The feds really need to step in and do something. Couldn’t Obama use executive privilege and vetoes to hold up and/or stall federal programs/spending in the areas that refuse to issue marriage licences in the meanwhile?
Anyone refusing to issue marriage licenses (i.e., doing their job) should be fired. If I refused to perform an element of my job that I’m paid to do (and isn’t illegal), I’d find myself on the street pretty quickly.
A priest refusing to marry. Fine, that is their right as a church official.
Government employee refusing to file the paperwork. Law of the land now buddy. Put your stamp on it and go about your day.
Get your undies out of a twist people. it isn’t that big of a flipping deal who does what with who here. They’re not inviting/demanding/kidnapping you to join in, grow up. eesh.
Its going to take lawsuits to get this shit to stop happening.
Because ethics and human decency aren’t sufficient incentives.
Not only that, it seems like conservatives just relish getting their asses sued, when the taxpayer is paying for the lawyers, because they believe in less government spending. No, wait…
I have not been able to confirm this, but I’ve heard that this very very Christian lawbreaker-for-Christ with very strongly-held beliefs has been divorced multiple times.
It is also against state law for them to refuse to do their jobs.
(I have a grudging respect for the people who actually quit, even though I think their beliefs are crap.)
Wait, who called the cops?
Official misconduct in the first degree
- A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent
to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person
of a benefit, he knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized
exercise of his official functions; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent
in the nature of his office; or
© Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his
(2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
I’m sure I’m going to get tired of repeating this, but it seems to be necessary: if the taxes paid by gay citizens are good enough to contribute to your salary then you have no reason to treat them differently.
the confederates want the drama, the confrontations, and especially the martyrdom. don’t you know there’s a war on christmas and christians cower in fear of being the victim of persecution?
Why isn’t the DA pressing criminal charges against this clerk for violation of state law. Sounds like there is a problem with the DA’s office as well as the clerks office.
I look forward to the lawsuit they win that will make for a nice wedding gift.
And I look forward to the county realizing how much they could have saved if they just fired the woman.
The irony when these hypocrites appeal to “common courtesy” to stop the video recording of their bigotry…
i’m glad that in nevada, we had no problem like this. last november, we were super nervous, but we walked right in to our county facility and they were very nice, polite, helpful and courteous, just like they would be to any other couple. after 23 years together, my husband and i are enjoying the (admittedly very odd) feeling of being legally recognized in our state (and now) across the country. i don’t blame these guys for fighting this. it’s jaw-dropping the way they are being treated. keep up the good fight, gentlemen!
Because the GAYS were involved!! So we can’t attack that fine upstanding ‘Christian’ for standing up for Christ!
For reals, clerk should be fired and marriage licenses given out since the decision was for the legal right for same sex marriage to be recognized. The religious part can go somewhere else,.
(Disclaimer: IAAL, but not practicing, not this kind of lawyer, and not your lawyer. In any event, this isn’t legal advice, just speculatin’ on the Interwebs.)
But here’s the rub:
402.080 Marriage license required – Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. 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.
Unlike Alabama, in which probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses (and where a few are using that permissive language to avoid the issue by refusing to issue any marriage licenses at all) it looks to me like Kentucky clerks are required to (“shall”) issue marriage licenses. But since there’s no female participant in this marriage, the clerk is probably still complying with the letter of the law.
What would make an interesting test case is a lesbian couple, both partners of which reside in that county. Tough to see how she could get around issuing the license in that situation without breaking the law.
When St. Thomas More couldn’t support the law recognizing King Henry VIII as head of the church he resigned his position as Chancellor and retired from public life refusing to speak out for or against the law. He was found guilty of treason anyway and sentenced to be drawn and quartered. King Henry graciously commuted the sentence to beheading.
I suppose a couple of speculatin’ lawyers could get in to it, but I’d say that the provision requiring the license be issued in the county where the female resides is voided by SCOTUS decision, and following the letter of the law when the actual law is known is no defense because it violates the “clearly inherent in the nature of his office” section of the Official Misconduct statute. But I don’t know for sure either - I say arrest all the offending clerks and let the courts sort it out!
PS I’m going to borrow that disclaimer from you - it’s nice and concise, and accurate for my purposes as well.