Here's the latest, which I find interesting as a legal geek and also find a relief as a supporter of Kim Davis.
Davis's office has apparently typographically altered "licenses" issued at her office so that they do not refer to her either by name or by title. They do not state that they are issued under the authority of the county clerk but rather "pursuant to federal court order" with a number of the court order. Davis has openly (in a press appearance this morning) questioned the legal validity of these "licenses," as well as of the "licenses" issued against her protests in her absence, which apparently did say (falsely) that they were authorized by the county clerk. This amounts to a "proceed at your own legal risk" notification to anyone who attempts to contract civil marriage using one of these forms.
I find it interesting that her deputies were fine with this and apparently expect federal Judge Bunning not to care that the "licenses" have been altered to this extent. The governor himself, through his lawyers, has already piously pointed out that Kentucky law requires licenses to be issued under the authority of the county clerk and to be uniform throughout the state. These pieces of paper do not meet either of those criteria. One would almost think the governor (who refused to call a special session of the legislature to alter the forms) wants Kim Davis in jail.
Does Judge Bunning just want symbolic "licenses" even at the cost of legal dubiety? Apparently so.
But while we're at it, let's have no cant to the effect that Kim Davis has been the one challenging the "rule of law." The legal chaos right now has been created by SCOTUS, directly. Indeed, this is how it often works when a law is "struck down" by the Supreme Court. It's a form of hostage taking. The previously existing law, which had everything laid out in an orderly fashion, becomes allegedly null. There ensues a legal no-man's-land, and the relevant legislature feels in duty bound to write a law (which they might otherwise have conscientious objections to) that complies with both the letter and the spirit of what SCOTUS hath uttered, otherwise it seems to them there will be a limited field of anarchy in that region of law. It's a clever tactic. Bare-knuckled, but clever. If you want marriage law with conscience exemptions in your state, hurry up and make a new one that recognizes same-sex couples. If you want abortion law of any kind, hurry up and make one that does whatever is left to do within the confines of Roe v. Wade. Otherwise you got nothing--a legal Wild West.
I'm pleased that it appears Kim Davis won't be going back to jail for the time being. I'm also pleased that she hasn't violated her conscience. And I'm pleased that the other people in her office were willing to work with her to alter the "licenses" so as not to violate her conscience.
It would be sweet poetic justice if, five years down the line, one member of one of these same-sex "couples" wants to get a "divorce" from their "marriage," and the other member decides to go back and exploit the legal dubiety of the "marriage" in the first place. "Actually, our marriage license was invalid, so I don't have to divide my retirement fund with her now that we're breaking up." That would be an interesting case to watch in family court.