No. I mean, they could try, but the fact that they chose to get a license knowing that it might be later ruled invalid strongly suggests that they both did consider it valid. As has been explained, the test is whether an alleged marriage was entered into in good faith by the two parties. The statute provided by Procrustus demonstrates that in Kentucky, the marriage is valid even if only one party entered it in good faith.
Given the amount of publicity this has gotten, the fact that the couples sued in order to get these licenses, saying that they wanted to get married, and that the judge publicly explained to them and they accepted that the license would lack the official signature normally required, do you think any judge in the future would buy an argument of, “It was just a lark, Your Honor! We did it as a publicity stunt! Neither one of us thought we would actually end up married married!”
The county clerk and the deputies swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the USA as part of her job. That is their ultimate boss as far as their jobs go.
In terms of physical people, their boss is the governor, who prior to the clerk pulling her little stunt, had directed the state’s county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples or else resign. (Cite: BrightNShiny’s link to the judge’s decision.)
So tell me, Terr, who are the deputies supposed to obey? The constitution and the governor, or the clerk? Please don’t dodge this one.
Here’s another question for Terr: What is the proper procedure for a pair of men to get married in Rowan County? That there is a proper procedure is beyond dispute: The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, asserts that. And Terr is here asserting that the proper procedure was not here followed. So what should those couples have done differently?
I’m a willing to go out on a limb here and say I find it highly unlikely there is a court that will declare these licenses invalid. In the unlikely event this did happen, I am certain it would be reversed with lightening speed on appeal.
One of the other posters mentioned something to this point as well and I do believe it to be the prevailing attitude when this comes up in legal proceedings.
Considering the clerks issued these licenses under direct order from a Federal judge and this is all a result of a ruling by SCOTUS that found prohibitions of SSM to be invalid, where do you propose finding a court that is going to waste time getting caught up in this?
SSM is a done deal and the only way this is likely to be changed is by amending the Constitution or effecting a realignment of the makeup of SCOTUS and engineering a way to get this reversed. Not likely on either count.
Until such time this is the law of the land and public officials are required to uphold it or resign. I don’t get why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp.
Obviously the male same sex couple and the female same sex couple should have swapped partners before getting married, and once properly married to the opposite sex, partake in ongoing conversion therapy conducted by the apostolic christian of their choice.
So Terr, let’s say the clerk’s staff issue licenses despite her order. Do you think any court is going to throw out the licenses, for which Davis has no legal basis to refuse to issue them? By that matter, who would have standing to bring such matters to court?
According to the judge, the proper procedure by KY law (as modified by court rulings) is for the deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses. I trust his interpretation of KY law more than yours.
The clerk’s staff already issued those licenses. AFAIU, the court so far has not ruled whether these licenses are valid or not. As for standing -the gay sore winners have so far gone out of their way to stick a finger in the eye of opponents, so one of those that got those licenses may bring the matter up.
OK, let me rephrase my question. According to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, there is a proper procedure for two men to get married right now, in Rowan County. What is that proper procedure?
AFAIU, the Supreme Court relies on the states to implement the proper procedures. The state has a path to do that, as I indicated. That doesn’t mean it has to do it this minute.
“Gay sore winners?” Good lord, you make that sound horribly offensive.
Do you really think that some random fundamentalist has standing to challenge someone else’s marriage? Why on earth would someone with merely a political axe to grind have standing?
Can you at least acknowledge that it is absurd that a county clerk would issue an illegal order, and that if her staff violate her illegal order in order to carry out the law, you are concerned that the staff are illegally carrying out the law, as the courts and the governor have directed them to?
No, wait, this is an interesting new wrinkle! If the Court did not intend for the law to be applied “this minute”, I’m curious to know what Terr thinks they had in mind!
“This is the law of the land, and you will permit gay people to marry each other. When you get around to it. No rush, take your time…”
Those are two independent clauses. It would be very easy to add a contingency that said what you wanted it to say, for example:
Note the restrictive phrase that I underlined. If that phrase were in there, you’d be correct, and the situation would be very slightly murkier. (Only slightly, for all the other reasons given above). But that restrictive phrase is not actually in the law. All the law says is that the deputies are under the direction of the circuit court. It doesn’t say that actions they take that violates such directions are robbed of faith and credit.
And it won’t say that no matter how many times you keep referring to the cite.
Yes. Among the things his cite doesn’t say:
Dogs are actually highly evolved members of the cabbage family.
Picking your nose every day will extend your life expectancy by twenty years.
A deputy’s actions are not valid if they are performed in defiance of their boss’s illegal orders.
Wrong again. The law in Kentucky in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and as effected by the direction of the Governor of Kentucky is to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
All you are doing is parroting the dumb clerks’ arguments, which failed miserably in court before a judge who set out the law.
(Cited repeatedly upthread.)
Who ya gonna believe? The Supreme Court of the United State and the Governor of Kentucky, or a jailbird? You need better legal advice.