If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Kim Davis saga, it’s that it only takes one forgiven Christian (or hypocrite in more ecumenical language) to make a mockery of the Supreme Court marriage equality ruling.
Most times, county clerks are the keeper of the local records–in essence, the guardian of local government filing cabinets. But as we learned from Davis’s case, when it comes to marriage at least, clerks can take a routine matter and turn it into a public statement, at the expense of whoever happens to be in the way of their beliefs. And for this taxpayers are hit with her $80,000 salary plus benefits.
So here’s an idea: Let’s get clerks out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.
Ostensibly, the reason clerks issue marriage licenses is to verify that the couple getting married is who they say they are. The county also has a more-than-passing interest in collecting the license fee. But there’s no reason clerks have to be the arbiters of identity.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Think about virtually any other permit that you may require from your local government. In many municipalities, you can request the permit online and never have to show up in the clerk’s office. (Although let’s face it: Governments are not exactly AirBnb or Uber when it comes to technology.) The county can collect the fee through its website (and is happy to do so, since it reduces staff time).
And what about verifying identity? After all, people could otherwise obtain marriage licenses fraudulently, claiming to be who they aren’t (or of age when they’re not).
Consider this: you can pay for an airline ticket to anywhere in the world, without ever interacting with a person who questions your right to fly. The proof point comes at the time of the event itself: when it’s departure time. Then the TSA agent checks to make sure that you are, indeed, you.
So why isn’t it the same with marriage? Officiants are the last stop before the event itself. Checking ID is no more complicated for them than for county clerks, but a lot more relevant. In fact, it’s done already. Why the redundancy in the system?
The answer, of course, is that there is no good answer. Perhaps it’s a vestige of pre-feminism days, when protecting the virtue of single women was a moral cause for government. Perhaps it’s just because it adds to the self-importance of bureaucracy or the public worker unions. Perhaps the government hasn’t heard about this thing called the Internet. Whatever the reason, it makes no sense.
Taking clerks out of the business of granting marriage licenses would mean we would never have had to deal with the likes of Davis–and we wouldn’t have to bend over backwards to accommodate the biases of her faith. Licenses would be granted automatically. The clerks just get the form returned to them after the wedding, so that the county can issue a marriage certificate. Of course, Davis and her ilk could refuse to issue marriage certificates, but at that point, the marriage is a done deal. There is no grandstanding possible for the petty bureaucrat.
The only downside of the idea is that Davis would pretty much get out of the mess she’s in. But perhaps that would be the ultimate punishment as well. Davis clearly wants to be a martyr to the cause.
Denying her that status by implementing a simple automation process might just well be the best revenge anyone could offer.
Finrod
Why do you need a license to get married, anyway? It’s not like a driver’s license. Your veil isn’t going to cause a 60 car pile-up if you put it on backward. And given how bad people are at marriage (eg. multi-adulteress, oath-breaker and rotating divorcee Kim Davis), there’s clearly no exam to see if you understand how to operate it.
Magnus
Congratulations on bending to the will of Kim and her ilk Queerty. Personally I would rather see a human being to get a marriage license and not go through something so impersonal as the internet to get it. The Supreme Court has ruled on this, you need not suddenly side with Kim. I’m disappointed in you queerty.
enfilmigult
@Finrod: I don’t think it’s a terrible idea. It lets you go through one of the steps, get that feeling of permanence and passing the point of no return, then still have a day or two to change your mind if you start freaking out.
onthemark
To go in a slightly different direction, why are county clerks elected? It seems like more of a high-level civil service position anyway. Electing them seems like a 19th-century relic. But it happens practically everywhere in the U.S. (except in Connecticut, which took the drastic step of abolishing counties).
To extend the DMV analogy, I’ve never heard of anyplace where the head of the DMV is elected. Even though nowadays, the DMV probably affects more voters in a day-to-day sense than a county clerk does.
Kieru
@Finrod: Record-keeping. Bigamy is illegal in the United States and the easiest way to prevent that is by having a record of who is married to whom. If Joe is already married and tries to marry Jane things tend to run foul when he takes Susan to get a marriage license.
That’s also what part of the fee covers; searching records to verify your claim of being unmarried is factual.
Giancarlo85
Maybe have it all computerized. Send in the document and it will automatically get filed with the state.
But anyways that is beyond the point. County clerks take an oath of office and one of their jobs is administering marriage licenses. That is part of their job description. They are paid for by the tax payers. They should be appointed and they should remain bureaucratic. By that mean I mean doing everything by the book and following the letter of the law. County clerks are prohibited in the interpretation of the law. That is something the judicial branch does. If the Judicial branch carries out a ruling that impacts their job, they need to follow that ruling.
So no, I’m actually against this idea in the end. And yes, county clerks should be appointed rather than elected.
Juanjo
The reality is that Queerty and others have this all wrong. It is actually time to simplify the marriage system in this country as has been in Europe and even most other countries in the world and get the religious nutcases out of it entirely.
1. Marriage is a secular civil contract by which two people agree to follow certain legal privileges and obligations as to each other. Having a system of marriage registration is one way to ensure that others [aka disapproving family] do not come in and claim superior rights or privileges as can happen to unmarried cohabiting couples. Property rights, inheritance rights, medical and financial arrangements etc all run with marriage status. Anyone who wants to challenge these rights has the burden of proving they are not existent and this is a difficult burden to prove.
2. In virtually all European countries as well as Latin American countries among others, to be legally married all one does is go down to the local clerk or registrar [or whatever it is called in that country] fill out the forms and you are legally married. No ceremony of any type is required. If you want to have some sort of public or private ceremony, you can do one if you wish but it is not required.
3. Having both parties appear for the marriage registration is important because it is necessary they prove who they are, that they are not already married and that they are doing this of their own free will. You do not get to obtain a state identification card or driver’s license without showing up at the DMV and filling out the forms, taking the exam and doing the eye test and having a photo taken. If you want to file a deed with the county clerk, then the proper documents need to be filed and they are notarized which means you have proved to someone by legal identification that you are who you are.
4. By removing the religious elements of having clergy involved at all in legal marriage, then any claim Kim might have in her pea sized brain is removed. But of course Kim is not ding this out of confusion. She is doing it out of complete bigotry and stupidity, aided and abetted by a “lawyer” who sees her as a way to scam money out of other members of the ignorant Christo-Taliban forces of the far right in this country so he can make another 4 or 5 million this year in donations, return to his 1.3 million dollar house in the gated community in Florida and live large for another year..
GG
Dear Kim,
Certifying (that a couple has met certain requirements) is not the same as approving. Your position gives you the authority to certify. Nothing more, nothing less. You name imprinted on the license is simply reflective of this fact. It means nothing more, nothing less.
GG
It should say “Your name . . “
jwtraveler
If you think this controversy is about gay marriage, you are quite naive, and dangerously underestimating the Christian fundamentalist movement in this country (not to mention politicians like Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee and Santorum). This is not about marriage; it’s about a concerted effort by religious extremists to subvert the U.S. Constitutions and create a theocratic government based on fundamentalist Christian principles. Ideologically they are no different from the Taliban, ISIS or the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Statements made by Cruz, Huckabee and several other Republican candidates make it clear that they intend to refuse to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as stipulated in the Presidential Oath of Office. Therefore, they should be disqualified from running for and serving as the president. We must all speak out against this attempt at religious tyranny in order to preserve the principles of democracy and freedom on which this country was founded.
There’s a whole lot more at stake here than gay marriage.
Gaymikey1960
Plain and simple, make it that all you have to do is the 2 that are getting married take it to a notary public, the notary public can verify who each person is by drivers license or ID card (Valid) once the notary public puts their seal on it it’s official! You don’t need no damn hate filled clerk spouting nonsense!
martinbakman
Remember Quear-Tee, in New Mexico a county clerk acted on his interpretation of their laws and constitution when he began issuing licenses to same sex couples before any judicial ruling happened.
75 year old former Rockefeller Republican Lynn Ellis allowed same sex couples to marry. There was no gender specific language preventing his action under New Mexico law. I believe at least some other counties followed suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/county-clerk-in-new-mexico-issues-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples.html
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/22/239790062/how-a-county-clerk-ignited-the-gay-marriage-debate-in-n-m
Dakotahgeo
I still want the bitch dead NOW! This is beyond blood at this point! Unfortunately I live in Brazil at the moment!
jwtraveler
@Dakotahgeo: Focusing all your anger and hatred on this one woman is misguided. She is one very small cog in a much larger and more dangerous machine.
Dakotahgeo
@jwtraveler: Yes, she definitely is, but she’s stealing somebody else’s much needed oxygen!
Alistair Wiseman
@Dakotahgeo:
You stated, “I still want the bitch dead NOW!”
Spoken like a true inclusive, tolerant liberal.
Dakotahgeo
@Alistair Wiseman: Thank you! LOLOL… I appreciate your sentiments!
Giancarlo85
@Alistair Wiseman: You conservatards voted for a President who killed a half million Iraqis and another 4,000 American soldiers in a war based on a lie. So please shut up.
allthingsevil
Please sign the petition to impeach Kim Davis: https://www.change.org/p/rowan-county-clerk-kim-davis-resign-from-office?recruiter=383542456&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
DennisBTR
You are completely wrong on this. If you cave on this issue then any government official will see it as an opening to either disregard the law or try and eliminate the services they provide to the taxpayers.
It is very simple. When you work for the government (and generally in life) you must follow the rule of law without regard to your personal feelings or beliefs in the matter. If you don’t like the law, go through the process to get it changed.
greyhound1954
@Kieru: The government also needs to track marriage because married couples are eligible for more than 1,000 rights and benefits that come with the status of marriage.
greyhound1954
@DennisBTR: It’s not “caving.” This is recognizing that a problem exists and taking advantage of technology to improve it. Two more points: First, Davis has already won, in my opinion. By keeping her job and not issuing licenses herself, she has carved out a self-created exemption; second, this very public dogfight about religious liberty is just the first in what will be a long series of challenges from fundies. When they realized gay marriage was going to happen, the Christian right began to strategize ways to counter it, ranging from lawsuits to civil disobedience. Davis’s action was rogue, but it is a hint of what is to come.
Giancarlo85
No. She hasn’t won. And her office isn’t denying same sex marriage licenses any longer, they are now issuing them. So the only person she isolated was herself. Her own staff are now saying they are following the court rulings.
She lost. I don’t see how she won. If she won, her office would not issue same sex marriage licenses at all.
Transiteer
What it’s time for, is to get religion out of marriages. IF you want a religious ceremony fine, but not before you have a legal one. And the legal one will count in income taxes, health benefits, recognized next of kin (spouse), etc. The religious one is the goat sacrificing etc that some consider essential as their atonement to a god.
Marriage was originally a civil contract where you two were now considered a ‘unit’ within the community. It was much simpler then before Christianity got involved and the Church insisted it was in charge of everything.
Get religion out – and make State recognition of Marriage the ONLY marriages with legal status. And anyone who can’t, for religious reasons, perform the civil marriages (gay and straight etc) should be in a position to be fired, not re:elected.
Too many nazis, bible bigots, morons and just plain stupid people get elected to positions they’re not qualified for and do terribly. Cut down on elections and get professional.
Dakotahgeo
@Transiteer: From a Christian minister… AMEN! First, the State seals the marriage legally; When the couple want the church to seal the marriage… go ahead!