I agree, the law may be a travesty of justice, but until it’s overturned, gov’t workers have to follow the law. You can’t have a million county clerks making it up as they go. However, when someone doesn’t do their job, you let them go, not throw them in jail. Alas, Obama’s America.
She is a county worker who is following the law of the state, which she has taken an oath to enforce. The state law has not been overturned/rewritten!
There is NO law on gay marriage.
A ruling is not law.
No state has codified the Supreme Court decision into legislation, unless it previously had a law allowing gay marriage.
In Kentucky, the law on marriage is very clear--marriage is between one man and one woman.
The clerk is the only one following the law, as it exists.
Even then, there is a dispute as to whether the Supreme Court decision effectively wiped out all State laws on marriage, thus creating a situation where there is actually no laws on marriage in the State of Kentucky. The Leftists keep repeating that this is now the law of the land.
That is false, and must be resisted vociferously.
What law is she breaking? Cite the Statute please.
L
“I agree, the law may be a travesty of justice, but until it’s overturned, gov’t workers have to follow the law. You can’t have a million county clerks making it up as they go. However, when someone doesn’t do their job, you let them go, not throw them in jail. Alas, Obama’s America.”
Amen
If you take the King’s shilling you are the King’s man.
Let apply a little logic....so how do you "overturn" it? what wording do you write.. at what level of the law do you pass it?...the law was understood before to mean one thing.. the the SCOTUS took that same law and said it did not mean it. It now states it mean the reverse..
That very odd because it did not nullify or end marriage..and it also did not open it up to anyone..it just added this one new meaning...
ok SCOTUS..how do i get the old meaning back..what are you new hoops we must jump to get back to the old intended meaning?
No new law was written as the SCOTUS does not “write” law..it is empowered to read and apply it only.
So what law must be written, what wording must be used and who must write it and pass it for the SCOTUS to follow it? .
I think when a court decides to change a 200 year understand of the law and a 2000 year understating of a common word..
it is obligated to say to all at the very least...if you now want this original understanding..marriage to be one man and women...
This is the how you must write it this is who.must write it...
But they do not..because see SCOTUS is writing law when it decides...it does not matter what is written. .they will overrule.....its "you can not get there from here..you can never get there"...that the court exceeding is power...
because the court has no power to write law..only read and apply..so the writer not the reader has the power of the final say..if you.have an honest reader