The legal analysis in all of our posts have been mostly based on “good faith” legal arguments. But we try to figure it out as Ms. Davis’s arguments and claims seem to evolve. Most of the people on this list assume that a reasonable accommodation is possible to protect her “religious freedom.”
Does anyone want to entertain the possibility of the following? There is no good faith here. Ms. Davis is taking steps to enhance her political career and her ability earn money speaking around the country. In addition, some people in Morehead (where I was this week) suggest that she is trying to compensate for her less than “Christian” lifestyle in the past, including two or three divorces, multiple marriages, children born from one father while she was married to someone else – all of this I was told by multiple people on Morehead, I have not done any independent research to verify it). Thus people suggested she is taking this position to shore up her political strength with evangelicals in eastern Kentucky. Alternatively, as some have suggested on this list, she simply does not want to have people marry who they love unless she approves of their lifestyle and so her actions are not about religious values at all but just old fashioned homophobia and bigotry,)and she is doing everything possible to obstruct the law. She can’t close the courts or even any other clerk’s offices She can’t stand in the school house door, but she is following in the steps of Govs. Orville Faubus, Ross Barnett, and George Wallace. As such, any attempt to negotiate or accommodate is rebuffed with new arguments and new claims. I would add that her supporters are doubtless sending fundraising email blasts to everyone on their email lists begging for money to save Kim Davis for the Godless heathens (like Judge Bunning???) who are out to get her. I suspect they are hoping she will be back in jail next week so they can raise more money. My assumption, by the way, is that when she took her oath of office she did it on a Bible and said so help me God, that she would enforce the law (and perhaps even uphold the Constitution). I would be interesting to see what oath she took. (see Matthew 22:21 and Mark 12:17). I have not heard anyone raise this issue, and while it is not relevant in constitutional law, perhaps it is significant for the discussion of constitutional politics. I could be wrong about all this, and overly cynical. Perhaps we will know in a few months or a little longer, if and when we know what her speaking fees are after this is over. ============= Paul Finkelman Senior Fellow, University of Pennsylvania Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism 518-439-7296 (w) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@yahoo.com<mailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com> www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com/> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:13 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case Yes, but that same statute also says that the Deputy Clerk can issue the license, in addition to the Clerk. Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(1)(c). In such cases, obviously, the "authorization statement" in question becomes that of the Deputy Clerk -- which the State's official form acknowledges when it provides in the statement for the prospect that the Deputy Clerk, rather than the Clerk, might issue the license. Another way to look at it: Because KRS § 61.035 states that “[a]ny duty enjoined by law . . . upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, may be performed by his lawful deputy,” references in the Code to duties imposed upon the Clerk can all be read to add the implicit "or the Deputy." I very much doubt that Kevin, or any other reasonable person, believes that Kim Davis actually authorized the licenses issued on Friday, or that any member of the public understands her to have done so. Assuming that's right, I'm really not sure why we're still debating it. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Walsh, Kevin <kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu>> wrote: David, Sure. The two most pertinent provisions are Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(1)(a) (requiring the prescribed form for marriage licenses to include "an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license") and Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(3)(a) (requiring the prescribed form to include a marriage certificate stating "the name of the county clerk under whose authority the license was issued"). Kevin ________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] on behalf of David Cruz [dc...@law.usc.edu<mailto:dc...@law.usc.edu>] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:24 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case Kevin, before I attempt any elaboration of your first follow-up question below, can you say what provision of Kentucky law you would cite as at least seeming to contain a requirement that a marriage license must be issued “under the authority of” some county clerk? I apologize if I’m being obtuse about that, but please do walk me through it slowly. Thank you. David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu><mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>>> on behalf of "Walsh, Kevin" <kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu><mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu>>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu><mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>> Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:56 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu><mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>> Subject: Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case I asked "Is there a county clerk under whose authority these licenses were issued, or not?" If the answer is "no, but it doesn't matter to the validity of the licenses because ...," I am asking because I don't understand what comes after "because." If the answer is "yes," I am wondering what the name of the county clerk is, if not Kim Davis. David's premise seems to be that the answer is in Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.035, but I don't see it. On Sep 12, 2015, at 7:33 PM, David Cruz <dc...@law.usc.edu<mailto:dc...@law.usc.edu><mailto:dc...@law.usc.edu<mailto:dc...@law.usc.edu>>> wrote: Why is it relevant, given the Kentucky law already aptly quoted by Marty, whether or not there is “a county clerk [as distinguished, I guess Kevin Walsh is asking, from a deputy county clerk] under whose authority these licenses were issued”? David B. Cruz Professor of Law University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A. From: <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu><mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>>> on behalf of "Walsh, Kevin" <kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu><mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu>>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu><mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>> Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:06 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu><mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>> Subject: RE: What's happening in the Kim Davis case Brian Mason is a deputy county clerk. Is there a county clerk under whose authority these licenses were issued, or not? [Note: I originally sent this before ND threw a touchdown pass to pull ahead of UVA a few minutes ago, but am resending now after being notified it was too long. Go Irish.] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
