[9YearLurker]

The clerk’s not even arguing she needs a law to so specify it—and Fiorina, not nearly my candidate, is right. If her conscience keeps her from performing the clerk’s duties, she should resign.

I don’t want to begin to think of all that Muslim employees would refuse to carry out.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The clerk’s not even arguing she needs a law to so specify it—and Fiorina, not nearly my candidate, is right. If her conscience keeps her from performing the clerk’s duties, she should resign."

I tend to agree, and this is not to say that the government's position is the correct one. If the clerk persists in ignoring the law, she'll either be fired and forced to leave voluntarily, or else the police will escort her from the office. There is, of course, the option of mass civil disobedience, but the key word is "mass," and if there is not sufficient mass, the tactic will be ineffective.

If we support violations of the law when we disagree with the law, and expect those violations to go unpunished, how are we different from the supporters of sanctuary cities?

(One might also pose that question to sanctuary city supporters, asking why they are so eager to force local compliance in the gay marriage area. They typically cite their "community values" as a legitimate rationale for ignoring federal law.)

[sergeantdave]

“If her conscience keeps her from performing the clerk’s duties, she should resign.”

This clerk is on solid ground in refusing the federal government’s demands. The courts have ruled numerous times that the federal government cannot compel or draft state government elected officials to carry out the dictates of the federal government. If the federal government wants homo marriages, it must provide the federal bureaucrats to carry out the federal dictates.

The most recent case affirming a state official’s sovereignty is Printz v US.