Tonight at a meeting, well, after the meeting, some friends and I were outside talking. To be honest, it was more like I walked into a conversation. I'm not even sure the topic, but eventually it turned to the lady in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. While the discussion was about the woman not issuing licenses, the conversation quickly turned to ignorance of law. She chose to stand her ground, good on her. She had no law that stated she had to do it. Had there been a law that required her to issue the licenses, then "they" would have the right to incarcerate her.
The point here, is that people assume something is law because "they" said so. We went back and forth about the law that "they" said was there. There are no laws in Kentucky that recognize the marriage of two people of the same sex. However, there are laws on the books that state the exact opposite. The Supreme Court of the US states that those laws are unconstitutional. Ok, so they are unconstitutional. That in itself, does not make it law. It only says that laws that prohibit it, are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court didn't really rule marriage laws unconstitutional, insomuch as they ruled that rights cannot be infringed. Basically, that says that laws can't prevent it. What it does not do, is make it law to provide it.
The Constitution is very clear, the legislative branch makes the law, the judicial branch merely interprets law and the executive branch is to enforce the law. So, lets break that down, when it comes to this case. The Supreme Court basically said that the legislative branches of federal, state and local governments merely cannot make a law prohibiting it. That DOES NOT mean it is law to provide it, that is still the responsibility of the legislative branch.
This means, that the lady in Kentucky has broken no law by not issuing these marriage certificates. Now, that is not a discussion I am going to have with anyone, about whether she should or shouldn't.
My point for this blog post is that, just because "they" said it, doesn't necessarily mean it is so. This person has knowledge of the law because a law student told them so. Where did this student get his/her information? Was it a law book? Was it some high ranking lawyer that interpreted the law, or wants to put his/her spin on the law and push an agenda? I really don't care, but what really irked me in all this, was the comment of, "Lawyers say so, regardless of what the law says." That is the whole crux of society today. Everyone bows down to lawyers, because they can interpret the law, and the normal everyday person cannot. That is a load of excrement. Anybody of any intelligence should be able to read the law and understand it. If you can't understand it, then you need to learn how to understand it. That is your civic duty. By letting lawyers and the like be the ones who read and interpret the law, they gain power over us. More importantly, we lose our freedoms.
They see a precedent set by the Supreme Court and think it is law. I am an ordinary citizen and know that is not how it works. The problem, however, is that most don't see this, or don't care to see this, and the lawyers, politicians and the like can do what they want.
Then further in the conversation, the comment was made, it doesn't matter what state law says, it is up to the District Attorney to decide the law. That is, I am sorry to say, ignorance at its finest. These politicians and lawyers and the like, can do what they want, because attitudes like that, let it happen.
When the other person was trying to make a point, my question back every time was, "what law mandates that she issue a marriage license?" The response every time, was "she is a federal official and has to do what the federal government says." What do "they" say? There is no law that requires her to do it. Again, "they" said she had to.
We as normal citizens, should know how to read law, and should know the basic laws. If there is no law enforcing something, then there is no law to break.
No comments:
Post a Comment