No she doesn't. She refuses to perform an act, which by using common sense can be seen as absurd.
By refusing to perform that act she is forcing her religious beliefs onto everyone else. You have to understand that she is not working for some private company, she is a public official whose job is to hand out marriage licenses within the confines of the Constitution, and she took an oath to that effect as well. It's like a police officer arresting you and refusing to give you your Miranda rights ("you have the right to remain silent") before questioning you. The police is refusing to perform an act too, but because of their job by refusing to do that they are violating people's Constitutional right.
No they don't - and actually didn't. They are not a legislative body. All they actually can do is repeal NEW legislation as being unconstitutional. Not recognizing same-s@x-"marriages" isn't new legislation. So unless some body would issue NEW legislation with the issue, they got nothing to repeal and essential got nothing to say within their mandate.
As Pi said there is no requirement that the legislation be "new", all that is really required is for someone to legally challenge the constitutionality of something in a court case. Most of them don't get all the way to the Supreme Court and are handled in lower courts, but if it does make it all the way to the Supreme Court then they will make a decision on that case.
I'll admit I don't know hardly anything about the specifics of the court case itself which SCOTUS based their G*y marriage decision on, but essentially a few G*y couples in areas that had laws banning G*y marriage took that law to court (I believe they sued the government saying it violated their constitutional rights and it ended up going all the way to SCOTUS), and SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated their 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.
I wouldn't be that sure about that. There are already cases against service providers for not complying with the demands of those perverts.
But they are not non-profit churches, they are for-profit businesses which must comply with anti-discrimination laws. Legally it is similar to how restaurants are not allowed to refuse service to people based on their skin color; my understanding is that it depends on the local jurisdiction on whether or not S@xual orientation is a protected class like race which is a federally protected class. However, as Pi said, churches are exempt from many of these laws and I support a church's right to refuse marriage based on whatever criteria they choose.
Obfuscating "G*y marriage" with slavery is absurd. It's the famous apples and oranges. Actually it's worse it's not even fruit. Slavery is attributing a positive right over a person to a third party. There is no positive right attributed to anyone by not recognizing the absurdity of same-s@x marriages.
Be advised that slavery was already a hot topic, when the Constitution was written. It was basically an overburden from the colonial period. But that's just the historical background.
It's just an easy example demonstrating that sometimes laws/policies need to be changed, and that we shouldn't blindly follow tradition for tradition's sake. So when you tell me that G*y marriage has been traditionally illegal throughout world history I agree, but that is not a good argument for why it should be kept illegal.
Given what marriage essentially means regardless of time, same s@x marriage remain absurd regardless of time.
There is also another issue at stake. And that's the institutional meaning of marriage for society. That meaning is eroded by declaring all kind of other things to be marriages.
What marriage essentially is in the modern world is a contract between two people that provide various legal rights and economic benefits for the people involved, courtesy of the government. It is not simply a piece of paper or some religious sacrament between two people and God, it has real world effects due to the way governments set up secular marriage. When I look at marriage that way I think it is absurd to not let G*y couples get married.
Attributing legislating powers to themselves in cooperation with other arms of government. Now that's unconstitutional. They are also the ones imposing their religious views on others.
Fact is that not recognizing same-s@x-"marriage" as legal wasn't even a consideration, when the Constitution was written (which makes it different from slavery). It wasn't considered before that and also not for 200 years after that.
SCOTUS did not make any legislation, they ruled that laws banning G*y marriage were unconstitutional and thus no longer applied. In that respect SCOTUS can and does influence legislation/laws, but if it couldn't then judicial review would be pointless.
They aren't imposing any religious view on anyone.
Again the 'timing' of the legislation in respect to when the Court hears the case is completely irrelevant. If something is unconstitutional it doesn't magically become constitutional after so many years of it being law.
h*m*sexuals have never been denied the right to marry. It's just that same-s@x partnerships weren't recognized as legal marriages.
The whole point of the right to marry is that it is a legal marriage accepted by the government. That is what this whole debate is about: do G*y people have the right to get legally married? SCOTUS says yes. So when Ms. Davis on behalf of the government refuses to issue government marriage licenses to G*y people she is unequivocally violating their constitutional right to marriage. If Ms. Davis was a church pastor and refused to marry a G*y couple in the eyes of God then she would not be violating their constitutional right to marriage. The crucial piece of information is that Ms. Davis is acting on behalf of the government as a government official, not on behalf of a private company or church. That is a very important distinction.
And that makes it now justifyable? Just because it's compliant with form. Now by that reasoning judges jailing slaves for not returning to their masters would also be fine.
I always knew that the judge had every legal authority to jail Ms. Davis for contempt of court, that is a fairly common punishment for contempt of court here in America. I originally thought it was over the top, but upon reflection I think the only better option would be to have Ms. Davis do community service instead of working at the clerk's office until she was no longer in contempt of court, but I do not know if the judge has the authority to do that. If not then I think the judge did the right thing.
I agree that legality doesn't equal morality, and in some cases the moral thing to do is disregard the law (which many people did when it came to runaway slaves via a concept known as jury nullification). But, you should tread very carefully when disregarding the law; there is a fine line between being morally scrupulous and advocating lawlessness. I don't have all the answers on when it is and isn't appropriate to ignore the law, I don't think anyone does, however I do not think this G*y marriage case even comes close.
She is, in essence, complaining that she can no longer practice her religious bigotry while in the official capacity of a government position. In my estimation that is not a good reason to defy the law.