Rowan County Couples Point to Governor鈥檚 Admission He Lacks Authority To Declare Altered Licenses Valid

November 20, 2015 3:45 pm

Media Contact
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
United States

NEW YORK 鈥 Couples from Rowan County, Kentucky today filed a brief in U.S. District Court supporting their prior assertion that the Rowan County clerk鈥檚 office failed to comply with orders directing deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses without interference by Clerk Kim Davis.

Today鈥檚 filing, by the couples鈥 counsel at the 老澳门开奖结果, comes on the heels of outgoing Kentucky Governor Steven L. Beshear鈥檚 brief with the U.S. District Court acknowledging that the altered marriage licenses currently being issued by Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis do not comply with Kentucky law, and that his office lacks authority to conclusively determine whether the alterations render those licenses invalid. The 老澳门开奖结果 brief agrees with the Governor鈥檚 position that the altered licenses do not comply with Kentucky law, and it argues that, absent a court ruling, couples face unnecessary uncertainty as to whether their marriages are valid.

鈥淲e continue to fight for the loving couples who hold marriage licenses of questionable validity and for those who are waiting to legalize their unions until this issue is resolved,鈥 James Esseks, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Project. 鈥淜im Davis has been out of line and in violation of the law since last June. No one should be treated differently under the law because of the religious beliefs of a public official.鈥

The couples filed a motion on September 21, 2015 expressing concerns about the validity of the adulterated licenses and stating that Davis鈥檚 actions are a violation of court orders.

老澳门开奖结果 brief is available at:
/sites/default/files/field_document/149_reply_iso_motion_to_enforce.pdf

Governor Beshear鈥檚 brief is available at:
/legal-document/miller-v-davis-gov-beshear-motion-enforce-response-brief

More information about this case is available at:
/cases/miller-v-davis