A Kentucky clerk who spent five days in jail for refusing to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples has asked a federal appeals court
to dismiss a lawsuit against her because of a new state law that will
take effect next month.
So, she wants a get virtual out of jail free cardâŚbecause a state law was passed to supersede a federal appeals court. Iâm no lawyer but I donât really think it works that way.
Anyone that wants to correct me, please do.
Donât worry
a better excuse is coming soonâŚ
âYour honor, itâs true I hit the defendantâs car, but thereâs a law coming next month making rear-view cameras mandatory, and since his car didnât have that camera, Iâm not guilty.â
a minor point, if youâve been paying attention, but the article fails to mention the specifics of the lawsuit brought against her ⌠details do matter sometimes.
Why isnât she pleading her case to Jesus to deliver her from these worldly proceedings?
A common problem with this site.
So whatâs the status of that law? I seem to recall there were some questions about its validity?
She should ask god and pray about it.
Kim will be glad to correct you.
I believe the federal claim was based on the US Supreme Court precedent which she refused to follow. She claimed that issuing the license would violate her 1st Amendment rights. So then the State passes a law that allows for licenses to be issued without the name of the clerk of court on them.
So the gay couples get their license, she gets to keep her (dubious) 1st amendment right.
I donât see why this shouldnât be dismissed. Even if the claim was still valid, in Kentucky it would be moot, because the remedy they seek has been granted already. Hereâs what I mean by the claim remaining valid:
This was in Kentucky. Letâs move our hypothetical to Mississippi. A MS clerk makes the same claim that Davis did in Kentucky. But in MS, they donât have a law that would allow licenses to issue absent the name of the clerk of district court. Now a couple files and says, âyou canât refuse to issue licenses on the basis of 1st Amendment as doing your job is not a violation of your Christian faith. We arenât forcing you to get married to another woman!â There, they have a claim under the federal constitution, and the clerk may have a 1st Amendment claim (probably not).
Finally, the claim may persist if the remedy they seek is additional to the issuance of a Kentucky marriage license. If they claim she caused them emotional distress (or something) it might still go.
SoâŚher office still has to issue licenses to same-sex couples, just as before. The only difference is, her name isnât on the license now?
And thatâs what completely exonerates her, in her eyes, from being accessory to what she thinks âviolates her beliefsâ?
Thatâs just stupid.
Yeah. So long as the Commonwealth (State) of Kentucky recognizes the license(s) as 100% valid (exactly the same as all other marriage licenses) with regard to ALL applicable laws, benefits, accommodations, tax laws, divorces and proceedings, state and local court jurisdiction, all applicable parental laws and benefits, AND all other states recognize them as they would any other stateâs â then Iâm fine with dismissing the case, so long as the case doesnât also have claims of emotional distress, etc., which needs to be addressed.
Also: The system (or my computer?) is posting my comments sometimes before Iâm finished. I donât believe Iâm hitting âenterâ or something else. ??
NO!!
Itâs beyond time to stop these by-bul bigots once and for all.
Yeah, I donât know enough about it to know if thatâs the case. But I imagine the licenses are effectively the same. Otherwise it would be like a civil union. One question might be symbolic. For example:
-
John and Jane come in and say they want a marriage license. Kim Davis whips out a license and signs it, and theyâre married.
-
Jane and Jenna come in and say they want a marriage license. Kim Davis whips out a license, doesnât sign it, and theyâre married.
In #1, should she be able to sign it? Does it mean anything? Is it (vaguely and weakly) like a separate but equal argument? I think this is different then saying âyou people get a marriage, you people get a civil unionâ even if they carry all the same legal benefits. The distinction matters because in that case it is like separate but equal because it gives the impression that gay relationships are somehow âless thanâ hetero relationships in the eyes of the government.
In my hypo above, the lack of signature isnât a signal from the State of Kentucky that they value one marriage above another. Kim Davisâs signature on one doesnât make them any more married. I could see how some might see this differently, but, letâs be honest, on the list of problems gay people face, this wouldnât even make the cut.
Frankly I wouldnât want her signature on it. But thatâs just me.
Yes - it makes no sense that she âwonâ her principles if her (misguided and illegal) principle was to prevent same sex marriage. Itâs that pretzel logic. Now I donât live there but I sure do wonder why she is the Countyâs highest paid employee when the law has been changed to reduce her role and eliminate her signature on licenses. Sure seems like a big waste of money. And thatâs not taking into consideration the cost and lost productivity last year when she basically quite work to fight the law.
Well, bless her heartâŚguess she doesnât have much faith in her Jesus. She needs to go into a closet and pray⌠Like it says in the Pre-rewritten Old New Testament
I thought about that scenario, as well. I personally believe she should be barred from signing ALL of them. Treat one like all. The Kentucky legislature did themselvesâand potentially the courts in future lawsuitsâby allowing this woman an out. Either ALL the licenses require a signature or ALL donâ â but they should be uniform across the board. That said, so long as all courts (fed, state, local) treat them all the same and all businesses do as well, then we gays did achieve our legal equality ⌠even if this witch can claim she doesnât have to sign off on them. Again, if her signature isnât on the gaysâ licenses, it should be required she not be allowed to sign off on ANY marriage license. Why? Well, even that symbolically says weâre unequal in the eyes of a government official/employee â which is against the law.
ETA: Oh, fuck, no â I wouldnât want that bitchâs signature on my marriage license either.
FOR THE LUVVA DOG!!!
⌠can we please just once punish these numbnutz for thinking theyâre above the law⌠even if itâs just low-hanging fruit like HolyRoller KimmieâŚ?..
Thatâs 'cause you have good senseâŚ