Frazzled wrote:
So, any update? Are they issuing licenses now?

... sort of? Read that link D posted. Essentially, they're being issued, but have been altered to the point that they may no longer be lawful licenses. It's actually sort of a grey area I think - the state's AG said they were legal, but that was before she changed them.

If they no longer are legally binding when issued by the other clerks, that's pretty clear interference in violation of the federal order.

The article speculates that the licences have been altered to allow Davis to claim they are being issued under authority of the Federal Judge rather than her authority as legal issuer of licences.

This would be an interesting opinion for her to hold, since it would appear that she accepts Federal authority in an area that it does not have power (state law on marriage licences) but not in an area that it does have power (contempt of court.) In other words, weasel thinking.

The problem as stated by Ouze is that under state law licences are only valid if signed by the county clerk. The state's higher officials saying they will be accepted doesn't change this and cannot be relied on, as state officials do not have the ability to change state law by diktat.

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting twist?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b5527e5b41974f1dabb9bd638f36e695/attorney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order

I fully expected her to get up to some kind of shenanigans to try and wriggle out of doing her job. From that stand point, it's not all that "interesting", but IMO, it will be interesting how this thing does pan out.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The article speculates that the licences have been altered to allow Davis to claim they are being issued under authority of the Federal Judge rather than her authority as legal issuer of licences.

This would be an interesting opinion for her to hold, since it would appear that she accepts Federal authority in an area that it does not have power (state law on marriage licences) but not in an area that it does have power (contempt of court.) In other words, weasel thinking.

The problem as stated by Ouze is that under state law licences are only valid if signed by the county clerk. The state's higher officials saying they will be accepted doesn't change this and cannot be relied on, as state officials do not have the ability to change state law by diktat.

Sounds accurate actually., They are under the court's order.
This is just starting to get petty and vindictive. They want her to be forced to quit or condone tghe marriages. They just have to be signed off.

Again the Kentucky legislature should just change the form to charge a fee, and have the wedding notarized and recorded. Now that would result in her being wacked along with all the other state employees, so that probably won't happen.

 Frazzled wrote:
They want her to be forced to quit or condone tghe marriages.

First, who are "they"?

Second, this is not about condoning the practise of same-sex marriages.
This is about her doing her job - which is to, impartially and without favour, go through an issued check-list and certify that the couple in question meets the required legal standards for having a marriage license issued.
She is not asked to pass morale judgement. She is asked to do maths. "Does A equal A? Yes/No. Does B equal B? Yes/No".

 Frazzled wrote:
They just have to be signed off.

Yes, that's the whole point. She doesn't have to condone it, any more than someone in a bottle shop selling vodka cruisers has to condone teen pregnancy.

She just has to check that the couple meet a set of legal requirements. Her personal, moral approval is not required.

Which was done.

If it's her responsibility to do that check, and she hasn't signed the relevant document to show that she (or her chosen proxy) has done so, where is the proof that she actually did it?


You might see it as nit picking, but that's how this stuff works. The person who is responsible for signing off has to sign off on order for it to be signed off.

 insaniak wrote:
If it's her responsibility to do that check, and she hasn't signed the relevant document to show that she (or her chosen proxy) has done so, where is the proof that she actually did it?


You might see it as nit picking, but that's how this stuff works. The person who is responsible for signing off has to sign off on order for it to be signed off.

No. She can have an authorized signor do it. THE COURT mandated that authorized signors be put in her place to sign.
You can't have it both ways. You can't mandate action and then scream when someone fully complies with that action.

Again, at this point it would be great if Kentucky just abolished state recognized marriage. Stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it.

It was my understanding that she had not authorised a deputy to sign the certificates over her name, because she doesn't want her name on the certificates.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was my understanding that she had not authorised a deputy to sign the certificates over her name, because she doesn't want her name on the certificates.

Yep, nor does she have to. She's completely correct: the federal court ordered her aids to act and for her to not interfere. She's just recording that act.

Having said that she should still resign. The Kentucky legislature needs to deal with this.

This is what happens when you have judge made law.

The court ordered her not to interfere with the duty of the clerks office to issue them. She interfered by removing the clerks office from the process and unilaterally deciding that it is now a notary document and not a county document.

 d-usa wrote:
The court ordered her not to interfere with the duty of the clerks office to issue them. She interfered by removing the clerks office from the process and unilaterally deciding that it is now a notary document and not a county document.

That is your argument yes.

 Frazzled wrote:

Yep, nor does she have to. She's completely correct: the federal court ordered her aids to act and for her to not interfere. She's just recording that act.

And prior to that, the Kentucky court ordered her to do her job, and issue licences.

Two separate requirements, there. She's been ordered by one judge to issue licences, and by another judge to not interfere with her employees issuing licenses.

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Yep, nor does she have to. She's completely correct: the federal court ordered her aids to act and for her to not interfere. She's just recording that act.

And prior to that, the Kentucky court ordered her to do her job, and issue licences.

Two separate requirements, there. She's been ordered by one judge to issue licences, and by another judge to not interfere with her employees issuing licenses.

I do believe it was a federal court, although I could be wrong, and that court ordered that she not interfere with others doing the job. She has not interfered.

She should actually put them out under "signed under duress by the court of Blah" That would be funny and maybe worth some bank in a few years as a rare momento.

Again, the Kentucky legislature should revisit why they are employing dozens if not hundreds of people related to this capacity. Fire them all. Your form must be notarized and turned in at the local tax office, in person just to put you through a few hours of hell (it will get you used to marriage). Alternatively, just send in affirmation to office X and your fee in check form. Voila state keeps money and these losers aren't sucking off the government teet.

Not interfering with others was the condition of her being let out of jail. It doesn't change the fact that before she was sent to jail, she was ordered to resume issuing licences.

If she's not issuing licences, then she's still ignoring the court's order.

If her changing the licences renders the licences being issued by her minions invalid (as has been mentioned is possible) then she's also ignoring the condition for being let out of jail.

I tried to find pictures of Kentucky Marriage licences on Google, but I was not able to find a clear picture of a modern licence.

What I want to know is the format of the signature on the licence.

Does it have to be signed by the county clerk, or can it be signed on behalf of the county clerk by a deputy, in which case does it still need to bear the name of the county clerk?

Rather like if you look at an English bank note, it is signed by the chief cashier "for the governor and company of the Bank of England".

Frankly if this woman is not required to sign the licences or deputize their signing in her name, I don't see why she and the courts would be making such a fuss about it all. Just let Joe Bloggs sign them, it it is legally valid.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Does it have to be signed by the county clerk, or can it be signed on behalf of the county clerk by a deputy, in which case does it still need to bear the name of the county clerk?

In the military we called that "by direction" authority. There are specific rules written out regarding the use and limits of such authority and a memorandum must be issued in order to grant it. I've no idea what the law in Kansas is regarding something similar at the Clerks' office.

 insaniak wrote:
Not interfering with others was the condition of her being let out of jail. It doesn't change the fact that before she was sent to jail, she was ordered to resume issuing licences.

If she's not issuing licences, then she's still ignoring the court's order.

If her changing the licences renders the licences being issued by her minions invalid (as has been mentioned is possible) then she's also ignoring the condition for being let out of jail.

Licenses are being issued. Suck it ACLU.

That will merely complicate the problem if they turn out not to be legal.

Frankly if I was a resident of Bum feth County, Kentucky, I would move somewhere else before getting married.

Then stand for election as the county clerk. $80,000 is good wedge.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That will merely complicate the problem if they turn out not to be legal.

Frankly if I was a resident of Bum feth County, Kentucky, I would move somewhere else before getting married.

Then stand for election as the county clerk. $80,000 is good wedge.

$80k/ year to be a glorified file clerk is good money; I didn't make that when I worked for my state's Department of Education and I managed about $200 million in grants and provided technical assistance and oversight to over 60 school districts.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That will merely complicate the problem if they turn out not to be legal.

Frankly if I was a resident of Bum feth County, Kentucky, I would move somewhere else before getting married.

Then stand for election as the county clerk. $80,000 is good wedge.

$80k/ year to be a glorified file clerk is good money; I didn't make that when I worked for my state's Department of Education and I managed about $200 million in grants and provided technical assistance and oversight to over 60 school districts.

not to mention it's kentucky...$80K is a lot of money there.
GG

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That will merely complicate the problem if they turn out not to be legal.

Frankly if I was a resident of Bum feth County, Kentucky, I would move somewhere else before getting married.

Then stand for election as the county clerk. $80,000 is good wedge.

$80k/ year to be a glorified file clerk is good money; I didn't make that when I worked for my state's Department of Education and I managed about $200 million in grants and provided technical assistance and oversight to over 60 school districts.

Exactly and we have an oporutnity here to reduce a lot of waste. BUT i doubt Kentucky will take that opportunity. Government never actually gets smaller.

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That will merely complicate the problem if they turn out not to be legal.

Frankly if I was a resident of Bum feth County, Kentucky, I would move somewhere else before getting married.

Then stand for election as the county clerk. $80,000 is good wedge.

$80k/ year to be a glorified file clerk is good money; I didn't make that when I worked for my state's Department of Education and I managed about $200 million in grants and provided technical assistance and oversight to over 60 school districts.

Exactly and we have an oporutnity here to reduce a lot of waste. BUT i doubt Kentucky will take that opportunity. Government never actually gets smaller.

Yep. Even the people in DC who scream the loudest about oversized government seem to put the breaks on when people mention their bloated office-staff.

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Not interfering with others was the condition of her being let out of jail. It doesn't change the fact that before she was sent to jail, she was ordered to resume issuing licences.

If she's not issuing licences, then she's still ignoring the court's order.

If her changing the licences renders the licences being issued by her minions invalid (as has been mentioned is possible) then she's also ignoring the condition for being let out of jail.

Licenses are being issued. Suck it ACLU.

Does it count if they're invalid?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Not interfering with others was the condition of her being let out of jail. It doesn't change the fact that before she was sent to jail, she was ordered to resume issuing licences.

If she's not issuing licences, then she's still ignoring the court's order.

If her changing the licences renders the licences being issued by her minions invalid (as has been mentioned is possible) then she's also ignoring the condition for being let out of jail.

Licenses are being issued. Suck it ACLU.

Does it count if they're invalid?

They're not invalid. Even if they were the judge could waive his magic federal faerie wand and say they aren't. Its the joy of judge made law...anything goes!

Do you know for a fact that they're not invalid? They've reportedly been altered, usually altering any sort of government form invalidates them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Do you know for a fact that they're not invalid? They've reportedly been altered, usually altering any sort of government form invalidates them.

She's the one issuing the form. I'm assuming she's not altering it after, like some weird Joker with red lipstick (now that would be cool).
However if she is altering after the doc was signed or something, yep thats tampering with a doc at that point I'd proffer. Even the then judge could say they are valid because...robe and gavel thing.

Again, for the Xth time, for full disclosure I think the only prudent thing for a person of conscience to do in this circumstance is resign, not play stupid reindeer games. It screams mumu wearing petty.

She won't perform her job description.

Sounds like grounds for being fired from ANY type of employment.

For good or ill, elected officials simply cannot be fired so easily.

Ship her to the gulag. Violation of Constitutional rights, etc.

If "god" is your number one priority (and I mean truly your priority, not just a political line), you don't belong in government. Period. If you can't deal with gay folks getting married, don't run for an office where you may have to issue them a license. This woman has already been given several chances to stop being such a lunatic, at this point she is guilty of engaging in sectarian behavior that is exacerbating division at a national level.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Ship her to the gulag. Violation of Constitutional rights, etc.

If "god" is your number one priority (and I mean truly your priority, not just a political line), you don't belong in government. Period. If you can't deal with gay folks getting married, don't run for an office where you may have to issue them a license.

To be fair, she didn't. She ran when the Kentucky Constitution made same sex marriage illegal, an amendment to their constitution passed with like a 75% 'for' vote. It isn't like she ran and then was elected with intent to disobey a Federal Judge who decided the people of Kentucky don't get to make those laws.

 CptJake wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Ship her to the gulag. Violation of Constitutional rights, etc.

If "god" is your number one priority (and I mean truly your priority, not just a political line), you don't belong in government. Period. If you can't deal with gay folks getting married, don't run for an office where you may have to issue them a license.

To be fair, she didn't. She ran when the Kentucky Constitution made same sex marriage illegal, an amendment to their constitution passed with like a 75% 'for' vote. It isn't like she ran and then was elected with intent to disobey a Federal Judge who decided the people of Kentucky don't get to make those laws.

Oh I know. I was just being...incendiary.

Pretty sure she absolutely was elected with intent to disobey a Federal Judge if gay marriage were deemed a federally protected right.....because thats what she did. Her convictions regarding "her faith" aren't anything new and were likely a part of her campaign platform.

Either way, she's insufferable.

Maybe, not too many Democrats run on that position though, and all indications are she ran on her past experience (having worked at the office as a deputy clerk since 1991. And again, I doubt she worked there for a couple of decades just waiting to tell some Federal Judge to feth off.

But attribute what you want to her if it makes you feel better.

We're looping, and there isn't any new news at the moment.