It's interesting to watch this unfold and I think we are going to see a lot of evolution in legal codes regarding both religion and family law as a result of gay couples being married. The imagination goes wild thinking about the law going after religious orgs on these grounds (which I think is inevitable) and how nasty court battles between same sex couples will challenge the status quo with it's gender biases.
In this case though I'm more concerned with the use of civil contempt, which has always made me uneasy. The constitutionality of it has been challenged before but it seems that the consensus approves it's use, just not it's abuse. It seems to me that by it's very nature it's an invitation for abuse, similar to tactics like asset forfeiture and punitively large bail amounts. I don't know all the details of this case so I won't judge this as an abuse, but I am wary of civil contempt in general and I think others should be too. It's more commonly used to jail people who won't/can't pay fines, and then the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove if they are unable to pay those fines. It becomes a loophole for the return of debtors prisons and a mild form of indentured servitude.
Meanwhile Illiberals are cheering this decision like a grand victory, because in this case on of their boogeymen (a religious woman) is the one who's subject to this very questionable practice. They'd rather turn their focus to a very shaky argument against deporting immigrants because of the 14th amendment, but oh so willing to overlook the blatant due process violations when they are aimed at a more 'privileged' target.
In this case though I'm more concerned with the use of civil contempt, which has always made me uneasy. The constitutionality of it has been challenged before but it seems that the consensus approves it's use, just not it's abuse. It seems to me that by it's very nature it's an invitation for abuse, similar to tactics like asset forfeiture and punitively large bail amounts. I don't know all the details of this case so I won't judge this as an abuse, but I am wary of civil contempt in general and I think others should be too. It's more commonly used to jail people who won't/can't pay fines, and then the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove if they are unable to pay those fines. It becomes a loophole for the return of debtors prisons and a mild form of indentured servitude.
Meanwhile Illiberals are cheering this decision like a grand victory, because in this case on of their boogeymen (a religious woman) is the one who's subject to this very questionable practice. They'd rather turn their focus to a very shaky argument against deporting immigrants because of the 14th amendment, but oh so willing to overlook the blatant due process violations when they are aimed at a more 'privileged' target.