We tend to think of bosses as being immediate superiors, but think about this. Kim Davis is an elected official. So, who is her boss really? I think it is the people of KY. And here is the issue. The people of KY voted that marriage is between one man and one woman with specific penalties for clerks who issue marriage licenses outside of that and the other restrictions they put on marriage.
This puts Kim Davis in a pickle, even aside from her religious beliefs. Even if she was for homosexual marriage, she cannot just decide for herself how the law should be. The SCOTUS ruling is just that…a ruling. It is then up to the states to get in line with SCOTUS. Until the state of KY changes its laws to reflect the ruling, all marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples are breaking the law.
I appreciate that the likelihood of prosecution may be small to none at all, but that misses the point. Kim Davis upheld KY law, just as her constituents expect her to do since they voted that law into place. The state of KY has to decide whether or not to challenge the SCOTUS ruling.
From Justice Scalia’s dissent: The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”3 denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to thepeople”9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the Statesto license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?
Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only twoyears ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):
“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that haslong been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”10
“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, hasdeferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”11
In fact, one of the dissenting justices wrote that the ruling would most likely result in states pushing back against it and not honoring it (my wording). I am trying to find the quote that Ted Cruz referred to in this newscast: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4462783803001/ted-cruz-unequivocally-stands-behind-defiant-court-clerk/?#sp=show-clips Although a bit lengthy, I highly recommend reading the dissenting opinions. This is not just about marriage. It is also about other things that are very important if we are to keep our freedoms.
You can download that ruling here: http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjZgYPBV1VcA3T5jmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcDZvdTBqBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA0ZGUkEwMV8x/RV=2/RE=1441845472/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.supremecourt.gov%2fopinions%2f14pdf%2f14-556_3204.pdf/RK=0/RS=Qmwdr8s6sCE6O1YrQqE6GUzPIGA-
Other articles related to the ruling can be found here: