Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)

[consortium11]

Nope. Not that one.

A quick Google pulled this up:

Judge refuses to perform straight marriage, no outrage

Snopes article on the judge here.

In short, the judge previously refused to do straight marriages until gay marriages were allowed. Even then it wasn't the same as Davis; while Davis refused to issue marriage licenses and refused to let anyone else issue them either, Parker passed couples along to another judge who would do it.

Parker's "strike" ended in June when gay marriage was legalized and she actually officiated over the first Dallas gay wedding. Now she does all marriages again.

[Cycle]

Yes, but I can see no realistic case for any of those three things here if a case was to see court:

*shrugs*  Obviously, there are people who disagree with your interpretation of these laws. 

Update: $1.2 million suit filed.  Pow!

[Mithlomwen]

Update: $1.2 million suit filed.  Pow!

I don't blame them.  I wouldn't want my name or music associated with those folks either.

[Alhanna]

Snopes article on the judge here.

In short, the judge previously refused to do straight marriages until gay marriages were allowed. Even then it wasn't the same as Davis; while Davis refused to issue marriage licenses and refused to let anyone else issue them either, Parker passed couples along to another judge who would do it.

Parker's "strike" ended in June when gay marriage was legalized and she actually officiated over the first Dallas gay wedding. Now she does all marriages again.

Ah. I hadn't a chance to research it so thank you.... I'm armed to be ready to argue if it pops up again.

[Cycle]

I don't blame them.  I wouldn't want my name or music associated with those folks either.

Alas, it looks like that source may be a fake... 

[consortium11]

*shrugs*  Obviously, there are people who disagree with your interpretation of these laws.

Such as who? I'm not aware of any jurisprudential sources who hold that position. If you've got a spare hour or so it may be worth reading over this article (one that is frequently referenced favourably by the courts in these cases) which sets out the legal framework.

Update: $1.2 million suit filed.  Pow!

You (and Edgemedia) have been had. The "source" for the story is NBC.com.co (the .co is important), one a new wave of fake media sites that look to hoodwink people and organizations who don't do enough research. There's a story about such sites in general and NBC.com.co specifically here. To take this story in particular there's no professors at Havard Law School called Paul Horner... they're relying on the fact that people are too lazy to check that.

That's not to say that a law suit won't come eventually... if previous history is anything to go by one will come in a pretty brazen cash grab... but it hasn't come yet and certainly hasn't come in the way this story indicates/

[Cycle]

Such as who?

Peterik.  Sullivan.

You (and Edgemedia) have been had. The "source" for the story is NBC.com.co (the .co is important), one a new wave of fake media sites that look to hoodwink people and organizations who don't do enough research.

Ah.  Appreciate the personal shot.

[consortium11]

Peterik.  Sullivan.

So agreeing with me I have pretty much every judgement the courts have ever made on cases such as these (I'm giving myself some wiggle room but I'm unaware of any that go the other way on these issues) and numerous articles by legal experts on the matter. Disagreeing we me are two musicians who stand to make a tidy profit simply by bringing the case regardless of whether it has any chance of standing on its merits.

Ah.  Appreciate the personal shot.

It's not a personal shot as in "haha, you're really stupid". It's a comment about the fact that you did get hoodwinked, I suspect because you didn't put any effort into double checking the story before sharing it. If you had you'd have gone to the source that Edgemedia linked to and seen it was nbc.com.co you may have recalled that site from when it broke the "news" there was going to be a sixth season of Breaking Bad or that a pastor from Virginia (also called Paul Horner...) was sentenced to a year in prison for refusing to marry gay couples, both of which were almost immediately debunked. Even if you weren't aware of nbc.com.co's history if you went onto the site itself you'd almost immediately see that one of its main stories was that Donald Trump had gone on Fox News and accepted a challenge from National Council of La Raza to fight a bear in Mexico. If that hadn't been enough of a giveaway you might have decided to google Paul Horner Harvard Law and found that there's no professor by that name (which can in turn be verified by searching on Harvard Law's website pretty quickly) and that pretty much all references to a Paul Horner come from either nbc.com.co or another fake news site NationalReport.net (as mentioned above).

Websites such as this work in a pretty simple way. They invent stories that relate to topical news items, some more ridiculous than others, and wait for slightly more legitimate websites to become aware of them (frequently tripped up by the official looking NBC name) and share them without fat checking (because in online media these days it's more important to be first then it is to be right) as Edgemedia did. They then wait for people to read those other sites, not do any checking and then share the story themselves (as you did) so they can rake in the ad revenue from people going to the website to see the original story. Pretty much any level of research by either Edgemedia or you would have revealed the story is fake and pretty clearly fake... but in a world where people don't do that it's been highly effective for that site and its ilk.

[Cycle]

It's not a personal shot as in "haha, you're really stupid". It's a comment about the fact that you did get hoodwinked, I suspect because you didn't put any effort into double checking the story before sharing it.

Oh, it is.  Considering that I posted it was a hoax before you did.  But you went ahead and made that post anyway.  This isn't the first time you've attacked me personally in PROC.  And honestly, I'm tired of it.

[Blythe]

If tempers are feeling a bit high, best to step back for a bit or if there is a personal disagreement, take it to PMs, please.

[Jag]

I have personally verified that this billboard exists!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis_55f33486e4b042295e3653f0

Not sure how long it'll be up for, but it is there.

[Oniya]

The one about the goats?  It was put up by the same people that painted the rainbow house across from the WBC.

[Caehlim]

So, not a very serious addition to the discussion but I want to share a comedy skit someone did, telling the story of this to the song 'Cellblock Tango'.

Some NSFW language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14C3TZg6NQM

[Jazra]

Enjoyed the humor posted by Caehlim on an artistic level. I'm surprised that Ms. Davis gets  support from conservatives such as the Fox commentator and former governor, Huckleberry. One article I read articulated this position,

"Davis’ position as a government official has some of those same conservative leaders warning that she may not be the ideal figure to rally around. As Rod Dreher, a senior editor at The American Conservative, put it in a recent essay, Davis’ case is “not the hill to die on.” Rather, a line in the sand should be drawn “when they start trying to tell us how to run our own religious institutions — churches, schools, hospitals, and the like — and trying to close them or otherwise destroy them for refusing to accept LGBT ideology.” http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/kim-davis-case-divides-religious-freedom-advocates/

When religious rights interfere with the secular rights of citizens, I don't see that as religious freedom, but rather religious tyranny. And if one needs support  Biblical support for why Kim Davis should follow the clear and unequivocal law of the land, there is always Romans 13:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Kurzyk]

So in a statement, I believe either today or yesterday, Davis said that she will not have her name on any licences issued, but will allow her deputies to issue them.

What does this mean legally? Without Davis's name on the license are they still valid? Her attorneys at one point argued that they weren't, but some are seeing this as a compromise.

[Oniya]

She's saying that any licenses for gay marriage will state that they were issued 'pursuant to a federal court order'.

Yeah, so basically, a federal judge has ordered that the license be issued.  I think that authorization trumps her signature in every legal sense.

[consortium11]

What does this mean legally? Without Davis's name on the license are they still valid? Her attorneys at one point argued that they weren't, but some are seeing this as a compromise.

Technically there may be legal issues; the Kentucky state law which governs marriage liscences allows for deputy clerks to sign forms in general but also has some possibly awkward provisions, notably:

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

(3) A certificate to be delivered by the person performing the marriage ceremony or the clerk  of  the  religious  society  performing  the  marriage ceremony  to  the  parties married. This certificate shall provide for the entering of:

(a)A  statement  by  the  person  performing  the  marriage  ceremony  or  the  clerk  of the religious society performing the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed.  The  statement  shall  include  the  name  and  title  of  the  person performing the ceremony, or the name of the religious society performing the ceremony,  the  names  of  persons  married,  the  date  and  place  of  the  marriage, the names of two (2) witnesses, and the following information as recorded on the license authorizing the marriage: the date the license was issued, the name of  the  county  clerk  under  whose  authority  the license  was  issued,  and  the county in which the license was issued;

So if Mrs Davis is saying that she's not going to let her name or authorization be on any of the licensees then technically they don't fulfill the above requirements and so are technically invalid.

In reality I can't see it being an issue; someone would have to pick that fight to begin with and even if they did I can't see a judge upholding it, even if they had to use "creative" legal reasoning to do so. I believe there have been previous cases where a clerk wasn't able to give authority and deputies could do so in their stead so the same may well happen here. In the longer term the least controversial solution would be to rewrite the statute to allow some form of "conscience clause" where if a clerk objects a deputy can give authority instead of them.

[Oniya]

The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid. Only Davis and her attorneys claim otherwise.
(source)

[Cassandra LeMay]

Technically there may be legal issues; the Kentucky state law which governs marriage liscences allows for deputy clerks to sign forms in general but also has some possibly awkward provisions, notably: ...

Is that really a (potential) problem? If I read the source you quoted correctly, doesn't this just deal with the fields that are required to be included in the forms used? Do these sections - in themselves - actually create a requirement for all the fields to be filled in for the documents in question to be valid?

[eBadger]

Technically there may be legal issues; the Kentucky state law which governs marriage liscences allows for deputy clerks to sign forms in general but also has some possibly awkward provisions, notably:

Neither of those involve a signature. 

In the longer term the least controversial solution would be to rewrite the statute to allow some form of "conscience clause" where if a clerk objects a deputy can give authority instead of them. they should do their job or quit.

Not to be a jerk here, but it's a pretty simple solution - if you work for the government and you can't morally abide by the legal requirements, you quit or you deal with the repercussions.  You don't get a special law that allows you to not do your job and still get paid. 

[consortium11]

Is that really a (potential) problem? If I read the source you quoted correctly, doesn't this just deal with the fields that are required to be included in the forms used? Do these sections - in themselves - actually create a requirement for all the fields to be filled in for the documents in question to be valid?

Yep: as a general rule marriage licenses need to be completely filled out to be valid. Moreover digging more into the technical legal side of things, a marriage license needs to be issued by the country clerk (previously of the county where the female resides although I'm not sure what the situation will be in same-sex marriages) and if the county clerk hasn't given their authority then it can't be said to have been issued by them.

Even with that said though I can't see this as even being a potential problem in the real world. As above someone would first have to the pick the fight (which I see as unlikely) and I likewise struggle to see a judge declaring marriages void once it reached court; what's known as the "mischief" method of judicial interpretation (or more accurately the US equivalent) means a judge has the ability to look beyond the strict, technical legal requirements. Moreover it only takes a relatively simple change to the existing law (likely to the current provisions setting out how liscences can be issued while a country clerk it absent) to resolve the issue entirely.

Neither of those involve a signature.

No, but they require her authority which she has expressly said she is not giving.

Not to be a jerk here, but it's a pretty simple solution - if you work for the government and you can't morally abide by the legal requirements, you quit or you deal with the repercussions.  You don't get a special law that allows you to not do your job and still get paid.

There's a reason I said "least controversial" rather than necessarily "best" or "simplest". A solution that makes no practical difference but allows those who do feel that their religious beliefs or morals are being compromised to take a measure of comfort should avoid issues from both sides. It's not as if religious exemptions are a new or particularly radical development; Sikh's working for the government/military have a long history of them due to their religious dress and appearance requirements and in Minnesota a law which would have required all driver's license photos to show the full head and face was amended to allow exemptions for religious headcoverings (and thus not putting someone in a position where they had to choose between driving and following their religion).

[LisztesFerenc]

It's not as if religious exemptions are a new or particularly radical development; Sikh's working for the government/military have a long history of them due to their religious dress and appearance requirements and in Minnesota a law which would have required all driver's license photos to show the full head and face was amended to allow exemptions for religious headcoverings (and thus not putting someone in a position where they had to choose between driving and following their religion).

  That's not quite the same though, those exceptions effect only the individual. The only way to compromise with Kim Davis though would still result in a gay couple and straight couple being treated differently when they applied for a marriage t her office, even if it is just what name is on the certificate.

[Mithlomwen]

I heard on the news this morning that she's planning on filing a lawsuit over all of this, stating that her first amendment rights have been violated.

[Jag]

I heard on the news this morning that she's planning on filing a lawsuit over all of this, stating that her first amendment rights have been violated.

Which they haven't been. Though she seems to be enjoying the spotlight and her salary and whatever she thinks she'll get from this frivolous lawsuit.

[kylie]

     Well as long as the current state attorney general is behind them, I don't think there is anyone higher to go to in asking about the definitions under state law. But I worry about the 'as long as' part.     

     More broadly,  it's just discomfitting having a class of licenses marked differently. Unless they were to do it on all certificates regardless of sex maybe... I can imagine someone later rifling through to say "See these were written differently; they get more scrutiny now.   

         The ACLU has expressed concern about the new licenses. I haven't seen anywhere saying they'd decided what steps might be needed, though.