You didn't really answer my question. who said anything about anarchy?

Since it's a federal court that decided the matter, they're not likely to reverse itself.

True, but Article VI grants the federal government supremacy.

She did not need her belief to qualify to hold her post AND she's not a judge...so much for Article 6. My money is on Article X , and, in this age I will likely lose it.

I doubt that is entirely true. It is assumed, that I'll give you, but the 10th Amendment, largely ignored the last few decades, may have something to say about this, provided the lawyers wield that club against gOliath and his gOon squad.

I usually agree with Dr. Paul as well. But federal government enjoys supremacy under Article VI of the Constitution.

Exactly, AJ. "Marriage" under secular law is a contractual privilege between consenting adults (regardless of gender) and as such should be privatized with only the civil contract provisions being recorded as a matter of public record. Divorce laws with respect to distribution of joint property and child custody vary hugely from state to state. I'm wondering if now the Federal Judiciary is soon going to consider stepping in and homogenizing divorce laws? I wouldn't discount that notion..

The supreme's decision on the subject makes state law unconstitutional. I don't disagree that the Feds have assumed far more power than their original mandate...however, that's the law as it is.

The point you are missing is that KY state law makes gay marriage illegal. She is a county or state employee. The issue of the degree comes from the fed. As a state (county) employee she is bound to the State, its people, and their laws.

No, this is federal, judicial coercion.

IF the county elects to do so, Salty, IF. I view a judge's power to impose indefinite civil contempt sentences as an incredibly dangerous and murky legal concept with unlimited potential for abuse. Oh..and this was a Federal Judge, Salty. A Federal Judge.

Kim Davis holds a county position as Clerk. 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. Also, she cannot be fired from her office, she has to be voted out by the legislature. Following state law, gay marriage in KY is illegal. She is a state employee.,not a federal employee. Does the federal law supersede the State? If she's not a federal employee in a federal post shouldn't her State's laws guide her official conduct?

Dr. Paul, in this instance, to me, is correct, as I've said all along, the fed gov (even state gov's) should have no business regulating or sanctioning marriage. Dr. Paul is also right in saying that this is judicial coercion.

I wonder what would have happened were she muslim?

The first amendment gives her the Right to her religious convictions.
Otherwise, the Constitution stands moot on the subject of marriage.
This is judicial tyranny plain and simple.

I don't disagree, Not-you2. A county judge can throw you into the pokey simply for not saying what he/she wants to hear!?!?

BAH!

Now here's the story in this connection that I think is a hoot...Pot, meet Kettle!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/p...

Her being in prison indefinitely for civil contempt at the discretion of a judge is of much more concern to me than people's moral beliefs or stances on either side of the marriage issue.

Inappropriate and sometime retributive sentencing for non-violent civil contempt of court has been going on for too long and desperately needs to be challenged at the Supreme Court level on Constitutional grounds:

People jailed in civil contempt of court are not entitled to trials or juries. There is no prosecutor or defense lawyer involved in contempt of court rulings; there are not even any charges levied. People can be held under civil contempt of court for a LIFE SENTENCE; they are held without charge indefinitely.

Even terrorists held in Guantamano Bay are afforded a tribunal, a luxury denied to US citizens held under civil contempt of court. Being jailed in contempt of court is similar to being jailed by a junta, the victim is indefinitely held without charge for a period of time arbitrarily determined by the dictator/judge.

If I'm not mistaken, she can only be held for 60 days without being charged. Then the county could discharge her for cause...dereliction of duty being absent from work. Problem solved and no lawsuit.

Flip a coin and take your pick, K. There's nothing 'civil' about anarchy.

can you define "civil authority"? I'm thinking about the Jews and the Christians in Syria right now.

I meant county

Honestly, I think that if she's a prisoner, it's a prisoner of her own ignorance. She could presumably be out of jail and on her way home within the hour by saying two single syllable words...I quit. Nothing more. She'd no longer be in violation of law because she would no longer be in a position to enforce it. But there's a larger, more serious scenario playing out across the country.

This lady claims to be standing upon her religious principles. Now this is key...you don't get to pick and choose...if you by into one, there are others that come with it. The New Testament makes it clear that we are to obey civil authority, whether we think they're right or wrong. So her options, by Biblical standards are 1) stay and obey. 2) stay and disobey and suffer the consequences, or 3) get out of Dodge. The Bible clearly states that law does not have to change because you don't like it. Consider that the Romans were VERY creative when the subject was coercion and/or punishment, so this should be an easy one for this lady today. Now all of this is to say if you want to keep you job, do what you agreed to (that is, sign whatever documents need to be signed when they're in compliance with the law). If not, quit. It's as simple as that.

well, legally she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Justice Scalia said in the dissenting opinion that he did not believe the law is Constitutional and so therefore to expect that public officials across the country would defy the law.

On the other side, can someone's Christian beliefs trump me under the law. That is most definitely using governmental power to deny me what the law has recognized for me.

I don't care for the double standard. Meanwhile she will remain in prison indefinitely. Now a martyr. The couple could have gone to a nearby country.