Posted on 09/02/2015 2:41:50 PM PDT by DouglasKC
I thought it would be interesting to look at the laws by which elected County Clerk of Rowan, Kentucky was elected to abide by.
The County Clerk does much more than just issue marriage licenses. This document, Duties of Elected County Officials details the various duties.
Concerning marriage licenses this is what it says:
The county clerk issues marriage licenses (KRS 402.080) and files and records all marriage certificates (KRS 402.220 and 402.230). Military discharges may also be recorded in the county clerks office (KRS 422.090). On or before the 10th day of each month, the county clerk reports to the state registrar of vital statistics all marriage licenses issued and all marriage certificates returned (KRS 213.116). Each county clerk must furnish each applicant for a marriage license with a copy of a marriage manual to be prepared and printed by the Human Resources Coordinating Commission of Kentucky (KRS 402.270).
Now looking at the first line it references the statute governing marriage licenses, KRS 402.080. Now comes the important point:
402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
It's clear by the term "the female" that this is a marriage between a man and a woman. And here's the kicker. If there is no "female", such as a marriage between two men, then the clerk CANNOT issues a license because the law says that the FEMALES county of residence determines whether or not the county clerk should issue a license.
She is doing exactly what she is supposed to do based on the law she was elected to uphold.
Good Point.
What about the lesbo marriages?
The only “laws” that matter today are the ones the left makes up and gets some gay judge to issue. Then the matter is settled forever. End of story.
That’s a good point. It is incumbent upon the County’s legislature to change its laws to comport with the “Supreme Court Decree” ( or to decide not to change it )...
Sooooo. In a sane world the Kentucky legislator would have to change the law. Instead, the court will fine this woman for upholding the law, or the court will order Kentucky to change their wording. In a sane world such a directive would result in impeachment. Instead no legislator anywhere will do anything to stop them. In a sane world the failure to impeach would result in tar and feathers.
She is doing exactly what she is supposed to do based on the law she was elected to uphold.
_______________________________________________
Eggs-Zactly.
Even if she weren’t a Christian, she would have to follow the law and not some unconsitutional opinion of of some BFT’s (Black Robed Thugs)
“No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor.”
What happens if someone solemnizes a marriage with no license?
Freegards
Good question. That's a fail, too. "The female . . ." Which one? It can't be specified, 'cuz they're both (sorta) female.
The law doesn't cover how to decide such an absurd issue. So, rather than violate someone's right to be "the female" (who knows if the other one would sue later?), the state would be obliged to say this coupling is "undefined," like dividing by zero. Since you can't define "the female," it doesn't qualify as a marriage.
Must not have common-law marriage in Ky. Just supposing....
Maybe they can specify something other than a female. How about the ‘catcher’ in the relationship?
That leaves questions in the lesbian relationships, so I guess it won’t do. Never mind...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3331934/posts?page=9#9
Kentucky law prohibits marriage between members of the same sex. The U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority, none, to overrule that law. Indeed, it is the Supreme Court that is violating the Constitution.
9 posted on 9/1/2015, 9:56:18 PM by Charles Henrickson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3331934/posts?page=13#13
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(d) Marriage between members of the same sex is prohibited and void
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36466
13 posted on 9/1/2015, 10:01:54 PM by Ray76
On the other hand, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, pro-gay activist justices have no constitutionally enumerated right to gay marriage to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added]. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
The reason that activist justices are shoving the fictitious constitutional right to gay marriage down our throats (just like they did with the so-called right to have an abortion) is because they know that the corrupt Senate will not lift a finger to work with the House to impeach them and remove them from the bench.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
Excellent response.
It’s axiomatic that a law written to override natural law, can’t even abide by the natural language within the natural law it is attempting to usurp.
Let the lawless be trapped like the rats that they are.
Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
So I’m guessing it’ll be changed to: No marriage shall be “sodomized” without a license therefor.
Just heard some homonazi on the radio say he’s not trying to impose his lifestyle on anyone as he tries to impose his lifestyle on all...
Can someone explain to me when marriage of any sort became a “right?” It seems to me that once a permit or license is required to engage in an activity, said activity becomes a privilege. States decide by statute upon whom such privieges will be conferred.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.