Coupled with the facts which have already been explained to you that a judge-executive can also issue marriage licenses in the clerk’s absence and that deputy clerks are empowered to issue licenses under the authority delegated to them by the clerk, this is a complete non-starter. You’re not going to find some technicality that overrides the Supreme Court and allows you to keep abusing the law discriminating against gays and lesbians. SSM isn’t void because the courthouse is flying a gold-fringed flag, or because Ohio didn’t ratify its statehood properly, or because signing a birth certificate establishes joinder with your corporate self.
Marriage equality is the supreme law of the land. Accept it and move on.
I wonder if every marriage license in Kentucky has always been obtained by the prospective wife and whether no office has ever handed over a license to a prospective husband who showed up with the appropriate cash in hand?
The law seems to presume that the united couple will live in the county where the woman lived. What has happened when the man has been the Kentucky resident and the woman was moving to Kentucky to marry and take up residence?
It is absurd to claim that, when the law says “The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county”, the clerk’s deputies can issue licenses against the clerk’s express instructions.
Clearly, every single one of those marriages must be unlawful. I’m sure religious conservatives will be racing to the courts any day now to demand that these couples living in sin have their marriages nullified at once.
The clerk has been ordered by the court to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Those deputies have had it made quite clear to them that the clerk does not have the authority to order them to refuse those licenses. By issuing those licenses, the clerks are complying with the court order on the clerk’s behalf.
Gotta love the “what the hell are you going to do about it?” argument. Who cares about that “nation of laws” concept. Let’s just do what we think is right no matter what the law says.
You do not believe that the Supreme Court decision created case law that is binding on state officials?
Do you hold the same position for Brown v Board of Education? Do you think that if a superintendent of schools for a southern state did not want to integrate schools, then black children were illegally registered for public school against the orders of state and local officials, to hell with what the Supreme Court decided?
So? What are you going to do about it? Are you going to sue the state of Kentucky and demand that they rescind these marriage certificates? What standing do you think you have to do so? What standing do you think anyone has to do so? What judge do you think would agree with the logic that a legal marriage, contracted by two consenting adults in good faith and sanctioned by the state in accordance with settled law and the opinion of the Supreme Court, should be invalidated because of a missing signature on a document? What does the state, our nation, or our society benefit by pulling the rug out from under these marriages? In what conceivable way would doing any of the things you suggest further the execution of justice or uphold public trust in the government and the rule of law?
Again, yes it is binding. The federal law compels the clerk to issue the license. She refuses. That is why she is in contempt. But the licenses are still issued under KY law, not federal law, and if the law is not followed properly, they are invalid.
And since the law is being followed properly, as has already been explained to you, this complaint is moot.
What is your goal here? What do you find so offensive about the fact that same-sex couples in Rowan county are able to exercise their legal right to marry?
I am not familiar with that state’s laws at that time. Was there a state law at the time of the action you’re referring to that required that the white schools be segregated or stated that the superintendent had the sole authority to decide whether they would be?