Indeed Pete, and that is why I said I think people are free to break it provided they accept the consequences. There is no necessary link between law and morality: again, I would recommend reading some of the philosophers over the years trying to tease out the connections. But it is clearly wrong to claim the clerks took the job expecting to implement the laws as they stood, unless they had a very odd view indeed. It was recognised on the day they signed that the state would continue to pass laws on subjects they had never considered, or amend ones that now existed, and it would be part of their role to help implement those changes. More bluntly, the role anticipates changes of the forty-odd years they miight be in the job and they signed up to that.

Now in this case we have a law which they personally object to. I see three honourable courses. They implement the law without raising objections because they perceive the state rules as more important than their opinion. Alternatively, they can resign because they find the law objectionable, and they can do so quietly or vocally. It is also acceptable for them to refuse to obey the law PROVIDING they simultaneously say they think it is a bad law and are willing to accept the penalty. All three of those I can live with. What I cannot accept is a skulking refusal to obey the law with nonsense about forms being unavailable. Or such stuff.

Compare this with Rosa Parkes. She thought the laws were wrong , openly broke them and openly accepted whatever the consequences might be. Totally Honourable. And none of this flummery about being prepared to obey the law but third parties stopping her.