Totally agree. My only addition is that religions got there first: take normal, rational human behaviors, that are objectively innocent, e.g., sex, and make them "sins". Then grant some holier-than-thou people the power to absolve said sins, and always at some type of price. Buy an indulgence, anyone?

I believe the tie-in to it is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And myth or not, they're doing it.

Does the federal law supersede the State? Yes. If she's not a federal employee in a federal post shouldn't her State's laws guide her official conduct? No. The 14th Amendment clearly says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Besides, if she was simply following state law (and her religious convictions), she would still be issuing marriage licenses to non-gay couples.

No K, I was referring to the whole situation in Syria. As to civil authority, that's simply whatever government exists, and that's up for grabs over there.

The LGBT folks want to get married for the benefits that accrue to married people. One couple were said to be partners for 20 years, another for 10 years. As you say, no one needs permission to form a partnership. BUT if you want the benefits that go with being married....

This shows up in strange places. State Farm refused to insure us as a couple without our having that piece of paper - who would have thought they cared?

Since she is a public official, she does not have the right to use her religious convictions as an excuse to deny citizens the recognition of a contract that they are legally entitled to enter in to. Such recognition does not imply approval.

This is a myth. See above on the same topic.

Not really relevant. Her name being on the document only shows that she was a public official at the time the form was filled out, not that she approved of the contractual rights and privileges that the document conveyed. A public official whose religion requires her to abstain from alcohol can still issue a liquor license without violating her faith.

I sent Kim a card yesterday addressed--

Ms. Kim Davis
Carter County Detention Center
13 Crossbar Rd.
Grayson, KY 41143

I suppose that's accurate. I got that from a comment below a news story on the internet. Can't recall where.
I do recall other comments that called her ugly names and a hypocrite for previous divorces.
A Christian ain't necessarily a goody two-shoes.
I mean, just lookit holy as all hell Allosaurus Mea Culpa, Patron Saint of Carnivores.

No, it does not. The Supremacy Clause also says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...."

There is nothing in the federal Constitution giving the feds authority in this matter. It is one of the worst fomented myths that federal law always "trumps" state and local laws.

What if she were Muslim?

I agree with what you say about the New Testament. But let me throw this out: Henry David Thoreau was imprisoned for a very brief time for not paying a tax as a protest against slavery. As the famous story goes, Emerson visited Thoreau in prison and asked, "Henry David, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau replied, "Ralph Waldo, what are you doing out there?" So the clerk is practicing some civil disobedience, and she is taking the consequences.

A lawyer who I've known for many years told me once that the voters can propose and vote into power any resolution they choose. I'd rather have local representation making laws, where my vote and voice have influence, than a faceless federal government who could give a damn what I think or want and has an agenda to push.

I don't think she could have. As the Country Clerk her name is on each document.

The question that never gets asked: Why should any two persons be required to get permission from the state to form a partnership? Permission from the state ... really?

According to the law blog where I first saw this, she can only be removed if the state legislature decides to impeach her.

Our County Clerk (Fremont County, Wyoming) is elected. Has nothing to do with marriage or the law. She is an elected official and the duties are specified. If she does not want to perform the duties, she simply resigns or the County Commission removes her for failure to perform.

She is indeed a prisoner of conscience.

Why didn't Kentucky officials bring articles of impeachment against her? Possibly because they knew they would embarrass themselves when the case came before the Senate of Kentucky.

she could have said, I will let someone else deal with this. however, this certainly is shades of totalitarianism.

+1 to anyone who uses this oratory by Floyd Ferris. In it, Rand sums up abusive government better than any author in any book.

Brings to mind this passage from AS: “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

At least it'll keep the b@st@rds busy for a while.

No, she did nothing of the sort. She refused to provide a form because her name was on it. She did so because KY law does not allow gay marriage and her personal beliefs were in concert (she didn't want her name attached to the marriage in any way).

This is force, judicial force, federal force...and a woman has lost her rights indefinitely for keeping with State law - challenging federal authority.

This subject has little to do with faith or religion and more to do with States bowing to federal authority EVEN when its opposite what the people of that State wanted in their laws.

True, but she will have one hell of a lawsuit, as may be the State. Fed gov imprisoning a state worker for obeying State law that conflicts with federal mandate?

The 1st Amendment gives her the right to practice her religion, but not to force those practices and beliefs down anyone else's throat. She should be impeached from her office.