Posted on 09/05/2015 9:06:21 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
The Supreme Court recently ruled that any State Statute that limits "Marriage" between (1) Man and (1) Woman is void and that States may not so limit the definition of marriage to not include homosexual couples. In effect Kentucky's definition of Marriage as being a union between (1) Man and (1) Woman has been voided and for all intents and purposes it no longer exists.
The problem is that if section 402.005 which provides the legal definition of marriage has been ruled void, then any references to the term "Marriage" (including the issuance of Marriage Licenses) no longer have a legal reference.
The statute which has been voided by the Supreme Court is as follows:
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 incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.
If there is no working definition of the term "Marriage", then it follows that there can be no issuance of a document called a "Marriage License." After all if "Marriage" has no legal meaning then any references to a "Marriage License" would be undefinable.
At this point in time it would appear that no one in the state of Kentucky can issue a "Marriage License" to anyone legally since the term "Marriage" no longer has any legal meaning in Kentucky.
Unless and until the Legislature passes a new definition of Marriage, then nobody in Kentucky can legally get married.
AND, as the Tennessee judge declared, “I can’t grant divorces since the law defining marriage is null and void. I have no definition of marriage or non-marriage.”
Many also don’t seem to understand the doctrine of silence: where there is no explicit authorization, there is no authority or empowerment to an official.
(i.e. The rights are reserved to the People.)
Similarly, no one considers where authority truly derives from.
He is absolutely correct. If there is, by definition (or lack thereof) no longer an institution of "marriage", there is no jurisdiction by the courts to grant a divorce.
Work it out yourselves people. The Supreme Court has spoken!
They have no jurisdiction in that area. They can't define marriage for the states. But then neither can the SCOTUS.
Ahhh! That concept cannot be discussed enough.
All of the law and order objections to this situation, seem to be forgetting that the power used by government to enforce law and to make law, stems from the people, not the government. To redress any complaint against government, we don't have a lot of choices. We can petition our reps, or we can use civil disobedience... We should not be deprived of our liberty to do this.
Kentucky marriage statute: Chapter 402.990(8) “If any deputy clerk or any person other than a county clerk knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of this chapter, but not for a prohibited marriage, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and if he knowingly issues a license for a marriage prohibited by this chapter, he shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.”
It appears Bunning is ordering the assistant clerks to commit at least a class A misdemeanor
If Congress doubled down on the BS scotus interpretation of the 14th, then they could make law on marriage for the states...but I am not sure we should go there. We need Congress to regulate the court and vacate this and other decisions..
****Her legal team is not raising the issues on this thread. They are sticking to the First Amendment issues.****
This is a better long term strategy in my opinion. Once all the states re-write their marriage laws to conform with the SCOTUS decision, all clerks across the country will not be able to conscientiously object if that is their only concern.
Judge Won't Divorce Straight Couple Because Gay Marriage Is Legal
The end game for the revolutionary leftists here is to establish precedents with homosexual marriage that destroy the right of churches to carry on with Holy Matrimony. Thus, the government can tighten the noose around the neck of churches, and the state governments as well.
Once this is done, the same process will continue in other areas of law, until finally there is one government in the country that can do whatever it pleases.
You are absolutely right.
I would strip all lower courts of any jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of any state law or state action. The only court that would have jurisdiction would be the Supreme Court. I would then limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by making any opinion of the Supreme Court on issues of State Law or State Action limited to the parties before it and that any decision on the constitutionality of a state law is limited in application only to the State that was sued or brought the suit.
Then the Supreme Court would likely not get involved in these social issues. They would have had to hear 50 Obergfelt cases instead of just one. That would tie up their docket for decades.
Roe v. Wade would have only applied to Texas if this were in effect back then.
Short term, however, the fact that Kim Davis is currently in custody is a false imprisonment and violation of her civil rights.
Solicitation of a misdemeanor is usually considered a felony. The Judge, by requesting and demanding that the clerk commit a misdemeanor is, in fact, committing a felony.
He is also violating the Civil Rights act in that he is using color of authority to deprive Kim Davis of her Constitutional Rights. That is also a felony. I do not believe that there is a judicial immunity for that crime.
It is the judge who should be languishing in a jail cell awaiting trial.
Except those darn Christians who won't stop doing matrimony in their churches.
I am waiting for Congress to get back in session. Congress is going to have to address the mess made by the Supreme Court. I am certain the conservative members of Congress will be outraged at Judge Bunnings’ persecution of an innocent Christian women.
In Kentucky it is illegal to perform a marriage ceremony without a legal marriage license. All licenses issue in Kentucky since the SC ruling are illegal.
You are absolutely right. Hey “Justice” Kennedy, what say you?
The “state” has no business in the marriage business. A marriage is a sacrament of religion.
If the civil authorities wish to recognize the contractual state between people, that’s fine.
I should not have to get a license to stand before God and make pronouncements. The whole thing is a scam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.