I spoke too soon. In my previous post I expressed pleasure that Brian Mason, Kim Davis's deputy clerk who is issuing homosexual couples marriage licenses, had cooperated with her in altering the form. But it turns out he isn't. He and his lawyer are worried about the fact that the forms may be invalid--which I agree, they may be. But they aren't willing to just sit around being worried and being glad that the federal judge doesn't seem worried enough to threaten to throw Davis and/or Mason in jail. No, Mason, acting through his lawyer, has pro-actively attempted to get Davis in more trouble by a court filing alleging that the licenses are now invalid though they were valid when issued during Davis's imprisonment with the (factually false) statement that they were authorized by the county clerk.
The legal reasoning here is a tad tortuous. The forms that stated they were issued under the authorization of the "county clerk" were valid even though that was false? But now that they have been altered to remove that authorization they aren't valid? The best I can do at an argument for this is to say that the earlier forms did contain a false statement (that they were issued under the county clerk's authorization) and therefore did not bear on their face their legally questionable nature! One would have to know the legal circumstances surrounding the date of issue in order to raise a doubt about them.
In any event, I am disgusted at Brian Mason's actions. If Judge Bunning didn't consider the validity issue worth his while to get involved in spontaneously, it is sheer mischief-making for Mason to attempt to force Bunning's hand. Davis has announced to all the world that the licenses are dubiously valid. She said the same about the licenses issued without her authorization that falsely said they were authorized by her! Couples who nonetheless (probably for reasons of making a political statement) come and get the licenses from her office are taking their own risks with full knowledge. And Mason is free to raise such doubts verbally as well when he hands out the papers, in the interests of full disclosure. But to attempt to get Davis thrown back in jail is petty. Moreover, given that Bunning has made no move on the matter spontaneously, it is rather transparently false for Mason to say that his lawyer's new filing is done out of fear that Bunning will jail him. Bunning is perfectly capable of taking action on his own if he thinks someone needs to be jailed! He did it once already. Mason and his lawyer are trying to raise a problem where the judge doesn't seem to think one exists, and this brings up the very real possibility that they are doing so for ideological reasons.
The ACLU has filed in agreement with Mason that Davis has violated the court order. No surprise there.