Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Friday open thread

Community/Meta

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
Couples are getting married today in Rowan County, Kentucky, since deputy clerks are giving out licenses. The plaintiffs have gotten their licenses. Follow the Equality Case Files Facebook page for more pics and video.

This is an open thread.

280 Comments

  • 1. Rakihi  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:55 am

    Apparently it's now a thing on Right-Wing websites to compare Kim Davis' direct defiance of multiple court orders with the actions of various state officials who declined to appeal lower court decisions ruling that marriage bans were unconstitutional, in a sad attempt to suggest hypocrisy on the part of "the left".

    Gavin Newsom's name is also mentioned, but I'm pretty sure that he, and any other officials who unilaterally ordered or issued marriage licences in states where marriage was not yet legal complied with any court order that was handed down ordering them to stop.

  • 2. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Well yeah. It's a thing on right-wing web sites to compare all sorts of things to all sorts of other completely unrelated things. They may get points for creativity, but not for logic.

  • 3. sfbob  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:36 am

    It's also a thing on right-wing websites to compare marriage equality and Davis being jailed to the Holocaust. I think there's some sort of app those folks use; they enter something they disapprove of and it runs an algorithm.

  • 4. jjcpelayojr  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Isn't there also one of them that compares her to Rosa Parks?

  • 5. bayareajohn  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    And to Martin Luther King.

  • 6. sfbob  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Several, I think.

  • 7. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    I think, in answer, someone posted that Kim Davis was like Rosa Parks…if Rosa Parks drove a bus and wouldn't let white people on.

  • 8. Rakihi  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    if Rosa Parks drove a city bus and wouldn't let ANYONE on…

  • 9. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    Right…thanks. Then said she was confused as to why she was benched…

  • 10. Zack12  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Indeed, when Newsom and others were ordered to stop, they did.

  • 11. RnL2008  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:18 am

    As Gavin Newsom fired back to Mike Huckabee, when the CSSC found what he had done exceed his authority as Mayor, he complied….therefore was NEVER in contempt, as for the other stupid false allegations these idiots are making…..NO one violated Court orders, even the DOJ continued to enforce DOMA before it was tossed.

    You'd think this woman was some hero to praise instead of being treated EXACTLY as she is for VIOLATING a Court order. She will remain in jail because that is HER choice!!!

  • 12. Charlie Galvin  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:47 am

    If you look at Gavin Newsom's twitter feed, you'll see his exchange with Mike Huckabee on this topic. As mayor, Newsom broke the law (enacted by popular vote) banning same-sex marriage. He stopped issuing the licenses when the court ordered him to do so, but then appealed and won, because the state Constitution trumped the statute on equality grounds. That's when Christian love reared up and brought us Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to "fix" the "problem."

    So Davis's story is very different from that of Newsom, who did comply with a court order.

    We also hear a lot about San Francisco "defying federal law." That is not the case. We have a Sanctuary City Ordinance which provides that no City agency will cooperate in attempts to deport undocumented immigrants EXCEPT where the city is required to do so by applicable law or court order. In other words, the City declines to assist in deportations where such non-cooperation is lawful.

  • 13. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:58 am

    Liberty Council is holding a press conference now…… as now nothing new http://www.lex18.com/category/292144/live-stream

  • 14. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    she won't resign

  • 15. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    She let it be known to Judge Bunning yesterday, September 3, 2015, that she would not resign.

    So how is this new news? Just because her attorneys said it today in a press conference, not yesterday in court, it is new news?

  • 16. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    omg, They are saying the licenses from this morning are void…………. what little ^%^&^%^^%^

  • 17. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Ha! On what basis?

  • 18. jjcpelayojr  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    That the licenses are issued "with the approval from the county clerk" and she doesn't approve of it because she's not there to approve of it.

    These lawyers really need to be complained of to the bar….saying that the Governor modified the forms and he can do so again "just as easily. Because he's done it before".

    LOL, "That's why God invented Appellate Courts. [Judge Bunning] is not the last word." *facepalm*.

  • 19. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    LOL, "That's why God invented Appellate Courts. [Judge Bunning] is not the last word." *facepalm*.
    my jaw dropped!! they are desperate………

  • 20. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    "approval"? No, that is simply not a part of the process at all. The job of the clerk is simply to provide the forms and then record the legal marriage of ANY couple who are legally eligible to enter into a legal civil marriage. The clerk has no duty, nor any power whatsoever, to make a judgement call about whether ANY legally eligible couple can be denied access to legal civil marriage. The personal 'approval' or 'disapproval' of the Clerk is simply not relevant to the process at all.They are grasping at straws and missing them.

  • 21. tx64jm  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Actually it is part of the process for the county clerk to approve per KRS 402.100:

    "(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;"

    So the county clerk has to authorize the marriage.

  • 22. jpmassar  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    So what happens when the County Clerk is on vacation? The Deputy clerks can't issue marriage licenses? Seems like basically the same thing.

  • 23. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Nope, that authorization is not based on any personal 'approval' or 'disapproval' of the couple and their legal marriage exercised by the Clerk, dummy. It only indicates the couple have been determined to be legally eligible, regardless of what the clerk may think about it. Same as every other public official who serves these legal functions.
    http://sadtrombone.com/?autoplay=true

  • 24. tx64jm  |  September 4, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Thats your opinion but it is not the law in Kentucky. The law in Kentucky, as stated by the Kentucky Supreme Court multiple times, is that strict compliance with chapter 402 is required to form a legal marriage.

    If the clerk withholds the authorization, there is no strict compliance with chapter 402 and thus no marriage. Period. The End. So say the Kentucky courts.

  • 25. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    And suddenly, all the way from some hinterland corner of Texas, you are THE authority on judicial interpretations rendered over the years by the august body of the Kentucky Supreme Court?????

    Who knew?????

  • 26. bayareajohn  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Wow, you got my reply deleted that quick? But your pointless slap gets to stay. It took me 4 weeks to get multiple racist rants including the N word removed (and one still remains). How things have changed here. Have they given you the delete key, Rick?

    If so, in removing my valid observation of your own trolling, you just crossed the line to the dark side. If not, someone else has.

  • 27. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    John, are you addressing me? My comment, above, still is, and has always been, directed toward tx64jm.

    I'm unaware of any recently-deleted reply (of yours or anyone else's).

    On the other hand, the most-recent racist rant, one which included the N-word, multiple times over, did not take 4 weeks to be removed.

    What seems to be the real problem??? Somehow, we're mis-communicating.

  • 28. bayareajohn  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    Interesting…. my post was up for an hour, then gone. And the initial N word post from MU2 from 9 weeks ago is indeed, still here despite many of us complaining.

    Maybe the board had a hiccup. As unlikely as that is. I saw my post migrate to INTENSE DEBATE and get upvotes before it vanished. So…

    I started by using your request of me as a request of you… "Rick, please just leave tx64jm alone. OK, please?" and said it sounded as silly for me as it did when you asked me to leave Mike alone.

    Perhaps it was deleted because of my complimenting you on the FACT that most of the actual posted CONTENT of the last 6 weeks came from you, and not the management here…. and that without your work (and the discussion it spawns), there's not much to come here for. Anymore.

    Or maybe because I observed that "suddenly, all the way from some hinterland corner of the Virgin Islands, you are THE authority on the value of the judicial interpretations rendered by a Texan about Kentucky Law."

    My point being that your post was content-free and 100%
    intended only to sarcastically undercut the facts as presented by tv64jm. Which may be accurate, but no matter, you've mocked them.

    I concluded by saying that if you participate in mudslinging and trolling, you aren't above it, you encourage it.

    And if my earlier post was deliberately deleted. it will probably be again. I'll keep a copy this time, for easier re-posting.

  • 29. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    And on WHAT basis may the Clerk withhold it? On her personal opinion about how much or how little she 'likes' the idea of that particular couple's decision to legally marry? Nope. IF the clerk withholds it, she'd better have a legally valid reason for doing so, and the only one would be that the couple is not legally eligible for entering into a legal civil marriage. Withholding it for any other reason is a FAILURE to do the job and a FAILURE to follow THE LAW. Sheesh don't be such an idiot. Shoo, troll. http://sadtrombone.com/?autoplay=true

  • 30. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    They are looking into it…. Kim told them this.. other words they have no case,.. If they try to………… DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 31. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    They are trying to compare this to Mayor Newsom when he started issuing marriage licenses in 2004. He stopped when the courts told him so

  • 32. jjcpelayojr  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    Not only that, his act was one of inclusion, hers is one of exclusion. Big different!

    "Kim is a victim here, she's a victim of her own choice." LOL…

  • 33. A_Jayne  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    More like polar opposite situations.

    What Gavin Newsom did was not supported by any law, and he stopped when the court told him to.

    In contrast, what Kim Davis wants to do is not supported by any law, and she tried to prevent proper application of the law when the court told her to.

  • 34. bayareajohn  |  September 4, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Still more different:

    Gavin was Mayor, an executive position that has authority and responsibility to direct policy.

    Kimmy is a clerk, a functionary who attends to filling paperwork according to law.

    More disingenuous yet, when the question was asked if THEY PERSONALLY believe that it is proper to ignore the law and court orders, they replied that "different people feel differently…" and then attempted to to both use Newsom as an example AND to imply that HE was wrong to do what they liken to what their client did. And never answered the question about what THEY thought was right.

  • 35. flyerguy77  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    They are playing the "victim"

  • 36. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    …. and I couldn't help noticing how quickly they tried to deflect any mention of her option to resign, simply saying that she 'couldn't'. Of course she can. And she should. As should any official who determines that they can no longer perform the duties of the position. The $80,000 a year salary may not be her entire reason for ALL of her actions, but it's the reason she won't resign. Her current situation is all her fault, driven by her self-centered greed.

  • 37. sfbob  |  September 4, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    She has claimed she is "unable" to perform the duties of her job. When people resign from their job that's usually, in one way or another, the reason they give for resigning.

  • 38. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    The closest that Kim Davis comes to being a "martyr" can probably be found in the new term, "Wal-Martyr."

  • 39. A_Jayne  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    The quote below is from a report on yesterday's hearing(s) by David Wills linked at the Equality Case Files FB page: <a href="http://(https://www.facebook.com/EqualityCaseFiles)” target=”_blank”>(https://www.facebook.com/EqualityCaseFiles)

    The full report: https://www.facebook.com/notes/879659535402576/

    (During the 3:30 p.m. hearing:)
    "The issue of validity of the licenses was again briefly discussed, with the Plaintiff's attorney and the County attorney both opining that the licenses will be (are) valid."

  • 40. weaverbear  |  September 4, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    So yesterday I posted my concern about the likes of Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and the Liberty Council making political hay from Kim Davis' 'martyrdom'. By the time I got home on turned on the tube, I found out how right I was as the statements from all of them were all over the news.

    Civil Marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one. Anyone who sites religious reasons in opposition needs to take that to a religious or church court. Let me remind anyone who decries marriage for same sex couples as sacrilege that we have separation of church and state and no one's faith gets to trump any other in this country. You want to have a religious court decide how you live your life? As anyone who lives under Sharia law how they like it, particularly those that are non-Muslim.

    If you're Jewish and you want to get remarried in a religious ceremony after divorcing, then you need to get a get or religious divorce first. That isn't the state requiring it, it's Judaic law. Conversely, your get doesn't dissolve your civil marriage, just the religious one.

  • 41. bayareajohn  |  September 4, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    I saw this posted in the wild today (not at the DMV!), the logical next step in protecting religious freedom (not even one click down that proverbially slippery slope):

    "With respect to our Prophet Muhammad (Praise be His name), we will no longer be issuing driver's licenses to women, thank you for respecting our religious beliefs. – Department of Motor Vehicles"

    I'm old enough to remember heated debates about JFK and why we could never elect a Catholic to be President – since he'd obviously have to take direction from the Pope.

  • 42. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    And then LDS clerks won't issue licences of any kind to people who haven't been anointed and endowed and wear the magic underwear.

  • 43. Shmoozo  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    On a somewhat different subject, this is interesting. It apparently happened last week, but I only saw it today.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp

    From that article:

    &gt;&gt; Last week, a Tenn. judge refused to grant a straight couple a divorce because the U.S. Supreme Court allowed gay marriage.

    Many readers may be scratching their heads right now, wondering how the legalization of gay marriage could possibly disrupt straight divorce proceedings.

    But spare a moment to hear out Jeffrey M. Atherton, if for no other reason than that the judge’s argument is an increasingly common one as conservatives across the country claim the Supreme Court overreached with its June 26 watershed ruling.

    “The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee,” Atherton began. “This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

    “The majority’ s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land, accurately described by Justice Scalia as ‘a naked judicial claim to legislative— indeed, super-legislative— power,'” Atherton continued.

    The Supreme Court’s decision was “troubling” because it amounted to a “judicial fiat,” Atherton argued. “… What actually appears to be the intent and (more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/divorce litigation altogether.”

    But it is Atherton’s next paragraph that is the real doozy, in which he calls the Supreme Court’s decision “judi-idiocracy.”

    “Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism,” he begins sarcastically, “implementation of this apparently new ‘super-federal-judicial’ form of benign and benevolent government, termed ‘krytocracy’ by some and ‘judi-idiocracy’ by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court.”

    Faced with this “challenge,” Atherton’s decision is simply to throw his hands up in the air and claim that the Supreme Court’s decision had “divested subject matter jurisdiction from this court when a divorce is contested.”

    In other words, if a state can’t even deny gay couples the right to marry anymore, then what’s the point of being in the marriage business anyways. Let the feds handle it. &lt;&lt;

    /facepalm

  • 44. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    "Let the feds handle it"…… From the same ignorant jerks who kept bellowing 'states rights!' regarding civil marriage laws (as if states have a 'right' to enact laws that violate the federal Constitution). Now they want to imply the state CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be responsible for civil marriage laws? That's the problem with irrational rhetoric. It doesn't take long before it starts to conflict with itself.

  • 45. ebohlman  |  September 4, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Atherton seems to believe that Obergefell was the first time the SCOTUS ever addressed State laws regarding who can and can't marry. I always thought "Loving Zablocki and Turner" would make a good title for a movie.

  • 46. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    …. and this guy is a JUDGE? Sheeeesh.

  • 47. JayJonson  |  September 4, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    I hope someone files a complaint against him with the Tennessee judicial ethics commission. And I hope that the couple denied the divorce files a lawsuit against him.

  • 48. Shmoozo  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Yeah, this Judge Atherton needs to be removed from the bench for pulling a stunt that boneheaded.

  • 49. GregInTN  |  September 5, 2015 at 9:08 am

    Here's a link to the editorial cartoon in Friday's Chattanooga Times Free Press on the topic:
    http://www.timesfreepress.com/cartoons/2015/sep/0

    If you can't see it due to the pay wall, here's the description:

    A Divorce Decree certificate that certifies that Chancellor Atherton and Reality are officially divorced.

    In other TN news, a state legislator (Rick Womick) is urging TN county clerks to follow the lead of Kim Davis. This legislator had called the Obergefell decision "unprecedented" and when asked how he could say that in view of Loving, he replied that he had never heard of the Loving ruling.
    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/state

  • 50. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 6, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    The CONs are trying to 'make hay' with his decision and comments:
    "I immediately was delighted when I read this article about this courageous county judge in Tennessee, i.e. Jeffrey M. Atherton of Hamilton county!"
    (Commentary by 'Trigger' on the 'common sense' web site, September 5, 2015: http://bingelt.blogspot.com/2015/09/county-judge-… )

    From what I can tell, he went to the University of Tennessee, and got his law degree from that same university. Note to myself – don't suggest the University of Tennessee Law School to any prospective attorneys. If they bring it up, talk it down.

  • 51. RnL2008  |  September 7, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Talk about Judicial ACTIVISM……..folks like this just make matters worse. At no time did SCOTUS rule that divorce was NO longer allowed just because the Gays are exercising their right to marry…….the couple NEED to file a complaint with the Ethics department or who ever accepts these sort of complaints.

  • 52. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    So… How do I find out how long Ms. Davis stays on salary? What office do I call? federal funds are mixed with state funds in some budgets, and though I'm in a different state, I don't want a penny of mine put in her commissary account!

  • 53. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    O…M…G…. Carpool Cookie – is it really YOU?? : ) : ) : )

  • 54. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 4, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Yes…new spelling, as I have forgotten my old password. But I shall prevail…

  • 55. davepCA  |  September 4, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    yaaaay!

  • 56. Nyx  |  September 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    I agree with davep it's nice to see you back.

  • 57. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 4, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    How kind you are. And note my avatar looks Younger than Ever! It's almost as if time's rolled BACKWARDS!

  • 58. Deeelaaach  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    Glad to see you back!

    I don't know if this is what you're asking or not, but here's my answer. I wanted to know (this) answer for myself, so I did a few searches and determined that Kim Davis was sworn in on Jan 5, 2015, and is office for a term of four years. If anyone knows any different, please correct me!

    I did note that Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel, in statements he made that I saw on TV (I don't remember where I saw them or when he made them) said something to the effect that the citizens of TN wanted Davis in office.

    While this can be asserted because Davis won an election, Staver made it sound like the citizens of TN had chosen her to be in office for the past 26 (27?) years or so. Of course, for the vast majority of that time, she was not an elected official but an employee who could be fired, and she was employed at the behest of her mother (or whomever had the hire/fire capability for her county), not the citizens of TN.

  • 59. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    OMG! Even the Westboro Baptist Churchers think Kim Davis is Scum for defying "Man's law"

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/04/the-westboro

    From WBC Twitteratti:

    "If Kim Davis has any real fear of God she'll resign and move out of the house from the man she lives w/ in adultery!"

    but of course they still hate fags:

    “Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag."

    "Divorce remarriage = Adultery"
    This part is true
    Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    Although we don't know the reason for her prior multiple divorces…the husbands sexual immorality, her sexual immorality, or incompatible difference, or no fault? And forgetting divorce for a moment, Kimmy also seems to have no problems with these parts of her bible:

    Luke 6:37
    Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

    Matthew 7:5
    You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

    Romans 13:10
    Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

    Galatians 5:14
    For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

    Matthew 6:1
    Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

    James 1:26
    Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.

    I do not know who is worse. The WBC simply marches and holds nasty signs, condemning people with their words. Kimmy gets herself elected to public office, taking in 10's of thousands of the tax payers dollars in salary and then denies gays/lebesians their constitutional rights and their fundamental right to marry.

  • 60. JayJonson  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    I think this story about the right-wing hysteria about a Muslim woman wanting a religious accommodation is illuminating. They are outraged that a Muslim woman employed by a private business asked to be excused from serving alcohol and allowed to wear a headdress, but think that Kim Davis is entitled to a religious accommodation to deny other people their constitutional rights.
    http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/04/hypocrisy-expl

  • 61. Zack12  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    At some point there needs to be disbarment proceedings started against Staver.
    How could someone who is clearly leaving his client out to dry still keep his law license?

  • 62. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:25 am

    I wonder how long it took Staver to find someone stupid enough to be his patsy. Or did he start his search in Kentucky…

  • 63. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    Right after "Obergefell," he sent out a series of solicitations, beating the bushes, begging likely county clerks to become his tools. Besides this one from Rowan County KY, the only other clerk who appears to have taken him up on his "offer," is the fool from Irion County TX. However, so far, there's no lawsuit filed against her. At least one same-sex couple has been denied in Irion County, but they've declined to file suit.

  • 64. LK2013  |  September 4, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    Why would anyone listen to Mat Staver? Of course he is going to say the licenses aren't valid, so he can keep stirring the pot. He – and his client – are increasingly irrelevant.

    I'm not sure why Chris Geidner at Buzz Feed is feeding into hysteria about the validity of the Rowan County marriage licenses, but this rather confused article seems to attack the Judge a bit.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-judge-in

    BUT, as noted above by another poster, Equality Case Files on Facebook has links to David Wills transcript of the hearing yesterday, in which it is clear that the Rowan County Attorney clearly stated that marriage licenses issued by Deputy Clerks, as ordered by Judge Bunning, would be VALID:

    "The attorney for Rowan County said, paraphrased, he believes licenses issued by deputy clerks in compliance with the Order while Kim Davis is in custody are VALID, and that they can issue them in her absence."

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/879659535402576/

    Moreover, there is the comment below, by a Kentucky attorney, that cites Kentucky law stating that deputies can VALIDLY perform the duties of their officers. It seems pretty clear. Plus, add the fact that a Federal Judge has ordered it, and I think the couples are safe:

    "Richard Frank Dawahare ·
    Lawyer at Richard F. Dawahare, Esq.

    Marriage licenses are valid:

    KRS 61.035

    Deputy may act for ministerial officer. Any duty enjoined by law or by the Rules of Civil Procedure upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy. "

    http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2

    PLUS, I think the Judge said that the only people who could challenge the licenses would be parties named therein anyway.

    If there is any doubt, the Rowan County Executive, "Doc" Blevins, should just step in and sign the darn things.

    http://www.kcjea.org/rowan.html

  • 65. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Another Night at the Carter County Detention Center with Big Bertha

    Carter County Detention Center
    Inmate Look-up, page 2: http://www.cartercountydetention.com/CarterCoDC_i

    Inmate #34, Davis, Kimberly B.
    Book date 2015-09-03, no release date

  • 66. DeadHead  |  September 4, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    “The marriage forms issued Friday did not bear Davis’s name because of her refusal to endorse them. Instead, the clerk’s office included a space for a deputy clerk to sign his or her name. U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning sent Davis to jail and ordered the deputy clerks to issue licenses in her absence. A representative for Bunning could not be reached for comment Friday. As the Lexington Herald-Leader noted, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins has previously said deputy clerks don’t need Davis’s approval to issue valid marriage licenses. Reached at his office Friday, Watkins declined to comment. In other Kentucky counties, marriage licenses are routinely signed by a deputy, even though the clerk’s name appears on the form.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp

  • 67. Zack12  |  September 4, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    I love how Kim Davis and her "lawyers" are now completely contradicting themselves.
    Yesterday they said all they wanted was to make sure her names weren't on the forms, now they are stating they aren't valid without it.
    This shows what this was truly about, Kim Davis wanting to impose her bigotry on everyone else.

  • 68. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 9:29 pm

    You're right. Liberty Counsel thought they came up with the perfect and clever way around Obergefell; just have county clerks elected that don't want to issue SS marriage licenses, even run for office on that platform. And they'd get around Obergefell by claiming religious liberty and various state Religious Restoration Acts. Voilà, stop ME in its tracks by electing conscientious objectors to same sex marriage. It would mainly work in rural america, or southern states like Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, etc.

    These conservative fundies would spare no expense in local elections in the next several years to elect conscientious anti-SSM candidates to the clerks office. Even if they were only to elect 60% new clerks, it would give them a life long purpose and reason for endless fundraising drives. This is why Kimmy needed to be incarcerated and this whole scheme nipped in the butt bud.

    This scheme of theirs will likely end up at SCOTUS. Hopefully SCOTUS will just deny cert when the circuit below denies Staver's claims.

  • 69. GregInTN  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    They seem to making a big point of the fact that marriage equality was not in place in KY when Kim Davis ran for election. Maybe that was technically true, but (assuming her election was on the standard first Tuesday after the first Monday in November), at the time of her election, there would have already been in place a District Court determination that the ban was unconstitutional (and the 6th Circuit's opinion came out after election day) so the possibility of marriage equality coming to KY was certainly known by the time of her election.

  • 70. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Laws change all the time. Legislatures make new laws, courts invalidate old laws every day. One can't claim that he/she only respects and will carry out laws that were made in the exact moment he/she gave his oath. If that were possible, police officers and other public officers would all be enforcing different laws depending on what was in effect at the exact moment he/she swore the oath. These claims are ridiculous.

  • 71. bayareajohn  |  September 5, 2015 at 12:57 am

    Yep. If Davis decided she would prevent lawful marriages between different races or by previously married people, both of which had been massively promoted as biblical positions in years past, it would not matter if she were in office before those restrictions were overturned by the courts. And in hindsight, not even the damned "Liberty Council" would support her. She's had 3 divorces of her own. This is not about religious freedom, it's about forcing her beliefs on others. And it's indefensible. If she can't bear to permit others to exercise their rights, she needs to do something else for a living, and stop blocking legal rights.

  • 72. Zack12  |  September 5, 2015 at 11:26 pm

    Indeed the claims are ridiculous but it's all they've got.

  • 73. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:49 pm

    Indeed, absolutely!

    In March 2014, Judge Heyburn, in "Bourke v. Beshear," first struck down Kentucky's ban on recognition of out-of-state legally-performed marriages, then followed this up in July 2014, in "Love v. Beshear, when he struck down Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage in its entirety, issuing his much-quoted observation regarding the state defendants:

    "These arguments are not those of serious people," Heyburn wrote. "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have."

  • 74. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 5, 2015 at 8:07 am

    << in "Love v. Beshear, >>

    Ooops……I first thought that said "Love v. SheBear" (?????)

  • 75. ebohlman  |  September 5, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Love v. Beshear was one of those cases where the title describes the issues as well as the parties.

  • 76. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    Right. Sorry. I think "Love vs. SheBear" was the famous "Alienation of Affection by Goldilocks" case.

  • 77. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Of all the marriage cases, I've never decided whether "Love v. Beshear" from Kentucky, or whether "Love v. Pence" from Indiana, was more aptly named. Regardless, "Courage v. Meade" from Wyoming takes runner-up.

    On the other hand, "Hard v. Bentley" from Alabama wins for implying the most risqué double-entendre, especially considering that "Hard" prevailed over "Bentley" (as well as the evil mother-in-law).

  • 78. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 7:14 am

    Oh, it's just a lie – like everything else out of their mouths. Kim Davis began to appeal to everyone she could think of for a possible exemption LONG BEFORE the SCOTUS decision in June 2015.

    She absolutely anticipated this problem, and she has been looking for an out for herself from Day One.

  • 79. jjcpelayojr  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:21 am

    correction: She's been looking for a way to have her cake and eat it too. The out would've been to resign.

  • 80. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 5, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    If I remember correctly, Kentucky has it's primary elections in May (Indiana's are usually the first Tuesday after the first Monday of May, and Kentucky's are at the same time, or a week later).

    If I also remember correctly, Davis won her primary election by a total of less than 30 votes (27?) out of more than 2000 cast for that particular office in the Democratic party primary.

    Also, in February 2014 (almost three months before the primary election), a judge ruled that Kentucky MUST recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. Anyone with any foresight should have known the other boot was about to fall – a judge ruling that Kentucky's laws prohibiting ME was about to be struck down, and in fact that happened on July 1, 2014 (more than 4 months prior to the General Election). For someone to say Kim Davis was blindsided is stretching the truth quite a bit.

  • 81. guitaristbl  |  September 4, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    Staver is now moving to phase 2 of the drama he is directing apparently. We heard about MLK, bible figures and all that nonsense and having by his side useful idiots like Cruz, Huckabee and even Bush does not hurt him to the crowds he is addresing anyway.
    I must say I take comfort at the fact that other radical homophobes like Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation or Maggie Gallagher did not support Davis and her actions. Staver may have picked the wrong fight here to stir controversy with only Perkins on his side but I say lets wait a few days.
    The whole scheme had nothing to do with law and was based on media attention on the "martyr christian woman" the whole time – Staver has to keep the spotlight on – I bet he will be giving many press conferences and with Huckabee visiting Davis next week he may be able to keep the attention of the media..But then what ? For how long ?
    I guess the next plan is to get the other 2 defiant clerks in the game – of course a lawsuit has to be filed first against them..But I cant see Davis alone keeping the spotlight for long unless she does something stupid in jail..The spotlight will be back on in January where we will have to see what the Kentucky legislature will do.

  • 82. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    The only audience that this side show appeals to is the fundie evangelikooks. Davis and Staver will take advantage of any situation to perpetuate their resistance to Obergefell, whether that's her in prison or at Rowan Courthouse denying couples over and over with her Nazi salute.

  • 83. bayareajohn  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    But what a show… a god-fearing woman imprisoned for her belief, while sodomites rule the courts, it's a twisted drama they couldn't have even dreamed up. It's the perfect story to instill fear into all those fundies who think that between the Muslims and Gays, the world is ending for guns, white civilization, and the Confederate Way.

    Maybe it is, and maybe they are right to be afraid. They are losing. Finally.

  • 84. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    Reality TV 2.0

  • 85. Zack12  |  September 4, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    I suspect even Anderson and Gallagher know that if Kim Davis is allowed to use her government position for this, there would be no basis to deny "other" people with different religious beliefs from doing the same.

  • 86. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    Kim Davis, through her lawyers, is now pronouncing that today's SS marriage licences are void. Again, she is overstepping her authority. If Kentucky is like most states, county clerks don't have the authority to void official documents that have been duly issued by the state. She can no more void and has no authority to void today's marriage licenses issued by Rowan County than she can void a marriage or marriage license issued in any other state or country. Only a court has the authority to "void" a marriage license, and then only if the marriage in question was contracted contrary to state law. County Clerks are charged with issuing and recording documents, approving their completeness not their legality nor voiding them. Does she sit in her office and read every single document she records for legality and officially "approve" or void each document accordingly? No. Does she have a J.D.? No. Has she passed a bar exam or been accepted into any law bar? No. She's nothing more than a glorified filing clerk and notary.

    If she continues her willful disrespect and contempt of the court, Judge Bunning should add to her consequences an annual fine equal to her Rowan County annual salary of $80,000, or more to pile on debt.

    This woman's megalomania is spiraling out of control. If and when Judge Bunning allows her to be released, he should first ask her if she intends on stamping any licenses she finds unacceptable as "VOID", whether they contain her name or not. If she says she will, then he should keep her in prison (A Fed Prison) until she is no longer employed by Rowan County as the County Clerk.

  • 87. sfbob  |  September 4, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    When I've brought up the notary function, a couple of people who are in fact notaries have pointed out that the main purpose of a notary is to validate that the people signing a document are who they present themselves to be. I'd actually equate the role of the county clerk to that of an escrow agent in a real estate transaction. The escrow agent does what the notary does (because they're usually a notary) but makes sure all the signatures are in the right places, and any pages that have to be initialed that have to be initialed, makes sure the funds are balanced out and, in a pinch, explains the functions of the various forms in case the purchaser has any questions about them. On the other hand the escrow agent for sure doesn't tell the purchaser in the transaction that he or she isn't worthy to own the property, which is essentially what Davis has been doing. Among her many outrageous assertions was what she told one of the now-married couples, that they'd have to answer to their maker on judgment day. Who the ever-loving hell does she think she is to be preaching on government time?

  • 88. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    I'll buy that. Even better explanation of a clerks doodies duties, responsibilities and authority. She's a glorified escrow agent/proof reader/notary/file clerk. Either way, she still has no authority to declare or stamp any marriage licence null and avoid. But you can't explain that to a megalomaniac.

  • 89. tx64jm  |  September 5, 2015 at 9:46 am

    Actually … shes a LOT more than a "glorified filing clerk and notary." Shes actually a constitutional officer of the state (kentucky constitution section 99).

    She has election responsibilities, tax responsibilities, sits on the county election board, shes the motor vehicle registrar, sells hunting and fishing licenses, etc.

    Whats really funny is that, in the description of her job duties, consisting of 19 pages from the document below, marriage licensing is only one sentence.

    As to the comment about her not being a lawyer, shes forbidden from being a lawyer:

    "61.098 Practice of law prohibited.
    (1) No county clerk or circuit clerk shall maintain a law partnership or association with an attorney-at-law.
    (2) No circuit clerk, county clerk, justice of the peace, constable, or recorder shall keep his office with that of an attorney-at-law."

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf

  • 90. bayareajohn  |  September 5, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    Those sections do not FORBID her from "being" a lawyer, only from practicing law while serving as the clerk.

  • 91. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 5, 2015 at 10:49 pm

    Consider the source.

  • 92. tx64jm  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:16 am

    Same difference. A person who cannot practice law cannot hold themselves out to the public as a lawyer.

  • 93. jjcpelayojr  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Umm…no. A person who passes the bar is a lawyer, just not a practicing one. Just like an unemployed doctor is no less a doctor.

  • 94. tx64jm  |  September 6, 2015 at 9:50 am

    Incorrect. Just because you pass the bar exam doesnt mean you are a lawyer, anymore than holding a j.d. makes you a lawyer. It just means you have completed one of the steps. If you are not licensed, you are not a lawyer.

  • 95. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 11:29 am

    See the section title:
    61.098 Practice of law prohibited.

    I am licensed and not practicing. I am a lawyer. You are wrong in analysis, but conceivably right in this application.

    Nice discussion by the ABA: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/tussle

    As the article discusses, the problem with holding oneself out to be a lawyer (using the title on letterhead or signature, for example) when working for a municipality as a Clerk is that an attorney-client relationship can be triggered inadvertently, creating a conflict of interest and an ethics violation. Thus Kansas could have decided (in case law following this section) that it means you can't use the title, or that you can't ever have been subject to the rules of being an attorney. Or not. I would guess it hasn't been litigated, but I'm not going to research it further.

    (NOTE that the ABA repeatedly refers to ever-licensed non-practicing or retired lawyers as…. LAWYERS. They ought to know what they are called.)

  • 96. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Whether or not she is a lawyer is beside the point. The point is that she has no authority or business deciding the legality of marriage applicants. Her only job is to confirm whether or not applicants meet the criteria as set out by law. Are they old enough, are they related, are they paying the required fee, are both applicant's present and single. I mentioned J.D. because presumably only an attorney can give legal advice or analysis and determine the legality of other documents submitted to her. Y'all are picking at dried bones, when the meat was long gone.

  • 97. tx64jm  |  September 7, 2015 at 2:01 am

    Then why does Kentucky law require a marriage license to include the clerk's authorization for the two to get married?

    You're saying she does not have any business deciding the legality of marriage applicants.

    She's saying that under the Kentucky RFRA she has a state level claim to a religious exemption from having to comply with the statute to authorize the marriage.

    And it's a bona fide claim … the Kentucky legislature can fix the problem by eliminating that portion of the marriage license statute (requiring the clerk's authorization).

  • 98. Zack12  |  September 7, 2015 at 7:53 am

    RFRA should not be applied to employees who work for the government.
    That is establishing a state religion, which is forbidden.

  • 99. sfbob  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    Kind of works the same way for real estate appraisers. I've been one for almost 38 years and will be until the end of the month when my last license expires and I do nothing to renew it. Until then, now that I have mentioned what I did until I retired from my last job, I can't tell you, even in the most casual of ways, what I think a piece of property is worth, whether you've asked for my opinion or not. If I do I have performed an appraisal and I need to follow rules. One of the things I'd have to do is to prepare a written memo stating what my opinion was and how I arrived at that conclusion. So please…don't ask.

  • 100. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    As Rose would say…there is no arguing with STUPID.

  • 101. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 6, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    The standard salutation to a person is Mr., Ms. or Mrs., unless they have held an elected and/or appointed position in the Government.

    Thus once insstalled as a Judge, you are ALWAYS called a judge, even after you have retired from the bench, unless you have been elected and/or appointed to a more senior position with a new (to you) and different title. The only exception is the military, and even they use the highest position attained, but put 'Ret' after the salutation. Thus Ms. Clinton was known as Senator until she took the office of Secretary of State, then she became known as 'Madame Secretary' until she takes a more senior position, such as being elected President of the United States (at which time she takes the oath of office, she becomes known as 'President').

    Calling her 'Madame Secretary' means she is currently Secretary of State? I think Secretary Kerry might take offense at that thinking (and I'm sure Madame Secretary Clinton would appreciate the error, but be amused at the unforced error at the same time. Unforced, as just a little bit of research would show the error of your thinking.).

  • 102. F_Young  |  September 7, 2015 at 5:45 am

    Mike Baltimore: "The standard salutation to a person is Mr….."

    Mike, and everybody else, it would be helpful in your replies to quote an excerpt of the post to which you are replying, and the name of the person you are addressing, as I just did here.

    With the number of replies to root comments as well as to subcomments and subsubcomments, and the fact that Intense debate does not clearly link replies to the appropriate comment, it is often impossible to make sense of replies otherwise, which leads to unnecesary confusion and misunderstandings.

  • 103. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    Florida: More Up-Date on Marriage Equality Cases

    Per Equality Case Files:

    Today, 4 September 2015, in "Brenner/Grimsley v. Scott," the consolidated Florida federal marriage cases, the Brenner plaintiffs have filed two responses to the state defendants' motion to dismiss the cases as moot.

    One response was filed in District Court, and a second related filing was made in the 11th Circuit Court appeal.

    It goes on and on in Florida, as the dollar amount for attorney fees continues to increase with each filing, all of which, eventually, the state will inevitably have to pay, as the outcome is already a given. http://files.eqcf.org/cases/414-cv-00107-119/

  • 104. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    Another Georgia Marriage Case Up-Date

    Per Equality Case Files:

    At the lower level, on 2 September 2015, in "Inniss v. Aderhold," the Georgia class-action marriage case, District Court Judge Duffy has called for both parties, in light of "Obergefell," to file a joint status report, due on 15 September 2015, recommending further processing, if any, of this litigation. https://www.facebook.com/EqualityCaseFiles

  • 105. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    Transgender Student Denied Use of Appropriate Facility

    Norfolk VA – On 4 September 2015, in "Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board," a federal court in Virginia ruled against a transgender male student who sought a preliminary injunction to resume using the boys’ restrooms at Gloucester High School when school begins this fall. Senior District Judge Robert Doumar’s order keeps in place a discriminatory policy that segregates transgender students from their peers and requires them to use “alternative private” restroom facilities.

    In an earlier decision, the court dismissed Gavin Grimm’s claim under Title IX of the US Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination by schools. In June 2015, the Department of Justice filed a brief supporting Gavin in his sex discrimination claim, stating, “There is a public interest in ensuring that all students, including transgender students, have the opportunity to learn in an environment free of sex discrimination.”

    The ACLU says it will appeal today's decision. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_do

  • 106. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 4, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    Should trans have their own bathroom/locker rooms?
    MALE – FEMALE – OTHER?

    Which multi stall bathrooms should [non trans-gender] transvestites and in full costume Drag Queens be able to legally use?

    The Santa Fe City Council on Wednesday [June 2015] passed a new ordinance that will require all single occupancy public restrooms to be gender neutral.
    The new law will not impact multi-stall restrooms. Those will stay gender separate so men and women won't have to use the restroom at the same time.
    The way the ordinance is written, if a business owner doesn't comply, the business would be given a citation.

    Some may disagree with me, but it seems simplest to assign bathroom privileges to the equipment an individual has between their legs (Anatomical Basis), not what a person wears, how they feel inside, their sexual orientation, or gender affection orientation. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. So, have a penis? Use the Penis designated and equipped restroom. Have a Vagina?, use the Vagina designated and equipped restroom. Have both? – Users Choice. Vagina based restrooms thus have tampon and sanitary napkin dispensers. Accordingly, penis based RRs have stand up urinals, condom and Polo® Cologne dispensers. Thus there should be no legal question for an individual as to which room they may use. All should have privacy walls around each toilet anyway. Many businesses don't have unlimited funds to install 3 or more restroom types. All restrooms should have baby changing tables.

    I like the idea of family restrooms (single room/toilet), so that parents can take their kids of whatever sex and people can take in a wheelchair bound family member of opposite sex who needs assistance. I'm seeing more and more of these in businesses.

  • 107. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 6, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    ". . . people can take in a wheelchair bound family member. . . ."

    NOT having such a bathroom would probably be a violation of the 'Americans with Disabilities Act' (ADA) which came into effect in 1990, especially if any type of remodeling/construction work has happened at that facility.

  • 108. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    You didn't read that paragraph carefully did you…

    The ADA doesn't require single room Family Restrooms, only that restrooms be wheelchair accessible. A multi stall RR can (and most do) meet that requirement, but isn't by definition a single room RR. It's a lot more comfortable and easier for a husband/son to take their paraplegic/triplegic//quadriplegic wife/mother into a single room Family RR, than to use a multi stall "Men's Room" with a handicap stall. It's also more comfortable for a dad to use a Family RR to take his young non handicap daughter than the Men's Room.

  • 109. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 6, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    And you didn't read my comment carefully, did you?

    Did I state that the requirement was for a 'multi-stall' or 'single-stall' bathroom?

  • 110. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    Not really Baltimore. I try to avoid reading your drivel as much as possible. You did say "bathroom" would "probably" violate the ADA though. My post didn't have anything to do with the ADA – it was about the issue of cross-dressers bathroom privileges and easier use for families with handicapped members or young children. But of course you picked up a tangent.. for what end, I have no idea, and at this point don't care.

    It's my mistake for thinking you actually have something cogent to respond to me instead of only arguing for arguments sake and to be contrary. Guess this teaches me not to bother reading your replies as well. Perhaps you should consider doing the same?

  • 111. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    LOL, two down votes without suggesting a better or at least alternate solution. So much for "intense debate".

    Wunderbar! More hit and run down votes without any compelling dialogue from the simpletons who can only manage to click and run. Well, at least it tells me I manage to irritate one or two simpletons. :).

  • 112. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Boy have you gotten bitter lately.

    Disagreeing with you is not a sign of being a simpleton, sorry. Thinking that it IS, now that's a sign of runaway ego.

  • 113. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    The pot should look in the mirror before calling the kettle black…no? People should disagree with me, should they have cause, and they do.

    Referring to those who can't articulate a reason for down voting me me as simpleton, is more about frustration than bitterness…don't you think? How is one supposed to defend one's position without an argument to back up the down vote? I can't help it if my strong language choice offends your delicate sensibilities.

    Besides who said disagreeing with me is a sign of being a simpleton? Having no cogent reason for a down vote may be. Even Texas Jim, Birmingham and Baltimore at least can express a reason for disagreeing with me, as impotent as their prattle may be.

    Perhaps the sign of a run away ego is a self appointed forum police? But that's up to the judiciary to decide…or are you that too?

    I would actually welcome an alternative solution to my idea of a solution to the bathroom issue for trans and cross dressers. I haven't seen any yet.

  • 114. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    And you don't think you are self-appointed in your name calling as simpletons anyone who does not meet your standard of explaining to you what you have no authority to demand or reason to expect. A vote is a vote, not a contract with you.

  • 115. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    Oh…I guess I'll have to have my lawyer review my contract before I can comment on that. But I guess that would be pointless, based on you being the judge, I have no right to speak up, or to call a spade a spade. Perhaps everyone should run their posts by you first to make sure they meet his majesty's standards and criteria. Is that in your contract?

    Perhaps they should change the name from intense debate, to politely down vote anyone you disagree with, with no debate, no alternative solutions. Or perhaps you should allow the simpletons to defend themselves…oh yes, I forgot, you're the self appointed Savior and spokesperson too. Unless and until you show power of attorney to defend and argue for the simpletons on their behalf, my contract and my attorney says I'm not authorized to speak to you further on this matter. I'll address the simpletons directly, thank you very much.

  • 116. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Wow. Is this MU2/Hopalong back on Tony's hacked account?

  • 117. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    Seriously? You're equating my having the audacity to use discernment, whether you agree with it or not, to identify ANONYMOUS people as simpletons the same as calling someone a Cu*T, or a M&*ther F&&Xn N#@$gG&? Perhaps your hyperbole meter is broken…you should have it checked. I guess you're also against identifying a bigot as a bigot and a pedophile as a pedophile because no one can use discernment. But it's perfectly ok for you to identify me as bitter an an ego maniac…because you're an authority on such things? I see how it is. Pot, Black. Pot Black… Pot Black? No? Ok.

    I don't call names of people who have a debate with me (unless you can't identify a troll as a troll). Have I called you a name? And I'm not apologetic for identifying anonymous simpletons. What's the problem? Do you have multiple accounts that you use to support your opinions by anonymously up and down voting? I've never called for anyone to stop doing what they do. But I sure as hell don't have to like it or condone it. Too me, anonymous down voters are equivalent of anonymous hecklers who have nothing better to say than boo. It's the same as people who boo a city councilor but have no better idea or solutions, only the boo. And I don't contest their right to their little boos.

    I will admit, there is sometimes a subtle difference between identifying a person by their actions or in actions, and attacking someone personally INSTEAD of their argument. But here, we have no argument to attack. Instead of wasting my time attacking me as an ego maniac, you could have presented an argument agreeing or disagreeing with my bathroom policy. But nooo, that's not what the function of the forum Gestapo. Go figure.

  • 118. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    Oh, I thought you were equating me to MU2/Hopalong calling specific people by the C word and the N word. I don't condone that.

    But on the other hand, I don't have a problem with people identifying a troll a troll, a bigot a bigot, a simpleton a simpleton or a sweety a sweety, or a gay a gay, a spade a spade, an evangelical an evangelical or evangelikook even. There is a difference between identifying your opponent and using their status as your only counter argument. But I'm sure you have a retort to anything I say.

  • 119. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    FYI, I deleted that reply of mine because I wrote it thinking it was in reply to a different post. I deleted it within seconds of pressing SUBMIT, but Tony probably got it emailed to him immediately,

  • 120. F_Young  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm

    Tony Minas Trith: "LOL, two down votes without suggesting a better or at least alternate solution."

    Tony, I didn't downvote your post, assuming we are talking of the same post, but I often upvote and downvote posts by anyone. I think it is as legitimate to downvote as to upvote. Otherwise, why are there two options?

    The simple answer why someone might vote instead of commenting is that they don't have the time to write (especially on cellphones with tiny keyboards and cumbersome editing interfaces).

  • 121. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Thanks, I understand where you're coming from. I guess no one has a better answer than my post regarding the issue of bathrooms for people of non traditional sex or standard of dress. My comments were as much a challenge as a statement. It's like going to a city council meeting and disagreeing by booing the speakers (which everyone has the right to do), but not having an alternative solution.

  • 122. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    As to your hardware-based selection suggestion, I think it is more disruptive to all for Kaitlyn Jenner to use the men's room because she still has her birth equipment. OTHOH, I support the move to designate single-stall RR's as gender neutral, and for caring places that can afford it, family- and ADA- friendly private RR's that are open to all who wish the extra privacy for whatever the reason. I know boys who were afraid to use the boys room in my Detroit high school… with good reason.

    And by the way, I wasn't one of the "simpletons" who downvoted your initial post without comment anyway.

  • 123. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    Well finally, only 30 posts later..an alternate opinion to the actual issue, with some reasoning, and not by cut and paste pro forma…that I can respect. Thank you. When there are differences of opinion on the table, and not just boos from the gallery, we have the initial makings of a solution or at least a compromise. How can inclusive solutions be found by boos (anonymous down votes alone)? Riddle me that.

    Transgenders are a different issue and why I separated them out.. My concern is more for the moms and dads who want to be able to go to Applebees or McDonalds and let their 8 or 12 year olds go into the mens room or ladies by themselves without having to worry about Friday night transvestites. Now I'm not saying that transvestites equals pedophiles….by no means. But I do recognize the consternation many moms and dads do feel in sending their 10 year old into the ladies room with a group of transvestites. What's your solution to alleviate the real concern and anxiety, if not prudence, these moms and dads have?

    My frustration comes from hearing (not here obviously) that the "solution" is that transvestites and cross dressers should just have the right do whatever they want, and parents should just get over it because transvestites should be free to do as they please regardless of the rest of society. And how is some parent supposed to tell the difference between a part time transvestite and a full time trans gender? But if you want to label my concern for moms and dads as bitterness and ego mania..it is your right to do so.

  • 124. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:38 pm

    I didn't say or think you were. You normally have something cogent to say, when you aren't being all judgmental. I respect reasoned opinions agreeing or disagreeing with me, not anonymous drive by boos from the gallery…

    It's time to ratchet the tangent upheaval down and refocus on the main goal. Removing Davis from office and bringing nationwide ME to Mexico and Australia and the rest of the world.

  • 125. Fortguy  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    Ballotpedia has posted their new map revisions. In summary, the following are still not in compliance or status unknown to them:

    Alabama: Autauga, Bibb, Chambers, Choctaw, Clarke, Cleburne, Covington, Geneva, Marengo, Pike, Washington (no licenses gay or straight)

    Kentucky: Clinton, Whitley (delayed); Knott (unknown)

    Texas: Irion (no same-sex licenses)

    The Irion County, Texas clerk is Molly Criner who is also unwisely seeking legal advice from Liberty Counsel. She refused to say on Friday whether she would be willing to go to jail to continue to avoid issuing licenses.

    Claire Galofaro, Associated Press via The Dallas Morning News: Jailed clerk no martyr, gay rights advocates say; Texas clerk vows that she won't issue licenses

    All other Texas counties in the previous version of their maps that were then in non-compliance were listed as delayed. I'll let others from elsewhere elaborate on the accuracy of their reporting in Alabama and Kentucky.

  • 126. Bruno71  |  September 5, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Someone should let ballotpedia know that Casey Davis and Casey County, Kentucky exist.

  • 127. scream4ever  |  September 5, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Unlike Rowan County, Irion County has only about 1,600 people, so it could be years before a same-sex couple even applies for a license.

  • 128. Fortguy  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    It will likely be sooner than that. Glen Maxey, a DNC member, legislative affairs director of the state party, and a former state rep. who was the first out and proud person ever to serve in the Lege, has promised to recruit a same-sex couple to seek a marriage license in Irion Co. This will not be hard. The county is immediately adjacent to Tom Green County where the mid-sized city of San Angelo is located. That county has a disproportionately large young adult population due to Angelo State University and Goodfellow Air Force Base.

  • 129. Bruno71  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    Maxey said that as soon as the news came out about Irion County, but nothing has occurred yet. While I'm sure they are trying to get a suit going, it may not be easy if they're trying to recruit a couple that actually resides in the tiny county. If a couple which resides outside the county sues, it won't have the same weight with a judge, though I would think they should still win the case.

  • 130. VIRick  |  September 4, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    US Circuit Court Finds Trans Mexican Immigrant Eligible for Relief in USA

    On 3 September 2015, a federal appeals court ruled a transgender woman who fled Mexico to escape life-long persecution is eligible for relief under laws granting refuge for people who experience torture, establishing precedent that could aid individuals fleeing violence based on gender identity in their home countries. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined Edin Avendano-Hernandez, an undocumented immigrant placed in holding in the process for removal back to Mexico, can obtain relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. US Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, wrote the 20-page decision on behalf of the court. “The unique identities and vulnerabilities of transgender individuals must be considered in evaluating a transgender applicant’s asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT claim,” the decision says.

    Representing Avendano-Hernandez in her case were the Santa Ana, Calif.-based Public Law Center and the D.C.-based law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

    Transgender advocates hailed the decision for establishing precedent in the Ninth Circuit that would benefit individuals seeking refuge in the United States after they face discrimination overseas on the basis of gender identity.

    See much more (including some rather graphic detail) at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/09/04/court-f

  • 131. JayJonson  |  September 5, 2015 at 6:52 am

    I think we may need a laugh today. Thanks to Sandy and Richard Riccardi for this ditty entitled, "Kim Davis, Shut up and do your fucking job":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUM9QkHuWis

  • 132. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 7:47 am

    Hilarious! Plus she has a nice voice! Somebody should tell her that Husband #2 is also Husband #4.

  • 133. davepCA  |  September 5, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    That. Was. Awesome.

  • 134. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Well, shut my mouth, and eat those grits! LOL

    Now, that's a Country Music song destined to hit the top of the charts, given the extremely catchy lyrics and the not-for-Sunday-services message.

    I especially like the way it manages to rhyme and slur at the refrain, even using the "correct" regional grammar:

    "…. in a heartbeat at the Hobby-Lob-be shuttin' up, and do your fuckin' job!"

  • 135. ebohlman  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    That duo is wonderful! Also check out their "Kindergarten Graduation Day (Special Snowflake)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFSjZYc8eH4

  • 136. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    I also liked her home-made, hand-crafted IUDs, concocted from multi-colored pipe cleaners, googly-eyes, hot glue, and glitter, all purchased at your favorite Hobby Lobby.

    And if that doesn't work, she also showed off the wide assortment of Hobby Lobby knitting needles and wire coat hangers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Nzm6qzkNc

  • 137. ebohlman  |  September 5, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    There's also the one about making a burqa from Hobby Lobby materials.

  • 138. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 6:24 am

    That was PRICELESS!
    It should make the country top 40, and song of the year.

    …And the Award for Song of the year goes to…. (drum roll)… DO YOUR MOTHER FUCKIN' JOB" Sandy and Richard Riccardi, singer song writer/producers

    …ahem

  • 139. JayJonson  |  September 5, 2015 at 7:47 am

    More cheering news: attorneys in Texas who fought the ban on same-sex marriage are asking for a hefty payout. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/05/texas-state-hi

  • 140. A_Jayne  |  September 5, 2015 at 7:58 am

    $740,000 is a pretty big chunk – not as big, though, as some others states are facing – MI has been hit with a bill for $1.2M for one of their cases, if I recall…

    The article also discusses that silly "10th Anniversary Celebration" some legislators held for the (il)legal subjugation of gay people in TX marriage laws:

    By the way, that asshole cake ceremony happened back in February. The actual tenth anniversary of the ban would have been this November 9th. Remind us to send them a huge fucking rainbow cake on that day.

    I second that!

  • 141. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 8:23 am

    I hope they have to pay every penny of the $740,000, plus interest.

    I would chip in for the rainbow cake, too.

  • 142. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    TEXAS: State Hit With $740,000 Bill For Legal Fees In Failed Battle Against Same-Sex Marriage

    The attorneys for same-sex couples who successfully challenged Texas’ same-sex marriage ban in federal court are seeking nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in fees and costs from the state. In a 27-page motion filed Friday, 4 September 2015, attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in San Antonio asked District Court Judge Orlando L. Garcia to award them $720,794 in fees and $20,203 in costs. Akin Gump represented two same-sex couples in "De Leon v. Perry," which was filed in October 2013 and resolved pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s ruling on 26 June 2015 in favor of same-sex marriage. Under federal law, prevailing parties in civil rights cases are typically eligible for fees and costs. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/05/texas-state-hi

    Note: These fees and expenses only cover the original federal court marriage suit and its appeal. They do not cover the add-on intervention suit, "Deleon v. Abbott," relative to the Texas Department of State Health Services, and whether it has granted all pending applications for death and birth certificates involving same-sex couples, a matter for which the contempt hearing has only just been cancelled.

    So, rest assured, in Texas, at the federal level, there will be more attorney fees and costs which, as of this moment, are yet to be filed, as "Deleon v. Abbott" is not yet finalized.

    In addition, let's also remember that at the state court level, Texas has had more cases filed than even Alabama or Florida, some of which are still on-going. Eventually, the state of Texas will have to pay for all of them. As far as I am aware, only the Hood County case has already been settled (for $43,000, payable to the plaintiffs and their attorneys).

  • 143. jcmeiners  |  September 5, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    I hope the bill for Rowan county comes due shortly before Davis runs for reelection. It would be a thrill to see the property tax increase that pays her legal bills on the same ballot as her reelection.

  • 144. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 9:36 am

    I wish someone would post a picture of Mat Stavers and the other Liberty Counsel folks eating steak while Kim Davis is in jail, so she and her idiot husband would realize what stooges they are being.

    Anyway, this is Chris Hayes talking to Mat Stavers:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG3TCYb2c0U

    Staver, who is such an annoying a-hole, never answers Chris' question: What is the end game?

    He and Kim Davis think the end game is salvation by the Kentucky legislature or the Governor. The Governor has already told her to do her job, and he will not call a special session of the legislature.

    The end game is she will sit in jail until she is convicted of misconduct and removed from office, or she is impeached and removed from office. The former is more likely.

    She will never resign. When she gets tired of jail, she'll have an "asthma" attack and be hospitalized to up the pity factor.

  • 145. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    Or a massive coronary. Maybe she'll loose some weight on prison food.

  • 146. 1grod  |  September 5, 2015 at 10:20 am

    Go to jail, Go directly to jail. Is this likely to happen to the 11`AL probate judges, or do each hold a "community chest" or "chance" card get out of jail free. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/can_alab

  • 147. Rick55845  |  September 5, 2015 at 11:25 am

    I think the author needs to proofread his article one more time.

    "Black wrote that although families could send their children to schools in another county or a private school, the closings violated the Equal Violation Clause of the 14th Amendment."

    I checked to be sure. There is no Equal Violation clause in the 14th Amendment. šŸ™‚

  • 148. jcmeiners  |  September 5, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    But at least in the case of Davis, she somehow missed the "do not collect $80,000". I hope that will be rectified soon. Even kids playing monopoly know that you can't draw a salary from public funds while sitting in jail.

  • 149. Fortguy  |  September 5, 2015 at 11:24 am

    Here is a very interesting case before the 5th Circuit at the juncture of churches, elections, political contributions, and free speech:

    Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff: Churches and recall elections

    Because why should a church waste its money trying to feed the poor, heal the sick, visit the incarcerated, comfort the mourning, or help the suffering when they can instead throw even more money at already obscenely financed election campaigns?

  • 150. guitaristbl  |  September 5, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    300 lunatics from all around the country including pastors imported from other states is all Staver could gather ?
    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/rally-to-suppo

    Oh and Davis LOVES all the attention and martyr status of course !

    She may not be too bright but she sure knows that the big conservative cash is coming her way (books, interviews – they could even make a reality tv show bases on her !). Everybody wins. Staver the publicity stunt and Davis the big cash and christian idol status !

  • 151. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 5, 2015 at 10:53 pm

    Kimmy bobble head dolls will be all the rage in Xtian bookstores this Xmas season. Only $19.95!

  • 152. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 11:50 pm

    Tony, or maybe not.

    This miserable Apostolic Christian Church of hers is a recently-concocted, dire, retrograde, nasty, hard-core, splinter of a splinter of a splinter (without any set rules, other than their so-called "literal" interpretation of some unknown version of the Bible, along with some traumatically-emotional "self-saving" routine) from the main-line Anabaptists.

    The other Anabaptist sects with which I am more familiar, i.e., Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, Church of the Brethren, keep to themselves, keep their mouths shut, and do not interfere with secular non-members. However, as pertinent to your comment, none of them will allow/tolerate graven images of themselves or of any other member of their sect, let alone any "religious" imagery. These are seriously serious "plain" people.

    To prove it, next time you're in the area, attempt to take a photograph of an Amish or of an older Mennonite, and see what happens. So, if she goes off on some media tour, assuming she ever relents and receives her "get-out-of-jail" card, and allows herself to be photographed, she's breaking all sorts of basic Anabaptist "graven image" taboos. Of course, she's already broken another basic taboo by mingling with the secular, having run for and gotten elected to a secular government position. Plus, her contempt conviction also resulted in that government-issued prison mug-shot of her, another taboo.

    Still, to be fair to one of the larger Anabaptist groupings, Eastern Mennonite University (Harrisonburg VA and Lancaster PA), as well as Goshen University (Goshen IN), both now allow for married LGBT students, faculty, and staff.

    Check out the term, Anabaptist, on Wikipedia to see more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists

    Also, check out the photograph of some of the Apostolic cult members from her congregation, taken at the courthouse on the day of the hearing. Notice the limited selection of color in clothing (dark blue/purple), and the ankle-length denim. http://www.joemygod.com/page/5/

  • 153. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 2:20 am

    Makes me want to adopt the Burka for anabaptists when I see these "women".

  • 154. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 6, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    I was raised in the Church of the Brethren, and my second step-father became an elder at one congregation of the Church of the Brethren. (in the Church of the Brethren, the man or woman who attains the position of elder must attain that position by vote of the congregation. And it is not 'once an elder, always an elder, but a vote by EACH congregation is necessary if multiple congregations are involved.) My first step-father was the son and grandson of ministers in the Church of the Brethren.

    It is true that the Church of the Brethren does NOT proselytize, especially in the US and Canada. There also are 6 colleges somewhat associated with the Church of the Brethren across the US, but most students are not members of the Church of the Brethren. Those colleges are Bridgewater, Juniata, Elizabethtown (popularly known as 'E-Town), McPherson, Manchester University and the University of La Verne.

    The Church of the Brethren did NOT (and does NOT) have a ban on people being photographed, as the Church of the Brethren is in the 'liberal' wing of the Anabaptists.

    Some Mennonites are also in that 'liberal' wing, and allow photographs, rubber tires on farm vehicles, allow members to drive cars (and not just Model T's), etc. Some are much closer to the Amish in not allowing photos, not allowing members to drive motorized vehicles made for passengers, do not allow farm equipment to be on public roads, etc.

    I would suspect 95-99% of the members of the Church of the Brethren would not agree with most or any of the beliefs of the Apostolic Christian Church. About the only thing they might agree on is that the theology of each comes from the bibble, but the members of the Church of the Brethren I know think the Apostolic Christian Church is misinterpreting the bibble.

  • 155. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    Time for Kim Davis to have her $80,000 salary docked for not doing her job.

    Kentucky law has a provision for that, and I think being locked up for contempt should be a fabulous qualification:

    61.120 Salary — Deduction from for failure to perform duty.

    (1) If any officer paid in whole or in part out of the State Treasury or by any county
    fails or neglects to perform his duties, without a good excuse set out in full by his
    affidavit and certified by order of court to the Finance and Administration Cabinet
    or other paying officer, there shall be thereafter deducted from his salary such an
    amount as the total number of days during the year in which he failed or neglected
    to discharge his duty bears to the whole number of days in the year for which he
    received compensation.
    So much of the amount deducted as is necessary shall be
    applied to the payment of the special officer who performs the duty of the officer so
    failing.

    (2) Before the court enters an order under KRS 61.130, the court or judge designated in
    KRS 61.130 shall inform the officer accused of failure to perform or neglect of duty
    of the accusations and shall conduct a hearing on the accusations. At the conclusion
    of the hearing, the court or judge shall enter findings of facts and conclusions of law
    and an appropriate order. Either party may appeal the order to the Court of Appeals
    in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and such appeal shall be advanced
    on the docket for immediate review. Provided, however, that the notice of appeal
    and order appealed from shall be filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals within
    thirty (30) days after the order appealed from was filed with the county clerk or
    Circuit Court clerk.

    (3) The court or judge designated in KRS 61.130 may appoint a hearing commissioner
    to conduct the hearing authorized by subsection (2) of this section. If a hearing
    commissioner is appointed, the case shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of
    Civil Procedure regarding hearing commissioners.

    Effective: April 10, 1990
    History: Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 419, sec. 2, effective April 10, 1990. —
    Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat.
    sec. 3763.

  • 156. Car_Pool_Cookie  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    Hmmmm….so, who makes the accusation that an officer is failing or neglecting to do their duties? Then I guess there's a hearing…

  • 157. Fortguy  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    I've asked this before, but no one seemed to have an answer at the time. Do Kentucky statutes require county clerks to be bonded? Many states require certain public officials to pay a bond when they first enter office as a measure of insurance against liability.

  • 158. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    Actually it looks like a pretty big bond is required – I can't imagine how an individual could put up $500,000.

    62.055 Bonds of county clerks — Minimum — Record.

    (1) Every county clerk, before entering on the duties of his office, shall execute bond to the Commonwealth, with corporate surety authorized and qualified to become surety on bonds in this state. Any county clerk holding office as of January 1, 1978, who has not executed bond as provided herein shall do so within thirty (30) days from February 9, 1978.

    (2) In counties containing a consolidated local government or a city of the first class, the amount of the county clerk's bond shall be at least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). In counties containing an urban-county form of government, the amount of county clerk's bond shall be at least four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000). In counties containing a city of the home rule class but not a city of the first class, a consolidated local government, or an urban-county form of government, the amount of the county clerk's bond shall be at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).

    (3) The bond of the county clerk shall be examined and approved by the fiscal court, which shall record the approval in its minutes. The fiscal court shall record the bond in the county clerk's records and a copy of the bond shall be transmitted within one (1) month to the Department of Revenue, where it shall be recorded and preserved. Except in those counties where the fees of the county clerk are paid into the State Treasury, the premium on the county clerk's bond shall be paid by the county.

    (4) Where circumstances in a particular county indicate that the amount of the bond may not be sufficient, the Department of Revenue may request the fiscal court to increase the bond as provided in KRS 62.060. The fiscal court shall then require a bond of sufficient amount to safeguard the Commonwealth.

    Effective: January 1, 2015

    History: Amended 2014 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 27, effective January 1, 2015. — Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 85, sec. 88, effective June 20, 2005. — Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 346, sec. 16, effective July 15, 2002. — Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 86, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1996. — Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 387, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1982. — Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 1, effective February 9, 1978.

  • 159. Fortguy  |  September 5, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    I suspect an individual clerk wouldn't necessarily have to. Similar to a jail bond, a bonding agency would only require a certain percentage to cover the bond. The terms would be much more favorable since there would be no criminal arraignment or even pretense to suggest the public official might be a flight risk or renege on their responsibilities. The upfront cost could, in smaller counties, be paid by savings and home mortgage or, in larger counties, through campaign contributions depending upon state law. The next question is what relief and under what conditions and circumstances a county may seek compensation.

  • 160. ebohlman  |  September 5, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    Yep, there are companies (often divisions of insurance companies) whose main business is providing performance bonds, e.g. for construction contractors working on big-money projects.

  • 161. LK2013  |  September 5, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    My guess is that most Kentucky officials are hoping the Courts take care of Ms. Davis, as the Governor said recently. I'm sure they don't want to spend another penny on this foolishness.

    One bizarre concern that keeps appearing in the (archaic) Kentucky statutes is dueling.

    Yes, if Ms. Davis could be enticed into a duel, she could be removed from office (!)

    61.100 Dueling disqualifies person to hold office. Any person convicted of sending, accepting or knowingly carrying a challenge, for the purpose described in KRS 437.030, shall forfeit any office of honor or profit held by him at the time he committed the offense, or when convicted thereof, and shall thereafter be disqualified to hold any such office. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1270.

  • 162. jjcpelayojr  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:32 am

    I don't necessarily think they are waiting for the courts to wrap it up. Remember, the President of the Kentucky State Senate wrote a friend of the court brief to side with Kim Davis to allow her to continue NOT issuing licenses until they can address her misconduct…next year.

  • 163. ianbirmingham  |  September 5, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages

    SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

    When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.

    Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.

    "He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," Korten said.

    In an email, Day declined to comment and referred questions to Korten.

    The issue of same-sex weddings is "the weightiest" of several allegations against Day that are being investigated by the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, Korten said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-judge-refuses-perfor

  • 164. VIRick  |  September 5, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    Per Rex Wockner:

    In a notice published on 4 September 2015:

    Ensenada, Baja California, México – Primero Matrimonio del Mismo Sexo, 14 Septembro 2015, Registro Civil, Ayuntamiento, a la 1. Abierto al publico.
    (Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico – First Same-Sex Marriage, 14 September 2015, at the Civil Registry in City Hall at 1 PM. Open to the public.)

    Read more here (in Spanish), as the site won't let me copy it: http://www.ensenada.net/noticias/nota.php?id=4163

    Further along in the news article, it mentions that the two women being married are the plaintiffs in the second of the two cases from Baja California that went all the way to Mexico's Supreme Court, at which point (in both cases), Baja California's ban on same-sex marriage was declared unconstitutional.

    In addition, the same news article announcing this marriage also contains this further information:

    Este miércoles, un grupo de 40 parejas del mismo sexo de Ensenada interpusieron dos amparos colectivos que se resolverán en el Juzgado Séptimo y Noveno con sede en Ensenada.
    (On Wednesday, 2 September 2015, a group of 40 same-sex couples from Ensenada filed two collective amparos to be resolved by the Seventh and Ninth Courts based in Ensenada.)

    Since at least four same-sex couples will have already married in Baja California, the granting of either of these two amparos will push Baja California over the all-important number of 5, thus placing Baja California's same-sex marriage ban in abeyance (if it's not already in abeyance, given the Supreme Court rulings).

  • 165. VIRick  |  September 6, 2015 at 12:33 am

    Kim Davis’ marriage history gets explained in this handy flowchart: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/kim-davis-marr

  • 166. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 2:02 am

    That flow chart is just as convoluted as her marriage history. It would have been helpful to have each husband represented by a different icon and different color. It made me dizzy just looking at it.

    ….and btw, I see nothing wrong with u calling out the troll. However, I've taken to completely ignoring it, not reading it's postings, not down voting it and deleting it's email replies to me b4 reading. Energy flows, where attention goes. Cut off it's attention, cut off it's energy. It would get bored if no one down-voted it or responded to it. Trust me, it gets a kick out of every down vote, cause it knows a down vote means it annoyed someone. But you know this. EoT has never been really an adversarial discussion board like some others Rose and I belong to. Except for 2 trolls, pretty much everyone is in favor of Marriage Equality. We do appreciate all the extra news you post, especially when the site goes ignored for weeks at a time. At least I do. Can't speak for anyone else of course.

    However…from another perspective, the troll does provide one benefit….it brings forward the same lies, misinformation that others would bring on a truly adversarial forum. So, in effect, without paying it attention, u can learn what the other side is thinking and learn to counter it's arguments. A bit like a practice debate, as presidential candidates are doing. Just don't argue with it. As they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It's abrasion that polishes, if we roll with it just right.

    I suggested to the admins that one certain other poster had no business here, MU2, and an hour later he was banned. I wouldn't do that with our other troll. I't is just a minor annoyance, who has a right to it's own opinion however irrelevant it is, where the other was a vile, nasty, foul, putrid, racist bigot who had NOTHING to bring, positive or negative to this forum and did not further the ongoing discourse of Marriage Equality which ever side one is on.

    I hope we can all keep the bickering amongst ourselves to a minimum, and remember the larger goal here…World Wide Marriage Equality, and Happy Marriages for All. We may sometimes differ on the path, but except for one, we all agree on the destination. Marriage Equality.

  • 167. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 3:28 am

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=21475&amp

    Dan Savage: Kim Davis 'Is Waiting To Cash In

    Accurate commentary by Dan savage:

    …“I actually think Kim Davis does wish to become a martyr,” Savage said.
    Savage pointed to the case of the Indiana pizza parlor that raised $1 million online after saying that their religious convictions prohibited them from hosting wedding receptions for gay couples. “I think Kim Davis is waiting to cash in,” he said, adding that after she loses her job she'll become a Christian conservative who “will never have to do an honest day's work ever again in her life.” “She's now onto her fourth husband. Jesus Christ himself in Scripture condemned divorce, called it adultery and forbids it. Jesus Christ himself in Scripture says not one word about same-sex marriage,” Savage said.

    Kim Davis is, as Rick put it, a Wal-Martyr. After selling a book, AND Kimmy Bobble heads, raking in beau-coup cash from donors, she'll be on dancing with the stars with poor Tony Davaloni and then she'll be the new Bachelorette, looking for husband number 5, then go on to host her own "hour of power"….unfortunately. The silver lining, as some commentators have put it, that's money flowing away from conservative political machine, and into the black hole that is Kim Davis.

  • 168. ianbirmingham  |  September 6, 2015 at 6:59 am

    I can't back gay rights, said Putin… Russians will stop having babies: How [UK Prime Minister David] Cameron fell out with strongman president despite Olympic friendship

    … they end up having a ‘bickerfest’ about gay rights, both wanting to have the last word. Cameron is riding a high horse, using arguments fresh from his jousting on gay marriage back home, while Putin argues that Russia’s future demography will have problems if gay people are allowed to marry each other, and that the country will not have enough children to secure its future. At times they seem to be enjoying it, at times they seem angry. …

    [Cameron's history on gay rights:]

    At his 2011 party conference speech, with his stock with Conservative backbenchers low and falling, Cameron needs to avoid anything that is neither in his Election manifesto nor that threatens what he is trying to achieve on the economy and core domestic policy issues – yet introduce something utterly unexpected is exactly what he does. Out of a blue sky, he announces that he is consulting over the possibility of legalising gay marriage.

    A bomb detonates in the party. Few issues so divide opinion among Tories at large or even within No 10. Many see it as a self-inflicted wound. Others see it as authentic Cameron, pursuing an issue regardless of the hostility it arouses.

    Cameron believes gay and straight people should be treated the same. At Oxford and beyond, some of his closest friends are gay. Steve Hilton wanted to put gay marriage in the 2010 Tory manifesto but Cameron’s press adviser, former News Of The World editor Andy Coulson (later jailed over the hacking scandal) came out ‘dead against it’.

    There was ambivalence towards it even from the gay community. ‘What’s the point if it is going to p*** off a lot of people and not win us any votes?’ was the view of Cameron’s team. So it was dropped.

    But Cameron returned to it in 2011 partly because the Lib Dems were going to announce their support for it anyway. A key role was played by Cameron’s adviser Michael Salter, described as his ‘go-to gay’.

    Cameron has said: ‘Marriage is special… whether you are a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man.’

    Opposition from Tory MPs grows but Cameron won’t budge. He says: ‘Unless you are making some Neanderthal judgment on gays, those who are gay should have the same rights as those who are not.’

    Party strategist, Australian Lynton Crosby, warns it is a distraction (even though he personally supports the move): ‘You’re f***ing off the party big time.’ And Tory MP Liam Fox articulates the views of many Conservative MPs: ‘It represented the victory of liberal-dinner-party, metropolitan thought over the wider party.’ But Cameron presses ahead and gay marriage becomes legal in 2013.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223814/I

  • 169. A_Jayne  |  September 6, 2015 at 7:21 am

    This kind of statement from those opposed to gay rights:

    Putin argues that Russia’s future demography will have problems if gay people are allowed to marry each other, and that the country will not have enough children to secure its future.

    always gives me pause – they are expressing a fear that many supposedly heterosexual people would be gay if not for the government's stand against gay people – they are also failing to understand that many gay people want to have and raise members of the next generation. In short, they have little to no understanding of a part of life they intend to exert control over…

  • 170. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    Exactly. Being gay doesn't prevent one from procreating or from raising well adjusted children. Gays can raise children just as well as a single parent or a single or married grandparents. Only restrictive laws prevent or hinder gays from being parents. The child excuse is simply pretext for anti-gay bias. Heterosexuals procreate hundreds of times a a day, every day of the year without being married or even intending to marry, and no community passes laws to restrict or punish that. Go figure…

    The world would be a better place if Churches spent more time, money, and energy, getting their congregation to adopt orphans, and the millions in foster care, instead of spending millions fighting SS marriage and building Crystal Cathedrals or flying their preachers around in multi million dollar private jets, and putting them up in mansions and palaces.

  • 171. FredDorner  |  September 6, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    Don't forget that the loony bible-thumper the state of Kentucky hired to defend its ban in district court made the same argument as Putin….that if gays can marry then the population and the economy will collapse, and the earth will be devoured by zombies.

  • 172. Zack12  |  September 6, 2015 at 8:54 am

    I love the new right wing meme going around that only Congress and state legislatures can write laws allowing same sex marriage and therefore Kim Davis isn't in violation of the law.
    Where did these people go to law school?

  • 173. Deeelaaach  |  September 6, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    I try to counter such ignorance, lest it spread. I can't help the willfully ignorant, but maybe I can help the person who isn't. I point out that despite the meme that these courts are *writing* laws, no new laws are actually written by the courts – they simply overturn unconstitutional ones.

    There's a big difference between the two. If someone ignorantly responds that laws are actually being written, I demand show me the new statute. If they're so sure, they can point it out. But of course they never can since there is never a new statute – there's only an unconstitutional one, which is as if it never existed.

  • 174. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2015 at 9:31 am

    There's still work to be done.

    Gay Veterans Push for Honorable Discharges They Were Denied [New York Times]
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/us/gay-veterans

  • 175. Sagesse  |  September 6, 2015 at 10:03 am

    Does anyone else find this coverage a trifle unbalanced? Yes, there is a controversy in Kentucky. Yes, it could spill over into Alabama. Mathematically, if there are 17 Republicans running for the party's presidential nomination, if each of them responds there will be a lot of ink spilled covering it.

    But. Marriage equality is legal across the United States. There was a backlog of couples wanting to be married who are now married. Nothing is going to un-marry them. None of these couples need Kim Davis or her fellow resisters to marry them. The so-called redefinition of marriage has happened. The opposition still talks as if that isn't so, as if there is a meaningful fight to be won. On ME, there isn't. The religious freedom right to discriminate is a battle that continues on other fronts, and needs to be pursued vigourously, but the religious freedom right to prevent same sex couples from marrying is over.

    Uneasy Truce on Gay Marriage Is Shaken by Kentucky Clerk’s Defiance [New York Times]
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/uneasy-truce

  • 176. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    The "news" media simply loves a circus. Certain media outlets love a martyr story even more. Media circuses and contrived victimization of Xtians sell ad space and clicks. The majority of Americans and Fortune 500 companies are in favor of SS marriage (what's not to like). However, there is a large segment of the populace that has an anathema to big government forcing an individual to do a thing contrary to their relegion. Unfortunately, there still remains a large number of older and religious folk who find homo sex love, relationships and affection icky and immoral. Conservatives think it's their crusade to make the world comfortable only for themselves, anyone different be dammed.

  • 177. JayJonson  |  September 6, 2015 at 10:26 am

    What irritates me about the coverage is that reporters are not sufficiently challenging the nonsense that comes from people like Huckabee. His assertion that Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott ruling is simply wrong, as is his aburd idea that it is necessary for Congress or state legislatures to pass enabling legislation to enforce a Supreme Court ruling. This coming from a former governor Arkansas! Has he no memory of President Eisenhower sending in troops to integrate Little Rock's Central High School in order to enforce a court ruling? Neither the U.S. Congress or the Arkansas Legislature had passed enabling legislation re Brown v. Board of Education.

  • 178. guitaristbl  |  September 6, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    Was it 2000 when Alabama voted to repeal the interracial marriage ban, defunct till Loving (and again 40 % voted against) ?
    Will conservatives that claim that state legislatures have to pass laws to allow marriage equality still challenge the validity of all interracial marriages in Alabama performed between Loving and 2000 ?

  • 179. Zack12  |  September 7, 2015 at 7:52 am

    The new line for conservatives is that the laws banning interracial marriage were still one man, one woman.
    They will of course forget to mention the same arguments used against same sex marriage were pretty much the same ones they used against interracial marriage including states rights, religious beliefs etc.

  • 180. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 7, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    And of course, they forget that their entire argument against interracial marriage was based on bibble verses (or their interpretation of those verses).

    Why were they against interracial marriage? God created the different races in different areas of the world, and the different races should not mix. That was their argument from the state district court to their arguments at the Supreme Court.

    How then, do they explain that their belief was/is the first (and only) persons on Earth when it was created were Adam and Eve, and everyone is descended from them?

    To say some people are confused might be an understatement.

  • 181. VIRick  |  September 6, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Kentucky Clerk who Refused Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Starts New Appeal

    On Sunday, 6 September 2015, the lawyer for a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses said his team filed a notice of appeal over a contempt ruling that landed her in jail.

    The notice of appeal was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and officially starts the appeals process, the third such appeal she has filed over some issue or the other, given that her lawyers seem to be appealing anything/everything, regardless of merit,– as if any of it had any merit..

  • 182. Shmoozo  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    Is it just me or does anybody else get the sense that her legal team is increasingly engaging in acts of desperation while they watch their client's chances in the courts disintegrating before their eyes?

  • 183. jcmeiners  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:44 pm

    I wouldn't call it a legal team, although some are licensed as attorneys. It's a public-relations and fundraising team, really.

  • 184. Bruno71  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    "Liberty""Counsel"

  • 185. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 6, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    I get that sense. Hoping it's their final flame out…their last dying gasp before evaporating into insignificance. …The last violent death throes of a venomous snake.

  • 186. bayareajohn  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    It's common to file a number of motions and appeals, as a victory on even a trivial matter can affect your obligation to reimburse costs to the opposing party.

    They taught us in Law School, never go to motion day without at least three motions:
    One that solves all your issues in your favor, even though you figure you'll never get it. Because you -might- get it, and won't if you don't ask.
    One that you deserve and can defend. The one you really expect.
    And One that is better than nothing at all if granted, and almost certainly will go your way, especially if you lose the other two…

    Winning any spares you court costs…. and party reimbursements for defending….

  • 187. 1grod  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm

    Shmoozo: Defeating all such arguments in Ky ought to make it less likely that these assertions will stand up in Alabama courts. That state ought to be the next one of focus in the not-compliance challenge.

  • 188. Bruno71  |  September 6, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    The problem will be getting local couples to bring forth suits. Obviously, if none have until now, it'll be difficult. Those rural counties in Alabama are hell on Earth for LGBT people.

  • 189. ianbirmingham  |  September 6, 2015 at 11:13 pm

    It doesn't have to be a local couple. Any couple from anywhere can travel to any Alabama county and apply for a marriage license. Worst-case scenario is a 3-day waiting period for nonresidents if there are no prior marriages and you want a county official to perform the marriage, but it's 60 days if a person recently got divorced.

    ID Requirement in Alabama: You will need valid Driver's License or Birth Certificate if you are over 18. All applicants must also provide a Social Security number.

    Residency Requirement: You do not have to be a resident of Alabama.

    Previous Marriages: If you were divorced within the last 6 months of your wedding date, you will need to show a copy of your Divorce Decree. According to Section 30-2-10 of the Alabama Code, there is a sixty (60) day restriction on getting married after a divorce.

    Covenant Marriage Option in Alabama: No.

    Waiting Period in Alabama There is no waiting period in Alabama except after being divorced. Then there is a 60 day waiting period after your divorce is final. Nonresidents who want to be married by a county marriage official may have to wait three days. Please contact the county offices to verify whether or not you will have a waiting period.

    Other Required Tests in Alabama: No blood or medical tests required.

    Proxy Marriages in Alabama: No.

    Cousin Marriages in Alabama: Yes.

    http://alabama.usmarriagelaws.com/

  • 190. 1grod  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:15 am

    Ian: thank you. What is troubling to me is that there are 302,026 citizens of the state who do not have access to marriage licenses in the counties where they reside. Straights and non-straights. In 2013, the 11 delinquent counties recorded 2561 marriages; the median number of marriages/county being 227. With marriage equality, the numbers would be higher. Autauga was issue marriage licenses in febraury, and immediately after the Obergefell decision. How to they get away with stopping?

  • 191. ianbirmingham  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:27 am

    Well, people have to go beat the door down. We need couples (VIRick + somebody?) to go there, get denied, contact the ACLU and AFER and all the rest, and then file federal lawsuits. (not me though – I'm already married!)

  • 192. Bruno71  |  September 7, 2015 at 10:29 am

    While it's not a requirement, it is highly preferable when bringing a federal suit that the plaintiff couples reside in the county where they are seeking a license. The crux of most of Judge Bunning's decision in Kentucky revolved around the inability of couples to receive a license where they reside, and the burdens that would impose on them. If a couple from outside the county seeks a license, some of those arguments evaporate. That is why a suit has yet to be brought in tiny Irion County, Texas, despite the promise from politician Glen Maxey that one would be forthcoming.

  • 193. ianbirmingham  |  September 7, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    It's already been established that these small rural Alabama counties don't have a steady stream of same-sex couples who both live there and are in immediate need of marriage. Hence, it's time to bring in the marriage tourists. Apropos aphorism: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!".

  • 194. 1grod  |  September 7, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    Ian: Autauga is the 23/67 largest populated county, so not so small. As I said above – so how does their probate judge get away with it? I think the AL LGBT community needs to work hand to hand with the Straight community to get this done, as it is a civil rights issue for all citizens, not just "non- straights"…. Agree: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!". It is equally true that if the 11th Circuit would rule on Strawser v Strange, a final judgment and injunction could be handed down by Judge Granade – that would shift the dynamic in the state, don't you think?

  • 195. ianbirmingham  |  September 7, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    The same way all bigots get away with it – they do whatever they want until somebody holds them accountable. Sitting back and waiting for the existing cases to possibly do something dramatic is the slow way. Filing new federal lawsuits against each county with demands for immediate federal injunctions is the fast way. But the fast way requires that people get up off their rear ends and start beating the doors down.

    The SSM movement took on lots of states at once, and now it can't even beat the shit out of a couple of pipsqueak counties at the same time?!? Break out the briefcases and let's throw some punches!!!

  • 196. Bruno71  |  September 7, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Maybe after Miller v. Davis is fully resolved, there'll be some Alabama action.

  • 197. ianbirmingham  |  September 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    I predicted (and was the only one who predicted), on EoT, months ago, that Alabama would be the LAST state to fully implement marriage equality. Looks like I'll be proven to be completely correct.

  • 198. Bruno71  |  September 7, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    In a race with Irion County, TX and the 2 other Kentucky counties.

  • 199. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 10:18 pm

    Ian, before you assume that there are only 3 remaining states with recalcitrant clerks, please remember that there could be any number of dormant, under-the-radar, untested, low-population, rural counties scattered all over the Deep South and the High Plains who have yet to have a single same-sex couple apply. Until/if/whenever such a couple finally does, and are thus duly accommodated, we really do not know for certain whether every last county clerk in question will actually comply.

    Even 3 months after marriage equality came to Oklahoma, fewer than half of that state's counties had issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple, mainly because couples avoided the untested ones, and headed instead toward those which they knew for certain were issuing.

    At last report, many months after marriage equality had come to Nevada, there were still a handful of sparsely-populated desert counties in that state which had yet to be approached by a same-sex couple seeking a marriage license.

    And a month after marriage equality had come to South Dakota, 49 counties (or more) still had not received a single application from a same-sex couple. Would all 49 comply? At this moment, no one actually knows for certain.

    On the other hand, despite all the public grandstanding on the part of the county clerk from Casey County KY, whenever some one phones his office and inquires, the party at the other end says, "Yes, they are issuing." So, are they? Or are they not? No same-sex couple has yet applied.

  • 200. Fortguy  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:28 pm

    Sorry, but I disagree with you. In the eyes of a federal judge, residency is merely a convenience to add verbiage to an opinion demonstrating the harm caused by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As Texas law does not require residency, neither should the judge especially if the couple is prepared to conduct the marriage ceremony within the county.

    Instead, the overriding concern to a federal judge in the Irion County situation can be summed up in one word: Obergefell. Uniquely among the non-compliant counties in all three states, only Irion County still continues to issue licenses to straight couples. This is in direct defiance of SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment. No federal judge can allow this to continue.

  • 201. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    "Uniquely among the non-compliant counties in all three states, only Irion County still continues to issue licenses to straight couples."

    And that, in a nutshell, is an extremely-important difference that needs to be noted and remembered. The Irion County clerk is unique among those clerks who have opened their mouths and made public statements in defiance.

  • 202. ianbirmingham  |  September 6, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    Thailand: Gender Act loophole 'denies equality'.

    The Gender Equality Act comes into effect on Wednesday but several gender activists are concerned about the act's Section 17 which prohibits equality in extenuating circumstances. …

    The act gives the government a legal platform to protect the rights of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) citizens, according to activists. …

    Section 17 says any act by the public and private sector that concerns the freedom, security and protection of others, or in accordance with the rule of religion or national security would not be considered an act of discrimination towards the LGBTI. … Section 17 gives a company the power to decide against hiring an employee because he or she is LGBTI. …

    http://bangkokpost.com/news/general/683196/gender

  • 203. TDGrove  |  September 7, 2015 at 6:38 am

    Could someone please post a link to the latest filing by Kim Davis? I've heard it is particularly amusing but my search skills failed me. Thanks in advance.

  • 204. aiislander  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:02 am

    TD: Here it is:
    https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/20

  • 205. TDGrove  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:05 am

    Thank you very much

  • 206. A_Jayne  |  September 7, 2015 at 11:17 am

    Thank you for that link – even though it goes to the liberty university (.edu) website – the attachments include Judge Bunning's order – in .pdf format, thus allowing not only to save it, but also to copy-paste whatever parts one would wish to quote.

    I truly appreciate that!

  • 207. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    This is the one you actually want to see, today's amusing ridiculousness.

    Kim Davis Appeals To Governor: Let Me Out Of Jail

    Via press release from the Liberty Counsel, 7 September 2015:

    Today, on behalf of Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, Liberty Counsel filed a request for an order providing relief pending appeal against Gov. Steven Beshear at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. This is an emergency request for the Governor to accommodate Kim’s religious conviction, which would free her from jail. “Today is a holiday where most people are spending time with family and friends. But for Kim Davis this is day five of her incarceration. While she is content no matter her circumstances because of her deep faith and Jesus, she should be free,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Today’s filing addresses Gov. Beshear’s inaction and refusal to consider easy accommodations for Kim Davis. The motion requests an injunction pending appeal for an exemption from the Governor’s mandate that all county clerks issue marriage licenses. The Governor’s edict directed Kentucky County Clerks like Kim Davis to authorize same-sex marriage licenses bearing their own name. “Coercing Mrs. Davis to authorize and personally approve same-sex marriage in violation of her religious convictions and conscience is wrong,” said Staver. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/07/kim-davis-appe

  • 208. GregInTN  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Let me see if I've got this right. She's asking the 6th Circuit (who already declined her request for a stay) to order the Governor to exempt her from the instructions he issued to comply with the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell.

    I think the proverbial snow ball in Clerk Davis' final destination has a better chance than this motion.

  • 209. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    "…. to order the Governor to exempt her from the instructions he issued to comply with the SCOTUS ruling in 'Obergefell.'"

    Correct. Although, as noted by Buzzfeed, these instructions are not an edict or a mandate, unlike what this latest filing claims:

    "Although Beshear’s actions are referred to in Monday’s appeals court filing more than two dozen times as a “mandate,” the word “mandate” never appears in Davis’ initial complaint against Beshear." http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/kentucky-cle

    They just keep filing shit, don't they? Apparently, it's a monumental effort at baffle-garb.

    So, she wants to get out of jail. And the governor is some sort of evil monster.

    OK. This is easy. Resign.

  • 210. GregInTN  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    Actually, I'm not convinced that her lawyers want her to get out of jail. The longer she stays in jail, the more fundraising they will be able to do. Her mug shot keeps showing up on the nightly network news programs with each motion they file. Sort of like all the air time Trump is getting without having to buy ads.

  • 211. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    Oh, I agree. She's her lawyers' hostage, as they file motion after motion after motion, receiving all sorts of free air time for their never-ending efforts.

  • 212. Sagesse  |  September 7, 2015 at 11:52 am

    Fox Panel Condemns Kim Davis, Calls Her Lawyer 'Ridiculously Stupid' (VIDEO) [TPM]
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-happeni

  • 213. davepCA  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    Wow, that was a remarkable departure from the usual Fox tactics. Like a breath of fresh air really.

  • 214. stevew999  |  September 7, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    The news is saying her "ridiculously stupid" lawyers today filed some sort of motion to force the governor to do something…anybody have any info on that or links to the filing (which I expect to be just as "ridiculously stupid").

    IANAL, but my understanding is that the only appeal on a civil contempt is for abuse of discretion, an argument that I can't fathom would hold water at the CA or SCOTUS.

  • 215. A_Jayne  |  September 7, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    See the TDGrove thread a couple of comments above yours…

  • 216. stevew999  |  September 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    The way it sounded was they filed a *second* motion, in addition to that notice of appeal (actual appeal not filed yet, I think), a motion to compel the governor to do something or other to accommodate her "religious beliefs".

  • 217. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    Steve, her "lawyers" have filed notice of appeal of the contempt ruling.

    In addition, they are also appealing the decision of Judge Bunning to place on "hold," their third-party intervention motion against both the Kentucky Governor and the State Librarian.

    I'm not quite certain what they're attempting to compel the governor to do, but the poor state librarian is the unknown bureaucrat who provides the state-issued marriage license forms, in accordance with state law, to the various and sundry county clerks.

    Davis' "remedy," to accommodate her "religious beliefs," is a demand that the forms be altered so as to remove her name from the ones issued in Rowan County. Of course, the state librarian can not be altering state-issued forms on their own, in violation of the law. So apparently, they want the governor to call a special session of the legislature to change state law so that the forms can be altered in accordance with these "religious belief" demands,– or some such thing. The governor has refused to call a special session, and it would be highly unlikely that any court could compel him to do so.

    Quite wisely, Judge Bunning has placed this entire extraneous side-issue regarding her so-called "remedy" on hold, pending the final outcome of the substantive appeal (the "yes" or "no" issuance of licenses to all qualified couples in accordance with "Obergefell" and current Kentucky law).

  • 218. stevew999  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Yeah, I just read the second appeal (the one requesting that the court make the governor "do something"). What a piece of junk. Nice that they attached copies of actual marriage licenses, though…because it TOTALLY DISPROVES her claim of "putting her approval" or "imprimatur" on the license.

    One line says simply "Issued this _____ day in the office of __(Kim Davis)___ Rowand County" (hard to see any "imprimatur" there), followed by a line with the name and signature of the Deputy Clerk, and another line says essentially the same thing, with the signature of the clerk who recorded the marriage below.

    Not exactly an "approval" of SSM, is it?

    Not to mention that she's asking the court to order the governor to change things that are specified by KY *statute*, something he can't do.

    And even if it DID require HER signature, she STILL loses, being a government employee and all…

    I predict the 6th CA will deny all of these motions, and she'll sit in jail for quite a while.

    BTW, do any of the lawyers here know if I'm right, that the only appeal from a civil contempt is for abuse of discretion (or whatever the proper phrase is)?

  • 219. A_Jayne  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    Just for fun, I looked.

    All four of Miss Kim's licenses are posted on this article at Buzzfeed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/meet-kim-davis#

    I observed the following about each of the four of Kim Davis' marriage licenses:

    1st – says "Issued under my authority, as Clerk of Rowan County" signed by Jean W Bailey (Kim's mother)

    2nd – says "Issued under my authority, as Clerk of Rowan County" with Jean Bailey typed, also typed (and initialed) Wendy Puckett, Deputy Clerk

    3rd – says "Issued in the office of Jean W Bailey, Clerk of Rowan County," by typed (not initialed) Melissa J Sargent, Deputy Clerk

    4th – says "Issued in the office of Jean W Bailey, Clerk of Rowan County," by typed (and initialed) Pam Logan, Deputy Clerk

    It seems likely current licenses, including those issued last Friday, also say "Issued in the office of Kimberly Davis, Clerk of Rowan County," with the typed name and possibly initialed by the Deputy Clerk who took the fees and gave the license. With no difference between them and those most recently issued to/for Kim Davis, I don't see how she can claim they are not valid. They are just as valid as hers were/are.

  • 220. TheVirginian722  |  September 7, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    Kim's first two marriages (Wallace and Davis 1) were performed by two different Baptist ministers. The third marriage (McIntyre) was performed by a "minister" of the Universal Life Church, the joke online ordination mill. By the fourth marriage (Davis 2), all the clergy had had enough, so it was performed by the Rowan County Judge-Executive in a civil ceremony. The licenses also show that hubby Joe Davis (self-described "old redneck hillbilly") was also married to someone else between his two marriages to Kim, so he's also on his fourth. After six weddings, just think how many blenders Kim and Joe must have!

  • 221. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 6:57 am

    What I find funny is how every time she got married, the groom applicant – next husband had the same number of previous marriages with Davis !
    So she had married Joe Davis who was her 2nd husband then divorced him, then married another guy and divorced him and married Joe Davis again who in the meantime had gone through another marriage and divorce himself..!

    Honestly now since I am not familiar with all this redneck culture, dont this people have anything else to do and they spent their time getting married and divorced ? Like, dont they have anything more entertaining to do ?

  • 222. StraightDave  |  September 8, 2015 at 7:24 am

    You mean like having 2 babies by one of her other random once and future non-husbands? That probably filled in some of her spare time.

  • 223. Fortguy  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:13 am

    You mean, WTF, don't they have any meth in that town?

  • 224. stevew999  |  September 7, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    If this is a duplicate post, my apologies…

    Apparently, the "lawyers" have filed a second motion:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jailed-kentuc

  • 225. A_Jayne  |  September 7, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    I'm on my iPad, so have difficulty copying link info, but the article you link has a link to what might be the most recent filing –

    in this paragraph: "There are multiple alternatives available by which individuals can obtain (same sex marriage) licenses without voiding Davis' conscience and stripping Davis of her liberties," the lawyers wrote, according to a copy of the motion posted online. (The words "posted online" are the link…)

  • 226. LK2013  |  September 7, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Kim Davis and her "ridiculously stupid" lawyers are once again asking Governor Beshear to save her. However, once again he says "No." Like he has about a thousand times. Just like the courts.

    Jeez, Kim and Mat, what don't you get about "No means No?"

    "(CNN) Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who's refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, on Monday asked the Kentucky governor to immediately free her from jail, according to court documents obtained by CNN.

    "We would like them to release her from jail and provide reasonable, sensible accommodation so she can do her job," one of her lawyers, Horatio Mihet, said in a statement. "That would be taking her name off of marriage licenses in Rowan County and allowing her deputies to issue the licenses."

    Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear's office said Monday he won't respond, noting that the conflict was a "matter between her and the courts."
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/07/politics/kim-davis-

  • 227. Mike_Baltimore  |  September 7, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Furthermore, Governor Beshear is a state official, and Ms. Davis is fighting this in FEDERAL court.

    And her name on the license is a state law, for which she will have to wait until the state legislature goes back into session. Since Gov. Beshear has stated he will NOT call for a special session of the legislature, she'll have to wait until January 2016 for the state legistature to be in session, and for the state legislature, with Governor's signature also, to change the law.

    Want this 'ordeal' to end quickly, Kim?

    Resign.

  • 228. LK2013  |  September 7, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    It's pretty clear that she and Liberty Counsel want this to go on as long as possible at this point.

  • 229. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Ohio Governor Kasich: Kim Davis, Follow the Court Ruling Already

    Columbus OH — Ohio Gov. John Kasich says a defiant clerk in Kentucky jailed for not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples should follow the US Supreme Court’s ruling upholding same-sex marriage. Kasich, a Republican running for president, said that while he believes in traditional marriage, the court has ruled and Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis should comply with that decision.

    Kasich told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that Davis is a government employee, not someone running a church. Kasich, who frequently speaks about his faith, also said he worries such battles will turn people off to what it means to be a Christian. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/ohio-gov-kim-d

  • 230. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    Westboro Baptist Church Comes Out of the Closet and Sides with the LGBT Community on the Kim Davis Issue

    The Westboro Baptist Church is calling for Kim Davis’ resignation. The hate-mongering organization has come out of the closet with its disapproval of the antigay Rowan county clerk Kim Davis.

    Divorce and remarriage are abominations in Westboro’s eyes, and it has armed itself with the bible passages that prove it, reports "Deep South Daily." Since Davis’ four walks down the aisle are the result of her three divorces, she has become one of the church’s prime targets.

    Stating, “If Kim Davis has any real fear of God she’ll resign and move out of the house from the man she lives w/ in adultery,” the organization has been quite active on social media expressing its disdain for the jailed Rowan County Clerk. In addition to its binge tweeting, the church has also been circulating photoshopped images of Davis with the captions, “INCONVENIENT TRUTH: GOD HATES DIVORCE” and “DIVORCE REMARRIAGE = ADULTERY.” http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/09/westboro-bapti

  • 231. DJSNOLA  |  September 7, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Hey at least they are consistent

  • 232. StraightDave  |  September 8, 2015 at 7:33 am

    Like politics, bigotry sometimes makes strange bedfellows.

    Meanwhile, in a forthcoming movie produced by The Onion….

  • 233. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Most Insane Idea of the Day

    Today, 7 September 2015, Nutjob Flip Benham & Supporters To Descend On Private Kentucky Home Of Federal Judge David Bunning And Call For His Arrest

    Flip Benham, the crackpot nutcase loony tunes father of those failed reality show twins, has issued a press release which announces that he and fellow Christianists will today descend on the home of federal Judge David Bunning to call for his arrest in the name of Jesus. Or something. It reads:

    Christians from across the nation will converge on the neighborhood of Federal Court Judge David Bunning, today. Judge Bunning has illegally and with malice charged Mrs. Kim Davis, with contempt of his court order forcing her to legitimize illegal marriage certificates to individuals of the same sex in Rowan County. We are calling for the sheriff of Rowan County to immediately arrest Judge David Bunning upon his entering the courthouse on Thursday, Sept. 10 for illegally incarcerating Davis and impeding her from performing her duties as county clerk. Judge Bunning is in contempt of the Court of Almighty God and the constitutions of both Kentucky and the United States. Kim Davis has broken no law. There is no law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States that would force her to issue marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex. Judge David Bunning is in contempt of God’s Law, and the laws contained in both constitutions of the US and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

    The press release goes on to list Bunning’s home address in a Kentucky suburb of Cincinnati. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/07/today-nutjob-f

    Flip Benham is on record as celebrating the murders of abortion providers. In 2012 he was convicted of stalking a North Carolina doctor and “placing Dr. Flood and his family in fear.” Last year he showed up at North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds office to scream damnation and disrupt the weddings of several gay couples.

  • 234. Shmoozo  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    Yes, folks, there exists a Christian version of the Taliban and it lives right here in the United States.

    /sigh

  • 235. A_Jayne  |  September 7, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    One of the commenters at Joe.my.god said there was a protest at the judge's home, although the judge was not there, and posted a local news link. There was media coverage as well as law enforcement on the premises.
    http://local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stor

  • 236. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    WKRC, Cincinnati, reporting from Ft. Thomas KY, showed a number of sheepish "protesters" bearing stupid signs milling about in front of the judge's house this afternoon, 7 September 2015. Personally, I view their mere presence there as a form of intimidation.

    The judge and his family were not home, local police and US Marshalls were on hand, and the neighbors seemed quite a bit less-than-thrilled over the protesters' presence, particularly the near-by gay couple who were among the first to be married in South Carolina (remembering that South Carolina had marriage equality many months before Kentucky).

    Actually, the most important piece of information I gleaned from the broadcast was the correct pronunciation for Rowan County. They were calling it "row,"' with a soft "o" (to rhyme with cow), whereas I has been saying it with a long "o," as in similarly-named Roane County TN.

  • 237. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    Here's another account from the AP:

    Kentucky: Federal Marshals Guard Home Of Judge David Bunning While Lunatics Protest

    Supporters of a Kentucky county clerk jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses brought their fight to Northern Kentucky, protesting Monday, 7 September 2015, outside the home of the federal judge who’s jailed her for contempt. About two dozen people, including ministers from Kentucky and North Carolina, demanded Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis be freed, saying she shouldn’t be compelled to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because doing so would violate her Christian beliefs. “The Kentucky constitution has never been altered in any way,” the Rev. Flip Benjamin said. “She is guilty of keeping the law, and the judge, David Bunning, has found her in contempt of his court. We are holding Judge Bunning in contempt of almighty God.” http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/07/kentucky-feder

  • 238. stevew999  |  September 7, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    Well, when Almighty God magically creates a Holy Jail Cell and locks up the judge, you be sure and let us know.

    Until then, he, she or it doesn't have much power here in the real world. Judges and federal marshalls, however? Different story šŸ™‚

  • 239. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 7:04 am

    So I guess judge Bunning can sue him for a lot of things beginning with exposing his address ?
    I kinda feel sorry for Bunning but it may change his mind on what personal opposition to marriage equality means. And it also shows to the rest of the world what the christian ISIS in the US is capable of.

  • 240. SethInMaryland  |  September 7, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    South Dakota Lawmaker introduces very bigoted, transphobic , law This needs to be stop. http://thinkprogress.org/education/2015/08/30/369

  • 241. VIRick  |  September 7, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    South Dakota: Marriage Plaintiffs and Six Other Couples Marry at Mt. Rushmore

    On Sunday, 6 September 2015, history was made as same–sex couples gathered under the Mount Rushmore National Monument, to celebrate national marriage equality. The event, organized by the women who challenged South Dakota’s ban on same–sex marriages, took place in the amphitheater of the memorial, something that has never been done before. Nancy Rosenbrahn, who sued the state along with her wife Jennie, renewed their vows, alongside 6 other couples. Nancy and Jennie Rosenbrahn said, “That’s our first amendment speech, is to be able to say ‘I do’ in South Dakota, and for Jen and I, we get to say it in our home state.” The Rosenbrahns ran away to Minnesota years ago to marry, and Sunday’s event was a celebration of their long, hard fight. The Rosenbrahns said, “Today is a validation, today is an affirmation that we belong.”

    South Dakota’s marriage ban was struck down in January 2015, but the ruling was stayed. Until the time of the "Obergefell" ruling, South Dakota remained a holdout state. http://www.joemygod.com/2015/09/07/south-dakota-m

    Kathleen of Equality Case Files was in attendance at the event, and has posted a series of photos taken there during the celebrations.

  • 242. GregInTN  |  September 7, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    Just to make an observation…we're now passed 200 postings on this thread. I seem to recall some folks were thinking there wouldn't be much to talk about on this forum after June 26th. Looks like we're still going strong.

  • 243. StraightDave  |  September 8, 2015 at 7:43 am

    That's mostly because the insane portion of this country has now come out of the closet. Rather than lying low so as not to be too embarrassed over their lunacy, they've decided to flaunt it. Choosing to do so right in the middle of an equally-looney Republican primary campaign makes it even more fun to watch.

    My in-laws in Norway keep saying "what the hell is going on over there"?

  • 244. Randolph_Finder  |  September 8, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Anyone have a count on the Presidential Candidates opinion on Kim Davis? I'm assuming that the 5 on the Democratic side would more or less agree with the "Do your job!", but I'm sort of curious as to how much this splits the Republican field…

  • 245. StraightDave  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:21 am

    I've seen both Lindsey Graham and John Kasich say the equivalent of "do your job, the Supreme Court has spoken, end of story". Very blunt and straightforward, no slimy dancing around it, either. No trying to have it both ways, zero mention of religion though it obviously plays a role in both their lives. Surprised me, in Graham's case. Actually, he has turned out to be one of the more calm, stable and reasonable sounding guys out there on a number of issues, almost the anti-Trump. So of course he polls at 1%.

    All the others have been tap dancing, though leaning right. All the guys at more than 3% who think they have a chance in hell have been dancing the hardest.

  • 246. Randolph_Finder  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:33 am

    Graham and Kasich are two of the Republicans that are less retch-worthy than most. Of course my scale is how much worse their first term would be than a 3rd term of W.Iā€™d still like to know who Graham intends to fill the first Lady duties were he elected. (Cue snide remarks including at least one with the word Lindseybelle)

  • 247. Fortguy  |  September 8, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    You can also put Carly Fiorina in the "do your job" camp. My biggest problem with Graham is his foreign policy views. He thinks we can solve all the world's problems if we would just go to war against everybody. We saw how well that worked out when Shrub was president.

  • 248. jpmassar  |  September 8, 2015 at 9:12 am

    Theocracy looming?

    the plaintiffs in the Brenner case [ Florida ] oppose dismissal of the appeal for two reasons: One, they're still fighting for attorneys' fees, and two, dismissing the case in this manner would essentially keep the law on the books, they worry.

    Plaintiff Jim Brenner says, “[If the case is dismissed] there will never be a final order from Judge Hinkle's landmark Decision on August 21, 2014, that the ban and the constitutional amendment are unconstitutional,” said Brenner. “So they will remain in place.” Brenner fears if the political climate becomes less tolerant of the LGBT community, the ban could be enforced in the future (though that would be unlikely). Still, he fears, “With a religious theocracy looming, who knows where this will go?”

    http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/pam-bondi-tr

  • 249. jpmassar  |  September 8, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Was this ever seriously proposed?


    Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway said on Tuesday there is no current need to assign a special prosecutor in the case of jailed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who was found in contempt of court for not issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

    "Judge (David) Bunning and the federal court have control of this matter, and therefore a special state prosecutor is not necessary at this time," Allison Martin, communications director for Conway, told Reuters in an email.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/08/us-usa-

  • 250. LK2013  |  September 8, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Yes, jpmassar, it definitely was seriously proposed to file criminal misconduct charges against Kim Davis.
    http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2

    "In a separate development, the Kentucky attorney general is mulling whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether she violated the state official misconduct statute when her office refused to issue a license to a Rowan County gay couple."

  • 251. LK2013  |  September 8, 2015 at 9:38 am

    I think Kim Davis and Liberty Counsel are trying to cost the citizens of Kentucky as much as possible in litigation and other fees just to bully them into accommodating the crazies.

    Governor Beshear just approved $100,000 to pay for defense attorneys in her latest frivolous filing that names him as a third-party. Although I think the court clerk told Liberty Counsel that they had filed incorrectly, and the paperwork was REJECTED for, well, utter incompetence.

    I'm sure they will just keep filing and filing frivolous bull poo poo.

  • 252. stevew999  |  September 8, 2015 at 9:58 am

    Status report to the judge
    http://files.eqcf.org/cases/015-cv-00044-84/

    Looks like the deputy clerks "amended" the form, so the space for "Name" of the county clerk is filled in with "Rowan County".

    This might be some of thë "shenanigans" the court told them explicity not to do. The clerk's name is not "Rowan County".

    Wonder if the judge will put a stop to this?

  • 253. jpmassar  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:03 am

    WHOA!

    JUST IN: Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be released from jail – @PaulaReidCBS
    https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/6412928

  • 254. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:07 am

    The only grounds she can be released upon is if she let her deputy clerks do the job. If she is released and continues her shennanigans this makes no sense. Let's wait to see if it's true. I doubt bullies like Huckubee and Cruz can bully justice as far to serve their terrorizing political agenda.

  • 255. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:08 am

    http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/GOP-presidenti

    "Judge issues order to release Rowan Clerk Kim Davis from custody"

    "The judge's order says Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this order and appropriate sanctions will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered, according to the filing."

    Is there ANY indication she will comply, has she said she will do so ? Because last time I checked she enjoyed the fact she is the new hero of the far right and is about to become a martyr with the con cash flowing..What new trick is that ?

  • 256. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:16 am

    I hope the judge made it clear to her that "interference" includes claiming to the news media or whoever will listen that the licences being issued by her deputies are void and not worth the paper they're printed on.

  • 257. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:54 am

    Bunning said that CJA counsel for the 5 deputy clerks should file a status report every fourteen days, reporting their compliance with the orders.

  • 258. DrBriCA  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:00 am

    I doubt she'll wait 14 hours let alone 14 days to find a way to interfere to keep her lawsuits and appeals and "fame" going.

  • 259. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:26 am

    The fact is, as I wrote below, it will take a same sex couple to come in and truly test the compliance. The only other way is for her to question the validity of the issued licenses.

  • 260. LK2013  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:27 am

    Just an hour ago, her lawyer said she would not allow licenses to be issued if she is released from jail, so how do you think this is going to go?

    Ryland Barton ‏@RylandKY 1h1 hour ago

    Mat Staver, chair of defense team representing Kim Davis, says if released from jail she won't allow licenses to be issued

  • 261. RnL2008  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:55 am

    Then in jail she should remain……….this woman is just a piece of work………and is why she is in jail in the first place!!!

  • 262. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:57 am

    It truly perplexes me that Bunning allowed that. I can't even think he felt terrorized by the protests outside his house earlier and did that, it would pe a true blow to judicial integrity and he did not seem that kind of guy anyway.
    I can only think that he wants to show that she had her chance to be free and she chose not to again, to expose her.

    The other matter here is plaintiffs received their licenses and I am not sure how many gay couples live in Rowan County who want to get married anyway. Of course this will be tested with straight couples as well but she has no issue serving them..As long as another same sex couple appears we do not know if her office is in compliance..Unless she questions the validity of issued licenses as soon as she is out. We'll see.

  • 263. GregInTN  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:26 am

    Well, there is still the issue of recording the licenses that have already been issued after the couples have been married. I believe the Clerk's name is also supposed to be filled in at that time as well. Is the judge really going to let the deputies get away with using "Rowan County" as the clerk's name?

  • 264. stevew999  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:40 am

    This bothers me, too…seems like their "amending" the form just provides a way for Davis to raise another issue, or for someone (who, I don't know) to challenge those licenses in court using the (possibly valid) argument that they don't conform to state law and requirements.

    If I were the judge, I would have asked why they didn't contain the same information that previous licenses did, and under whose authority did they change the entries?

  • 265. DrPatrick1  |  September 8, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    exactly! The issue here is when this is contested later. Not by the happy couple, but when they divorce, or one dies without a will, or when… doesn't matter. When someone with some motive wants this to be declared null and void, they will have a case. That is the sad part! The couple should talk with their lawyer to see if they could find a way for a judge to declare the license valid. That judgement would be very hard to overturn in the future.

    That doesn't mean the marriage license would necessarily be declared null and void if not affirmed by a judge now, only that the issue would not be an open an shut issue.

  • 266. Sagesse  |  September 8, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    First of all, I agree that if there is an issue with the validity of the licences, it could come up down the road, and that's an unacceptable outcome.

    Contemplating in what circumstances that might happen, however, I'm hard pressed to imagine many practical risks. First of all, it seems the state (governor and AG) are prepared to recognize the licences issued by the Rowan county deputy clerks under Judge Bunning's order, so for state purposes (divorce, birth and death certificates, adoption) there shouldn't be any issue. Is an employer going to deny spousal benefits because your Rowan County marriage licence is invalid (when licences issued elsewhere in the state are)? Is a hospital going to deny spousal or parental visitation or decision making because your Rowan County marriage licence is invalid (when licences issued elsewhere in the state are valid)?

    For the licence to be ruled invalid, someone would have to challenge it legally, and win. Who's Liberty Counsel's next client?

  • 267. sfbob  |  September 8, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    The licenses are being issued pursuant to a valid order of a federal judge. The only questions pertaining to their validity are in the minds of Davis and her counsel.

  • 268. sfbob  |  September 8, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Bunning is giving Davis just enough rope to hang herself on. He didn't make a deal he just said "Here are the conditions under which you are released. If you violate these conditions you'll be sorry." Basically he had dared her knowing full well that she can't help herself.

  • 269. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Her Lawyers are saying even as she is being released that she will not allow licences to be issued from her office. Looks like we're just going to go in circles here. She'll probably be back in jail by Thursday.

  • 270. Tony MinasTirith  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Let's see if she's not back in jail in time for supper.

  • 271. Charlie Galvin  |  September 8, 2015 at 10:53 am

    If Kim Davis has been released on condition that she not interfere with her deputies issuing marriage licenses, and she acts to stop them from doing so, or she does anything to attempt to invalidate the licenses already issued, she will be locked right back up as soon as that is brought before the court.

  • 272. Zack12  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:06 am

    I read the order.
    It's been made clear that if she acts to prevent licences from being issued that will she will be back behind bars before she can blink.

  • 273. guitaristbl  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:39 am

    It will take a same sex couple to test that though. She will keep issuing licenses to opposite sex couples, saying she and her clerks comply and all fine. The plaintiffs received their licenses. Now let's see how many more same sex couples in Rowan County are willing to marry and moreover, how many have the moral strength to stand up and actually go to that office and ask for one…

  • 274. sfbob  |  September 8, 2015 at 11:57 am

    Not necessarily. If she, in her official capacity, orders her staff not to issue any marriage licenses or to issue licenses only to heterosexual couples then she will be in violation of the terms of her release. Bunning's order included the words "interferes in any way." If she so much as makes a public statement either of her intent to violate his order or if she repeats her claim that the already-issued licenses aren't valid then she's violated the terms of Bunning's release order even if all of the gay couples in Rowan county up and drive to Lexington to get licenses there.

  • 275. flyerguy77  |  September 8, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    omg I'm watching the news conference OMFG !! Davis, Huckabee,and her attorneys are full of bull$ %A$ it sounds like she will violate the judge's order……. and her attorneys are lying…….. They are still saying that the marriage licenses are void based on " her non signature" KY's constitutional law WTF They are trying to say the 4 justices in SCOTUS decision over rules the majority. WTF

  • 276. jcmeiners  |  September 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Presidential candidates Huckabee and Cruz are lining up to meet with her, and more will likely follow. And thus another "Joe the Plumber" is born. I trust she'll do her best to thoroughly embarrass them, like Joe did.

  • 277. Fortguy  |  September 8, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    Mike Huckster and Carnival Cruz are the two candidates who the most wear their Christianity on their sleeves. It's actually funny to see them palling around with an adulterer.

  • 278. VIRick  |  September 8, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    "It's actually funny to see them palling around with an adulterer."

    An unrepentant adulterer, who doesn't even seem to realize that in the eyes of the extreme christianists, she's merely an unrepentant adulterer still living in sin.

    I like the husband's insane regalia,– straw hat and overalls. That's quite classy for his national media debut.

  • 279. Betheone01  |  June 7, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    Just to make an observation…we're now passed 200 postings on this thread. I seem to recall some folks were thinking there wouldn't be much to talk about on this forum after June 26th. Looks like we're still going strong.

    gloucester removals

  • 280. Betheone01  |  June 8, 2016 at 12:38 am

    Just to make an observation…we're now passed 200 postings on this thread. I seem to recall some folks were thinking there wouldn't be much to talk about on this forum after June 26th. Looks like we're still going strong.

    payroll company

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!