IOW, it was trivially easy to issue licenses without her name on them, something she could have done the first time the first gay couple walked in to her office.
But instead, she unilaterally declared that her office wouldn't issue
any marriage licenses to
anyone. And that brought the courts into the matter.
So the question is, if this is what she wanted all along, why didn't she just consult with the county attorney (who we know agrees that her name can be removed and the licenses stay valid) and make the changes that were later made while she was in jail?
Why didn't she do that?
Except for the ones they've been issuing since she was in jail. IOW, it can be done (and pretty easily too).
Do you have something to support the claim that the judge was presented this alternative and rejected it?
THIS ARTICLE says Davis, "
later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release."
And
THIS ARTICLE goes into a bit more detail...
"after Davis was taken into custody, five of her deputies who attended the hearing on Thursday agreed to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Judge then offered to drop the civil contempt charge against Davis, but she told her lawyer that she could not grant her staff the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses."
So her staff agreed to the compromise and she
still refused.
Then why didn't she remove it?
And why are her and her lawyer contradicting themselves? Once her name was removed and the deputies started issuing the licenses, she and her lawyer
still objected. I mean....that part is in the first link you posted.
"One of Davis' attorneys, Mat Staver, has said Davis thinks the licenses are not valid.
"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Staver said Friday."
This isn't making sense at all. If this is as you claim, then....
After the Obergefell decision, Davis understands that her office will be expected to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, but due to her religious beliefs, she doesn't want her name on those licenses. So, she could have contacted the county attorney and checked to see if the licenses could be issued without her name. That way her office follows the law and she doesn't violate her conscience.
But instead, she declares that her office will not issue marriage licenses to
anyone.
Naturally the taxpayers get a bit upset and take it to court. The court orders Davis to get back to issuing marriage licenses. Once again, Davis has an opportunity to check with the county attorney and have the licenses altered and her name removed, thereby solving the problem.
But instead she refuses. The judge holds her in contempt and puts her in jail. She's offered a compromise that her staff agrees to, but she still refuses.
While she's in jail, the clerk's office, in line with advice from the county attorney office's advice, alters the licenses to remove Davis' name and begins issuing them again. While this is going on, Davis and her attorney object publicly, basically saying "they can't do that".
Why is she objecting if the end result is what you say she wanted all along? :idunno:
And why didn't she just make those simple changes herself at the start? :idunno:
Fundamentalist Christians.....:chuckle:
