Why should they have to go to another county, simply because the county in which they live and pay taxes refuses to uphold their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment? As for filing a complaint, I would not be surprised to see some high-profile and very expensive civil rights lawsuits filed against the county and the county clerk. And I'll be cheering them on.

Really? Would you feel the same way about Southern elected officials, 50 years ago, refusing to grant marriage licenses to mixed-race couples? Many legislators who created these state laws, and the lower-level officials who enforced them, supported racial segregation as a manifestation of their deeply held religious beliefs. Did they become victims of religious persecution when the federal government overrode their authority to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples?

"The Constitution was not drawn up to list citizens rights...its function is to list restrictions of government. Towards that end, no constitutional right is 'granted' by the Constitution because none is necessary, at least in principle."
Exactly!

As I said, its my understanding. I don't take HUFFPO as a reliable source. I will look more into it though.

The Clerk stopped issuing all marriage licenses to everyone when this matter came up.

She is the head Clerk in that county. Her name, and her name alone, because of her appointed office, validates the licenses. It takes a state legislative vote to remove her.

No, its about a State employee following State law and being punished by an overreaching federal government AND a judge desiring to "show her" his authority over her and the State.

She denied a permit, nothing more. They could have gone to another country and filed a complaint against her.

Actually in a society they do to a degree. When you are part of a society you are obliged to follow its rules. This is why you scrutinize and vote for politicians who best align with your views. At the State and local level is where you, the individual, have the most opportunity to shape your environment. The fed gov is too far removed AND functioning far outside of its mandate to play any part in Marriage- a social issue. Social issues are best suited to the State and local governments. The 10th Amendment didn't give the Fed Gov any authority when it comes to marriage therefore the State retains that right (as given by the voters).

Marriage is not a constitutional right, but equal protection under the law certainly is. The state of Kentucky has given counties the power to issue licenses that grant legal recognition to marriages performed in that state. Such legal recognition affects the amount of federal and state income taxes the couple pays, spousal Social Security benefits, employer health insurance for a spouse, visitation rights and decision-making rights if a spouse is ill, and many other important issues. The county clerk seeks to confer these benefits selectively, thereby denying gay couples equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. It is no different in principle than Southern elected officials at one time refusing to grant marriage licenses to mixed-race couples. Many legislators who created these laws, and the lower-level officials who enforced them, supported racial segregation as a manifestation of their deeply held religious beliefs. Did they become victims of religious persecution when the federal government overrode their authority to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples?

The Constitution was not drawn up to list citizens rights...its function is to list restrictions of government. Towards that end, no constitutional right is 'granted' by the Constitution because none is necessary, at least in principle.

I suspect that the original reason for a marriage 'license' was to be able to register a marriage in the interest property rights; inheritance, power of attorney, etc and NOT a permission slip as it were. But as usual someone sees a chance for a power grab and additional license fees.

You can only marry the tree if it is mobile, like in a tree pot, that you can carry into the county clerk's office...

"My understanding is that her name must go on every license issued by her department. She would not put her name on the document because of her convictions, the controversy." Not the case, according to this news story. "Davis' name does not appear on the licenses." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/k...

By federalism I meant to refer to the Constitutional system of having both a central government and a group of states each having sovereignty overlapping the same geographic areas and people. The enumeration of powers, the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause were all created with this overlap in mind in an attempt to avoid conflicts between the central government and the states. It never quite worked.

Private citizens who run for public office do not forfeit their Bill of Rights protection.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Government should have no say whatsoever if two consenting adults want to consider themselves married.

do you mean that I may not marry the tree in my front yard???
WAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. -- j
.

"Could her religious rights been accommodated by having someone else issue the stupid piece of paper?" Not according to her attorney. He claims that licenses issued by her deputies are invalid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/k...

the supreme court overstepped its bounds, said Mark Levin,
and I agree. . they are crushing the 1st amendment. -- j
.

I think the Floyd Ferris quote is being used inappropriately in this context. The case is not about an innocent citizen being abused by the federal government. It's about the federal government cracking down on a public official for using her office to turn away citizens attempting to exercise their individual rights under the 14th Amendment.

Or grant some holier-than-thou public officials the power to deny citizens their constitutional rights because said holier-than-thou public officials consider the actions of these citizens "sinful"?

Really? Which "people"? The slaves who lived in the South and were not even recognized as people by the governments that legalized their oppression? More recently, the interracial couples who could not obtain marriage licenses in many southern states? "Rules and customs" do not overrule individual rights. Neither do the religious beliefs of those in power. This is not at all an issue of state vs. federal supremacy. It is an issue of state and local power vs. individual rights.

"This is force, judicial force, federal force...and a woman has lost her rights indefinitely for keeping with State law - challenging federal authority." I disagree. How is this different in principle from Southern elected officials at one time refusing to grant marriage licenses to mixed-race couples? This is an exact parallel, because many legislators who created these laws, and the lower-level officials who enforced them, supported racial segregation as a manifestation of their deeply held religious beliefs.

After the American Revolution, its highly doubtful that any would want to recreate what they fought to escape. Anyone suggesting otherwise needs to read more history.

Names remain, but their meanings often change. The most blatant example is the word "liberal" whose meaning has undergone a 180 degree change since the late 19th century. As you state, AJ, the Federalism of today like the liberalism of today bears little resemblance to its original meaning.

It also affects the income taxes you pay, spousal Social Security benefits, employer health insurance for a spouse, visitation rights and decision-making rights if a spouse is ill, and many other important issues.