Posted on 09/08/2015 10:39:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the release of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed for contempt last week after she repeatedly defied his order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, “shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith,” U.S. District Judge David Bunning of the Eastern District of Kentucky stated in an order.
Judge Bunning warned Ms. Davis not to “interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
The deputies issued the licenses using her name as a stamp, as the actual Clerk of the County Court. If she withdraws that permission to use her name, as a point of law (not religious belief)— that is, since there is NO law that orders this licensing to occur, only judiciary fiat of a court case.
That would open the state’s rights issue that so importantly needs to be slapped in SCOTUS’s face. The do NOT make laws— the people of Kentucky in their legislature makes laws. And, since the Constitution of the US or Kentucky or any state for that matter says NOTHING about marriage— there is NO law governing this, on the federal level. A very important point of law.
When a sitting senator/presidential candidate and an evangelical pastor/presidential candidate show up the pressure does tend to build on a judge. LOL!
technically, under the law as written, the deputies can sign. However, the law also contains a requirement that the license contain a place where the clerk (not deputy) issue a statement authorizing the marriage.
The lack of any signature invalidates the license, as does the fraudulent issuance of any such statement under Davis’ authority. Bunning doesn’t have the authority to approve the license, so this will likely become some huge set of lawsuits someday not too far in the future.
He was trying to make this go away before the 3pm protest.
Ted and Kim are meeting? Good, but I hope this doesn’t ‘interfere with the duties of her deputy clerks’ to perform their assigned jobs for the county. Almost any public statement of appearance by Kim can be construed as interfering with the functions of her office. Maybe they’ll lay off trying to ruin her life.
If Davis has to go to jail for not upholding a law, than by all rights there are others in our country that need to go to jail!
The deputy clerks can make the judgment calls and do as they see fit without her ok? Are they bonded?
What does Kentucky law say about an elected official being bypassed, as is the case here?
Kentucky law says the County Clerk’s office will issue marriage licenses. I seen any statute that requires the County Clerk’s signature be on it for it to be legal. I think she has signed them in the past, as did her predcessor, but is it required for the license to be legal? I don’t know the answer to that.
The “Clerk of the County Court” is an elected position. She is the Clerk, not anyone else in her office. This turns on distinct points of law.
The deputy clerks, who work for her, working as the elected Clerk- elected by the people of the County— must follow her direction.
She withdraws her signature(a rubber stamp, or electronic) as the Clerk— then the deputies are NOT the Clerk, nor are acting in her name and approval.
I hate to tell Bunning this but she will run her office like SHE wants to until she is impeached or her term ends and she is not elected for any reason.She is an elected sovereign clerk in a sovereign state. Federal authority is non nonexistent there. ITS CALLED THE CONSTITUTION!! by the way , no one can sign a marriage license BUT THE COUNTY CLERK!!!! She will NEVER sign!! What a heroine!! She also has sovereign immunity from any civil suit what so ever!!l You go girl. Give them hell,NOW!!
Each county has its own clerk, but yeah, Davis told the plaintiffs to go to the next county.
The deputy clerks don't have the legal authority.
The "ado" is about forcing people with conscience out of the government. Only sociopaths need apply.
> Yet, a Federal judge throws the clerk in prison, for not issuing the license that the state doesn’t really care about to begin with.
I believe there is a personal reason Bunnung did it because he’s sided with the homofascists too many times for it to be a coincidence. I don’t think his wife is going to like the answer.
I would think some form of validation is required, otherwise forgery is too easy.
RE: If Davis has to go to jail for not upholding a law,
The only thing is this — Prohibiting same-sex marriage IS Kentucky Law.
SEE HERE:
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/kentucky/index.shtml
S”till does not answer the question — is this LEGAL under Kentucky Law ( I mean a license issued by Clerks without Kim Davis’ signature )?”
The answer is that only the clerk can sign under the marriage license statute in Kentucky. She must now repudiate the employees authority or she ratifies.
I agree with you as to the alteration of the marriage licence - by itself. It would seem that the KY legislature would have to approve that alteration. However, see below - the very definition of marriage has been changed, so the legislature may not have much control.
However, as to the definition of marriage under KY law, I disagree (at least short term). Allow me to explain: The USSC has judged that "marriage" for purposes of the 14th Amendment includes homosexual marriage. Insofar as the normal judicial processes go, KY marriage has been redefined because it violates the Constitution (just as it would be IF it said "Blacks may not marry Whites"). Now I, personally, disagree that the Court had any authority to rule on this issue - marriage is, IMHO, a purely state matter...and that will ultimately be decided in the Court of Public Opinion, through Congressional elections. Congress may remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over cases/controversies involving marriage, which would nullify the USSC decision that this ruling is based on - but that clearly hasn't happened yet, and won't during this term.
This whole thing has been one tragic circus from Day 1 - and it is only getting worse. This is how PC is destroying this country.
“Couldn’t stand the heat?”
They’ve won. Why grind the ax when it’ll only make them look bad.
So I have a dumb question: Yes, the recent SCOTUS ruling allows same-sex marriages, but does it require universal support for, or even celebration of, it?
I can’t think of a perfect analogy because most laws state the negative (you can’t do something), but one is in regard to having animals/pets in certain cities or parts thereof - you may be allowed to have animals, but are not required to have them, and your neighbors certainly aren’t required to help you pay for their food.
I think that she was issuing licenses to all eligible couples before.
That alteration will make ANY
—normal—
man-and-woman
marriage license void also!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.