Rowan Clerk refuses Same Sex Marriage License

[the_std]

Turns out that she did actually meet with the Pope.

Please excuse the long link, I'm on mobile.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...h-pope-francis

[s_stabeler]

actually, that makes me wonder about their sanity ( both collectively, and individually)- that's a fairly impressive devel of delusion.

[Gravekeeper]

Her lawyer is now claiming that he and Davis secretly met with the Pope who is totally a big fan of theirs even though neither of them are Catholic and they're both terrible people.

Just in case there was any doubt remaining about where on the Attention Whore spectrum these two were.

[s_stabeler]

Then we need a ruling from a judge that either says "yes, these ARE legitimate marriage licenses" or she needs to go back to prison. Possibly face charges of criminal contempt, as well.

[Kheldarson]

And she's stated that she has no idea if they're valid, and doesn't think so personally.

[s_stabeler]

actually, confiscate IS the right term. Off the top of my head, there is no legal problem with rounding up the old copies of a form that is being redesigned- so, in other words, Kim Davis had the legal right to take the copies of the old form. What is (potentially) illegal is trying to compel the issuance of marriage licenses that you know are not valid. If the court rules that the new licenses are valid- or that Davis believed the new licenses were valid- then Davis was within her rights to do it. ( I say that Davis believing the new design was valid matters since it means that she wouldn't actually be in contempt provided she either uses the old forms, or changes the new ones to something that actually is valid)

[wolfie]

At any rate, it's a good idea to have it specifically stated in law if the licenses are valid or not, in case Davis later on tries to claim they aren't valid.)

Congratulations to the deputy clerk for wanting to get this cleared up now (and I hope they tell anyone getting a license that there's some question as to whether the altered ones are valid but that it's being looked into) rather than waiting (possibly years - with countless licenses being issued in the meantime) for it to be questioned after the fact (that would be a big can of worms). Can you imagine what would happen if someone became incapacitated, and there was a dispute between their spouse and their sibling(s) over their care, with the blood family alleging that the spouse had no legal standing due to the marriage license not being valid?

I do take exception to something in one of the news articles about this - it says that Davis confiscated the old forms. No, she didn't - she seized them. "Confiscated" implies that the person/agency involved had a legal right to seize the item(s) in question.

[s_stabeler]

yes and no. Basically, what this latest bit is about is if the altered forms- without Davis's name on- are valid marriage licenses- and if Davis requiring the new forms counts as attempted interference, which would violate the previous court order. ( To be honest, I don't think the forms are invalid- but they really should have space for the deputy clerk to sign them. At any rate, it's a good idea to have it specifically stated in law if the licenses are valid or not, in case Davis later on tries to claim they aren't valid.)

[Kheldarson]

And she's probably going back to court now:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...uty_s_attorney

[jedimaster91]

If you really look, most religions have something to say against divorce. They also usually have something to say against abusing ones spouse or offspring and those are the ones who really need a way out.

[Rapscallion]

Update. I said above that she divorced before she found her born again (or whatever) current christian creed. Turns out that she converted to her current christianity from ... being a baptist. They're pretty dead set against divorce as well.

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slo...bout-kim-davis

Hands are raised - I admit I was wrong or misinformed. She was a hypocrite for her own divorces that went against her religion and then using the same religion to deny others their rights.

Rapscallion

[Jetfire]

From what I'm hearing from another board; while she may not be directly getting money from the martyr status; her "lawyers" are raking it in. Many are saying that's why they are doing this (and encouraging her to stay in contempt); so they can keep making dough. They are using her profile case to raise their profile, and encouraging her to do things to keep her in the news.

Watch them wiggle when asked about fundraising.

[Shangri-laschild]

Emancipation was not taking away any rights the slave owners had

Sadly, people like her don't see it this way. They see it not as them taking away someone else's rights so much as their religious rights trumping or being more important. Nevermind the fact that this doesn't go against her religious rights and all the other reasons that the viewpoint is wrong. I'm sure there probably were slave owners who saw it as their rights to hold slaves being taken away.

how long would it take for someone to create a church that believes black people shouldn't be able to marry?)

Parts of Christianity have already had an argument against interracial marriage in the past so sadly I don't know that it would be too hard for them to do. Hopefully it helps that there is already precedent that people can't refuse to give out interracial marriage licenses due to religious reasons.

[s_stabeler]

it's especially ridiculous when you realize that even IF there was a religious freedom argument, the two situations aren't actually comparable. ( Emancipation was not taking away any rights the slave owners had- it corrected an abuse of people's rights that had been ongoing for decades. The various civil rights campaigners didn't want LESS rights for white people- just that black people enjoyed the same rights as white people. Davis wants to be able to deny a right that gay people would otherwise be able to enjoy (marriage)

Not to mention that denying gay people the right to marry could also create a rather dangerous precedent- specifically, that it is possible to deny a human being equal protection under the law for a reason outside their control. ( or, to put at another way: how long would it take for someone to create a church that believes black people shouldn't be able to marry?)

[Kara_CS]

So now she's Abraham Lincoln.

I love how Huckabee destroys his own argument that Lincoln ignored a court decision and freed the slaves, and then how one branch of government shouldn't have authority over the other two. Because Lincoln freed the slaves with a proclamation issued under the wartime powers of the Executive Branch. And last time I checked, Christians weren't second-class citizens in the US (unless we're not straight and/or cisgender, but denying us rights has nothing to do with our religious beliefs).

Last week, she was Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks. Now she's Lincoln. Within the next week, someone will compare her to Jesus.