Posted on 09/05/2015 9:06:21 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
That’s on my list. Thanks.
I don’t see any wiggle room to worry about
In that section, who may solemnize?
Then Kentucky’s governor should do the right thing and send the national guard or the state police to free their citizen from false imprisonment.
See, that’s the way our “democracy” works: 9 judges decide what all the laws will be and tell the elected officials how to vote, or else be jailed.
Not even 9, 5 can do it. 5 people rule all the millions of Americans against this abomination.
Marriage shall be solemnized only by:
(a) Ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination in regular communion with any religious society;
(b) Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of the Court of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony, county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes; or
(c) A religious society that has no officiating minister or priest and whose usage is to solemnize marriage at the usual place of worship and by consent given in the presence of the society, if either party belongs to the society.
Where’s the problem?
That would take C O U R A G E. That is in very short supply. Kim Davis has it, but I doubt there are very many elected officials that have even a fraction of her courage.
In that section, who may contract?
The persons getting married.
IOW:
Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) problem with person being married;
(b) problem with person being married;
(c) problem with those conducting the marriage
PROBLEM with unauthorized solemnizer
PROBLEM with unauthorized "contractor"
Where is the section on authorized "contractors"
See post 78
There are no “contractors” officiating, the marriage is what is “solemnized or contracted” and it is done so by authorized persons specified in 402.050.
I’m not reading it the way you are.
They don’t throw in synonyms for the heck of it in a law. That is a separate category of persons who can authorize — at least the way that I’m reading the English — and that category is not evident in this chapter at least. Perhaps it’s in another chapter.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(c)Marriage is prohibited and void when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
What is being “solemnized or contracted”? The marriage or the “authorized person or society”?
The marriage
The marriage is void when the marriage is not solemnized in the presence of an authorized person or society
The marriage is void when the marriage is not contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society.
I don't know of any state discriminating against homosexuals regarding marriage.Homosexuals can legally marry in all 50 states, under the same conditions as Heterosexuals.
One man, one woman.
The justification that individual sexual preferences deserve special legal consideration, and if not granted is “unconstitutional discrimination” is the nightmare ruling that the DOMA was supposed to quell.
What about the self-declared bi-sexual?
Not allowed to marry the two people they wish to marry, one male and one female?
And what about the man who wants to marry two or more women?
Aren't those people being “unconstitutionally” discriminated against due to their sexual preferences?
And let's not forget the sexual orientations/preferences of pedophiles, incest, bestiality etc.
Kentucky has not as yet rescinded the definition of marriage portions of their State Constitution, based on the recent opinions of 5 SCOTUS judges.
Why is this elected county clerk in jail in Kentucky?
Nunc pro tunc = Then for now. Or Ab Initio. From the beginning.
Sounds like Bunning needs to "take the cure" that only Doctor Donny Donowitz can dispense...
Boy, would I love to see that happen.
Thank you both for your replies.
“the SC can not write law so it can not expand the definition. All it can do is rule the current definition null and void.”
That’s the logical step I was missing. The SC can’t change the definition. It can either uphold it or nullify it. I’m sure they know they do not have this power but like good Statists, they just assume it anyway. Ever thus with the Left. Ever thus.
They made up a constitutional amendment, why can’t they make up Kentucky statutes?
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.