Replies

When a law is struck down, the only thing occurs is that the current law ceases to be enforceable, not that a new one has taken its place.

Has KY law been struck down? Can someone show me where this is documented?

Or is it rather that portions of it are now unenforceable due to their being unconsitutional?

Serious question. We seem to have two different understandings of what has happened.

Or is it rather that portions of it are now unenforceable due to their being unconsitutional?

Unless the Kentucky marriage laws were passed with a saving clause indicating that if any portion of the law was declared unconstitutional that the rest of the law passed as part of that package would remain in effect, then the entire statute was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The Kentucky marriage laws were obviously passed before this became a habit of legislatures. So if that clause isn't there, then Kentucky and every other state which prohibited homosexual marriage is currently operating without any marriage laws.

Perhaps a lawyer can give a better answer but I'll try. First there is this law.

402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incum bent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex

This was obviously stuck down

Then there is this law which is the implementing law for writing the license.

402.080 Marriage license required --
Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

Notice the "the female" referenced in the implementing statue. Only in a heterosexual marriage is there a "the female" so there is no way the clerk can legally issue a marriage license to anyone other than a heterosexual couple. The clerk decided rightly IMHO to simply not issue any marriage licenses rather then discriminate. As noted she is not using this as a defense, she is engaging in civil disobedience. However that does not negative the fact that she is not breaking any laws.

The relevant portion of the majority opinion states:

“the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”

Any portion of the statute not held invalid is still in force.