Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Someone in public office is subject to the laws of the land according to my understanding. Let's say Kim was of a religion that didn't accept a marriage between Jews and Christians. So she refuses to issue a marriage license. I'd say she should be out of a job because of the ever popular subject of the separation of Church and State. This prevents someone who is say a Muslim and acts in relation to Sharia law which as we know would be contrary to the law of the land. To quote The Donald "your fired". Kim's jail time was a little harsh. Kim is now a martyr in some eyes. Now we know why the Founding Fathers believed in this separation.
|
No hypothetical argument. She was elected by Kentucky voters and swore to follow laws of the State of Kentucky which clearly define marriage.
"402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."
For those who take issue with this, there are means to change State Law. But until that happens, were she to issue licenses in violation of Kentucky state law would she not then be jailed for violating the state laws that she swore to follow? But for now, States issue marriage licenses and federal government does not. If the argument is that the recent Supreme Court decision makes the state laws unconstitutional, then some that are yelling the loudest about this clerk's action should also be yelling about sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration laws on a daily basis and no one objects.