i) For now I'd like to make two more points on the Kim Davis story. You have liberal outlets (e.g. Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, MoveOn, ACLU, SPLC) who find her dissent intolerable. They are happy to see her thrown in jail. Suddenly, they applaud the rule of law.
Let's take a comparison. Liberals constantly remind us about slavery and segregation.
Well, suppose Davis was a county clerk during the Jim Crow era. Back when there were laws against miscegenation. Suppose she broke the law by issuing a marriage license to a black and white couple.
Would liberals today say a judge should have thrown her in jail? Would they defend the rule of law when the law in question was a ban on miscegenation? Or would they regard that as commendable or even necessary civil disobedience?
ii) BTW, what is the rule of law? In 2004, Kentucky voters amended their state constitution to ban homosexual marriage by 74.6%. Why isn't that the rule of law? The will of the electorate, expressed through the legal process of amending a state constitution. And that didn't conflict with any Federal statute.