Posted on 09/03/2015 12:14:28 PM PDT by GIdget2004
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 3m3 minutes ago Only clerk not willing: Nathan Davis, Davis' son.
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 4m4 minutes ago #KimDavis will be brought back in shortly to discuss contempt and willingness to follow order again. #WSAZ 4 retweets 1 favorite Reply Retweet 4 Favorite 1 More Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 4m4 minutes ago Judge is unclear of validity of licenses. Says couples can make decision as to whether to proceed. #WSAZ
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 5m5 minutes ago In brief recess: 5 of 6 deputies agree to comply with order to issue licenses to all. #WSAZ #ky #rowan
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Looks like her son will go to jail too
May God have mercy
I think it would be very instructive. It would be an opportunity for the legislature to meet—and decline to rewrite the statute. Presented that way, the whole thing—now that we're in the age of Trump, and with the threat of jail being thrown around—would play very differently before the public mind.
I tried to steal that image but was unable to (”invalid image”)
A gray area. A license authorizes solemnization.
402.070 Marriage not invalid for want of authority to solemnize.
No marriage solemnized before any person professing to have authority therefor shall be invalid for the want of such authority, if it is consummated with the belief of the parties, or either of them, that he had authority and that they have been lawfully married.
We can’t let this stand.
This is how it started with the Jews in Germany.
Time to pray intensely that God will send His warrior angels to smite a few judges.
What language is that? I have no idea what it means.............
“402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk. “
So, how does the judge intend to break this law?
It's just a joke. This is a tyranny of the politically correct, and most Americans are just fine with that. Just send them their free stuff.
Yes, but there are two statutes. One lists who can issue licenses, and another lists who can solemnize. The two lists are not identical.
We have left God at the door step.
We have let wickedness in.
Time for the American Crusade to begin to let God cross the threshold and remove wickedness.
How about signing with disappearing ink?
Great catch!
I agree.
> 402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
ANY county clerk could issue the license, although I believe to do so would violate Kentucky law (402.020(1)(d) Marriage between members of the same sex is prohibited and void).
Any of the following could solemnize
> 402.050(1)(b) Marriage shall be solemnized only by ... Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of the Court of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony, county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes
Sheriff deputies are not on the list of those who may solemnize.
So if two homosexual men wish to join, they are disallowed due to the law requiring a female?
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(d) Marriage between members of the same sex is prohibited and void
Unless they are under 18 the ‘couples’ can go to any county clerk’s office in the state. Therefore, these people for some reason want her personal signature on their certificate.
She should just get a rubber stamp that says “approved by order of Judge Bunning” and stamp it in the section where her signature goes.
She is being targeted.
I assume that was invalidated by the SC ruling.
When courts go wild anything can happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.