Every state has marriage laws.

Nazis did all kinds of atrocious things. It has nothing to do with enforcing the law in a civilized society and is not a defense of religionists claiming privileged status to impose their dogma by hijacking government force.

The religious-based down-voting to promote religious dogma as a standard for government does not belong here.

The government is registering civil marriages between consenting adults as a record for legal and financial status. It isn't telling anyone to "sin before God", which is meaningless gibberish. Please take the religious injunctions somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.

Government in the marriage business telling that said person to sin before God.
But ya know, maybe Big Brother can make even more bucks off legalized polygamy or letting Fred marry Fido.
Legalized is such an interesting word.

Respecting her irrational belief and actions claiming a privileged position based on religious faith is not only a disservice to a rational moral code, it is a rejection of a proper means of thinking and a proper form of government.

The "fun" begins when they pick different infinite beings with faith in different Words with no rational means to resolve the dispute. Faith and force. This is what she is doing trying to exploit the political power of her government job to defiantly impose her dogma.

You are promoting the notion that religion is a valid basis for a government official to make up her own laws and deprive others of their civil rights. She has no right to do that and her religious faith does not give her such a right. No one is forcing her to keep a job with requirements she does not want.

The "stronger" police always jail the "weaker" when the "weaker" violates the law. That is required for maintenance of lawfulness in a civilized society, not a "recipe for disaster". Anarchy is disaster. Faith and force are disaster -- religion is the primary cause, not an excuse.

The Supreme Court found the state marriage laws unconstitutionally restrictive when they exclude gays. Specifically, the 14th Amendment applies to state law. The Supreme Court has never been restricted to ruling on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Deciding the constitutionality of Congressional laws is not only not the sole role of the court, that function was added later (by the court itself).

Do you deny that the Nazis used that same excuse - following the law, as the federal judge and, I take it, you too? And do you recall what the answer to that was?

I'm guessing that she would say that all those other moral codes are wrong? After all how could the truly faithful following The Word of three perfect infinite beings be wrong?

The "inflammatory adjectives" are yours. You called it "Nazi". Enforcing the law is not "Nazi". Laws in civilized countries are enforced all the time. There are very few Nazis. That Nazis also enforced their own atrocious laws does not make law enforcement "Nazi".

If Davis finds a law governing her state job requirements objectionable she does not have to enforce it -- she can resign her government position -- no one is forcing her to keep the government job, but she has no right to make her own laws as a government official. She violated others' civil rights in her capacity as a government bureaucrat. She is the one arbitrarily making up the laws she wants as a bureaucrat, denying the rights of others who legally qualified for marriage licenses. You have it backwards, defending the alleged "right" of a bureaucrat to defiantly do what she feels like, then preposterously accusing those who rein her in as "Nazis". Bureaucrats do not exercise government power by "right" and deserve no support for believing and acting as if they do.

Her religious dogmas are no excuse for her dictatorial actions. She can believe whatever she wants to, but I do not "respect" irrational beliefs and have no sympathy for her actions as a religious zealot exploiting and abusing her power as a bureaucrat. She has no right to impose her religion. Her demands to exploit government power to deny people their civil rights based on religious faith is appalling.

Her moral code is wrong and respecting her for it is doing a disservice to a proper moral code.

You're doing a helluva job. I saw this thread earlier today with a lot of the nonsense comments on it and zero rebuttals but had no time to comment then. Now I come back to it and you have left very little room or need to. Thank you, somebody had to. Lots of +1's for you on this thread.

Doth Old Dino bequeath +1 unto ye.

A law still needs to be on the books. There is not one.

Then what's the problem? It's normally all you have to do.

A first amendment right is supposed to BE the law and not irrelevant or exempt from it.

I think I'll follow your nice gesture!

That falsehood is why you sent her a card. It is not why anyone else here should rationally write to her. She has no First Amendment right to make her own laws based on her personal religion, denying the civil rights of others who legally qualified for marriage licenses. Her religious objections are irrelevant. Religion is not an intellectually and politically privileged position exempt from the law.

You wrote that "religious beliefs are just as valid for some people as the Spaghetti Monster, Global Warming or for that matter, Objectivism". Now you add that you are a "devout Objectivist". Whatever you think Objectivism means, it isn't any of that and the descriptions and comparisons were quite disparaging.

Rights are not "based on religion". Individuals have rights, in accordance with their nature as human beings, regardless of their own understanding or beliefs, and whether or not they happen to be religious in some way, but rights aren't "religious" and there is no "right" to a special religious status above the law. In particular there is no right for a public official to redefine the laws he operates under in his official capacity to be whatever he wants them to be in accordance with his religion.

Requiring Kim Davis to follow the law as a public official is not a violation of her rights. On the contrary, she was violating others' civil rights by arbitrarily refusing to grant them marriage licenses for which they were legally qualified . She is in jail now because she continued to deny their rights, in defiance of a specific court order to comply with the law.

This doesn't happen often enough to the bureaucrats. As citizens we have rights, with the freedom (under a proper government) to do anything we that isn't legally prohibited; government officials do not operate by right, they are (in a proper government) limited in what they can and must do in their capacity as officials. When they don't, they violate our rights.

The religious conservatives have completely inverted all of this, claiming a "right" for a government official to make her own rules and claiming a religious exemption from law with special supposed "rights" (entitlements) for those who believe dogma on faith. Such religious thinking is not the basis of our rights and our free society, and cannot be used to defend it. It is the opposite.

I agree with you entirely. As to polygamy, I believe there is at least one pending case. I won't try to predict how that will come out.

Maybe this is one of the reasons...To protect duly elected officials from political reprisal. Just like there is no good and sane reason why a baker has to pay a fine of $130,000 for refusing to bake a cake for ANYONE. Teachers have tenure to protect them from political discrimination and they aren't elected but would quickly be fired if they made politically incorrect lesson plans .

Correct. An elected official can be jailed but people were asking why she wasn't fired. Different question, different answer. We can't have elected people being "fired" over political reasons. Defying a court order can lead to impeachment but protocols are involved. Does anyone know what " Law" she broke.? I thought SCOTUS was to rule on laws that Congress passed as to their Constitutionality but not make laws. Probably the old , outmoded civics I learned in the 1950's..Way out of date now .

Nada.