The story says they are not performing marriages.
Sounds like sexuality is not an issue. They’re just not performing marriages, period.
I don’t think that marrying couples is a mandated duty for a judge, whose responsibilities are primarily in the courtroom. Performing marriages may be optional, and these judges opted out. It is not their main job.
That’s the differences between these judges and the county clerk issue.
For a county clerk, issuing licenses IS a primary duty.
I’m solidly on the Kentucky clerk’s side in refusing to be involved in same-sex marriage, but she has no power to change law. Her only recourse, honestly, is to resign and find a job that doesn’t require her to do unholy things.
Besides, she's no longer held under contempt. The judge knows. Probably better than you do, since he released her today.
/johnny
I will ask you the same questions that many other have been asked: What Kentucky law is she changing? What laws is she violating? What law in Kentucky is on the books that permits her to issue licenses to same sex couples?
The Supreme Court cannot rewrite a law. They can declare a law unconstitutional, and make it unenforceable. But at that point, it is up to the legislature to pass a new law that can pass constitutional muster. Until then, no enforceable law exists. So Davis is actually quite right to refuse to issue any licenses until a new law specifying who qualifies for a marriage license in Kentucky, and the procedure for applying for such license. (Current law in Kentucky specifies that the female must be the one to apply for the license: wouldn't that prevent male homosexual couples from getting a license?)
“Her only recourse, honestly, is to resign and find a job that doesn’t require her to do unholy things.”
See Post #17.