Good!!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Personally I find myself conflicted on this issue. One the one hand, I do not see how a government employee can legitimately claim to engage in civil disobedience. I mean aren't you rebelling against the system of which you are a part. It would be like a soldier suddenly deciding to be a conscientious objector but still want to stay in the military. On the other hand, it creates a tacit religious test for public office. In other words, no evangelical Christian can serve as a public official that even tangentially endorses homosexual conduct.

[CapnAwesome]

Gah, it's pretty scary when people support sending someone to jail over this. If the tables were turned and the supreme court banned gay marriage and a clerk defied that order and went to jail, you would all be outraged. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

[brewer]

I've got no problem with jail for an elected official not performing the duties of that elected state position.

She has the option to resign or to retire (then no jail time) and chose not to. USA today quote from her: "“And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word," calling herself a vessel that the Lord has chosen for this time and place."

I look at it as a separation of state and church issue. The state functions should have nothing to do with gods word. Why should she (or anyone) have the option of imposing their religious belief in a state position? Apply a little reductio ad absurdum to imposing some xtian beliefs and see where you end up. You can't impose/in force your belief issues into a non belief (belief free) state job description/duties. If you do, then you suffer the consequences.

[CapnAwesome]

I've got no problem with jail for an elected official not performing the duties of that elected state position.

She has the option to resign or to retire (then no jail time) and chose not to. USA today quote from her: "“And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word," calling herself a vessel that the Lord has chosen for this time and place."

I look at it as a separation of state and church issue. The state functions should have nothing to do with gods word. Why should she (or anyone) have the option of imposing their religious belief in a state position? Apply a little reductio ad absurdum to imposing some xtian beliefs and see where you end up.  You can't impose/in force your belief issues into a non belief (belief free) state job description/duties. If you do, then you suffer the consequences.

I mean it's a good argument, but hypothetically would you feel the same if the situation was reversed and someone went to jail for issuing a license to a gay couple?

[IATIA]

I read somewhere (could be mistaken) that she was jailed for contempt of court.

[Divinity]

Gah, it's pretty scary when people support sending someone to jail over this. If the tables were turned and the supreme court banned gay marriage and a clerk defied that order and went to jail, you would all be outraged. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

You really don't see a difference between the two?

In one scenario, you have a stupid fucking bitch refusing to comply with a law that grants people their rights.  The stupid bitch was given EVERY opportunity to avoid jail time.  She was told as long as she didn't interfere with her co-workers issuing the licenses, she wouldn't go to jail.  But the stupid cunt said no.  It's against her religious beliefs.  So she gets to decide for the entire county that the supreme court is wrong, and she's not going to hand out marriage licenses.  Apparently this is 'standing up for your beliefs' according to some.  What it really is -- standing up for bigotry.  

In the other scenario you have someone who is trying to disobey the law because it deprives someone of rights they may not have by law, but should fucking have anyway.

Civil Disobedience has it's time and place.  This isn't one of them.  The fucking cunt should be thrown in jail for refusing to comply with an order that gives other their rights, and doesn't interfere a fucking bit with her own rights.

[MTL]

I'm curious to see if she gets re-elected.

She'll probably resign or something.

Otherwise, the people who elected her into office the first time
would probably re-elect her in a landslide win, the next time.

[MTL]

I've got no problem with jail for an elected official not performing the duties of that elected state position.

She has the option to resign or to retire (then no jail time) and chose not to. USA today quote from her: "“And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word," calling herself a vessel that the Lord has chosen for this time and place."

I look at it as a separation of state and church issue. The state functions should have nothing to do with gods word. Why should she (or anyone) have the option of imposing their religious belief in a state position? Apply a little reductio ad absurdum to imposing some xtian beliefs and see where you end up.  You can't impose/in force your belief issues into a non belief (belief free) state job description/duties. If you do, then you suffer the consequences.

I mean it's a good argument, but hypothetically would you feel the same if the situation was reversed and someone went to jail for issuing a license to a gay couple?

That would be a bit like arresting Rosa Parks, though.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gah, it's pretty scary when people support sending someone to jail over this. If the tables were turned and the supreme court banned gay marriage and a clerk defied that order and went to jail, you would all be outraged. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

You really don't see a difference between the two?

In one scenario, you have a stupid fucking bitch refusing to comply with a law that grants people their rights.  The stupid bitch was given EVERY opportunity to avoid jail time.  She was told as long as she didn't interfere with her co-workers issuing the licenses, she wouldn't go to jail.  But the stupid cunt said no.  It's against her religious beliefs.  So she gets to decide for the entire county that the supreme court is wrong, and she's not going to hand out marriage licenses.  Apparently this is 'standing up for your beliefs' according to some.  What it really is -- standing up for bigotry.  

In the other scenario you have someone who is trying to disobey the law because it deprives someone of rights they may not have by law, but should fucking have anyway.

Civil Disobedience has it's time and place.  This isn't one of them.  The fucking cunt should be thrown in jail for refusing to comply with an order that gives other their rights, and doesn't interfere a fucking bit with her own rights.

No law was actually passed. SCOTUS rulings are NOT the law. The Constitution of the United Sates is the law. Instead what we have is 5 black robes finding a right to habitual sodomy in a document that says exactly nothing about marriage period. You're a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot who justifies tyranny in pursuit of your progressive utopia.

[Divinity]

Actually, no law was actually passed. Instead what we have is 5 black robes finding a right to habitual sodomy in a document that says exactly nothing about marriage period. You're a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot who justifies tyranny in pursuit of your progressive utopia.

Oh look.  Another fucking stupid argument from another guy screaming persecution.  Maybe you should move to the middle east if you like persecution so much.  Your 2000 year old document written by a bunch of morons doesn't get to decide who has rights.  This isn't a fucking Christian country, and it's never been.  

You're the fucking bigot.  You don't get to scream persecution when you have the right to worship however the fuck you want.  Because guess the fuck what?  The right to your beliefs doesn't mean you get to tell other people how they get to run their fucking lives.  That's what being a bigot is all about.  

Five intelligent supreme court justices ruled that banning gay marriage was fucking unconstitutional.  I don't give a fuck if it doesn't say anything about marriage in the fucking constitution, because it fucking doesn't have to.  Did you miss the case involving Loving v Virginia?  Yeah, I bet you fucking didn't but don't want to bring it up.  They ruled on that case too.  And they ruled on Brown v. Board of Education.  I wouldn't be surprised if a bigot like you wanted to bring back fucking segregation.  Seems to be what bible thumpers like to do.  Discriminate based on their fucking ignorant beliefs.

To put it into terms I think even YOU can understand:

Some bigot states made laws against gay marriage. Mostly because they're full of assholes.
The Supreme Court reviewed those laws, and declared them unconstitutional
Thus the "Anti-Gay marriage" assholes lost, and weren't allowed to ban gay marriage
Thus Gay Marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court by refusing to allow states to ban it.


You don't seem to fucking understand that a law can be ruled fucking unconstitutional. Perhaps you should look into it before opening your fucking mouth (or in this case, typing on your fucking keyboard)