Look at it this way. If you accept the concept that SCOTUS has the final say on the constitutionality of a law, then the most that SCOTUS can do is overturn or invalidate laws that they determine to be unconstitutional. They CANNOT decree that existing laws have been changed. So if the Kentucky laws are written so that they specifically limit marriage to a man and a woman, SCOTUS may be able to overturn those laws so that they may not be enforced. But that means that Kentucky no longer has ANY laws concerning marriage. If the existing laws are invalid, then the state legislature will need to pass new laws that are constitutional. Until that happens, no marriage licenses in Kentucky can really be issued legally, can they? So by not issuing any marriage licenses, it seems like she was abiding by the current state of the law in Kentucky...
A fact that has escaped the notice of exactly zero divorce attorneys in KY during this interregnum of law.
Don’t misunderstand, I loathe the Supreme Court and believe they have no jurisdiction in this matter, which is what her lawyers should have stressed. I agree with the person who posts she should not have even shown up to federal court today. My comment was regarding being told that she was issuing no license’s, to hetero’s as well.
Also again if she issues marriage licenses to people on there 2nd or 3rd marriage then she is also participating and sanctioning adultery. Sorry if people don’t like that bit the truth is the truth.
I think this is bringing out the bigger problem within Christianity whereby we are all guilty of believing some sins are worse than others. I think this is a wake up call to all Christians that we cannot continue to be lukewarm fence sitters. If you can’t sell a cake to a gay couple as say a Baptist, the you can’t work in a grocery store and sell alcohol. It’s time to stand true ALL THE TIME.
* Look at it this way. If you accept the concept that SCOTUS has the final say on the constitutionality of a law, then the most that SCOTUS can do is overturn or invalidate laws that they determine to be unconstitutional. They CANNOT decree that existing laws have been changed. So if the Kentucky laws are written so that they specifically limit marriage to a man and a woman, SCOTUS may be able to overturn those laws so that they may not be enforced. But that means that Kentucky no longer has ANY laws concerning marriage. If the existing laws are invalid, then the state legislature will need to pass new laws that are constitutional. Until that happens, no marriage licenses in Kentucky can really be issued legally, can they? So by not issuing any marriage licenses, it seems like she was abiding by the current state of the law in Kentucky...*
On this you have a very valid point