Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses

[Rhondazvous]

It's my recollection in Cooper v. Cooper (might have been another case) one of the parties seeking a divorce scoured all the paperwork in the courthouse for a misplaced comma, dropped decimal point, misplaced reference, improper credentials, ANYTHING to prove the couple was not legally married in the first place and that obviously has implications for alimony, inheritance, earnings accrued during the interim, etc.

The jist of the ruling was, if the couple exercised due diligence, that is, went to the courthouse, filled out the forms, yada, yada, yada, they are married, PERIOD, even if the court house personnel were actually lizards wearing the human rinds of that days breakfast.

This is pretty established law, although, with the countries current fascination with class action lawsuits (disclaimer: I'm on my third one now) it might be a matter of time till some law firm somewhere makes a case that everyone married in Buttphart county Idaho was emotionally distressed because every marriage license form was printed incorrectly (i before e except after z) and therefore, some of the entitled class might have, however briefly, been shocked to ponder they might have been shacking up instead of legally wed for the last 18 years.

You can see some of those weddings performed in Frisco by Newscome, for instance,  might have been challenged since gay marriage wasn't legal statewide at the time and then the couples could have cited Cooper v. Cooper, and asserted they went to the courthouse, paid the fee, filled out the forms and are legally married despite the behind the scenes machinations that occurred.

Then you have Cooper v. Cooper in the cross hairs and the repercussions might be considerable.

That might settle the question of whether the marriage licenses will be legally binding without the signature of the clerk. But then, that might be up to the state.