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.
Thank you for the answer.
I am not clear on the mechanics of it, but my opinion is that the “unconstitutional” bits are void, but the rest of the statute is intact. The “female” bits are a dead letter.
I could be wrong.
In any event, it is a limited argument. The legislature must correct the language at some point.
People are upset at the SCOTUS ruling and are applauding disobedience to it. That’s fine, but it is ultimately futile. SCOTUS has ruled as it has and this is not going to trigger some mass movement to amend the Constitution.