Patterico's Pontifications

9/4/2015

Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Refusing to Issue Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am



In the District Attorney’s office, some people are opposed to the death penalty. The office makes an accommodation for such people because of their beliefs, and finds someone else to do the case. I think this is appropriate.

Kim Davis has a religious belief that she believes prevents her from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Her employers should try to arrange an accommodation for her. Since I don’t work in that office, I don’t know if they have tried, or how easy it would be.

That said, the licenses must be issued, and if no accommodation is possible, she can’t simply refuse. If government officials simply refuse to carry out their functions, the system breaks down.

So I’m disappointed to see Ted Cruz issuing this statement:

U.S. Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis:

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

Cruz goes on to point out the lawlessness of several other actors in the political system, including the lawless judges who declared gay marriage was a right under the 14th Amendment, and the lawless actions of this president. I agree with him, and I could add more examples, Hillary’s handling of emails being one glaring example. It seems that the laws in this country apply to little people. This causes people to be contemptuous of law generally.

But the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it. I thought Ted Cruz understood that. And while I still support Ted Cruz as the best choice, I do so with a little less enthusiasm today.

540 Responses to “Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Refusing to Issue Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. I think the way to end lawlessness is to show people the law can accommodate their religious views, not that it will steamroll them.

    DRJ (521990)

  3. I would feel differently if we were talking about something that endangers people, but there has to be a way to balance these interests. Is that balancing likely to take place if no one stands up to the law?

    DRJ (521990)

  4. This won’t be long in coming: some homosexual working for a Catholic Church or agency will demand that his “husband” be recognized as his spouse for the purposes of health insurance and W-4 withholding and the like, to create some sort of wedge to say, “See, the Catholic Church recognizes same-sex ‘marriage.'”

    No good can come from this, but a lot of evil will.

    The very Catholic Dana (f6a568)

  5. But the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it.

    In light of the left making the US more and more of a banana republic, and given the phrase of “follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law” — and with the concept of the ned to fight fire with fire — the conclusion of “not to emulate it” is hunky-dory but should be expressed with very limited enthusiasm or conviction.

    Mark (dc566c)

  6. Greetings:

    I don’t agree with Ms. Davis’ not doing the job she accepted and was paid to do, but it sure would have been a lot more fun if she were a Muslim, no ???

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  7. is it really that straightforward, that the office “makes an accommodation” for people what are against the death penalty?

    it’s just common sense that you wouldn’t assign someone like that to a death penalty case

    the accommodation what’s being made is in the interest of justice, not in the interest of molly-coddling a special snowflake

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  8. oh. google says mollycoddling doesn’t take a hyphen

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  9. Her office is an elected position in Kentucky, so her employer is the citizens of the county. She swore an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Kentucky and is doing so. The state code has not been changed since the Supreme Court decision. If the judge who ruled against her has the authority to force her to act against her conscience, I suspect he may have the authority to remove her from office. His desire and the desire of the gay lobby is to force her to bend her will to theirs.

    Frank B. (5141e8)

  10. You need to understand that laws only apply to Christians where they are used as a club to beat them into submission. Everyone else can do what they want without fear of retribution. This is especially true if your name is clinton or obama.

    Think of the irony of the judge jailing Davis for “not following the (made up) law,” then orders her office to issue illegal licenses that don’t have the legal authorizing signature as required by the legitimate law.

    jim (a9b7c7)

  11. Following the strict rule of law angle, were people obligated to uphold the ruling in the Dred Scott case?

    Dejectedhead (81690d)

  12. The Supreme Court affirmed the right for gay marriage. It still needs local (read state) lawmakers to create the actual law allowing it since marriage is a state function and not a federal one. Supreme, superior or municipal courts cannot create a law (despite Roe v. Wade and other decisions) but they can basically say that there is the need for a law to be made via their decisions. You can have the right, but sometimes you need a law stating it as well.

    David Crowley (e5c503)

  13. I do so with a little less enthusiasm today.

    The question is would you feel the exact — exact — same way if you had never been sympathetic towards SSM to begin with, well before and following this year’s Supreme Court ruling?

    Mark (dc566c)

  14. “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.”

    – Ted Cruz

    She. Could. Have. Resigned.

    This. Is. Not. Complicated.

    She is entitled to believe whatever she wants. She is not entitled to a) collect a salary for a government job, and b) not do that job.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  15. I agree with Mark’s question. I had the same one. Because you stood on the other side of the SSM debate than the majority of even Left-Wing California, your own position may be shading your opinion on this matter. I know my position is shading my opinion. SSM is, by definition, lawlessness to Christianity and Judaism. And when the Supreme Being’s law and the Nation’s law is at odds, always obey the Supreme Being’s law. Because Sheol burns with black hot fire.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  16. “I don’t agree with Ms. Davis’ not doing the job she accepted and was paid to do, but it sure would have been a lot more fun if she were a Muslim, no ???”

    I suspect she was hired long before this “law” was brought into existence. If she were hired after that, I would completely agree with you.

    I do agree on the Muslim point… there’s the big wedge to make this very interesting. Have some moderate Muslim that has the same doctrinal issue with this as Christians refuse and let the fireworks begin.

    Dan S (94f399)

  17. Yes, Leviticus, because the idea is to remove all devout Christians from positions inside our government. The US Government is becoming more and more incompatible with righteousness every day. And the country shall pay dearly for the evils REQUIRED of its citizens.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  18. She. Could. Have. Resigned.

    This. Is. Not. Complicated.

    She is entitled to believe whatever she wants. She is not entitled to a) collect a salary for a government job, and b) not do that job.
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:25 am

    Are we talking about Hillary here? It’s without question that she circumvented records-retention regulations by operating a private server, without even getting into the issues of classified documents, etc. She’s been held in contempt, right? Or told she should have resigned if she didn’t want to comply with regulations regarding her use of email as a government employee?

    Dan S (94f399)

  19. I’d say the Davis issue highlights the problem with Government tinkering in religious affairs to begin with. I understand that the government and religion has no firm boundary, but shouldn’t the Supreme Court decision have invalidated marriage law rather than expand it?

    Dejectedhead (81690d)

  20. “Yes, Leviticus, because the idea is to remove all devout Christians from positions inside our government.”

    – John Hitchcock

    Dear Caesar,

    I would like to apply for a position in your government. I know you got some crazy ideas and whatnot, but I’d still like to collect my monthly denarii from your coffers as a salary please. I have some job skills that you might find useful, like having a notary stamp.

    Sincerely,

    Kim Davis

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  21. Dan S – you’re preaching to the choir, man. I would have no problem with Clinton being held in contempt for violating the law.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  22. Kim Davis was elected. She can be voted out, but the people in her county would probably vote her back in. That’s an important point to stick on. She *is* representing people of her county. If not, then we would all find out next election cycle.

    Dejectedhead (81690d)

  23. False comparison fallacy, Leviticus, and you should know better than that.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  24. I find the idea that arresting her and imprisoning her is within the powers of a judge rather striking. Is she being held for contempt? Could the same thing be done with any government employee who obstructs or delays a court ordered activity? If this is the case, then I think I agree with Cruz that we need a little more clarity on exactly which laws and court orders are going to be enforced in such a manner today. And this needs to be updated and promulgated daily so that we have some idea of what the “Rule of Law” actually means from one day to the next.

    I rather hope she goes on a hunger strike. At what point would the Judge order intravenous feeding, or is that not required since she is now a prisoner? Are we to presume that she has no rights whatsoever? What if she removes the feeding tubes? Is it allowed that she be chained to steel frame to facilitate the feeding?

    It is ironic that the courts are supposed to enforce the concept of habeas corpus. Does she have any legal recourse to what this Judge has done to her?

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  25. a hunger strike and maybe a hot oil treatment would do her a load of good

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  26. “False comparison fallacy, Leviticus, and you should know better than that.”

    – John Hitchcock

    How is this a false comparison?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  27. A sense of morality and a sense of shame would do you a lot of good, happyfascist.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  28. When did your hypothetical righteous woman apply for the job, Leviticus? Before or after the government became antithetical to righteousness? Be honest instead of your usual setting (unrighteous snark) when responding.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  29. I think her position is reasonable and so is her being held in contempt.

    First, she was elected, not “hired”, and she was elected before the Supreme Court discovered that same-sex marriage has been a Constitutional right since 1868.

    So the laws she was elected to enforce were compatible with her conscience at the time, and now they are not, so she will not enforce them.

    The judge ruled that she had to and is holding her in contempt because she still won’t. She will be in contempt indefinitely, one guy was in contempt 14 years.

    But that’s how civil disobedience is supposed to work. You break and unjust law, and you accept the penalty for it.

    Gabriel Hanna (e2539b)

  30. …but shouldn’t the Supreme Court decision have invalidated marriage law rather than expand it?

    The SC decision did in effect invalidate marriage. Marriage is and all ways has been between a man and a woman and homos can and have gotten married. Now it’s a free for all not an institution, it’s a joke, a political point not a commitment. The entire enterprise of SSM was not to validate homo marriage, it was to help defeat Christianity.. Any idiot can see that. If it weren’t, why not attack a moslem too? For the same reason they don’t attack moslem bakers, pizza parlors, photographers or venue sponsors. They want to destroy all Christian influence in America, moslem influence they are very comfortable with. After al, they both respond to a different opinion the same way: crush it and the person holding it.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  31. “when the Supreme Being’s law and the Nation’s law is at odds, always obey the Supreme Being’s law.”

    Well, that’s fine … until you want to collect a continuing $80k paycheck from “the Nation’s law” while:

    – Refusing to do the job associated with that paycheck; and

    – Ordering your subordinates to refuse to the job associated with their similar paychecks.

    At that point, you’re not “obeying the Supreme Being’s law.” You’re just putting yourself on welfare while arrogating to yourself the right to run other people’s lives.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  32. Mr Hanna noted:

    First, she was elected, not “hired”, and she was elected before the Supreme Court discovered that same-sex marriage has been a Constitutional right since 1868.

    And if Mrs Davis were to run for re-election in Rowan County, she’d win in a landslide.

    The Dana who grew up in Kentucky, and set tobacco on his uncle's farm in Rowan County (f6a568)

  33. A reasonable accommodation is for the gay couple to drive 5 miles to the next county which has agreed to marry them.

    I have read a legal description of the marriage laws of that county that went into their ‘may’ and ‘shall’ and it was pretty clear that the county clerk there is not legally compelled to perform marriages of this type the same way my sheriff in Alameda County CA may issue a concealed carry permit but is not required to do so. You can hunt it up.

    luagha (0460b4)

  34. so committed christians are not allowed in public service, is that your argument, as the President once said, ‘it’s above his paygrade’

    narciso (ee1f88)

  35. As Cruz stated, when they start putting sanctuary city mayors in jail for violating federal law, then Kim Davis should be jailed.

    This is not a rule of law issue. This is Animal Farm.

    Scoob (764148)

  36. Mr. Hanna she took an oath before God – solemnly – and she BROKE her oath and showed herself to be FAITHLESS to Our Lord

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

    FAIL

    oh no honey no good

    you could have another job but you probably should not

    best if you bid us adieu

    cause to your oath you couldn’t be true

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  37. Thomas, you have a strange view of the County Clerk’s duties. According to your claim of “welfare”, her job is to sit around and wait for someone to want to get married. And if nobody wants to get married that week, then all she does is sit around. And if someone wants to get a pretend marriage (and that’s what SSM is, is pretend), then her only job is to hand out permission to get a pretend marriage. There is nothing else a County Clerk does, by definition provided by you.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  38. Happyfascist, no oath before the Wholly Righteous and Holy Lord which violates His Laws can be held as enforceable. One cannot be forced by the Most Holy to do something decidedly Unholy. Just like contract law: you cannot be forced by the government to fulfill your end of a criminal contract. “Judge, he signed the contract. He is obligated to kill my spouse. He failed to kill my spouse, so you have to fine him X amount of dollars for breech of contract.”

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  39. Excellent counter opinion:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/kim-davis-shows-that-breaking-the-law-is-only-okay-when-progressives-do-it/

    From linked article: . . .Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses:

    Newsom unleashed a political and legal tempest February 12 when he ordered the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Nearly 3,200 same-sex couples have gotten licenses in a nine-day frenzy that included thousands of family, friends and soon-to-be betrothed couples ringing City Hall, sometimes for days.
    Just like Kim Davis, who is an elected Democrat, Newsom justified his lawlessness by citing his own conscience and beliefs about right and wrong rather than deferring to the actual laws of his state.

    If you look for evidence of gay rights advocates chastising Newsom for his blatant lawlessness, you won’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist. . . .

    Scoob (764148)

  40. luagha wrote:

    A reasonable accommodation is for the gay couple to drive 5 miles to the next county which has agreed to marry them.

    Would you want to get married in Bath County? Me neither! 🙂

    Rowan County is home to, among other things, Morehead State University, which explains how a homosexual couple could live together and actually broadcast the fact without getting their house burned down. It would not surprise me if, since the homosexual couple has been identified publicly, this happens in the near future.

    The Dana who grew up in Kentucky (f6a568)

  41. A second couple, Tim Long and Michael Long, obtained a marriage license from Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis’ office Friday morning.

    As they got their license, two demonstrators inside the office called them “perverts.” Joe Davis, Kim Davis’ husband, muttered “disgrace” and walked out.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  42. Has everybody finally been disabused of the notion that this was about inheritance and hospital visitation?

    The Dana who can see the truth (f6a568)

  43. If this (gay marriage) is “lawlessness” to Christians then Christians should not not get married if they are gay. The idea of “facilitating” can get tricky real fast… issuing licenses, allowing your underlings to issue licenses, baking cakes, arranging flowers, renting limos(?); the list can get real long.

    Why is no one complaining that this woman is using her official position to force her particular belief system onto others who may not share it? Especially when a short prayer before the team takes the field can cause a coaching change. If this woman were actually the person of honor and faith she wants us to believe she is, she will resign her position because her fielty to her faith overshadows the duties assigned to the job.

    If you oppose capital punishment, don’t volunteer for the execution team.

    Gramps, the original (bc022b)

  44. John,

    Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it?

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  45. this is about fundamental transformation, more akin to Obregon’s campaign against the Cristeros, to avoid the Godwin lash

    narciso (ee1f88)

  46. #33: Dana,

    And if Mrs Davis were to run for re-election in Rowan County, she’d win in a landslide.

    Wouldn’t it be delicious if the Judge who has imprisoned her has to run for reelection while she’s still in jail. I have a suspicion she’d defeat that two-bit tyrant in an even bigger landslide.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  47. Lots has already been said on the other post, I will summarize things I said there only briefly. (Again, while it is widely known that I disagree that SSM is equivalent to hetero marriage,my initial thought is that I would have quit myself,for whatever combo of good and ill motivations).

    It seems to me that her action clearly falls into the category of civil disobedience, she is refusing to obey a law which she thinks is unjust and is submitting to the consequences (if so deemed) in going to jail.

    I assume if she was being put in jail for signing SS marriage licenses when it was not legal to do so a whole different group of people would be criticizing her (granted, our host may have been criticizing her in that case as well for not upholding the law).
    Similarly, others think this is going to extremes for something that is “not that big a deal”.
    Again, that works only if one assumes that equating a “marriage” of a SS couple to that of a hetero couple is no big deal.
    If one thinks doing an Orwell on the word “marriage” is essentially directly attacking the underpinning of society as displayed in nature and by nature’s god, then it is quite a big deal.

    We are no longer a society of laws, we are a society of selective enforcement corrupted at the highest levels. One could look at her behavior as bringing into focus the consequences of enabling Obama’s “Fundamental Transformation of America” and forcing the public to realize if this is the kind of society they want.
    Which I think is what civil disobedience is intended to do, to bring into stark view the implications of certain laws for society to decide if they really want laws like that to stand.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  48. “A reasonable accommodation is for the gay couple to drive 5 miles to the next county which has agreed to marry them.”

    Well now, that’s an interesting proposition.

    Does that gay couple get to send their annual property tax check to that neighboring county, too?

    If someone gets pulled over by a Rowan County deputy for speeding, does he get to say “nope, you’ll have to call a deputy over from the next county to write the ticket, because GOD?”

    Davis had resort to “reasonable accommodation.”

    She could have allowed one of her deputy clerks who had no problem issuing the licenses, issue the licenses.

    Instead, she ordered her deputy clerks to refuse to do their jobs, too.

    Someone mentioned how fun it would be if it was a Muslim, so let’s go there.

    Suppose a Muslim gets hired as head of a county health department, after which he announces that henceforth non-halal restaurants will not be inspected, approved or licensed because hey, he’s exercising his “religious freedom.”

    And of course he forbids all of his non-Muslim deputies to inspect, approve or license those non-halal restaurants. If you live in his county and you don’t prepare your food according to Muslim dietary laws, sorry — you’re out of business.

    Is that, to steal a term from another religion, a kosher exercise of “religious freedom?”

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  49. I am certain I will be corrected if wrong, but Newsome, when mayor of SF, issued licenses in violation of state law, but there was no federal court order in place to tell him not to do so. This county clerk was given an order by a federal court and she chose not to obey it. She was incarcerated for contempt of court, not for following any brand of religion.

    As the person in charge of that office she forbid her workers from issuing the licenses because it was done in her name, she being the “official” issuer. Her employees (at least one who is also a family member) were also brought before the judge so they could also find just where the rail was bent, so to speak.

    Gramps, the original (bc022b)

  50. Where The GOP Candidates Stand On The Defiant Kentucky Clerk
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:39 am

    Since the clerk is a Democrat, where is the Democratic stands article? Why tie the GOP to this?

    A quick google does not seem to locate any major articles raising the question.

    BfC (5517e8)

  51. “When did your hypothetical righteous woman apply for the job, Leviticus? Before or after the government became antithetical to righteousness? Be honest instead of your usual setting (unrighteous snark) when responding.”

    – John Hitchcock

    Let’s go with “before” for the sake of argument. She didn’t know that part of her obligation to Caesar (in exchange for Caesar’s salary) would be doing something that ran contrary to her religious belief.

    Now, Caesar says “my law now requires you to do this thing contrary to your religious belief.” She doesn’t want to do that thing. What’s the easiest way for her to not do that thing? Resign. “I don’t want to work for you anymore, Caesar.”

    If she could refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people and not collect a salary, or she could refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people and collect a salary, and she chooses Option 2, what does that say about her primary motivation?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  52. As I said before and above, my initial thought is that she should have resigned, that signing the licenses was part of her job and if she couldn’t do it then she should quit.

    But on the other hand,it is pointed out that:
    1) often accommodations can be made, even in the sphere of public service
    2) when elected the law was different, if her boss (the people of the county) don’t like her stand, let them fire her
    3) (most importantly to me) perhaps she has no legal case to defend her refusal, but is making this a point of civil disobedience to highlight the new reality in Obama’s transformed america
    and
    4)(a very “render unto Caesar” response) she should be jailed after Obama and Holder and Lynch are jailed for refusing to uphold the law
    I think

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  53. it’s all part of lawfare, that grants these fellows rights not earned,

    http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/9031022-74/detainees-guantanamo-released#axzz3kmxctv29

    narciso (ee1f88)

  54. “(most importantly to me) perhaps she has no legal case to defend her refusal, but is making this a point of civil disobedience to highlight the new reality in Obama’s transformed america.”

    – MD in Philly

    Like I said on the other thread, I think that is a very important possibility to keep in mind, and one that I want to remember.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  55. Thomas, welfare means getting money for not working.
    You said since she’s not doing pretend marriage licenses, she’s on welfare.
    That means, 1 moving to 2, her only duties are to sign marriage licenses and sign pretend marriage licenses.

    It is you who are not strong on logic, as evidenced by your subsequent illogical post.

    And Leviticus, the Lord never commanded us to take the easy way out, but to be righteous.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  56. as I put in the other thread ‘the devil’s advocates’ will put forth any argument to secure their goals,
    Alinsky put it slightly differently,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  57. I don’t think America is very different than it’s ever been, though. Just waaaaay more in debt.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  58. Why tie the GOP to this?

    it makes you wonder if maybe Kimmie D is just a regular old democratic operative what’s ensnaring Team R in a deceitful scheme aimed at smearing mud on a Republican brand what is already all too often associated with bigotry and intolerance

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  59. “And Leviticus, the Lord never commanded us to take the easy way out, but to be righteous.”

    – John Hitchcock

    Would it be easy to give up an $80k a year job in favor of being true to one’s religious beliefs?

    Would it be righteous to give up an $80k a year job in favor of being true to one’s religious beliefs?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  60. “Render unto Caesar” was not so much a general principle as much as it was a specific retort to an attempted entrapment.
    Obviously at some point Caesar didn’t think they were rendering enough and Christians were martyred, so if used as a concept it does not at all prevent all confrontation

    It goes back to the fundamental question, which like the abortion question (Is “it” a person or not?) will never go away:
    Is a SS union equivalent to a hetero union and should it be defined as such?
    or
    Is a SS union different, and legalize it if you want,just don’t equate it with “marriage”, for to do so is to directly and fundamentally undermine social and moral reality as originally designed by nature and nature’s god?

    As said above, if you want to refer to “Render unto Caesar”, perhaps the comment about who to jail first was right in line.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  61. “Thomas, welfare means getting money for not working.”

    Exactly.

    I’m not particularly interested in whether or not you think the marriage licenses are “pretend,” but for the record, I don’t think the state should be in the business of “licensing” marriages in the first place. That’s simply not part of the issue.

    If you work at McDonald’s and refuse to flip hamburgers, you’re not doing your job.

    If you work as the county clerk and refuse to issue marriage license, you’re not doing your job.

    If you work as the county clerk, you’re getting a government paycheck. If collecting a government paycheck for not doing your job, you’re on welfare.

    You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  62. Again, there is a whole heck of a lot more work County Clerks do than just sitting around waiting for amorous people to come in desiring a license to marry. It is not welfare to refuse to issue licenses. The logic fail is yours.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  63. Leviticus, you said it would be easier for the righteous woman to quit being part of the government than to continue to be righteous within her government job. Now you’ve moved the goalposts.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  64. Patterico,

    Why can AGs refuse to defend their state constitutions? Prop 8 was thrown out, not on its merits, but because the CA AG defaulted on defending it and no one else had standing. This happened in over a dozen other states and contributed to the one-sided legal mob rule that ended with Obergefell.

    Why can the governor and the President refuse to carry out immigration law?

    You stand athwart history and proclaim “The Rule of Law Must Be Respected” but the rest of the world has moved on.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. The way this is going, in 20 years children will be required to have transnormitive sexual experiences to graduate high school. Can’t raise bigots, can we?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  66. If the Legislature is upset with her, they can impeach her. Isn’t that the new standard?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  67. “Leviticus, you said it would be easier for the righteous woman to quit being part of the government than to continue to be righteous within her government job. Now you’ve moved the goalposts.”

    – John Hitchcock

    No. I am stating very clearly that it is more righteous to quit the job and forgo the salary than it is to proclaim righteousness for getting paid for duties that you don’t fulfill.

    Do you disagree?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  68. She is not proclaiming “righteousness for getting paid for duties that (she doesn’t) fulfill.” She is righteous for refusing to do evil. There is a huge difference. You created an amoral strawman to replace a moral position.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  69. I don’t know about Kentucky, but the Cook County Clerk is a political powerhouse, one of the pillars of the Machine. Lots of patronage, contracts and sub-contracts to friends of the Cook County Central Democratic Committee.

    But by and large I’m with L.N. Smithee from the other thread.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. And your amoral strawman replacing a moral position was in defense of an immoral position.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  71. The free exercise of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that not only did they put it in the First Amendment; they made it the very first phrase in that amendment. In their unambiguous support for religious freedom, there is little question.

    The suggestion that if government is unable to find an easy accommodation for one’s religious liberties, those liberties must take a back seat to the efficient operation of government constitutes a lower standard and one that seems inconsistent with both the plain language and intent of the Bill or Rights.

    And, somehow, you seem to have completely missed the fundamental premise of von Mises’ oeuvre: the primacy of the individual. That’s why the book is called “Human Action.” I suppose it is an occupational hazard.

    ThOR (a52560)

  72. I see now that it was a Federal Judge who was behind this, so he has no fear of the voting public. However, he does have a misunderstanding about the public in general:

    The lawyers had asked Judge Bunning to fine rather than jail her, according to the New York Times. However, the judge ordered that she be held in custody until she agreed to start issuing the licenses, saying he was concerned about a “ripple effect,”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-federal-custody-contempt

    She apparently is being held in Carter County Jail, which seems strange since it is a Federal Judge who is holding her in contempt. And WOWK 13 reports she will be there until she complies.

    As a person subject to this tyrannical form of custody, does she have any rights or privileges? Will she be allowed to see her husband or family once a month, for example? Or is she in a nether world where she doesn’t exist until she submits? Should she fall into a coma while in custody, would that warrant her release? It would save the government some money. It would also allow the County to appoint an acting Clerk.

    I have a feeling that Judge Bunning is going to be experiencing a number of ripple effects. He has warned couples receiving licenses from the Clerks Office that they may not be valid without Davis’ signature. This probably applies to all licenses, so this portion of the Office’s activities are shut down until she submits or is replaced.

    The ripple may grow to a tsunami. Bunning is probably regretting he didn’t just have her lashed with a cat-o-nine-tails 40 times, keel hauled, and the remains delivered to her husband, with, of course, a bill for services rendered. That would have sent the desired message, and the affair would be over.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  73. Yeah, I just read a story about a hitman who was asked to kill a kid. He was about to turn it down and then he thought, “They’ll just get someone else to do it”. So he pretended to take the job, found out who the employer was, and killed him. Saving the kid. Temporarily, anyway.

    nk (dbc370)

  74. It’s too bad she’s not black.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  75. Is one of her job duties issuing marriage licenses?

    Is she refusing to issue marriage licenses?

    Does she get paid for fulfilling her job duties?

    If the answer to all three of those questions is yes (hint: the answer to all three of those questions is yes), then she is getting paid for duties that she doesn’t fulfill.

    That’s not a strawman.

    Here’s the conundrum:

    Kim Davis doesn’t want to issue marriage licenses to gay people.

    Kim Daviso also doesn’t want to get paid for duties that she doesn’t fulfill.

    What should Kim Davis do?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  76. Is one of the president’s jobs enforcing immigration law?

    Is one of a governor’s job’s defending the state constitution?

    Is one of the state AG’s jobs representing the people of the state?

    Why is this a strawman and yours not? Kim Davis is an ELECTED OFFICIAL, not an at-will employee. Just like all the above.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  77. @ Patterico, and everyone who agrees with him…

    We’re not slaves. There’s also a 13th Amendment. Any one of us can refuse to perform whatever duty our job or position requires and we can refuse to do it. PERIOD! You can’t make a person perform a duty he refuses to do. You can beat him torture him, whip him like a slave, threaten to harm his wife or children, kill him, but you literally CAN NOT force a man to work if he simply refuses. The state of being a slave is a voluntary relationship at some level. A reasonable person would claim that at some level of misery and horror any person alive would eventually submit and perform the demanded slave tasks. That’s not true. There is one man who refused to submit to evil despite the most horrific torture imaginable.

    You’re asking Kim Davis submit to both evil and slavery and claiming “well it’s her job!” If a person who knows what Jesus went through when the weight of all the evil in the world was placed on his shoulders, I think Mrs. Davis can live for however long it takes with a hard cot and three hots.

    What a laugh.

    jack (ff1ca8)

  78. An Ohio sheriff doesn’t want to ship a black man back to Georgia, where he’ll be enslaved and beaten for going to Ohio without permission or consent. Federal law says he has to do it. It’s part of his job. What should he do?

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  79. BTW, Pat, Kamala Harris is opposed to the death penalty and so is Gov Brown. How many people ahve been executed in CA since they came into office? Why do these people have the ability to subvert the law, while others do not.

    If some (hypothetical) future county DA was opposed to the death penalty and refused to allow any death penalty prosecutions, would that be OK, too?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  80. “Is one of the president’s jobs enforcing immigration law?

    Is one of a governor’s job’s defending the state constitution?

    Is one of the state AG’s jobs representing the people of the state?”

    – Kevin M

    They should resign, or we should stop trumpeting the rule of law. One or the other. I am more than fine with either.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  81. “An Ohio sheriff doesn’t want to ship a black man back to Georgia, where he’ll be enslaved and beaten for going to Ohio without permission or consent. Federal law says he has to do it. It’s part of his job. What should he do?”

    – John Hitchcock

    He should resign! He is working for a State that requires him to violate his conscience! Resign. Do something else for a living.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  82. They should resign, or we should stop trumpeting the rule of law

    But that ship has sailed. The Rule of Law is dead, we now only have people and power.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  83. Leviticus,

    The Fugitive Slave Act was federal, and its non-enforcement in the North was a proximate cause of the Civil War.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  84. Laws only apply to the little people. And those that don’t think right.

    JD (34f761)

  85. From the link to Mr.Smithee’s comment:
    Davis’ assertion that her name as clerk on marriage licenses denotes her approval of the marriages is .

    I never expected to see that as an argument. I guess I see it as laughable that you see it as “LAUGHABLE”. I can see someone disagreeing with the idea, but I think it is a stretch, and not at all a slam dunk.
    As I said elsewhere, I can see a person arguing that a baker making a cake, no signature required, is not really endorsing something,
    but really, putting your signature on something doesn’t mean you agree with what you signed? How does that fit with contract law?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  86. That’s the only real law there has ever been.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  87. Kevin and I don’t agree often, but on this we are very simpatico. The rule of law is a quaint, antiquated, and laughable notion any longer.

    JD (34f761)

  88. I am inclined to think people’s support of her or not is more based on disagreement with her view than anything else (and a perhaps healthy load of skepticism). Does everyone really think the idea of civil disobedience is no longer valid, or no longer valid if you have a govt. job?

    Leviticus, do you really think the honorable thing to do was to resign and let them hire someone else to beat the slaves, rather than say, “No,I’m not beating slaves, fire me or do it yourself?”

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  89. What does a doctor “approve” when he signs a death certificate, MD? A County Clerk, receiving an application for a marriage license, acts as a quasi-judicial officer. He makes the determination whether the applicants qualify to be married under the state’s laws. Age, marital status, degree of kinship, maybe venereal disease. That’s all his signature means.

    nk (dbc370)

  90. Did San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore go to jail for refusing to issue a concealed carry permit to Ed Peruta?

    Michael Ejercito (d74b61)

  91. The current state of affairs is that the left doesn’t have to obey the law if they don’t want to, and not enough people who care have voices to do anything about it.
    But when the L wants to crack down on someone via the EPA or some other executive agency, or fed judge gone amok who wants to prove a point like in this case via his own words, apparently, conservatives are just supposed to shut up and take it.

    Well maybe more people being jailed for refusing to comply with tyranny is what we need to get the attention of enough people to see that votes for Alinskyites have consequences.

    If ya’ll are arguing that a government employee must always do what the govt. says then
    [GODWIN ALERT!!!!]
    you will defend whatever the govt. does.

    If you don’t support that view, all you are saying is that you don’t agree that this is a situation where disobedience is warranted,
    and that is what I thought political freedom meant
    and next election cycle we get to see how many people like the laws the way they are and how many want them different (to whatever degree that can happen).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  92. “Does everyone really think the idea of civil disobedience is no longer valid, or no longer valid if you have a govt. job?”

    – MD in Philly

    Civil disobedience proceeds in stages. First things first: disassociate from the Leviathan.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  93. The Peruta case is still pending hearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit sticks to its ruling, and San Diego County still refuses to issue permits, contempt including fines and/or jail would be one method of enforcement.

    nk (dbc370)

  94. Robert at his residence wrote:

    And if Mrs Davis were to run for re-election in Rowan County, she’d win in a landslide.

    Wouldn’t it be delicious if the Judge who has imprisoned her has to run for reelection while she’s still in jail. I have a suspicion she’d defeat that two-bit tyrant in an even bigger landslide.

    Alas! the judge is a federal judge, so he holds his position for life.

    The federalist Dana (f6a568)

  95. A signature on a death certificate means you are attesting to the details of death, including the time, and immediate and underlying factors in the cause of death.

    One can argue that “She is just doing her job”, but then the question remains whether or not her job was legitimate or not, yes?
    In this case she thinks signing a SS marriage license is not legitimate.

    Now, disagree with her if you want, call her names about being a southern hick brier (I acknowledge the title myself) if you want, agree that she has no legal argument to refuse and stay out of jail (I likely agree on that),
    but if you think she “has no right” to proceed as she is doing I think it is only because one has a prior decided her stance has no legitimacy.

    I am becoming more convinced by the moment that she did the right thing as an action of civil disobedience.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  96. To me, the point isn’t whether the clerk is right or wrong from a Biblical or a secular standpoint. The point is whether she sincerely believes this is what her religion requires her to do. If so, then the law must decide whether it can balance her religious interests with existing law.

    It’s easy to say this clerk’s religious interests must bow to existing law, but that’s only because it’s the simple solution and I don’t remember the course in law school that said the right answer is the easy answer. The Constitution recognizes freedom of religion, plus SSM is a new right so it’s understandable there might need to be adjustments and accommodations.

    The study of law is the study of how a broad range of human problems are resolved by balancing competing interests. Why are so many people willing to ignore this approach when it comes to SSM? It’s as if they see this as a sporting event where one side lost, and now everyone should accept it and go home.

    DRJ (521990)

  97. Leviticus
    dissociate from the leviathan, yes,
    get your but on a little raft and go more than 12miles offshore in the ocean, maybe more if you have to to get out of the jurisdiction of the US Coast Guard

    you’re just locked into your cynicism that ultimately it has to be about her wanting money
    guess what, you want money too
    she ain’t making much money sitting in jail, now is she?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  98. Blood sport, DRJ, with no sportsmanship or etiquette.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  99. Kentucky Woman Clerk Gal

    Kentucky Clerk Gal
    She shines with her own kind of light
    She’d look at you once
    And yer gay that’s all wrong it ain’t right
    And she’ll stand firm, God knows, she’ll stand firm

    Kentucky Clerk Gal
    If she sees yer gay now
    ya can’t marry no how
    Kentucky Clerk Gal

    Well, she ain’t the kind you should see
    if yer on bended knee
    But something inside that she’s got
    and gays should turn and flee
    And she loves God,
    God knows, she loves God

    Kentucky Clerk Gal
    Bruce n’ Steve wanna wed now
    they can’t marry no how
    Kentucky Clerk Gal

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  100. Read Texas AG Ken Paxton’s advisory opinion issued after the Supreme Court recognized SSM – not the summaries, which are pathetic, but the opinion itself. I think it is instructive and Cruz’s position may be similar.

    DRJ (521990)

  101. But the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it.

    Maybe part of ending lawlessness is bringing attention to it.
    Maybe being arrested for refusing to obey one law is not lawlessness but a way of pointing out what the state of law is and try to get people to see that “elections have consequences”, and if they see consequences they don’t like maybe they should vote differently.

    People who like the current state of lawlessness and rule by executive decree with judicial enabling have reason to keep voting the way they do, people who want rule by law are finding fewer reasons to vote,
    unless something changes.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  102. But the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it. I thought Ted Cruz understood that. And while I still support Ted Cruz as the best choice, I do so with a little less enthusiasm today.

    My sentiments exactly. I had been worried about some remarks he’s made indicating he would support and/or propose a Constitutional amendment about marriage, which was a non-starter back in the days when Bill (and Hillary) Clinton backed the Defense of Marriage Act. If Cruz is going to go all-in with a Christian political agenda as opposed to a Constitutional agenda in a Christian-majority nation, that’s going to be a problem among people in the middle.

    L.N. Smithee (e750c1)

  103. “she ain’t making much money sitting in jail, now is she?”

    – MD in Philly

    She’s probably making the same amount, right? And she is going to make a hell of a lot more when she gets out.

    Fine with me. No reason she shouldn’t tell her story, and explain her act of civil disobedience.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  104. Specifically, the Paxton opinion anticipated this result. He told clerks that they must be able to prove a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from agreeing with SSM, and that they should anticipate civil/criminal litigation and sanctions. Lawyers may be willing to help them but the clerk would have to bear the burden of any protest.

    DRJ (521990)

  105. The critics are celebrating The Supreme Court’s ruling for congruence, where the modulus is arbitrarily but selectively set by a ruling minority. Forward to the past.

    n.n (60df76)

  106. She is being jailed for following Kentucky law and living life as a Christian.

    The government has posted a religious test saying followers of Christ are not welcome.

    NJRob (2cbf9c)

  107. Kim Davis’s languishing in contempt is the best possible way she has to convince people that the law should change. When her term is up, if not re-elected, she’ll be let out.

    That’s the essence of civil disobedience. Non-violent resistance.

    The thing about making deal with Darth Vader is that he will alter the deal when it suits him. Now one way to deal with that is to never deal with Darth Vader, but Darth Vader doesn’t leave you to go about your business.

    Government officials have a duty to refuse immoral orders. We settled that at Nuremberg. Granted Kim Davis’s morals are very different from mine, I have no problem with SSM, nonetheless she has moral duty to not violate her conscience. The law, of course, can’t not punish her in some way.

    This is right and fair. They can’t make her do it but they can punish her. If enough people think the law that punishes her is unjust, they can change it.

    Gabriel Hanna (e2539b)

  108. “To me, the point isn’t whether the clerk is right or wrong from a Biblical or a secular standpoint. The point is whether she sincerely believes this is what her religion requires her to do. If so, then the law must decide whether it can balance her religious interests with existing law.”

    – DRJ

    That’s a good point, but some people are set on martyrdom and refuse to be accommodated. Whether Ms. Davis was one of them is an open question, I suppose.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  109. Thanks, DRJ.

    And thank you, Leviticus, for demonstrating that when push comes to shove your cynicism wins out.
    There is lots of reason for cynicism, I guess I am just personally annoyed that we usually see it displayed against conservative positions,
    such as not finding it worthwhile to be equally cynical as to why the people involved just didn’t go to another court house and get their licenses weeks ago.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  110. L N,

    Is standing up for religious rights “going all-in with a Christian politial agenda”? If so, then I guess I need to stop caring about Israel and the Jews, or the unborn, or the Second Amendment.

    I think standing up for things like religious rights means standing up for everyone’s rights, because we never know which religion or rights will be targeted next. Why am I wrong?

    DRJ (521990)

  111. nk (dbc370) — 9/4/2015 @ 10:14 am

    They made a movie, too. It starred David Statham. The writers made the kid a “math genius”(’cause she was Asian), in order, I’m guessing, to make us care.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  112. Are DC Judges and city officials going to jail for refusing to issue gun carry licenses?

    JD (34f761)

  113. Leviticus,
    the story I read was that she suggested a change in the documentation on the license to a form that did not seem like she was personally agreeing to it. Some see that as wanting to compromise, some see that as ridiculous. I guess one’s view is dependent upon one’s view of the topic overall.
    Few seem to be able to assess it as objectively as Gabriel Hanna.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  114. the letter or the law only matters when it is a conservative that is flouting it.

    let me know when Obola is in jail for contempt of court for all his refusals to enforce or obey the law.

    until then, this is just selective #OUTRAGE!, and thus just so much bull5hit.

    YMMV

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  115. OF the law…

    stupid fingers

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  116. One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
    “You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence,” he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
    “I have no defence.”
    “Do you –” The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. “Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?”
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.”
    “What?”
    “I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.”
    “But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime.”
    “I do not recognise my action as a crime.”
    “But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal.”
    “I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal.”
    “Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?”
    “No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly.”

    He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another’s benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
    “Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?” asked the judge.
    “No. I am complying with the law – to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice.”
    “But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself.”
    “A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it.” “Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle – the principle of the public good.”
    “Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”

    Ayn Rand knew the nature of the monster we have created.

    NJRob (2cbf9c)

  117. It’s up to the court to balance rights, Leviticus. I don’t think this court tried to do that but it’s not surprising. Even Aticus Finch has lost his willingness to stand up for the unpopular causes.

    DRJ (521990)

  118. “It’s as if they see this as a sporting event where one side lost, and now everyone should accept it and go home.”

    If only it stopped there. But as we have seen, that is far from the case. A more apt analogy would be that one side lost about 735 times in a row. After winning a handful of games decided by the officials after the fact, they then declared themselves the champions for time eternal and demand that all accept and affirm their position, to the degree demanded.

    JD (34f761)

  119. Let’s go with “before” for the sake of argument. She didn’t know that part of her obligation to Caesar (in exchange for Caesar’s salary) would be doing something that ran contrary to her religious belief.

    Now, Caesar says “my law now requires you to do this thing contrary to your religious belief.” She doesn’t want to do that thing. What’s the easiest way for her to not do that thing? Resign. “I don’t want to work for you anymore, Caesar.”

    If she could refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people and not collect a salary, or she could refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people and collect a salary, and she chooses Option 2, what does that say about her primary motivation?

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:33 am

    We understand Leviticus. You believe that slaves should’ve been turned over to their masters, Rosa Parks should’ve sat in the back of the bus and MLK deserved to rot in prison.

    Thanks for clearing that up for us.

    NJRob (2cbf9c)

  120. Why am I wrong?

    because #RACIST!

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  121. ever notice how abortion, Obolacare and SSM are all set in stone, it’s the law, get over it, but the 2nd Amendment isn’t?

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  122. The elephant that looms large in the room is that she is the government. And she is denying individuals a government benefit based on her personal beliefs and not on the requirements of the law. She is not a Thoreau. She is not a Schindler. She is the sheriff refusing to arrest klansmen for cross-burning.

    nk (dbc370)

  123. L N,

    Seriously, how do you define a Constitutional agenda if it doesn’t involve standing up for rights like the freedom of religion?

    DRJ (521990)

  124. “It’s up to the court to balance rights, Leviticus. I don’t think this court tried to do that but it’s not surprising.”

    – DRJ

    I know. And you may well be right, and I agree that it wouldn’t be surprising.

    All I see is the rule of power, and this court as a branch of power that wanted this lady eaten. Throughout these threads, I have continually expressed frustration with her obstinance (“she should have resigned!”) and sympathy with MD’s defense of her civil disobedience. The reconciliation is a fear of government. I have never had any reason to believe in the rule of law, having never seen it respected in my lifetime, so I don’t. I believe in the rule of power, even if I don’t like it and it leaves me vulnerable.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  125. “The elephant that looms large in the room is that she is the government.”

    – nk

    And that really is the other important part of it that I didn’t express in my prior comment.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  126. Nk, if we held the President, various Governors, Mayors, and various federal agencies to the same standard, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

    JD (34f761)

  127. I have never had any reason to believe in the rule of law, having never seen it respected in my lifetime, so I don’t.

    So I take it that where you’ve lived cars don’t stop at red lights, and your house is surrounded by barbed wire and a mine field and has machine guns aimed out of gunports to repel intruders.

    nk (dbc370)

  128. nk,

    Working for the government means you forfeit your religious rights, because the Supreme Court decided to change the definition of marriage virtually overnight?

    I agree this clerk has secular responsibilities but that doesn’t mean government’s demands take precedence over her religious rights, without even considering whether accommodations can be made.

    DRJ (521990)

  129. She is Obama refusing to defend the border.

    nk (dbc370)

  130. Government officials have the duty to disobey immoral orders.

    The fact that a lot of us disagree with her morality is irrelevant. The law can’t be based on individual morality so she has to go to jail or be otherwise punished. That’s how these things play out.

    If enough people agree with her the law will change. If not, it won’t.

    When Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses against the law he was doing the same thing. If the court had ordered him to stop or be in contempt, and if he had gone to jail, I would have respected him much more, but of course what he did was pose for the photo op and then go right back to violating his conscience while being lauded for his posing.

    Gabriel Hanna (e2539b)

  131. DRJ, personally I think it’s the obverse of the “no religious test” requirement in the Constitution, with a strong helping of Establishment Clause. Let’s go to County Clerk Abdullah Bulbul Amir who sees no problem with my application showing that I already have three wives for an extreme example of putting personal belief before the law in the exercise of a public official’s duties.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. NJRob:

    The government has ruled for congruence, with an arbitrary but selective modulus, not equality. The government also demands support for selective-child or indiscriminate killing under the pro-choice doctrine. It’s not easy to maintain a moral philosophy in a “secular” society with a State-established pro-choice cult. Caesar likes the entertainment, and the mobs like what is Caesar’s.

    n.n (60df76)

  133. For anybody who wants to chill a little, the poem Abdullah Bulbul Amir is a pause that refreshes.

    nk (dbc370)

  134. it sucks to be in jail for labor day weekend

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  135. 20. …Dear Caesar,

    I would like to apply for a position in your government. I know you got some crazy ideas and whatnot, but I’d still like to collect my monthly denarii from your coffers as a salary please. I have some job skills that you might find useful, like having a notary stamp.

    Sincerely,

    Kim Davis

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 8:34 am

    You know what’s funny? She actually did write such a letter, except it was headed with “Dear Citizen,” as she was running for an elected countywide office.

    Of course the body of her letter differed, as she wasn’t cynical enough to know she would actually end up working for Caesar in DC, as opposed to the voters in her county.

    I know she is naive, as she remains a Democrat.

    On the other hand now that she has found out who she is working for as far as Justice Kennedy is concerned she’s willing to defy Caesar and go to jail.

    I’m curious to know, Leviticus, at what point does it penetrate your skull that she’s not in it for the denarii?

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  136. nk,

    I see the comparison. IMO Obama is violating his oath to enforce the law when he refuses to enforce our immigration laws. This clerk is also violating some rule or requirement when she refuses to issue licenses.

    But Obama is acting because he has the power and he knows he won’t be punished. The clerk is acting because of a religious belief, with the knowledge that she will be sanctioned for her action. The Constitution recognizes our freedoms include freedom of religion, and this is something that should get serious attention in the courts — not the dismissive attitude that “Government is King” that Obama has toward his power.

    DRJ (521990)

  137. “If Cruz is going to go all-in with a Christian political agenda as opposed to a Constitutional agenda in a Christian-majority nation, that’s going to be a problem among people in the middle.” L.N. Smithee

    If there is one thing the Donald Trump phenomenon has taught us, it is that the conventional wisdom about he middle is dead wrong. Besides, appealing to the middle isn’t going to win Cruz the nomination. He clearly understands that there are a lot of Evangelicals out there who seem to need coaxing to show up at the pols. He’s been working that constituency since he announced at Liberty University, if not longer, but that’s hardly the only constituency Cruz has been courting.

    Cruz’ combined moral clarity and mastery of political strategy is breathtaking. His statement on Kim Davis struck precisely the right balance. To suggest the Cruz’ statement appeals to the Evangelical base and nothing more is simply wrong; Cruz is no Mike Huckabee. Here is Cruz’ opening sentence: “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny.” How parochial is that?

    ThOR (a52560)

  138. 135. it sucks to be in jail for labor day weekend

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/4/2015 @ 12:05 pm

    You mean it sucks not being out and about and breathing the same air of freedom as Hillary!, John Corzine, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Obama?

    When all the people who should be free are in jail, and all the people who should be in jail aren’t, I’d rather be in jail.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  139. i like not being in jail Mr. 57

    today I got to see a two-toed sloth and for lunch I had shrimp and asparagus risotto

    all of this is possible cause of I know how to work the system and not get thrown in jail for having some weirdo hangup with gay marriage

    and that’s not something I learned growing up in public school or at college

    I learned it on the street

    you gotta win a little

    lose a little

    and always have the blues a little

    and we’ll all float on alright

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  140. “A Democrat is a Rupublican who has not yet been mugged.”

    Does this qualify as a mugging?

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  141. From the link to Mr.Smithee’s comment:

    Davis’ assertion that her name as clerk on marriage licenses denotes her approval of the marriages is LAUGHABLE.

    I never expected to see that as an argument. I guess I see it as laughable that you see it as “LAUGHABLE”. I can see someone disagreeing with the idea, but I think it is a stretch, and not at all a slam dunk.

    As I said elsewhere, I can see a person arguing that a baker making a cake, no signature required, is not really endorsing something, but really, putting your signature on something doesn’t mean you agree with what you signed? How does that fit with contract law?

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/4/2015 @ 10:32 am

    ___________________

    I would like to invite every married person reading this comment to chime in with their answer to the following questions:

    1. Do you have the slightest remembrance of the name of the clerk on your marriage license?

    2. Has it ever occurred to you for a split second that the clerk whose name, signature, and rubber stamp is on your marriage license had personally approved of your spousal choice?

    Now, a question for you divorced readers:

    1. Do you remember the name of the judge who presided over the end of your marriage(s)?

    2. Did you think that once you received papers finalizing your divorce, the name and stamp and signature of the clerk and/or judge on the final page was some sort of congratulations to you for dumping the itch/astard?

    If you answered “NO” to all four questions, you should understand what I mean. The signature of an administrative clerk on a marriage license is not a personal affirmation of the act, and no sane person would ever believe that.

    There are very few instances in which the personal opinions of the clerks means a hill of beans, and the short section dealing with Kentucky Marriage codes Duties of county clerks in the state of Kentucky are explained here.

    Even on the Rowan County Clerk website, Kim Davis describes her own job thusly:

    As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties.

    Our office is here to serve the public in a friendly, professional and efficient manner. We are constantly striving to upgrade our services in order to better serve you. This website is our most recent attempt to better serve the people of Rowan county. Here you will find contact information, important forms and documents, land and legal records, and much more. Feel free to contact us via phone or fax during business hours, or use our convenient contact form and someone will get back to you as soon as possible.

    Thanks,
    Kim Davis
    Rowan County Clerk

    Here is the actual oath that is taken by Kentucky state officials, including county clerks (seriously):

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

    Bottom line: If Davis is uncomfortable with marriage law as it is now (however illegitimate you believe it was achieved), she can do what another Christian County Clerk, Grenada’s Linda Barnette did. Barnette resigned within days of the Obergefell decision. Nowhere but in Kim Davis’ strange mind will you find the notion that her imprimatur means “She approved my marriage” or even “She agrees with Kentucky state government without reservation,” making some sort of conscience accommodation necessary.

    Even if she IS accommodated, so WHAT? It won’t change Obergefell, and it will not be more than a speed bump to the LuGBoaT Mafia. She is the WRONG person to rally around. I’m sick of people suggesting Kim Davis is being crucified. She’s laying down on a cross with a box of long nails placed conveniently at her side. Hmmmm….I wonder how those got there?

    L.N. Smithee (e750c1)

  142. Shorter L.N. Smithee: Some rights aren’t worth protecting.

    DRJ (521990)

  143. Or is it some people aren’t worth protecting?

    DRJ (521990)

  144. Or maybe some ideas aren’t worth protecting?

    DRJ (521990)

  145. At what point do I get credit for being right about everything?

    Gay marriage was never about expanding freedom but empowering government.

    The HHS abortifacient mandate is not about “women’s health” but about empowering government.

    Empowering government to do what? Become the ultimate moral authority in everyone’s universe, as Kim Davis is finding out. She thought that the “free exercise” phrase in the First Amendment meant she could not only believe Christ is Lord, but live as if He was. I.E. exercise that belief.

    And of course the reason religion is mentioned in the First Amendment is that the founders not only acknowledged that one’s obligations to God existed prior to any government, but that one’s obligations to God have precedence over any obligation to government.

    This, the happyfascists can not tolerate. If only Kim Davis didn’t make “bad choices,” she could be out and about for Labor Day Weekend enjoying tasty ice creams and cotton candies on the boardwalk. And who wouldn’t give up their God for that?

    Or rather, give up their God for another? History. The moral arc of the universe.

    Keep this in mind whenever Prom Queen starts spouting off on those who are or are not on the right side of history. This is how religious people talk about being on their god’s side. When he talks about the the moral arc of the universe bending towards justice he is talking about some almighty dispensing justice.

    Kim Davis is in jail because she has not fallen in line with this unspoken yet official state religion. And any of us can fall afoul of it someday. And no doubt will.

    This is not about freedom, and never has been. This is about Vaclav Havel called the post-totalitarian state.

    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2015/09/missouri_high_school_students.html

    A transgender teen’s request to use the girls restrooms and locker rooms at a Missouri high school led to an estimated 200 students walking out in protest this week, reports say…

    Here’s the dirty little secret. The guy in the wig and the dress calling himself “Lila” is upset because the girls won’t get naked and shower with him. That’s it.

    He could use a girl’s restroom and locker room but that isn’t good enough if they aren’t using it at the same time. Because really what’s the point of seeing the inside of a girl’s locker room wihout seeing the soapy outsides of a bunch of girls.

    Naturally the state religion’s clerics say it’s the girls who won’t shower with the guy who are the h8rs.

    Somebody might think I am connecting dots that shouldn’t be connected. But that isn’t so. The state religion says you have freedom of worship. That is, during the hour or so of daily or weekly primitive rite that choose to engage in you are outside the grasp of their clerics. But once you leave that safe haven you have no right to anything.

    No right to act in accordance with your own conscience, and no right to privacy.

    You do not have a right to your own mind, Kim Davis, and you do not have a right to your bodies, Missouri girls!

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  146. When Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses against the law he was doing the same thing. If the court had ordered him to stop or be in contempt, and if he had gone to jail, I would have respected him much more, but of course what he did was pose for the photo op and then go right back to violating his conscience while being lauded for his posing.

    Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/4/2015 @ 11:59 am

    Again: Gavin Newsom had given then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer “a heads up” about his plan to marry gays. Lockyer, regardless of his position as the representative of the people who passed a 2000 measure to limit marriage to one man & one woman, was in on it.

    Every subsequent CA AG — all Democrats — also sabotaged the electorate from the inside: Jerry Brown (thanks partially to Michael Savage’s $5600 campaign donation) and Kamala Harris after him. That made ALL the difference in SCOTUS because Prop 8 lost not on Constitutional grounds, but on standing. Remember that fact – the MSM will always tell you different.

    L.N. Smithee (e750c1)

  147. But the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it. I thought Ted Cruz understood that. And while I still support Ted Cruz as the best choice, I do so with a little less enthusiasm today.

    That is the correct way to respond to lawlessness, Patterico. The problem is we (as a society) have been responding that way for at least 4 decades and what has it gotten us? We sit and watch as the elite powers pass laws they exempt themselves and their cronies from, burn up our hard earned tax money on friends at Solyndra or Enron or a host of other pipedreams, destroy the housing market by giving mortgages to people who couldn’t qualify for a dog house, watch as Americans are murdered in Benghazi and other places around the world, let illegals cross our borders and when they murder, rape or kill our people ignore their part in the crime. That’s why trump is popular. We are fed the hell up with the “special people” like DiCaprio or Gore burning up fuel flying all over the globe to raise our energy prices and to tell us to turn our thermostats down. And we’re fed the hell up with a-holes throwing the book at a clerk while a real criminal like Hillary! goes around collecting 100’s of millions of dollars by giving away our country. Arrest Hillary! then come after the damn clerk!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  148. Mrs. Davis is an elected public official. She may adhere to the idea that government sets its rules with the consent of the governed. There has been no Congressional action on SSM that would support the Supreme Court ruling. It cannot be argued that this ruling has the consent of the people. What this ruling has is the power of the Federal government. Whether she has taken her stand for religious reasons, or to protest the usurpation of the idea of consent, I applaud her. She should not resign. Instead, those who oppose her should attempt to recall her, or impeach her, or fire her if that is possible. The repercussions from those actions would give us some idea about what the people want.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  149. Shorter L.N. Smithee: Some rights aren’t worth protecting.

    DRJ (521990) — 9/4/2015 @ 12:46 pm

    Ooooh, pithy.

    Slightly longer L.N. Smithee (from the source): The right to “Keep my job while violating my oath to do it for made-up conscience reasons that I can’t reasonably explain” doesn’t exist, so it needs no protecting.

    FIFY.

    L.N. Smithee (e750c1)

  150. https://twitter.com/ThomasHCrown

    ≠ ‏@ThomasHCrown 22h
    Laws re: drugs: Fascist.
    Laws re: immigration: Racist.
    Laws re: national security: Optional.
    Laws re: genitals: ALL IMPORTANT

    Per your state religion’s hierarchy of moral imperatives.

    Do fall in line right quick, peons, or you’ll be in the county lock-up eating “nutritional loaf” three times a day and sleeping on a concrete slab.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  151. @150, so what you’re saying is DRJ was exactly right the first time.

    Thanks for playing.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  152. Alas! the judge is a federal judge, so he holds his position for life.

    On good behavior.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  153. Some cases are so bad that any attempt to argue against them only ends up bolstering the case against the miscreants.

    I give you Hillary! Clinton and L. N. Smithee.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  154. I had thought that Obergefell would quietly become law and that there was little appetite for dragging it back and forth through the courts like Roe.

    Sadly, I underestimated the vileness of some of its proponents, and their need to have a totalitarian victory. The rooting out of any thoughtcrime regarding gays or SSM is the only thing keeping the controversy going, and the best argument why Obergefell was a mistake.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  155. L.N.

    I do not remember the names of every person I ever wrote a prescription for. I bet some of them took pills without remembering the name of the doctor.
    It was my personal responsibility.

    You are essentially arguing that Davis is being illogical at best, delusional at worst, for her belief that putting her signature on something means she is personally approving of it.
    Fine, you’ve made your argument, and I imagine many people agree with you. Saying that no one agrees with her does not make it so, and even if no one else does agree with her it does not mean her request is beyond consideration, only that it would be taken into account as part of her request for accommodation.

    I’m not sure who is saying she is being crucified, people are only saying that it is a new thing for someone to be put in jail for claiming to act on a religious faith that has been part of the founding of the country. Her being in jail highlights that this is the current state of the law for those who were not paying attention.
    I doubt many people chose her to be a the focus of a national story to rally around, except perhaps the judge who wanted to make her an example.

    Speaking of which, I have read that the judge sentenced her to jail “until she was willing to sign the same-sex marriage licenses”. Do people who know how to get such things see that in his actual ruling? If that is what he said, can he change his mind, or is she set to be in jail until an appeal? If nothing else, do you really want someone thrown in jail until they are willing to do something against their conscience? You can give a sentence or levy a fine, how often is one locked up indefinitely? Since it is contempt of court can they do that until she is ready to comply with the court order?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  156. But the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it.

    If you play by all the rules, when the other guys are rampantly cheating, you will lose. If you don’t believe that, let’s play poker.

    The way you end it is to make it clear to the cheaters that they are better served by rules.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  157. Some cases are so bad that any attempt to argue against them only ends up bolstering the case against the miscreants.

    I give you Hillary! Clinton and L. N. Smithee.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/4/2015 @ 1:03 pm

    Something I learned long ago when commenting online: If you stick to your guns and back up your words with evidence, it will always expose the binary thinkers among you.

    L.N. Smithee (e750c1)

  158. L N,

    I knew the County Clerk who signed my marriage certificate and I can tell you her name (without Googling it), but I won’t because it would reveal my location. She also knew us and it meant something to her and to us when she signed our marriage license. She was happy to see us married. That’s how it is in small counties like mine and Rowan County.

    I don’t know if this clerk has a sincerely held religious belief because I don’t know her, but neither do you. Maybe she is seeking her 15 minutes of fame but my guess is that it is religion, not fame, that compels her to act. So I think it’s presumptuous of you to assume she is a fraud. I think it’s even more presumptuous of you to assume she should handle her beliefs the way the other clerk did or in the manner you find acceptable. I doubt you would like it if I decided to be he person in charge of how you live your life.

    DRJ (521990)

  159. Equally shorter L.N. Smithee: Your rights aren’t worth protecting.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  160. Perhaps she should take a look at Matthew 6:24 and ponder whether she can serve both God and the government of law, which she was a functioning part of. It seems pretty clear that you can serve one or the other, but not both. She was trying to have her cake and eat it too.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  161. She may adhere to the idea that government sets its rules with the consent of the governed.

    More to the point, it manifestly does not have the consent of her electors.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  162. Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/4/2015 @ 1:05 pm

    I know conservative pro-hetero marriage Christian folk who claimed that the SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with any kind of anti-Christian bias, only to allow SS marriages and it was no big deal. That’s a claim getting harder to make.
    Unforced tactical error by the judge, I’d say.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  163. Imagine how many of our Founding Fathers would be disqualified from government if they followed these rules.

    DRJ (521990)

  164. Let’s break these words down.

    Keep my job while violating my oath

    When she took the oath of office it was with no mental reservation whatsoever. There were no duties of office she intended to not to perform. She didn’t have her fingers crossed behind her back. It was the SCOTUS that changed things.

    …to do it for made-up conscience reasons

    Oh, yeah, that whole marriage is only between a man and a woman thingy? She just made that up.

    …that I can’t reasonably explain” doesn’t exist,

    This part is incoherent. IF it means what I perceive it to mean, L.N. Smithee thinks no Cristian can reasonably explain that this…

    Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?

    …means that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Which is of course insane on the part of L.N. Smithee.

    …so it needs no protecting.

    Review my last.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  165. And besides, why is all this attention being paid to one clerk in one pissant county. Anyone who wants can go to another county — they’re almost walking distance apart — or go to another official in that same county and get one.

    Why? Because there is a nay-sayer there and no one may say nay!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  166. Ironically, those of us who are standing up for this clerk are also standing up for every single person here to be able to live their own lives and beliefs. It amazes me that they don’t see that. I believe Ted Cruz sees it.

    DRJ (521990)

  167. prowlerguy- you may be mistaken in your application. She was given a job by the people that elected her. Given a choice, she chose not to obey Caesar but her immediate boss, until time comes when her boss fires her.
    Maybe you are not used to applying Scriptural principles to your life…

    FWIW, as I’ve said, I probably would have quit the job myself, but I see her stand may be very helpful to the greater public in the long run even at the cost to herself. (I don’t think a $10 million book deal will make up for the stress, btw, Leviticus)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  168. My optical mouse is acting up, as always. Hence the misspellings and occasional absence of words we all know should be their, etc.

    I’m just stubborn and I refuse to get another laptop.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  169. MD–

    I was FOR SSM a decade ago. I am STILL for SSM. I think that it makes good social sense and encourages stability in a heretofore unstable population. But this spiking the ball until every blade of grass lies flat is making me think that they aren’t ready yet.

    If this were a child acting out in this way, I’d take the toy away until he behaved better.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  170. DRJ- did you see my questions at the end of 156? Can she be kept in jail until death if she chooses to never bow and sign a SS certificate?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  171. “When she took the oath of office it was with no mental reservation whatsoever. There were no duties of office she intended to not to perform. She didn’t have her fingers crossed behind her back. It was the SCOTUS that changed things.”

    Funny, I don’t see the phrase “as they are right now” in her oath. The law is ever changing: new laws and ordinances are passed, and court cases are decided that change the interpretation of those laws. And apparently, she did indeed have her fingers crossed behind her back, because when she said ” that I will support the Constitution of the United States” (which includes the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiters of the law) and “that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of clerk of the court according to law” she really meant “as long as I agree with them”.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  172. “So I take it that where you’ve lived cars don’t stop at red lights, and your house is surrounded by barbed wire and a mine field and has machine guns aimed out of gunports to repel intruders.”

    – nk

    Well, of course average folks obey the law. We don’t have the power to flaunt it like powerful people do. Does that buttress your argument, or mine?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  173. Left’s so tolerant
    they don’t allow naysayers
    no one may say nay

    Colonel Haiku (dc1411)

  174. I would have conceded long ago for some legal equivalent of marriage for SS couples if they really wanted it,
    but I was convinced the real issue was putting into our legal system a particular moral position that same sex marriage is equivalent to hetero, and anyone who didn’t agree in some aspect of action in their life was breaking in the law. Unfortunately I do not have the same abilities when it comes to the stock market and commodities.
    Even at that, it would have been fine if that is what was advocated, but no, it was all, “OH, how can my SS marriage hurt you, silly person…?”

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  175. As said previously, throw her in jail for not upholding the Constitution after Obama and Holder, they broke their oaths first.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  176. MD,

    There are two kinds of contempt — civil and criminal. The reports I’ve read haven’t said what was done in this case but I assume it is indirect civil contempt. It’s indirect because the contempt didn’t happen in the judge’s presence. If it is civil contempt, the judge has more latitude and the clerk has fewer rights than if it were criminal contempt.

    DRJ (521990)

  177. “Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? …means that marriage is only between a man and a woman. ”

    I absolutely hate when non-Christians cherry pick small phrases from the Bible and take them out of context. It is intellectually dishonest. When someone claiming to be a Christian does it, though, it is nothing short of blasphemy. Why don’t you put ALL of it here? Because it deals with divorce, not homosexuality, that’s why. It begins with the Pharisee’s question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” and ends with this direct command from Jesus (Matthew 19:9) “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    So tell me, you OK with government functionaries blocking all divorces within their fiefdoms, contrary to the laws they were sworn to uphold?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  178. “No right to act in accordance with your own conscience, and no right to privacy.”

    – Weird Steve

    No right to a government salary for a government job you refuse to do. Tyranny!!!

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  179. prowlerguy,

    This is a serious and not a rhetorical question: Is the qualifier “to the best of my ability” relevant to this discussion? In other words, is “ability” limited to mental and physical ability, and thus there is no moral aspect to that phrase?

    DRJ (521990)

  180. “Given a choice, she chose not to obey Caesar but her immediate boss, until time comes when her boss fires her.”
    No, she chose to try to worship both Ceasar/money AND God. Can’t do that. Pretty clear “Can not serve two masters”

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  181. DRJ

    I do not believe so. If you can cite something relevant regarding such, I would be happy to consider them. I believe the phrase, as commonly understood in this country, would be simply and acknowledgement that you may not always succeed, but you would never willfully fail to uphold the law and Constitution. This seems pretty willful to me.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  182. “It was the SCOTUS that changed things.”

    – Weird Steve

    Where does the Supreme Court of the United States get off, thinking it can interpret US laws and the US Constitution and overrule precedents and whatnot? Next thing you know, they’ll be expecting government employees to enforce the law as interpreted by the judicial branch or something!

    (Or quit working for the government).

    If Marbury v. Madison is the source of our societal ills, lets have the revolution and be done with it.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  183. and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

    Wonder if any other states have a similar provision in their oaths of office.

    [We now return you to our regularly scheduled bickering.]

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  184. “Maybe you are not used to applying Scriptural principles to your life…” Pretty Christian to pass judgement on someone, especially someone you have never met. Best take a look at that log, boss.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  185. Ms. Davis’ supporters here seem to be laboring under the impression that the ONLY path open to her, if she wanted to keep to the tenents of her faith, was to simply refuse to obey the courts (including the Supreme Court), despite her oath to do so. I have yet to hear why leaving office would not have upheld her professed faith.

    It would seem, from a purely logical POV, that her ONLY moral choice was to renounce her role as clerk of the court. She has three choices: Stay and sign SSM certificates; stay and refuse to uphold an oath she swore to GOD; or resign her position (and forego her pieces of silver).

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  186. “I have yet to hear why leaving office would not have upheld her professed faith.”

    – prowlerguy

    Because shut up. Tyranny!

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  187. Indiscriminate killing/abortion: 20. Congruence/selective exclusion: >180. The people have spoken. Pro-choice doctrine is the established religion/moral philosophy of the land.

    n.n (60df76)

  188. She didn’t issue licenses to ANY couples. She did not discriminate.

    jakee308 (c37f85)

  189. Ms. Davis’ supporters here seem to be laboring under the impression that the ONLY path open to her, if she wanted to keep to the tenents of her faith, was to simply refuse to obey the courts (including the Supreme Court), despite her oath to do so. I have yet to hear why leaving office would not have upheld her professed faith.

    NOBODY HERE has said what you claim, and that you second, Leviticus, in fact I have been explicit several times in saying that I personally thought resigning was the appropriate thing to do.

    Since both of you seem to affirm that statement, as you have, I take it to mean you have had so little regard for what we have said previously that you haven’t bothered to pay attention.

    By their fruits, Prowlerguy.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  190. “Ironically, those of us who are standing up for this clerk are also standing up for every single person here to be able to live their own lives and beliefs.”

    But you (and I) are outraged the tinpot sheriffs deny CCW permits simply because they don’t think citizens should be armed. You are also upset (as am I) when Obama refuses to enforce voting rights laws (Black Panther case) and immigration laws. The difference is that I make no distinction in the motivations of those who seek to substitute their own moral compass for the will of the people (including the Constitution and the courts, since the people ratified those) when they are in government, since there is no alternative when one seeks government action. You, on the other hand, are willing to abandon a principled and consistent stand against lawlessness when you agree with it. If you accept Ms. Davis’ stand, you have to accept Obama’s and those sheriffs and every other case where elected officials ignore laws they feel are not good.

    I haven’t seen anyone take up Thomas L. Knapp’s discussion of the acceptability of a Muslim head of the county health department who will only allow halal restaurants and grocers to operate in that county. I wonder why?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  191. prowlerguy, I provide lins and references so people like you know I’m not cherry picking anything.

    There’s only so much I can excerpt. Sorry to disappoint that I didn’t quote the entire Gospel according to Matthew. I figured you would be smart enough to know if I was citing Matthew 19:4 and 5 that there would be a Matthew 1-18 before you got to Matthew 19. And within Matthew 19, there’d be verses 1-3 before you got to 4.

    And if you advanced that far you’d know there would chapters and verses after Matthew 19:5, perhaps other entire Gospels, perhaps even entire Testaments.

    Was I expecting too much? Because what you call cherrypicking I call “You have to stop somewhere.”

    Normally I get blamed for quoting too much. Which I do only because I’m trying to show the context for the portion I want to highlight. Now I quote too little and I get blamed for cherrypicking.

    Can I get a show of hands? Was anyone else lead to believe I intended to misrepresent the Bible? I cited chapter and verse, I thought that would be sufficient to let people know I wasn’t trying to keep anything a mystery.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  192. I personally thought resigning was the appropriate thing to do.

    Which means that you (and me, since I am in total agreement with you…and Patterico, too, and Prowlerguy) are not supporting Davis. We think she is wrong. (Which does not preclude the judge from being wrong.)

    Prowlerguy is asking why people who think Davis’s current course of action do not think she should resign.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  193. MD – In a word, bullshit

    “No right to act in accordance with your own conscience, and no right to privacy.”
    – Weird Steve

    “Ironically, those of us who are standing up for this clerk are also standing up for every single person here to be able to live their own lives and beliefs.”
    – DRJ

    Both of these sentiments seem to state the only way for her to obey her conscience was the course of action she took. Perhaps I should have said “SOME of Ms. Davis’ supporters”, but it seems little hypocritical allow your allies to paint those who believe in the rule of law with broad strokes, but demand I use a very fine pencil, lest you disapprove.

    And yes, by their fruits: “As said previously, throw her in jail for not upholding the Constitution after Obama and Holder, they broke their oaths first.”

    It would seem that your fruits tell us that you are stuck in 4th grade playground logic “But he did it first. It’s not FAIR!!!!!!”

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  194. Sigh…
    who think Davis’s current course of action is correct do not think, etc.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  195. it’s just so startling to realize that all them other clerks is gonna burn

    burn forever in the fires of hell

    all except for the unbreakable kimmie d

    she’ll be sittin up there in heaven eatin marshmallows out the bag

    can i get an amen

    happyfeet (831175)

  196. 188. “I have yet to hear why leaving office would not have upheld her professed faith.”

    – prowlerguy

    Because shut up. Tyranny!

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 2:02 pm

    Please explain how having a religious litmus test for elected office is not a tyranny.

    http://christiannews.net/2012/09/22/illinois-appeals-court-upholds-pharmacists-right-to-refuse-sale-of-abortion-inducing-drugs/

    …“Vander Bleek testified, upon hearing Governor Blagojevich’s comments about the change in the law, he felt like he would have to choose between violating the law or his conscience,” it continued. “Vander Bleek watched an interview of Governor Blagojevich on television, when the governor said pharmacists unwilling to dispense emergency contraception should find a new job.”…

    (prowlerguy, please note; the ellipses mean I am “cherrypicking” again.)

    The Soviet Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion. But it also said that if you practiced a religion, you were a second class citizen.

    In Pakistan you can be a Christian. You might actually survive to die a natural death. But you are barred from certain professions.

    How is it not a tyranny to say that you can be a Christian if you wish, but you can’t be in government if you are, Leviticus?

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  197. kishnevi?

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  198. “How is it not a tyranny to say that you can be a Christian if you wish, but you can’t be in government if you are, Leviticus?”

    – Weird Steve

    Gee whiz, it’s almost like the question answers itself.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  199. But context means everything, Steve57. Most people haven’t memorized the entire Bible, and will not go to the source to see if what you are claiming is true. And this is not limited to Bible verses, as people online often cite articles and/or videos claiming certain things about them that aren’t true, knowing full well that it is very unlikely that anyone will actually check the source material.

    Jesus was clearly speaking about divorce, and only divorce. Not about homosexuality nor SSM. The only reason to only quote what you quoted in an attempt claim that Jesus ONLY believed in a marriage of one man and one woman was dishonesty. It was about one thing. Divorce. Which, it needs to be pointed out, our pious Ms. Davis seems to have no problem with disobeying Jesus’ explicit command.

    The bible is full of “Thou shalt nots”. Don’t you think a perfectly divine creature, given the form and voice of man (thus cutting out the middlemen/prophets) could have actually said so, were that their intention? When I say “A Camaro is a car.”, I am not claiming that a Camaro is the only kind of car.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  200. You can be a Christian, and you can be in government too! You just have to obey the law, and do your job.

    (See Exhibit A: Kim Davis before she decided to stop obeying the law and doing her job).

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  201. Steve57:

    Are pharmacists government employees? I’m leaning toward “No”. How about you?

    See, I can oppose the Illinois courts AND oppose Ms. Davis and not have to take two contradictory sides of the same issue, as one is a non-government official, and one is a government official.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  202. you can be in government and be a christian hallelujah

    you just can’t abuse the powers of your office to advance a weirdo personal religious agenda

    again, now stay with me

    this is not a tricksy thought problem

    this is simple stuff pickleheads

    happyfeet (831175)

  203. I have to apologize to Steve57. I did not realize that the “Weird Steve” in Leviticus’ posts was referring to you, and I did not mean to use such a demeaning moniker when I cut his reference to use in my post. If I could edit my post I would, but I can’t.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  204. Her employers should try to arrange an accommodation for her.

    She doesn’t have employers. She’s an elected official, responsible only to the voters, and as far as we know they support her.

    That said, the licenses must be issued,

    Why? As an elected official it’s up to her how to do her job, and she doesn’t believe she has a duty to issue the licenses. As far as I know there’s no law that says she “shall issue” them. So where does a court get the authority to order her to do so?

    the lawless judges who declared gay marriage was a right under the 14th Amendment,

    There you go. If those judges were lawless, then they were ultra vires and their decision is void.

    In any case, don’t you agree that the executive branch is entitled to its own view of the law? Her view of the law is that she is not obliged to issue the licenses.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  205. In the District Attorney’s office, some people are opposed to the death penalty. The office makes an accommodation for such people because of their beliefs, and finds someone else to do the case

    But what if the DA is opposed to the death penalty, and refuses to ask for it in any case, because he thinks it would be wrong. Do you think a judge has the right to order him to ask for it?!

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  206. 200. …Jesus was clearly speaking about divorce, and only divorce. Not about homosexuality nor SSM. The only reason to only quote what you quoted in an attempt claim that Jesus ONLY believed in a marriage of one man and one woman was dishonesty. It was about one thing. Divorce. Which, it needs to be pointed out, our pious Ms. Davis seems to have no problem with disobeying Jesus’ explicit command…

    prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/4/2015 @ 2:43 pm

    No, Jesus was first speaking about marriage. Then, after discussing God’s plan for marriage, he got to the subject of divorce.

    Do you not see this?

    Also, this would have been the perfect time for Him to discuss the Old Testament book of Leviticus. Which outlawed homosexuality. He could have said to the Pharisees that God’s plan for marriage included boys and boys and girls and girls and not only, as stated in Genesis 1 and 2 boys and girls. Yet he didn’t.

    So why do you think that Jesus’ own respect for Genesis 1 and 2 didn’t also extend to Leviticus, given the Alpha and the Omega had the opportunity to say otherwise and passed?

    Later Paul emphasized that he was preaching Christ’s Gospel. And Paul, who ministered to the Gentiles, emphasized that Christ’s Gospel condemned homosexuality.

    I am not cherrypicking. I could write a book if you wish, but I have strong doubts Pat would let me publish it here. But, yeah, based upon what Christ actually had to say on the subject gay marriage just was never on the table.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  207. Steve….because by not resigning she is complicit in a state of affairs she claims is immoral.

    A temporizing believer will stay. A non-temporizing believer will resign in protest, to demonstrate the immorality which he/she perceives and not be complicit in it.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  208. 201. You can be a Christian, and you can be in government too! You just have to obey the law, and do your job.

    (See Exhibit A: Kim Davis before she decided to stop obeying the law and doing her job).

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 2:43 pm

    You mean you can call yourself Christian as long as you recognize the SCOTUS is the supreme moral authority in the universe?

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  209. et tu, kishnevi?

    Maybe I wasted a lot of time today.
    I think I would have resigned, that does not mean I do not see her point.
    Especially if one takes her point to be civil disobedience to bring to the attention to the public the state of the law.

    It seems that the powers that be were not eager to find a way to accommodate her, maybe they would have and she didn’t give them enough time, IDK.
    The judge explicitly says he wants to make an example out of her and puts her in jail.

    Being in jail for not compromising on a view that even the one thought was the law of the land a few years ago seems to me a point that most Americans need to realize what the Fundamentally Transformed America looks like.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  210. “She doesn’t have employers. She’s an elected official, responsible only to the voters, and as far as we know they support her.”

    That’s a tricky business there. We THINK that MAYBE the people who elected her agree with her, so she can ignore the law. Even IF that were correct, that is the same thinking that the idiots who back sanctuary cities uses. Do you approve of those, since they locals there all agree that illegal immigrants can be shielded from deportation?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  211. What a joke. We’ve been indoctrinating our youngsters in the government schools so they wouldn’t participate in the great errors of the past, like slavery. Presumably the intent was that they would fight for what they thought was right, and thus improve our country. It turns out we’ve produced a horde of little arse-lickers who navigate not by the stars, but by the latest administrative order from their lords and masters in D. C. So sad.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  212. Steve57:
    You mean you can call yourself Christian as long as you recognize the SCOTUS is the supreme moral authority in the universe?

    He said what he meant. You can stop with the straw-man arguments anytime. If you intend to be in government, you don’t get to pick and choose what laws you will follow. Simple as that. There are plenty of government jobs that one can seek if one has moral qualms about some aspect of a given government job. Get elected to a legislative body and vote your conscience all you want. Work for the DoT and built road (but not if you take the Sabbath so seriously that you refuse to allow road work to occur then). But when you are charged with executing the law, as written and codified, you don’t get that luxury. If you work for the DMV, you don’t get to refuse to issue a driver’s license to a woman because your religion prohibits that. And if you are clerk of the court, you don’t get to add new prohibitions to the law because your religion directs it.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  213. Prowler – you are missing the subsets of people in your flawed equivalence. The relevant constituency in the case at hand is the County. In the sanctuary city cases the relevant constituency is not the Cith, but the Country.

    JD (34f761)

  214. Bite me bobathome. I don’t like anarchist because they are self-serving, smug little assholes who think the laws don’t apply to them because they are special little snowflakes.

    Live your life according to your principals. But if you choose to enter the government, you must make the decision that your conviction allow that BEFORE you step into that job. Military deserters and those who disobey legal orders don’t get to claim religious exemptions. Why should clerk of the courts?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  215. It is a long tradition in religious history. If a job requires you to do that which you think violates your religion, you give up the job.

    Her point does not seem to be civil disobedience. She is not protesting SSM, or coerced marriage cakes. She wants to appear to be not part of what her religion calls immoral yet allow the immorality to function unimpeded. She wants her conscience salved, nothing more.

    Rather like a Christian who takes a job at Planned Parenthood on the understanding that she will not be directly involved in abortions.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  216. MD
    “Especially if one takes her point to be civil disobedience to bring to the attention to the public the state of the law.”

    That’s a horse of a different color. She is certainly free to do what she has. But it seems that some people feel that she should get a pass and not be punished, when they would demand blood from their political enemies that engage in the same acts.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  217. Just out of curiosity, did Matthew try to be both a tax collector AND a disciple?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  218. Prowlerguy, you don’t get the point. But you illustrate the point for everyone who does. We no longer have the nation of our founding.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  219. White House hopes for stopping a congressional challenge to the Iran nuclear deal and sparing President Barack Obama from using a veto suffered a blow Friday when a key Senate Democrat announced his opposition.

    The setback came in the announcement from Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, that he opposes the deal, which he said “legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program.”

    happyfeet (831175)

  220. 199. …Gee whiz, it’s almost like the question answers itself.

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 2:41 pm

    So. Answer it.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  221. So… what should be done about the members of the Obama administration and the federal government bureaucracy who openly flout and disobey the law and suffer no consequences for the actions they’ve taken?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  222. I’m anticipating an instance where a devout Muslim working in local government – let’s say in an office that would handle marriage licenses – refuses to issue said license for a same-sex marriage and the subsequent condemnation and jailing of that person.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  223. prowlerguy, it appears you are leading your life according to your principals. Congratulations.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  224. 218. Just out of curiosity, did Matthew try to be both a tax collector AND a disciple?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/4/2015 @ 3:19 pm

    We can do this all week, prowlerguy.

    2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either

    Please make me bring up the tax collectors and how Jesus on the whole kinda liked them.

    Which at first blush might hint at undermining some of my positions but in this Obama-esque world the subtleties must be observed.

    So sayeth Hillary! Clintoneth’s server.

    P.S. I can defend my position far more capably than Hillary! can hers.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  225. if Rafael Edward Ted Cruz *does* go on to win the presidency are we really gonna make him participate in the ridiculous farce of taking an oath of office?

    seems like that would be a little silly huh

    happyfeet (831175)

  226. Alas! the judge is a federal judge, so he holds his position for life.
    The federalist Dana (f6a568) — 9/4/2015 @ 10:53 am

    You spelled “feral” wrong.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  227. Suppose a Muslim gets hired as head of a county health department, after which he announces that henceforth non-halal restaurants will not be inspected, approved or licensed because hey, he’s exercising his “religious freedom.”

    And of course he forbids all of his non-Muslim deputies to inspect, approve or license those non-halal restaurants. If you live in his county and you don’t prepare your food according to Muslim dietary laws, sorry — you’re out of business.

    Hired, or elected? If he was hired, then it would be up to whoever hired him to make him do his job, or not, as that person chose. But if he’s elected, then unless there’s some law that requires him to inspect all restaurants he has the right not to. If you don’t like the decision, take it to the voters at the next election.

    Now if this elected commissioner then tried to close a restaurant down for not having been inspected, the restaurateur could go to court to prevent that. The court could restrain the closure order, or else the restaurant could simply defy it and when the commissioner went to court to enforce it the court would refuse.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  228. That’s a tricky business there. We THINK that MAYBE the people who elected her agree with her, so she can ignore the law. Even IF that were correct, that is the same thinking that the idiots who back sanctuary cities uses. Do you approve of those, since they locals there all agree that illegal immigrants can be shielded from deportation?

    I don’t think a court can just order them to enforce the immigration laws, any more than courts could order states to enforce prohibition back in the day.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  229. No, Steve57, our nation is different than when it was founded, but not for the reasons you think. It’s different because 230 odd years have passed. Our Constitution has been amended. Our role in the world has changed. But you seem to think that when our nation was founded

    And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t answer my question regarding Matthew. Matthew did NOT try to be a tax collector for the government AND serve Jesus. He couldn’t do it. He recognized what you don’t: that if you believe your government’s actions are against your religious beliefs, then your only real choice is to obey you God and remove yourself from the government. And asking all who are in a communal setting to work is not exactly taxation by government. But you knew that, didn’t you?

    I get it. You believe that somebody in government breaks the law, and you agree with person because you find the law in question to be somehow wrong, then that person is completely in the right to refuse to abide by the law and to act, with the full force and violence that government possesses, in opposition to that law. So the next time you feel the urge bitch about Obama not enforcing and/or subverting immigration law; ever time you get all pissy about sanctuary cities; every time you complain about officials not issuing firearm permits that they are required to by law you should STFU because your guiding principle, as announced now in your loudest voice, is that every government official MUST be given the ability, nay, the right, to simply refuse to abide by the law if their moral compass directs them to.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  230. Milhouse,

    You need to go the next step, because our good clerk did not stop when the court said “No”. So in this case, the Health Dept sent the police down and forceably close it. At that point, the court ordered the restaurant be allowed to open, and the city stayed firm and refused to allow it to open. Should they then be arrested for defying the court, or do they get a pass because of religious faith?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  231. Please make me bring up the tax collectors and how Jesus on the whole kinda liked them.

    Actually, the point about tax collectors was that they were officially condoned thugs and thieves,and collaborators with the Roman tyranny, but even lowlifes like them could repent and be assured of God’s mercy like all other sinners. Jesus pointed to them as examples of how low on the moral scale you could go, but still not be irretrievably lost to God.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  232. 230 comments?!

    She indeed has freedom of religion. She does not have the freedom to use the power of her government post to impose her choice of religious practices on other. She might have delegated the offending licenses to someone else, but no, can’t do that. She could issue them and try to make a public stink about each such. Didn’t want to do that. She could quit, no, doesn’t want to do that. She really wants to impose her religious practice on others, and contempt of court sounds good. When’s the election?

    htom (4ca1fa)

  233. Crap. Messed up my edits. Ehh.

    But you seem to think that when our nation was founded, each individual government official, from the lowest to the highest, was free to ignore any laws they didn’t like. “To heck with the Governor and House of Burgess, I refuse to let any Jewish people buy property or practice their Jesus-hating religion in MY county.” “I don’t care what they say in Washington, I don’t have to allow the Irish to cross the border into my county” “They can pass all the civil rights laws they want, but I’ll be damned if I am going to let any negro vote in THIS courthouse” Sorry, but I don’t think that is what this nation was like at it’s founding, and if it was, I am glad that it is no longer that way.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  234. You can give a sentence or levy a fine, how often is one locked up indefinitely? Since it is contempt of court can they do that until she is ready to comply with the court order?

    The general rule of civil contempt is that the contemnor holds the keys to his cell. “Comply with the court’s order and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Also, the trend is, and it is an important one, that at some point you have to let him go if it becomes obvious that he is not going to comply. But I disagree with my esteemed colleague from the great state of Texas that Davis is liable only for civil contempt. I think both are involved. Civil, to compel a benefit to the complainants; and criminal to punish the defendant’s intransigence and vindicate the authority of the court. For criminal, however, only a short sentence (under six months?) can be imposed summarily by the judge. Anything more severe would require full compliance with criminal procedure, including indictment by grand jury and trial by jury.

    nk (dbc370)

  235. In fact, there was a legal way for her to stay in office and not violate her beliefs. She could have simply left the county whenever such a marriage application was received.

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36490

    So now there was yet another option that would not have sent her to jail. So clearly, she WANTS to be in jail. Whether that is because she is an attention whore or whether she is following a higher calling can only be ascertained by seeing her soul. But based on her actions and her distinct lack of concern about other scriptural precepts, I’m thinking she’s a little more like Tiffany “Pennsatucky” Doggett than Rosa Parks.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  236. In modern practice, it appears that ignoring the law is alright if it is done for political reasons, but condemned if done for religious reasons.

    JD (5e65d2)

  237. Prowler – you are missing the subsets of people in your flawed equivalence. The relevant constituency in the case at hand is the County. In the sanctuary city cases the relevant constituency is not the Cith, but the Country.
    – JD

    So ASSUMING that the good people of Rowan county agree with Ms. Davis, their desire to outlaw SSM has been found to against federal law. Similarly, sanctuary cities explicitly order their police force to refuse to honor detention orders issued pursuant to federal law. In both cases, the local electorate is at odds with the national set of laws, and neither locality’s desires would be binding outside that jurisdiction. I don’t see the distinction you do, but if you want, we can play the same game with local officials who refuse to grant firearm permits are they are required to by their state’s laws. Works out the same.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  238. JD,

    Any reason you disagree with is “political” and any you agree with are “religious”. You do realize that all religions don’t match your particular one, right?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  239. Yeah bob, I do. I believe that government should abide by the law. Period. No exceptions because a whore adulterer decides to try to cleanse her soul by standing up against those yucky gay people. No exceptions because my guy is in the White House. No “He did it first”. No exceptions. Period. And when I meet someone online whose only contribution to the discussion is to display complete ignorance of the case at hand (elected federal judges!), ignore the fact that the Constitution is actually part of our federal laws (no Congressional action!), and to call others “little arse-lickers who navigate not by the stars, but by the latest administrative order from their lords and masters in D. C.”, I ignore them because they are not serious men (or women) capable of serious thoughts.

    Now go away. Your Mom is calling you to come out of the basement for beddy-bye time.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  240. President Lincoln wrote about the role morality plays in “to the best of my ability.” At first glance, it supports what prowlerguy and others have said — that the government officer’s duty is to the law as it is written, not as s/he would like it to be.

    But the crucial issue is what is to what does the government officer owe his or her duty? Lincoln decided his duty was to preserve the Union, so he ultimately breached the very laws he initially enforced, including military emancipation, arming the blacks, and other legal prohibitions. So it strikes me that in addition to the question of whether the clerk has a sincerely held religious belief, there is also the question the nature of her duty. Perhaps it is to issue whatever license the law specifies but, in a situation where the law has changed so dramatically and quickly, it seems to me that there should be a deeper discussion of the role of a religious conscientious objector.

    After all, America has long recognized conscientious objectors in the military. They were allowed accommodations, either by not serving but more commonly by serving in other roles. There are ways to do this for clerks but it seems there isn’t the will to recognize their objections as worthwhile. In fact, many comments portray this clerk’s concerns are frivolous or fraudulent or stupid. But we’re talking about a person’s beliefs regarding damnation and eternal life. I understand that not everyone believes in these ideas, but no one here knows the Truth. America was supposed to be the land where, with some limits, we each get to believe our own Truths. I’m beginning to doubt that’s still the case.

    DRJ (521990)

  241. Furthermore, realistically, we’re talking about a short-term problem here. In the long run, people who have problems with issuing SSM licenses will not run for offices that have that responsibility. Why is it necessary to tar the ones who have objections with such a broad brush? Are we that intolerant of religious views? The answer is obvious.

    DRJ (521990)

  242. what we’re learning is the same maladjusted pseudo-christian trailer park losers who don’t think gay people deserve to be served at private businesses also think they don’t deserve to have the same government services and protections as other people

    not really shocking i guess

    but I find it a little shocking

    and we’re also learning that these people are the heart and soul of the now openly bigoted Republican party

    this is no bueno

    I’m taking a second look at this carly chick

    yeah she doesn’t have the credentials you’d wanna see bless her heart

    but she really does have a lot of perspicacity and she doesn’t act like she needs a focus group to feel comfortable engaging on issues what bring out the worst pandering instincts in putatively much better credentialed candidates

    carly fiorina

    she stumbled a little just the one time i think

    when she pandered to that whack-job anti-vaxxer

    her steady calm sensibility though is such a stark contrast to Ted Cruz’s “this is not america” hysterics that I think I have to give more credit to her instincts than I’ve been giving

    I hate the idea of supporting someone so untested with no governing record but nevertheless

    she’s revealed herself this week to be impressive smart and courageous in the heat of the moment

    happyfeet (831175)

  243. nk may be right about this being criminal contempt but this Washington Post report suggested it is civil contempt:

    A person held in civil contempt by a federal judge may stay behind bars for up to 18 months, or less if a judge becomes satisfied that the person is no longer disobeying a court order. A person may be held longer if a judge finds the person in criminal contempt and issues a formal sentence.

    The article also says some people are pushing for criminal contempt charges because they believe it would be easier to remove the Clerk from office if she has a criminal record.

    DRJ (521990)

  244. Final note to Patterico: Read comment 243 and tell me that you have the best commenters on the internet.

    DRJ (521990)

  245. thank you I had an epiphany!

    I’ll be back later I’m a try and finish watching that interminable third hobbit movie

    happyfeet (831175)

  246. No prowlerguy @230 you don’t get it.

    It’s like a friggin’ study in not getting it.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  247. DRJ,

    I agree with much of your post. I would point out that conscientious objector status is never allowed after entry to the military. If one claims such (and it is supported by evidence of an honest objection, not a convenient one), they do so at the start. One can not enter the military, partake of the benefits allowed, and then on the eve of battle claim to be a CO.

    Ms. Davis MIGHT have been accommodated, but she has loudly proclaimed that she will not allow such accommodations. There were several options open to her, and she refused them all.

    And yes, we get to believe OUR OWN TRUTHS. If you believe that whiskey and dance are forbidden by your scripture, then it is YOUR actions that need control. If you believe homosexuality is sinful, you don’t partake in that. But once you say MY religious beliefs supersede YOUR religious beliefs AND the laws, that is where the line is drawn.

    A similar discussion was had in a Scout troop I was ASM at a few years ago (before the latest changes). The SM was upset that the church that sponsored us had relaxed their views on homosexuality, and demanded we move the troop. Mind you, the church had not even asked us to accept homosexual leaders or Scouts, let alone demanded it. He cited “morally straight” in the Scout Law as his basis, I pointed out to him that is says “…keep MYSELF morally straight”, not “refuse to associate with those that are not morally straight”. He got very angry, and went off with his little group and formed a new troop in secret. He then tried to steal the troop gear, owned by the church. I see a lot of parallels here.

    And if a single person COULD block laws in such a way, do you actually believe that they WON’T run for office? Heck, for the true believers, that seems like a great way bypass the courts, the federal government, even the state government, to force everyone to adhere to Pastor Jim’s message from the pulpit (or Mullah Muhamed, as the case may be), for their own soul’s good, of course. If this were allowed to stand, you would see people running explicitly on such platforms.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  248. oh…

    here’s good distillation of why the perspicacious carly fiorina is grabbing my attention and very much so at the expense of Mr. Governor Scott Walker

    In a radio interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Fiorina, who has been forceful about the rule of law, said, “Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as a government employee?”

    Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin appeared less clear on his position. Asked by the radio host Laura Ingraham on Thursday if Ms. Davis should be compelled to issue marriage licenses, Mr. Walker said:

    “It’s a balance that you’ve got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion. That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.”

    happyfeet (831175)

  249. Oh, we get it Steve. It’s OK to break the law when done for a cause you agree with. Clear as a bell.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  250. One final piece of information to be considered:

    http://www.themoreheadnews.com/news/local_news/county-clerk-s-race-more-contested-than-usual/article_1bbd5592-55fe-11e4-8f89-377bb4c40dd9.html

    She was elected just last October, making pledges that “Licenses, taxes, election-related activities and all of our other services cannot stop or slow down” and “Being a public servant is ingrained in me and I want continue providing the high level of customer service we do while treating people with respect, kindness, and helping them with whatever situation they have.” Nowhere did she promise to oppose SSM, even though those cases were underway at the time of the election. Much like her religion, her opposition to SSM seems to be a recent development.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  251. No, you’re still a study in not getting it.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  252. prowlerguy

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  253. I have to go outside and water the lawn. And no, that’s not a euphemism. Really, I have to water the lawn or it will die.

    So knock yourselves out.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  254. And I figured this bunch would be happy to stand up against a Democrat who subverts the rule of law. Turns out she is YOUR kind of Democrat: one who ignores the law because she claims the mantle of the same faith as you profess.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  255. Mr 57 noted:

    A transgender teen’s request to use the girls restrooms and locker rooms at a Missouri high school led to an estimated 200 students walking out in protest this week, reports say…

    Here’s the dirty little secret. The guy in the wig and the dress calling himself “Lila” is upset because the girls won’t get naked and shower with him. That’s it.

    He could use a girl’s restroom and locker room but that isn’t good enough if they aren’t using it at the same time. Because really what’s the point of seeing the inside of a girl’s locker room wihout seeing the soapy outsides of a bunch of girls.

    Naturally the state religion’s clerics say it’s the girls who won’t shower with the guy who are the h8rs.

    What does it say when salamanders and simians, when lizards and lemurs, when the birds and the bees can all recognize the males and females within their species, but college educated liberals cannot?

    It’s pretty bad when the teenagers are smarter than the adults.

    The Dana with some common sense left (1b79fa)

  256. You see, prowler, we care more about our principles than to which political party one belongs. I know it’s a strange concept for you to understand, but that is one key difference between those of us on the Right and those of you on the Wrong/Left. We hold principles above politics, every time.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  257. prowlerguy:

    I agree with much of your post. I would point out that conscientious objector status is never allowed after entry to the military. If one claims such (and it is supported by evidence of an honest objection, not a convenient one), they do so at the start. One can not enter the military, partake of the benefits allowed, and then on the eve of battle claim to be a CO.

    That’s only because we have a voluntary military now. The rules were different when we had the draft and I submit this is more like that situation, because when this Clerk took office the marriage rules were different.

    Ms. Davis MIGHT have been accommodated, but she has loudly proclaimed that she will not allow such accommodations. There were several options open to her, and she refused them all.

    Apparently you know more about the facts than I do, because the only accommodation I understood her to have was the “offer” to resign. That’s not my idea of an accommodation.

    255.And I figured this bunch would be happy to stand up against a Democrat who subverts the rule of law. Turns out she is YOUR kind of Democrat: one who ignores the law because she claims the mantle of the same faith as you profess.

    If by that you mean faith in the Constitution, then you are correct.

    DRJ (521990)

  258. Our Philadelphia physician wrote:

    I would have conceded long ago for some legal equivalent of marriage for SS couples if they really wanted it, but I was convinced the real issue was putting into our legal system a particular moral position that same sex marriage is equivalent to hetero, and anyone who didn’t agree in some aspect of action in their life was breaking in the law.

    That’s just it: if all that this was about was hospital visitation or inheritance, the various civil unions or domestic partnership laws would have been sufficient. What this was really about was the word marriage, to use the power of the state to say that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal as heterosexual ones.

    The Catholic Dana (1b79fa)

  259. Mr 57 wrote:

    2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either

    Please make me bring up the tax collectors and how Jesus on the whole kinda liked them.

    From Matthew, Chapter 9:

    10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

    12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

    Seems to me that the Lord was saying that he was there to minister to sinners, and that sinners and tax collectors were pretty much the same thing.

    Of course, we are all sinners, myself very much included, but I approve of considering tax collectors to be the lowest of the low.

    The very Catholic Dana (1b79fa)

  260. prowlerguy:

    Nowhere did she promise to oppose SSM, even though those cases were underway at the time of the election. Much like her religion, her opposition to SSM seems to be a recent development.

    Really, prowlerguy? This is a specious argument.

    Obergefell was argued in April 2015 and decided in June 2015. It’s asking a lot to expect a county clerk to make it the centerpiece of her election over 6 months before the case was even argued, especially since the appeal to the Supreme Court wasn’t filed until November 2014 — one month after the clerk’s election! — and cert wasn’t granted until January 2015.

    DRJ (521990)

  261. DRJ, Prowler wants you to climb into a time machine, travel to the future, find out what judicial decrees have been sent out in that future, then come back and declare which future judicial decrees you will not support.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  262. But your argument is in line with the general tenor of this debate: People are fools to do anything to interferes with SSM because “It’s a done deal so why not just accept it?” I grant you that it is a done deal. What I object to is the idea that, just like the Hobby Lobby case and the Christian bakers, there is no reasonable basis to object to any aspect of SSM now that it’s the law. This treats religious objections as frivolous, fraudulent or stupid, and I think treating any Constitutional rights that way — even “yucky” religious rights — is dangerous.

    DRJ (521990)

  263. The prowler wrote:

    And I figured this bunch would be happy to stand up against a Democrat who subverts the rule of law. Turns out she is YOUR kind of Democrat: one who ignores the law because she claims the mantle of the same faith as you profess.

    And this is a point that so many people miss: at the state and local level, the Bluegrass State is a Democratic state. The difference is that Kentucky Democrats are what would normally be called moderate Democrats, Democrats with some common sense about them, Democrats who really do care about doing a good job and running the government wisely. They are, in that way, very, very different from Democrats at the federal level, and that’s why Kentuckians don’t send Democrats to Washington anymore, except for the urban areas, and that’s why the lovely Alison Lundergan Grimes, whom the Democrats saw as having a great chance to defeat Mitch McConnell, lost in a huge landslide, losing counties that the Democratic senate candidate had carried in every other election against Mr McConnell.

    The Dana who grew up in Kentucky (1b79fa)

  264. I can’t wait till we get a President who, when the country is invaded by the [bête noir du jour], says his Christian faith will not allow him to respond with violence citing Revelations 3:10, English Standard Version: “If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.”

    nk (dbc370)

  265. But Kim Davis won’t have to worry about it. Sainted person that she is, she will have been lifted bodily to Heaven, along with the other 143,999 Elect and her favorite rattlesnake.

    nk (dbc370)

  266. pparently you know more about the facts than I do, because the only accommodation I understood her to have was the “offer” to resign
    As I understand it, she was offered the option of having her deputy clerks sign instead of her, and refused.
    Her objection, bear in mind, is not that same sex couples are receiving licenses to marry, but to the specific wording of the license.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  267. Kentucky born Dana, are you hinting that Mitch is really a Democratic senator? It would explain some things

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  268. And NK just showed he has no understanding what the 144,000 are. As I am a Christian now, prior to The Tribulation, I shall not be here during The Tribulation. But the 144,000 (12,000 from each of the 12 Tribes of Israel) will be here, and will be Born-Again Christians, and will be doing great things during The Tribulation and The Great Tribulation (which is a subset of The Tribulation). That means they weren’t Christians prior to The Tribulation but became Christians after The Tribulation started.

    Statement of Faith

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  269. I wish we had a transcript of the court’s hearing so we would know if the judge took evidence about whether this was a sincerely held belief and whether there were any accommodations that could be made. Maybe that was done and the judge had no choice but to find the clerk in contempt, but I can’t tell based on the reports I’ve seen.

    Let’s compare this to the Hobby Lobby case. It would be one thing if the courts had said to the Hobby Lobby owners, “Contraceptives only cost a few extra pennies for every insured employee, so why do you care?” Instead, the issues were whether the religious objections were sincere and protected by the Constitution. It involves a balancing of interests that the Supreme Court resolved in Hobby Lobby’s favor.

    Similarly, for many and perhaps to the court, the attitude toward this clerk seems to be, “Part of your job is signing things and this is just one more document, so why do you care?” Instead, the issue should be whether her religious objection is sincerely held and protected by the Constitution. This also involves a balancing of interests. It may be that her status as a government employee means the interest in forcing her to sign the marriage licenses outweighs her religious beliefs. But I have a big problem with everyone being so sure about the answer.

    DRJ (521990)

  270. Kishnevi, Southern Democrats are much more Conservative than the Socialists who run the DNC. That’s what Dana the kitty cat was saying.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  271. As I understand it, she was offered the option of having her deputy clerks sign instead of her, and refused.

    That makes sense, but I thought her position was that it was still being done under her name so it would be as if she signed it.

    DRJ (521990)

  272. her position now is that without her signature marriage licenses are invalid in that county so neener neener neener

    she really is a prize that one

    happyfeet (831175)

  273. That’s the Law’s position, happyfascist, as I understand it and as I believe the judge even understood it prior to imprisoning her. Only the County Clerk can issue marriage licenses, and she’s the County Clerk.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  274. yes but she can’t argue that and also pretend that she’s not trying to use her office to force her crude and hateful backwater cult beliefs on others Mr. Hitchcock

    happyfeet (831175)

  275. Actually, happyfascist, you’re the hateful, crude and backwater one. DRJ wasn’t complimenting your hate-filled screed but rather disgusted by it.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  276. Her clerks issued the licenses, today. Teh gheys now have what they wanted. Which goes to the issue of civil versus criminal contempt. There is no longer a remedy to the complainants to compel. If she is held any longer it will be criminally (read that any way you want). Not necessarily a bad thing because there is Supreme Court precedent that a short summary sentence for criminal contempt serves as a double jeopardy bar to formal prosecution for a much longer sentence.

    nk (dbc370)

  277. And Pilate and Caesar tried to quash the “cult” as you call it. They’re the ones that got squashed, not Christianity. And no, you do not practice Christianity, as evidenced by your self-admitted rejection of The LORD’s Holy Word. You cannot reject His Word and be one of His at the same time.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  278. actually no i’m not Mr. Hitchcock

    i’m not all those mean things you said

    i promise

    happyfeet (831175)

  279. Prowler – it seems you really just want to pick a fight. I noted repeatedly in the threads about this topic that it is wrong for them to deny gun permits because they want to. And sanctuary cities are different, demonstrably so, since the local action, though in defiance of federal law, is being done with the tacit approval of this administration.

    JD (34f761)

  280. Practically everyone here knows what that promise is worth. And oh, by the way,

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

    That’s Matthew 5, and that’s Jesus talking. Jesus specifically.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  281. nk knows this much better than I do so listen to him, but I think he’s right that criminal contempt would be better for the clerk.

    DRJ (521990)

  282. Any reason you disagree with is “political” and any you agree with are “religious”. You do realize that all religions don’t match your particular one, right?”

    No, I never even insinuated that. I was making an overall observation. If you could point out where sanctuary cities, denying gun permits as ordered by the Courts, EPA and FCC lawlessness, Obama circumventing legiatures and ruling by regulation and executive order is somehow based on a religion, then my observation would obviously be completely without merit.

    JD (5e65d2)

  283. Her clerks issued the licenses today Mr. nk but pennsatucky says they’re completely invalid.

    “I am the law!,” says pennsatucky haughtily, to nobody in particular. She munches thoughtfully on her third bologna-on-white sammich of the day. You know what would be great with this she thinks. Fritos! Crunchy munchy fritos! I’ll have to try this as a combo once I’m free she resolves.

    And this idea improves her mood immeasurably.

    happyfeet (831175)

  284. Happyfascist, you are a disease, a festering boil in the armpit of society. And I say that with all the respect you deserve (which is to say, none).

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  285. nd we’re also learning that these people are the heart and soul of the now openly bigoted Republican party

    She is an effin Democrat, Happyfeet. But don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred and intolerance.

    JD (5e65d2)

  286. god you’re so mean

    and you make everything so personal it weirds me out when people do that

    happyfeet (831175)

  287. Heh! Bologna sandwiches and coffee I know very well. They’re served in lockups for prisoners in transit. It’s just one slice of bologna between two pieces of Wonder bread and plain black coffee. I’d give my guys $5.00 to go to the Dunkin’ Donuts after they were processed out. Calories — the real opiate of the people. First fill their stomachs, then teach them virtue.

    nk (dbc370)

  288. god you’re so mean

    Yes, happyfascist, The LORD can be mean, especially when people refuse to obey His edicts, such as “Don’t take part in homosexual activity and don’t give your blessings to people for the purpose of their sinful behavior”.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  289. oh 287 was for Mr. H

    she’s a democrat Mr. JD but Team R is all over her like a chicken on a cheeto, except for a few stalwart and noble exceptions like for example Carly Fiorina

    Ted Cruz said he stands with pennsatucky and her unilateral abrogation of her oath unequivocally and that is most definitely a not good thing for him to say

    it’s no bueno

    and for what?

    the most picayune and spiteful nonsense, all while a flailing and dying and burgeoningly fascist America has such horrifically serious and real problems

    this idea that the fundamental core value what underlies christianity is the blind unthinking hatred of gay people is SICK

    and it’s belied by all the good christian clerks of Kentucky what have no trouble executing their duties

    this last hobbit movie really is wretchedly bloated

    and not a little silly

    happyfeet (831175)

  290. Jesus said, very clearly:

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    I highlighted certain parts especially for you, happyfascist, since you demand to be dense and reject The LORD’s Holy Decrees.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  291. ok well Mr. H if the Lord wants to be mean he knows where to find me

    that does nothing to excuse your tone

    happyfeet (831175)

  292. “If anyone asks you ‘What would Jesus do?’, remind him that flipping over tables and chasing people with a whip is within the realm of possibilities.”

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  293. ok now that’s enough of that kind of talk

    whippings and wholesale abuse of furnishings my goodness

    do try to be of better cheer, if only for the sake of enjoying the holiday

    happyfeet (831175)

  294. These days, He’d take a tire iron to the ATM.

    nk (dbc370)

  295. Happy, you might as well stop now. You haven’t said anything new for about 10,000 posts.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  296. i just don’t agree with Mr. Harsanyi

    it’s this silly ignorant kentucky woman who’s the threat to religious freedom in this situation

    there’s every likelihood that among those gay people what seek marriage licenses there are those what are doing so for religious reasons

    and for me that’s chief among the reasons why the proper and honorable course of action for pennsyltucktuck is to resign, either that or to seek some kind of accommodation with those she’s bent on persecuting

    there’s other reasons as well

    but that one resonates a lot with me personally

    happyfeet (831175)

  297. The reason why they won’t enforce certAin laws is why they enforce others, a new people won’t elect themselves on it’s own

    narciso (7c7aed)

  298. A clearer comparison.

    Suppose it was 1973, and a Catholic physician at a county-run hospital is ordered to perform abortions in the aftermath of Roe v Wade. He refuses, citing the risk of excommunication, and is fired for cause.

    I’m sure this happened, and I’m sure the same chorus was heard about “it’s the law.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  299. happy, she doesn’t want to resign. How is it so complicated? She’s got a sinecure for life, free medical and an excellent pension to look forward to. Why should she have to give that up? Maybe if the state is so all-fired gung-ho the have SSM, they should pay her off.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  300. it’s what an honorable person would do Mr. M

    happyfeet (831175)

  301. The County Clerk is being persecuted for obeying The LORD where homosexuality is concerned. She wasn’t persecuting a single person.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  302. An honorable person wouldn’t violate the County Clerk’s First Amendment rights or persecute a Christian for obeying The LORD where homosexuality is concerned. The judge isn’t honorable, neither were 5 of the 9 SCOTUS justices, nor were Obama, his Cabinet, the Democrats in Congress, the homosexuals themselves, you, etc, etc.

    John Hitchcock (5b356a)

  303. An honorable person would say “I can’t do this job without violating my religious beliefs,so I am giving up this job.”

    kishnevi (356aa4)

  304. Happyfeet – I don’t think you read his article. Because his position in the very first paragraph is fairly similar to yours.

    JD (34f761)

  305. It always fascinates me how rights that were discovered or created supersede Rights that are spelled out in the Constitution.

    JD (34f761)

  306. no Mr. H the weirdly singular focus on gay people what you find in these gap-toothed backwoodsers isn’t explained by Bible citations

    it’s just not

    happyfeet (831175)

  307. I read it I promise

    happyfeet (831175)

  308. what I took away from it though maybe was wrong

    happyfeet (831175)

  309. There are ‘positive liberties’ what the govt does to you, and negative ones, what it can’t.

    narciso (7c7aed)

  310. i thought the point he was most passionate about was that jailing this lady was disproportionate and et cetera

    even if true, and I can follow the judge’s reasoning on why jail as opposed to fines, but even if true

    the lady did a great disservice to people of faith by abusing her office in the manner that she did

    to protect america from people like her is why we need the first amendment to begin with

    this is serious, what she did

    and I’m glad the judge in this case at least acknowledges that even if Ted Cruz cannot

    happyfeet (831175)

  311. “yes but she can’t argue that and also pretend that she’s not trying to use her office to force her crude and hateful backwater cult beliefs on others Mr. Hitchcock”

    What was the law for thousands of years is now hateful cult backwater beliefs.

    Davod (f3a711)

  312. But you (and I) are outraged the tinpot sheriffs deny CCW permits simply because they don’t think citizens should be armed. You are also upset (as am I) when Obama refuses to enforce voting rights laws (Black Panther case) and immigration laws. The difference is that I make no distinction in the motivations of those who seek to substitute their own moral compass for the will of the people (including the Constitution and the courts, since the people ratified those) when they are in government, since there is no alternative when one seeks government action.

    I can buy that—but that doesn’t mean a person opposing Kim Davis also has to feel very resolute and enthusiastic about their stance.

    The question remains whether people in general have innate reactions leaning either in favor of or against the clerk from Tennessee based on their own reactions regarding SSM. The owner of this blog, Patterico, in past years has expressed a positive POV towards SSM, which I don’t share, and I’d be surprised if that therefore doesn’t make it easier for people like him to more quickly and strongly condemn Davis. In turn, how do folks of all political stripes perceive her compared with the leftist mayors who flout laws by declaring they reside in a “sanctuary” part of America.

    Meanwhile, a variety of liberals who love to spout “down with the man!” and “no justice no peace!” and who tolerated the Occupy Wall Street crowd trashing up public areas probably are undoubtedly amongst those most indignant about Kim Davis.

    Making things more pathetically amusing are the variety of liberals who react in an oddly complacent way or are even happily tolerant of the reactionary — or ultra-conservative — social-cultural trends in the world of Islam, but who are hot and bothered when the Kim Davis’s of the US (or Canada or Europe) do their own thing.

    Mark (dc566c)

  313. Mr. Davod the hateful cult backwater beliefs in question have less to do with a belief in gay marriage than with the belief that all men are equal under the law

    hoochie says they’re not

    that’s a startling assertion for an elected official to make

    happyfeet (831175)

  314. no Mr. H the weirdly singular focus on gay people what you find in these gap-toothed backwoodsers isn’t explained by Bible citations

    Actually, happyfeet, it’s best explained by your often using the word “gay” in a negative manner in a variety of posts you’ve penned at patterico.com and also resisting stating in this same forum whether you’ve had or would ever have a social-sexual relationship with another male.

    Mark (dc566c)

  315. Governor Huckabee made an interesting point to-day relating to his experience as governor. Just because a court issues an order does not make it legal. The state has to pass enabling legislation.

    The court ordered the state to increase spending on education. Despite the court order no funds could be disbursed without the legislature passing a bill and the governor signing the bill authorizing the expenditure.

    The same should apply in this case. Without changes to state law there is no funding to cover the services.

    Davod (f3a711)

  316. Oddly, among people I know who are screeching about “religious freedom” vis a vis Mrs. Davis, none of them saw a problem back when Missouri law provided for two weeks in jail and a $500 fine for any member of the clergy performing a religious ceremony they didn’t like (“solemnizing an unlicensed marriage”).

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  317. I don’t think America is very different than it’s ever been, though. Just waaaaay more in debt. Leviticus (f9a067) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:43 am

    Such a disingenuous comment, Leviticus, because I bet if you were forced into a time machine and forced back to the 1950s or earlier, you’d look up and down, look all away around, and cry out, “Yikes, this is not the America I’m accustomed to!!”

    And if not a time machine than how about a Bekins moving van? It would be a worthy adventure for people of the left to be required to move to the most liberal sections of America, where over 90-plus percent of residents think and vote like dyed-in-the-wool Democrats/leftists. IOW, you deserve to take an extended, if not indefinite, trip to the center of areas like Detroit, Michigan.

    Mark (dc566c)

  318. Happy (teh Strolling Bones)

    Well he never held his tongue past sunset,
    never kept lips zipped like his pants
    Never made his poor mama happy,
    Will he get a second chance?

    He needs to blog to keep him Happy,
    He needs a blog to keep him Happy
    Baby, baby tired of Happy
    Baby, baby tired of Happy

    Always eatin’ weird stuff, Thai pancakes
    Hatin’ on the tranny named Bruce
    Never got to know his papa
    Hatin’ Sarah Palin ev’ry night and day

    He needs to blog to make him Happy,
    He needs to blog, baby won’t you get lost Happy.
    Happy take a chill pill, Happy.
    Happy take a pill…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  319. I see things like the following and I have to laugh in the face of anyone who believes that a clerk from Tennessee is somehow hurting the rule of law and the credibility of the American system, or argues such a point of view a bit too strongly and passionately.

    freebeacon.com, September 3, 2015: The Department of Justice has accused a business of discrimination due to the company requiring employees to show proof of citizenship for employment.

    The DOJ claims that Nebraska Beef Ltd., a Nebraska-based meat packing company, “required non-U.S. citizens, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status to verify their employment eligibility.”

    After receiving pressure from the government, Nebraska Beef agreed to pay $200,000 in a civil penalty settlement and said they will establish an uncapped back pay fund for people who lost wages because they could not prove they are in the country legally.

    The settlement also requires the business to undergo compliance monitoring for two years, train employees on the anti-discrimination provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to revise policies within its office.

    Mark (dc566c)

  320. Your obsession with making other people move is odd.

    JD (34f761)

  321. hate that song

    I’m a go bed now

    happyfeet (831175)

  322. Ya’ll have convinced me that she has done exactly what she should have done.

    The people of this country believed that all that the same sex marriage lobby wanted was the freedom to be left alone to do what they wanted,
    and that President Obama was the one we were waiting for, who was going to Fundamentally Transform America from something Michelle Obama could not respect into something she could.

    And this is what we’ve got.
    While I originally thought she had no case, it has been pointed out that the issue of reasonable accommodation is real, whether or not some of us think there is any reason to consider it.

    The judge has done us a favor IF the things I have read are correct, that he went out of his way to impose a harsh judgment to make sure nobody dares utter a peep about this issue again.

    Did the people of America actually want people thrown in jail for disagreeing with same sex marriage?
    Yes, you can try to argue that is beside the point, the only issue is that she is not doing her job. Well, maybe she should be removed from office then instead of being told “You will sit in jail until you comply”.

    The choice of resignation is a real good one. Soon there will be so few people who believe in the historic apostolic Christian faith allowed in the public square that the rest of society won’t have to put up with us anymore. Well done, Alinskyites.

    As I’ve said before, had the American public knowingly chose the current state of affairs, it would be pointless for her to bother, but they didn’t.

    The original question of the post was whether Cruz was so far off base for supporting this woman that he should not be considered a viable candidate, not whether she had a good defense, not whether she did the best thing or right thing.
    IMO, the only way one can be against what she is doing in principle is if you think civil disobedience is never justified. I am not saying that the law should be ignored, though it is already all of the time, but that unforeseen implications of the law be highlighted.
    If you disagree with her, think she is a stupid bigot, or whatever, fine, you can do that. And if the majority of people in the US agree with you then maybe what she is doing is pointless.
    If, OTOH, a majority of people think, “Well, yeah, the county needs to have a way to grant SS marriage licenses, but putting this lady in jail is ridiculous, whose idea was that?”, then maybe a few necessary people will start paying attention.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  323. JD, in a society where freaks are coming out of the woodwork on a daily basis, where a freak occupies the White House, where freakiness is next to Godliness, “odd” is a good thing.

    Thank you.

    Mark (dc566c)

  324. I do tire of feets claiming things that are not true to be true and insulting me.
    My teeth are not movie star quality, but they serve me well.

    And apparently Mr. Knapp does not run in the same circles I do.

    G’night.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  325. The judge has done us a favor IF the things I have read are correct, that he went out of his way to impose a harsh judgment to make sure nobody dares utter a peep about this issue again.

    I wonder if that judge — or those similar to him in judicial temperament — when pondering the idea of, say, his teenage son coming home and proclaiming, “hey, dad, I’m in love with the captain of the high-school football team and I’m gonna start dating him!” would not flinch just a bit? Grimace just a bit? Shudder in the back of his mind? If so, would that same judge then want to slap himself upside the head for being a bigot, for not being more compassionate, beautiful, tolerant, warm-hearted, sophisticated, worldly and humane?

    Mark (dc566c)

  326. MD you are just a buck-toothed backwater bigoted hick trying to force your hate on everyone else.

    JD (34f761)

  327. Serious question. Under what authority did a federal judge give the order? What federal matter was involved? While the right to marry was settled in federal court, i would think the matter here – the issuance of the license, would be a purely state matter.

    Jeffrey (8b693f)

  328. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, same as in Obergefell; jurisdiction in the federal courts under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (seriously) now codified as 42 USC 1983.

    nk (dbc370)

  329. JD, my dentist takes offense at that…
    besides, there was no water, front or back, up in them mountains where my grandpappy was from

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  330. Maybe she can be held in jail until she EVOLVES to the APPROVED WAY of THINKING!!!
    I can see her sharing a cell with B.Hussein. Gender cannot be used in any way, so Opie Von Marxwad can share a cell. I mean, Opie has refused to follow many laws, including immigration laws.
    Oh, btw, Obama is a CHRISTIAN. He said so.

    Gus (7cc192)

  331. Jeffrey,

    Wiki says 4 couples (2 gay and 2 straight) sued the clerk in federal court to compel her to issue a license, since she apparently stopped issuing any licenses. I assume they asserted the court had jurisdiction because this involved a federal question. This controversy arguably arose because of the Supreme Court’s recent Obergefell decision that recognized the right to SSM under the 14th Amendment.

    DRJ (521990)

  332. Nk. What statute is the CLERK being charged with??? You understand Habeus corpus. Right???
    A FEDERAL JUDGE could easily rule that Barry H Soetoro Obama has violated his oath of Office, by allowing SANCTUARY CITIES, OPEN BORDERS, Fast and Furious or a host of other CRIMES. Should B. Hussein be rounded up and put on a BOX CAR to FOLSOM??? Or mayhaps LEAVENWORTH? And held without charges or bond??

    Gus (7cc192)

  333. DRJ. Great segue, should 4 people be granted the same MARRIAGE LICENSE. 2 STRAIGHT and 2 GAY or any other COMBO????? What PREVENTS IT????

    Gus (7cc192)

  334. That is the plan, Gus, according to what I read, she “can stay in jail until she agrees to issue SS marriage licenses” (not an exact quote, but that’s what I read).

    The judge must not be a parent, or he has very compliant kids. That was begging for a power struggle, not a resolution to a problem.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  335. Well, Section 1983 provides for a civil remedy for violation of civil rights under color of law by state officials (that could include challenging the conditions of confinement of a prisoner) against an individual victim. Which like I said before is the case here: Davis is the government; the applicants are individuals. Just because she is a wee petty tyrant in wee small 23,000 person county does not make her any less of a government thug disregarding the law and pushing people around to suit her whims.

    nk (dbc370)

  336. But context means everything, Steve57. Most people haven’t memorized the entire Bible, and will not go to the source to see if what you are claiming is true. And this is not limited to Bible verses, as people online often cite articles and/or videos claiming certain things about them that aren’t true, knowing full well that it is very unlikely that anyone will actually check the source material.

    Jesus was clearly speaking about divorce, and only divorce. Not about homosexuality nor SSM. The only reason to only quote what you quoted in an attempt claim that Jesus ONLY believed in a marriage of one man and one woman was dishonesty. It was about one thing. Divorce. Which, it needs to be pointed out, our pious Ms. Davis seems to have no problem with disobeying Jesus’ explicit command.

    The bible is full of “Thou shalt nots”. Don’t you think a perfectly divine creature, given the form and voice of man (thus cutting out the middlemen/prophets) could have actually said so, were that their intention? When I say “A Camaro is a car.”, I am not claiming that a Camaro is the only kind of car.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/4/2015 @ 2:43 pm

    Christ was clearly speaking about marriage, period. Divorce is a violation of marriage without just cause. God created male and female. He spoke about the holy union of man and woman. Christ affirmed that belief. You have warped it.

    Are you sure you don’t go by another name which says your a fan of a particular football team on another site? He used to claim the Bible didn’t mean what it said too.

    NJRob (2cbf9c)

  337. Nk, are you referring to the JUDGE or the CLERK as the PETTY TYRANT. I know, it’s difficult to be objective. Do you??

    Gus (7cc192)

  338. NJROB!!! MY BROTHER!!!!!!! The SCOTUS did just THAT this year. THE SUPREME COURT RULED that Obama care, the NON-AFFORDABLE CARE ACT as WRITTEN, did NOT MEAN WHAT IS SAID……VER BATIM. The CORRUPT COURT ……decided, and chose to PRESERVE A LAW, for political reasons. It ruled that the CLEAR VER BATIM WORDS………………..WERE NOT.

    Gus (7cc192)

  339. it’s what an honorable person would do Mr. M

    No, an honorable person would respect her beliefs and not cross two state lines to come badger her for a marriage license.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  340. Speak truth to power, and call evil by it’s name. – Senator Cruz eulogizes Andrew Breitbart

    Saw this today for the first time, and feel the need to share.

    Butt buddy marriage is a violation of the 10th amendment. I believe that’s the point Ted is making.
    A federal judge has no jurisdiction over the institution of marriage. Judge Farkisbuddy has no standing to inject his lack of morals on America via a back door ruling.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  341. Kevin, an honorable Judge, would not imprison a CLERK for such a percieved and ALLEGED violation of law.
    The LEFT uses POWER when it has power, without regard to the law, adjudication nor fairness. The first MONTH of Obama’s rancid term should have taught anyone with the least bit of skepticism or doubt. Within 3 weeks of taking office. Obama and the LEFT had a 1200 page PAYOFF/KICKBACK to their OWED constituencies, to the tune of a TRILLION dollars after interest. They called it THE RECOVER ACT, and it spread BILLLLLIIONS and BILLLLLLIONS to donors, unions and LIBTARD interests.
    The current MARXIST left, would cut off your nuts and feed them to their pet cat for power. And we take it.

    Gus (7cc192)

  342. jurisdiction in the federal courts under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871

    That act was overturned, along with most other civil rights laws, in the 1876 Cruikshank case, possibly the most terrible decision ever passed by the Supreme Court. Basically it said that a black was at the mercy of his state’s laws as far as life and liberty were concerned. The federal government could not interfere. It enabled Jim Crow and all the fine things the later Klan became known for.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  343. People who go on about “the law is the law” or “the Supreme Court has spoken” should stop and read Cruikshank.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  344. PAPERTIGER!!!!!!

    “Back door” ruling. STANDING OVATION.

    Gus (7cc192)

  345. Kevin M. Bingo. Sir, you use logic, reason, and facts.

    Gus (7cc192)

  346. For the record. There is no such thing as SAME SEX MARRIAGE. The AFFORDABLE CARE ACT is also, not only an oxymoron, but a lie and a bastardization of reality. The RECOVERY ACT, was not A RECOVERY ACT.
    Obama and his disgusting and dishonest and dishonorable pal JOHN EFFIN KOHN KERRY HEINZ, can call this TREATY, the ISRAEL PROTECTION ACT, but anyone with an iq over 50, and anyone who isn’t an imbecile or who is GUBMINT DEPENDENT cradle to grave, or border to sanctuary city, KNOWS THE TRUTH.

    Gus (7cc192)

  347. Nope. I said it right. Section 1983 survived. http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

    nk (dbc370)

  348. I can’t wait till we get a President who, when the country is invaded by the [bête noir du jour], says his Christian faith will not allow him to respond with violence citing Revelations 3:10, English Standard Version: “If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.”

    nk (dbc370) — 9/4/2015 @ 6:11 pm

    We already have that from the anti-theists. What do you think illegal aliens are doing if not an invasion?

    NJRob (2cbf9c)

  349. And the KKK, where it had the power, did not limit its activities to uppity nigras. It also went against “immorality”, fornication, adultery, drinking on the Sabbath, not tithing to the church, singing “Amazing Grace” off-key, etc., etc. The reference is not inapt.

    nk (dbc370)

  350. Nk. Nothing personal, but you have that President right now. You’re a moron.

    Gus (7cc192)

  351. Nk. Get a grip, you’re embarassing yourself. The KKK and the rest of the Democrat Party has always abused power. Your KKK has never been IN POWER, it has however represented the DEMOCRAT PARTY for decades. Get a grip NK, you’ve made a fool of yourself.

    Gus (7cc192)

  352. Duh!

    nk (dbc370)

  353. NJROB, who COMPLETELY APPROVES of the INVASION??? Barry Soetore Hussein Obama. Obama is GODLESS. He has a fanciful proclivity to embrace the religion of BOOOOOOOOM. But that is only because it is DADDY based (both Daddy’s dumped Barney Fife Obama). Obama knows only one God. Himself.

    Gus (7cc192)

  354. Justice Hugo Black, Senator Robert Byrd, Governors Lester Maddox and George Wallace, …. Read a book, Gus.

    nk (dbc370)

  355. NJROB!!! MY BROTHER!!!!!!! The SCOTUS did just THAT this year. THE SUPREME COURT RULED that Obama care, the NON-AFFORDABLE CARE ACT as WRITTEN, did NOT MEAN WHAT IS SAID……VER BATIM. The CORRUPT COURT ……decided, and chose to PRESERVE A LAW, for political reasons. It ruled that the CLEAR VER BATIM WORDS………………..WERE NOT.

    Gus (7cc192) — 9/4/2015 @ 9:35 pm

    Which is why their decision in that case is illegitimate. Their decision in Obergefell is illegitimate because it was beyond their authority as a court to make the decision. It was not a federal question and definitely not pertinent to the XIV Amendment.

    I do not accept the rule of tyrants and I will not follow their imaginary laws. The Court exceeded its authority.

    NJRob (2cbf9c)

  356. Nk. Put down the bong, crack pipe or bottle son. Byrd Maddox,and Wallace were obvious bigots. You made a moronic and broad statement. Go to sleep chump. Or… continue to make an ass of yourself.

    Gus (7cc192)

  357. Yes NJROB, but but but but Wallace ….maddox…..
    Rob, giving someone who has not honor….authority…..is folly. You “get it”.
    Because someone has the POWER or AUTHORITY to rule, does not mean that they RULED within the conscripts of the law.

    Otherwise, we’d still have FRACTIONS as citizens, God bless Rob.

    Gus (7cc192)

  358. Gus, I’m sorry I ever read one of your comments let alone responded to you. Have a nice life.

    nk (dbc370)

  359. Wow. Religion/moral philosophy is a very personal subject. The religion on the stand is not Christianity, but rather the pro-choice cult. The cult not only established a selective-child policy that debases human life, but now a congruence (“=”) policy that selectively excludes orientations and behaviors.

    Love lost. The rainbow flag is notably lackluster and has become the symbol of pro-choice doctrine.

    n.n (60df76)

  360. Get your alibis in order.

    Planned Parenthood office in Pullman Washington burned to a crisp. The authorities suspect arson.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  361. Nk, are you referring to the JUDGE or the CLERK as the PETTY TYRANT. I know, it’s difficult to be objective. Do you??

    That is a good question directed your way, nk, if only because it points to your being fairly emotionally irked at Kim Davis, certainly if you want to characterize her, and not the judge, as being a tyrant or superimpose the image of the KKK upon her. If so, that’s your dorky left-leaning side getting the better of you. Don’t pay attention to it since it has a habit of making a person both foolish and two-faced.

    I say that based on a comment you made not too long ago in which you claimed that African nations were socio-economic debacles due not to the failings of the people of such places — who happen to be predominantly black — but due to the presumably unkind, cold, selfish, brutish, all-around bigoted nature of settlers of European extraction, who happen to be largely white, in Africa and their being presumably big meanies to their non-white neighbors.

    Such a back-breaking, contortionist-stretching rationalization wouldn’t be originating from the phony-baloney liberal voices whispering in the back of your mind if at least a few African nations (or even one of them) with a long history of little to no contact with Europeans were wonderful, stable, prosperous, enviable, politically sensible places in their own right.

    Mark (dc566c)

  362. I just got back from what we consider to be a night on the town in Seattle, dinner and a volleyball match at the UW. I see prowlerguy is still struggling to discern the difference between principals and principles. But as its dark over the entirety of the continental U. S., he probably has urgent business to transact that will prevent his participation until the sun is once again high in the sky. Fortunately, this will grant our blog a modest relief while sparring him the trouble of understanding why some of us might think principles are at stake here, Supreme Court decision or no.

    For those of you who are following the book club discussion about Robert Murray’s Choices I would like to report that Seattle’s $15/hr minimum wage, (now temporarily set at $11/hr while the businesses adjust to this new reality,) is having the expected result. Parking at the UW has gone up to $10 from $8 last year, and the number of gates open to the parking area, and hence the number of attendants who need to be paid, has been cut in half. Dinner at Ivars no longer involves a tip, that has been taken care of in the new prices, and the hostesses and waiters are very attentive and helpful. A nice wild salmon dinner that cost $25 last year is now $38, the calamari appetizer is now 50% higher also. Two entrees – one halibut and one salmon – one coffee, and the calamari came to $103 including tax. We had a terrific table with a wonderful view, as did the other seven dinner parties in attendance. Of course we were well ahead of the evening rush, so I have no idea how things went later in the evening. Remarkably, the takeout prices at the outside window are still pretty much what they were last year. But those workers serve and cook as well as take orders, so they might have been above the minimum wage already, or perhaps this is such a profitable annex to the main restaurant that they didn’t dare mess with it. We’ll probably stick with the outside window if we ever decide to have dinner in Seattle again.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  363. You know it’s funny (not in a haha way) that the Left always want to be like Europe, until they don’t. How about we use European law on abortion and marriage? That might be fun.

    John Hitchcock (63617d)

  364. Patrick you are entirely wrong. Freedom of religion is now a myth in the private sector (the CO bakers) and the public sector — and you are applauding it.

    sd harms (c7dded)

  365. That’s the Law’s position, happyfascist, as I understand it and as I believe the judge even understood it prior to imprisoning her. Only the County Clerk can issue marriage licenses, and she’s the County Clerk.
    John Hitchcock

    You need to go up and read the KY law I so nicely provided a link to. What you just said is not true.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  366. I see prowlerguy is still struggling to discern the difference between principals and principles.
    bobathome

    Wow, such a substantive response! A homonym clearly invalidates everything else written. Face it, if all you can point out is a typo, you’ve lost.

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  367. The County Clerk is being persecuted for obeying The LORD where homosexuality is concerned. She wasn’t persecuting a single person.
    John Hitchcock

    Please point out to me where, in the Bible, what she did, specifically, was sanctioned. The Lord commands each of us, individually, to abstain from a whole list of activities. I don’t remember seeing anything that says “Persecute and shun those who sin” The law says that any person may purchase property. Would she have been on firm Christian ground to refuse to record the deed for any property purchased by homosexuals for the purpose of establishing a home where they could live with their partner?

    Plus, she not only foreclosed matrimony from same sex couples, she did so for hetero couples. Find THAT in the Bible!

    prowlerguy (3af7ff)

  368. Factoid: Judge David L. Bunning was appointed by Dubya a/k/a George W. Bush a/k/a Bush 43. His daddy was Republican two-term U.S. Senator from Kentucky and Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning, Paul Rand’s predecessor in the U.S. Senate. He sure sounds like a rabid lawless homo-loving godless anti-theist commie liberal, doesn’t he?

    nk (dbc370)

  369. I don’t believe there were marriage licenses in Biblical times.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  370. then you’ll have to believe harder

    happyfeet (831175)

  371. Planned Parenthood office in Pullman Washington burned to a crisp.

    The irony is that there was a massive loss of human life before the fire. What a strange culture that celebrates abortion/indiscriminate killing and congruence/selective exclusion. Lower the PP and rainbow flags, respectively.

    n.n (60df76)

  372. In the US, marriage licenses originated in the 1830s, for the express purpose of allowing the states to keep people from marrying across racial lines.

    Before that, heterosexual marriage amounted to publicly announcing “we’re married” and moving in together, usually accompanied by getting the sanction of one’s preferred religious institution.

    Both before and after that, same-sex marriage was less public because being openly homosexual was likely to get one ostracized and maybe even killed.

    After THIS, hopefully it will devolve to simple contract law with the same previously existing optional religious component.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  373. There were marriage laws, and the contracts of marriage and the parental and clerical permissions could be considered licenses.

    There were no counties. Counties were invented by Constantine the Great, the first Christian Emperor.

    nk (dbc370)

  374. The Clerk story is a proxy for a lot of anger, much of it justified. As a lawyer myself, I especially understand lawyers wanting to protect the Rule of Law. However, at this point laws have become what politicians, insiders and lawyers use to manipulate society, punish opponents and discredit “wrong” ideas. Laws no longer seem like tools of fairness designed to protect us.

    Obama has seriously damaged the Rule of Law and we may be at a tipping point. Score a big one for Alinsky.

    DRJ (521990)

  375. My last comment is what someone from #BlackLivesMatter might write. I fear for America when people have lost their respect for the law.

    DRJ (521990)

  376. you got this portion of failmericans what hate gays more than they love the rule of law

    we all kinda knew this all along

    that’s why Team R worked so hard to try and housebreak them over the years

    but they failed and now poochie creamcheese sits in jail

    baloney sammich in one hand bible in the other

    you with the sad eyes don’t be discouraged though i realize it’s hard to take courage

    in a whirl full of homos you can lose sight of the law

    cause your hate for all them homos makes the law feel small

    happyfeet (831175)

  377. Odd how civil marriage arose almost exactly the same way in western europe, why did they want the state involved.

    narciso (7c7aed)

  378. Prowler, she did not persecute the sinner by refusing to be a party to the sin. She obeyed The LORD by refusing to be a party to the sin, which was specifically called out as an abomination by The LORD. When The ALMIGHTY demands “don’t even wish Godspeed” to someone about to partake in a sinful activity, He means it. Again, her refusal to enable a sinful activity does not, in any manner, shape or form, constitute persecution of people engaged in that abominable act.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  379. In this irretrievably fallen world, it does.

    narciso (7c7aed)

  380. And again, happyfascist, who hates Jesus, attacks those who obey The LORD’s commands in their daily lives.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  381. I blame Reagan. He imbued America with the Hollywood ethos. Or maybe it was George Clooney. Robert Redford?

    America has always been neurotic. Chasing the capitalist dream, upward mobility, keeping up with the Joneses, two-car garage and 2.8 children; just as tenuous as the Utopia at the Communist horizon. A real world of hard work and hard people and a future as uncertain as a spider web in a hurricane.

    America’s morale is low. There’s a lot of resentment, and there’s a lot of people looking for someone to direct it at, and there’s hucksters — from Limbaugh to Sharpton to Trump to Obama and many other shades on either side and in-between — looking to direct it for them.

    And what bothers me the most about this lady, DRJ, is not her disregard for the law. Law is a man-made thing and if we run out of it we’ll have China makes us some more. It’s the way she uses God. It rubs me the wrong way.

    nk (dbc370)

  382. Squirrel, no the fiction of dam is not unlike the serpents ploy, to make man disregard God’s judgement, that’s all the way back in genesis.

    narciso (7c7aed)

  383. the implicit slander upon all them good kentucky christian clerks what are doing their job with humility and an ethos of public service

    it’s very troubling

    poochie creamcheese owes them all an apology

    happyfeet (831175)

  384. nk,

    In a sense, everybody’s religion rubs other believers the wrong way. That’s why there are different religions.

    History is replete with people who decided a religion rubbed them the wrong way. I thought America was founded (in part) to change that.

    DRJ (521990)

  385. I’m getting too old for this. I’ll leave it to you young folks to sort out.

    DRJ (521990)

  386. However, at this point laws have become what politicians, insiders and lawyers use to manipulate society, punish opponents and discredit “wrong” ideas. Laws no longer seem like tools of fairness designed to protect us.

    You said a mouth full there, DRJ. That’s why people have lost faith in the law and those who are supposed to uphold it. What does a law matter if it’s only applied to me, not thee? Why does it seem the elitists get away with treason but a county clerk is a big threat? It seems justice has become whatever the let decides it is and for whom the decide it applies.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  387. Younger people like Eugene Volokh.

    DRJ (521990)

  388. Chasing the capitalist dream, upward mobility, keeping up with the Joneses, two-car garage and 2.8 children; just as tenuous as the Utopia at the Communist horizon

    That’s an odd sentiment. So, you would prefer that everyone accept their lot in life and not try to attain what they think they can do ?

    I thought Feudalism was gone several hundred years ago. I haven’t read the whole thread and maybe this is some sort of debate I missed but it does sound odd. This country was built by people who didn’t accept their lot in life and moved to try to better themselves.

    That sentiment about improving oneself used to be called “Whiggish” and was what stimulated Abraham Lincoln. He even got the Homestead Act passed and signed in the middle of a Civil War. Nothing could be more “Whiggish” than that.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  389. Now that you mention it, it is interesting that the two main dissenters, Leviticus and happyfeet, are young. Young enough to be the children of us “conservatives”.

    nk (dbc370)

  390. I am not making a social, political, economic or value judgment, Dr. Mike. I am making a diagnosis of a population’s neurosis and its cause.

    nk (dbc370)

  391. Hoagie,

    With the exception of happyfeet, who has an agenda and will say anything to further it, I think everyone here may actually be on the same page. That may sound strange since we’ve disagreed so much, but at its heart what everyone here is struggling with is a society and rules that are no longer predictable or consistent.

    Some people deal with that by focusing on the Rule of Law and demanding that it be adhered to. Others deal with it by focusing on the futility of depending on the law in its current state. Maybe some feel that way more than others but, to me, the core issue is that it feels like society is out of control. FWIW I think letting the process work in the way Eugene Volokh describes is a good answer.

    DRJ (521990)

  392. #377, Been saying that about Lawyers for years. And that is why Civil unrest is needed and the fear for life and limb is also important.

    I mean, think of it this way, for all the crying by folks over innocent Cops being killed and so forth, the folks supporting black lives are getting what they want and the fear for life (an under current to that movement) is very effective. Same goes for Isalmists. The fear by the other side is the path to getting what they want.

    When the Right is willing to go to the extreme and kill and destroy, it will once again be respected in this Country. Till then ….. more of the same kids. Sorry but this is TRUTH based on human nature. Might makes right.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  393. #395 Just the way it is unfortunately. Sad but that is what the “Lawyers” and “Activists” have turned this Country into. A cauldron of division where only a combination of savagery and diplomacy gets you a place at the table. Just diplomacy gets you jail time.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  394. #379 For Happyfeet to talk about defending the dignity of Gays he sure spends an inordinate amount of time writing about how ignorant and beneath him the other folks are. Funny.

    At least Putin as he is crushing dissent and killing his enemies ceases from playing the victim card as it relates to his station in life. Wish our “Victim Class” in this Country would at least have the dignity to stop crying about their status as they run ruffshod over the rest of us.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  395. now Hillary!’s pissed
    “hands off my Huma!” she howls
    true carpetbagger!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  396. I am so pessimistic that I have been avoiding any more posting at Chicagoboyz lest I infect everyone else. I read Richard Fernandez every day and that will make most of us pessimistic even if I hadn’t begun that way.

    The poor young clerk is just one example of how the rule of law seems to have vanished. Muslim women refuse to check out shoppers who are buying pork in Minneapolis. Muslim airline stewardesses refuse to serve alcohol and sue when they are told they must.

    Hillary Clinton destroys our intelligence networks world wide by ignoring all security rules and seems to suffer no worse fate than doubt about her electoral prospects.

    Donald Trump, who seems a braggadocious fool (is that a word?) is favored to be the Republican nominee and angry Trump supporters attack the bloggers at Powerline as RINOs. I have even been attacked as an “establishment Republican” which would be news to several of my children who consider me Attila the Hun.

    I read some of HuffPo every day and marvel at the fantasy world those people live in.

    I’m leaving for England in a few days and will go to Belgium to visit the Waterloo battlefield on the 200th anniversary of the battle. We were planning to use the Eurostar train to Brussels but it has been attacked by the thousands of rioting Muslim “immigrants” who are in search of The Dole. We will take the surface ferry from Dover, instead.

    Meanwhile the Kentucky clerk might be winning the war as the gays win the battle. If she has the patience and stamina.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  397. Mr. Spirit how many of these martyrs to the holy apostolic church of trailer park jesus so far have had a college degree?

    don’t bother asking the googles for the purposes of this discussion you’re for sure safe going with “not many”

    and I tell you what – just looking at this as an empirical phenomenon

    this handful of bakers and florists and venue managers what keep making these sordid spectacles of themselves

    most of them got them a profound case of the simples

    you can see it in their dull uncomprehending eyes

    hear it in the way they struggle to make the sentences

    it’s poignant in a way, and that’s why it’s so shocking and sad to see Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee shamelessly exploiting these disturbed confuzzled and mentally struggling people

    happyfeet (831175)

  398. Brings new meaning to the term “rugrat”.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  399. nk (dbc370) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:14 am

    What are the odds that the Kentucky clerk is a black flag operative?

    Convenient that a PP site has been burned down about now, yes?

    felipe (56556d)

  400. I will not struggle with this sentence.

    Happyfascist, you’re a Christ-hating, sin-loving, glorifying in the sinfulness of others, arse, and yours will be a horrifyingly torturous eternity in sheol.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  401. i know you are but what am i

    happyfeet (831175)

  402. Mr.H is rubber and HF is glue!

    felipe (56556d)

  403. You know it’s funny (not in a haha way) that the Left always want to be like Europe, until they don’t. How about we use European law on abortion and marriage?

    That’s fascinating in I didn’t think there were any aspects of modern-day politics and culture where the US would actually be more sloppily leftwing than Europe. {Shudder}

    Mark (dc566c)

  404. Hey, happyfascist, who said this?

    With the exception of happyfeet, who has an agenda and will say anything to further it,

    You’re alone on your fetid island.

    John Hitchcock (a4c591)

  405. He sure sounds like a rabid lawless homo-loving godless anti-theist commie liberal, doesn’t he?

    After years of debating, you should be fully aware there is squish-squish — or, in the case of the judge, left-leaning biases — embedded in perhaps most humans, regardless of their party registration (but obviously most pronounced among Democrats). Reagan’s biggest blunder, for example, was when the little liberal voice in the back of his mind told him “weep for the American hostages in Iran, weep for the American hostages in Iran!! Save them, save them, no matter what!” And the rest is history.

    I’m still waiting for a counterpart of “squish-squish” to manifest in various liberals, prominent public figures in particular, in which the little conservative voice in the back of their mind shakes some of the naivete and foolishness out of them and they unexpectedly do something logical and sensible for a change.

    Mark (dc566c)

  406. I too am concered about our pouncing caesar, by that is for another discussion. Fernandez is a better spenglerian than goldman.

    A learned man not of peasant stock concerned himself with these same issues two millenia ago.

    narciso (7c7aed)

  407. Happyfeet – you claim these people made spectacles out of themselves, which is demonstrably untrue. They were sought out, targeted, isolated, chosen. All they wanted to do was run their business according to their faith.

    JD (34f761)

  408. the core issue is that it feels like society is out of control.

    But you ain’t seen nothing yet. There’s still a big chasm below, best exemplified by a country like Mexico, which very well may be (or probably is) the US’s future. Our future not just demographically but also socially and politically. A place where crooked cops, crooked politicians, crooked everything — socialistic-leaning public figures as the default choice — is the modus operandi. Where people of sanity trapped in such an environment have to cautiously maneuver around either abject poverty or galloping mediocrity, and, on occasion, headless bodies strewn about the roadway.

    People like the fool now occupying the White House are helping ensure that is our future—while they have the ease and means of retiring to a life of happy leisure in Hawaii or a high-security penthouse in Manhattan or Chicago’s Gold Coast, etc.

    Mark (dc566c)

  409. Its not about leftwing politics, it’s about what that learned man said in Ephesians 6:12

    narciso (7c7aed)

  410. i don’t believe that I think they love it Mr. JD

    like Rebecca Black sang so plaintively

    this is MY moment

    is their theme song

    and you know how you can tell

    by giving due and careful consideration to all them ones what think similar to these

    but forego the spectacle

    forego a honey boo boo like pageant where their fabulous shimmeringly bedazzled piety is shown off to great effect

    no

    all these people, and they are legion

    they just float on and get by and how do they do it?

    by treating people equal and by loving their neighbors as themselves

    like all them other good christian kentucky clerks what just say okey doke my job is to certify that your marriage meets all the legal requirements of this state

    looks like you’re all set

    done and done

    happyfeet (831175)

  411. I lived in Pullman, Washington while I was going to college there. It’s not Berkeley, but it is a spot of deep blue in a sea of red.

    I think it is just as likely that it was a fake “hate crime”; so many activists there have so little to do. Watch for the local news out of there, if it turns out to have been done by an abortion-rights supporter you’ll never hear anything about it again except in the local press.

    Gabriel Hanna (e2539b)

  412. I’m looking at this in two ways. Foremost, I don’t believe that there is any reason to believe that this “law” has the consent of the citizens who elected our Congress. Basically five lawyers found that the 10th Amendment was yet again of no consequence and they decided the entire country had to follow a law that these five lawyers made up. Prior to their ruling, 14 states had passed SSM laws (WA, VT, RI, OR, NY, NH, MD, MA, IL, HA, DE, DC, CN, CA) and 22 had the law imposed either by Federal District courts or their own state supreme courts. California passed a law supporting SSM this year after six years of court battles over Prop. 8, which in 2008 declared that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by CA. So citizens in 14 states have said it is ok, the judiciary has jumped on the SSM bandwagon with abandon perhaps swaying some voters in their views if not intimidating them in quiescence, and the rest of the country has yet to be heard from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.

    An important motivation for the court cases is access to spousal benefits provided by our welfare system, and these benefits and the rules governing them are creations of the Congress. When Congress passed these laws SSM was not imagined. So again, I question the validity of the Supreme Court’s new “law” on the basis that our elected representatives have not voted on it.

    My other concern is the overly ready use of violence by Judge Bunning. He appears to believe that he can coerce Mrs. Davis into betraying what she maintains is a core belief. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0. Specifically,

    Judge Bunning … said from the bench that he believed fining Ms. Davis would “not bring about the desired result of compliance.”

    So he’s going to throw her on a concrete floor for a couple of months, or maybe a year, or maybe forever. All that the good Judge requires is that she have the correct epiphany. And there is also a report I linked earlier indicating that the good Judge thought this level of violence would be effective in suppressing any “ripples” from emerging from flyover country. Supporters of SSM are dismissing the whole thing since the population of Rowan County is just 30,000 people, and as such insignificant. Rowan County is small indeed. Wiki has its population at 23,000 and reports that there were 9,394 registered Democrats and 3,929 registered Republicans in 2014. My belief is that Bunning has opened a can of worms, and we’re going to see a whole lot more of this issue. Indeed, since gay couples now think they can earn $100,000 by pretending they have been damaged emotionally by others not respecting their “marriage”, this could spiral into all sorts of court cases, with outrageous fines for those who refuse to adjust their thinking along court-approved lines. Re-education camps can’t be far behind.

    Our chickens have certainly come home to roost.

    bobathome (c93b3f)

  413. “All that the good Judge requires is that she have the correct epiphany.”

    The judge doesn’t give a tinker’s damn whether or not she has an epiphany. He’s given her four choices:

    1) Do her government job; or

    2) If she won’t do her government job, let her deputy clerks do it for her; or

    3) Quit her government job so that someone who’s willing to do it can take over the position; or

    4) Sit in jail until she chooses one from among the first three.

    (1) might violate her religious beliefs.

    (2) is an accommodation allowing her to preserve her religious beliefs (unless those religious beliefs extend, as they apparently do, to the proposition that God has appointed her to rule with an iron hand over the population of Rowan County, and that she is therefore entitled to do so).

    (3) is her complete religious freedom any time she wants to have it.

    She picked (4), presumably because she thinks that the talk show circuit and a book deal will be worth more money than the position of county clerk, if she’s able to establish some “martyr” cred.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  414. felipe, if I were to suspect the lady of flying under a false flag, it would be her own. For her own political purposes. Somebody said that she had a close election the last time. So now she might be trying to build herself up with the snake handlers.

    nk (dbc370)

  415. presumably because she thinks that the talk show circuit and a book deal will be worth more money than the position of county clerk,

    So would you be that cynical about and apparently resentful of her if she had chosen — given the strictures of not too long ago — to go against prevailing law and were issuing marriage licenses to Bob and Joe, Ed and Sam, and Susan and Mary? Or how would you feel about her if she were one of those renegade mayors (the blue-blue ones) imposing sanctuary-city policies upon their community?

    I can accept people opposing the policies of Kim Davis, certainly if it’s for legal or Constitutional reasons, but it’s the level of their resentment towards her — and what’s triggering such a reaction — that I find interesting and perhaps most telling.

    Mark (dc566c)

  416. Mark,

    I never had any great sympathy for e.g. the mayor of San Francisco when he ordered the issuance of licenses to same-sex couples, for the simple reason that I don’t particularly truck with licenses. But in fact he was eventually vindicated by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the law is that such issues must be licensed.

    As far as “sanctuary cities” are concerned, it is not and never has been the duty of city governments to enforce federal laws, any more than it’s the duty of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to enforce the traffic laws of Peoria.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  417. Thomas, your response pretty much answers my question, meaning your gut reactions apparently are from the left, which is what I originally detected. IOW, notice your qualification of “never great sympathy for…” versus, for example, “he was grandstanding with the MECHA crowd and wanted to make a name for himself,” and “never the duty of city governments” versus “never the duty of federal court judges to…”

    Mark (dc566c)

  418. Mark,

    Your powers of detection must be very sharp. Yes, I am indeed a leftist, also known as a libertarian.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  419. Squishy or super duper squish-squishy? Mark DEMOLISHES Thomas L. Knapp in one tweet (how he does it will blow you away)

    happyfeet (831175)

  420. I’m afraid that some of the comments here, including some of mine, may be more sinful in the eyes of Jesus than buttsechs. I’m not excluding some of your comments, either, happyfeet.

    nk (dbc370)

  421. Why you want to bring Jesus into your mess? That man has suffered enough.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  422. 308. It always fascinates me how rights that were discovered or created supersede Rights that are spelled out in the Constitution.

    JD (34f761) — 9/4/2015 @ 7:47 pm

    That’s the entire point of inventing new rights. To invalidate the actual enumerated rights. But then, you knew that.

    Take the HHS abortifacient mandate. We’re talking “Women’s Health” now! Surely a woman’s right to health is more important than the crusty old superstitions of elderly white men who think they should die. As HIllary! says, pro-lifers are the same thing as terrorists.

    I find the issue of abortion and abortifacients/contraceptives a richer vein to mine for examples of liberal slander against people of religion than gay marriage simple because it has existed longer as a legal entity.

    Kim Davis is not judging anybody, as much as prowlerguy tries to twist things, like Hillary!, to gaslight people who may stumble across this thread.

    She’s in a similar position to some New Jersey nurses who were fired from a public hospital, but later reinstated, for refusing to participate in abortions. New Jersey law, like many if not all states, provides for a conscience objection for health care professionals. A health care professional does not have to participate in an abortion.

    The Hospital’s position was that the nurses weren’t being shanghaied into participating in an abortion, as they weren’t required to participate in the actual procedure. Bur the hospital was demanding that they prepare the woman from the moment she arrived at the hospital to the moment she went into the OR, then take care of her from the moment she left the OR to the moment she left the hospital.

    The nurses argued that since the only reason the woman was in the hospital at all was for an abortion, they couldn’t be involved in any way from the moment she arrived to the moment she left. As a matter of Catholic doctrine, they are correct. To facilitate a sin in any way is the same as committing a sin. If I were a plumber or an electrician and a Planned Parenthood facility’s toilets stopped flushing or their lights went out, there’s no way as a Catholic I could get them up and running. I don’t care how much money they offered, or if we’re just talking about an office that doesn’t do anything except shuffle papers.

    The nurses eventually prevailed, but they had to go through h3ll to do so. I have serious doubts based upon recent developments if they would prevail today.

    The courts have systematically dismantled the whole notion of the free exercise of religion. We now have reduced the free exercise of religion to freedom of worship, which is what results from establishing a state religion as the left has been able to achieve. The owner of the Masterpiece Bakery is free to to to some private space and engage in whatever liturgy he chooses. But his bakery has a religion, it is the state religion, and to whatever degree the state allows the baker to be publicly active the baker must conform to the state religion, not his own.

    This is one of the reasons leftists and Islamists get along so well. They both understand and agree upon the fact that adherents of non-state religions must be humiliated and insulted as second class or third class citizens. Ultimately as non-entities. If you’ve ever wondered why Obama never speaks of the slaughter of Christians (and the few remaining Jews, who got slaughtered first) across the Islamic world this is why.

    I was always opposed to SSM not because I hate gays, but because I recognized that SSM and the First Amendment can not both exist at the same time. In fact, I’ve quoted SSM advocates who have also said the same thing.

    But to them, and the leftists in government who would be empowered to place restriction if not eliminate entirely the free exercise of religion, speech, association, and thought itself that was the main feature of SSM. Which is why they so enthusiastically embraced it.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  423. Yes, I am indeed a leftist, also known as a libertarian.

    Thomas, you can’t be all that much of a libertarian, because if you were, you’d be far less sympathetic towards a federal judge throwing Kim Davis in jail, and, in turn, far less bothered by a small nail in the big bureaucracy attempting not to get hammered down.

    Mark (dc566c)

  424. Never mind, papertiger. You just watch your step in Macon Rowan County.

    nk (dbc370)

  425. heavens to betsy Mr. nk

    Mr. Matthew there sounds like he needs to take a deep breath and count to ten

    and then let it out slowly

    that level of dudgeon is patently unsustainable

    The idea seems to be that “all rash anger is heart murder.”

    Well it’s not. That’s nutty.

    People need to be more like how Matt McConnogloffey is when he’s tootling around in his Lincoln – it’s about finding that balance.

    yeah that’s the sweet spot

    happyfeet (831175)

  426. He’s not saying don’t be angry. He’s saying don’t talk angry.

    nk (dbc370)

  427. Ok, he’s saying don’t be angry, too. But talking angry is the big one.

    nk (dbc370)

  428. i think the whirl would be a better place if everybody stopped worrying so much about policing other people’s speech

    not naming any names

    happyfeet (831175)

  429. Since the whole point of gay marriage is to police other people’s thoughts, speech, and actions, nobody can believe a word you say, @432.

    If you really believe the “whirl would be a better place if everybody stopped worrying so much about policing other people’s speech” then don’t vote or advocate for fascist policies like gay marriage.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  430. i love gay marriage SO much Mr. 57

    it’s the future what happened in my lifetime!

    that hardly ever happens

    next up is them self-driving cars

    happyfeet (831175)

  431. nk, I’m not sure what you meant earlier about Davis getting God involved. Do you mean her stand is not because of a sincerely held religious belief, or are you simply voicing frustration and annoyance as one who believes in God but doesn’t want to be associated with “that kind” that believes in God?

    As that hick from the back-woods of Princeton, Robby George, mentions in the book, WHAT IS MARRIAGE? Man and Woman: A Defense, ridicule is what people resort to when they lack logical arguments.

    As I said before, it appears there are very few here who want to be sympathetic to her position and the process she is in unless they are in agreement with her to some degree.
    DRJ linked Volokh above which I found helpful, and you lawyers may appreciate his thoughts.

    It is unclear how long and how hard she was trying to work an accommodation out, and whether the officials she appealed to responded timely. It appears the fed judge wanted to step in quickly and try to smash the opposition to SSM. Perhaps some are afraid the SSM issue is not resolved, but will hang around forever like the abortion debate (hint, it will).

    Now, one can try to tell her that she is a fool to ask for an accommodation, that she is an idiot for suggesting certain things, that she is delusional in her thought process and uses a form of logic foreign to any other human, but all of that is simply a form of, “I don’t agree with her”. Fine, you don’t have to, you can support her being held in jail until she is willing to sign a SSM license even after the state makes an accommodation that she is happy to live with. Feel free to,
    but you are incorrect to think your position is necessarily more honorable, logical, reasonable, or sophisticated than hers.

    And that doesn’t even begin to address the issue of her willingness to be jailed as a statement of civil disobedience. Disagreeing with her should not mean the need to say her position is absurd. Once Rosa Parks did an absurd thing in disobeying the standing law.

    Yes, nk, Jesus had strong words to say about uncontrolled anger, but there actually is a lot of harsh language elsewhere that is applauded, such as when Paul said to let any person who preached a Gospel different than the one he had delivered to be accursed, even if it was himself at a later date saying something new.

    For the conspiracy theorists out there, we know it is true that governmental officials, advocacy groups, and individuals colluded to harass the baker in Oregon. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find some emails between state officials and the fed judge on setting Davis up for a fall instead of accommodating her? I’m not saying I believe that is what happened, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  432. Happyfeet – they didn’t create the spectacle, Happyfeet. The spectacle was a result of the wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the likes of you and your fellow social justic warriors, and your quirky form of intolerance.

    JD (3b5483)

  433. i had nothing to do with this Mr. JD

    if anything i tried to warn poochie she was heading down a bad road

    nobody listens to me then when I make fun of them after they get in trouble it’s like I’M the bad guy

    happyfeet (831175)

  434. i have to go take a nap

    happyfeet (831175)

  435. His quirky form of intolerance is also known as totalitarianism, JD.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  436. such as when Paul said to let any person who preached a Gospel different than the one he had delivered to be accursed,

    Heh! That was the Epistle reading last week. I warned the daughter she was going to get a glimpse of the Church militant.

    I find it hard to articulate why it bothers me that she is saying “God won’t approve of me signing a same-sex marriage license”, when it would not bother me if she said “I’m not coming in to work today because it’s Good Friday”. It just sounds facile to me.

    nk (dbc370)

  437. Mr Knapp – it is absurd and laughable and dishonest to contend that Mayor Newsome was vindicated by the SC ruling.

    JD (3b5483)

  438. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find some emails between state officials and the fed judge on setting Davis up for a fall instead of accommodating her?

    They wouldn’t have to do that. Not all of the six pairs joined the lawsuit. They had the Ohio pair, among others, on standby. If this judge didn’t give them what they wanted, another pair would have gone to another judge, and so on, till they found a simpatico one. It’s a tactic Olson and DuBois perfected in the SSM litigation.

    nk (dbc370)

  439. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find some emails between state officials and the fed judge on setting Davis up for a fall instead of accommodating her?

    Their game does not require emails, phone calls, texts or any other communication, MD in Philly. Every leftist knows inherently the correct response to any given situation. It’s like you are my partner in Pinochle and you lead with a King of Hearts, waddaya think I’m gonna do? We don’t need to communicate, the card did. Just like when a negro is killed by a cop the body hasn’t reached room temperature before MSNBC has Mark Lamont Hill on. Voila!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  440. 437. i had nothing to do with this Mr. JD…

    happyfeet (831175) — 9/5/2015 @ 11:25 am

    Yes, that’s what Hillary! said when her IT guy took the fifth, and that’s what the Democrats will say when the Iranians use their new windfall of billions of dollars that the Democrats just agreed to give them to wreak havoc across the M.E.

    The fact is none of this could happen without them. Or you, happyfascist.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  441. Thank you for that Volokh article, DRJ. It does a great job of pointing out how fatuous the resign immediately demands are.

    JD (3b5483)

  442. Mark,

    I’m not “sympathetic” toward one state functionary throwing another state functionary in jail.

    But neither am I “sympathetic” toward an $80k per year state functionary pretending to be a martyr after choosing to go to jail rather than either do the job or quit the job.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  443. why does Islam even it’s most severe sects. hold appeal to those who wouldn’t normally embrace such a message, because Christianity rings hollow in the modern realm of Western Europe and increasingly large parts of the US,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  444. “such as when Paul said to let any person who preached a Gospel different than the one he had delivered to be accursed”

    Interesting. I knew Paul was a heretic, but never noticed him directly condemning Jesus before.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  445. Ok, Volokh agrees that she doesn’t have a leg to stand in federal court, but she may in a Kentucky court under Kentucky’s RFRA. That’s how I read it.

    nk (dbc370)

  446. Oh, great. We got ourselves another Gil in Thomas L. Knapp.

    nk (dbc370)

  447. he’s gone full vizzini, and one should never do that. Paul knew that what was demanded was not easy, his trevails, made the Kentucky clerks pale by comparison,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  448. nk nails it at #384. Expresses my thoughts better than I have been expressing them. I have been talking about what I think she should have done – which doesn’t really matter. nk pinpoints the reason that Davis’s actions bother me.

    Does anyone really believe that government mandates as to the meaning of terms or concepts are somehow attributed to individual citizens (or government employees) by the simple fact of participation in the civic life of this country? The Supreme Court recently ruled that a fish is not a tangible object (in the Yates opinion). That seems like a pretty fundamental redefinition to me, but nobody gives a rat’s ass because they have own beliefs about the tangibility of intangibility of fish. It doesn’t affect them. At a fundamental and important metaphysical level, i happen to still believe that a fish is a tangible object, setting the official government position aside.

    How is this so different? The State is driven by a thousand different agendas, and I believe what I believe in spite of its edicts. We know that deep down, and we live with it everyday – until something like this flairs up, and we forget it.

    It’s because people like Kim Davis thoughtlessly weaponizer their faith and then manage (somehow) to support them as a litmus test of our own faith. That is what bugs me about this episode – and the burgeoning paradigm that it illustrates.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  449. Typos in that, sorry – written on a phone

    Leviticus (48a857)

  450. gosh, cutting through all that category error, requires a threshing machine,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  451. There were two gay young men of Kentucky
    Who in love were not all that lucky
    When asked why they picked Rowan County to wed
    “It was not from lack of options”, they said
    “But, you know” (with a blush) “who doesn’t wish for Morehead?”

    nk (dbc370)

  452. nk: I promise you, I am NOT making this up.

    There is a street in the city of Morehead, KY named “Lower Licking Rd.”

    L.N. Smithee (880b3e)

  453. But neither am I “sympathetic”

    Thomas, I’m just asking you to drop the pretense that your own biases aren’t coloring your reactions to Davis versus the judge — laws, edicts, principles and history be damned — just as I know my own biases are affecting who I’m aiming more of either my sympathy or resentment to.

    However, I continue to have greater suspicions about people of the left — if not you in particular than your ilk in general — in that so many liberals are total fools when it comes to their willingness to snub an obscure clerk from Tennessee on one hand and yet, on the other hand, express a surprising amount of forbearance to, for example, fundamentalist Muslims. IOW, when one’s ideological biases are so easily manipulated that they get caught up in the nonsense of cognitive dissonance, there’s a problem there.

    Mark (dc566c)

  454. that falls under tmi,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  455. this lesson, might be comparable to Mrs. Davis’s experience:

    http://eternallyblessed.org/snts/snt-0212-peter-vs-sanhedrin/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  456. It’s because people like Kim Davis thoughtlessly weaponizer their faith and then manage (somehow) to support them as a litmus test of our own faith

    Just keep in mind that the religion (or “religion”) of holy liberalism evokes no less fervent and deeply held beliefs and “come to Jesus” emotions (or, in the case of the left, “I wear my beautiful, wondrous compassion on my sleeve!”) in one group of people as do the traditional forms of religion in another group.

    Mark (dc566c)

  457. there’s a reason Alynski dedicated Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer, after all.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  458. Paula Dean thought she was in good standing, as did a fellow named Rodner Figueroa, but one bout of crimethink and it’s over,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  459. Some are willing to see the clerk as a criminal but not a martyr. Where have I heard that before?

    DRJ (521990)

  460. an obscure clerk from Tennessee on one hand

    But she is not merely that.
    She is an elected official, and entitled to summon the full power of government coercion if she wants. (Although Percy’s sarcastic comment to Glendower in Henry IV is fully applicable here.)
    And she is explicitly basing herself on what she finds to be the teaching of what still is the majority religion in this country.

    And she has directly linked that religion to fulfilling (or not) the duties of her office.

    This is not cake baking. To be truly parallel, the wedding cake cases would require a setting in which they were the only baker in town, and all wedding parties were required to buy at least one cake from that baker to be lawful.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  461. 455. gosh, cutting through all that category error, requires a threshing machine,

    narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 12:19 pm

    Concur.

    Steve57 (3b2e7d)

  462. Understandable, nk

    But I’ll say again, with all of the intolerance of her position expressed, I am increasingly glad she did what she did and support her based on the information I have now.
    Obviously people disagree with her, but real faith expressed in this world will bring persecution, even if it is kind of trivial compared to parts of the world.

    But simply being ostracized by friends is one of the most dangerous forms of persecution there is. “Oh, do I really have to make an issue of this?” And 100 “this” later one is so bland as to have no more saltiness.

    I firmly believe this is the kind of thing what it will take to reverse the L slide, if you are at all interested. People not being willing to be cow-towed.
    The left wanted to move heaven and earth to make an accommodation for SSM against the will of the people,
    and all this lady wants is to be able to put on the form “County Clerk” in stead of her personal name, and for that she gets thrown in jail!?!?

    C’mon, I think some of ya’ll would have picked Rosa up and carried her to the back of the bus to avoid a confrontation (yes, that was a bit of hyperbole, how much, you tell me)

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  463. It’s because people like Kim Davis thoughtlessly weaponizer their faith and then manage (somehow) to support them as a litmus test of our own faith. That is what bugs me about this episode – and the burgeoning paradigm that it illustrates.

    Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 12:04 pm

    The paradigm has been established by liberals in recent years of doing exactly what this woman is doing. The two differences in the situations are (1) they don’t cite any religious belief as their motive and (2) somehow they don’t go to jail. That doesn’t necessarily justify her action but she or any like minded person are not creating any new paradigm.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  464. Good link narciso, seems Althouse is sympathetic to the judge even though she is a SSM advocate.
    Get them stinkin’ Christians confined to the church basements for Sunday school!!

    Kishnevi, did you read the Volokh link?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  465. I thought Eugene Volokh had an interesting post on the government’s duty to accommodate her. My instinct said that would be my preferred result (an accommodation) if it’s feasible but I didn’t know how feasible it is. Volokh seems to think it’s very feasible and that if she sued for an accommodation, she should get one.

    Tossing her in jail right away seemed a mite bit precipitous.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  466. Oh, I guess somewhere in the 471 comments (which I have not read in their entirety) someone has already linked the Volokh piece. I guess that should not surprise me.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  467. MD, I did. I think Volokh is understating the argument against her position. He talks about the burden placed on her and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but ignores the burden her position places on the citizens of Rowan County, especially those who wish to get married at some point in the next thirty days (under Kentucky law, a marriage license not used in thirty days expires, and you need to get a new one).

    kishnevi (c62fd3)

  468. My church is named after St. George. He was an officer under Diocletian for a long time, but then Diocletian tried to enforce worship of the pagan gods, and he was martyred. One interpretation of the dragon is that it was Diocletian.

    Tomorrow’s Epistle is 1 Corinthians 4:1-5.

    nk (dbc370)

  469. Here’s the paradigm, Leviticus,
    follow the clearly expressed NT teachings and then work on the less expressed.
    And if you don’t like Paul, please name what you believe something else and you won’t get associated with us hicks

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. II Tim. 4:3
    For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our Lord into sensuality and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude vs. 4

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  470. The gist of the Volokh piece was that she had a poor federal claim, but a pretty good state claim, since the accommodation she sought could only be judicially arrived at through the intersection of two state laws.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  471. DRJ linked it at comment 390

    kishnevi (c62fd3)

  472. Today’s.

    nk (dbc370)

  473. Yup, DRJ. I should have guessed that she would provide perhaps the most insightful link on this topic I have seen.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  474. kishnevi–

    A state judge could order her name replaced on all licenses with her office or title instead, as there is a better religious-accommodation protection under state law and so it’s simply a matter of merging two conflicting state laws.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  475. kishnevi, either you and I read different articles or we are taking away what we want to.
    Volokh also said that perhaps under KY law it would be as easy for 1 state judge to say to Davis, “You can sign “County Clerk” instead of your name” and the problem would be over, nobody inconvenienced except for the judge who had to review the request.

    As Volokh said, either you recognize the long standing principle of accommodation and then get into the details of what is reasonable, or you are willing to ban all sorts of people from all sorts of public and private activities. If you want to do the second, fine, if you want to do the second only for people who believe in the historical apostolic Christian faith, actually you can do that too, please just be obvious about it. 🙂

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  476. Kevin. Yes, but until that gets done, the folks in Rowan County bear the burden.
    Mind you, all couples in Rowan County would have to wait or accept the burden of going to the next county (note that Volokh cites the cases that say the latter is annundue burden).

    kishnevi (c62fd3)

  477. Ted Cruz explains his position. Cruz told Megyn Kelly that the consequence of this incident is that Christians won’t be able to hold public office, because this shows the government will never make any accommodation for any religious belief. He also rejected the idea that the answer is for the clerk to resign or to let her deputies handle the licenses. He said her name would still be on the licenses if the deputies issued them, and resignation should not be the answer just as liberal officials who wrongly authorized SSM weren’t expected to resign.

    DRJ (521990)

  478. She could agree to sign the same-sex licenses “Kim Davis, not personally, but only in my official capacity as Clerk of Rowan County, and not as my free and voluntary act but under compulsion of the Order of the Honorable David L. Bunning, dated …. in Case No. ….. etc., a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this license”. Would this deny the plaintiffs dignity? Would the Universe cry out? Would the judge’s head explode?

    nk (dbc370)

  479. More about the deputy clerks that signed the licenses:

    3:40 p.m.

    Five of six deputy clerks in a Kentucky county say they’ll issue marriage licenses to gay couples despite their boss’s defiance, but some are reluctant and emotional about the decision.

    Deputy clerk Melissa Thompson told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that she doesn’t really want to, but she will comply with the law.

    She wept and said: “I’m a preacher’s daughter, and this is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do in my life.”

    And an attorney for deputy clerk Kristie Plank says she’s reluctant but will issues the licenses. The attorney cites Plank’s 11-year-old child and financial and family obligations, saying she can’t go to jail.

    Their boss, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, is being held in jail because she won’t obey court orders and issue licenses, citing her Christian beliefs about gay marriage.

    Who among us proud of the courts today? I really want to know.

    DRJ (521990)

  480. MD, I did. I think Volokh is understating the argument against her position. He talks about the burden placed on her and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but ignores the burden her position places on the citizens of Rowan County, especially those who wish to get married at some point in the next thirty days (under Kentucky law, a marriage license not used in thirty days expires, and you need to get a new one).

    I’m not sure he ignores it. Didn’t he suggest that neighboring counties were issuing licenses? That’s not a permanent solution, but I can see it being part of a temporary one as they work out an accommodation.

    To me it all comes down to whether an accommodation is feasible. As I said in the post (which I wrote hurriedly before leaving for work) I don’t really know much about what they have tried to do and how easy it would be. I just know that, in my mind, saying couples simply can’t get a license in that county because the clerk disagrees with the law does not strike me as a state of affairs that can be allowed.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  481. kishnevi-

    How long would that take? You would think it could be done by now.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  482. the long standing principle of accommodation and then get into the details of what is reasonable
    That is my preference. My basic point of view is if her proposed accommodation shows her objection to be unreasonable…it asks both too little and too much.

    And the long standing principle you refer to is not that long standing. It is a 20th century invention,one of the positive rights you usually excoriate.

    kishnevi (c62fd3)

  483. Who among us proud of the courts today? I really want to know.

    The majesty of the courts sometimes works best on little people. The Presidents and Governors and Attorney Generals who willfully flout the law, or ignore their oaths, are almost never called to account.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  484. *attorneys general

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  485. 487.
    Like Patterico,I do not know the details of how it would be done. Volokh raises the possibility of needing legislative action, not merely judicial or gubernatorial.

    kishnevi (c62fd3)

  486. 484: Or simply add “under duress” after her name.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  487. Would this deny the plaintiffs dignity?
    They would probably say so.
    Would the Universe cry out?
    Not exactly.
    Would the judge’s head explode?
    No more bread and water while in jail!!!!!! She can stick her tongue out the window when it rains!!!

    nk, that’s actually quite a clever response along the line of “Caesar unto Caesar”
    but I am, sure somebody other than Davis would object and she would be in the same situation

    and thanks for the additional info, DRJ

    In Obama’s Transformed America, Sen. Cruz must be mistaken, because all of those Christians have the freedom to believe whatever they want, whenever they want to, and once a week in their little meetings actually get to talk (out loud!!!) about it. Freedom of “religion”, it’s a great thing!!

    Let me reiterate: As Steve and others perhaps have mentioned, what is galling about all of this is some of us knew this was the aim, legislation of a new moral code as part of the secular religion with the teeth to punish the rebels,
    and all too many people bought the line, “Oh, how can my SSM hurt you, you poor little pathetic thing (wink, wink).

    If the American people voted for this, fine, if they didn’t, they should see it for what it is loud and clear.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  488. And she has directly linked that religion to fulfilling (or not) the duties of her office.

    I’d be less in tune with her if the natural reaction (found in most humans) of flinching at or grimacing about homosexuality were somehow unique to Christians and their theology and were not a response evident in notable non-Christian figures such as ancient Greece’s Plato, who ended up strongly excoriating same-sex behavior (well before the age of Christ, by the way).

    Moreover, just because people of the left, who are at the forefront of judicial activism and forcing their will onto society, don’t frame their agenda in purely religious terms doesn’t make them any less religious—meaning, again, the religion of liberalism or leftism.

    Mark (dc566c)

  489. By the way, responding to the people (Mark and John Hitchcock, I believe) who asked if my position would be the same if I were not sympathetic to the same-sex marriage position:

    I think that’s a silly question to ask, if you read the site regularly. If I allowed my sympathy for SSM to overcome my allegiance to the rule of law, then why have I written probably dozens of posts over the years decrying the notion that SSM is embedded in the Constitution?

    Similarly, “scoob” in this comment linked an opinion that he called a “counter opinion.” On a quick read, I didn’t see anything in that piece that ran counter to anything that I have said. It just had a different emphasis.

    My position on this has been consistent, I think: if you can explain to me how an accommodation is going to work, and it seems feasible, I’m for that. What I’m not for is people simply refusing to follow the law, if that causes couples entitled to licenses to be unable to get them. I agree wholeheartedly that we have seen the development of a culture of lawlessness that has eroded people’s respect for the rule of law. The solution for that is not to allow a clerk a veto over the law as the Court has determined it, even if that decision is in my view without any support in the Constitution. But if the necessary governmental function can be carried out in such a manner that does not force people to violate their conscience, it should be carried out in such a manner.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  490. The Rowan County Clerk filed a lawsuit against Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on August 4, 2015 asking for an accommodation. He has refused so far, saying he will leave it to the federal courts.

    DRJ (521990)

  491. Actually what is being aimed for is freedom of worship, which isn’t remotely the same thing,

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/parents-upset-middle-schoolers-assigned-write-allah-only-god

    some faith’s can be proselytized all the live long day.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  492. The majesty of the courts sometimes works best on little people. The Presidents and Governors and Attorney Generals who willfully flout the law, or ignore their oaths, are almost never called to account.

    Yes, and this is one of the main things that causes people to justifiably have contempt for the manner in which the “rule of law” is implemented in this country.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  493. Is anybody surprised that the actual details of what could be done and what Davis had already tried to do are not readily visible????
    I suppose if one could get copies of what the defense filed with the court, both fed and pending state cases, we might have more to work with.

    Check out the link at narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 12:56 pm

    Judges gonna get in trouble recusing themselves from marriages in the hope of avoiding SSM dilemma

    The purge has begun, first Eich, then the govt.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  494. The Rowan County Clerk filed a lawsuit against Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on August 4, 2015 asking for an accommodation. He has refused so far, saying he will leave it to the federal courts.

    He’s a Democrat. That seems relevant here (while Kim Davis’s affiliation to the Democrats seems to me to be less relevant, other than to counter suggestions that this is a Republican-only issue).

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  495. I’m going to do a post on Volokh’s post. It deserves one.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  496. She could agree to sign the same-sex licenses “Kim Davis, not personally, but only in my official capacity as Clerk of Rowan County, and not as my free and voluntary act but under compulsion of the Order of the Honorable David L. Bunning, dated …. in Case No. ….. etc.,

    I like that suggestion. It’s sort of analogous to forcing a bakery to make a cake for a gay couple, but a cake that contains too much salt, too little sugar.

    Who among us proud of the courts today? I really want to know.

    Well, at least other branches of our government, the federal one in particular, such as the IRS and INS are quite reliable and credible.

    The USA in the Age of Obama is quite a sight to behold and marvel at. Eat your heart out, Venezuela,

    Mark (dc566c)

  497. you can’t gin up a two minute hate, with the truth, you must strip out all context and rationale from a decision,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  498. So, Ms. Davis quickly makes an appeal to the Gov, one that Volokh says should be very easy to do, and the gov. apparently spinelessly sells her out to the feds

    Adding to the situation as one of civil disobedience, accepting consequences of her actions in order to point out an injustice.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  499. Patterico:

    . The solution for that is not to allow a clerk a veto over the law as the Court has determined it, even if that decision is in my view without any support in the Constitution

    I don’t see it this way. The Clerk responded by addressing this in the courts, and the federal court jailed her for contempt. I believe the judge said he was jailing her to compel her to sign the licenses or to force the deputies to comply, and that definitely worked. There are 2 other clerks in Kentucky who aren’t issuing licenses. Should we jail them, too, to make sure no couple is unduly burdened by having to go to one of the other 117 counties for a license?

    DRJ (521990)

  500. He’s a Democrat.

    And since the governor of Tennessee is a Republican, but I find myself becoming no less irked at the guy, I realize that my response to this controversy has nothing to do with party affiliation. However, it may have a bit to do with ideological persuasion if Governor Bill Haslam is a squish-squish, in the mold of “kinder and gentler.”

    Mark (dc566c)

  501. So, the judge and powers that be decide to stamp on the consciences of people to make those homophobes disappear, and they don’t go away, so now the media needs to go all happyfeets on her about being some unreasonable bigoted hick,
    and all the while a reasonable accommodation, of her own suggestion, perhaps could have been initiated weeks ago.

    Thank God for Sen. Cruz.

    I think I’m gonna move to KY and run for gov. next election, I think the incumbent is not going to keep their seat…

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  502. Governor Beshear says he doesn’t want to spend money calling a special legislative session, but Volokh suggests the Governor already has the authority under the Kentucky RFRA to make the accommodation happen — i.e., by authorizing the Rowan County Clerk’s office to take Davis’ name off the license.

    DRJ (521990)

  503. There are other cases, too. An Oregon judge is facing ethics charges after he stopped performing marriages lest he be required to perform a SSM. He stated deeply held religious beliefs as his reason. If this issue will be used to force conservative Christians off the bench, there’s a real problem.

    Other states have passed, or will pass, laws changing “must” to “may” for some positions, particularly of judges and magistrates.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/09/05/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-license-religious-freedom/71770124/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  504. Perhaps Governor Beshear is looking for a basin to wash his hands in,
    while the county clerk version of Spartacus steps up.

    This is a counter-civil rights movement with Davis as the first jailed civil activist.

    Of course the news makes will be a few nutjobs, maybe even plants, to show how hateful the haters are.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  505. “legislation of a new moral code as part of the secular religion with the teeth to punish the rebels,”

    – MD in Philly

    The mistake is thinking that legislation has anything to do with morality in the first place.

    Leviticus (48a857)

  506. unduly burdened by having to go to one of the other 117 counties for a license

    You could almost walk there. The average KY county is 13 miles square.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  507. I think that’s a silly question to ask, if you read the site regularly.

    I didn’t say your overall viewpoint would change based on what Kim Davis is all about or what she stands for (in this case, opposition to SSM), but merely the level of enthusiasm you bring to denouncing her or, in turn, sympathizing with the judge.

    I admit that if the ideology or politics were reversed, and this were a case of a government official flouting the law to accommodate sanctuary-city policies, and a judge ruled against such an official, I’d flip around my sympathies, although I’d still wince at that judge using jail time as punishment.

    Mark (dc566c)

  508. And, at what point, does this become a “religious test”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  509. #511 The mistake is thinking that legislation has anything to do with morality in the first place.

    Ain’t that the truth.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  510. They overlap sometimes, but they are far from equivalent

    Leviticus (48a857)

  511. Thanks for that too, Kevin M. I wonder if that is the same or different from the judge linked by narciso.

    Hmm, althouse says Ohio, but both marion county. maybe only 1 judge in trouble so far, not 2.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  512. Leviticus, I never freakin’ said they were equivalent
    which is why putting one moral code into law with teeth of punishment is something best done when the overwhelming majority of the culture agree with it, like not stealing rather than believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  513. Governor Beshear says he doesn’t want to spend money calling a special legislative session,

    Oops, I’ve been mixing up my southern states. So as it turns out the governor of Kentucky (not Tennessee) is a Democrat. That figures in his not wanting to accommodate the city clerk.

    Mark (dc566c)

  514. Kevin M.- I doesn’t make a difference, the powers who rule will make the law mean whatever they want. They will argue, as they have, that a “religion” has to be a systematized particular belief about a particular god, not some vague notion about ultimate meaning in life. So needing to believe in the state endorsed religion of secular materialism and morals by fiat is not a religious test.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  515. There are 2 other clerks in Kentucky who aren’t issuing licenses. Should we jail them, too, to make sure no couple is unduly burdened by having to go to one of the other 117 counties for a license?

    No: as I have said, I think the judge was far too hasty in jailing her. Volokh’s analysis makes that even more clear.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  516. My post about Volokh’s post is up.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  517. I see the Trump ascension and this Women as being one in the same movement. 60% of this Country is simply fed up with the mendacity of the other 40% + the Elites.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  518. As said before in several posts and on the new post,
    the judge went out of his way to make an example out of her after the gov refused to listen to her appeal

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  519. Patterico,

    It did look like I was directing my comment at you, but it was actually aimed at Judge Bunning since he’s the one who thinks jail is appropriate. I think abstention and accommodation would be appropriate.

    DRJ (521990)

  520. I didn’t say your overall viewpoint would change based on what Kim Davis is all about or what she stands for (in this case, opposition to SSM), but merely the level of enthusiasm you bring to denouncing her or, in turn, sympathizing with the judge.

    Take a look at the level of enthusiasm I brought to arguing against SSM being in the 14th Amendment, and then answer your own question.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  521. Here’s one post I did on the topic. Excerpt:

    As I mentioned last night, yesterday another federal court decision threw out yet another same sex marriage ban. I would like to take a moment to explain why I think it’s important for such moves to be made legislatively and not by judicial fiat. I will do so with the aid of a long-time commenter.

    The key thing, for me, is the rule of law.

    The Constitution simply doesn’t say anything about same sex marriage. If one adheres to the concept that words must be interpreted according to the original understanding of those words, as I believe one must, then it is plain that the people who passed the 14th Amendment in 1868 were not thinking of same sex marriage when they used the words “equal protection.” Nor were they thinking of abortion (looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) or anything else having to do with gender.

    Funny, I was going on about the rule of law even then.

    If we get to cite the other side’s lawlessness to justify our own, we’d better be certain nobody on our side has ever engaged in lawless behavior — lest lefties cite, say, Richard Nixon as justification for anything they feel like doing.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  522. Another: talking about “shredding” the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

    Where was my enthusiasm for the rule of law, Mark?

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  523. How about not lawlessness, but civil disobedience when a just resolution under the law has been denied?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  524. Where was my enthusiasm for the rule of law, Mark?

    Patterico, I’m not even narrowing down the question to your overall interpretation of the US Constitution or rule of law, as much as what your visceral reaction would be if, for example, you were standing in a room with Kim Davis on one side and David Bunning on the other. In my case, I admit I’d look at Davis and feel bad or sorry for her and look at Bunning and feel mainly suspicion or annoyance towards him.

    Mark (dc566c)

  525. Mark,

    So you think that my biases make me biased, just like everyone else’s? Well, yes, they do.

    I’m not sure why you’d think I’m biased against Christianity/Christians or in favor of Islam/Muslims, though.

    If Kim Davis was a Muslim instead of a Christian, and was a county chief health inspector denying restaurant licenses to non-halal chefs instead of a county clerk denying marriage licenses to same sex couples, and requiring her deputies to do the same, I’d still say that she was abusing her power as a state official, not “exercising her religious freedom.”

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  526. the entire Democratic party would be treating her Wendy Davis at the outset,

    http://therightscoop.com/moron-cnn-anchor-is-kim-davis-like-the-taliban/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  527. “Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? …means that marriage is only between a man and a woman. ”

    I absolutely hate when non-Christians cherry pick small phrases from the Bible and take them out of context. It is intellectually dishonest. When someone claiming to be a Christian does it, though, it is nothing short of blasphemy. Why don’t you put ALL of it here? Because it deals with divorce, not homosexuality, that’s why. It begins with the Pharisee’s question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” and ends with this direct command from Jesus (Matthew 19:9) “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    So tell me, you OK with government functionaries blocking all divorces within their fiefdoms, contrary to the laws they were sworn to uphold?

    prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/4/2015 @ 1:41 pm

    The verses don’t deal just with divorce. First The chapter describes where Jesus was located and that the Pharisees came to “test” him by asking Him a question on divorce. Some translations use the word “trick” instead of “test”.

    19 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

    3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

    Jesus’ response is to first define marriage.

    4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.

    Then after defining marriage Jesus gives the answer to divorce.

    Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Not being satisfied with the answer Jesus gave, the Pharisees asked for further clarification.

    7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

    8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

    So you see that this portion of scripture can be used to show Jesus’ position on divorce and His position on marriage. It is not at all taking these verses out of context to use them to describe marriage.

    Notice that Jesus used the singular wife, not the plural wives. He also said that marriage was between a man and a woman. Jesus did not define marriage between two men. He did not say that a man divorces his male partner.

    You might want to look up “toxic faith”.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  528. Kevin. Yes, but until that gets done, the folks in Rowan County bear the burden.
    Mind you, all couples in Rowan County would have to wait or accept the burden of going to the next county (note that Volokh cites the cases that say the latter is annundue burden).

    kishnevi (c62fd3) — 9/5/2015 @ 1:27 pm

    I live in the Los Angeles area, so 5 miles does not see to me to be much of a burden.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  529. How many people have been effected by this so far? How many are actually from that County?

    JD (3898b3)

  530. If Kim Davis was a Muslim instead of a Christian,

    But the question I have, Thomas, is if you’re the type who will be just a bit more resentful towards Kim Davis than towards the Muslim?

    I ask that based on the various members of our judicial system whose heartstrings appear to start vibrating when, for example, an Islamic woman sues her employer to stop a workplace ban on the use of headscarves, as was the case within the past year or two involving a woman working at Disneyland. That person was indignant that company dress codes — for employees placed in public settings, no less (and not hidden behind closed doors—which was an option the employee didn’t accept), that are purposefully dedicated to make-believe — didn’t bend to her customs.

    I wonder how many folks out there most peeved at Kim Davis will not feel the same way towards the woman employed by the Disney Company?

    Again, it’s not the pure legalese I’m most interested in, pro or con, but the socio-political biases behind how people react to these ongoing controversies—in which, of course, I’m generally pretty disgusted by left-leaning biases.

    Mark (dc566c)

  531. Mark,

    I’m really not understanding your question very well. Why would I resent a Christian more than a Muslim?

    No, I don’t think that “religious freedom” includes the right to demand that private sector employers change their dress codes, etc. to accommodate your religion.

    If your religion requires you to wear a headscarf, then you’ll just have to decide between wearing it and working at Abercrombie and Fitch (I think that was the employer who got sued).

    You don’t get to take a job at Tony Roma’s and then announce that you won’t be cooking the pork ribs because they’re not halal or kashrut, but that they have to keep you on the payroll.

    One of my first job interviews as a teen was at a grocery store. The manager asked me if I was “one of them Baptists,” because every time he hired one, they didn’t mention until after they got the job that they wouldn’t be working Sundays. I considered the question entirely appropriate, told him that I wasn’t a Baptist (I was a Pentecostal), and told him that I was willing to work Sundays (I was a rebellious Pentecostal teen who wanted a job).

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)

  532. Why would I resent a Christian more than a Muslim?

    I was merely theorizing what makes you tick and did admit to lumping you together with a fairly large percentage of other liberals, perhaps your fellow liberals.

    If a crowd of you were gathered together in a large room and tested to see what triggers everyone’s annoyance or suspicions to a greater degree, towards either Kim Davis or a theoretical Muslim, I don’t think it’s a stretch to estimate the meter will beep more loudly when Davis’s face is flashed before everyone than when the face of the hypothetical Islamic woman is being displayed.

    I saw a variation of this dynamic at play at the Democrat Convention in 2012 and it struck me as quite sickening.

    Mark (dc566c)

  533. Mark,

    I’m not a “liberal,” at least by current American definitions. As I mentioned earlier, I’m a libertarian.

    Thomas L. Knapp (6d53b5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3184 secs.