On returning to her office on Monday, Kim Davis spoke from the courthouse steps: "If any [deputy clerk] feels that they must issue an unauthorized license to avoid being thrown in jail, I understand their tough choice, and I will take no action against them. . . . However, any unauthorized license that they issue will not have my name, my title or my authority on it. Instead, the license will state that they are issued pursuant to a federal court order."
Does "unauthorized" simply mean she is saying to God: "Don't blame me. I wash my hands of this deed"? Or is she saying that the license will not be legally valid?
At least one same-sex couple got a license on Monday and seemed unconcerned that it lacked Davis' signature. They said it was valid to them.
And how would Davis respond, I wonder, to this letter to the editor in Monday's New York Times from Alan Daniels?
"Let me see if understand this correctly. If a religious group tried to tell Christians who they could and could not marry, they would scream religious persecution. If I don't allow Christians to tell me who I can and can't marry, they scream religious persecution. How stupid do you have to be to not see the hypocrisy here?"