I, like many of my fellow Kossacks have been both horrified and fascinated by the forty-car pile-up known as the Kim Davis Affair (I'm not sure it's actually widely known as that, but it's easier to write about the situation with an impressive-sounding title.) One thing I have noted is the tendency to refer to what The Kim-ster is doing as "civil disobedience." Among the RWNJs and their politicians, this is certainly understandable. Framing her activities as an act of conscience both helps "the cause," and brings in the donations. Despicable, yes, but understandable, too.
What bothers me more is that I have seen the same description used here, and by Kossacks I deeply respect. I'm not sure why -- I suppose it's easier when referring to something to accept the common framing, especially when writing a quick diary in between everything else life throws at us all on a daily basis. However, I think that is an error.
Civil disobedience is an individual or individuals resisting, in a non-violent way, the oppression of a government. By that definition, Kim Davis's actions cannot be called civil disobedience because she is a part of government. If The Kim-ster wanted to engage in actual civil disobedience, she would have to resign her $80,000 a year government job and protest outside the courthouse she used to work in, perhaps holding up signs that proclaim why her Jesus hates Teh Gays getting married, or chain herself to a lesbian fence, or whatever.
What she has been doing, and is now serving jail time for, is ignoring the rule of law she swore to uphold in her government position, and using her authority to make life more difficult for the citizens she is supposed to be serving. That's good (bad), old-fashioned abuse of power, not civil disobedience.
We Kossacks need to keep that in mind when we write about her actions. She's George Wallace, not Gandhi.