Marriage license void?

[JEDIYoda]

I get the feeling that these people are actually happy that these marriage licenses are supposedly "void".........

Even the Judge ruled and I quote --
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.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ja...-licenses-are-void/ar-AAdWizc?ocid=spartandhp

MOREHEAD, Ky. — A jailed Kentucky clerk asserted that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and "not worth the paper they are written on" because she didn't authorize them, her attorney said.

There is more....

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Seems there's some legal scholarship to the idea that there is no legal authority to issue licenses to gays/lesbians in states that have not created such legislation.

The precedent was when the Supreme Court banned prohibitions against black people voting but the Congress still had to pass the Voting Rights Act to force governments to register and let black people vote.

Congress has passed no such legislation that permits a Federal judge to order gay marriage in a state that has no such laws permitting it.

Bottom line is no one can prohibit gay marriage but no one has to perform one either.

 

[LevelSea]

This couldn't go in the other thread?

 

[Balt]

If the licenses had a seal and any signature on them, I doubt anyone would give a shit or even notice. Looking at the article, it appears no one signed them at all? Her deputies should have signed their names in her absence since they are 'acting' in her place. Do they stop issuing licenses every time she is out of the office?

 

[JEDIYoda]

This couldn't go in the other thread?

Your problem?

 

[DrDoug]

...

MOREHEAD, Ky. — A jailed Kentucky clerk asserted that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and "not worth the paper they are written on" because she didn't authorize them, her attorney said.

....

I hope she keeps flapping her lips while in jail because it proves that the judge was right in locking her up for contempt. I'm sure that the judge is more than happy to keep her locked up as long as she remains defiant and keeps refusing to comply with a court order.

He gave her the keys to her cell so she can rot in there for all I care.

 

[kage69]

I hope the sanctimonious bitch stays there. She's a disgrace to public service and a horrible person on top of that.

Her kind of behavior needs the kabash, yesterday, and if she and others like her want to do it the hard way, so be it.

 

[Indus]

What happens when the President is unable to serve?
The Vice-President serves with the power of the President.

What happens when a county clerk is unable to serve?
Her deputy clerk gains the powers of the office to issue marriage licenses as required by the law.

She can go to the SCOTUS with this but her logic will not fly.. not even for Scalia.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I am sure such office holders take an oath to obey the laws of both State and Federal before crazy ass religious beliefs. And if they do not hold to that oath get thrown out of office.

 

[Zorba]

I am sure such office holders take an oath to obey the laws of both State and Federal before crazy ass religious beliefs. And if they do not hold to that oath get thrown out of office.

I completely agree with this. She was elected to execute the law, which is why is part of the executive branch of the state/county. She is not there to interpret the law or create her own version of the law. Hopefully she gets sued for civil rights violations.

If your religious beliefs truly prevent you for fulfilling your duties, you should do the honorable thing and resign.

On a side note, I think it is interesting that by not taking this case the USSC upheld that individuals must follow the law regardless of religious beliefs, but last year they ruled that corporations can ignore laws if they don't agree with "their" "religious" beliefs. That is just really messed up the USSC thinks that corporations have more individual rights than actual individuals. (Yes, I know I am simplifying matters a lot, still interesting though)

 

[DrDoug]

...

If your religious beliefs truly prevent you for fulfilling your duties, you should do the honorable thing and reason.

When someone is such a religious zealot that they want to use their government position to force their beliefs on others, there is no reason.

Oh, "resign"? I agree and I stand by what I said above! :awe:

...

On a side note, I think it is interesting that by not taking this case the USSC upheld that individuals must follow the law regardless of religious beliefs, but last year they ruled that corporations can ignore laws if they don't agree with "their" "religious" beliefs. That is just really messed up the USSC thinks that corporations have more individual rights than actual individuals. (Yes, I know I am simplifying matters a lot, still interesting though)

The USSC knows that corporations worship the most powerful God of all, Money, and Money gets what Money wants.

End of story. D:

 

[Vic]

I am sure such office holders take an oath to obey the laws of both State and Federal before crazy ass religious beliefs. And if they do not hold to that oath get thrown out of office.

Even from the craziest fundie perspective, she took an oath to serve Mammon, accepted Mammon's gifts for many years, and now is upset that Mammon wants her to do something 'evil' while she continues to take Mammon's gold.

But, I digress. She is, of course, is no way entitled. This is her right.

 

[Murloc]

If the licenses had a seal and any signature on them, I doubt anyone would give a shit or even notice. Looking at the article, it appears no one signed them at all? Her deputies should have signed their names in her absence since they are 'acting' in her place. Do they stop issuing licenses every time she is out of the office?

This. It's the definition of deputy.

What if she got in an accident? No marriage until she's out of coma?

Puh-lease.

Also since she is in jail she should lose her seat.

 

[Mike64]

(Yes, I know I am simplifying matters a lot

No, you're comparing apples to oranges. The corporations in question are not acting government officers with specific legal duties.

 

[Mike64]

I am sure such office holders take an oath...

I wonder if she took hers on the Bible?

 

[TeeJay1952]

How many times in your life have you pulled out a copy of Marriage License? I have told people I am wed but NEVER had to prove it other than Social Security application.

 

[Thump553]

I hope the sanctimonious bitch stays there. She's a disgrace to public service and a horrible person on top of that.

Her kind of behavior needs the kabash, yesterday, and she and others like her want to do it the hard way, so be it.

But she is just like Martin Luther King, Jr-don't you understand it?

 

[Meghan54]

How many times in your life have you pulled out a copy of Marriage License? I have told people I am wed but NEVER had to prove it other than Social Security application.

Myself, rarely, if ever.

My wife? One instance comes to mind. When we moved to SC from MA, while I simply walked into the DMV and essentially traded an MA driver's license for an SC license, she had to provide a complete paper trail for her last name, incl. birth cert., marriage and divorce license/paper for her 1st marriage, and our marriage license. Unbelievable.

Oddly, when we moved to MA from GA, the MA DMV simply traded one license for the other, no silly shit like SC did to her.

So, rare happenings, like life ins., health ins., property, etc.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I hope she keeps flapping her lips while in jail because it proves that the judge was right in locking her up for contempt. I'm sure that the judge is more than happy to keep her locked up as long as she remains defiant and keeps refusing to comply with a court order.

He gave her the keys to her cell so she can rot in there for all I care.

Wow! People like you exist! smh! The insane circle jerk of people praising the imprisonment of non-violent citizens and the crazy that entails is another topic altogether.

What you should have real issue with is allowing another entity to determine if your marriage is valid or not from the start. Why does anyone seek some authoritarian recognition in order to feel what in their hearts is already true? Marriage is of the two people getting married and no other input or validation is needed.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wow! People like you exist! smh! The insane circle jerk of people praising the imprisonment of non-violent citizens and the crazy that entails is another topic altogether.

What you should have real issue with is allowing another entity to determine if your marriage is valid or not from the start. Why does anyone seek some authoritarian recognition in order to feel what in their hearts is already true? Marriage is of the two people getting married and no other input or validation is needed.

People have to obey the court otherwise its anarchy. I assume you wouldn't keep the same tone if someone damaged you car and lost a case but simply decided to not pay for the damage.

 

[NoStateofMind]

People have to obey the court otherwise its anarchy. I assume you wouldn't keep the same tone if someone damaged you car and lost a case but simply decided to not pay for the damage.

aggression (imprisonment) can only be justified if the 'criminal' is guilty of violence of some sort. Bad mouthing a judge is not violent (unless they were threatened) and ends up being about the vaunted judge ego more than about true justice.

In your proposed scenario insurance likely would repair the damage. If no insurance had been obtained who's fault is that?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

aggression (imprisonment) can only be justified if the 'criminal' is guilty of violence of some sort. Bad mouthing a judge is not violent (unless they were threatened) and ends up being about the vaunted judge ego more than about true justice.

In your proposed scenario insurance likely would repair the damage. If no insurance had been obtained who's fault is that?

I'm not looking to bicker I am confused. Lets assume someone damages your property, there is a court case they lost. Judgement is to compensate you for the damages and they simply refuse to comply. What is the correct remedy?

Lets assume there are no bank accounts or properties to put a lean on but they have ample cash.

 

[kage69]

But she is just like Martin Luther King, Jr-don't you understand it?

Yeah I can't wait to see how the sacrifice cult uses her for a martyr-like rallying slogan.

Selfish and petty dogma will be dolled up and sold as a noble and selfless act. *puke*

 

[theeedude]

Leave it to the South to fight these losing battles. The rest of the country has already moved on.

 

[Mike64]

Marriage is of the two people getting married and no other input or validation is needed.

[I know people who live like that. And while I fully agree as far as emotional ties and commitment are concerned], if you're [just] "married" like that, I hope you have no need for little things like family plan health insurance, Social Security benefits on your spouse's account, etc...

[] = ETA