homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my experience God has this way of gently - and then not so gently - telling us when we are acting in a way to harm ourselves or others. Some people call this consequences.

My experience is also that unless someone moves from seeing "consequences" to seeing their central role in creating those consequences, the consequences do not have the power to create change.

With the grace of God she might decide that her unhappy consequences are a signal to think things through, figure out it is not "Them", it is herself, and abandon dualistic judgmental thinking in favor of a surrendering to God's love and God's guidance.

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
She will return to work on Friday or Monday--apparently her ordeal has left her a bit ragged, poor dear--and is refusing to say whether she'll abide by the terms of her release (not to interfere in the issuance of licenses) or again block licenses.

Her attorneys, at least, are insisting Ms. Davis will violate the terms of her release and do whatever she can to block the issuing of marriage licenses.

From the release order:

quote:
Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.


--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The context of Davis is that she's the head of her office and has not just been not processing the marriage paperwork, she has been preventing anyone in the office from processing the paperwork (in part presumably because it would have her name on it as the office-holder).

As I see it, Davis has no legs to stand on. The law of the land is that same-sex couples are allowed to register marriages. Registering marriages is a central function of Kim Davis's office. Her choices are either to register the marriages or to resign. The same would go for local administrators who had principled objections against issuing licenses for hunting, concealed carry of handguns, and so on.


quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
However, if no one else were available to do the search, then the prisoner's rights trump the prison officer's. This is because the prisoner is the more vulnerable in this situation, and because it is the prison officer's job to take care of the prisoner.

Yes, I think this is a sensible approach. I don't think the question of who is the most vulnerable is especially relevant (if nothing else, it can be hard to identify sometimes), but the job function thing is.

And this has to be made clear to all potential employees - you can tell us your preferences and we will try to accommodate them, but if there are, for example, only Muslim cabin crew on duty, someone has to sell the alcohol or they all get fired.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Except people. People are not reasonable, people are rational.
Your perfectly reasonable POV will still result in problems.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except people. People are not reasonable, people are rational.

Well, IME, people are neither reasonable nor rational, but YMMV. [Big Grin]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What a performance she (and the politicians, and the jail, which shouldn't have enabled it) put on on release. I heard her this morning, and felt she had certainly imbibed the speech patterns of her community. And probably spent so much time shouting at her living god that she can't hear Him. I've just seen it on that link about her determination to carry on tainting people's weddings. (As in the link below the story.)

And it seems a bit odd that the first ad at the bottom is for cute plus size clothing.

[ 09. September 2015, 20:14: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except people. People are not reasonable, people are rational.

Well, IME, people are neither reasonable nor rational, but YMMV. [Big Grin]
Oh, damn. Stupid me not paying attention and forgetting an important not.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
lilBuddha: Oh, damn. Stupid me not paying attention and forgetting an important not.
How irrational [Smile]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The context of Davis is that she's the head of her office and has not just been not processing the marriage paperwork, she has been preventing anyone in the office from processing the paperwork (in part presumably because it would have her name on it as the office-holder).

As I see it, Davis has no legs to stand on. The law of the land is that same-sex couples are allowed to register marriages. Registering marriages is a central function of Kim Davis's office. Her choices are either to register the marriages or to resign. The same would go for local administrators who had principled objections against issuing licenses for hunting, concealed carry of handguns, and so on.
No no no. She's taking the option of enforcing the law of God. Which trumps those silly Supreme Court justices, as explained by the US Constitution and motto and pledge of allegiance (as modified to fight the godless Commies).

That is in fact the fundamental problem here. To naive observers viewing this through secular eyes, there is a pyramid of legal authority and the top layer is the Constitution and the Supreme Court as the authoritative interpreters of the Constitution.

Whereas to Davis and her ilk, there is an extra layer at the top of the pyramid, called God's Law, and handily enough they are the authoritative interpreters as well.

You see such notions peppered through the comments of her supporters everywhere. There are constant references to the limits on the scope of any court or legislature to interfere with "God's law" as if it were a constitution.

This is in stark contrast to a
conservative author with a secular approach, who can clearly articulate that he considers the Supreme Court's ruling to be wrong but authoritative.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you for that link Orfeo. I have only quickly skimmed it, but one of his arguments (with which I agree) is just how thin the majority judgement in the US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell is. The judgements in the Saskatchewan case to which No Prophet referred are much sounder. The answer the US Supreme Court gave is what we would want, but it is not supported at all by the judgement.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you for that link Orfeo. I have only quickly skimmed it, but one of his arguments (with which I agree) is just how thin the majority judgement in the US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell is. The judgements in the Saskatchewan case to which No Prophet referred are much sounder. The answer the US Supreme Court gave is what we would want, but it is not supported at all by the judgement.

I think many of us feel that. I defused one line of argument yesterday by a conservative Christian friend by declaring I thought the Supreme Court decision was pretty crappy before he attempted to prove it to me.

The oddest thing about it is that they had plenty of well-reasoned judgements from lower American courts that they could have used.

But, even so, no matter how crappy a judgement of a country's highest court is, it's still the law of the land. Heck, I think I argued in one of my law school essays that the High Court had got it wrong on some constitutional issue, but I would never for a second think that that anyone, including myself, could treat what I thought the law should be as if it was the actual law.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, this is too good!!

Fox News panel concludes that Kim Davis’ lawyer is ‘ridiculously stupid’

The panel of lawyers basically concludes that Davis' lawyer doesn't know the Constitution, and Davis can practice her faith by not being in that job!

[Killing me]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A friend on Facebook shared that the other day, and concluded that when Ms Davies can't even get the support of Fox then she really has lost all credibility.

I'm also amused by how all her supporters, many of whom I presume would be Republican, conveniently forget she's a Democrat.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Being cynical, I'm wondering whether Kim Davis needs the time off to catch up with the housework/laundry etc. that her denomination might consider beneath the male dignity of her husband or sons to do.

The deputies are at least in a better position to protest if she tries to impede marriage paperwork in the office since they themselves are now under a court order to issue licenses. Apparently 10 or 11 couples have gotten licenses (3 or 4 apparently opposite sex couples and 7 apparently same sex couples) though I'm not sure how many have had the ceremony performed and had the officiant return the marriage certificate (at least one couple has). One couple who are known to have wanted a license have not yet got it.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

But, even so, no matter how crappy a judgement of a country's highest court is, it's still the law of the land. Heck, I think I argued in one of my law school essays that the High Court had got it wrong on some constitutional issue, but I would never for a second think that that anyone, including myself, could treat what I thought the law should be as if it was the actual law.

The majority of the High Court here got itself into a horrible mess in Weissensteiner with the only decent set of reasons being the joint dissent of Mary Gaudron and Michael McHugh. It does not bother me in my practice, but those I know who practice in crime still comment on the problems it has created. The reasons of the majority are tolerably clear, although muddled a bit by having 2 slightly different arguments. It's the application on a daily basis that causes the problems.

On a couple of occasions, I have submitted to a first instance judge and then the Court of Appeal that a decision of the Court of Appeal was wrong - lost and then won in the High Court. I still had to make the submission, knowing I'd lose. I'd never take that course unless I had instructions to do so, the client knowing that a trip to Canberra with the expense of a leader was necessary.

[ 10. September 2015, 03:30: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At a lawyers interfaith discussion group yesterday we all agreed that the trial court did the best work on the issue. It was at least better grounded than what the Supremes did. We also agreed that rational basis could have been a viable ground for the decision.

To explain, rational basis is one standard for judging constitutionality of a law. In this case, there was no rational basis for a law that said couples, other than heterosexual couples, cannot marry.

Be that as it may, a decision by 5 to 4 is still a decision and is the final legal word on the issue. And no, in this case it cannot be undone by legislation.

As to Madam Martyr, I heard an astute observation: She has an extremely well paying job in a poor county. That may have more to do with her unwillingness to resign than a principled stand for prejudice.

Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does anyone understand why the Supremes didn't follow the path that had been so well laid out for them by lower courts?

Is it just Kennedy's(?) style to go for the grand gesture rather than the meticulous argument?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Does anyone understand why the Supremes didn't follow the path that had been so well laid out for them by lower courts?

Is it just Kennedy's(?) style to go for the grand gesture rather than the meticulous argument?

Hard to say, but most likely. I posted something about two months back on this subject, with a link to a fairly strong criticism of Kennedy's opinion.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
<tangent> Every time someone says 'the Supremes', I think of these people... <\tangent>

[ 10. September 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jane--

That's why it's such a great nickname! [Smile]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And that's why the Notorious RBG is so fun.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Brenda--

Thank you for that!! I don't think I'd heard about that nickname for Justice Ginsberg. I looked it up. Related products are going on my gift list!
[Smile]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What is especially delightful is that she is totally cool with the nickname. She even occasionally gives away Notorious RBG tee shirts.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An interesting twist from Kim Davis:

quote:
Speaking to reporters, Davis said she won't interfere as her deputy clerks continue to issue marriage licenses, in compliance with the order of U.S. District Judge David Bunning. But she has further altered the wording of the licenses so they no longer bear her name or the title of "Rowan County Clerk," which she says wrongly suggests her approval. The deputies sign off as notaries public, not as Rowan County officials.

"Any unauthorized licenses they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the licenses will say that they were issued pursuant to a federal court order," Davis said.

This is essentially the accommodation she has asked the court to allow, but as far as I know no court has actually ruled to allow it. So, will the courts applaud her "initiative", or will she be in trouble again for altering her official duties without authorization?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know what is legally required, but my thought is that she go right back to jail or be forced to resign.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems she's found a way for her deputies to do her job while letting her off the hook (or, so she thinks). At the very least that means she needs to take a pay cut commensurate with the work she is not doing, and for her deputies to get a pay rise commensurate with them doing extra duties beyond their job description.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't know what is legally required, . . .

The commonwealth of Kentucky dictates by statute what information must appear on marriage licenses and does not permit individual county clerks to "customize" such documents. That was more or less the whole point of Ms. Davis' grievance. I'm guessing she's hoping that everyone else is so sick of this situation they'll just let this slide in order to be done with it.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think this throws the issue back to the state since it is the state not the federal government that decides whether the marriage license is valid. She is definitely pushing when she says the 'office' is not authorizing and not just herself. Note the clerks last week just put the office name down. If she is not allowing her deputies to sign as deputies then these are very likely invalid licenses (only County Clerks, their deputies, or in the absence of the County Clerk the County Judge/Executive can issue licenses) but that is up to the state to decide. However this may not nullify any resulting marriages.

I'll note btw that marriage licenses are a very small part of the office's job. Rowan County only issues about 200 or so a year. Most of the work is other types of paperwork such as overseeing elections, handling real estate transfers, etc..

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, how does Ms Davis handle the sale of a house to a couple who are not married? I would expect that to come up fairly often.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, how does Ms Davis handle the sale of a house to a couple who are not married? I would expect that to come up fairly often.

Unless it is quite different in Kentucky than it is here in North Carolina, all she does is record real property transfers and collect appropriate taxes. It's pure record keeping, not licensing.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Has anybody anywhere considered that a county clerk's name on a marriage license means "I approve of this marriage"? It's inane. It means "These people have satisfied the legal requirements." That's all.

Kim Davis is a fucking moron.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, how does Ms Davis handle the sale of a house to a couple who are not married? I would expect that to come up fairly often.

Unless it is quite different in Kentucky than it is here in North Carolina, all she does is record real property transfers and collect appropriate taxes. It's pure record keeping, not licensing.
But, that record keeping (and tax collection) would be an essential part of the process of purchasing a property? If a clerk refused to do it, would it prevent a sale or at least create considerable difficulties in the sale? If that is so then by doing the filing & tax collection for a couple who are not married to each other she is facilitating their "living in sin", even though she is not directly involved in the sale.

Which, doesn't seem that different from facilitating a marriage by issuing a license that confirms the proposed marriage would be legal, even though she isn't directly involved in the marriage ceremony.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has anybody anywhere considered that a county clerk's name on a marriage license means "I approve of this marriage"? It's inane. It means "These people have satisfied the legal requirements." That's all.

Kim Davis is a fucking moron.

Rule of law. It's a thing I've heard about.

EDIT: By the way, it took all of 30 seconds of Googling to find Kentucky's marriage laws. After skipping past the amusing bit about not recognising same-sex marriages (constitutionally invalid now, folks), it's pretty clear that the licence is issued by the country clerk. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475

[ 15. September 2015, 02:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Issued by the County Clerk or one of her deputies. I suspect most of the marriage licenses in Kentucky are done by the deputies. To quote the page pointed to

"The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's pure record keeping, not licensing.

That's all a marriage license is. It says that the two people listed are legally permitted to marry. It's bookkeeping. It's no different from verifying the owner of a particular plot of land.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Issued by the County Clerk or one of her deputies. I suspect most of the marriage licenses in Kentucky are done by the deputies. To quote the page pointed to

"The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush. What I was trying to point out was that it's not issued by an "office" in the sense of an organisation, but by an individual person.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually the marriage license says "issued this date actual_date in the office of County_clerk_name, County_name County Clerk, City_name, Kentucky by issuer_name, issuer_signature, issuer_title"

So normally is should be

"issued this date 9/4/2015 in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County Clerk, Morehead, Kentucky by Brian Mason, Deputy Clerk"

Last week's form had

"issued this date 9/4/2015 in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk, Morehead, Kentucky by Brian Mason, Deputy Clerk"

This week's form has

"issued this date 9/4/2015 in the office of Pursuant to Federal Court Order #15-CV-44 DLB, Morehead, Kentucky by Brian Mason, Notary Public, my comm exp"

The last bit is short for "my commission expires" which is used by Notary Publics though oddly enough no date is given on the form I'm looking at. Also Brian Mason is listed as the "Recorder"

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, and you can't go making those kind of substitutions. It's what we call a "category error". Nothing in any of these court cases has changed the rules in Kentucky about how marriage licences are to be issued, and by whom, and Kim Davis is yet again failing to follow the rules.

She's now doing it in a way that people are less likely to complain about, but if someone somewhere gets it in their head to attack a marriage on the basis that it was not validly entered into, there could well be trouble.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ms Davis seems to have no understanding how the doctrine of separation of church and state has developed in the US.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She appears to consider separation of church and state to have been the gravest error of American history. The founding fathers should have asked her for Gods Law, and then never had it changed.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's pure record keeping, not licensing.

That's all a marriage license is. It says that the two people listed are legally permitted to marry. It's bookkeeping. It's no different from verifying the owner of a particular plot of land.
Close, I'd say, but not exactly. Without the marriage license, the marriage will not be valid. And, as has been said, the license means that legal requirements have been met. It's before-the-fact authorization.

If a sale of property is not recorded, it will create some problems down the road, but it will not invalidate the sale, nor does recording the transfer of the property indicate any assessment of the propriety of the sale. It's an after-the-fact record.

What boggles my mind is that Davis and her supporters don't understand the simple fact that when she signs a marriage license, she is not saying she approves of the marriage; she is saying the Commonwealth of Kentucky will allow the marriage. She is not signing as Kim Davis. She is signing as county clerk.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has anybody anywhere considered that a county clerk's name on a marriage license means "I approve of this marriage"? It's inane. It means "These people have satisfied the legal requirements." That's all. ...

Exactly. If it wasn't a grotesque invasion of privacy, it would be fun to make her examine some of the heterosexual marriages she has "approved" of, given that her standard is serial adultery.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She's not even signing unless she chooses to do so for a particular license. The license simply has her name on it to identify that she is the current county clerk of Rowan County. It is her deputies who are signing. But even her deputies' solution of just identifying the office as the Rowan County office twice over and omitting her name wasn't sufficient for her. What I wonder is she going to do when the license and certificate of marriage are returned to her office for recording. Once recorded the state will consider the marriage legal. Fortunately the County Clerks are no longer the ones who issue certificates of proof of marriage, but, they are the ones responsible for recording them. Will Kim Davis allow her deputies to record these marriages?

Kentucky law
"The certificate shall be filed in the county clerk's office. The county clerk shall keep in a
record book a fair register of the parties' names, the person by whom, or the religious society by which, the marriage was solemnized, the date when the marriage was solemnized, and shall keep an index to the book in which the register is made"

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I doubt the woman can even grasp these nuances. She is now a sock puppet, handled by lawyers in the pay of out-of-state nutbars grinding around their agenda.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074

 - Posted      Profile for GCabot   Email GCabot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not a fan of the Obergefell decision, but this entire saga has been beyond absurd. One could possibly argue over freedom of conscience versus public accommodations in regards to private actors, but Kim Davis is a public official, and is just being an attention-seeking simpleton.

First, if a business owner decides not to do something, that is his prerogative as the owner, but Kim Davis works for the State of Kentucky. It is her job to issue marriage licenses. She refuses to do her job. I do not know why she has not been fired yet, frankly.

Second, I concur with other posters that her issuance of marriage licenses has no implication upon her personal beliefs. Again, that is her job. Like it or not, the Supreme Court remains the law of the land, and there is zero legal question that Kentucky must comply with Obergefell. She is acting as a state official, not as a private citizen; it is her duty to uphold the law as it currently exists, not how she wishes it to be.

If she really feels this tangential act is so incredibly burdensome to her soul, perhaps she should just follow her conscience and quit her job. Why would she want to represent a state that issues same-sex marriage licenses in the first place? Is not her mere willingness to represent the government in any official capacity a stain upon her moral fabric? By her logic, any act that recognizes the legitimacy of the government in the U.S. is theoretically a tacit endorsement of same-sex marriage. Perhaps she should just leave the country for good.

The Fox panel is absolutely correct—Davis’s legal counsel are either willfully ignorant, or so mentally incompetent they should be disbarred. If they wanted, there are plenty of avenues they could use to try and challenge Obergefell in court, but what Davis and her legal team have done here is completely and utterly without legal merit. Davis appears to see her actions as akin to Martin Luther King, Jr.-style civil disobedience, but that is still violating the law by definition. She can argue that it is an unjust, immoral law, but she cannot argue that it is not the law of the United States. That is just anarchy.

--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."

Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
gcabot--

AIUI, she's an elected official, which means she can't simply be fired. There might have to be a recall election/petition. Or maybe the governor (or the presiding person of her county, if that office exists) could do something.

Maybe one reason she hasn't quit is that her office was held by her mom and (IIRC) grandmother before her.

[ 15. September 2015, 22:23: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Maybe one reason she hasn't quit is that her office was held by her mom and (IIRC) grandmother before her.

Not to mention the $80,000 annual salary...

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074

 - Posted      Profile for GCabot   Email GCabot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
gcabot--

AIUI, she's an elected official, which means she can't simply be fired. There might have to be a recall election/petition. Or maybe the governor (or the presiding person of her county, if that office exists) could do something.

I did not realize she was an elected official. Apparently county officials have begun the process to try and have her removed by filing misconduct charges against her with the Kentucky A.G. There appear to be few avenues to remove such a willfully shirking elected official under Kentucky law, however, which appears laughably deficient as a basic governing instrument.

At least I also discovered she was elected as a democrat though. That makes me feel much better.

--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."

Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She can be convicted of misconduct but I don't think that removes her from office (it might throw her into prison or result in fines); only impeachment and conviction by the state legislature would remove her and (a) they won't meet again until January and (b) a fair number possibly agree with her stance (or at least for political reasons will say they do). BTW after working for 27 years in the office I suspect she knows the relevant procedures and people well though she isn't up on constitutional law.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There may also be a question of when the next election comes round anyway. If it's going to take a year or so to go through the legal process of forcing her out of office, but there'll be an election in November 2016 (assuming for the sake of argument that the election for county clerk is held, for convenience, at the same time as the Presidential election) it may not be seen to be worth it - although the act of impeachment will be symbolically important.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools