[porscheguy]

(09-04-2015 02:08 PM)ElConquistador Wrote:  

-She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling
Ask anyone who has worked for the government, their rules and regs change all the time. That's like me saying I'm allowed to text and drive because I've been texting and driving since before those laws were enacted.
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
Doesn't matter what Kentucky law says. Did you pass high school civics? Did you read my previous post about the Supremacy Clause in the US constitution?
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
Did you fact check this statement? Is this what Fox News said? Are you just saying what makes you feel good?

" Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:

Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

-The dissenting opinion for the gay marriage case stated that the decision had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution
The dissenting opinion is the minority opinion. Just because you happen to agree with it, doesn't make it the right opinion.
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
She's the county clerk, her name is on all of the clerk office documents, and she says she doesn't want her name on those documents at all.
-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
She can resign
-The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage. Nothing happens to him.
Irrelevant
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law. Nothing happens to them.Irrelevant
-Th President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and refuses to follow Federal Immigration law. Nothing happens to him.Irrelevant
-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution. Nothing happens to them.And just how exactly did they disobey the Constitution? Because they made a decision you disagree with?
-A little old woman refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper and she is imprisoned without due process.A 300lb carousel rider disobeyed a lawful order from a federal court and was held in contempt. She will be released as soon as she complies in a manner satisfactory to the court.

Consensus: The branches of government are cowards for not using their checks to go after these big traitors, but instead go against a little old woman. Equality under the law and thus respect for it is ceasing to exist.
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a respect for the law.You're saying that society will fall apart when people show no respect for the law, but you're mad that this woman is in jail for contempt, which is essentially a matter of failing to show 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.

The oath she took is posted above. She did swear to uphold the US Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of anal marriage is unconstitutional. The example you cited regarding the soldier is not unconstitutional, it is illegal. And the UCMJ obligates soldiers to disobey illegal orders. Even those that come from the president.