A report to the court of another of the Rowan County Deputy Clerks today includes the following:
"Mrs. Plank reports that, to the best of her knowledge, all requests for marriage licenses requested by legally qualified couples have been issued. The only denial of a marriage license application that has occurred within the last two weeks was to a gentleman who stated that he wanted a license that would permit him to marry 'Jesus'. *When it was explained to the individual that both parties had to be present, he stated, 'Jesus is always present'.* After being denied, the gentleman returned later and presented a type of Power of Attorney document issued by his church granting him authority to sign 'Jesus'’ name. *Since both parties were not present* these requests were denied." Impermissible civil assessment of a fundamentally religious question? (P.S. The passage from the filing today, quoted above, is 100% true. My "legal" question, however, is of course facetious -- although given the Court's recent movement toward almost absolute deference to private religious assessments (cf. *Hobby Lobby*), it's not obvious on first glance why the Clerk's Office was permitted to act on the basis that "Jesus was not present.")
_______________________________________________ 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.
