[ronald reagan]

. If there is no enacted law on homosexual marriage, how can Kim Davis enforce it? All the SC ruling said was that homosexuals can not be discriminated against. They did not strike down state sovereignty on the matter so, what was the rush all about in Kentucky anyway? Are we a people who depend on the workings of our legislature, or are we just going to roll up the sidewalks and let judges order us to do things now?

Well, your understanding of the opinion of the courts is flawed. In fact, the ruling says, "same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States", in its majority opinion. There doesn't have to be a law on the books authorizing same-sex marriage, for the marriage to occur at this point. Its moot. They also DID strike down state sovereignty on the matter by further strengthening the DOMA reversal as stated in the majority opinion. It makes clear that a state MUST recognize marriages performed in other states, same sex or not.

The ruling authorized gay marriage, but also made it a fundamental right.

Lets review another ruling as our basis: Roe v. Wade. It made abortions legal in all states in the 1st trimester. A large block of conservative states banned the procedure up until that point. The ruling overturned all state legislatures and state laws at that point. States didn't have to explicitly authorize it, it became legal as a result of the ruling that said they couldn't ban it.

Sodomy laws were overturned between consenting adults about 12-13 years ago. States didn't have to pass a law 'authorizing' it. It became legal as a result of the ruling which said it couldn't be ILLEGAL.

Think about this.... in the absence of laws, things become legal by omission. If a state didn't have gay marriage banned, it would be legal. If the courts overturn the ban, it becomes legal. Hence, gay marriage doesn't have to be explicitly authorized by state statute.

I'd suggest you study case law, and the constitution to get a better grasp on the subject.