ADVERTISEMENT

Ky. clerk’s attorney: New marriage licenses ‘not worth the paper they’re written on’

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,710
61,036
113
An attorney for jailed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Friday that the marriage licenses issued by her deputies to several same-sex couples are invalid.

“They are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Mat Staver said outside the Carter County Detention Center, where Davis is being held on a contempt charge.

“Our position and the position of the clerk of Rowan County is that those licenses are void,” Staver said at an afternoon news conference in Grayson, about 35 miles from the Rowan County Courthouse.

Staver said the licenses issued Friday aren’t valid because they were issued under the county clerk’s authority — but Davis hasn’t granted that authority. Even though the marriage licenses no longer bear Davis’s name, Staver said they shouldn’t carry her title, either.

As the Lexington Herald-Leader noted Friday, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins has previously said deputy clerks can issue valid marriage licenses without the approval of their boss.

Watkins said Friday his office wouldn’t be issuing statements on the matter. Representatives for Bunning, Rowan County Judge Executive Walter “Doc” Blevins and the ACLU were unavailable for comment.

Staver’s remarks came more than seven hours after the opening of the courthouse, where Brian Mason was waiting behind a sign reading: “Marriage License Deputy.”

James Yates and William Smith Jr. entered the media-filled courthouse, hand-in-hand, and began the process of applying for a marriage license. Again.

They had been rejected five times previously, as Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to any couples since the Supreme Court declared in June that gay couples had a constitutional right to wed.

By 8:15 a.m., Yates and Smith had finally obtained the elusive $35 license.

Mason, the deputy clerk, congratulated the couple and shook their hands.

“They got it!” a man shouted.

As the couple exited the courthouse, same-sex marriage supporters erupted in cheers, chanting: “Love won! Love won!”

Yates and Smith said they now had to set a wedding date. Then, they walked hand-in-hand to their car, followed by cameras and boom mikes.

They were later followed by Tim and Mike Long, a couple who had obtained a name change years ago. There were cheers for the pair when they walked outside, and a woman they didn’t know, who had traveled from Louisville, gave them flowers.


April Miller and Karen Roberts weren’t at the courthouse when it opened Friday. Miller had a morning class to teach at Morehead State; Roberts had a migraine. But Miller and Roberts, who were among the couples who filed suit after Davis denied marriage licenses, arrived later in the day, picked up their license and told reporters about their ceremony plans.

“I don’t want to be a hero — just a woman who got her marriage license,” Roberts said.

One day earlier, Davis was sent to jail by U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning, who also ordered five of the six deputy clerks in the county to begin issuing marriage licenses to all couples. The deputies agreed, under oath. The exception was Kim Davis’s son, deputy clerk Nathan Davis.

Bunning ordered the 49-year-old clerk to be taken into custody for refusing in the face of multiple court orders to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Staver said she is expected to remain in the facility until at least Tuesday.

“I feel sorry that she’s there, but she done it to herself,” Tim Long said.

Davis’s attorneys plan to appeal a federal judge’s contempt order before the end the end of Friday, and pursue writ of habeas corpus to have her released from the jail. “We will not allow her to continually sit here and have her constitutional rights violated or trampled,” Staver said.

Davis, an Apostolic Christian, has said repeatedly that she could not issue such marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Pressure on Davis intensified after the Supreme Court on Monday decided not to grant her a reprieve.

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,” Davis said in a statement Tuesday. “It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision.”

She consigned herself to jail Thursday, sparking a fresh round of legal wrangling and political calculation in the face of the most audacious display of defiance on the issue of same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court declared in June that gay couples had a constitutional right to wed.

[‘He has guts': David Bunning, the same-sex marriage decision’s unlikely enforcer]

“Personal opinions, including my own, are not relevant to today,” Bunning, a federal district judge, told Davis and the courtroom Thursday. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

Davis’s husband, Joe, said that his wife would remain in jail “until our governor does something.” He told reporters in Morehead on Friday that Kim Davis would not resign from her position.

“David Bunning is a punk, a coward, and a bully — you tell David Bunning that Joe Davis said that,” he said.

Davis stayed overnight in a cell by herself, and has been reading scriptures from the Bible, Staver said. Her attorneys spoke to reporters Friday afternoon after a meeting with Davis in which she told them, “All is well,” Staver said. “Kim Davis slept well last night. She slept with a very good conscious and she is in very good spirits.”

Staver — the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal organization that’s representing Davis — said in a statement Friday that Davis “joins a long list of people who were imprisoned for their conscience.”

“People who today we admire, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and more,” Staver said in the statement. “Each had their own cause, but they all share the same resolve not to violate their conscience.

“We can only hope future generations look back on this moment with disgust at what happened and admiration for a woman who may be incarcerated but whose conscience remains free.”
=
“Today, the needless wait for loving and committed couples in Rowan County, Kentucky, has finally ended,” Human Rights Campaign legal director Sarah Warbelow said in a statement. “Denied a constitutionally protected right to marriage by a public official who thought her religious opinion placed her above the law, these couples waited far too long for marriage equality in the place they call home. Justice, equality, and the law have finally prevailed.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-licenses-finally-issued-in-kentucky-county/
 
11952990_813929558728331_8746759841861410056_n.jpg
 
If we got the government out of the marriage game wouldn't these issues go away?
yes, do it. that's the libertarian platform: no licenses for anything. the ghey activists hammering this lady can be common law wed and/or can go to the next county and they know it, they just want her signature to prove a point, that they won. the next move is to go church to church and start hammering folks, then to go door to door and start taking guns, because guns may grow legs and load themselves and shoot gheys, because that is "winning" to these activists
 
you know they don't need this lady to get married, common law now is viable, and so is going to the next county where somebody will sign it. they don't need her. but they do need to progress this thing and take it to the churches and on the streets. it's a Nazi like movement, against christians
 
if you get the Christian lady to buckle and to sign the form you can get hagee to buckle, right? tell me if I'm right!!
 
you know they don't need this lady to get married, common law now is viable, and so is going to the next county where somebody will sign it. they don't need her. but they do need to progress this thing and take it to the churches and on the streets. it's a Nazi like movement, against christians

SUCH. UTTER. BULLCRAP.
 
SUCH. UTTER. BULLCRAP.
which part? the part where common law is now an option, or where they can go find a person who will sign it? or how they are obviously going after Christians since this lady is a Christian and they had other options? this is plain and simple the first step in going after religion and churches and clergy. first shot fired across the bow
 
which part? the part where common law is now an option, or where they can go find a person who will sign it? or how they are obviously going after Christians since this lady is a Christian and they had other options? this is plain and simple the first step in going after religion and churches and clergy. first shot fired across the bow

And blacks had other options on where to sit on the bus, amirite?

Oh and this attack on the church I like. Especially considering that we marry the gays in my church and the Pope said the gays are OK. But, nope is this outside war by the left against the church.
 
And blacks had other options on where to sit on the bus, amirite?

Oh and this attack on the church I like. Especially considering that we marry the gays in my church and the Pope said the gays are OK. But, nope is this outside war by the left against the church.
do you think the pope is going to universally tell all catholic churches to marry gays? also, the fact that your church marries the gays proves my point: they get the nose of the camel in the tent. get a few churches to do it, then demand all churches do it, or else. or else jail.
 
ok, must admit I read where KY does not have common law marriage. I had only previously studied TX and Iowa, sorry, I admit when I'm wrong. KY has no common law marriage. {unless you are common law in iowa or some other state which has it, then move there, they will recognize it} They may get it now with all these laws a changin', who knows. But my other assertions still stand: the people could go to the county next door, no? or find a church like any's who will do it, then find a clerk to sign off. and this really is the libs coming after the church. they do not deny it. they are out and proud with it.
 
yes, do it. that's the libertarian platform: no licenses for anything. the ghey activists hammering this lady can be common law wed and/or can go to the next county and they know it, they just want her signature to prove a point, that they won. the next move is to go church to church and start hammering folks, then to go door to door and start taking guns, because guns may grow legs and load themselves and shoot gheys, because that is "winning" to these activists
Now you think it's common, you evolve very fast my friend.
 
Now you think it's common, you evolve very fast my friend.
well, I know iowa and tx had common law , did not know if ky did and it turns out they did not. But, you'd be a great person to ask this: do you accept common law marriages -no certificate issued? or do you just have to have somebody's signature on some license, to "win this game"??? Seriously, the libertarian in me says common law should suffice. No license needed.
 
well, I know iowa and tx had common law , did not know if ky did and it turns out they did not. But, you'd be a great person to ask this: do you accept common law marriages -no certificate issued? or do you just have to have somebody's signature on some license, to "win this game"??? Seriously, the libertarian in me says common law should suffice. No license needed.
I'm just reveling in gratitude that you think common law now covers SSM. That's a big win already. I suspect if you knew what common law as in the normal law of the land for centuries was, you would think getting an official signature was needed too, but I like where your mind is. I'll have a bourbon for you.

For me it's about securing rights, so I want them definitive and clear and enforceable.
 
well, I always said I thought there could be some sort of contract, maybe a common law contract, would not call it a marriage as in, "one man one woman in the eyes of the lord", but rather, a contract of some sort or a union. I should think you would be ok with it if it was definitive and enforceable, just not recognized in the eyes of the lord, more recognized by the state. or by common law in general. or do you have to have the lord's approval?
 
well, I always said I thought there could be some sort of contract, maybe a common law contract, would not call it a marriage as in, "one man one woman in the eyes of the lord", but rather, a contract of some sort or a union. I should think you would be ok with it if it was definitive and enforceable, just not recognized in the eyes of the lord, more recognized by the state. or by common law in general. or do you have to have the lord's approval?
See, this is why we must have the license. You are back tracking. You just said common law marriage and now you want a common contract that's not marriage. We have to hog tie and pin your team down. Admit it, you like it that way. This isn't England, I am my own lord of the land.
 
Not seeing a great side of Christianity here........

Christians have gotten to make every decision for centuries and I'll admit I think they could've done things a little differently. I didn't think about it until now, but maybe this really is an attack on religion. Would that mean we're headed towards a society where each individual is treated fairly? Where everyone can live in peace and harmony regardless of what they believe?

I can see how that would be horrifying to many of you, but please sign me up.
 
well, I always said I thought there could be some sort of contract, maybe a common law contract, would not call it a marriage as in, "one man one woman in the eyes of the lord", but rather, a contract of some sort or a union. I should think you would be ok with it if it was definitive and enforceable, just not recognized in the eyes of the lord, more recognized by the state. or by common law in general. or do you have to have the lord's approval?
Marriage is not defined 'in the eyes of the lord.'
 
you know they don't need this lady to get married, common law now is viable, and so is going to the next county where somebody will sign it. they don't need her. but they do need to progress this thing and take it to the churches and on the streets. it's a Nazi like movement, against christians
Comparing this to Nazism just shows how absolutely mentally ill you truly are.
Either that or you're just plain stupid.

Which is it? Are you stupid? Are you mentally ill? Are you both?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuite of Happiness. Take the government out of marriage. Stop putting people in prison over shit like this. No one wins here the gays who are running into that office should feel ashamed to celebrate this as a victory. The idiot woman should feel ashamed she can't step aside and let two people be happy. If God doesn't want them married he will make them burn. All this does is draw a thicker line between the two sides. Christians preach love thy neighbor then don't want them to have equal rights. Libs shout down anyone willing to stand by their religion and who dare not think like them. Dean Martin said "Something's Gotta Give" but I will be dammed if I'm smart enough to fix this but I do know it's only going to get worse. The more I learn about the world and politics the more Libertarian I become.
 
Take the government out of marriage.

What exactly does this mean?

That we should leave maternity/paternity information and inheritance decisions up to the Church? Which church? Who's religion gets to decide 'marriage' then?

This talking point has to be one of the most absurd that the conservatives and libertarians have come up with as a 'solution'. We have volumes of our legal system devoted to marriage-related and inheritance issues. We really want to throw all that out with the bath water because a small vocal minority objects to use of the term 'marriage'? A term that they don't even have (and never had) exclusive 'rights' to?

Governments worldwide track marriages and family trees and personal ownership based on tracking and archiving this type of information. It is beyond asinine to presume 55 different churches and a dozen different religions are somehow going to take on that responsibility, each with their own 'personal' definitions of what constitutes a 'marriage'.

As a talking point, it seems fine, but in practice it's sheer stupidity. No church is being forced to recognize anyone else's definition of a 'marriage'.

Let the state define the laws as it sees fit, and let the churches choose for themselves what the want to acknowledge or disavow.

"Render unto Caesar..."
 
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuite of Happiness. Take the government out of marriage. Stop putting people in prison over shit like this. No one wins here the gays who are running into that office should feel ashamed to celebrate this as a victory. The idiot woman should feel ashamed she can't step aside and let two people be happy. If God doesn't want them married he will make them burn. All this does is draw a thicker line between the two sides. Christians preach love thy neighbor then don't want them to have equal rights. Libs shout down anyone willing to stand by their religion and who dare not think like them. Dean Martin said "Something's Gotta Give" but I will be dammed if I'm smart enough to fix this but I do know it's only going to get worse. The more I learn about the world and politics the more Libertarian I become.

Over "shit like this"?!?!?

The shit you speak of is Constitutional rights. The following is the "shit":

Sheriff refusing to let you get a gun permit/arresting you for having a gun

Cop arresting you for wearing a tshirt that says, "Obama Sucks"

The IRS sending you a tax bill for believing and worshipping God

The Judge sending you to prison fr refusing to testify against yourself

A cop punching you in the face for demanding a lawyer when accused of a crime

An election official ripping up your ballot because you voted for Romney

The mayor taking the deed to your property and giving you a $1 for it

Shall I continue?

This is not about homosexuals.

You would want a Judge to intervene in every single one of these cases, and so would I.
 
Marriage is not defined 'in the eyes of the lord.'

Sure it is, religious marriage is. It is defined by many Gods.

In this instance we are talking about legal marriage...unfortunately many people refuse/too dumb to understand the obvious distinction.
 
What exactly does this mean?

That we should leave maternity/paternity information and inheritance decisions up to the Church? Which church? Who's religion gets to decide 'marriage' then?

This talking point has to be one of the most absurd that the conservatives and libertarians have come up with as a 'solution'. We have volumes of our legal system devoted to marriage-related and inheritance issues. We really want to throw all that out with the bath water because a small vocal minority objects to use of the term 'marriage'? A term that they don't even have (and never had) exclusive 'rights' to?

Governments worldwide track marriages and family trees and personal ownership based on tracking and archiving this type of information. It is beyond asinine to presume 55 different churches and a dozen different religions are somehow going to take on that responsibility, each with their own 'personal' definitions of what constitutes a 'marriage'.

As a talking point, it seems fine, but in practice it's sheer stupidity. No church is being forced to recognize anyone else's definition of a 'marriage'.

Let the state define the laws as it sees fit, and let the churches choose for themselves what the want to acknowledge or disavow.

"Render unto Caesar..."
The first half is ludicrous. Contracts. We don't need government in the marriage business to deal with inheritance, etc, those can be handled by simple contracts. Why does the government need to get involved and provide benefits (like lower tax rates) for married couples over someone single? If it's all about ease of contract dealings then why discriminate against anyone? why not single people identify a co-beneficiary for inheritance, social security benefits, etc. Can't remember what my nephew (who's a lawyer) said these arrangements would be called but they'd be similar to civil unions. The difference would EVERYONE would be eligible. Meaning, a single son could marry his widowed mother or single sister could marry his single sister, so these people could also share in the government benefits that are currently enjoyed by married people.

The second part of your paragraph is also ludicrous. While it's true a church isn't being forced to marry a same sex couple (yet, but that will be eventually challenged in court), they still have to recognize marriages they may disagree with. A Catholic hospital who has a homosexual working for them is going to have to provide insurance/benefits for a ssm couple, assuming they provide insurance/benefits for heterorsexuals. No church can say, "hey, we don't recognize same sex marriage, therefore, we aren't going to provide you spousal benefits". The bottom line is absolutely will churches/schools/religious orgs be "forced to recognize anyone else's definition of 'marriage'. Recognition goes FAR beyond the marriage ceremony.
 
Over "shit like this"?!?!?

The shit you speak of is Constitutional rights. The following is the "shit":

Sheriff refusing to let you get a gun permit/arresting you for having a gun

Cop arresting you for wearing a tshirt that says, "Obama Sucks"

The IRS sending you a tax bill for believing and worshipping God

The Judge sending you to prison fr refusing to testify against yourself

A cop punching you in the face for demanding a lawyer when accused of a crime

An election official ripping up your ballot because you voted for Romney

The mayor taking the deed to your property and giving you a $1 for it

Shall I continue?

This is not about homosexuals.

You would want a Judge to intervene in every single one of these cases, and so would I.
None of the examples you provide give a compelling justification for the government being involved in marriage. It's a contract issue between 2 people. I'm not necessarily arguing government should move out of the marriage business, but it's hardly the "sky will fall" if it does get out. Honestly, I think the government should get rid of marriage, and allow any two consenting adults to enter into a "civil union". Call it what you want. Stop discriminating against single people. Let anyone select anyone they want to share in the same government benefits (social security, tax schedule, inheritance, etc) that current married people enjoy today.
 
None of the examples you provide give a compelling justification for the government being involved in marriage. It's a contract issue between 2 people. I'm not necessarily arguing government should move out of the marriage business, but it's hardly the "sky will fall" if it does get out. Honestly, I think the government should get rid of marriage, and allow any two consenting adults to enter into a "civil union". Call it what you want. Stop discriminating against single people. Let anyone select anyone they want to share in the same government benefits (social security, tax schedule, inheritance, etc) that current married people enjoy today.

Well that is talking about two very different issues, imo.

Although I believe there is "compelling justification" for it, it doesn't matter, because it is a Constitutional right per many SCOTUS rulings, putting it alongside the ones I listed.
 
The first half is ludicrous. Contracts. We don't need government in the marriage business to deal with inheritance, etc, those can be handled by simple contracts.

Well DUH!!! That's why it's called a 'marriage contract'!! That's why when someone misrepresents something significant about themselves prior to marrying, they can be taken to court for 'breach of contract'.

Man, are conservative Christians really this inane as to turn their brains off when someone uses the word 'marriage', just because it matches a word in their own Holy Book (that they only follow about 5% of the writing in?)???
:confused:
 
None of the examples you provide give a compelling justification for the government being involved in marriage. It's a contract issue between 2 people. I'm not necessarily arguing government should move out of the marriage business, but it's hardly the "sky will fall" if it does get out. Honestly, I think the government should get rid of marriage, and allow any two consenting adults to enter into a "civil union". Call it what you want. Stop discriminating against single people. Let anyone select anyone they want to share in the same government benefits (social security, tax schedule, inheritance, etc) that current married people enjoy today.

Why in the hell should a small, loud, idiotic subset of Christianity someone 'own' the term 'marriage'? If you don't like what the government calls a 'marriage contract' or 'marriage license', then go run off and change your own King James Bible version to use 'civil union' in it.

Pretty sure the Greeks and Hebrews didn't use the English word 'marriage' in their original scripts. Go use the ORIGINAL word and stay out of the government's business, particularly if you want the government keeping out of your religious business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuite of Happiness. Take the government out of marriage. Stop putting people in prison over shit like this. No one wins here the gays who are running into that office should feel ashamed to celebrate this as a victory. The idiot woman should feel ashamed she can't step aside and let two people be happy. If God doesn't want them married he will make them burn. All this does is draw a thicker line between the two sides. Christians preach love thy neighbor then don't want them to have equal rights. Libs shout down anyone willing to stand by their religion and who dare not think like them. Dean Martin said "Something's Gotta Give" but I will be dammed if I'm smart enough to fix this but I do know it's only going to get worse. The more I learn about the world and politics the more Libertarian I become.
this. I think it should be some sort of common law union. see, natural has admitted they will not stop till it's called marriage. just saying that they have rights is not enough. the gays do have rights, nobody ever said they did not. they want marriage to be re-defined, period, which means going after the church. now they are trampling on church rights. see, we can say common law is fine, libertarian views are fine, but the gays cannot for some reason. we can give and compromise. they will not for some reason.
 
Why in the hell should a small, loud, idiotic subset of Christianity someone 'own' the term 'marriage'? If you don't like what the government calls a 'marriage contract' or 'marriage license', then go run off and change your own King James Bible version to use 'civil union' in it.

Pretty sure the Greeks and Hebrews didn't use the English word 'marriage' in their original scripts. Go use the ORIGINAL word and stay out of the government's business, particularly if you want the government keeping out of your religious business.
because they do. marriage is one man, one woman, in the eyes of the lord. that's what the Kentucky clerk is saying. that's what my pastor hagee says.that's what all of Christianity says. all catholics. that's a lot of folks, not a handful. it's the gay movement which is a small handful. I bet money the marriage license in KY says something about holy matrimony, or it used to. See, we can fix this by getting religion out, that's what I'm proposing, and by getting the feds out. it should be a common law union or contract for straights or gheys, signed by a notary, period. Christians out, and preachers out. but natural just admitted above that they will not stop till it's blessed by the church. which he will never get. so it's a war. he is prepared to go church to church and door to door throwing people in jail, or the movement is, or somebody is. this Kentucky clerk is but one time, one person, but it will continue, until we redefine this thing as a common law contract. I'm not back tracking, the gay movement is. They wanted a legal way towards showing they have rights which they already have, they got it, one person kept the absolute definition, they go back and throw that one person in jail after the fact. that is back tracking. if we have common law, then a marriage can be one man and one woman in a church, a union can be anything, man and man, whatever, then they all have equal rights. I think also this is headed towards a man marrying several wives and or a child, and you guys know this is where it's headed. that would be a heck of a backtrack.
 
under a common law contract everyone would have the spousal lower taxes and the benefits of being able to legally say what happens to a dying spouse. government out, preachers out. that's what the contract would be there for. it would be much like a business partnership, which this country is basically a corp anywho.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT