Is Kim Davis the only person refusing to issue marriage licenses?

[drm604]

Something just struck me. I haven't heard a single word about anyone anywhere refusing to issue marriage licenses other than Kim Davis.

Has the media simply latched onto her for some reason and ignored others, or are there no others?

The fact that there don't appear to be others being reported would seem to indicate that there are few, if any. If so, that says something very positive about this country.

Kim Davis may be an extreme exception, and not an indication of overall backwardness in this country.

[Reter]

1. I'm actually shocked how little controversy the marriage equality ruling produced

I thought for sure that we would see several state governors say they would refuse to obey the SC ruling. I honestly thought it might even spark a new Civil War.

[CBGLuthier]

2. There are two others in Kentucky alone

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/kentucky-clerks-refusing-marriage-licenses


But she’s not the only defecting clerk in Kentucky. Two other clerks, Casey Davis of Casey County and Kay Schwartz of Whitley County, are also still refusing to perform same-sex marriages.

[drm604]

3. Clerks don't perform marriages do they?

They only issue licenses.

[CBGLuthier]

6. That's true.

Journalism truly is dead.

[Suich]

4. No. Here are a couple more:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/09/05/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-license-religious-freedom/71770124/

[drm604]

5. From that article it sounds like there are quite a few refusing all marriage licenses,

but most of them are allowed to do so under their states laws. Maybe what's different about Davis and a couple of others is that they are elected officials violating their oath of office.

[csziggy]

7. There were a couple of county clerks in Florida who were refusing

When the Florida law was struck down but before the SCOTUS decision. I haven't heard if they are still refusing since.

And I've read there are some in Texas.

I suspect that Kim Davis was targeted as a test case since her stance is pretty vulnerable and because there were same sex couples that were willing to be in a suit. There may not be people willing to put themselves forward for the cause in other locations.

[davidpdx]

8. I know there is a judge in Oregon refusing to marry

Attention has been focused like a laser in recent days on Marion County Circuit Judge Vance Day following revelations that an investigation has been launched into his judicial conduct over refusing to perform same-sex marriages.

snip

Day is mounting a legal defense, contending that Oregon's rules of conduct for judges are so vague that they violate his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech.

"I don't believe that by taking the oath as a judge, that I somehow set aside my First Amendment civil liberties and that as a judge I’m a lesser species of protection," he said Thursday in a telephone interview.

snip

Day, a former head of the Oregon Republican Party, said his former political affiliations have made him a potential "punching bag" for "elements of society who view Republican ideas as not being worthy of recognition in the public square."

snp

Reports then came out that Day had stopped performing all marriages and instructed his staff to divert same-sex marriage requests to other Marion County officials. Day is not required to perform marriages.

snip

Another charge said that when Day decided to not perform same-sex marriages, he violated Oregon's judicial conduct rules that judges may not manifest bias based on sexual orientation.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2015/09/09/vance-day-his-case-and-where-could-go/71949426/

[drm604]

9. These various judges, clerks, etc. and their supporters are missing a very important point.

The constitution guarantees certain rights. What that means is that government can't deny those rights.

The important point is that "the government" is not some disembodied thing that is ruled by the constitution. The government consists of people. It consists of civil servants and elected representatives going about their day to day duties. So when we say that the government can't deny certain rights, we mean that these individuals, while acting in their governmental roles, cannot deny those rights.

If we allow these individuals to pick and choose which rights they will respect, then we might as well just throw out the constitution because we've then made our guaranteed rights conditional on who you encounter in the bureaucracy.

When someone runs for office, or takes a government job, they need to realize this. They need to realize that they are bound by the constitution as well as by laws enacted by congress. They further need to realize that those laws could change at any time, sometimes through legislation, and sometimes through court cases, and that they will then either have to obey those laws or resign from their positions.

There is nothing brave or noble about what Kim Davis et al. are doing. What they're doing is attempting to set themselves up as an arbiter of SCOTUS' decisions, picking and choosing based on their personal beliefs. Since she sincerely feels that she can no longer carry out her required duties, she should resign and give up her $80k salary.

That would be brave (but still misguided, obviously).