Current status of SSM in the holdout states (MAP)

[MaxQue]

This is fycked up.  They can't fire her for not doing this but they can jail her?

The world is oh so much safer I'm sure with her behind bars.   

She defied a direct court order. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

This isn't monopoly, we are talking about real people.

Again, what would you propose instead?

If it's not worth removing her from office, then it is not worth jailing her.   If she is duly elected and can't be removed because her office is a trust from the people, then she is answerable to the people who can choose not to reelect her.  Or, if she is answerable to the law for her duties, then there should be a way to directly remove her from her office if she is not abiding by them.

He can't remove her from office. The law doesn't give that possibility. He can either fine her or jail her to force her to do her job or to resign. The judge said fines wouldn't work, as she is getting plenty of fundraising from social soncervatives to pay them, so he has only one choice for it.

[MaxQue]

Honestly, I'm amazed by the fact many people seem to think it's okay to jail people for not doing their job. This is simply taking it too far.

It is excessive, but US legal system doesn't offer any other choice.

You don't pay alimony, court can't force you to pay, so they apply pressure on you through fines of jailtime to compel you. Same logic here. Court are using the few means they can use to make respect the law.

It would much simpler if the court could say "Do it or you lose your office", but they legally can't do that.

[MaxQue]

So what's the remedy? How do you discourage people like her from disobeying court orders?

Why in the first place are federal judges making orders concerning the duties of county offices?  Wouldn't it make sense to drop the pretense of local control and just make them employees of the federal government?

It began at a lower level, but there was appeals. Federal judge is the level at which things are right now (and it will stay there, as Supreme Court declined to hear her).

As a judge, he has a duty to uphold the court decisions and the Constitution by any ways at his disposal. Constitution and federal law overrules local control but I'm sure you know that.

[MaxQue]

shua what would you propose be done with some bureaucrat who prevented people in a certain region from being able to register to vote.

btw, as a general rule, I don't think the legal recognition of a marriage should ultimately depend on the obtaining of a license.

Constitution and court decisions are superior to any law of the Kentucky legislature, so they is no reason to wait after them.

Well, you might think that, but, right now, the recognition DO depends on the license.

[MaxQue]

(I'm reading that Kim Davis is not allowing others to issue these licenses, I'm not at all clear on how this is possible, or why this authority to overrule them on this just be not recognized as valid)

The power to emit licence is given to the county clerk, Kim Davis. She is allowed to delegate it to her deputies. The deputies only have the authority to issue them at her will.

And her will is to not issue them.

As for your second question, I asked myself that question, too, and I concluded than the judge (which is opposed to SSM, by the way) saw than the Kentucky law didn't allowed him to allow deputies to overrule her. I suppose it's something of the kind "if a deputy do something than the clerk disagree with, it's invalid"

Well, in any case, she can dismiss their deputizing powers them before they grant one if they get allowed.

[MaxQue]

shua what would you propose be done with some bureaucrat who prevented people in a certain region from being able to register to vote.

You need to be registered to vote in a certain county in order to vote in that county.  You do not need to be registered as married in a certain county in order to be considered married as a resident of that county.  So the situations are not quite comparable as to the severity of the situation and the need for an immediate remedy.  The laws of KY should be updated to reflect the situation in an era where SSM is legal, which they haven't yet.  There's no need for the Court to bring down its wrath at this point.

btw, as a general rule, I don't think the legal recognition of a marriage should ultimately depend on the obtaining of a license.

If all it takes to deny marriage licenses is for a county clerk to refuse to issue them and there are NO consequences for doing so, there will be a lot more county clerks doing this. Really this line of logic is ridiculous. Why should Rowan County, KY be the only county in the country where one can not get a same-sex marriage license? Because one woman doesn't like it?

I am not suggesting that as a long-range solution, I was explaining why that would not be a matter of immediate threat before the legislature could deal with the issue of officials who refuse to do this part of their duties.

Honestly, given her behaviour, I don't see her obeying to Kentucky laws either. I also presume removing her would do nothing to solve the problem on the long term, they will just reelect her at the next election.