Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: Annee

I have had the same question all along, since Davis got out of jail. It depends how strict marriage law is in Kentucky. I was under the impression that the law is the law. In that case, these licenses wouldn't be valid.

But my guess is that in January, when the legislature meets, they will "grandfather" these licenses to be legal. In the meantime, they're just holding their breaths, hoping that no one challenges them further (although the ACLU is questioning the validity of the licenses). Maybe a "public statement" by the governor and attorney general is all it takes to make them legal. It could be a chicken scratch and if they say it's legal, it is. (That would be very strange.)

In January, the legislature may change Kentucky marriage law to accommodate the "bare" licenses, come up with a reasonable religious accommodation practice that everyone can agree on, or fire Davis' ass and go back to the original law and licenses.

As of now, they just seem to be in limbo, issuing licenses that don't comply with the law, but insisting that they're legal... and hoping no one else sues. That's my take, anyway.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Maybe a "public statement" by the governor...

I thought he did that and said they were legal?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, he did. But my question is: Does that really make the licenses legal? Because the governor says so?

If it were a contract to buy a car in Kentucky, and the car dealer removed a bunch of stuff the law says HAS to be there, including signatures, can the governor swoop in and say, "Ah, don't pay attention to the law... these contracts are legal."?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He may be able to issue and executive action or have the Attorney General authorize them as legal.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

I have had the same question all along, since Davis got out of jail. It depends how strict marriage law is in Kentucky. I was under the impression that the law is the law. In that case, these licenses wouldn't be valid.

But my guess is that in January, when the legislature meets, they will "grandfather" these licenses to be legal. In the meantime, they're just holding their breaths, hoping that no one challenges them further (although the ACLU is questioning the validity of the licenses). Maybe a "public statement" by the governor and attorney general is all it takes to make them legal. It could be a chicken scratch and if they say it's legal, it is. (That would be very strange.)

In January, the legislature may change Kentucky marriage law to accommodate the "bare" licenses, come up with a reasonable religious accommodation practice that everyone can agree on, or fire Davis' ass and go back to the original law and licenses.

As of now, they just seem to be in limbo, issuing licenses that don't comply with the law, but insisting that they're legal... and hoping no one else sues. That's my take, anyway.

LOL my thoughts exactly.

So, we sit and wait.

They better not accomodate her. I think that would piss off a lot of people.

a reply to: Annee

There is the continuing lawsuit against Davis (questioning the validity of the licenses) and her lawsuit against the governor. Neither one has been legally settled AFAIK.

And I'm fairly certain they WILL accommodate her. Yes, a lot of people will be pissed, but that happens regardless.

Yes, the licenses are valid. You don't need a piece of paper to make it valid. All you need is the "intent". People questioned whether President Obama was actually the President, since there were errors in the oath, on swearing in. To be sure, he had a second swearing in ceremony. Wasn't really necessary, though. A contract is formed between two people, simply by verbal agreement. The presence of a witness and some paper documentation simply helps with the court cases if one or the other backs out of the deal. So, two people show up at a marriage license office, and go through the motion, get the office to give them the paper, it's legal. All the "intent" to enter into the contract is there. And the law says they can get married, so there's no problem. The only people that can really upset the marriage is one of the new spouses. If one of them claims, they didn't really intend to marry the other, then there could be issues. The license really protects the two married people from each other. But, if they are in love, they don't need that protection.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
You don't need a piece of paper to make it valid. All you need is the "intent".

So, why does every state in the US REQUIRE a license for marriage? If all we needed to be legally married is intent, then there wouldn't have been a marriage equality problem in the first place.

And six years from now, when they "fall out of love" and one is owed 1/2 the income? Are they just out of luck because the license wasn't valid in the first place?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

There is the continuing lawsuit against Davis (questioning the validity of the licenses) and her lawsuit against the governor. Neither one has been legally settled AFAIK.

And I'm fairly certain they WILL accommodate her. Yes, a lot of people will be pissed, but that happens regardless.

Yeah, I know, I wouldn't have mentioned accommodating her if I didn't think there was a chance they would. Just hope they don't.

ACLU still has a lawsuit, I think. Ready for a decision. Kinda lost interest in the details.

I'd never make a good lawyer. I want answers. Not long drawn out nonsense and litigation.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Yes, the licenses are valid. You don't need a piece of paper to make it valid. All you need is the "intent".

Legal marriage is not about intent.

It's about Legal documentation. Which is in question.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

So, why does every state in the US REQUIRE a license for marriage?

Because it's proof. Otherwise its one person's word against the other, when they disagree. And if you want any benefits from the state, you'll have to convince the state you're married.

Once the state has something in their ledger that says you came in and signed up to be married, and got the paper, they'll have a record of the "intent", and Kim Davis has nothing to do with it at all. She is just a witness. It's all formality.

If all we needed to be legally married is intent, then there wouldn't have been a marriage equality problem in the first place.

Other people have to recognize you to be a married couple, if you want those benefits. Hence, you usually have a ceremony, invite lots of folks, and announce your "intent" to the wider community. You don't have to do this, but those people you invite don't all see your marriage license, only the ceremony.

And six years from now, when they "fall out of love" and one is owed 1/2 the income? Are they just out of luck because the license wasn't valid in the first place?

That's where the real issue is. Proving that you did get married in the first place. That you did "intend" to marry, when you went into the Kentucky County Clerk's office, and you were not, for example, simply there to protest the County Clerk's stubborn refusal to issue licenses to gays. One of you could very well "remember" the incident differently, and claim that you and your partner decided to go and petition for a marriage license, to add numbers to the vote and help those trying to get married, and you never intended to actually marry each other on that day. If your marriage license was signed by Kim Davis, you would have annulled the license, and considered the battle for gay rights won. But, since she never signed, you never believed you were actually married at all. The other partner could disagree, but that is where the lawyers come in, and use all the discrepancies of the case to the advantage of one side or the other.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
[
Once the state has something in their ledger that says you came in and signed up to be married, and got the paper, they'll have a record of the "intent", and Kim Davis has nothing to do with it at all. She is just a witness. It's all formality.

Kim Davis and her office had everything to do with that, they are the legally bound entity in Kentucky that must sign off on marriage licenses.

Other people have to recognize you to be a married couple, if you want those benefits. Hence, you usually have a ceremony, invite lots of folks, and announce your "intent" to the wider community. You don't have to do this, but those people you invite don't all see your marriage license, only the ceremony.

The ceremony is irrelevant in regards the legality of the marriage. Most jurisdictions only require you to have one or sometimes two witnesses and they can sign at the clerk's office.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Yes, the licenses are valid. You don't need a piece of paper to make it valid. All you need is the "intent".

Legal marriage is not about intent.

It's about Legal documentation. Which is in question.

You don't need legal documentation.

All you need is intent.

In some parts of the world, like Canada, you only have to actually live together for 2 years, and the state automatically considers you married.

Common law marriage

In the United States, common law marriage can be contracted in nine states and the District of Columbia. People in these true common-law marriages are considered legally married for all purposes and in all circumstances. A couple with a common law marriage should not be confused with a couple which cohabits without holding themselves as married spouses.


Common law and statutory marriage have the following characteristics in common:

1. Both parties must freely consent to the marriage

2. Both parties must be of legal age to contract a marriage or have parental consent to marry

3. Neither party may be under a disability that prevents him or her from entering into a valid marriage - e.g. they must both be of sound mind, neither of them can be currently married, and some jurisdictions do not permit prisoners to marry.


Otherwise, common law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:

1. There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government

2. There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses

3. The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)

4. Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must "intend" their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Yes, the licenses are valid. You don't need a piece of paper to make it valid. All you need is the "intent".

Legal marriage is not about intent.

It's about Legal documentation. Which is in question.

You don't need legal documentation.

All you need is intent.

In some parts of the world, like Canada, you only have to actually live together for 2 years, and the state automatically considers you married.

I realize you live in your own little mind world.

Not interested in Canada. I live in the US.

There are only 16 states in the US that recognize common law marriage - - - and each state makes their own rules.

3 states offer Legal Covenant Marriage. Only 1% of those states population took advantage.

NO ONE is required to get married. EVERYONE can choose their own version or not.

Those that choose LEGAL marriage have the right to a valid license.

a reply to: AMPTAH

and yet, if one dies, and well, let's say that one is a vet and wished to be buried within on of the veteran's cemetary, well, the spouse will need a legal marriage certificate to prove that they were married to be buried with him in the cemetary. those legal pieces of paper matter, and if those pieces of paper look odd and don't follow the same guidelines as all the others, they might be considered fraudulent and be rejected.

originally posted by: Annee

Those that choose LEGAL marriage have the right to a valid license.

The point wasn't about whether people have the right to a valid licence, but about whether the license issued is really valid.

It is valid, because of the intent.

Kim Davis has nothing to do with the validity. She is just a witness.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

It is valid, because of the intent.

NO, its not.

It's valid only if the court says its valid.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AMPTAH

It is valid, because of the intent.

NO, its not.

It's valid only if the court says its valid.

And the court will inquire about the intent, and if there was intent, the court will pronounce it valid.

The governor already said it's valid.

What more do people want?

Do you really want Kim Davis to sign this thing? Given how much of a bigot she is supposed to be, why would anyone want the signature of such a bigot on their beautiful permanent marriage license?

Consider yourself blessed, that you got a license without any scratch marks from such people.

The license is pure as it is, don't spoil it.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AMPTAH

It is valid, because of the intent.

NO, its not.

It's valid only if the court says its valid.

And the court will inquire about the intent, and if there was intent, the court will pronounce it valid.

The governor already said it's valid.

Intent means intent - - it does not mean Legal.

NO - - Kim's lawyer said it was valid.

Kim's lawyer does not speak for the governor.

a reply to: AMPTAH

People just want it legal and Valid, if that requires her signatures than it needs to be her signature. it does nothing to say it's Valid now, only to find out later that it was never Valid