I read that the first two times you posted it to others.
I completely agree with her position against homosexual “marriage,” but no matter how you interpret it — nor how many times you hit “CNTL+V” to paste it, she has a duty to fulfill as assigned. This has to do with her personal faith-based beliefs, so she could’ve avoided this mess had she assigned this duty to someone else. You are aware she wouldn’t even agree to delegate that issuance to a subordinate, aren’t you?
Under what statutory authority does she have such a duty?
Name the statute that says she has a duty to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples?
The Kentucky law authorizing her to issue marriage licenses was STRUCK DOWN AND IS VOID. She has no legal authority to issue any marriage licenses and neither does any other county clerk in Kentucky.
As many have pointed out, these laws are intricately crafted and cover the entire area of marriage and family and inheritance and obligations, etc., etc.
That law was struck down. We don’t know how much of it was based upon man/woman marriage in its logic, intent, funding, etc.
The state of Kentucky must rewrite the entire law. The old law is void, and Kentucky needs to rewrite the provisions. They might change the tax sections, the divorce sections, etc.
Personally, I think this is a extremely valid argument.
The marriage license is the implementing document that authorizes the “wedding”. Her religious beliefs prevent her from allowing her signature on the license. Her signature on the license makes her a participant in the wedding. A very important participant. Her signature is required for the license to be valid. Only she can sign the marriage license.