Current status of SSM in the holdout states (MAP)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

"For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This 'wait' has almost always meant 'never.'" - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This  is where I got the information.
http://ballotpedia.org/Local_government_responses_to_Obergefell_v._Hodges#tab=Alabama

Sure, but I was just wondering how a county can keep being "undecided" or undeclared on something like this.

Perhaps no gay couples have applied for a marriage license?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It is now clear that she isn't required to get involved, she can just let her deputies do any SSM licenses. So if she blocks them again I think there will be less sympathy. She has to actively get in the way of stopping her deputies instead of just letting it happen. That wont look like her religious liberty is being violated, that will look like discrimination.

Only the hardcore will back her if she stops her deputies from issuing licenses while she lobbies and/or goes through the courts to try and get her name off licenses. She can just step aside while she tries to get relief from the gov, legislature or courts. Anything more will be seen as mean spirited and self-serving.

It appears that the problem has been solved. Dominic Holden, a deputy clerk, will just blow Davis off, and ignore any order that she gives that he is not to issue SSM licenses, and instead issue them in accordance with the court's order. I suppose Kim Davis could attempt to fire Holden, but the court will probably just issue an order that her firing has no force and effect.

Her firing wouldn't have any force because Dominic Holden is a Buzzfeed reporter. The clerk is Brian Mason.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Davis is the one who altered the licenses to remove her name. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/14/440215241/kim-davis-back-at-work-but-remains-defiant

She now has de facto the accommodation she was looking for.  I guess that means we live in a theocracy and gays no longer have any rights, or something.

She could've just done this from the beginning instead of forbidding her clerks from doing so and causing a scene, but okay, it's always the liberals' fault in your world when it comes to LGBT rights.

Yes, she could have tried this from the beginning and taken things into her own hands in this way rather than the way she did, the questionable legality of such an action without explicit approval would still exist. The judge could also have put this forward as a solution, but he didn't. The Governor and the legislature could have seen this coming and put forward a way to resolve these disputes, but they didn't.  My criticism of liberalism here is just that it identifies this dysfunctional mess as a moral imperative so that the jailing of the 'witch' (she fills that archetype here) in itself represents some sort of progress, since to do otherwise would be to admit that non-liberals, whatever their personal or political faults, might have a modicum of a legitimate interest to consider.  Gay rights activists have of course not created this approach to the law which exalts the adversarial and excludes the mediational when it comes to social controversy; they have merely extended it.

Yes, people being treated equally is a moral imperative.