Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

No, the reason it won't be removed is actually quite different from just "it being an unnecessary hassle". The sex rights agenda does not want to change the laws directly via their Congress lobby.They have absolutely no reason to, as it is unnecessary.The main reason they don't want do do it in Congress, is that such a course of action would require legal definitions of relevant terms to be adopted on federal level. But any legal definition would give other, more radical sex rights groups, to raise a legit question: "why stop here?".Not really. The nature of the contract of marriage is such that the only way it really works is between two consenting adults. Any change along the slippery slope you are talking about would require a complete reworking of the contract itself. And that would be like a bucket of cold water for those poor sensitive activists. Because, for one thing, their lackeys in the media would have no immediate politically correct answer, and the whole victim Olympics narrative tactic would be put at risk.Being utterly callous does not do you a service.So instead, they prefer the murky and legally dubious method, whereas standing regulations are declared "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.No aspect of it was murky or legally dubious. In fact the rulings have all been very clear cut and straight forward. I challenge you to provide rulings from courts that cause you to think otherwise.But, the legal problem with this method, is that Supreme Court decisions can only set precedence for other court, and cannot themselves change any standing regulations, even those which are directly being challenged in the court hearing (like the Ohio state rules in the relevant SCOTUS decision).By setting the precedents, they are in fact changing such regulations. When the SCTOUS rules something unconstitutional, in effectively negates that from being enforced, as any challenge of such a regulation would be held up based on set precedent.So, the actual status of the standing regulation remains intact, but it can be overruled by local courts in each particular case, using precedence.Which makes it legally irrelevant. That means that it may still exist, but the second somebody challenges it the court will rule against it. Semantics serve no purpose here.Legally speaking, these regulations were overruled by the Kentucky court in the particular case relevant to the complaint issued by the gay couples whom Kim Davis had refused to register. Though it was very stupid of her to refuse services to straight couples.When you say "those regulations", are you referring to the ones pertaining to marriage, or are you pertaining to her being in cntempt of a court injunction?Once again, that's outside of Supreme Court credentials. I have already explained to you how it isn't. The court isn't explicitly doing it, but it is implicit in their role within our legal system. They are not outright nullifying it, but their ruling effectively nullifies it because of the reasons I have previously stated.Technically, the best strategy for Kim would be to comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications of the particular gays which had filed the complaint, and then refuse do this for any other gays. Which would not be in contempt of court.She is in contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses for far more than just one group. If she simply issued the licenses for said couples, then refused others, she would find herself in this exact same situation all over again with different groups.The best strategy for her would be to find a different job.