[tanknetter]

I don’t think thats right.

Being jailed is just as much a “criminal penalty” as fining is. Pethaps moreso since the person gets arrested, booked, fingerprinted, mugshots, etc. And there are innumerable precedents for courts at all levels fining as part of contempt citations.

Remember, it was believed he would fine her. It’s what the couples asked for, not wanting to turn her into a martyr. Bunning cited the ability to fine himself, saying it “wasn’t enough”.

[Whenifhow]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Cboldt]

The object of contempt is to compel compliance with the order. Bunning felt that a fine would not compel complaince, because the fine would have been paid by supporters, not by Davis, and becuase she would "feel no pain" if there was a fine, a fine would not be an effective means of compulsion.

The possibility of immovable object meeting irresistable force always exists in contests between law and conscience. There are many cases where the law adapts to these pressure points, meaning it subordinates itself to conscience. That will not happen in the homo marriage cases, and so, the only option left to conscientious objectors is civil disobedience. Refuse to obey, take your lumps. That's what government is best at, giving lumps and ordering violation of conscience.