Monday, September 14, 2015

Other State Officials Say No to Same-Sex Marriage


Other State Officials Say No to Same-Sex MarriageAs Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis gets ready to return to work, other officials are drawing scrutiny from gay-marriage supporters



Sept. 13, 2015 12:25 p.m. ET


The spotlight will shine once again Monday on a Kentucky county clerk as she prepares to return to work after being jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But Kim Davis isn’t the only one causing a stir.

Local officials in several other states also are refraining from granting licenses or performing ceremonies, drawing stepped-up scrutiny from gay-marriage supporters.

In North Carolina, all four magistrates in rural McDowell County have recused themselves from performing civil wedding ceremonies for any couples. The moves are allowed under a state law passed in June that allows certain public officials to avoid marriage duties if they have religious objections. So far, 32 magistrates across the state—about 5% of the total—have done so, according to the state Administrative Office of the Courts.
unty, magistrates from neighboring Rutherford County have been driving in to perform ceremonies three days a week, during reduced hours. Tonia Hampton, the McDowell County register of deeds, whose office issues marriage licenses, said the documents continue to be available during regular hours. “It’s business as usual for us,” she said.

While the new law prohibits registers of deeds, who are elected officials, from refusing to issue licenses, it allows their assistants and deputies to do so. Ms. Hampton wouldn’t say whether any staff members had recused themselves.

The situation in McDowell “illustrates the administrative nightmare that this new law set up for our local officials,” said Sarah Preston, acting executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina. The group is urging any couples who experience problems as a result of the new law to come forward. So far, none has, Ms. Preston said.

In Alabama, about a half-dozen county probate judges, who oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, aren’t providing them to any couples, said Greg Norris, the Monroe County probate judge and president of the Alabama Probate Judges Association.

Among them is Nick Williams, the Washington County probate judge. He said he stopped issuing licenses immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that legalized same-sex marriage—a decision he said he considers “ill-advised” and “invalid,” because marriage is a state issue.

“By not issuing licenses to anyone, I’m not discriminating against anyone,” Judge Williams said.

Under Alabama law, probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses, but aren’t obligated to, providing firmer legal ground for those who have objected. But Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, said the group is studying the issue to see “if there’s an avenue we can use to encourage” the holdouts to resume issuing licenses.

Ms. Davis—the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who opposes same-sex unions on religious grounds—is the only clerk facing litigation so far because aggrieved plaintiffs haven’t appeared in other counties. A federal judge sent her to jail Sept. 3 for repeatedly refusing to follow his order that she issue marriage licenses to all qualified couples. He released her last Tuesday but ordered her not to interfere with her deputy clerks, who have been issuing licenses in her absence.

On Friday, preparing for her return to work, Ms. Davis filed an appeal in federal court to allow her to continue to prevent the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But at least two other Kentucky county clerks also are refusing to issue licenses, including Casey Davis in Casey County. He recently rode his bike across the state in support of Ms. Davis, who isn’t related to him, and said he also would risk jail to uphold his religious convictions.

Invoking Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. Davis said accepting imprisonment “to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Write to Arian Campo-Flores


  1. Some quick questions for all those who are praising Kim Davis as a hero and symbol of religious bigotry, er, I mean "freedom":

    Would you all be singing the same tune if Davis was a Muslim citing Sharia Law stating that the SCOTUS's ruling is meaningless and that Allah forbids her from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples?

    Do you think she'd still be walking out of jail to a rally of supporters with Eye Of The Tiger blaring?

    Do you think Huckabee & Cruz would've still been fighting for a photo op with this brave symbol of "religious freedom" if she was wearing a Hijab or even a Burka?

    The answer to those questions is "yes", of course, right? Because if you answered "no", that would make you more than slightly hypocritical, wouldn't it?

    1. According to an article I just read there are over 600 different sins mentioned in the Bible. So, if people refused to serve other people who had committed one of these sins, no one would ever serve anyone else in any public capacity. Government and private enterprise would cease to exist, as would civil society.

  2. similar to the questions asked in my post the right view. Can a Muslim Lifeguard refuse to save the life of a female in trouble because she is scantily dressed. The Hindu clerk, can he refuse a building license to a steak house because he worships cattle. This could go all kinds of places but as Americans we deserve the services provided by those we elect to office, they need to be above this malarky and do their job. If Mrs Davis had a clerk who refused to do their duty how would she handle it? She would fire them that's what she would do. The lady needs to resign or get off her high horse.

  3. Accommodations are made everyday for cultural and religious reasons.

    "Boston schools have to address the needs of all their students. They come from 142 countries and speak 84 languages."

    "" New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill into law Tuesday that will require the city to release more detailed information every year about the diversity of its schools.

    The law, known as the School Diversity Accountability Act, will require the city to release demographic data related to individual grade levels and programs within schools, including gifted and talented and dual-language programs. The law will also require the city to account for any steps it takes to advance diversity in schools and programs citywide.

    “This is a step further in our efforts to ensure that our schools are as diverse as our city and people of all communities live, learn, work together,” de Blasio said.""

    1. So, diversity is great except when it comes from someone with a conscientious religious objection.

      By a Christian.

    2. Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking. Where a person is known for regular victim playing, the person may be referred to as a professional victim. (

  4. "The moves are allowed under a state law passed in June that allows certain public officials to avoid marriage duties if they have religious objections. "

    Objectively, I find this both somewhat clever and disturbing, it is complete Alinsky. Just as with abortion law, we have a growing body of legislation, written by local Republicans, to subvert an interpretation of the SCOTUS that conservatives find objectionable. This is "WINNING" Charlie Sheen style. It's not changing anything really, but it is thoroughly pissing off moderate and liberal leaning people and eventually, it's going to provoke a response that allows someone like Davis to claim they are victims while they use their position as government officials to make people adhere to Christian ideals. Throwing in the quote from MLK at the end is just the perfect bit of smug "Fuck You" to dare someone to take action against them.

    You guys are asking the obvious questions that all people center to left are going to ask to try and shame people who agree with Davis. It's a losing battle though. When someone can hurl back the epithet that this will lead to people wanting to marry a farm animal so they can screw it, the chance for rational discussion has been lost. And that is entirely the point. Ultimately, the Kim Davis's of the world are going to be ignored as the world moves on, just as the racial bigots who ultimately murdered King were left behind, and let's be clear, Davis and her husband are much closer to that group than they ever will be to MLK.

  5. Believing in Christ makes Davis a bigot in your agnostic perspective. You are bigoted against Christians.

    1. straw man
      a person compared to a straw image; a sham.
      a sham argument set up to be defeated.

    2. Lol! Wow ...

      No, William, it's the act of discriminating against gays makes Davis a bigot from any reasonable thinking person's perspective. She just adapted her belief in Christ to justify that bigotry. I'm no theologian, but I don't recall Jesus talking much at all about gays in the Gospels, but hey, whatevs ...

      I love, love, LOVE it when you squeal indignantly about being a victim of oppression and bigotry while actively celebrating and endorsing the oppression of a segment of the population while using your belief in that best-seller from the Bronze Age as unassailable justification for said oppression & bigotry.

      Oh, the delicious irony dripping all over this thread ... I'm a giggly little girl again!!!

    3. It's always so nice when the left chimes in. The "reasonable" person is back in the room with our other "reasonable" socialists. The perspective immediately shifts towards blue on the spectrum and we receive lectures from the nanny corner.

      Mrs. Davis by the way was not issuing licences to anyone, gay or straight, or even those seeking to marry their horse. She was an "elected" official representing her constituency in a soverign State setting. Faggots were well aware that they could cross the County line and obtain their paperwork from an adjacent clerk.

      What Mrs. Davis was doing was exercising her right as a US citizen to express her religious objection. She cares not that the Supreme Court, an unelected body, handed down from on high an edict unsupported by representative government. After thousands of years of history we have one decision, from one meager majority, supporting one unconstitutional argument.

      But then again, she's a Christian, so she must be a bigot because she does not align with the hard left (the oh so "reasonable" people). Despite the fact that a majority of people for whom she works, a majority of people from her soverign State, and an overwhelming majority of people from all the soverign States happen to agree with her religious perogative.

      Why the fuck do you think the Mayflower even bothered to set sail pfunks?

    4. "or even those seeking to marry their horse."

      "But then again, she's a Christian, so she must be a bigot because she does not align with the hard left "

      straw man
      a person compared to a straw image; a sham.
      a sham argument set up to be defeated.

    5. Your horse and bear zoophilia is peeking through Maxie poo.

    6. I have a question. If all the Davis supporters are concerned about religious freedom, why haven't they risen up in opposition to the airline which just fired a flight attendant for refusing to serve alcohol to passengers because it violates her religious beliefs? I think we all know the answer.

    7. She was an employee nimrod and worked for a company. Davis is an elected representative and can be fired at the next poll, or not.