She did get a written warning in the form of a court order. You act as if she wasn't given ample opportunity to change her ways but that certainly isn't the case. Also, she was an elected official who couldn't simply be fired.

She broke the law. End of story.

Not gonna comment on that second point because I don't think what she did is worthy of death, and I think that's a ridiculous assumption.

Do you feel the same way about all individuals who refuse court orders? Do you think that there should be another punishment for contempt of court? Also, that second sentence.

No, I'd prefer she did the right thing, and resigned her position.  She's clearly unfit, and I honestly have no desire to force someone to do something they don't want.  However, she's singularly shutting down marriage for the area she covers.  She has been ruled against twice, by a secular Government.  She knows this, and she's certainly aware that her position is for the State, not God.  They have churches for that, and other such church owned/funded organizations.

I highly doubt most people want her shot, in fact I'd venture to say the vast, vast majority do not.  That's hyperbollic, and given all the shots fired in the name of God(s), seems like a bit of projection.  Her punishment is self-inflicted and she's wasting taxpayer money dealing with her bullshit.

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court.^[1][2] It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.^[3][4]

As explained in the People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill, "there are essentially two types of contempt: (1) being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge; (2) willful failure to obey an order of the court."^[5] Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions.^[6]

When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held in contempt"; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.

A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.

This is the perfectly appropriate consequence for her actions.  And remember, she was offered the option to allow her deputies to handle all gay marriage licenses and she would be released.  She refused.

Actually she is being held in contempt of court. Same sex marriage has been deemed legal by the supreme court, and a court order was issued saying her office is legally required to issue marriage licences. When people are found to be in contempt of court they are usually jailed until they agree to act in accordance with the ruling of the court. Ergo, the punishment actually fits the crime, you have to come up with some form of mitigating circumstance to justify why she should not be in gaol.

Also, I just want to say that it's entirely fitting that the poll results look like a dick. Or a middle finger. Or both.

Seems like the issue is with the legislation if the only way to remove someone from office is via a jail term. Heck, they fired a prime minister in Australia.

If she's in jail for contempt in court, then fair enough.

It probably would be simple, possibly more simple than firing a country/state/federal employee. If you refuse to carry out your elected duty then you are no longer serving according to the terms under which you were elected and can therefore be removed from office. It would be a different process than the normal firing of hired employees, but it would be no less difficult to act upon.

The problem with gaol is it makes her into a rallying point for the homophobes. Ultimately, the will of the supreme court and the power of the constitution will win out, which means same sex couples will get the marriage licences they want from the county office.

Marriage licences should be federally issued anyway (a marriage is transferrable inter-state, which should make it a federal thing), which means a federal employee should be issuing the licences, not a locally elected official.