The underlying fallacy is “if the law doesn’t exclude it, then it must support it.”
As Diamond posted well before: there is no legal authority based on current Kentucky law for this lady to issue the license.
Also, as a side note, if the misnamed “couple” are male - then the precise wording of the law, using the word “where she resides” would explicitly exclude two males pretending holy matrimony.
But, where there is no basis of authority and also no explicit law such as from the Kentucky legislature, there is no authorization to issue a license. There is merely *opinion* that homosexuals ought to be issued a license: this is not law.
I noticed that legal technicality when that law was posted, but I recognized immediately that the Gaystapo would simply send in a couple of Lesbians and we would be back to the same impasse.
This isn't about marriage. This is about forcing compliance with Gleichschaltung.
But, where there is no basis of authority and also no explicit law such as from the Kentucky legislature, there is no authorization to issue a license. There is merely *opinion* that homosexuals ought to be issued a license: this is not law.
Nowadays the "law" means just what the Judicial dictators says it means. Being right about what is the "law" won't really help us. They will work a technicality and get around any attempts to thwart their will.
I expect a contempt order at some point, and Federal Marshalls subsequently arresting the woman. If she holds out that long.
Or, if the law doesn't define it then definitions are up for grabs.
When it comes to marriage, the Leftists choose to ignore common law, common practice, custom, tradition, precedent, God's law, and self-evident truth...