“The question is “Can immoral laws compel obedience?”
No one requires her to perform the marriage. All she is being asked to do is certify the people applying meet the requirements set by the law.
She is not being asked, “Do you approve of this marriage?” She is being asked, “Have these applicants complied with the law?”
If she was being required to participate in the marriage, or to perform it, or to approve of it as moral in the eyes of God, I’d support her. But all she is being asked to do is see if X & X have complied with the law.
Is this like saying her hand won't be on the gas chamber valve? Just issued the tattoo is all. Right?
Would that we could claim no involvement in evil acts, but I don't have enough sophistry in my soul to get away with it.
And that is one of the problems. The laws that set the requirements for who is allowed to marry were overturned by judicial fiat. But no new laws have been passed to take their place. So how can she certify something for which no law currently exists?
Are you aware of the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment? Ever since Constitution-ignoring FDR established a majority of activist justices, the Supreme Court has been wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected powers on many issues, gay “marriage” an example.
More specifically regarding the so-called right to gay “marriage,” Obama’s pro-gay activist justices have wrongly ignored that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage. So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protect laws to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay “marriage” because activist justices actually don’t have a constitutionally enumerated right to gay “marriage” to throw at the states through the 14th Amendment (14A).
The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that 14A applies only constitutionally enumerated personal rights to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
And the reason that activist justices are getting away with legislating things like gay agenda rights from the bench is because they know that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate will not lift a finger to remove them from the bench.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt Senators and activist justices along with it.