This may not be popular sentiment on here, but, as much as an abomination to federalism and as much as the SCOTUS ignored the will of the people to take a stand via the ballot box with this terrible gay marriage decision, it is now the law of the land.
This clerk has zero discretion to ignore or disobey that decision. Her religious beliefs get checked at the door when she walks into work in the morning. She swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Again, as terrible as this decision was, denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.
The only ways to override that decision is via Constitutional Amendment or possibly an Act of Congress altering gay marriage in a way that moots the decision. It stinks, but realistically, it is what it is.
Nope. There is no law.
/johnny
Jugdges can not make “the law of the land”. They can hold laws to be unconsttutional but they can not order states to pass laws. Kentucky ca choose to not isue tate sanctioned marriage licenses or they cn chose toissue licenses to hetros and homos. They have done neither and until they do there is nothing to compel.
You think you are smart but you are not. There is no Kentucky law or Federal law that compels Kentucky county clerks to issue marriage licenses. And she has chosen not to issue any. So its not even as though she is issuing them to normal couples but not to gay couples.
It is customary for Kentucky county clerks to issue marriage lessons but there no law demanding they do so. I hope the gay maggots and ACLU get counter sued for millions and lose.
You make a very reasoned argument.
I don’t think most of us care.
She is taking a stand against judicial tyranny.
The legitimacy of the judicial system rests upon the people being in agreement that the judges are fairly interpreting the law. The Supreme Court is increasingly losing that agreement, and thus losing what gives them authority.
NUTS!
That is incorrect. SCOTUS cannot change the plain language of a law (Obamacare notwithstanding).
SCOTUS held that it is unconstitutional for state law to not allow for homosexual "marriage". KY law explicitly disallows homosexual "marriage". SCOTUS, therefore, invalidated KY law.
The KY legislature has not replaced that law. Therefore, there is no operable law for the creation of marriage licenses.
The homosexual "marriage" decision by SCOTUS is, legally, even worse that Roe-v-Wade. In Roe, SCOTUS invalidated laws banning abortion. Roe did not require states to do anything, but rather not to do something. In the homosexual "marriage" decision, SCOTUS invalidated laws, but also requires states to affirmatively recognize and perform homosexual "marriages" regardless of the actual statutory authority to do so.
Finally, if the clerk has to check her religious beliefs at the door (to borrow your phrase) for this elected office, despite the absence of actual law requiring homosexual "marriage", how can this not be considered a religious test for office, which is expressly forbidden by the constitution?