Lawmakers propose new marriage license form

A marriage license bill codifying Gov. Matt Bevin’s executive order to remove county clerk’s names from same-sex marriage licenses for their personal religious beliefs passed a Senate committee Wednesday with the only sticking point being the number of forms available for applicants.

One form would note “first party” and “second party” and the other would note “bride” and “groom”.

Stephen West, R-Paris said couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, could use either form.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that controversial Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has not violated a court order by asking her office to issue same-sex marriage licenses that do not include her name and title.

The measure also calls for removing the name of the county clerk from the form.

As a condition of her release from jail, Davis complied to allow her office issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but only licenses that did not include her name and title.

“Not only did it change what the word marriage has meant in this commonwealth since its inception, it changed what the meaning of the word was and meant in English common law which is what a lot of our law is based on”, West said.

“We’d prefer to see one form”. It’s like customized marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Although her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied, Davis still refuses to issue marriage licenses.

West, who testified alongside Kentucky County Clerks Association officials, said numerous state’s county clerks believe their constituents prefer the bridge-groom language on marriage licenses, but the idea of a checkbox section on the form had been considered.

Asked if the adjustment would satisfy clerks with religious reservations, West says, “I’m not saying there’s not going to be one person out there that might have a problem with it. There are so many nuances to this someone may have a problem, but we attempted to reach a consensus”.

Davis did not attend Wednesday’s hearing, although West said he did seek her input when writing the bill.

“Having the two forms can just even create the impression of being disparate treatment, and that’s the type of thing that we really do want to avoid”, he tells reporters. He suggested one form including check-off boxes for “bride and groom” or “first party and second party” by which couples could designate their preference.

“I would obviously review it, look at all the particulars”, he said.