Ky Clerk Jailed for refusing to issue marriage license to LGBT couples.

[trailrated]

I consider myself a conservative and can say she has done more harm to the "sanctity of marriage" than any of the people who are illegally being denied the right to marry because of her. She deserves everything the judge just threw at her. To all those facing hate because of the person you love, know people are fighting for you.

What say you on the subject mustachians?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/

[geekette]

If she doesn't want to do the job she was elected to do, she should step down. 

IMHO, she just wants to be famous, write a book, make lots of money on the lecture circuit and have other small minded people look up to her, etc. 

[GuitarStv]

I say if your job requires you to do things you're morally opposed to, you should find a new damned job.  Also, fuck people who choose to use their religion as a reason to treat others like crap.

[trailrated]

Also, fuck people who choose to use their religion as a reason to treat others like crap.

Well said, +1

[Gin1984]

Someone who thinks they can disobey a court order and not end up in jail is an idiot.  Cause and effect people, cause and effect!

[MissStache]

Also, fuck people who choose to use their religion as a reason to treat others like crap.

Well said, +1

ESPECIALLY those who are totally hypocrites about it.  Oh, gay marriage is an abomination?  So is divorce, of which you have had THREE. 

I want bad, bad things to happen to that woman.  She's a monster.

[I'm a red panda]

ESPECIALLY those who are totally hypocrites about it.  Oh, gay marriage is an abomination?  So is divorce, of which you have had THREE. 

I want bad, bad things to happen to that woman.  She's a monster.

To be fair, she was "saved" after that...


But as one of my friends on facebook put it. "Breaking: Person breaks law, goes to jail; gets too much attention for it".


If her job was a violation of her religion, she should have stepped down.  You are not a martyr for staying in the position and refusing to do the duties.

[2ndTimer]

I haven't admired anyone so much since Octamom announced she and her many children were living on welfare.  Kudos to the judge who explained that you are actually expected to keep the oath you swear when you take office.

[Chris22]

Also, fuck people who choose to use their religion as a reason to treat others like crap.

Well said, +1

ESPECIALLY those who are totally hypocrites about it.  Oh, gay marriage is an abomination?  So is divorce, of which you have had THREE. 

I want bad, bad things to happen to that woman.  She's a monster.

I mean, she's an idiot and absolutely should be removed from any and all authority, but a monster?  Want "bad bad things to happen" to her?  Really? 

[Poorman]

Also, fuck people who choose to use their religion as a reason to treat others like crap.

Well said, +1

ESPECIALLY those who are totally hypocrites about it.  Oh, gay marriage is an abomination?  So is divorce, of which you have had THREE. 

I want bad, bad things to happen to that woman.  She's a monster.

I mean, she's an idiot and absolutely should be removed from any and all authority, but a monster?  Want "bad bad things to happen" to her?  Really?

Love wins

[powskier]

We have the rule of law in this country precisely to avoid the kind of abuse of power this clerk demonstrates.
I still do not comprehend how she kept her job.
She is not "brave" she is DUMB.

[Paul der Krake]

I admire her courage.  A lesser person would have caved to the gaystapo.

Well done.

[Cpa Cat]

I think the only reason she held on so long is because every day that she kept this up, her weirdo supporters sent her more money. I'm sure she's planning on retiring off this.

I hope that those affected by her actions sue her for monetary damages so that she can't enjoy her ill-gotten gains.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I wish Jesus would return so all these "Conservative Christians" could take note that his first stop was not the Vatican or Lakewood (Mega)Church in Houston but a gay bar off the Vegas strip where his first act was to cure transvestite prostitutes of their herpes (without a co-pay).

[FIRE me]

All in all, not too surprising considering Morehead KY's proximity to the state of Virginia where the last miscegenation law was repealed 48 years ago.

She seems to be hell-bent (sorry) on making the worst possible choice. She had many options, several of which in no way violated her personal beliefs. Out of those options she chooses the one that causes her to sit in jail.

She could have stepped down or transferred. But that would cost her her $80,000 position (I won't call it a job, since she isn't doing it).

She could realize that this isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran. Your religion does not rule the citizenry. So she could just obey the law that she swore to uphold, issue the license, all despite “not agreeing with it.”

She even rejected the Judge's overly kind offer to let her go free if she would simply authorize her deputies to issue the license. Nope, my way or the highway, she says. In her case, the highway is to her jail cell.

The worst part is that now she is a Martyr for the religious right.

[Kris]

Just this...

Perhaps she should be stoned for adultery?

[Annamal]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

[Kris]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

Yeah.  I imagine the same scenario if I worked for the state and refused to issue gun licenses because guns are against my religion as a Christian.  Would I be labeled a hero by the same people?

[Gin1984]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

She can't be fired, this is an elected position. And what do you want to be done to people who refuse to follow a court order?  She was given the opportunity to allow her deputies to sign them and not go to jail, she refused.

[Annamal]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

She can't be fired, this is an elected position. And what do you want to be done to people who refuse to follow a court order?  She was given the opportunity to allow her deputies to sign them and not go to jail, she refused.

I would think that fines and or community service for not following a court order would be a reasonable response to a non-violent yet harmful act.

Surely there is a mechanism for impeachment of an elected official who is not fulfilling her legal obligations?

[Skalm]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

She can't be fired, this is an elected position. And what do you want to be done to people who refuse to follow a court order?  She was given the opportunity to allow her deputies to sign them and not go to jail, she refused.

I would think that fines and or community service for not following a court order would be a reasonable response to a non-violent yet harmful act.

Surely there is a mechanism for impeachment of an elected official who is not fulfilling her legal obligations?

She could be impeached, but the state legislature is not receptive to the rights of gay marriage, so it's not likely that they would, and the legislature doesn't convene until January, unless the governor wants to call a special session. Otherwise she could resign, which is not likely, or the citizens could not elect her again, which at this point seems the most likely.

[Drew664]

Just this...

Perhaps she should be stoned for adultery?

Ha, how many news feeds are discussing this? Really takes the wind out of her sails.

[Wings5]

The uproar is a joke. "Uphold the law she swore to defend." Plenty of people are actually dying because of other elected officials' refusal to enforce plenty of other laws. While I get the argument here, I would have to imagne a few of Kate Steinle's family or friends would be thinking, "WTFO?!"

As a nation we can either be a nation guided by the rule or law -the whole thing- or we aren't. Enforce the law, or let there be all kinds of sanctuary cities; maybe some cities won't enforce federal immiration policy, some won't enforce federal workerplace law, maybe others won't enforce federal envionmental law, others won't enforce federal aviation laws. If San Fran can refuse to enforce immigration law, why can't this podunk town refuse to enforce laws governing gay marriage?

The rule of law is not something we appeal to only when it suits our position du jour. That's why we have the rule of law.

[Gin1984]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

She can't be fired, this is an elected position. And what do you want to be done to people who refuse to follow a court order?  She was given the opportunity to allow her deputies to sign them and not go to jail, she refused.

I would think that fines and or community service for not following a court order would be a reasonable response to a non-violent yet harmful act.

Surely there is a mechanism for impeachment of an elected official who is not fulfilling her legal obligations?

You don't get community service for disobeying a court order, you are jailed until you obey.  And the judge did state why a fine was not his choice, her supporters would have just paid it, no skin off her back.   

[beltim]

The uproar is a joke. "Uphold the law she swore to defend." Plenty of people are actually dying because of other elected officials' refusal to enforce plenty of other laws. While I get the argument here, I would have to imagne a few of Kate Steinle's family or friends would be thinking, "WTFO?!"

As a nation we can either be a nation guided by the rule or law -the whole thing- or we aren't. Enforce the law, or let there be all kinds of sanctuary cities; maybe some cities won't enforce federal immiration policy, some won't enforce federal workerplace law, maybe others won't enforce federal envionmental law, others won't enforce federal aviation laws. If San Fran can refuse to enforce immigration law, why can't this podunk town refuse to enforce laws governing gay marriage?

The rule of law is not something we appeal to only when it suits our position du jour. That's why we have the rule of law.

Has San Francisco disobeyed court orders?   Are cities disobeying court orders?  No, they haven't -  so it's not even close to an equivalent situation.  Your whole post completely misses the point - this clerk didn't obey a court order, and appealed it to every possible level, failing at every step. It wasn't until all her appeals were exhausted that she was jailed for contempt of court. Meanwhile, no one in her county received any marriage licenses - one of the essential functions of her job - while all of her appeals failed. She's had every due process available and still refuses to do her job.  This case illustrates the rule of law pretty well - unlike the red herrings you contrasted it to.

[Cathy]

I'm a little unclear on what "immigration law" the City of San Francisco and its officers are allegedly violating. Somehow I doubt Wings5 is going to provide a pinpoint citation to the alleged statute in question, possibly because it does not exist.

[FLA]

Also, fuck people who choose to use their religion as a reason to treat others like crap.

Well said, +1

+2

[fa]

Government officials, whether elected or not, must obey all the laws.  Their religious beliefs are their own, not to be applied to the exercise of their official functions.  Since the US Supreme Court made gay marriage the law of the land, it is just that.  The law of the land applies in Kentucky as well.  Since the clerk chose to apply her personal beliefs in a way that interfered with the oath that she swore to uphold... behind bars it is.  That's just the legal system at work.  At least they will let her out if only she will do the job she is required to do.

It is actually scary to think that public officials believe they can deny citizens their constitutional rights because of their own religious beliefs.  This clerk could become a nun or work for the church, so that her job would never conflict with her religion.  She ran for an office that she knew would put her personal views in conflict with the law.  Probably not the smartest thing to do.  Thi is not a gay rights issue.  It is an issue of public officials being required the uphold the law, whether they like the law or not.

[SwordGuy]

As a nation we can either be a nation guided by the rule or law -the whole thing- or we aren't. Enforce the law, or let there be all kinds of sanctuary cities; maybe some cities won't enforce federal immiration policy, some won't enforce federal workerplace law, maybe others won't enforce federal envionmental law, others won't enforce federal aviation laws. If San Fran can refuse to enforce immigration law, why can't this podunk town refuse to enforce laws governing gay marriage?

The rule of law is not something we appeal to only when it suits our position du jour. That's why we have the rule of law.

You are absolutely right.

But that jackass clerk should still be in jail for contempt of court.   

[MoonShadow]

Love wins

Really? Is that what happened?  A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs?  I live here, you guys do know that anyone who wanted to get a marriage license could have just driven 15 miles to the next county over, right?  The marriage license is a state issue, not a county issue; but county clerks represent the state within the county.  No one was actually denied anything here, it was political theater.  This case is going back the Supreme Court, and I suspect quickly.  The very fact that she is in jail, without conviction of an actual crime, automaticly gives her case impetus.  The lawyer for the plaintiffs specificly said she didn't want jail, because it would make her a "martyr".  She was right.  The only people who will win are the lawyers, so the only "love" winning here will be the love of money.

[Cathy]

...The very fact that she is in jail, without conviction of an actual crime, automaticly gives her case impetus...

You are right, Davis has not been convicted of a crime. In cases of civil contempt, jail is not used as punishment (for a crime or otherwise). In such cases, "imprisonment [is] employed not to vindicate the public interest, but as [a] coercive sanction[] to compel the contemnor to do what the law made it his duty to do". Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 US 585, 590 (1947). Davis is not in jail as punishment, but rather solely to coerce her into compliance with the court's orders. This is a well-known use of jail and is not even remotely unprecedented.

[bacchi]

This case is going back the Supreme Court, and I suspect quickly.

And it'll be denied again.

[MoonShadow]

This case is going back the Supreme Court, and I suspect quickly.

And it'll be denied again.

So what?  A lot of lawyers will have made a lot of money in the meantime.  This issue is going to be a legal-eagle cash cow for years.  It's a classic case of 'Baptists & Bootleggers' political theory.  There are the true believers in the public eye, on both sides of a contentious issue; and those in the background who stand to gain monetarily from the conflict itself.  Like so many other things in life, this is about money, and the woman who just went to jail is just another victim of some else's greed.  There are a dozen more victims in this thread alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

[iamlindoro]

Really? Is that what happened?  A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs? 

One can (and does) argue that denying someone their legal rights, as affirmed by the highest judicial authority in the land, is doing that person substantial harm.  I am certain that those same-sex couples attempting to get their completely state-sanctioned and undeniable marriage license in that county feel harmed.

I live here, you guys do know that anyone who wanted to get a marriage license could have just driven 15 miles to the next county over, right?

You know that it is illegal to require that they do so, right?  They cannot deny same-sex couples a marriage license ANYWHERE they are obliged to issue them.  It is unreasonable and illegal to ask them to walk five feet further than they have to, let alone drive 15 minutes.  Let me pose a scenario:

County A has a clerk that refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  So same-sex couple drives to county B.  They find that that clerk also refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  So they continue to county C.  After how many counties have the fundamental rights of the couple been infringed upon?

The answer, of course, is one.  One refusal is a violation of their rights, and does real harm to them, because it tells them that a representative of the government can deny them the rights offered to others, and nothing is being done about it.

The couples in question have every right to dig in their heels and insist that they will not move one millimeter further to get their license.  The county clerk has no such right to deny them.

[Cressida]

Love wins

Really? Is that what happened?  A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs?  I live here, you guys do know that anyone who wanted to get a marriage license could have just driven 15 miles to the next county over, right?  The marriage license is a state issue, not a county issue; but county clerks represent the state within the county.  No one was actually denied anything here, it was political theater.  This case is going back the Supreme Court, and I suspect quickly.  The very fact that she is in jail, without conviction of an actual crime, automaticly gives her case impetus.  The lawyer for the plaintiffs specificly said she didn't want jail, because it would make her a "martyr".  She was right.  The only people who will win are the lawyers, so the only "love" winning here will be the love of money.

You're defending Kim Davis and suggesting that no one was denied their rights. OK.

Everybody, can we just ignore MoonShadow? Like, let's just not respond to him on any thread. Eventually he'll have to get bored and leave us alone so we can talk about VTSAX in peace.

[bacchi]

So what?  A lot of lawyers will have made a lot of money in the meantime.  This issue is going to be a legal-eagle cash cow for years.  It's a classic case of 'Baptists & Bootleggers' political theory.

I don't think the ACLU and Liberty Counsel lawyers are making bank on this case. The ACLU staff lawyers make maybe $60,000 and Liberty Counsel is representing Kim Davis pro bono as well. Or were you thinking of other lawyers?

[Kris]

Love wins

Really? Is that what happened?  A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs?  I live here, you guys do know that anyone who wanted to get a marriage license could have just driven 15 miles to the next county over, right?  The marriage license is a state issue, not a county issue; but county clerks represent the state within the county.  No one was actually denied anything here, it was political theater.  This case is going back the Supreme Court, and I suspect quickly.  The very fact that she is in jail, without conviction of an actual crime, automaticly gives her case impetus.  The lawyer for the plaintiffs specificly said she didn't want jail, because it would make her a "martyr".  She was right.  The only people who will win are the lawyers, so the only "love" winning here will be the love of money.

You're defending Kim Davis and suggesting that no one was denied their rights. OK.

Everybody, can we just ignore MoonShadow? Like, let's just not respond to him on any thread. Eventually he'll have to get bored and leave us alone so we can talk about VTSAX in peace.

Yeah, I gave up on him after trying to have a discussion with him on another thread, and the convolutedness literally wore me out until I realized there is just no point talking to him anymore.

[nanu]

That woman deserves jail time, and I sincerely hope that whenever she meets her maker he'll bitch slap her for being an asshole to other people and send her ass to hell (I'm a complete atheist, but the irony will make it priceless).

This woman is no better than bigots from 50 years ago who objected the end of segregation (oh hey, my religion is against mixed race couples. How about they get refused marriage licenses now?).
Just like them, she'll be remembered on the wrong side of history, if at all.

[Jack]

I'm against sending people to prison in general (even though her actions are definitely hurting other people) so I am not happy about her going to prison but she very definitely needs to no longer be employed at this job.

It's like having a butchery employee suddenly decide that their vegetarian principles no longer allow them to sell meat (except more serious since she is acting as a representative of government and thus has much more power).

She can't be fired, this is an elected position. And what do you want to be done to people who refuse to follow a court order?  She was given the opportunity to allow her deputies to sign them and not go to jail, she refused.

I would think that fines and or community service for not following a court order would be a reasonable response to a non-violent yet harmful act.

Surely there is a mechanism for impeachment of an elected official who is not fulfilling her legal obligations?

You don't get community service for disobeying a court order, you are jailed until you obey.  And the judge did state why a fine was not his choice, her supporters would have just paid it, no skin off her back.

Yep, she's getting too much fundie funding for fines to work.

Love wins

Really? Is that what happened?  A woman gets put in prison, not for doing harm to another human being, but for voicing her religious beliefs?

No. She got put in jail for genuinely doing harm to another human being, specifically by denying him his civil rights!

Her rights end where other peoples' rights begin, especially when she's acting as an officer of the State. If she doesn't like that, she's always been free to resign.

The very fact that she is in jail, without conviction of an actual crime, automaticly gives her case impetus.

Also, I don't think you understand the difference between "jail" and "prison."

[Dee18]

Her denial the marriage licenses to same sex couples, now that the Supreme Court has said that is constitutionally protected, is equivalent to her denying marriage licenses to a mixed race couple because of her religious beliefs. 


Aside from the main issue, was anyone shocked to hear her salary is $80,000 in a county where the median household income is $ 35,000? 

[Wings5]

I'm a little unclear on what "immigration law" the City of San Francisco and its officers are allegedly violating. Somehow I doubt Wings5 is going to provide a pinpoint citation to the alleged statute in question, possibly because it does not exist.

San Francisco City Ordinance 130764, regarding ICE Enforcement Detainers. Here is the press release from the Sheriff's office announcing that they will not comply with ICE's requests.

http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/CA_san_francisco_county_sheriff_2014_05_29.pdf

Yes, I realize we are talking about ignoring court orders in Kentucky vs. ignoring federal policies and procedures. Some would say, Wings those are two totally different things, but they aren't. Which is kind of my point...eiher they all fall under the rule of law, or none of them do.

Besides, my point wasn't that 12 CFR section 2(a) iii paragraphs 5-7 or whatever weren't being honored. My point was that it is wrong to poo-poo opponents when our favored position has the force of "the rule of law" or has been "affirmed by the highest judicial court in the land", etc., and then disregard other laws, also created or affirmed by the same legal bodies, when it's a law we do not favor.

[TrulyStashin]

I think the only reason she held on so long is because every day that she kept this up, her weirdo supporters sent her more money. I'm sure she's planning on retiring off this.

I hope that those affected by her actions sue her for monetary damages so that she can't enjoy her ill-gotten gains.

+1

Apparently, the turning point came during cross-exam when the plaintiff's attorneys asked her about $ contributions she had received.  Based on her testimony, the judge realized that fining her would not bring her into compliance because the fines would simply be paid out of donations.  The only other option was jail and so... off she went.

This reminds me of Orange Is The New Black when Pennsatuckey (Tiffany) enjoyed a steady flow of $$ from Christians who believed that she killed a nurse at an abortion clinic as a protest to abortion.  In fact, Pennsatucky killed her in a snit over being "disrespected" following her 5th abortion.  Pennsatucky was milking that opportunity.  Kim Davis is milking this one.

So many of our choices in life come down to money. 

[Roboturner]

As in a lot of cases, your individual "rights" don't always apply to certain circumstances. She WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, and thus MUST FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW. This isn't "my free speech is being taken away," it's a matter of DOING YOUR JOB. She doesn't need to work there, but if she chooses to she has to follow the rules. You may be able to own a gun, but that doesn't mean you get to bring it to schools, same thing here.

Glad she was found guilty, as Lindsey Graham said (i know right?!) "Do your job or quit" (paraphrase)

[Paul der Krake]

Yes, I realize we are talking about ignoring court orders in Kentucky vs. ignoring federal policies and procedures. Some would say, Wings those are two totally different things, but they aren't. Which is kind of my point...eiher they all fall under the rule of law, or none of them do.

Sure, if you want to live somewhere where everything is black and white with no judicial discretion whatsoever. I believe Cathy is suggesting that until the federal government successfully sues a sanctuary city or a law is passed compelling them to respond to immigration authorities' requests, tough shit.

Which is different from the case at hand where the clerk is disobeying a direct court order.

[pbkmaine]

As in a lot of cases, your individual "rights" don't always apply to certain circumstances. She WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, and thus MUST FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW. This isn't "my free speech is being taken away," it's a matter of DOING YOUR JOB. She doesn't need to work there, but if she chooses to she has to follow the rules. You may be able to own a gun, but that doesn't mean you get to bring it to schools, same thing here.

Glad she was found guilty, as Lindsey Graham said (i know right?!) "Do your job or quit" (paraphrase)

+1

[I'm a red panda]

I think this issue may be the first time I have ever agreed with Dick Cheney.  In the past, I always thought if he said 2 + 2 was 4, I would find a way to argue it was 5... but no, we've found common ground.  Gay marriage is the law of the land now. If you work for the government, do your job, or don't work for the government anymore.

[CheapskateWife]

I'm a federal employee.  If I don't do my job, and still get paid, I am defrauding the taxpayer (my boss).

Mrs. Davis is committing fraud, by her refusal to uphold the oath of office she voluntarily swore to keep, and continued to be compensated financially for her unwillingness to do her job.  At this point, salary should be forfiet and refunded to the taxpayers of that county.

[Cathy]

I'm a little unclear on what "immigration law" the City of San Francisco and its officers are allegedly violating. Somehow I doubt Wings5 is going to provide a pinpoint citation to the alleged statute in question, possibly because it does not exist.

San Francisco City Ordinance 130764, regarding ICE Enforcement Detainers. Here is the press release from the Sheriff's office announcing that they will not comply with ICE's requests.... My point was that it is wrong to poo-poo opponents when our favored position has the force of "the rule of law" or has been "affirmed by the highest judicial court in the land", etc., and then disregard other laws, also created or affirmed by the same legal bodies, when it's a law we do not favor.

You still haven't explained why you think that the City and County of San Francisco is violating the law.

An FBI agent could come to you home today and ask to search it. You would be well within your rights to refuse to consent to the search unless the search was required by law. That is the same as what San Francisco is doing here because the law "does not compel state or local [authorities] to detain suspected aliens subject to removal pending release to immigration officials". Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3rd Cir 2014). There is no tricky or subtle point here. You have alleged that the City is violating the law, but you have not explained why you believe that to be the case.

[FLA]

 

I live here, you guys do know that anyone who wanted to get a marriage license could have just driven 15 miles to the next county over, right?

You know that it is illegal to require that they do so, right?  They cannot deny same-sex couples a marriage license ANYWHERE they are obliged to issue them.  It is unreasonable and illegal to ask them to walk five feet further than they have to, let alone drive 15 minutes.   
The answer, of course, is one.  One refusal is a violation of their rights, and does real harm to them, because it tells them that a representative of the government can deny them the rights offered to others, and nothing is being done about it.

The couples in question have every right to dig in their heels and insist that they will not move one millimeter further to get their license.  The county clerk has no such right to deny them.

exactly, 100% agreed

[FLA]

I wish Jesus would return so all these "Conservative Christians" could take note that his first stop was not the Vatican or Lakewood (Mega)Church in Houston but a gay bar off the Vegas strip where his first act was to cure transvestite prostitutes of their herpes (without a co-pay).

this would be good but I'd prefer the Rapture to come and take all the good people away so the rest of us evil ones left behind can get on with with our lives without having everything grind to a halt because some right wing Christian doesn't like the law of the land.  Think of how pleasant that would be, no Westboros at funerals, no Pat Robertson blaming the gays for the stock market decline, ahhhhh.