Posted on 09/06/2015 4:20:07 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
I read that book when in the 7th grade. I assumed that I was the last person to read that book. It was tedious. Overly dramatic.
You are incorrect. The SC did not declare the entire Kentucky state marriage law unconstitutional, only the section that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I am a lawyer and yes, she is 100% correct.
Wrong. The Supreme Court did not rewrite Kentucky's statute to include homosexual marriages. It VOIDED Kentucky's statute.
The Definition of Marriage in Kentucky was the union of (1) MAN and (1) WOMAN. When the supreme Court said that was unconstitutional, it voided the very definition of "marriage." Therefore there is no such institution as "marriage" in Kentucky or any other state that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Where do you practice law? Do you understand statutory interpretation?
County Clerks work under statutory authority only. Where in the Kentucky Statute does it authorize any clerk to issue a marriage license to two men or two women or three women and four men?
Show me some statutory authority that permits Kim Davis to issue a marriage license to anyone right now.
JhawkAtty
Since Sep 6, 2015
Newbie.
You signed up today to post that stupid interpretation of the law? And you claim to be an attorney? What, are you with the ACLU?
IBTZ
I am an attorney, but one doesn’t need to be to understand that the entire marriage statute wasn’t struck down. Here’s the actual holding: “The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same couples from marriage”
I disagree with the opinion, but nowhere in it did the court say that the entire marriage statute was unconstitutional, that would be silly.
Have you actually read the opinion?
Could be great news - I’ve heard her lawyer is a good one and it would be nice for our side to hand one back to the tyrants that are called “judges”.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
However, if they only found the "one-man-one-woman" part unconstitutional, nevertheless the KY legislature has not rewritten a new definition of marriage to the USCC's liking. (Nor can the USCC do this because it is a court, not a legislature, and cannot create positive legislation.) Therefore KY no longer has any definition of who is eligible to marry in the state of KY, and as a consequence I would say they cannot lawfully marry anybody.
Have you actually read the statutes in question? All of them?
The KY marriage statutes are heavily infused with hetero-normative language, such that the woman has to be the one that applies in writing or in person, among other things. The rules for issuing marriage licenses specify man and woman. The rules for solemnizing marriage specify man and woman.
SCOTUS stated that homosexual has to be treated the same as heterosexual when it comes to marriage. The only way to do this is to rewrite the statutes - a power that SCOTUS does not have for two very simple reasons:
1) They are a court, not a legislature. The concept of judicial review (itself extra-constitutional) allows courts to nullify laws the abridge the constitution, not rewrite them.
2) The laws are STATE laws, not federal.
Keep in mind that the KY laws that define when a marriage license is issued also specifically identify the man and woman requirement.
If one voids the hetero-normative language in marriage related statutes, there is no statute left in Kentucky.
If someone wants to argue that anywhere the law says “man” or “woman” it now says “person”, then the court has been allowed to rewrite the law illegally.
Have you read the Kentucky Statute that gives the legal definition of marriage?
In your practice have you ever had to do research and appeals utilizing statutory interpretation?
The SCOTUS voided every state’s definition of marriage where the definition limited the institution to one man and one woman. In those states, such as Kentucky, there is no longer a working definition of the term. Hence the SCOTUS did not simply make it legal for same sex couples to marry, they ended the institution as a legal institution.
Now show me the valid statutory authority that authorizes Kim Davis, or any Kentucky clerk to issue any marriage license at all right now?
Tell me, under Kentucky law, what is the current statutory definition of marriage.
It is also important to note that Justice Roberts in his dissent specifically stated that the majority decision struck down the marriage laws of most states.
That is an assertion of fact, and to make such a factual assertion would lead to ridicule if it simply were not true.
I do not recall at any place hearing Roberts taken to task over that statement.
Have you read Kentucky's marriage Statutes?
Have you read Roberts' dissent?
I disagree with the opinion, but nowhere in it did the court say that the entire marriage statute was unconstitutional, that would be silly.
The entire idea that two men or two women can marry each other is silly. What the SCOTUS did was not only silly, IT WAS DISASTEROUS!
The SCOTUS did not think of the ramifications that overturning the very foundation of the institution of marriage before they did it.
Or maybe they did. Maybe their intention (and the intention of the Gaystapo) was to end the whole institution of marriage because it has a religious foundation.
If you read the Kentucky statutes regarding receiving a marriage license, one requirement is that the female has to be the one to apply for the license. Unless that law were to be re-written, no male homosexual couple could ever get a marriage license (although I suppose a lesbian couple could).
Excellent point, xzins.
If there is only one lawyer in town he starves. If there are two, they prosper.
Thank you, thank you. I have changed my mind on this. I did not realize that she was refusing to issue ALL marriage licenses because the term “marriage” has been eviscerated of any legal meaning. This clarifies things a lot for me. I think she did the right thing.
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.