because of worries about their legal authority to sign forms without an elected official's consent.
#202. To: nolu chan (#197)
"Oaths mean things."
#214. To: redleghunter (#202)
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions.
#216. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#214)
I suppose she swore an oath (or affirmed) to faithfully execute the duties of her office, but at a time when said duties did not include condoning same-sex marriage, something her moral standards will not permit her to do.
#224. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#216)
I guess it is possible the states can defy the Fed and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays while they continue to issue such licenses to straights
After the Obergefell ruling, nearly all counties started issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. As of 1 August 2015, Irion County is the sole remaining county in the country that overtly refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples while continuing to license to opposite-sex couples. However, two other counties (Loving, with 82 residents, as of August 7 and Mills as of August 21) also refuse to license same-sex couples, claiming to have delayed implementation while they update paperwork or software. As with similar cases in Kentucky, it is suspected that this may be a tactic to refuse to issue licenses while avoiding lawsuits.
#228. To: nolu chan (#224)
Or the clerks can issue fraudulent licenses at Federal direction, and the state can invalidate them later.
#250. To: Vicomte13 (#228)
Or the clerks can issue putatively valid licenses at federal direction, which the state will ratify or lose federal funds and suffer other retaliatory measures.
#258. To: nolu chan (#250)
Where is a federal constitutional requirement for states to issue marriage licenses. If a state chooses not to issue marriage licenses, where is the federal jurisdiction to require them to do so?
Replies to Comment # 258. That is what the states SHOULD do, and what the law SHOULD be: you are married if you say you're married. Period. If you and a woman say you are married, then you are - with all that entails before gods and men.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 258.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]