Kim Davis

[rusmeister]

Well, that's the impression, at any rate, that some of you give. You spoke of the burden to people who, rather than drive to a neighboring county, made multiple trips, spent hours, dragged the media along. THAT'S a burden. But one they obviously preferred. I don't think the issue is whether it is a burden or not.

But when YOU speak of it being a burden, you really appear to be defending the right of a homosexual couple.

 

[gzt]

I do defend their rights in the sense that the courts have said they have that right. There are a variety of ways to object. There is an easy solution with very little burden in this case: Kim Davis letting the other clerks who do not have an objection to giving out licenses giving them out. This is a solution that a few other states have. But given that the state has determined that they have that right, they should be able to exercise it without additional burden - any dealings about making sure clerks don't have to violate their conscience or whatever have to have no substantial impact on the service.

I think the Oregon case linked above is bad - a judge should be able to stop doing weddings. If weddings are a "required" part of their job description, they should be able to do that as long as there are other judges capable of doing them.

 

[buzuxi02]

[QUOTE="gzt, post: 68567009, member: ]

It's not an interview, you're just filling out paperwork. It's just bureaucracy. You're filling out a form. Details vary, but here's what you do: the two of you go in with your piles of identification (like, birth certificate and photo ID), they give you a form, you fill it out, you give it to them, they enter stuff on computer and ask a couple more questions to fill out a form, you make sure everything is correct, they verify that your stuff matches your official documents, then you all sign things. Then they give you the license. You must have the license before your church marriage and the priest signs the license.[/QUOTE]

Ok so what's the purpose of the license then? If you give them the info and they put it into the computer system that should be enough. How do atheists go about it or people who are not looking to have a wedding reception and don't need the license?
I really don't see the need for all these extra steps. How is it no one has ever spoken out about this practise? I am actually highly offended that the state dares to issue permission slips to hand to the church to allow them to perform their rituals. How can it be no one has fought against this?

 

[isshinwhat]

This is false - her name appears, not her signature.

Not according to Kentucky state law which says that is must have:

"(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

If it has the deputy clerk's signature it must say it was done with the the clerk's authority, that is why the local judge said time would tell if the licenses issued were valid if challenges were issued.

 

[gzt]

The whole point is having the state record the marriage. It's not a permission slip. The officiant of the marriage signs it with witnesses so that everybody agrees that the Rev X married these two people on such-and-such-a-date, these same two people whose identities were recorded by the state earlier for its own records. The officiant agrees, the people involved agree, and somebody else saw it who knows the identities of both people. You get the license in advance so that everybody is clear that it's really these two people, it's not something being filled out after the fact or whatever. It's done this way (rather than, say, having getting the license be replaced by immediately having the state recognize you as married and then having the church perform the marriage, which is the European method, or rather than the reverse) because the churches want to insist that they're not married until the actual wedding and they want to insist that we somehow guarantee that when we perform the church marriage that they actually do end up being married. You want to prevent scoundrels from getting "married" but then never bothering to file the paperwork and then absconding.

Atheists need the license, of course, because they're registering their marriage with the state. How they have their marriage officiated, however, is their own concern. Some get a judge to marry them like immediately after and only have a reception, some find somebody else authorized to perform marriages...

 

[gzt]

Not according to Kentucky state law which says that is must have:

"(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

If it has the deputy clerk's signature it must say it was done with the the clerk's authority, that is why the local judge said time would tell if the licenses issued were valid if challenges were issued.

Her name would appear, not her signature.

 

[rusmeister]

I do defend their rights in the sense that the courts have said they have that right. There are a variety of ways to object. There is an easy solution with very little burden in this case: Kim Davis letting the other clerks who do not have an objection to giving out licenses giving them out. This is a solution that a few other states have. But given that the state has determined that they have that right, they should be able to exercise it without additional burden - any dealings about making sure clerks don't have to violate their conscience or whatever have to have no substantial impact on the service.

I think the Oregon case linked above is bad - a judge should be able to stop doing weddings. If weddings are a "required" part of their job description, they should be able to do that as long as there are other judges capable of doing them.

What I get from you, gz, is that obeying the law, any law, is more important than doing the right thing.
You can't defend a right to a wrong. When you do, you depart from Christian Tradition. You can say the courts said that, yes, but as soon as you start backing and justifying the courts, you go down the wrong road.

 

[rusmeister]

Her name would appear, not her signature.

And a name, whether as a signature or printed, is still her name. You sound like a Philadelphia lawyer trying to find loopholes to justify all this.
Names mean something, not nothing. Her name means something on that form, printed or otherwise.

 

[isshinwhat]

Her name would appear, not her signature.

"(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license."

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205

 

[gzt]

Signature of deputy clerk issuing the license. Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

 

[gzt]

That's an interesting reading of what I wrote. You're certainly entitled to believe whatever you like, it's a free country.

 

[RDKirk]

Has it been mentioned yet that she has said she would agree that licenses be issued so long as her signature (which appears no matter who issues it) is removed from the documents?

That's actually resignation from the office, then.

 

[RDKirk]

I frankly don't see any difference that matters. And a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
I just don't get why you are so eager to completely put this woman down and defend the rulings and laws being passed. I don't think the stand you are taking is going to soften the blows or work in our defense in the least.

Name is certainly different from signature. Ask any bank.

 

[RDKirk]

I thought blood tests were indeed to make sure the was no consanguinity going on.
Im still confused though. When a couple marries in the church do they still go for this interview? What actually takes place at this sit down?

Also when I see in the Movies, scenes of couples running up the steps of city hall and come out married is this an expanded version of the interview process. Basically who is this elected filing clerk and what is their relationship to the guy in the black robe in city hall who claims the state has given him power to pronounce someone man and wife?

If you stop and think for a moment: The courts have considered marriage a "right" for quite some time now. Yet, the exercise of this "right" requires the permission of a low-end public official. And there are Churches that consider marriage a sacrament, yet the exercise of this religious sacrament requires the permission of a low-end secular official.

We really ought to be agitating for the abolition of marriage licenses.

 

[isshinwhat]

Signature of deputy clerk issuing the license. Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

Stop, please...?

I clarified that point in the first post. If the deputy clerk signs it must state that it was done with permission of the clerk. She requested permission to remove her name from that. It it was denied.

Thanks! Today is our parish festival and it's been a good time spent with wonderful people.

 

[gzt]

If you stop and think for a moment: The courts have considered marriage a "right" for quite some time now. Yet, the exercise of this "right" requires the permission of a low-end public official. And there are Churches that consider marriage a sacrament, yet the exercise of this religious sacrament requires the permission of a low-end secular official.

We really ought to be agitating for the abolition of marriage licenses.

It requires permission in the sense that getting a driver's license requires getting permission or filling out a birth certificate requires permission. It's somebody recording something and making sure all the formal elements are there. At least, that's what the state says it is. Whether it is that or not, I'm extremely averse to having the the state's recording of marriages be somehow tampered with, as it is an extremely valuable service. I have personally known people who have been burned by people who tricked them into getting "married" purely "religiously" when it turned out one party was a scoundrel who simply didn't want the marriage recorded by the state for soon-discovered nefarious purposes. A record by the state of a marriage is extremely important where children and property exist, particularly in the case when the marriage ends either by death or divorce.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I think we have more living heroes who returned as well, sometimes the scars are not clearly visible, and I certainly would classify many of those I went to Afghanistan with as heroes, even those that returned alive.

My comment is how they see themselves not how they are seen by others.
Personally my heroes are Christ, my parents and their parents before them. Without my parents I would have no past and without Jesus I would have no future.

It seems everybody else is just continuing to continue, wither they fight wars, fight injustice or fight ignorance. These things all seem to return to plague us all no matter how much power we through at them. All we can do is keep them at bay and wait for a power greater than we to dispose of them, forever.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My comment is how they see themselves not how they are seen by others.

ah, si si, gotcha, now I follow. I thought I was still missing something, and I agree.

It seems everybody else is just continuing to continue, wither they fight wars, fight injustice or fight ignorance. These things all seem to return to plague us all no matter how much power we through at them. All we can do is keep them at bay and wait for a power greater than we to dispose of them, forever.

indeed, that is why in the Liturgy we are reminded to put not our trust in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation

 

[buzuxi02]

If you stop and think for a moment: The courts have considered marriage a "right" for quite some time now. Yet, the exercise of this "right" requires the permission of a low-end public official. And there are Churches that consider marriage a sacrament, yet the exercise of this religious sacrament requires the permission of a low-end secular official.

We really ought to be agitating for the abolition of marriage licenses.

Ive been advocating the abolition of government marriage for some time now. Its obselete and down right creepy as far as Im concerned.
If my aunts and uncles and grandparents never had these licenses we don't need them today, especially with DNA testing and legalzoom.com

I can see why a woman would want the added insurance policy but why a man would do this is beyond me.

 

[gzt]

They did have marriage licenses. Generally, in America, we had these sorts of things because there was no state church. See English precedent if you want more information about how this came about. If they weren't in America, it depends on how old your grandparents were and what country. But it is exceedingly likely they registered their marriages with the state.

Also I'm not quite sure what legalzoom and DNA testing are supposed to do?