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?
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.
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.
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.