KY County Clerk could be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses

[columbus]

Then for the marriage ceremony to be legally binding, it needs to be performed by someone who's authorized by the government to perform marriages.

Oh, OK, sure.
Once you have the license lots of people can officiate. I have some friends who got married by another friend. He sent off $20 and got some paper on the internet that gave him the legal status of minister, just so he could do their wedding.

I also attended a wedding once that was officiated by a Roman Catholic priest that was not a legal wedding. The groom was on major disability because he was quad. A legal marriage would cost them more than his fiance earned, they just couldn't afford it. So they got the religious wedding with no legal wedding.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

She should be required to issue the licenses or be fired or held in contempt. One way or the other, the licenses must be issued. I'm not aware of any legitimate legal appeal. And it doesn't appear that she was ordered by superiors to withhold the licenses. If she's an elected official, then she needs to be forced through whatever legal process works best and fastest.

She was elected, which is why the courts have gotten involved. As it stands right now

"In response, a federal judge ordered Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, to appear in court Thursday concerning a motion to hold her in contempt of his earlier order that she resume issuing licenses. The judge could impose a range of sanctions, including incarceration.

Ms. Davis also faces possible criminal charges if the state attorney general’s office grants a request to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her."
source
​

Personally, I hope she stands her ground and gets what she deserves.

 

[idav]

This lady issuing a government paper doesn't mean her church will suddenly start marrying same sex.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This lady issuing a government paper doesn't mean her church will suddenly start marrying same sex.

Nor should it. If a private organization, such as a church, chooses not to perform same-sex marriages, that is its prerogative, because a church marriage is not the same thing as a legal marriage. If people want to be LEGALLY married, they need a license; if they want to be married "in the sight of God" they need the blessing of their church, a church wedding.

 

[leibowde84]

Never say never. And I edited my post that you quoted, to stick more to the point of the thread.

Until there is an actual threat, this is nothing but a straw-man. There is absolutely no objective evidence to support the fear that this might happen.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Now, after the SCOTUS refused to issue an injunction allowing her to keep on refusing to do her job, many want this county clerk to be held in contempt of court. I think this is EXACTLY what "contempt of court" was designed for ... those who refuse to follow direct orders from judges. Further, this is a government actor refusing to do her job, which is now legal discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, people should be able to believe what they want. But, once their beliefs cause harm, both monetarily and emotionally, to others, their right to religious liberty ends there. I think she should be given the option to either resign or do her job. If she refuses both options, she should be held in contempt.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

They need to impeach her. She doesn't need to go to jail but she needs to be impeached. She should temporarily be removed from office immediately had have someone willing to do the job take her place till the impeachment is done and they have a new election.

 

[Skwim]

They need to impeach her. She doesn't need to go to jail but she needs to be impeached. She should temporarily be removed from office immediately had have someone willing to do the job take her place till the impeachment is done and they have a new election.

I don't know. I think a month in the clink would do her good. As for everything else, I agree with what you say.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think a month in the clink would do her good.

Meh, unfortunately she'd be a martyr. She's probably ready to cash in on the book and movie deal. That said, I agree she should be in jail. I'm not ashamed to admit that I am quite intolerant of the whining the fundamentalist Christian groups are doing about "persecution". They don't know the meaning of the word, nor are their rights being infringed upon. I'll bet not a one of them has read anything about the real martyrs and persecuted Christians of the early centuries CE.

 

[Akivah]

While I applaud her principles, the zany current law has made it impossible for her to do her job. She really has no choice but to withdraw from the position.

 

[Jainarayan]

the zany current law

That "zany current law" is the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868. I wish people would learn how the US judicial system works.

 

[Cephus]

That is the way it is now, and has been for ages. The legal part is done by the government and the rest is just a personal thing.
You can have a big church wedding or do nothing else at all. You're just as legally married either way.
Tom

But the thing is, you're not legally married if you don't get that piece of paper from the state. You're free to walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you get no legal benefits unless the state signs off on it.

 

[Jainarayan]

You can have a big church wedding or do nothing else at all. You're just as legally married either way.

Only in states that permit common law marriages, but not all do. Otherwise, the marriage is not legal without a state marriage license.

 

[Cephus]

Meh, unfortunately she'd be a martyr. She's probably ready to cash in on the book and movie deal. That said, I agree she should be in jail. I'm not ashamed to admit that I am quite intolerant of the whining the fundamentalist Christian groups are doing about "persecution". They don't know the meaning of the word, nor are their rights being infringed upon. I'll bet not a one of them has read anything about the real martyrs and persecuted Christians of the early centuries CE.

Let her be a martyr. The only thing that really matters is that she gets out of office and someone who will actually do the job gets in. She can make all the movies she wants, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[Cephus]

Only in states that permit common law marriages, but not all do. Otherwise, the marriage is not legal without a state marriage license.

Usually, common law marriages require the people to live together and intermingle their finances for at least 7 years, something that, according to most religions, would be a sin.

 

[Jainarayan]

Usually, common law marriages require the people to live together and intermingle their finances for at least 7 years, something that, according to most religions, would be a sin.

Yes, there is a minimum time... thanks for pointing that out. Also, I don't think the federal government recognizes them. Without a valid marriage there are issues of Social Security benefits, immigration, and actually almost 1,100 protections, benefits and rights in legal marriage. It alternately amuses and saddens me to hear people say the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Well, it is and the genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Akivah]

That "zany current law" is the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868. I wish people would learn how the US judicial system works.

Hmmm....I just don't recall homosexual marriage being allowed starting in 1868.

 

[columbus]

But the thing is, you're not legally married if you don't get that piece of paper from the state. You're free to walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you get no legal benefits unless the state signs off on it.

What is "the thing"? That's exactly what I said. No church has any legal authority to marry anybody from the perspective of the state.
The Mormons can marry a guy to five women if they want to in the eyes of God. But in the eyes of government they are not married.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Only in states that permit common law marriages, but not all do. Otherwise, the marriage is not legal without a state marriage license.

Do any government entities still recognize common law marriage? I didn't think any did.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

Hmmm....I just don't recall homosexual marriage being allowed starting in 1868.

*sigh*

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Jainarayan]

Do any government entities still recognize common law marriage? I didn't think any did.
Tom

Some states do.