http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421899/-Kim-Davis-Keeps-Trying-How-Will-Judge-Bunning-React?detail=email
Simply put, Davis came in Monday and laid out several rules/policies which, in my eyes, constitute direct interference with the process of issuing marrage certificates. As the Lexington Herald-Leader reports:
Initially, those licenses were changed from the state's standard form in order to take off Davis' name.
However, Davis made further changes on Monday, her first day back at work after being released.
Davis altered the forms so that they don't have her name or the name of the office, added a notation that the licenses were being issued pursuant to a federal court order, and cited the case number of a lawsuit against her.
She also directed that each deputy clerk sign marriage licenses as a notary public, not as a county official.
Naturally, the ACLU is on it:
"We have concerns about the validity of the marriage licenses issued (Monday) given the further alteration of the forms," [ACLU attorney James] Esseks said in his statement.
and various state and local officials suggested that the licenses are valid anyway:
However, Gov. Steve Beshear said he was confident the marriage licenses issued from Davis' office were valid even with the changes.
A spokesman for Attorney General Jack Conway said he also continues to believe the licenses are valid.
Fayette County Clerk Don Blevins Jr. said he also believes the licenses are valid.
State case law says if couples believe they have complied with the law and are legally married, the union is considered valid, according to family-law experts.
However, none of them can argue that Davis' actions are not in direction violation of state law. For starters, a notary public cannot issue a marriage license; KRS 402.080 clearly states (emphasis added):
The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
(The "in which the female resides" language has been effectively rendered moot by the Supreme Court's decision, but the Kentucky General Assembly won't meet until January to enact new legislation.)
She's also explicitly violating another statute, namely KRS 402.100, which directs (again, emphasis added):
Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license. This form shall provide for the entering of all of the information required in this section, and may also provide for the entering of additional information prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives. The form shall consist of:
(1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of:
(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any
person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite
in marriage the persons named;
(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place
of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous
marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and
full names of parents; and
(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk
or deputy clerk issuing the license.
If Davis is removing any mention of the office of County Court Clerk, then she's in direct violation of this statute. If she is directing her deputies to sign them as notaries public--and NOT as deputy County Clerks--then there's another violation of the same statute.
Finally, there's KRS 402.110, which clearly states:
The form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout this state, and every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures provided in the form prescribed by that section.
In issuing the license the clerk shall deliver it in its entirety to the licensee. The clerk shall see to it that every blank space required to be filled by the applicants is so filled before delivering it to the licensee.
So, Davis doesn't get to "roll her own form".
I'd say that direct violation of multiple state statutes constitutes direct interference in the process, especially when those changes arguably cast doubt upon the validity of the license. It will be quite interesting to see how Judge Bunning reacts to these latest actions by Contempt Davis....I mean, Kim Davis.
do you lie and mislead and set up a clandestine effort that directly tramples on constitutional rights of others just to fulfill your own bigoted agenda while playing the victim card. what is Christian about that it's political and with the insertion of the likes of Huckabee and Cruz she is being manipulated and made complicit in breaking the law.
i remember a piece of video where her lawyer said she will not abandon her religious convictions which sounded like she would not comply with court order and she looked at him almost in astonishment how much of this is her and how much is republican interference???????
and the elephant dung coup de grace if the couple believes they are married then they are, really then later they can get hit with nullification because ignorance is no excuse for breaking laws that say county clerk has control over validity and when does what you think trump the law????????????????????????????????? ball is in the judge's court who's directive is being violated, so what is it law or bigotry by religion??????????????
