Quote: (09-04-2015 03:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:
This woman was is an elected official ostensibly to the Executive branch of the local government. She doesn't get to unilaterally decide policy (that's the Legislative branch) or if a law is correct/ legal (that's the Judicial branch) Theoretically if the populace wants certain policies /laws in place then they elect the legislative officials who enact the policies they want. This county clerk should have just resigned if her conscience doesn't let her fulfill the jobs obligations. There is supposed to be a clear separation between Church (her religious beliefs) and State (her job). But she shouldn't be in jail either, just fired.
I agree with all of this.
The problem with the gay marriage ruling, when you boil down to it, is the fact that the Supreme Court basically declared that the definition of marriage now includes same sex couples. That definition is at the crux of state marriage laws and thus the Supreme Court changed state laws across the country - which it does not have the power to do.
As it stood before the ruling, nobody in America was prevented from having access to marriage. If you were a man, all you had to do was find a woman and you could get married, vice versa if you were a woman. If gays want to get married to each other, they have to go through the legislative branch and get the definition of marriage changed.
If you hold that this woman is guilty of contempt of court or civil disobedience or whatever, you also have to acknowledge that she is in contempt of an illegitimate ruling. The 'but it's the law!' argument doesn't fly because it was established improperly, as far as the constitution is concerned.
Thus we have two wrongs, which I suppose don't make a right. At the same time, they're merely the latest wrongs, in a long list of wrongs of this sort, perpetrated by members of federal and local executive and judicial branches, as others have pointed out in this thread. But it's THIS situation in which the hammer is brought down. The judge even mentioned that a fine wouldn't be enough, even though that is what the prosecution recommended. An example had to be made of her, simply because her crime, above anything else, was a crime against social justice, or whatever you want to call it. That's where the fascistic element is - disagree and you go to jail, even if the disagreement is technically on solid footing.