Lawyers with the state attorney general’s office argued in a brief filed Monday that the judge’s original ruling only applied to one same-sex couple seeking a marriage license in one county. The state’s lawyers argued that, in his preliminary injunction, Hinkle never issued instructions to all of the state’s 67 court clerks to provide marriage licenses to all same-sex couples seeking to wed.
In his clarifying order Thursday, Hinkle wrote that reasonable people could debate who was covered by that preliminary order.
“History records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds,” he wrote. “There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case.”