It’s a simple matter of a person who has a job to do, and refusing to do it, complicated by the fact she’s an elected official.

Um, the Constitution that once sanctioned the punishment of consensual sodomy with death now, in the absence of amendment demands that society recognize relationships wherein sodomy is practiced.

I’m not religious in the slightest, and I am a lifelong urban dweller so the SSM thing isn’t an issue for me at all. But the Supreme Court’s decision is naked ipse dixit. When power to say so becomes the Court’s calling card, it cannot complain when others do what they can to thwart judicial overreach.

I’m sorry but look at the comments that accompany that piece. Jonathan Adler’s reasoning is nonsense, because he is only looking at one aspect of what sanctuary cities do (refuse to enforce immigration laws). What else do they do? For one thing, he skips the part where most of them are regularly in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – harboring and aiding illegal aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Some sanctuary cities have gone so far as to openly HIRE illegal immigrants for city jobs!

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/08/04/tempers-flare-when-huntington-park-appoints-2-undocumented-immigrants-to-city-commissions/

“I do not recall Gavin Newsom going to jail or being held in contempt for handing out illegal marriage licenses to Gays and Lesbians against both State and Federal laws at the time.”

Because he actually stopped when the court ordered him to.

Ms. Davis is in jail for contempt of court because she has defied a court order.

This is different from sanctuary cities and handing out marriage licenses because, here, there was a court order. If Newsom had violated a court order or had the cities taken action that was precluded by a court order, then your comparison would stand.

Furthermore, sanctuary cities were and are under no obligation to enforce federal laws.

That said, this is a form of civil disobedience and Davis should be forced to face the consequences. I see the most similar comparison to be the lunch counter demonstrations in the mid 20th century. Those brave folks were willing to take the consequences of breaking what they thought were unjust laws.

A little history: after Newsom and the County Clerk started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples (because, according to them, they believed they were violating discrimination law by not doing so, a position that was later actually vindicated in the courts), both the California AG and taxpayer groups sued to stop it. About a month later, the California Supreme Court issued a stay ordering the City to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Importantly, and here’s where the case differs radically from Kim Davis, they all complied with the order and stopped. A court later voided the resulting marriages as illegal. The City continued with its lawsuit to argue for gay marriage, just as Davis is welcome to continue to fight for her position in court, but they never blatantly refused to obey a court order, which is what’s happened here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/why-kim-daviss-refusal-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-is-legally-different-from-a-sanctuary-citys-refusal-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/

There are good reasons to criticize the sanctuary city notion, but “it’s just like violating a court order” isn’t one of them.