rowan county [KY] court clerk defies supreme court

Post Reply New Topic

^ I suppose that's like the state attorneys-general in the US who refused to defend state prohibitions on same-sex marriage when they were challenged in federal courts. One could argue that their refusals amounted to the same kind of dereliction of duty that Karen Davis was convicted for. In some of those states legislators were allowed to defend such bans when their attorney-general wouldn't. But California's attorney-general refused to defend Prop 8 in federal court, and the US Supreme Court later ruled that none of the people who subsequently stepped in to defend Prop 8 had legal standing to do so – which led to Prop 8 being overturned.

Were they allowed to refuse to defend their own state's laws? I don't know enough about US law to decide for myself. That Karen Davis broke the law is clear, from the lawsuits that were filed in federal court. Perhaps that's the best way to decide.

.....

This bit OTOH ...

The judge did try to come to an accommodation: he offered to spare Davis from jail if she agreed not to hinder her deputy clerks from issuing licences to same-sex couples. Davis refused, and then all the judge could do was enforce the law. In Kentucky, it's the state legislature's job to provide such accommodation to objecting clerks. If they go down this route, hopefully they'll also require that another clerk is available in that office to issue licences to same-sex couples; I'd hate to see US government offices start telling people "we don't serve your kind here".

I'd hate to see US government offices start telling people "we don't serve your kind here".

that is exactly ms. davis' goal. she is the type who William Buckley spoke of who stands athwart history and yells, "STOP!" only she would shove history backwards to the dark ages.

Absolutely correct. She's a small minded person who simply can't progress and wants to hold back those of us who embrace progress...

^ I suppose that's like the state attorneys-general in the US who refused to defend state prohibitions on same-sex marriage when they were challenged in federal courts. One could argue that their refusals amounted to the same kind of dereliction of duty that Karen Davis was convicted for. In some of those states legislators were allowed to defend such bans when their attorney-general wouldn't. But California's attorney-general refused to defend Prop 8 in federal court, and the US Supreme Court later ruled that none of the people who subsequently stepped in to defend Prop 8 had legal standing to do so – which led to Prop 8 being overturned.

Were they allowed to refuse to defend their own state's laws? I don't know enough about US law to decide for myself. That Karen Davis broke the law is clear, from the lawsuits that were filed in federal court. Perhaps that's the best way to decide.

In US law, government attorneys have absolute and unreviewable discretion to decide whether or not to bring charges and which charges to bring.

Prosecutorial discretion is so ingrained in this country that you would need a constitutional amendment to make a dent in it.

So yes, state attorneys have absolute authority to pick their battles, which cannot be challenged through any official venue. If the people don't like it, they can try and vote him out.

People who defend her for standing her ground for Biblical principles will one day be remembered as being no different from the states rights defenders who opposed desegregation. Come to think of it, there were some racists who claimed they were standing on Biblical principals for opposing civil rights.

Actually, that was one of their main reasons in support of segregation. Something about the Bible being interpreted as saying they were sub-human or something similar. I think they called them mud people.

The other clerks are now issuing licenses. ... She even went as far as to say from jail that the licenses being issued now are invalid without her signature. They are legal under Kentucky law without her signature.

Actually, they somehow reasoned that the passages referring to the Canaanites as slaves of the Hebrews somehow applied to blacks being subordinate to whites. That, and how in the OT, Hebrews were forbidden to mix with Gentiles, and so they decided that was also somehow referring to them and blacks. Very, very bad scriptural interpretation.

Thanks, pcuser and blauSamstag, for all that information on the state attorneys-general. Now I feel a bit better about the whole court process in regards to same-sex marriage in the US. Still, I wonder what the article that Dox47 posted meant about officials refusing to enforce Prop 8 after it passed. As much as I support legalising SSM, I hate to see people breaking the law while advocating it.

Thanks, pcuser and blauSamstag, for all that information on the state attorneys-general. Now I feel a bit better about the whole court process in regards to same-sex marriage in the US. Still, I wonder what the article that Dox47 posted meant about officials refusing to enforce Prop 8 after it passed. As much as I support legalising SSM, I hate to see people breaking the law while advocating it.

There was an interesting example of that here in Australia back in 2013, when the Australian Capital Territory legalised SSM in direct conflict with federal laws prohibiting it. The federal government took the ACT to the High Court, who ruled that the ACT's law allowing SSM was unconstitutional, since according to the Australian constitution only the federal government can make laws regarding marriage, and states and territories can't make laws that directly conflict with federal law.

It was disappointing for supporters of SSM, but even I was surprised that the ACT had created and tried to defend such a law. At present, SSM is still not permitted in Australia, and the federal government here is dragging its heels on the issue. Sigh ... one day.


That seems to be the general consensus in news articles I've read. But Kentucky state law seems to be a contentious point in this case, and I've been getting conflicting information on it:

From USA Today: Kim Davis has been resisting suggestions that her deputies issue the licenses because her name appears on the certificates. But the crux of the contempt case against her involves Kentucky law, which, unlike some states' laws, requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses.

From the NY Times: Kentucky law says that a marriage license must contain "an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license," which same-sex marriage advocates note is standard language, preprinted on the form. State law does not require a clerk's signature on the license; to be valid, it must have "the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

From MSN.com: Marriage licenses in Kentucky usually have the elected clerk's signature on them; those handed out Friday lacked any signature. The Rowan County attorney and lawyers for the gay couples said they are legal and valid nevertheless. When the judge was asked if the licenses will be considered valid without Davis' authorization, he said it was up to the gay couples to take that chance.

Not that I think that the couples who have now gotten their marriage licences in Rowan County will face any real problems, but surely the state legislature can clear the ambiguity ... at least when they reconvene in January (which is a whole other question – seriously, why a four-month recess?)

the "states rights" people conveniently change their mind when it is about something they don't like.

Y'know, Hucksterby has gotten the idea in his head that a supreme court decision can't be enforced unless state law supports it. And this guy wants to be President! He apparently hasn't taken notice of the fact that states that had practiced segregation hadn't been able to roll back civil rights legislation, as their state laws certainly hadn't supported the supreme court decision in that instance.