But the moment she actually refused to issue the license she violated her oath, and that oath is the crux of the matter.
I would disagree with that statement, but let's explore that a bit, okay? The following is the Kentucky Oath of office, taken by anyone in government at any level, and I have taken it myself.
""I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Now there are several unique things about this oath, not the least of which is swearing to "execute, to the best of my ability...according to law" and "so help me God". Also, note, that the law of Kentucky is that same sex marriages are verboten;
and that the oath does not recognize the interpretations of SCOTUS, or even the US Constitution as superior law to that of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Also, note, that the oath is not at all religiously neutral. I would wager she has a legal defense in there.
The part about dueling has a colorful history, and worth a thread of it's own. Honor dueling isn't, as a matter of statue, actually illegal in Kentucky. It's not happened in 100+ years, and if it did happen, someone is getting arrested for something, but it's not actually banned. Like I said, it's a unique oath.
I too have sworn an oath, though mine is to the US government. Part of my oath was to follow the lawful orders or my superiors. If I were to refuse these orders for any reason, including moral grounds, I would be charged under the punitive articles of the UCMJ. My oath removes my existence as the smallest minority group. Her oath has the same negating effect on her individuality while she is working.
It's not actually your oath that does that, it's your contract with the government. I've done that too, so don't leap to the conclusion that I don't understand it.
A county clerk is and should be an automaton of the county, and by extension the state.*
No one should be an automaton, not even you. You know the exceptions for yourself; because the order must be "lawful". If you refuse an order, you will be punished, but you can also challenge the order as unlawful; and then the
order will be judged. If it actually is, or should be, unlawful, you actually have a
duty to oppose it. That's also in your oath, include in the "defend the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic..." You took an oath to, primarily, defend the Constitution; not to follow orders. The following orders part assumes they are lawful orders, under the Constitution. If you followed an illegal and improper order, one that you should have rationally understood to be unlawful, the claim that your were "just following orders" would be no more of a defense than it has ever been for others. We are all expected to have convictions.
So my 2 cents is that she done fucked up bad, and should be in jail.
Well, she is. And "love wins" right? Because someone with convictions is in jail, "love" is victorious? It doesn't look like love wins to me.
*I'll preemptively admit there are limits to my stance. German soldiers shoving jew into train cars is the obvious example. While important and pivotal, gay marriage isn't showers with no drains.
Correct. Justice delayed is *not* justice denied, it's just delayed.