I would say that anyone who agrees to issue licenses based on the whatever the state’s current take on marriage is has to realize that the state’s definition has always been mutable. The only way the state in the modern era has to define it is whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time. It could be legit or not, depending. First was civil divorce and remarriage, then super easy divorce and remarriage, the latest and most ridiculous impossibility is ‘gay marriage.’ Who knows what else the state’s version it will be like in 50 years, probably banning actual marriage and mandating same sex underage clone marriage.
Freegards
Oh. You mean at some point in time it constituted a different arrangement other than a man and a woman? Well I didn't know that. Well of course, if the state's definition has ever included dogs, bugs, plant life and rocks as part of "marriage", then they have no moral or legal leg to stand on by refusing a couple or even a dozen faggots the state certificate of marriage.