And? If she's not the one issuing the license, or taking any part in the issuance or processing of the form, how does the fact that her name is on the form (as a technicaly matter, in her official capacity as clerk) violate her religious freedom in any way?
Yes it does. It’s her NAME on the form approving of a queer joining (I refuse to call it marriage).
SHE was the one ELECTED to uphold KY law, and now you say it’s ok for her to pass that responsibility off on her subordinates?
For political expediency?
I don’t think so. That would cause me to call for her impeachment.
It’s under her imprimatur, as “in my name”
Also, and this is the legal fact, there is no authority in Kentucky to issue a license. While the old statute has been struck down, a new one has yet to be legislated.
Under which law do you want her to issue? The one that has yet to be written or the one that is no longer in effect?
Just admit it: you approve of homosexual marriages, and you oppose what Kim Davis was doing.
What law can an Article III court create? If you answered no law you understand the separation of powers.
So the SCOTUS simply said, in their putrid holding, that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman were unconstitutional.
Fine. Kentucky’s laws concerning marriage are now unconstitutional. But Kentucky has neither amended nor passed a new law.
Article III courts can not tell states what laws to pass or not pass. Kentucky can just not license marriage at all.
So what law has Davis broken?