• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kentucky Clerk denies same-sex couple marriage license for the third time

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bernardobri

Steve, the dog with no powers that we let hang out with us all for some reason
Oh man here's hoping they manage to get on camera how she has to handle the paperwork.
 
S

Sir Abacus

Member
I'm kind of nervous if this goes into some variant of jail time. Welcome to the next generation of ignorant right wing howls of "christian persecution" despite the fact she's a fucking STATE ACTOR.
 
P

Paskil

Member
e_i said:
Oops, already posted.


And a one line decision too. Sounds pretty terse.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Scalia, Alito, and Thomas don't like it. I think that even though Roberts ruled against it, I don't think he really cares (at least in my opinion). It just goes against his interpretation of the constitution.

At the same time, all four dissenting judges from Obergefell recognize that she is compelled to issue marriage licenses, as is her duty under the Kentucky and US Constitution. I'm sure there's some law or line somewhere in Kentucky law describing that the duties of a clerk of courts include issuing marriage licenses.

This was probably easy for all 9 and I imagine that it was 9-0 and not one of them disagreed with the decision to refuse her request, given the precedent set in Obergefell.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
e_i said:
Oops, already posted.


And a one line decision too. Sounds pretty terse.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't read too much into that--actually, you shouldn't read anything into it. The Court was only considering an application for stay of a lower court's preliminary injunction; the case isn't really before the Supreme Court at this point. Here (PDF) are some similarly brief orders from last Friday:

ECKSTROM, CARL A. V. VALENZUELA, WARDEN
The application for a certificate of appealability addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court is denied.

ARAKJI, MAZEN V. HESS, CLIFF, ET AL.
The application for a stay pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court is denied.

OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG V. SACHS, CAROL P.
HAWKINS, VALERIE J., ET AL. V. COMMUNITY BANK OF RAYMORE
The motions of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument are granted.

TORRES, JORGE L. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.
The motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Here's (PDF) some background information on this procedure:

An application is a request for emergency action addressed to an individual Justice. Although most applications involve routine matters such as requests for extensions of the time limit for filing papers, some—such as late night applications for a stay of execution or a restraining order in a dramatic case—draw the attention of reporters. These newsworthy applications usually concern an effort to buy time, to maintain the status quo—to stay the implementation of a lower court order—pending final action by this Court (or under
certain circumstances, a lower court).

Applications are addressed to a specific Justice, according to federal judicial circuit. The United States is divided into 13 federal circuits, with each Justice assigned to a specific circuit or circuits (see page 19).

Case law has established four general criteria that the applicant normally must satisfy in order for the Court to grant a stay. They are:

1. that there is a “reasonable probability” that four Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review the merits of the case;

2. that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of the Court will conclude upon review that the decision below on the merits was erroneous;

3. that irreparable harm will result from the denial of the stay;

4. finally, in a close case, the Circuit Justice may find it appropriate to balance the equities, by exploring the relative harms to the applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.​

Applications are handled on “paper;” that is, there are normally no hearings or oral arguments. Applications and any related papers submitted to the Court are filed with the Clerk’s Office and forwarded to the Justices. A Justice need not be physically present in
the Court building in order to act on an application, although there are instances in which the Circuit Justice cannot be reached. In that case, the application is referred to the next junior Justice.

The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s
order. Applications for stays in capital cases are often, though not always, referred to the full Court. If an application is referred, the Justices do not meet officially or publicly, but confer, sometimes by phone, or through their law clerks.
Click to expand...
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Metaphoreus said:
You shouldn't read too much into that--actually, you shouldn't read anything into it. The Court was only considering an application for stay of a lower court's preliminary injunction; the case isn't really before the Supreme Court at this point. Here are some similarly brief orders from last Friday:
Click to expand...

But it's probably a good indication they won't consider the full case. She's a government official charged with upholding the constitution and the law - not her interpretation of her personal religion and beliefs. This isn't a private business. They already addressed what local governments are to do for gay couples looking for marriages.

They're not going to take this full case up.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
GoldenEye 007 said:
But it's probably a good indication they won't consider the full case. She's a government official charged with upholding the constitution and the law - not her interpretation of her personal religion and beliefs. This isn't a private business. They already addressed what local governments are to do for gay couples looking for marriages.

They're not going to take this full case up.
Click to expand...

They're not considering whether to take it up or not. They were only considering whether to stay the district court's preliminary injunction pending appeal to the Sixth Circuit. At this stage, not even the district court has fully addressed the merits of the case.

EDIT: For the record, I don't think she has any chance of winning before the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court (assuming the Court were to grant certiorari in the case eventually), and I don't think she should win. If she were merely refusing to personally be the one to process marriage licenses, delegating that task to someone else in the office, I think she'd have a good argument against being compelled to do otherwise. But that's not what she's doing, and I'm not convinced by her arguments that she can completely shut down the issuance of licenses in her county based on her beliefs.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Metaphoreus said:
They're not considering whether to take it up or not. They were only considering whether to stay the district court's preliminary injunction pending appeal to the Sixth Circuit. At this stage, not even the district court has fully addressed the merits of the case.
Click to expand...

Right. But I just don't see them considering it if it reaches them. They already largely addressed this. Just like many of their decisions leading up to the ultimate decision was hinted at in previous actions, I think things like denying this stay is another indication of that.
 
C

cntr

Banned
evilromero said:
"religious liberties are being oppressed"

Also, civil rights being oppressed while we're at it. I mean, why isn't the comparison constantly being made that we could use "religious" beliefs to do unreasonable things like violate someone's civil rights?
Click to expand...
Because these guys don't believe that all humans deserve human rights. Human rights are for white Christians.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
AP is reporting she is still refusing (more specifically that the clerks office is still refusing but whatever). Arrest ha.
 
A

Aselith

Member
Y2Kev said:
AP is reporting she is still refusing (more specifically that the clerks office is still refusing but whatever). Arrest ha.
Click to expand...

filepicker%2FyEbJXM58R6Cs4zyMDuug_only_god_can_judge_me.jpg
 
P

Paskil

Member
The audacity of this lady.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...marriage-licenses-after-supreme-court-ruling/

Davis did not make an appearance at the counter as the courthouse opened, leaving employees to deny couples on her behalf. A woman at counter said Davis was “doing reports.”

When Davis emerged, she declared that she was not issuing any licences.

“Under whose authority?” she was asked.

“Under God’s authority,” she said.
Click to expand...

I don't want to see her try to martyr herself. She should not be jailed, yet. I hope the judge levies $20,000 fine per day that licenses aren't issued. Levy an increased fine on the state, to ensure that the legislature takes action to remove her from office.

Money is the only thing that sings to these people.
 
A

Aselith

Member
“Under God’s authority,” she said.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, she's gone fullblown wacko. Now she's not only claiming religious freedom but asserting god's authority over the state? What part of the Middle East is Kentucky in any way?
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Aselith said:
Holy shit, she's gone fullblown wacko. Now she's not only claiming religious freedom but asserting god's authority over the state? What part of the Middle East is Kentucky in any way?
Click to expand...
The ironic thing is that I bet she doesn't support the Iran deal even though she is clearly part of the republican guard
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Oh yeah. You just know as soon as she is fired the gofundme will go up and explode and the Christians will scream perscution.

Fucking woman, I swear.
 
A

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
Ryland Barton ‏@RylandKY 46m46 minutes ago

Gay couples still denied marriage licenses in Rowan County, Clerk Kim Davis says decision made under god's authority
CN0RTqbUYAEfh2m.jpg


Ryland Barton ‏@RylandKY 40m40 minutes ago

Davis has returned to her office, crowd chanting "do your job"
CN0S0o8WgAAWE3-.jpg
 
T

TheLegendOfMart

Banned
Why the hell are people letting her get away with it?

Is she the only person that can put her signature on the form in that county?

Why can't another clark issue them, I can't imagine they would get fired for it and if they did they'd have a strong case for wrongful termination.

This is getting me wound up and I don't even live in America.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Government should freeze her assets so no one can donate to her. Also freeze her in carbonite. And her pets too.
 
Trojita

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
You guys missed the guy on CNN this morning. He was saying that Kentucky law has no other higher authority lol.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
What's sad is that this woman probably has a fairly lucrative speaking career ahead of her.

Hate groups will be lining up have her as the keynote speaker at their next conference.
 
R

Remf

Member
Bottom line is there must be a separation of church and state in our government. If her religion conflicts with this then get the fuck out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Couple has ‘real feelings’ for $7K sex robot that saved their marriage
2
63
5K
RAL1992 replied
Homophobe Kim Davis in Romania to help ban gay marriage
2
50
7K
geomon replied
Lesbian couple win $10,000 damages from county clerk who called them an ‘abomination’
17
3K
hydrophilic attack replied
  • Locked
Texas Senate OKs bill setting new rules when clerks refuse to issue same-sex marriage
2
53
6K
Ithil replied
  • Locked
Kentucky changes law so Kim Davis doesn't have to sign marriage licenses
39
4K
BeardyChan replied
Top Bottom