On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:11:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 1:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:19:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:



Actually, it was an attempt by a christian ayatollah wannabe to exert
the "authority" of her religious beliefs over civil law. That's really
*not* the way it is supposed to be done in this country, yet. If you
want religious law imposed over civil matters, there's always Iran and
Afghanistan.

You are right in a way
It would have been just as easy for her to say she was simply hog tied
by the court when they threw out the law that regulates licenses and
she is waiting for guidance from the legislature before she can start
issuing licenses again.
Both sides were simply trying to advance an agenda.

It does bring up an interesting point. What is the federal standard
for what actually constitutes marriage? It is totally a state issue
and the states could have totally different standards.
This is even more confusing since they have thrown DOMA (1 U.S. Code §
7) out.
Basically if a state says you are "married", all of the other states
(and the feds) must recognize that and what that actually means is up
to the state. If the state statute is invalid, is anyone in that state
still married? Can anyone get married? Maybe not.

It is an interesting legal conundrum.


I don't think it is all that complex, nor do I think your libertarian
solution works here.

It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The
fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining
marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute,
along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in
the language that it is hard to separate without legislation)
The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis
wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she
was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way