Regarding the Kentucky Clerk’s Refusal to Grant Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
First we have Rand Paul, saying the clerk’s refusal is “part of the American way.” No, Senator. Adherence to the rule of law is the American way.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested Tuesday that a Kentucky clerk who is refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was “making a stand” and “an important part of the American way.” But he argued the whole situation could have been avoided if states stopped processing marriage licenses entirely.
“I think people who do stand up and are making a stand to say that they believe in something is an important part of the American way,” Paul told Boston Herald Radio, according to The Washington Post.
Mike Huckabee is even worse, saying thank God for the clerk. Ted Cruz has a slightly more nuanced version (see the link immediately above), decrying the assault on religious liberty currently taking place in the U.S., but implicitly acknowledging that the law must be carried out, and pleading (without specificity) for “alternative ways” to allow the law to be carried out without trampling on religious liberty.
Which sounds good . . . but unless they want to reassign her, the main “alternative way” I see is: resignation. Even when you don’t like the law, as a government official, you must carry it out (unless to do so would be so immoral that it would represent the very breakdown of society).
Jonathan Adler quotes Justice Scalia on a similar issue: the role of judges:
[W]hile my views on the morality of the death penalty have nothing to do with how I vote as a judge, they have a lot to do with whether I can or should be a judge at all. To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun towards the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of “the machinery of death.” My vote, when joined with at least four others, is, in most cases, the last step that permits an execution to proceed. I could not take part in that process if I believed what was being done to be immoral. . . .
[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.
Ed Morrissey makes the argument very well today at Hot Air. I can’t add anything to it.
We’ve written plenty of posts defending religious freedom and the right to choose not to participate in private ceremonies, but this case is different. The other cases about which we have written involve private enterprise — bakers, photographers, venue owners — who do not exercise a monopoly on their markets. Operating a private business should not strip people of the right to free religious expression in all phases of their lives; other businesses can and do wish to participate in those events, and the free market should be free for all within it.
Government is not a free market, however; it is a monopoly backed up by force. If the law says these couples can apply for and receive a marriage license, then government has to abide by that law. They exercise a monopoly on marriage licenses; these couples cannot go anywhere else to get one. This is a denial of access to market by government force, essentially, a much different situation than with bakers, photographers, and so on.
One might sympathize with Davis on her religious objections to same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t give her the authority to deny it if it is lawful. A politician might object to alcohol purchases, perhaps even on religious grounds, but he can’t deny permits to liquor stores in a jurisdiction that allows them just because of his religious objections to alcohol consumption. That would be an abuse of power, the kind conservatives would protest in other circumstances.
Accepting office in government means upholding the law. If that conflicts with Davis’ religious beliefs, then she should resign and find other work.
I’d be open to “alternative ways” that don’t involve rejection of the rule of law (as strongly as we might disagree with the “law” as the Supreme Court has determined it) — but I think Sen. Cruz should tell us what those alternative ways might be.
Whatever they might be, they can’t involve simply refusing to carry out your duty. That is not the “American way” in my book.
Caveat: I have not heard Sen. Paul’s interview. If it turns out he was misrepresented — as Scott Walker was, when he supposedly advocated a wall on our border with Canada (watch the video and you’ll see he was simply being inattentive, and talking over Chuck Todd) — I’ll defend him. Until then, the criticism stands.
I agree.
steveg (fed1c9) — 9/2/2015 @ 8:24 pmIf you seek and take the pay of the government, then you agree to carry out the law or you are free to leave.
Unless of course you are CA Attorney General Kamala Harris, then you can do whatever the hell you please.
Since the left loves to push the concept of “no justice, no peace,” and to thumb its nose at the rule of law (after all, most of the generally lawless or crime-ridden parts of the US are dominated by liberals) — and to give a million benefits of the doubt to people (as screened and certified by the left) who stretch the boundaries of the law — it’s difficult to be oh-so-uncomfortable when a right-leaning version of that crops up.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/2/2015 @ 8:37 pmExcept there isn’t a private businessman who is allowed to follow his conscience where as the left if free to do that unfettered 24/7
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/2/2015 @ 8:41 pmShe swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court decision is valid, she should resign because the Constitution she swore to uphold is no longer the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court decision is not valid, she should resign because in doing so she would be upholding the Constitution she swore to uphold and defend.
The irony is of course being posted all over Facebook: her multiple marriages have probably done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than any of the marriages she is refusing to license.
kishnevi (31ba4e) — 9/2/2015 @ 8:52 pmShe’s only been a Christian for four years, but thanks for the squirrel. This began when judge walker refused to recuse himself
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/2/2015 @ 8:58 pmher multiple marriages have probably done more damage to the sanctity of marriage than any of the marriages she is refusing to license.
That’s a left-leaning rationalization. Although no-fault divorce laws and the increasingly who-gives-a-damn ethos directed towards traditional families and marriages have helped erode standards in general, the concept and image of two guys or two woman getting hitched — and the intrinsic feelings of weirdness that evokes in many people (certainly if they’re being honest with themselves and others) — and, in turn, receiving the full stamp of approval from the judicial system totally destroys whatever shred of seriousness and specialness once ascribed to marriage.
Simply put, the US in general is like a school undergoing grade inflation, in which former C-grade students are now getting B’s, and former D- and F-grade students are getting C’s and sometimes even B’s. So the former A-grade students no longer seem quite so special and deserving of as much respect. It can also be characterized as the rap-music-ifcation of society.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:07 pmNo, it began when government began inserting itself into the marriage business. Which of course began before the US began.
Which is part of what Rand was saying. A business partnership does not need government pre approval, only documents filed to evidence its existence after the fact. Why should a marital more?
kishnevi (31ba4e) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:12 pmMark, I was actually quoting a Catholic I know…the sort of Catholic who pines for the pre VII Church and ranks as a reactionary…and who says nofault killed marriage, gays are just fighting for a part of the corpse.
kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:15 pmR.I.P. Dean Jones, star of the original The Love Bug, That Darn Cat, The Shaggy D.A. and, of course — who could forget? — Million Dollar Duck
Icy (941b63) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:22 pmNo, it began when government began inserting itself into the marriage business.
The government per se — and the US Constitution too — is only as good as the ideology it’s influenced by, which can easily bend against the backdrop of major decisionmakers’ political philosophy or ideology, including that of presidents, legislators and members of the judiciary. IOW, the leftism or liberalism — or rightism or conservatism — of major individuals in a populace and the populace overall reflects far more powerful dynamics than you’re willing to admit.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:22 pmYes, she’s wrong legally. But it makes for good theater. Pass the popcorn, please.
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:22 pmAnd she’s a Democrat. Says on Instapundit, although it’s just a tweet. I couldn’t find an archive of election results for county clerks in Kentucky.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:27 pmI agree with that part. If he had stuck with that argument I would have been with him all the way.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:30 pmTotally! Why, I’m getting a divorce tomorrow for that very reason!
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:31 pmWhy can’t state officials simply task another employee with the issuing of licenses if that is what this is all about? If the Rowan County clerk were out ill for a period of time, surely someone else would fill in. Why not for the licenses? Of course, if this is less about issuing licenses and more an issue of government control and silencing opposition, then that obviously would not be an option.
(There are still two other clerks in Kentucky refusing to grant licenses. In Alabama the state’s chief justice of the State Supreme Court, who has encouraged judges to go against the Supreme Court. On top of that, apparently 11 probate judges (or more) are refusing to grant licenses as well. )
Dana (86e864) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:36 pmMy first reaction is to agree with you, Patterico, but on reflection, I think that reaction presuposes that we are facing honorable opponents. We should honor the law even when we disagree with it because we expect other people to honor the law even when they disagree with it. It is the corner stone of civil society–that everyone can’t make up their own law.
But this woman is not making up her own law. She is facing an enormous political movement that despises civil society and has no intention of honoring any laws at all that they can get away with not honoring. They change the law by legal means when they can, but when they can’t–or when it is taking too long–they have no problem having the courts simply proclaim new law as if they were monarchs. Or have the bureaucrats use their powers to punish anyone who does not follow the law as they want it to be or refuse to punish those who break the law but in the way that the Left approves of. They ignore the Constitution when it suits them, and pretend they have the power to rewrite it when it suits them.
This is not a fair fight with honorable opponents or opponents who will recripocate honorable behavior. This is a fight against barbarians, and I’m beginning more and more to favor using their own methods against them.
Cugel (1364e8) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:41 pmTed Cruz interview by DaTechguy.
Speech in Hollis N.H. 8/30 part 1 and part 2.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:42 pm“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:45 pmSo judges make law now Patterico? Where in the Constitution does it show that? Did everyone have the obligation to follow Plessy or Dred Scott because of how the Court decided?
NJRob (2cbf9c) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:46 pmI wonder how many married people are saying “Where was this lady when I needed her?”
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:48 pmDid Obama get jailed for ignoring the Courts? Did the SF mayor get jailed for giving out homosexual marriage licenses when Prop 8 was law? Come on, speak up?
NJRob (2cbf9c) — 9/2/2015 @ 9:50 pmTotally! Why, I’m getting a divorce tomorrow for that very reason!
Patterico, I recall your explaining a few years ago that your sympathy towards the idea of SSM was based on your own behavior, in that who you were attracted to sexually/socially wasn’t a matter of free choice and free will, so therefore the same reality must apply to most people in general. Or a line of reasoning that can easily lead to the notion that SSM perhaps shouldn’t be seen as all that different from arguments raised years ago in support of interracial (heterosexual) marriages. I recall at the time going, hmm, you know what, that’s a good point.
I now realize I was naive, even gullible, and should have kept in mind that social-cultural standards are quite pliable and prone to falling apart, even faster than I once believed. That’s why it’s always good to remember that even the Hollywood crowd, no less, ostracized actress Ingrid Bergman back in the 1950s for having a child out of wedlock. (Today? That same crowd pretty much expects and endorses — if not adores — such behavior.)
Mark (dc566c) — 9/2/2015 @ 10:04 pmYou either follow the law or you choose to ignore it when you dissent.
The left seems to enjoy federal nullification when it suits them, re: sanctuary cities. Not so much when they disagree.
Democracy allows us to live on the edge of a very broad sword. The consequences of incorrect decisions at the polls can endanger freedom. Correct decisions allow it to flourish.
In my opinion, conservatives should follow the law and use the legal mechanisms in place to change it when necessary. Otherwise, we are simply progressives shouting about what we don’t like.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 9/2/2015 @ 10:07 pmA shotgun wedding where the marriage official is the one under the gun. There was an Andy Griffith episode that ended like that. Around minute 23:00. “You jist stop the blabbering, Sheriff, and git on with the marrying.”
nk (dbc370) — 9/2/2015 @ 10:08 pmFor what it’s worth, she isn’t issuiing ANY marriage licenses. (according to
news story I read and of course that could be wrong)
So she isn’t discriminating.
Plus, she is taking umbrage at the fact that she has to sign the licenses.
She considers that to be attesting to the rightness of the marriage.
I can see her point.
Why does anyone need a marriage license in the first place? Sure they claim
all kinds of reasons but other than registering (like you do with a company)
what’s the point? A notary public would do just as good contractually.
States should just get out of the marriage license business.
And not that wouldn’t allow all types of unions. As there can be rules made
of those types of contracts.
This is all just prelude to what the gaystapo really wants to get to and that
is demanding that churches marry them. And if a church doesn’t then they’ll sue
and have their tax exemption revoked (which I believe churches should have but
that’s another argument for later).
That’s all of what this has been about. The core of the gay radicals hates the
jakee308 (c37f85) — 9/2/2015 @ 10:39 pmChristian church especially the Catholics and wants to destroy it by either
forcing them to sanction gay behavior or being driven out of operation.
Sure. But right now, they’re in it. And the law is that she has to issue the licenses. If she refuses, she undermines the rule of law. She cannot be allowed to do that. So if her conscience prevents her from doing her job, she must resign.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/2/2015 @ 10:50 pmWere marriage strictly a religious condition this would not be happening. But it is not, beginning with Sen. Paul’s point of having to obtain government’s permission, after meeting government’s conditions, to get married. Many activities involving government are moderated by whether two people are married, including computing income tax, how they can own real property, right to survivorship of certain professional licenses, and probate matters. Denying the the opportunity to marry denies the sometimes beneficial options in these matters.
And don’t forget, a couple (hetero or otherwise) can get married without the participation of clergy (judges, court clerks, etc) so should those marriages be treated differently?
Take “marriage” out of the government equation and who is getting married to whom becomes less of an issue.
Gramps, the original (bc022b) — 9/2/2015 @ 11:06 pmshe undermines the rule of law.
That makes me want to evoke the phrase “following the letter of the law but not the spirit.”
I think the clerk should be as stone-faced, if not rather rude, as possible to people applying for same-sex marriage licensees.
Nothing illegal about dishing out crummy, unpleasant service—which, come to think of it, is actually considered par for the course for people providing services in places (such as government offices, stores or businesses) associated with dyed-in-the-wool-liberal, blue-blue urban areas.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/2/2015 @ 11:15 pmYou realize of course, than none of these gay couples is being prevented from getting a marriage license. All they have to do is go to the next county, probably all of a 30 minute drive. But they want THIS clerk to be FORCED to issue the permit.
Why? Because they want to drive Christians from the public square.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:43 amI remember when liberal attorney generals refused to defend the laws saying the marriage was between a man and a woman and everyone got so upset and demanded they resign if they wouldn’t carry out the duties of their office and the pressure was so great they stepped down.
What? Nothing happened to them? Huh. Why should I care about what this clerk is doing then?
Douglas Dubh (a68b56) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:50 amStates should just get out of the marriage license business.
Don’t hold your breath — there is far too much law surrounding the marriage contract for that to ever happen, this side of the Libertarian Utopia.
But it isn’t necessary, there is another way. Churches should get out of the business of being the state’s agents in marriage contracts. They should abandon the term “marriage” entirely, and create a new term for the union before God (perhaps “Holy Matrimony”). The religious wedding ceremony is then completely separate from the state’s marriage contract (and couple’s desiring this SEPARATE civil union called “marriage” should go down to see the clerk.
BTW, once this is done, a devout Christian clerk should ahve no problem since it is no longer in conflict with anything that is God’s.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:52 amAn interesting thing to try in the future:
When the governor or AG refuses to defend a Proposition they don’t like, the proponents should sue them and get a court to ORDER them to defend the law, as per their duty, and hold them in contempt when they refuse.
(Although this will probably run afoul of the “that’s only for little people” rule).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:58 amThere’s no need for that. It’s already the law in Kentucky that the county executive can issue marriage licenses.
Which is why heterosexual couples in that county haven’t been b****ing about the fact the this lady hasn’t been issuing any marriage licenses for months as she’s been fighting this battle. Anybody who wants to get married in that county can.
Or if the county executive is sick they can just go to the next county.
Ed Morrissey is wrong; these couples have lots of other places to go to both inside and outside the county to get a marriage license.
I suppose it makes better entertainment to say this county clerk is refusing to issue licenses only to gay people. To repeat, that isn’t the case. She hasn’t been issuing licenses to anyone. It just hasn’t been a problem for anyone else than a few gay people.
What this is all about, Dana, is that gays want Ms. Davis to put her name on their marriage license. They could go someplace else to to get a marriage license like all the heterosexual couples who have been marrying in that county without any problems. But apparently these gay couples want a trophy to hang on the wall. A marriage license with a signature from a woman who they were able to force to violate her conscience.
And one of the reasons she objects is that in Kentucky, apparently, a marriage license has language to the effect or implies that she approves of that marriage.
You learn a lot listening to Hugh Hewitt.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:07 amThere are 120 counties in Kentucky. 117 of them will issue SSM licenses. Every single person who has demanded she issue them a SSM license has been from another county. Under the law does she have an obligation to issue a SSM license to people from a different county?
Since the county executive can issue SSM licenses, doesn’t the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect her from issuing marriage licenses?
Didn’t President Jackson and Georgia ignore a Supreme Court decision?
Since SSM isn’t in the constitution isn’t it up to the states to determine if they’ll support SSM? Isn’t that what the constitution says? This is what the federal government can do, everything else is up to the states. Isn’t the Supreme Court wrong on this issue?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:58 amwhen you start genuinely deluding yourself into thinking that your petty little government licenses carry a very genuine and real moral weight you’re ready to move up to the big leagues
you’re ready to work at the E.P.A.
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:21 amEvery single person who has demanded she issue them a SSM license has been from another county.
Is that a fact?
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 4:10 amIt’s already the law in Kentucky that the county executive can issue marriage licenses.
Which is why heterosexual couples in that county haven’t been b****ing about the fact the this lady hasn’t been issuing any marriage licenses for months as she’s been fighting this battle. Anybody who wants to get married in that county can.
Is that a fact?
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 4:14 amnk….the article I read yesterday featured as complainants two men from Ohio. So Steve is quite correct. They are looking for a trophy to hang on the wall.
kishnevi (31ba4e) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:01 amThen I’m on the side of the lady. This should be made more painful for the litigation trolls than what they’re notorious for.
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:14 amOhio shares a southern border with kentucky and the poor victimy-luscious four-times married jubbly-bubbly christian clerk babe is in a county very close to the northern border with ohio
not sure how much distinction you can make between getting gay married in the hick part of Ohio or getting gay married in Kentucky, but it’s not like they had to drive very far at all
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:16 amYeah, that’s too bad. Less chance of them being wiped out by a semi on their way to do their dirt in a place they have no connection with.
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:28 amI would only note that many of the people who are criticizing this clerk were the same ones who cheered on San Fran Mayor Gavin Newsom when he did the exact same thing in 2004.
SaveFarris (36f011) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:35 amit’s hard to know though whether or not in truth they have “no connection” with Rowan County
you talk to them people and they talk “county talk” a lot
the talk about what county people is from and how they lived in this county up until the mill closed then they got a job at the pick n pack two counties north
you play football against guys from other counties and in high school the girl-children might go walk beans three, four counties away for a little pin money
you don’t wanna limit your horizons to just your own county in them parts
you gotta stay quick on your feet and keep your options open
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:41 am*they* talk about what county people is from i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:41 amI would only note that many of the people who are criticizing this clerk were the same ones who cheered on San Fran Mayor Gavin Newsom when he did the exact same thing in 2004.
do you have a link what documents this assertion Mr. Farris?
it seems unlikely
everyone knew at the time Gavin was an empty showboat what had eyes on Sacramento
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:49 amYou know, we have internet these days. Even if they live on the border, as the crow flies, there’s a whole other county they’d have to go through to get to Rowan. And there’s other counties in both Kentucky and Ohio, next to that whole other county, which are closer. A-g-e-n-d-a.
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:07 ami’m not saying it’s not a reasonable hypothesis Mr. nk
just that it’s a stretch to italicize Ohio like it’s a faraway and exotic land relative to the county in question
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:16 amYou’re hilarious. Like when people tried to do just that with Prop 8 and kept getting told they don’t have standing. Or when the courts refused to rule on the illegal exemptions to Obamacare because the citizens don’t have standing. Uh huh.
Standing has been used as a way to allow our “masters” to show they are royalty while the rest of us are mere subjects.
NJRob (2cbf9c) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:27 amor prop 187 or 209, or SB 1070, or any number of other examples,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:35 amI think it would be hard to deny that the couples making the demands could have saved themselves and the rest of us a lot of trouble if they wanted to,
they are purposefully making a point.
She is making a point, too. Maybe she does not have a legal case,
in which case what she is doing is simply a version of civil disobedience, is it not?
Perhaps she is willing to go to jail, or be removed from her office before conceding,
just to make the point,
“Hey public, this is what you chose, do you really like the “Fundamentally Transformed America?”
Off the cuff, I would think I would probably resign. But I’m not he one in the position.
I guess it gets kind of theoretical, but one can make obedience to the Law of the Land the final authority only if one thinks the Law of the Land is the final authority.
And no one really does that, not someone who thinks the Bible is more important,
not some leftist who thinks their vision of what the world should be is more important.
What if the people of the county support her?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:32 amRe # 18. Patterico (3cc0c1) – 9/2/2015 @ 9:45 pm – that ended with the following quote:
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” –
I reply with the following:
americanthinker.com: Who are the lawbreakers?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/who_are_the_lawbreakers.html
wnd.com: DNC brags about hiring illegal alien
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/dnc-brags-about-hiring-illegal-alien/
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Tacitus [56 AD – 117 AD]
There comes a point in a society, where the more laws you have, the less morality you get. At that point, you have to ask, What is it are we doing? Have we not left, or lost, our purposed? Have we not stopped doing what we were supposed to be doing? And have we not forgot why we did those things in the first place?
Perjury is rampant in our courts. Not one big bankster was indicted. And then there is Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner, Barack ‘Not a smidgen of corruption [re IRS scandal’ Obummer], Fast & Furious, NSA, EPA, Benghazi, Jonathan Gruber & You can keep your doctor Obummer, Tax Cheat Timothy Geitner, …
There is no one left to blame – but the judges/judiciary.
JUDICIAL DECEIT: Tyranny & Unnecessary Secrecy at the Michigan Supreme Court http://www.judicialdeceit.com/ ;
LICENSED TO LIE – Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice http://licensedtolie.com/ ; CRIMINAL LAW – 2.0 http://www.cato.org/blog/criminal-law-20 .
Liberty & Truth require constant vigilance. GLZ.
Gary L. Zerman (7141da) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:39 amThis is a difficult subject, similar to nullification. Conservatives believe in the rule of law but liberals have been subverting the rule of law when it comes to traditional values and SSM. Making us live by “our laws” is just another example of liberal Alinskyism, so I think Cruz is right that there should be alternatives in this situation. There aren’t alternatives now because SSM is too new for a legal alternative to have been developed, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t come up with alternatives that balance religious and secular rights.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:05 amyou can’t trust someone who selectively enforces the law to administer the law fairly
girlfriend’s already forfeited her job she just too dumb to know it
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:10 amIf I were the judge, I’d find a way to exercise my discretion to deny injunctive relief on the basis that the lawsuit is pretextual. Maybe cover myself with the ruling that the proper remedy is by writ of mandamus in state court. But that’s why I’m not a judge.
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:10 amI’d be fine with that rule if it were imposed equally, but it’s not. It’s only imposed on conservatives. Read my Instapundit link. Mayor Gavin Newsome and Gov Brown should have been impeached for allowing SSM when it wasn’t legal, but they weren’t. I think they were engaging in convenient civil disobedience for your side so you like that, but you oppose this because it isn’t convenient.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:33 amFrankly, it’s satisfying to see this happen to a Democratic county clerk. It’s tempting to not care what happens to her. However, the law makes accommodations all the time, and there might be something that can be done here. I felt the same way about the SSM issue, where it seemed there could be an accommodation made like civil unions or separating civil/religious marriages.
But that wasn’t possible given today’s climate in which SSM advocates wanted it all and they wanted it immediately. Now they also love the Rule of Law, which is a joke after DOMA and how they’ve treated the law during the past decade. We’ve entered an era of intolerance that surpasses the left’s version of the 1950’s.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:38 amThe alternative is equal rights on principle, not congruence with a selective modulus under The Supreme Court’s ruling for transgender coupling. Another pro-choice or selective establishment of law that cannot be reconciled with principles or the law and thus has a predisposition of creating moral hazards.
n.n (60df76) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:42 amThe issue for at least some, remains, as it always has been, not to simply allow a SS couple to go about their lives the way they want, but to demand, mandate, and force others to comply, approve of, and celebrate their lifestyle,
so any resistance must be trampled underfoot and made an example of,
like that EPA staffer who wanted to run the EPA enforcement like the Romans,
go into town, crucify a few just for the show of it,
and expect everyone else to get in line.
In some ways it is almost hideous to use that analogy while there are places today where crucifixion for the sake of show and intimidation are taking place,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:46 ambut on the other hand, the wellspring is the same with the same intent,
forced compliance to an alien moral code.
So, the president doesn’t have to follow the law. Hillary doesn’t have to follow the law. Irs doesn’t have to follow the law. Epa doesn’t have to follow the law. Illegal immigrants don’t have to follow the law. But, those damn christians, they damn well better follow the law. Do you see the problem I see?
jim (a9b7c7) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:57 amI think they were engaging in convenient civil disobedience for your side so you like that, but you oppose this because it isn’t convenient.
nonono i was not on their side an how did that turn out?
see that is what happened
the rule of law prevailed!
and so it must be in the hinterlands of Kentucky
who’s the boss applesauce?
it’s the LAW happy tree friends
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:58 amNothing happened to Newsome or Brown, did it? So I assume you are fine if the clerk stays in office, too.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:00 amWhen it comes to abortion and SSM, you are even less tolerant than the people you hate, happyfeet.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:14 ami’m super tolerant i think everyone should be free not to get abortions or gay married
i myself haven’t done no abortings or gay marriagings my whole life
but if you want to go right ahead
i’m super tolerant
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:19 amYou are free to proclaim across the internet that Planned Parenthood protesters and the Kentucky Clerk are stupid. You have that right but it’s not tolerant.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:52 ami just think people are getting very very very micro
dizzyingly picayune
and it always involves them telling other people how to live and wanting an official good housekeeping seal of approval on it
well that’s not america
and worse it plays absolute holy hell on both the Republican brand as well as the Christian brand
and i try SO hard to get people to stop and think
but do they listen?
nope, not to where you’d notice
i have to soldier on though
even as nightfall deepens across this once free proud and prosperous land
cause of one day there will come a morning
timid and halting it will come
and I’ll take it by the hand and say howdy do
we been keepin’ the place up best we can
can I get you grape nehi?
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:15 amYou are such a partisan hypocrite. If she was selectively choosing not to enforce the right laws the Democrats would love to promote her for higher office.
She’s just on the wrong side of this particular law as far as the leftists who have given us sanctuary cities are concerned.
Funny how I didn’t notice you saying the mayor, sheriff, and city council of San Francisco should all lose their jobs after Kate Steinle was murdered by one of the beneficiaries of their selective enforcement of laws. And their selective enforcement of the law already had a pretty high body count before they added Kate Steinle to it.
How many people have been murdered because of this county clerk’s selective enforcement of the law.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:21 amYes, because murder is completely analogous to same-sex marriage.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:23 amSanctuary city laws are analogous, because both involve liberal concern for fairness to people who need protection.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:30 ameveryone involved should be fired i think
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:31 amFocus, carlitos. The relevant analogy isn’t murder:SSM, it’s enforcement of Sanctuary City laws:SSM licensing.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:31 amand that means no pensions
not one damn dime
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:32 amit’s sweltering in chicago btw
it’s just nonsense
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:33 amdrudge says girlfriend’s in JAIL
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:33 amthis is what happens when you make Bad Choices
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:34 amThat’s easy to say now, happyfeet. I might believe you if you could show actively supported impeaching Brown then because he refused to let the State defend Prop 8. But you dudn’t, did you?
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:38 amit was never on the table to support DRJ
but i’m always up for impeaching jerry brown
he’s a monster
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:40 amYou only care about when it’s your ox getting gored so don’t ever, ever, ever tell me you care about the Rule of Law.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:41 am@74, really, feets? Bad choices?
I’m sure Roman magistrates said the same thing about the Christians they fed to the lions when they wouldn’t sacrifice to the emperor. How’d that work out for the Romans?
This is just the start, feets. There is nothing that is going to illustrate your fascist nature and that of your gaystapo friends then the number of Christians you’re willing to throw in jail because they won’t violate their religious beliefs
You’ll have to start building a whole new series of gulags to house them in.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:44 amno i care about other oxens as well
for example i don’t smoke marijuana but i think it should be legal for Kim Davis’s many ex-husbands to smoke it
I also think Wyoming ranchers should be allowed to make stock ponds
and i believe asian women in new york should be free to do manicures to where last time i was in new york i boycotted the whole manicure industry
but i can just do what i can do i’m just a lil pikachu
no office have i to bend the whirl to my will
but ain’t that just what this kentucky igpig do not understand?
that ain’t her office
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:47 amJohn 14:15
I see that happyfascist considers keeping Christ’s commandments a “bad choice.”
Christians see it differently.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:49 amCome on, DRJ, Steve…
The guy is just a poseur troll. He doesn’t vote, doesn’t really investigate or think deeply. He is a slacker reactor type…just patting himself on the back for GoodThink. The kind of guy who tells you how he would have played that poker hand after the game is over.
Not worth your time.
DRJ hit the nail on the head: if it is wrong one way, it is wrong the other. No flexible yardsticks allowed..but that is all the progressives have right now, isn’t it? Flexible yardsticks.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:49 amoh god it’s that creepy stalker dude what’s obsessed with me
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:51 amwould you like some gazpacho?
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:51 amYou’ve said Proposition 8 supporters shouldn’t have a right to assert their position, despite the fact that they followed California law (i.e., the Rule of Law) to present their case. That’s intolerance because you disagree with someone and it shows you don’t believe in the Rule of Law. You believe in using the law to get what you want, making you an Alinsky supporter more than a Rule of Law supporter.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:52 amchrist never did no commandments about issuing gay marriage licenses Mr. 57
talk about flexible sticks of yard
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:54 amyes i think for the majority to put the rights of a minority to a vote is profoundly unamerican DRJ
but i never said that people should defy anything
i said people should just keep voting til they get it right
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:56 amI can live with that, as long as you realize we’re not through with SSM yet. There are still accommodations to be made.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 11:58 amHe also “never did no commandments” about holding up a 7/11 with an AK-47, feets.
I did a word search.
So I guess for Christians it’s no holds barred in that area of modern life, too.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:00 pmi think the core accommodation is that churches can never be forced to perform or host gay marriagings
cause of they have to do the right thing all on their own or it doesn’t count
beyond that i think people have a lot of dippy ideas of what is or is not the practice of religion
but i’m an unabashed white middle class lutheran
we don’t get freaky with the cheez wiz
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:00 pmif you need christ to tell you not to rob a store with an AK then you’re just not a good person
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:02 pmYou mean that crazy talk about Christ telling people that if they love Him they’ll keep His commandments?
Yeah, I heard the Lutherans decided that was just loony about 10 years back or so.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:03 pmFunny. I can say the same thing about people who think it’s OK to throw someone in jail because she refuses to violate the tenets of her religious faith.
Thanks for playing, feets.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:06 pmIf five justices of SCOTUS vote (5 to 4 of course) to say that all county clerks and police officers in the United States have a constitutional duty to shoot Patterico dead on sight, do we then say to those clerks and officers that adherence to the rule of law is the American way, so they better shut up and do as they’re told?
Andrew (0a4664) — 9/3/2015 @ 12:54 pmWell, shazbot.
I just listened to Ted Cruz on the Sean Hannity Show (with guest host Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke) say “I stand unequivocally with Kim Davis,” saying that she was put in jail because she was a Christian “who live[d] according to her beliefs,” concluding by referring to the order to arrest Davis as “judicial tyranny.”
This frankly disappoints the hell outta me. I know he’s running for President and everything, but I liked to think that Cruz possessed a greater reservoir of intellectual honesty than anybody else in the field (especially Trump and Bush). Now, I’ve gotta rethink that.
L.N. Smithee (e750c1) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:28 pmMr. Smithee candidates say dumb things all the time even the ones you love more than beans for example Mr. Governor Scott Walker
this is why it’s so important that the candidate people bring an actual record of responsible and effective governance to the table
cause of actions trump words so to speak
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:38 pmApplying the law which Kim Davis purports to serve, whatever happened to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? (Which will of course take us right back into one of those fundamental discussions about what is or is not Caesar’s, which is fair enough I suppose…)
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:43 pmBut any heterosexual person who ever got a tax break for placing marriage firmly in Caesar’s column over the years is gonna have a hard time arguing that they can yank it out of his column now. Intermingling your faith with tax benefits cuts both ways.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:45 pmThe other side does not care about the rule of the law.
This is asymmetric war and our foolish Country Clubbers don’t get it — especially the Lawyers who created this mess to being with!!!!!!!
Because the lawlessness of the Left is done with legal representation arguing words have no meaning.
So … burn it down, put the lunatics in the building. I applaud the women any other exercising CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE in support of decency.
Lord knows the Lawyers and Courts are the most indecent bunch and the source of rot in this Country.
Sorry lawyers …… but facts are facts.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:49 pmI think the last two years has made it clear, how unwilling the left is to abide by any law, except which they craft themselves.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:51 pmThe abuse of our Constitution, the lawlessness, the immorality, the corruption starts with Lawyers being dishonest and abusing the system to promote whatever the f they want.
So frankly, F SCOTUS. They want to issue Threesome Marriage Certificates, then line up for the job or STFU. But honestly, I am tired of the mealy mouth lawyers deciding and then expecting the rest of us to do their dirty work.
Cut your own “grass” jagoffs.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:53 pm“This is asymmetric war and our foolish Country Clubbers don’t get it — especially the Lawyers who created this mess to being with!!!!!!!”
– Rodney King’s Spirit
You mean the Framers? I’m pretty sure they were the “Lawyers who created this mess to begin with,” and I’m pretty sure that they would agree with your assessment of politics as “asymmetric war.”
And so do I!
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:58 pmNot even close.
Newsom conspired with then-CA AG Bill Lockyer to have sufficient time to build up a media circus around issuing same-sex marriage licenses to gay applicants. In the process, there is no record that Newsom denied any man-woman couples a license, which is precisely what Davis is doing in Rowan County.
Lockyer’s tacit endorsement of Newsom’s then-illegal registration stunt played a vital role in the eventual California Supreme Court nullification of Proposition 22 (2000), the precursor to Proposition 8 (2008). Lockyer, as representative of the electorate that voted for Prop 22 by an overwhelming 61%, actually was VICTORIOUS in CA Court of Appeals, reversing the ruling against 22. But because he personally does believe in same-sex marriage, he urged the ruling to be reviewed anyway by a CA Supreme Court panel headed by Justice Robert George, who declared 22 unconstitutional.
L.N. Smithee (e750c1) — 9/3/2015 @ 1:58 pmI respect Ms. Davis having the courage of her convictions, even if I don’t think her premises are true or her logic valid.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:02 pm#101, There is not one iota of honesty in the Legal Profession today. I can’t speak for 1792, I was not there. But I do know this, the way things have evolved to where:
1) Definition of “is” is in flux — a lawyer did that
2) You delete a server, joke about it, destroy evidence then argue semantics that no 8 year old would be so bold as to — a lawyer did that
3) You make thought crimes illegal (criminalizing discrimination by private people in non-governmental institutions) — a lawyer did that
4) You tell us a video did it — a lawyer did that
5) You over turn two CA Referendums on gay marriage without disclosing you are Gay — a lawyer did that
6) You call it a penalty until it suits you to call it a tax to justify a ruling — a lawyer did that
Again, the root of our problem is LAWYERS distort, lie and cheat to get whatever they want with no sense of respect for the truth or integrity.
So, I applaud the women. SCOTUS GFY. Simple. You fucking lawyers have all the answers then you do the work. Otherwise GFY.
And I think I speak for 80% of the non-lawyers out there.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:06 pm3)
I agree wholeheartedly. If you think the Almighty knows your heart but will smite you anyway because your name is on those marriage certificates (IMHO an absolutely absurd and extra-biblical notion), he will provide for you if you QUIT THE JOB (Matthew 6:28).
But Davis is a well-paid state government drone, and as we know all too well in California, those types have lead in their shoes. They don’t quit even if they’re burned out to a crisp because retirement benefits are unmatched in similar private-sector positions. She wants to have her cake and eat it too.
L.N. Smithee (e750c1) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:06 pm#103 You might be correct but we have a Presidential Candidate burning the evidence and the Lawyers can’t agree on whether the evidence is evidence.
Again, how can you call for reason on the part of a small time public official when the President, the AG and Hillary have none either?
Rule of law cuts both ways but one side has zero respect for it. And frankly the other side has no respect for it either. Example, McConnell allowing PP funding to go through when you could easily defund based on the illegal behavior.
Off with their heads. Maybe some genuine fear would work to straighten our Uber Alles Peoplez out.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:13 pmDavid makes 80K plus has a sweet sweet piggie pension to look forward to
you know how many socks I have to darn to make 80K?
like so many I can’t even tell you
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:20 pm*Davis* i mean not David
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:20 pm“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” II Tim. 3:12,13
“…I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
In my opinion, things are starting to to get snarkish, which is sad for any who want to be serious.
Does not civil disobedience require sometimes going to jail rather than obey the law? Do some of you think such is never justified, or that it is not justified because this person believes marriage should be between one man and one woman and you think that is dumb?
Leviticus, yes, as you said, to quote the verse is only to begin a discussion if you are serious about it. It is clear that “rendering unto Caesar” is not a ‘No conflict here” card. When Caesar demands to be worshiped as god, don’t render him that. Here Caesar is requiring this woman to do something God disapproves of. Maybe if she was hearing more clearly from God she would resign her job instead of going to jail. I don’t know.
In one way this is a necessary hardship (and not that hard, we’re just not used to it). For too long too many of us in the US think we can follow Jesus in a way that does not offend anybody. That is not, never has been, and never will be true. (Though it is imperative to offend over the right reasons, like dicing up live-born pre-term infants for parts.)
I’ve said earlier I thought she should resign or face getting locked up and/or fired. Others have said that there is a legitimate question about the extent of accommodation.
Is it true that one couple involved in a suit is from Ohio? How did they get the proverbial standing to sue a county clerk from a place that was not their residence???
In one way I support her stand. If America wants to support the lawlessness that has been Obama and Holder and Clinton and put this woman in jail, they are just nailing “their”/our own coffin.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:40 pmWeep for yourselves, Jerusalem.
My assumption, Leviticus, is that once upon a time there were enough people who had enough horse-sense to realize it was good for a society to have children and raise them in a healthy setting, which has been demonstrated to be more likely a two parent household instead of a one parent and a parent better than an orphanage (I presume on the latter).
And so society in the US did things to promote having and raising children in intact homes.
But then parts of society decided we didn’t need to have babies, we could abort them, and we could import people from other countries who don’t speak our language to take care of us when we are old (or maybe inject us when we hit 75, or is it 65?).
And we don’t need families to raise children, we can always make excuses when the increased delinquency of fatherless homes becomes epidemic.
That’s what Caesar’s rendering has got us.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:49 pmNo joke, burn it down and stuff as many of the Politicians, Lawyers, Media and Academics in the building.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:01 pmher employee performance review is gonna SUCK
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:05 pmWhen gay people want the stability of marriage, and the stabilizing effect of marriage on their childrearing, we deny them that right, and when straight people want a destabilizing divorce (or two, or three), and don’t care about the destabilizing effect of divorce on their childrearing, we grant them that right… and then turn around and claim that we preserve the institution of marriage for the sake of societal stability and stability in childrearing. That is absolutely surreal. I don’t understand it at all.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:10 pmNonsense, leviticus.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:12 pmHow is that “nonsense”? We allow straight parents to get divorced for no reason, but we don’t allow gay parents to get married for any reason? That’s the pro-family, pro-childrearing position we should have?
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:25 pm“pro-family” is one of them dog whistles what just means anti-gay
remember how Focus on the Family made child molesting whore-banger Josh Duggar the face of their organization?
that was hilarious
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:31 pm#113, Huh? There so many logical flaws in that one that it is hard to digest.
So supporting divorce for straights is contradictory with believing marriage is just man/women?
Yeah, that is a stretch.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:34 pm#116 Everything is a dog whistles to people who are conditioned to think they are everybody’s victim.
Pro family is not anti-gay but anti gay marriage. That is like saying you are against Marriage and therefore you are against straight people. Retarded.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:36 pmDo you want me to think critically for you?
First, there is little to no evidence that a two adult gay household is a stable place to raise a child
even if there was, there is no evidence that marriage helps to promote the stability of that household.
Second, even if it were the case, there is no evidence that such is the major concern of the people here.
Third, for your argument to have any credit, you would need to show that the same people who disapprove of SSM at the same time agree with easy heterosexual divorce.
Fourth, even if this individual has had divorces in the past, does that nullify her opinion now?
Does a person who once had an abortion need to be pro”-choice” the rest of her life??
I don’t plan on any more repartee with you on this, Leviticus.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:36 pmthe important thing to realize is that the third leg of poor addled ronald reagan’s decrepit and wholly unloved stool insists on the right to dictate to everyone else in america how they should live and will adjudge them to be “amoral” and “rampantly unbiblical” if they play hopscotch outside the trailer park’s designated hopscotch area
if this happens to you do NOT panic
just shine on lil diamond
cause you’re a superstar yeah that’s what you are you know it
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:49 pmYeah. Probably a waste of time.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:53 pm“Repartee,” that is.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:54 pm“the important thing to realize is that the third leg of poor addled ronald reagan’s decrepit and wholly unloved stool insists on the right to dictate to everyone else in america how they should live and will adjudge them to be “amoral” and “rampantly unbiblical” if they play hopscotch outside the trailer park’s designated hopscotch area”
– happyfeet
Zing
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/3/2015 @ 3:55 pmWait…does this mean that the Mayors of LA & SanFran now have to follow US law in regards to illegal immigrants? Or is that the ‘approved’ kind of law flouting?
MrScience_ (cd3d49) — 9/3/2015 @ 4:04 pmNight soil! Rowan County did not invade Ohio and tell its corksoakers to stop packing fudge. The corksoakers from Ohio did a drive-by in Rowan County and said “Hey, you backwards, hicks! We’re queer and we love it. And you better love it, too, or we’ll take you to court, you thavageth!”
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 4:42 pmhappyfeet,
It’s rare to see people like you who refuse or are unable to see both sides of an issue. I’m not talking about people who understand both sides but can’t agree, I’m talking about people who simply can’t see another side. It mystifies me to see this but there are others here who do the same thing on other issues, so it’s obviously not unusual.
DRJ (521990) — 9/3/2015 @ 4:57 pmRule of law is such a quaint concept. It makes me chuckle.
JD (5e65d2) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:06 pmdrj i’m more of a john cougar john deere matt 8:5-6 kinda pika
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:14 pmHe’s a nasty rabid pikachu, like Louis c.k. or Maher.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:45 pmhello i have feelings
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:47 pmReagan did believe in bradford’s ‘shining city on a hill’ not the wretched redoubt we see today.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:51 pmAh, I did not give the reference to Jude 3,4.
What responsibility does this county official in KY have to issue a marriage license to people who live in Ohio?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:52 pmCan she be fired? Or does she need to be recalled? Are the people of her county supporting her?
Its the same carp they tried in indiana. If they did in Shia kasich would have to take a stand.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/3/2015 @ 5:59 pmEven when you don’t like the law, as a government official, you must carry it out (unless to do so would be so immoral that it would represent the very breakdown of society).
Well, I guess that is the sticking point, isn’t it?
Some people, like this county official, think enabling same-sex marriage is an assault on the foundation of human society, antithetical to the natural order as clearly displayed by nature and nature’s god.
And there isn’t anything anyone else is going to do to make them change their opinion.
Isn’t she engaging in classic civil disobedience? If you were a police officer back in the day and were told to break the heads of some civil rights protesters at a lunch counter would you have felt obligated to bust heads or quit? Was there no place for, “Not doing that chief, fire me if you want?”
Does it not simply reduce to whether one agrees with her or not?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:01 pmyes yes yes Mr. narciso and even as his mind was slip slip slippering away he birthed the bush dynasty as his last gift to failmerica
thanks ronnie
you’re a peachy peachy picklepoo don’t let anyone tell you different
keep rockin that stool gipperkins
rock it for nancy
rock it for me
but most of all rock it for poor kimmy d
oppressed and beat down
yet aglow with the crown
of thorns
she wears so fetchingly
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:02 pmOk, according to this LAT article at least one same-sex pair in the lawsuit lives in Morehead (that is in Rowan County), and maybe five out of the six pairs in the lawsuit, some normal and some Obergefell, do. So I have been very likely* wrong and proceeding on “erroneous” information.
*Only “very likely” because you never know with LAT.
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:02 pmis ok it was a reasonable hypothesis
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:04 pmI think I caused a bit of confusion this morning.
The two Ohio men I referred to were featured in a news report. They have, as far as I know, no connectionn to the lawsuit against Davis.
The actual name plaintiffs seem to be two pairs of Rowan County residents, although I have seen no precise confirmation of that. At the least, both pairs (one male, one female) were turned down more than once by Davis.
Here is the most detailed report I found on the male couple
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Gay-couple-denied-marriage-license-three-times-sues-Rowan-County-Clerk-Kim-Davis-323488531.html
The article mentions that the county executive who might give licenses in place of the clerk feels he lacks that power.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:04 pmMy fault, nk. I referred to a news report. You thought I meant the lawsuit. Should have been clearer.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:08 pmThanks, nk and kishnevi.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:12 pmThis is exactly like how they sought out bakers and photographers and florists that they knew were Christians.
JD (5e65d2) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:33 pmBoth Jews and Christians were fine with rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Until Caesar places himself upon the altar.
According to Kim Davis’ lawyer, she wanted one simple accommodation from the state when the SCOTUS legalized SSM. Change the marriage license for so that her name, title and signature isn’t on it. Because I noted upthread the verbiage on the form implies she personally approves of the marriage and authorizes it due to her office.
She would issue the licenses her name, signature, and title wasn’t on it. But apparently it’s important to make her comply to the state religion, which demands she personally approves of gay marriage.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:36 pmShocking they have left that out of the accounts.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:39 pmThat’s a ridiculous demand.
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:43 pmOf course that’s exactly what the five SCOTUS justices who obliterated the rights of the citizens to have any say in marriage did.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:49 pmObama: “Senator Reid, I want to veto this Republican budget but I don’t need the grief when I’m almost ready to break 100. Can I do it by leaving my name, title and office out of it?”
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:50 pmReid:
Reid:
Reid:
Obama: “Senator Reid, are you there? Senator Reid? Senator Reid? Harry, are you there?”
if god done seen her name on one of them licenses he’d probably slap her across her insipid unlovely sinner face and tell her to throw some pizza rolls in the filth-encrusted microwave cause of if she was gonna be all like that then at least he was gonna get a tasty snack out of the deal and besides he never added her to the trailer lease so she better not make him tell her nothin twice
and then after that they’d make up and have disgusting waterbed trailer sex involving a curious admixture of vaseline and sordid vhs tapes, after which she’d once again retreat to the kitchenette and do that thing with the mac n cheese and the canned tuna he likes just oh so well
so kiss it
i too once thought i was
worth something
in kentucky
in the latter days of failmerica
a country what once tasted the rule of law
and some real tasty pizza rolls
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 6:55 pmdo you remember
Steve, changing the text probably requires action by the legislature (which apparently won’t meet until January) or the Kentucky Supreme Court via its rule making powers, which is not an overnight thing. It would be a long term solution, but leave everything in limbo in the short term.
But the plaintiffs could simply drive to the next county, get a license there, and use it to marry anywhere in Kentucky. The trophy hunting, to use your phrase, is not egregious but is present.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:09 pmYou will be forced to affirm.
JD (3898b3) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:27 pmKishnevi – actually changing the law only matters on certain things. Obamacare can be changed by waiver, ignoring certain aspects until O is out of office, EPA and FCC go about like the law doesn’t exist, and judges can just deem whatever they want to be in a law. But actually changing the law, silly talk. The rule of law is a quaint and laughable notion anymore.
JD (3898b3) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:30 pmkishnevi, I’m sure you’re right about the time constraints. It’s amazing to me how quickly our masters in DC expect immediate and complete compliance with their edicts rewriting millennia of an entire moral code while these same political masters tell courts it’s going to take years to comply with simple FOIA requests. How come Kim Davis doesn’t deserve the same kind of time to respond to demands? Surely everyone could have waited until the legislature came back into session and the new forms were printed.
I’m wondering, if we were going to start jailing government officials for selectively enforcing the law, why did we start with Kim Davis? As opposed to, say, the entire IRS Tax Exempt Organizations Division. Or the DoJ’s Voting Rights Division, which has decided that they only exist to spring into action when whites deprive blacks of their voting rights, not when black officials deprive whites of their voting rights as they did in Nuxobee county Mississippi.
Hillary! has put out a completely unself-aware tweet about how government officials must adhere to the law and Supreme Court Decisions to the letter. I’d like to ask her if she would pledge to adhere to and respect the Citizen’s United decision as she expects Kim Davis to adhere to and respect the Obergefell decision.
If we’re going start throwing government officials in jail for failing to comply with court orders I don’t expect to hear any squealing when it Koskinen or Kerry, and the judges start working their way down from there.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:39 pmThat’s the entire point of having a state religion, JD. All must affirm.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:40 pmPaging Orwell to the white courtesy phone.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:47 pmhappy, you are so effing glib about other people’s core beliefs, it’s amazing. This woman would rather die than participate in what she views as blasphemous. You giggle and prove yourself an utter ass.
I dearly hope that someday you are forced to do something you find offensive, but right-thinking people everywhere think you ought to do.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:50 pmKevin M, happyfascist respects other people’s core beliefs just so long as those core beliefs are his.
Just like any other fascist.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:53 pmHappyfascist is the most tolerant guy on this board who would share a tasty burrito with anyone.
Just so long as they are not the intolerant type who don’t think and act like happyfascist wants them to.
Happyfascist dislikes people who are so intolerant and rude as to not conform.
Intolerant people who think unapproved thoughts and hold unapproved beliefs make lil’ pikachu cry.
And want to imprison them for their “bad choices.”
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/3/2015 @ 7:57 pmshe needs to resign cause of she can’t fulfill her duties
it’s not hard Mr. M
it’s not a thought puzzle
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:06 pmWe are nearing, if haven’t already arrived, at the pearls and swine moment.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:08 pmSome may be willing to eat burritos with many people,
but I think Paul would be telling the congregation not to eat with them (I Cor. 5:11)
happyfascist respects other people’s core beliefs just so long as those core beliefs are his.
He’s a hoot because he on more than a few occasions has used the word “gay” in a condescending, pejorative way in a variety of his posts dating back a few years and has also avoided saying whether he’s had or would have a social-sexual relationship with another male (and just about no guy on planet Earth will ever respond in a similar way to the question of whether he’s had relationships with women). IOW, he talks out of both sides of his mouth when he implies there’s no reason for people to be uncomfortable with homosexuality or to treat it in a disparaging or less-than-positive manner.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:18 pmThere are a percentage of people who either sympathize with or chortle at the clerk in Kentucky regardless whether how they feel about same-sex marriage. But I have a hunch a fairly large portion of other people who deal with the clerk and the issue of American law and judges, the US Supreme Court and the Constitution are swayed by their gut reactions to SSM and homosexuality.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:24 pmWhy is happyfeet a fascist for saying essentially the same things Patterico said in the post?
nk (dbc370) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:44 pmshe needs to resign cause of she can’t fulfill her duties
it’s not hard Mr. M
it’s not a thought puzzle
You keep saying that. Doesn’t make it true. Governor Brown didn’t do his duty. AG Harris didn’t do her duty. About 15 other AG’s didn’t do theirs either. None of them resigned. Why do Christians have to resign?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:49 pmTolerance is for things happyfeet likes and the rest of us should stop being so evil.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/3/2015 @ 8:50 pmthere’s a clause there’s a clause and it’s a famous clause they call it the establishment clause
this is all so creepy
that it needs explaining is so creepy
it’s like failmerica’s devolving right in front of our eyes
i don’t know how to stop it
happyfeet (831175) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:06 pmThe alternative is simple: civil disobedience. That means breaking the law, and suffering the consequences, but doing it for a cause you hold dear.
She is doing that. It is her right. It is also appropriate for her to be held in contempt.
One does wonder, however, if any appropriate consideration was offered her. The only “compromise” was for her to authorize her deputies to issue the licenses. But if she cannot issue them as a matter of conscience, authorizing someone else to do so causes the same problem.
This part of the culture war is going to last a long time – a consequence of rule by judges instead of democracy. I expect no consideration to be offered to people of conscience. The precedent of allowing draftees to avoid killing in combat as a matter of conscience is going to be ignored.
In the culture wars, it is not enough to get what is wanted. All opposition has to be silenced and everyone has to at least pretend to approve of whatever is being pushed. The more radical gay activists resemble nobody more than the Stasi in East Germany or the Khmer Rouge. The only difference is that the punishments are mere jailing or ruin, not execution.
John Moore (8763a1) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:21 pmI grapple with this regularly, as a practical function of my work: the balance between true “free exercise” and the far darker opportunism that accompanies it as a function of fallen human nature. The Catholic Church (for instance) will hide behind the First Amendment when it instructs its priests in Crimen Solicitationis never, ever to report child sex abusers to civil authorities, upon penalty of excommunication – and it may well succeed, because there’s some Latin thrown in there or something. What? How to we devolve to saying something like that? That’s “free exercise”? Of course not. That’s the inevitable externality of any political economy. We shake our head and move on. Humans gonna human. It’s what we do.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/3/2015 @ 9:50 pmI like the old Leviticus better. This one is pedestrian, preferring tropes and canards to actual thinking. That last one should have been embarrassing, Levi.
JD (34f761) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:00 pmThe day you say something constructive will be the day I think twice about giving a f*ck of your opinion of me, JD.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:29 pmAs I read somewhere else, so the mayors of sanctuary cities will be falling in line right behind this clerk as they all head off to incarceration?
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:38 pm“Under who’s authority, are you aiding and abetting those who are here ILLEGALLY????”
Gus (7cc192) — 9/3/2015 @ 10:49 pmWhy can OBAMA run guns to MEXICAN GANGS….via FAST and FURIOUS, and USE THE IRS to ILLEGALLY violate the RIGHTS of those who oppose his POLITICAL POSITIONS?? How is it POSSIBLE that our PRESIDENT, allows the RANCID THUNDERTHIGHED CANKLES RODHAM, to use HERS, and her PERVERT husbands NON-SECURE, NON-GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SERVER, to do the BIZNESS……the f’ing STATE DEPTS BIZNESS. And when this is EXPOSED (WEINER ALERT WEINER ALERT) when SHE IS CAUGHT. We are to take HER WORD for WHAT WAS DELETED????? THE RULE OF LAW IS EL FINITO. Why is ANYONE to obey the law, when OBAMA and RODHAM and HOLDER etc etc etc DO NOT???
Well, at least Hillary agrees that the law is the law.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/4/2015 @ 1:26 amthey call it the establishment clause
Your eyes go right over the free exercise clause, it seems.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/4/2015 @ 1:28 amCan someone answer if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applies to Mrs. Davis?
Also, for those saying she is not much of a Christian because she has been married 4 times and divorced 3 times. She has only been a Christian 4 years. Her divorces happened before she became a Christian.
Again, doesn’t RFRA apply?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 3:37 amSo, Kim Davis goes to jail for not obeying the law and then the judge directs her employees to issue marriage licenses without her signature which is required by law. When does the judge start his jail sentence?
Jim (a9b7c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 4:24 amWhen will we see these type cases against muslim bakers, dj’s, photographers, clerks, etc, etc…
Jim (a9b7c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 4:26 amNo, Tanny. It applies to acts of Congress. Not the application of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection. There, the defense would be the First Amendment which provides lesser protection.
The only colorable issue, and only in a federal court, is that the lady refused to issue genuine marriage licenses as well as Obergefells, and therefore there is no denial of equal protection. The federal court would have to find that 1) that was only a pretext to deny Obergefells or 2) that there is a Constitutional right to marriage licenses for everyone, i.e. that states must have marriage laws. ???? I think it should, and will, go with Door Number 1.
A Kentucky court would only need to say, “This is a ministerial and not a discretionary act. Do the job the taxpayers are paying you to do, you blonde twit. Or exchange jobs with the dogcatcher. You don’t have a problem with dog licenses, do you?”
nk (dbc370) — 9/4/2015 @ 4:44 amWe have historical precedent, Jim:
Little Rock Central High School was the focal point of the Little Rock Integration Crisis of 1957.[7] Nine African-American students, known as the Little Rock Nine, were denied entrance to the school in defiance of the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordering integration of public schools.[7] This provoked a showdown between the Governor Orval Faubus and President Dwight D. Eisenhower that gained international attention.[7]
On the morning of September 23, 1957, the nine African-American high school students faced an angry mob of over 1,000 White Americans protesting integration in front of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.[7] As the students were escorted inside by the Little Rock police, violence escalated and they were removed from the school.[7] The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 327th Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school.[7] By the same order, the entire 10,000 man Arkansas National Guard was federalized, to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.[7] At nearby Camp Robinson, a hastily organized Task Force 153rd Infantry drew guardsmen from units all over the state.[7] Most of the Arkansas Guard was quickly demobilized, but the ad hoc TF153Inf assumed control at Thanksgiving when the 327th withdrew, and patrolled inside and outside the school for the remainder of the school year.
😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/4/2015 @ 4:51 amIf the 14th amendment makes everything equal, why did we need the 15th and 19th amendments?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 5:02 amHow does that apply to SSM? When congress passed the 14th amendment there were anti-sodomy laws on the books that were not repealed. They did not determine that those laws were unconstitutional when the 14th amendment was passed, so how does it apply to anyone other than blacks?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 5:11 amIn the first place, that has not been the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment since 1873 (the Slaughtehouse Cases), and in the second place “asked and answered” in Evans, Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell so that question is now noncupatory.
nk (dbc370) — 9/4/2015 @ 5:17 amBecomes the love that can’t shut up
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/4/2015 @ 5:49 amUp, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde in the only thing that matters as well as the sacrifice to Moloch.
Reiterating for a new day-
We have already ceased being a nation governed by laws, as the President and Fed DOJ have openly chosen not to enforce federal law and ignore court rulings,
so the current “governing authority” is what you can get away with, controlled by the left and their PR wing much of the US media.
One can make arguments as to whether something should have been offered as an accommodation for the clerk or not,
but it seems to me, in the final analysis, that whether one thinks there is merit to her action or not is whether one agrees with the premise or not that marriage is between a man and woman, and if the US gov wants to make an analogous social contract for a same-sex couple go ahead, just don’t get all Orwell and tell us that it falls under the same label as an institution existing for millennia and is used by an overwhelming majority of people on earth presently for that only between a man and woman as well.
The apparent task at hand is to obliterate the idea of individual conscience and replace it with unswerving loyalty and devotion to the sanctioned views “they” tell us to have.
I have already said that personally, I think I would have been inclined to resign if it was me, but it’s not, and I am trying to understand what arguments would support her actions.
For those inclined to look at this from a context of faith and Biblical merit, when the law was decreed to worship no god except the Babylonian king, Daniel could have decided to pray as he always did, but do it perhaps a little more quietly, or with the shutters to his room closed, either way, not to be so obvious to be observed when he prayed to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But he apparently felt that would be a compromise that he could not do. There were consequences to his action, but no suggestion that he made a wrong decision.
There are at least 2 things that separate this from the cases with bakers and such,
one has been readily pointed out, that she is in a governmental position with a responsibility to issue marriage licenses.
The other difference, from what I have seen, is that for her to issue a marriage license as currently constituted, does require her to affix her signature as giving personal approval. Clearly one argument against the bakers,etc., has been the claim that their limited participation should not be taken as a personal endorsement of the event.
It appears that the clerk had previously requested a change in the marriage license documentation so that it did not require her personal endorsement, as what would have been a compromise that would have been acceptable to her. It seems we do not know exactly what the process would be and how long it would take to do this. Some have suggested this is a ridiculous request.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 6:16 amWell, I think a notary-like seal of “The Office of the County Clerk” instead of her personal signature would be a reasonable accommodation.
That’s hard to believe given your comment 82 where you said to Eric Blair “oh god it’s that creepy stalker dude what’s obsessed with me.” Accusing another commenter of perverted criminal behavior is not what someone with feelings would say.
DRJ (521990) — 9/4/2015 @ 6:24 amAnd that unswerving loyalty deserves snapped heels, an upraised arm and a hearty Heil!. Basically they told the pizza guy, the baker, the photographer, the venue owner and now the county clerk : “We have ways of dealing with you”. Understand, in all these occurrences I am with the Christians except the county clerk. She has no Constitutional right to the job, to define the job the way she sees fit or to refuse to do her job. She can quit if she’s that committed. The others were dealing with their own labor, businesses and individual religious beliefs not related to government employment. They were right, thus they were persecuted. She is wrong and should be fired.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/4/2015 @ 6:34 ambecause it’s in their nature:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/why-the-left-hunts-kim-davis/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/4/2015 @ 6:49 amHoagie,
I agree that she could rightfully be removed from her post, and that she has no right to the job, and that “I probably would have quit”
But I guess I’m inclined to accept the idea that if she “wants” to be put in jail as an act of civil disobedience to bring attention to an unjust state of affairs, that is an argument she can make.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 6:54 amIf the people of the county choose not to remove her from office, but to let her force the issue with higher ups, they can choose to do that too.
I disagree with this quote from your link, narciso:
Most support for “traditional marriage” was not based on a sophisticated and principled conviction, but rather the social intuition that supporting marriage-as-it-has-always-been was the safe, respectable opinion.
There was plenty of sophisticated and principled conviction, such as from Robby George, it was just ignored and marginalized.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:01 amyes, I do not agree with everything Mrs. Hemingway says, like when she had a conniption fit over the Huntress’s pointed jibe at the NRA convention last year,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:02 amIt was the pro argument, “How is John and Jim’s marriage going to bother your marriage”,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:02 amthat was not very sophisticated or principled.
not arguing with you, just a bit agitated, testy, and overly vigilant over the state of affairs
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:04 amjust like ‘the boy needs to be with his father’ everyone including terrorists ‘deserve an atty’ and things of that nature,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:05 am“But I guess I’m inclined to accept the idea that if she “wants” to be put in jail as an act of civil disobedience to bring attention to an unjust state of affairs, that is an argument she can make.
If the people of the county choose not to remove her from office, but to let her force the issue with higher ups, they can choose to do that too.”
– MD in Philly
I think those are very good and important points. Even if there she could have handled this another way, it would be an act of courage on her part to take a contempt charge and jail time for the sake of pointing out the ugly role of the State in this issue.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:15 amLive by the sword, die by the sword. Reap the PC that you sow, Democrats.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:19 amThat’s hard to believe
oh sweet pickle you have no idea of all the things what I *don’t* say
and you know why i do not say them?
feelings.
i has them
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:25 amAs I read somewhere else, so the mayors of sanctuary cities will be falling in line right behind this clerk as they all head off to incarceration?
That’s why various people of liberal persuasion — who love the ethos of “no justice, no peace!,” who were big enablers to the Occupy Wall Street crowd — had better shut their big mouths about the clerk from Kentucky.
A good test to determine exactly where people are coming from emotionally/ideologically is knowing whether they’re more resentful towards Kim Davis or more indignant towards the leftist mayors purposefully flouting laws pertaining to the “undocumented.”
Did Patterico ever do a post on pro-sanctuary mayors?
Mark (dc566c) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:38 amI don’t like some of the things I said in this thread, either. I blame autocorrect.
nk (dbc370) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:43 am“Did Patterico ever do a post on pro-sanctuary mayors?”
– Mark
Yes. But don’t let that get in the way of your unified field theory of the liberal persuasion.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:48 amOur esteemed host wrote:
Although Mrs Davis did not express it that way, I would say that yes, the legal status of same-sex “marriages” is very much part of the “very breakdown of society.”
Abraham Lincoln (supposedly) said, If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? No, the dog still has four legs; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
And calling the relationship between two homosexuals a marriage does not make that the case, either.
The Catholic Dana (f6a568) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:49 amYes.
I’m referring to a post about the act of elected officials flouting anti-illegal-immigration laws of and by themselves, beyond the particular effects such actions have on a community, such as the murder of a young woman. IOW, if it weren’t for the case of Kate Steinle, or the case of a judge putting Kim Davis in jail, would Patterico’s reactions of indignation be equal towards the mayors and the clerk, or be slightly lopsided?
Mark (dc566c) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:57 amI love this. You are like the Terminator, Mark. I will leave you to your insinuations.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:00 amSo you’re actually thinking worse things than you say? Good to know.
DRJ (521990) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:06 amI am curious what law is she violating? IIRC KY does not have a SSM law. Also the federal government cannot make marriage law either as seen by the SCOTUS DOMA decision.
The federal judge is basically enforcing a SCOTUS decision as if they had the authority to create legislation. Since he jailed an elected official over a non-existent law, perhaps he should have violated KY law in a different manner by allowing people to seek their marriage license in another KY county that would issue the license without supporting legislation.
FlameCCT (21ecee) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:07 amSo you are saying that the Constitution means nothing and we no longer live in a constitutional republic, but instead live in a black robed oligarchy?
That about right?
NJRob (2cbf9c) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:07 amyes yes yes
this is just a moonlight soaked ring of smoke right hand on a cold one confession
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:08 amLiberals blow. Enjoy your Friday.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:13 amHappyfascist,
you’re exactly what you always have been. A troll. A poseur. A cheap stunt. A coward. Someone that tries to derail discussions because of his screwed up personality. Get help. You need it.
NJRob (2cbf9c) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:13 amThis fails as a parallel in several ways.
Daniel was a victim of a plot hatched by satraps (in a sense, governors) under authority of Darius the Mede, who appointed Daniel to a high position, making him a target of jealousy. The satraps appealed to Darius’ ego in order to convince him to declare that only he ought to be prayed to, not knowing that it was a sham in order to assure that Daniel would be sentenced to death – legally – for not complying. For this to be close to similar to Davis’ situation, one would have to accept that the entire same-sex marriage movement was intended to put her behind bars, which I hope you’ll agree is inaccurate.
The job of County Clerk itself is primarily a clerical one; Davis is the custodian of the documents every government needs to maintain. She is not a judge, she is not a magistrate. On the other hand, she is a notary. Her job is to make sure the law is followed as far as eligibility is concerned (there are fines and penalties if a clerk knowingly issuing a license to underage or first-cousin applicants) to get the signatures in a file, and make sure that the original copy is returned after the wedding ceremony. THAT’S IT. Marriage licenses are among the least important duties of Kentucky County Clerks. Davis’ assertion that her name as clerk on marriage licenses denotes her approval of the marriages is LAUGHABLE.
Even more ridiculous is her assertion that “This is a heaven or hell issue for me,” which implies that the God that looks down on her and sees that she is truly distressed that the Supreme Court has changed His marriage arrangement will nonetheless send her to Camp Beelzebub if she dares issue a marriage license to homosexuals under her own name. If it comes out of her office under a generic title, or the name of a deputy clerk with no such compunction, the Almighty’s cool with that, but not if it says “Kimberly Davis” on it. And, supposedly, He is also OK with the idea that NOBODY in Rowan County should be issued a license — even traditional couples — until the whole damned system changes for our Miss Kimberly.
I would invite everyone with their knickers in a knot over l’affaire Davis to focus on situations that actually have relevance in the everyday world of Christians who reject same-sex marriage, such as Elaine Hugenin, the New Mexico photographer whose four-figure fine for rejecting a job offered by two lesbians has resulted in similar cases being brought against other small business owners, often for penalties over six figures. Find out how the legendary First Amendment precedent established by West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (SCOTUS, 1943) has for all intents and purposes been overturned by Elane Photography v. Willette. Observe how Mike Pence’s unconscionable cave-in on Indiana’s RFRA act guarantees that more Christian entrepreneurs will be targeted for destruction if they remain righteously defiant.
Kim Davis is a drama queen with an inflated sense of her own importance. She was asking for jail by her actions, and she got it. The best case scenario for her is that perhaps she will be able to do her job (and collect her state employee pension) without anybody having evidence a century later because her moniker is missing from the documents. It would be a grievous error to make her the face of resistance to judicial tyranny when so many more people are deserving, and, frankly, sane.
L.N. Smithee (880b3e) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:25 amyou’re mean
but that’s ok cause of i just saw a sloth
they have one downstairs!
she’s a very zen lil critter she flows around on her perch kinda like a fuzzy lava lamp and then she takes a nap
they also had a lil baby anteater that smelled a lot like skunk but was still super-cute
they also had an endangered blanding’s turt turt
beautiful creature and the turt turt lady says they’re gonna take this lil guy to the breeding pond soon
Mr. Instapundit would like this part:
they can live to 80 or so
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:28 amMark,
There is a category on this website called Deport the Criminals First where Patterico has expounded on the illegal alien problem and sanctuary cities. Long before Kate Steinle was murdered Patterico was writing about the evil of the wrongly named sanctuary cities.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:05 amThank you Leviticus for taking the time to consider my points.
L.N. Smithee- I appreciate your direct response,
but I don’t think you directed any of your arguments to the exact analogy/reference/point that I was making.
My only point was that it would have been easy for Daniel to do something slightly different to be not so “in your face” about who he prayed to and he could have avoided a lot of trouble. But he choose not to go that way.
Even more ridiculous is her assertion that “This is a heaven or hell issue for me,” which implies that the God that looks down on her and sees that she is truly distressed that the Supreme Court has changed His marriage arrangement will nonetheless send her to Camp Beelzebub if she dares issue a marriage license to homosexuals under her own name.
I do not know if you are actually quoting her, but I suspect you are making a “quote” of her apparent thinking as she is willing to go to jail over it. The way you characterize her fear of going to “Camp Beelzebub” is totally foreign to my understanding of Christian belief and daily life.
A person who believes in the historic apostolic Christian faith as laid out in the NT believes that everyone has already been rightfully assigned to “Camp Beelzebub” through our own rebellion against God, but in His mercy He was willing to take that punishment upon Himself so that we could be forgiven. Everything that a believer does in life should be intended as a reflection of thanks and love in response. The thought should not be, “Oh my, if I do this I’m going to be sent to Camp Beelzebub”, but “Jesus suffered on a cross for me, am I going to let fear of any person on this earth intimidate me to deny His truth?”
Now, what action is required in any given circumstance to be faithful to the Lord is often open to question,such as whether she could/should have simply resigned.
As far as her being a “drama queen”, I have no idea.
My next posts, if any, will be on the next thread covering this topic.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:06 amMaybe the Supreme Court justices who rule this way should be impeached for not upholding the constitution.
Kim Davis was voted in to do a job that did not include SSM. The requirements of the job changed and she’s asked for a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to do her job without violating her faith. She is not preventing people from getting a SSM license since she is in only one of the 3 counties out of 120 that aren’t issuing SSM licenses. For that matter she is not issuing any marriage licenses, traditional or same sex until a minor accommodation can be made which will allow her to continue her duties without violating her conscience.
Why are people crossing counties that issue SSM licenses to force Mrs. Davis to violate her conscience?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:16 amTanny
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:26 amI think the idea that people were crossing county lines to get to her was a mistake in fact, as I had the same question myself.
Kim Davis was voted in to do a job that did not include SSM. The requirements of the job changed and she’s asked for a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to do her job without violating her faith.
Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:16 amI have yet to hear a reason why it “violates her faith” beyond “Because I said it does.” Wanna take a shot at it?
L.N. Smithee (e750c1) — 9/4/2015 @ 10:08 am#104 – Rodney King’s Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/3/2015 @ 2:06 pm – wrote:
#101, There is not one iota of honesty in the Legal Profession today. I can’t speak for 1792, I was not there. But I do know this, the way things have evolved to where:
1) Definition of “is” is in flux — a lawyer did that
2) You delete a server, joke about it, destroy evidence then argue semantics that no 8 year old would be so bold as to — a lawyer did that
3) You make thought crimes illegal (criminalizing discrimination by private people in non-governmental institutions) — a lawyer did that
4) You tell us a video did it — a lawyer did that
5) You over turn two CA Referendums on gay marriage without disclosing you are Gay — a lawyer did that
6) You call it a penalty until it suits you to call it a tax to justify a ruling — a lawyer did that
Again, the root of our problem is LAWYERS distort, lie and cheat to get whatever they want with no sense of respect for the truth or integrity.
So, I applaud the women. SCOTUS GFY. Simple. You fucking lawyers have all the answers then you do the work. Otherwise GFY.
And I think I speak for 80% of the non-lawyers out there.
________________________________________________________________________
Ya also speak for a big % of the lawyers. At least the honest ones. GLZ.
Gary L. Zerman (7141da) — 9/5/2015 @ 11:12 amDo you NEED a password for this porn site?
Sex NK Get a Pass – http://www.sexnk.net/w/14256/
Sex NK Get a Pass (a73fd3) — 10/1/2015 @ 7:38 pm