-She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
-The dissenting opinion for the gay marriage case stated that the decision had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses
-The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage; Nothing happens to him.
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law; Nothing happens to them.
-The President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and follow Federal Immigration law; Nothing happens to him.
-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution; Nothing happens to them.
-A little old woman follows her oath and refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper; She is imprisoned without due process.
Consensus: The branches of government are cowards for not using their checks and balances to go after these known traitors, but instead go against a little old woman. Due process and equality under the law are all but gone.
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a healthy respect for the law.
If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
-The dissenting opinion for the gay marriage case stated that the decision had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses
-The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage; Nothing happens to him.
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law; Nothing happens to them.
-The President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and follow Federal Immigration law; Nothing happens to him.
-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution; Nothing happens to them.
-A little old woman follows her oath and refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper; She is imprisoned without due process.
Consensus: The branches of government are cowards for not using their checks and balances to go after these known traitors, but instead go against a little old woman. Due process and equality under the law are all but gone.
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a healthy respect for the law.
If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.