Kent County clerk in federal court over refusing marriage licenses to undocumented residents

Ok, Education time: Marriage is a fundamental right just like raising your own child how you please. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutional protection of marriage in Loving V. Virginia when the court stated in part, “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….” Thus to deprive someone of this CIVIL RIGHT is a violation of due process of law (a guarantee of the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution).

It seems like many people on this thread are upset about one of the parties to the marriage being an illegal alien. Remember, though, that the other party is a United States Citizen.

It surprises me that many so called conservatives are supporting the use of the Social Security Number as though it were a federal ID#, something that conservatives traditionally oppose.

I think a principled conservative stand on the issue is if you have a SSN, you may provide it, but should not be required as the Social Security Legislation forbids its use for these sorts of things (at least as originally implemented).

Furthermore, I am surprised at fellow conservatives who would readily deny the marriage license to someone. Look at the alternative, co-habitating and having a sexual relationship which likely brings children into the world, but creates additional social ills and problems because the parents are not married, and there is not the clear presumption of parentage when the parties are not married. Additionally, there are religious implications. The parties may not be in good standing in their religion (7th Commandment – Ex. 20) if they decide to follow their heart absent the civil government's approval.

So, for the problem at hand, is the solution denying the marriage? Why should Mary Hollinrake get to make that decision? It is not in her job description to deny a marriage license on the grounds that she is denying them. The state of Michigan does not grant her that authority yet she is exercising it and denying licenses to people who do not provide one.

And for my fellow STRICT CONSTITUTIONALISTS, it is the United States Constitution which grants the authority and enforcement of immigration matters to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the meager county clerk! Article 1, Section 8 (To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization). Mary Hollinrake is violating the constitution by attempting to enforce immigration law which is a FEDERAL duty under the constitution, not a duty of the state or county clerk.

This whole debate seems to be missing the point. This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about whether the county clerk can investigate the legal status of applicants and then deny marriage licenses if the applicant fails to provide a social security number.

And FYI, just because you marry a United States Citizen you do not automatically become one yourself. You have to apply to become a resident, wait 3-5 years, then apply for citizenship, take the tests, speak English, and pay all sorts of fees and the government can still deny you application for a number of reasons. So, Mary Hollinrake denying marriage licenses will not in any way “remedy” illegal immigration.