Talk:Kim Davis

Archiving was set to 7 days and leaving 0 discussions. I've revised to 90 days, leave 5 discussions. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"Davis has been married four times to three husbands. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. Davis has two daughters from her first marriage and twins, a son and another daughter, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, the children being conceived while Davis was still married to her first husband. The twins were adopted by Davis's current husband, Joe Davis, who was also her second husband; the couple initially divorced in 2006 but later remarried." 2603:8080:F8F0:500:11C9:2D17:F4CA:101C (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm unable to fully address this issue until I return to the office in a few weeks, but at that point there needs to be a robust discussion here about why Davis was jailed for contempt, and the best way to make that clear in this article. To wit, Davis was NOT jailed for contempt due to her refusal to issue marriage licenses. Davis was jailed for contempt due to her refusal to ALLOW HER DEPUTIES TO DO HER JOB FOR HER. Put simply, Davis was jailed for refusing to DO NOTHING while her deputies performed the duties of the office. Davis refused to do nothing, and was subsequently ruled in contempt -- and this factual reason for her contempt ruling is very different from the supposition that Davis was jailed (as many in the media claim) for her refusal to issue marriage licenses. She was not. This may seem like a minor quibble to some, but it is not. Allowing ambiguity on this point opens a potential for bad actors to claim that the courts were ordering Davis to sign her name (or more ominously, that she be physically FORCED to sign her name) to a document. She was not. She was held in contempt for refusing to do nothing while her deputies performed the duties of her office instead of her. This distinction is very important, and MUST be laid out with clarity in the article. If my edit is confusing, I'll gladly work toward more clarity, and I'd love to do so collaboratively. But let me be clear: I WILL insist on the edit ultimately be made, because history is being written on wikipedia (for better or worse), and as a contemporary witness to the event described above, I cannot allow history to be distorted by anyone, especially those who wish to create a martyr based on falsehoods. Robmillernow (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)