It took about two months after the Supreme Court decision, but same-sex marriage issues are back in the news cycle. And they’ve had quite a cycle this week.

Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk, has officially been held in contempt of court for her refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying Supreme and lower court orders on the grounds that it violates her faith. Subsequently, five of the six deputy clerks have said they are willing to issue marriage licenses. And while it’s not quite life or death, it’s a strong reminder that the local elections are the ones that matter—and lobbyists know that too.

Davis has been refusing to issue licenses to any couples, gay or straight, since June when SCOTUS ruled same-sex couples have the right to enter. After directing those in her office to do the same, she was sued by four gay couples who had been denied licenses, and was subsequently ordered by U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning to begin issuing licenses this week. Since she still refused to do so, she was called back to court.

The couples suing Davis had not requested jail time, thinking that since she was being paid taxpayer money for “duties she fails to perform,” fines might be more effective. But Judge Bunning felt that wouldn’t be enough to compel her.

“Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said. “The idea of natural law superseding this court…to let that carry the day would set a dangerous precedent.”

Photo Credit: craig1blackcc
Photo Credit: craig1blackcc

But while many have called for it, Davis was elected to her office (Kentucky being one of the states where county clerks are elected, not appointed), firing her won’t be so simple. Without her changing her mind (which seems increasingly unlikely) or resigning from her office, opponents of Davis would’ve had to hope that the legislature sees her actions as impeachable, or else wait until the next election to make their voices heard.

It’s a similar to how many people feel about elected judicial officials, who similarly are beginning to feel the weight of a system whose legislative branch is bogged down. These days, it’s not uncommon for a lobbyist to invest in a local election who can yield a 1600 percent return on investment later on.

And though it may seem backwards, some think that’s exactly what Davis’ lawyers were thinking—and Davis was being taken along for the show. As Slate writes:

Law firms regularly use sexy cases to increase their own profiles, and it’s perfectly fine to bandy about your client to further a constitutional cause. (Gay rights litigators do it all the time.) But [founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, Davis’ representation, Mathew D.] Staver is taking things too far. The first sign of trouble arose early in the case: When a federal judge ordered Davis to issue licenses or be held in contempt of court, the Liberty Counsel advised her to disobey the ruling. Good lawyers don’t usually tell their clients to defy lawful court orders, especially when jail time is a real possibility. Yet the Liberty Counsel didn’t mind putting their client at risk—perhaps because the idea of a middle-aged woman being hauled off to jail for purportedly following her conscience would send thousands of anti-gay Americans reaching for their pitchforks (and checkbooks).

Now the Liberty Counsel has filed an angry, rambling application to the Supreme Court that is little more than an anti-Obergefell rant dressed up as a legal document. The fact that Davis’ lawyers couldn’t tone down the animus for long enough to pen the application is distressing but not surprising. More and more, it’s beginning to look like the Liberty Counsel is taking Davis for a ride, using her doomed case to promote itself and its extremist principles. Davis has certainly humiliated and degraded the gay couples whom she turned away. But I wonder if, on some level, she isn’t a victim, too.

No matter what, the issue has gone on long enough for both sides. As Cara Boyanowski writes for Family Matters:

As the United States Supreme Court has held that same-sex couples have the right to marry, Ms. Davis cannot invoke her own religious beliefs and use it to supersede a same-sex couple’s right to be issued a marriage license. She does not get to “pick and choose” who is worthy of the bond of marriage. Since she cannot issue licenses to same-sex couples for her own religious reasons and will not permit another individual in her office that does not hold these same objections to issue licenses, she cannot uphold the duties of her office, and must step down.

Whether or not she heeds this advice, it’s certainly worth taking an extra look at that November ballot.