Replies

I’m borrowing two points that seem to answer this:

This... is the law in Kentucky

Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(d) Marriage between members of the same sex is prohibited and void

USSC in Obergefell held:

“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”

For the moment I will stipulate to this part: “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”

Here is the error:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36466
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”

This commandeers the legislative process of the States. There is no fundamental right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.

Judges are not Legislators.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3332639/posts?page=356#356

(with thanks to Ray76)

This thread has a ton of good information.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3332639/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

Ok, so it is a state vs. federal debate, but that's certainly not what she is standing on. Nor, as you know, would it hold up for 10 seconds. In virtually all of these "states' rights" issues, the federal government wins. Whether or not it's the correct Constitutional interpretation, that's how it is interpreted.

Anyway, my take is, if you don't like the laws you have to enforce, resign. No one makes you hold that job. Perhaps if enough people across the nation resigned in protest, the whole thing would shut down. But I don't see how you can stay and claim that you have special rights that allow you to choose which laws you enforce or administer.