Jesus Christ, you don’t know what an independent clause is, do you? Do you EVER read up on what is being discussed if you don’t know about it? I mean, last night I read six different sections of KY statute in order to try to understand what a county clerk was before I posted. But you can’t be arsed to look up what an independent clause is?
No. They’re not independent clauses because I say so. They’re in the same sentence because it’s a compound motherfucking sentence in which two independent clauses are joined by a conjunction.
You think this is about sportsmanship?
Let’s run with that.
Imagine we have a big old sports contest, and there’s a table set up for the members of the winning team to sit at. We have the contest, and Team A wins–decisively. Most members of Team B recognize that they lost. But one member of Team B believes she should have won, and she goes and sits at the table for the winners. In so doing, she takes a seat that should go to a member of Team A, inconveniencing that member. The refs tell her to get up, and she refuses. Her own team captains tell her to get up, and she refuses.
If that member tells her to get the fuck out of his chair, is he being a sore winner?
Yeesh, Terr. I think you held your position steadfastly quite admirably, but you should also gracefully put down your king when you’ve been checkmated. Now I’ll buy y’all a round of beer after this fascinating sparring.
The deputies have long since been authorized by the clerk. That authorization does not have to be re-instituted each morning or for each act.
Again, you have provided no evidence that the clerk has the authority to order a deputy, already sworn into his or her position, to violate the law.
I know very well what an independent clause is. That just means that it is grammatically a complete sentence. That has nothing to do with whether it, within the meaning of the sentence, depends on the first clause being true.
“Alice read a book; and she liked the book.” An independent clause, but the second one depends on the first one.
Terr seems to think that the U.S. operates like the European Union. In the E.U., AIUI, if the European Parliament or a European court creates a law saying that all smoots must lope, it then becomes incumbent (under treaty) on each national legislature to pass its own law requiring smoots in its country to lope. I believe there are procedures in place to ensure this goes smoothly and that all countries have the same definitions of both smoots and loping (or whatever words are used in the relevant languages), but that until those laws are passed, smoots are free not to lope in any country without a smoot loping law.
I actually agree that it’s possible. Maybe one of them wins the lottery and then tries to say that they were never legally married so that the other one isn’t entitled to half. As others have demonstrated with cites, it doesn’t hold water legally.
As far as the circuit court / fiscal court issue goes, I think you’ll find that the the circuit court is the real deal, and the clerks referred to in Tomndebb’s cite from the Kentucky Statutes are circuit court clerks only. In Kentucky, the fiscal court is more like a rural county administrative body. Here’s a list of what they do. The gay hater is a county clerk, so she’s part of the fiscal court, not the circuit court. Because she is a county clerk, she has the authority to issue marriage licenses, with such authority being conferred on her by the State, which I assume has some sort of financial arrangement with the county as to how much of the state’s marriage license fee goes to the county for use of it’s clerk. Bottom line: she ain’t no circuit court clerk.
Then why the hell did you argue with my claim that they’re independent clauses? Are you just determined to argue with every single thing I say, no matter how obviously correct it is?
On second thought, never mind; I know the answer.
Yes. But writing it as an independent and a dependent clause would have been trivially easy, and would have had the meaning you want. Viz:
They didn’t do that. It doesn’t mean what you keep claiming it means.
No it doesn’t. If Alice didn’t read the book, she still might like the book.
Yes, they can. Because the law you keep pointing to has nothing to do with County Clerks, only with Court Clerks. Mrs. Davis is not a Court Clerk, she is a County Clerk.