Volokh on a Religious Accommodation for Kim Davis
Eugene Volokh has a very interesting and illuminating post regarding the application of religious freedom laws to Kim Davis’s objection to issuing marriage licenses. I think this is the heart of his post:
[I]f Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, she wouldn’t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty, and decline to issue such licenses at all — denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an “undue hardship” imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.
Yet besides her losing claim in the federal lawsuit, it seems to me that Davis has a much stronger claim under state law for a much more limited exemption. Davis’s objection, it appears (see pp. 40 and 133 of her stay application and attachments), is not to issuing same-sex marriage licenses as such. Rather, she objects to issuing such licenses with her name on them, because she believes (rightly or wrongly) that having her name on them is an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Indeed, she says that she would be content with
Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form.
Now this would be a cheap accommodation that, it seems to me, a state could quite easily provide.
Before reading Volokh’s analysis, I was unaware that there was arguably a solution that simple, which would accommodate her objections and still ensure that licenses be issued. Elsewhere I have read posts that suggest to the contrary, such as this at SCOTUSblog:
Davis’s religious complaint all along has been that, because Kentucky law requires her name and signature to be on every marriage license issued in her county, issuing licenses to any couples would involve her directly in authorizing same-sex couples to marry, which would violate her belief that God has made marriage an institution only for a man and a woman. She thus adopted a no-licensing policy and ordered her deputies to follow the policy as well.
I think my instinct on this lines up pretty well with what Volokh says the law is. He says the law on religious accommodation requires “judgments of degree” and “turns on the specific facts present in a particular workplace.” If there is no solution other than that the clerk has to sign the license for it to be valid, then in my view the clerk must do her job or resign. If there is a feasible solution — and Volokh suggests there is — then her beliefs should be accommodated.
There are a lot of annoying nuances to the analysis, having to do with the type of lawsuit that would have to be filed, who would have to file it, and where they would have to file it. Apparently it’s not as simple as simply telling the federal judge who is jailing her that she needs an accommodation. Volokh says she would have to go off to state court and file her own lawsuit to get an accommodation. That seems like cold comfort to someone literally in jail. And it shows, in my judgment, that the judge was too hasty to throw her in jail when there was the possibility of exploring possible accommodations.
The bottom line for me remains the same. I have said that “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.” But I have also said that if an accommodation is possible and feasible, it should be made. Volokh’s analysis shows that the law agrees with my instinct.
Where I part ways with some of my friends is to say that if I see lawlessness in one area, that justifies my applauding lawlessness in another area. This leads to the breakdown of society. I stand by my statement: “the way to respond to lawlessness is to end it, not to emulate it.” If this can be done with an accommodation to religious objections — and according to Volokh it can — then that’s what ought to happen.
Ding.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:13 pmSo if you can put anyone’s name on it then what is the point of having the elected official.
I get the lawyerly weasel approach and it would be a quick way to turn off the dumpster fire but it does not address the core problem.
You are shoving things down people’s throat and then expecting them to simply go along cuz a few elites want it that way and inventing rights NOT WRITTEN in the Constitution in any way.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:18 pmI think it was pointed out that in early August she requested action by the gov. to resolve the situation, but he has deferred to the court.
It has also been cited that the judge, rather than being “too hasty”, was eager to throw her in jail to make an example of her and squash such behavior.
You have not commented specifically on my argument that this now needs to be looked at from the standpoint of civil disobedience. It is no longer simply an issue of accommodation, nor an issue of flaunting the law, it is pointing out to the American people the state of affairs in our nation, did people who voted for the Transformation of America get what they wanted.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:19 pm#2 and if was just SSM that is being shoved down our throats. It is lots more than that.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:20 pmAn example had to be made. They wouldn’t be leftwingers if they showed toleration and/or looked for solutions other than jailing those who think differently.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:21 pm#3 This is what happens when you don’t have the consent of the governed. …..
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:23 pmPT: This Josh Rosen at UCLA is gonna be real special.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:34 pmI think a discussion of civil disobedience is where one’s views on the substance of the underlying issue come to the fore, and debates over process recede. Personally, I think the Obergefell decision was lawless, but I don’t personally see the consequences as being as devastating as many others do. If I were going to advocate civil disobedience, I would start with defying a number of other decisions that I believe to be far more pernicious, such as Roe v. Wade.
One thing about civil disobedience: one who engages in it, has to be prepared to accept the penalty.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:41 pmThank you for the response.
I don’t think Rosa Parks planned what law to break to set a precedent, but that she was just tired. (Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there was some planning to it).
You don’t see the consequences as devastating as others do. Did you see a clerk being thrown in jail to make a point instead of the govt making an attempt at an accommodation?
Ms Davis. had the forethought to request a remedy to avoid problems for all involved, but no, not allowed, we will make you obey.
Interesting how easy this problem has been avoided elsewhere:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:52 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/north-carolina-and-utah-laws-allow-clerks-to-refuse-same-sex-marriages/
(via a comment on althouse)
Telling people what they have to believe about the fundamental structure of society is pretty important I think, and direct.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:55 pmIn one sense it is true that if one doesn’t want an abortion one doesn’t have to have one,
but that is not the case with SS marriage. Even if you don’t have one, you still need to act as if you did in approving of it.
Kim Davis has repeatedly said she was prepared to face the consequences.
And she has.
I think we should at least admit she has met this particular standard for civil disobedience.
And yes, prowlerguy, I know she’s a Democrat.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:02 pmFrom what I’ve read, I think this is a big picture summary of the procedural history of the case: The clerk was sued in federal court in early July for not issuing marriage licenses to anyone. She responded by filing a state court lawsuit on August 4, 2015, requesting an accommodation from the Governor of Kentucky. The federal court enjoined her from refusing to issue licenses in mid August, granted a stay while she appealed the order but the appeals were denied, and she was then found in contempt and jailed in late August or early September.
Apparently Judge Bunning was worried that anything less than jail would lead other clerks to follow the Rowan County Clerk’s lead:
That’s interesting. I know courts are aware of the impact of their rulings but typically courts are supposed to be guided solely by the facts of the specific case.
According to the link, a pleading filed by the ACLU on behalf of the plaintiffs who sued the Clerk, Judge Bunning also found that the Clerk’s claims under the Religious Test Clause and Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act were unlikely to prevail. That’s also interesting. Perhaps the Clerk should see if Eugene Volokh is available.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:02 pmFWIW, I don’t think I know any Christians who would go out of their way to make an issue of SSM, but what some people seem to be asking is for Christians to pretend they are OK with it when they are not. If one is serious about their Christian faith, things matter. A Christian who believes in the NT knows that exchanging normal sexuality for same sex behavior is part of alienation from God. A Christian can either not care enough about people around them to be bothered about their destiny, or a Christian can be too ashamed of their faith to speak up, which is a serious problem itself, or a Christian can realize it is not generally a way to begin a conversation even if one is concerned about the welfare of a gay neighbor, but when backed into a corner, one either stands for what they think is true or doesn’t.
Of course the powers (and Eph 6:12 powers) that be will just portray people as ignorant haters.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:07 pmCorrection: The trial court denied the clerk’s request for a stay but, instead, stayed the denial of her motion. Same result but it does suggest Judge Bunning was not inclined to do much to “accommodate” this clerk.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:08 pmThanks for the research, DRJ.
Interesting to note that Judge Bunning was wrong, there are already additional county clerks refusing to sign SS licenses, including bike riding across the state and talking about it.
It is possible Judge Bunning was like some other “objective” judges in the SSM cases and didn’t care what was argued before him.
If they just got rid of that Jesus person all of the commotion would stop…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:10 pmWas this previously linked?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:17 pmhttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/kentucky-clerks-refusing-marriage-licenses
For her to simply resign her position is a victory for the atheistic left and consignment of the faithful to disenfranchisement from public service and as a voice in our society. Reference this article in National Review: “Resignation in response to the Court’s ruling would have represented an unacceptable surrender. Indeed, from the perspective of the ideologues, it would have provided them with a complete victory — with the twin benefit of changing the law and cleansing public service of the devout. Resignations hand over the lever of power to the truly lawless, to those who will engineer social change by any means necessary.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423579/kim-davis-jail-supreme-court-lawless
Stan Milam (909c7c) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:19 pmThe Clerk’s attorney says she agreed to several accommodations, including “removing the personal nature of the authorization … or to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or developing a statewide, online marriage license process.”
Here is a link to the Clerk’s pleading filed in the Supreme Court, and this link is to the Kentucky ACLU that has copies of some of the Plaintiff’s pleadings.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:21 pmIn the story above, the Gov says 117 of the states 120 clerks are following the law and sees no reason to call a special assembly of the legislature..
(note, Volokh doesn’t think it would need that)
He doesn’t mention there that a significant number of other clerks, I think in the 50’s or 60’s, have made requests like Davis to make an accommodation.
I guess there must be a mass delusion in KY making all of these clerks think absurd notions.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:21 pmThanks again, DRJ,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:22 pmand Stan
What law broken has she? No law allowing same sexmarriage has been approved by the proper authority. Only a rogue ruling from a lawless SCOTUS exists. Since only laws can be made by Congress, same sex marriage is still not legal. Judge also is in wrong by unconstitutionally requiring a religious test.
Yoda (7d462a) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:32 pmOf course if a reasonable accommodation is possible, it should be made. My understanding was that she rejected several.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:44 pmDo you have a link? The evidence supplied in this thread so far seems to contradict that understanding.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:47 pmMD, the explanation probably comes down to a large number of County Clerks who have asked fir the accommodation but are in the interim either issuing licences or using some unpublicized workaround. And unlike Volokh, everyone in Kentucky seems to think it will require legislative action, and nothing less.
Which makes the governor the villian, for not calling the special session. Everyone knows what what needs to be done; the article mentions bipartisan support for the bill. The only time lag is whatever period is required between calling and convening a special session.
In light of that, I do not think the judge is being hasty, if faced with a governor who wantys everyone to wait until January. Bunning may even think jailing Davis is a way to pressure Beshear into acting now.
kishnevi (5cc98a) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:51 pmLeviticus – DRJ linked to several accommodations that she would accept. The Gov declined.
JD (5e65d2) — 9/5/2015 @ 3:53 pmkishnevi-
– Do we assume that all actors in KY and the feds with jurisdiction in KY are equally interested in a dispassionate application of the law?
I do not. I do not know exactly who all of the actors are, all of their motivations, and who is most willing to cheat to get what they want, that includes Ms. Davis and those supporting and defending her. I do not know if the gov truly believes nothing short of legislative action is necessary or whether he is using that as an excuse. For that matter, I do not know if the gov is being fed opinion by someone with an interest. All I know is that other states already put in place laws that avoided this, and that Ms. Davis was put in jail expressly for the purpose of giving her harsh treatment to dissuade others from following suit. From what little I know, I expect Volokh to be as dispassionate as anyone as far as being intellectually honest in his discussion, no mater where his personal feelings lie.
Leviticus-
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:17 pmFrom what has been made available, she objected to at least one possible remedy that some have said she should have accepted, as if they knew better, which was to allow some of her assistants to do it. She objected to this because if they were acting as under her authority, she still saw herself as culpable for the action. Some are welcome to say that’s crazy, but I think there is plenty of legal and military precedent for the culpability of someone giving orders. (Besides, it looks like many, if not most, of her assistants would rather not also, but at least one said, “I can’t afford to be in jail, this is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.”)
She might have rejected several. I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean the accommodation she was pressing for wasn’t reasonable.
I can live and let live as well as anybody else. I applaud everyone’s right to swing their fist. Until it ends up breaking my nose; I won’t applaud that.
Steve57 (3b2e7d) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:23 pmkishnevi:
It seemed bad enough that Bunning jailed the Clerk in order to prevent other clerks from following her lead, but do you really think it’s right to jail someone to force the Governor to act? That strikes me as unconscionable.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:27 pmI never thought about it before, but I bet there are many judges who no longer perform marriages.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:30 pmMD, I agree with most of what you said. I think Volokh misjudges the validity of non legislative changes, and underestimates the burden on Rowan residents who want to marry, even though he cites two cases that imply going to the next county is an undue burden.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:30 pmBut from what I am reading, the villian here is really the governor, for not doing the obvious. The judge is faced with an official who refuses to do her duty, and the solution she proposes is, thanks to the governor, not going to happen until January at the earliest. She loudly disobeys his order. What do you expect him to do?
“From what has been made available, she objected to at least one possible remedy that some have said she should have accepted, as if they knew better, which was to allow some of her assistants to do it. She objected to this because if they were acting as under her authority, she still saw herself as culpable for the action.”
– MD in Philly
That was the accommodation to which I was referring, in answer to Patterico’s question – but I couldn’t find a link, strangely.
It would actually be interesting to see what this group could come up with as possible accommodations for Ms. Davis. Some folks have already mentioned a disclaimer of some sort on the marriage license, for instance.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:31 pmBunning has every right to jail her. She is disobeying his order. And if that increases the pressure on the governir to act, so much the better.
kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:33 pm“A Christian who believes in the NT knows that exchanging normal sexuality for same sex behavior is part of alienation from God.”
– MD in Philly
I disagree, as a Christian who believes in the NT, but I’m not going to argue about it right now.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:33 pmI will revisit the fundamental issue for a moment, as it will not go away, and actually cannot go away, because human nature and the moral makeup of the universe does not turn on the whim of power hungry politicos in the US of A.
Why do we in general dislike political agendas of the left/progressives?
At least one reason is that they do not work though a legislative process consolidating public opinion, but try to impose their whims. Obvious in the case in point as often pointed out by out host.
A second reason is that too often what sounds like good ideas to some end up with all kinds of “unforeseen consequences”, and there is never a taking into account of reality as it unfolds.
We have been asked to presume that we can change the foundational building block of human society and it will be great, even though that foundation was assumed throughout all but the last flash of human history, and even now is still assumed by the vast majority of the world’s population, irregardless of religious belief…
and there are those among us who have the audacity to think they can manipulate and engineer a better society, and that against the will of the majority??
That is the delusion of our times. The best defense of this plan is that, “Hey, we already have done most of the damage with no fault divorce, so why cause a fuss now?”
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:43 pmReally??
kishnevi,
I agree the judge has the right to hold the clerk in contempt and jail her for refusing to issue licenses, but his motivation should not include pressuring the governor to act. A judge can’t jail Party A to get Party B to act, especially when Party A has absolutely no control over Party B.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:44 pmI will not argue about it now either, nothing to argue, read Romans.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:45 pmIf you don’t see the obvious, perhaps you are in danger of being among those Paul and Jude wrote about.
Not said in anger or as an insult. I respect you enough to say what I think is true.
Judges, like lawyers, have a duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety. We don’t want even the appearance that a judge is using the process to get a political result.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:46 pmAs in one of my links, NC and Utah already have laws that make allowances, so it can be done.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:47 pmDRJ- and per a previous link at least one judge is being investigated for stopping performing marriages because he is suspected of wanting to avoid SS weddings.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:50 pmIn the case, use the process to get the correct official to do his job…that is, the governor call the special session.
But I am speculating, so I will not press it further.
kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:51 pmYou foreclose the position that the only way to end official lawlessness is to return the favor in detail until they cave, or resort to such drastic action that they are removed.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:54 pmkishnevi He could have noted that the plaintiffs had traveled to his fed courtroom and thereby could have driven to another county, given a daily fine for as long as she continued while seeking relief from the state, and set a future court date to see what progress had been made by her and her attorneys.
Yeah, he can throw her in jail. It just seemed pretty unwise to say essentially, “You will stay in jail until you are willing to give up your religious convictions”.
Dag, we don’t even do that with terrorists in gitmo (yes, hyperbole).
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:56 pmOf course if a reasonable accommodation is possible, it should be made. My understanding was that she rejected several.
And some were probably offered that required rejection, such s having someone else actually sign, while her name remained thereon (as they are doing while she’s in jail) It’s an accommodation, but it does not answer her objection. It also might lead to invalid licenses as SHE is required to sign.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:57 pmuse the process to get the correct official to do his job
But isn’t that exactly what a tyranny is, use citizens as pawns in power plays????
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:59 pmHer name on a marriage license doesn’t signify approval of same-sex marriage. It indicates the betrothed have met the legal qualifications to marry. Dixon can retain her standing in the church, maintain her personal beliefs, and still do her job without making a stubborn display of personal intransigence. She’s a public servant not a human stumbling block.
Davis should knock off the shenanigans and simply render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars.
ropelight (2e9234) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:00 pmUmm, Kevin M., are you suggesting the fed judge is making the assistant clerks break state guidelines in order to punish the clerk who wasn’t following state guidelines???
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:01 pmFair opinion, ropelight, and shared by many.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:02 pmAlso not shared by other many.
If I were going to advocate civil disobedience, I would start with defying a number of other decisions that I believe to be far more pernicious, such as Roe v. Wade.
I agree with this in that Roe v. Wade has had, and I believe always will have far more devastating and destructive impact than will same-sex marriage, but there is something more: the part of the equation missing is that Davis believes she is compelled by God to make this stand. That’s adds an element for the Christian that is not to be casually dealt with. To refuse the path that one knows God is calling one to, is to rebel against His will. And while surely He will use others, it is to the sadness of heart to not courageously stand firm. As a Christian, I can’t but admire and respect Davis’s stance because I suspect I would lack the conviction to see it through. For Davis, pleasing God is more important to her than pleasing man. And that is the essence of the Christian faith. And of course it is being mocked and sneered, that is what we should expect to happen.
The voice in the wilderness belongs to Kentucky hick with bad hair, frumpy clothes and “plain-talk. Couldn’t be more socially mock-worthy. But those who do are certainly missing the bigger picture. Because there is always something important happening when God uses the simple to confound the wise and the unadorned to bring glory to Him.
Strange days.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:07 pmPatterico,
This is pretty simple civil disobedience. That is it being done by an elected official, as opposed to some hundred churchgoers blocking the clerk’s lobby isn’t really the issue. It’s just standing up against something that one just cannot acquiesce to, in a non-violent manner.
That the clerk sits in jail is not a problem to me however — it’s what Thoreau said you should expect for civil disobedience. Her act has grabbed national attention and will force some clear choices going forward. Better this than have it play out in backroom municipal committees for years and years. She is also exposing some particularly illiberal liberals in their hypocrisy.
The lady is doing us all a service. You should applaud.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:09 pmUmm, Kevin M., are you suggesting the fed judge is making the assistant clerks break state guidelines in order to punish the clerk who wasn’t following state guidelines???
He’s a federal judge. What does he care about state rules if they conflict with his interpretation of federal law?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:10 pmAgree with Dana and Kevin M.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:14 pmIronically, with The Supreme Court’s ruling for congruence (“=”), it is the Court through support for institutional discrimination or selective exclusion (i.e. pro-choice doctrine), that is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. To correct this corruption of the law, and violation of civil rights, they would need to explain on what basis they excluded other orientations, behaviors, and relationships from receiving equal legal status. The limitations of progressive morality is an insufficient justification.
n.n (60df76) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:14 pmIf I were going to advocate civil disobedience, I would start with defying a number of other decisions that I believe to be far more pernicious, such as Roe v. Wade.
I am pretty sure that no hospital is required to offer abortions. I’m also sure that a Catholic who hires on at an abortion clinic can’t refuse certain duties, so long as they are not illegal. There are places that have tried to make mom and pop pharmacies sell abortifacients, but RFRA and Hobby Lobby seem to make that hard to enforce.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:17 pmDavis’s lawyer Mat Staver claimed that the accommodation Davis wanted, and asked for, was to remove her name and authority from any license concerning same-sex couples.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:17 pm“She can file it, she can issue it,” he said. “That’s a simple accommodation, and that’s very easy to do.”
Umm, Kevin M., are you suggesting the fed judge is making the assistant clerks break state guidelines in order to punish the clerk who wasn’t following state guidelines???
Also, I don’t think he’s doing that as a punishment. Jail isn’t even a punishment so much as helping her get her mind right. He’s doing that as his enforced accommodation, even though it may bring some fallout down the line. Whatever the actual status of those licenses, those issued for the next few days will never be questioned, save perhaps by a divorce lawyer.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:23 pmShorter Dana:
A fly-over person in a fly-over town says “NO” and the elites are forced to deal with it. What’s not to like?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:28 pmJail isn’t even a punishment so much as helping her get her mind right.
Are you suggesting her mind isn’t “right” or that you believe the judge thinks that?
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:29 pmI agree with Dana 48 and Kevin M 49.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:29 pmthe larger picture, is why there was that brouhaha, in Indiana, some months back, to prevent any recourse from committed Christians, in the public sphere,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:40 pmNotre Dame over Texas 14 zip in the 2nd qtr. Alabama over Wisconsin 7 zip in the 1st.
ropelight (2e9234) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:41 pmDana, I am suggesting that the judge feels she needs to change her mind in order to come into compliance with his view of the law.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:44 pmthis is not about bakers or soft ware tycoons or one lone clerk in Rowan Cty, it’s about ‘fundamental transformation’
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:45 pm“A Christian who believes in the NT knows that exchanging normal sexuality for same sex behavior is part of alienation from God.”
– MD in Philly
I disagree, as a Christian who believes in the NT, but I’m not going to argue about it right now.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 4:33 pm
Leviticus,
At some point, I would like to discuss this with you. I have been a Christian for more than 35 years and am still not at ease with the scripture on this matter, so I can understand being in disagreement with MD. However, recognizing my very finite limitations, I yield to God as much as I am able. He will have to do the rest.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:46 pmThere are two issues: how should she behave, and how should the system respond? If she feels compelled by God, she obviously can’t obey the court’s order. But I don’t think that automatically answers the question of how the system should respond. The question of an accommodation, again, is a valid issue — and one that (I submit) is fact-intensive and situational. If one can be reached, it should be. But if it can’t, then I could not agree that the system can allow any one person in government to do whatever their religious scruples dictate.
Should a private person be allowed to take whatever action they want, or provide services only to people they choose? Sure, because that leaves people with choices. But someone charged with the duties of a government official, when an accommodation can’t be made (which we don’t know is the case here), cannot be allowed to elevate their personal beliefs over their duties. Even if that’s the right decision for them on a personal level, society can’t allow that.
If a Muslim thought it was against his religion to issue driver’s licenses to women, society could not tolerate such a person running a DMV, and directing his employees to issue licenses only to men.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:48 pmI am also thinking that jail is a better outcome for the clerk than a fine. She may have far more time than money (and probably gets her salary anyway) and it’s not like they’re going to put her in gen pop. The ACLU argued for a fine, as they (probably correctly) saw that as a quicker way to break her. And I bet the judge knew this, too.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:48 pmPatterico,
You have a cogent argument that she needs to spend this time in the slammer — it’s a valid test of depth of feeling, and the correct response of the state. Fining her out of house and home, as the ACLU wanted, would be an overreaction.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:51 pmnarciso @ 62,
Yes. Of course the tension being that on one side, that transformation is viewed as a necessary good for the collective, and on the other side, it is a long movement to eradicate and replace the very underpinnings of our society and culture. Don’t you think as time goes on, everyone will be forced to make their choice upon which side they fall? As more issues come to the forefront of every day life, it will become more difficult, if not impossible to keep one’s head in the sand.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:51 pmIf a Muslim thought it was against his religion to issue driver’s licenses to women, society could not tolerate such a person running a DMV, and directing his employees to issue licenses only to men.
Well, to be equivalent, not issuing any licenses at all.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:52 pmYou may be right. It had occurred to me, in the back of my mind, that a fine could be worse. The judge would have to keep escalating and escalating and could never vacate it.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:52 pmKevin M,
Judge Bunning chose jail over a fine. Via WKYT: “Bunning said he could not fine Davis because someone would pay the fine on her behalf.”
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:57 pmI think the consensus opinion in Kentucky was that a lot of people would come forward to help her pay the fine, so it wouldn’t work.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:58 pmI think the ACLU wanted to avoid a jail sentence because it would gain national attention, while a fine would just be a normal day in any American court.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:59 pmThe federal government pays workers an estimated $5M a year not to work:
Resolving these religious issues in a legal way, as this clerk seems willing to do, doesn’t strike me as our biggest government problem. It’s not even in the top 5 million.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:04 pmA number of years ago, in Jerry Brown’s first adminstration, there34 was a CalTrans director named Adriana Gianturco, who was to freeway construction as Rose Bird was to the death penalty. A life-long non-driver from Boston, Gianturco did every single thing possible to avoid building roadway. In fact, her main impetus was the Diamond Lane, and her main contribution to transportation was to convert existing lanes to HOV lanes which tended to increase congestion rather than reduce it.
This is probably comparable to a religious zealot running the DMV. Yet she stymied all traffic planners for years and years, and embedded like minds throughout CalTrans.
Sure, she should have been removed. But she wasn’t.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:05 pmDRJ, yes, all of that, but I think the judge’s response was equitable within the law. It is possible that what he said and what he thought were two different things.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:08 pmI’m sorry, but the link in my comment 73 is wrong. Here’s the correct link.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:09 pmI wonder if there was even any effort made to find a suitable accommodation for Davis. Consider that if there was such a thing, how would that play out in a state like Kentucky where more than 75% of voters passed a State Constitutional Amendment that restricted marriage to a man and a woman in 2004 or 2005, making it ripe and ready for mass accommodation requests. How would that impact neighboring states where there is a high probability that they, too, would seek accommodations? Of course, in the blue states, it wouldn’t be a problem, but in terms of optics, it would be troubling to the movement if the nation was visibly divided and gays were made to feel ‘uncomfortable’ in any way about securing a license. Noteworthy, is that a number of state clerks resisted until Davis’s rebellion became so public, and now the remaining few dissenters are meekly in compliance.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:10 pmKevin M,
Anything is possible but I think he said what he meant. However, your comment is Exhibit A for why we should never care about a judge’s intent.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:12 pmBunning seems to be as aware of the surrounding environment as Jeb is, he doesn’t realize he has reaped a whirlwind,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:16 pmDana,
I think enforcing discipline among the county clerks was part of why Judge Bunning ruled as he did. As noted in the ACLU/Plaintiff’s pleading linked in my comment 12:
This was in the Plaintiff’s pleading. Their interest is in stating the facts in the manner that benefits them, not the clerk. I assume the point of this pleading was to show this was an exigent situation that required immediate action by the Judge, but what it also shows is that half of the State’s clerks have concerns about religious accommodations.
Jailing this clerk scared the deputy clerks into going along with the judge’s order. It probably scared the other 57 county clerks, too. But I wonder what will happen if the backlash continues.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:21 pmPatterico, I think your argument is more about preserving order than about preserving law. Law and order are not the same thing. To suggest that whatever SCOTUS says is “law” seems like a big mistake to me, as it would essentially grant absolute dictatorial power to SCOTUS.
If you look at the Supremacy Clause, court opinions are not listed as being part of the supreme law of the land. Court opinions are entitled to great respect, but they must be subject to some checks and balances. For example, if the next president is a conservative Republucan, he might well instruct the U.S. Marshals Service to not enforce a court order that tells elected officials to stop using gender-specific words like “man” and “woman”. And I would support that president 100% because such an order would not be law, but rather would be dictatorship masquerading as law.
Neither the president nor congress are robots sworn to uphold whatever the supreme court says. Right?
Andrew (0a4664) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:24 pmDana,
I posted this link on the other thread but I think it’s relevant here, too:
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:24 pmThanks, DRJ, I missed the other thread.
I can see why there would certainly be a reluctance to accommodate. But to me, that makes me even more staunchly supportive of Davis’s stand.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:30 pmI suspect these views are common in many Kentucky clerk’s offices (and in Texas and other states, too). Even if the clerks themselves are willing to sign marriage licenses, some of the deputy clerks may have reservations and they deserve guidance from Kentucky about what religious accommodations are allowed. This is reasonable and foreseeable fallout from the passage of SSM, and the response so far is very troubling.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:31 pmI agree, Dana. The concern about this clerk seems aimed at her but also at keeping the other Kentucky clerks in line. Making sure marriage licenses are issued is a legitimate government function but so is protecting religious rights, and both should be important to a federal judge.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:35 pmThe Judge’s concern about this clerk seems aimed at her but also at keeping the other Kentucky clerks in line.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:36 pm9. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 2:52 pm
I don’t think Rosa Parks planned what law to break to set a precedent, but that she was just tired. (Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there was some planning to it).
There was planning, and certainly as to avoding getting the case dismissed and appealing it instead. She actualy had to be talked into making this acause celebre. She was a member of the NAACP. Someone else had tried this shortly before. 15-year old Claudette Colvin had done this on March 2, 1955, refusing to move to the back of the bus, and had been arrested. but they thought she would not be a sympathetic plaintiff because she had recently become pregnant, and was too dark-skinned, poor and young, and the case was complicated by the fact the charge was assaulting officers rather than violating segregation laws. An elderly black woman also had refused to get off her seat but then got off the bus before the police arrived, so there was no case with her. (The case that eventually won iin court was not that of Rosa Parks, by the way)
18 year-old Mary Louise Smith had also refused to move to the back of the bus and been arrested on October 21, 1955., but she was also considred too young and poor. They wanted someone who would be respectable, self-supporting, and everything. Rosa Parks herself had had an incident in 1943, with the same bus driver, but that time when she refused the driver had ordered her off the bus and she had gotten off into the rain. She joined the NAACP the same year. She had decided, in 1955, that the next time she would refuse to give up her seat. She wasn’t tired. She was just tired of giving in to this. She was actually the secretary of the preident of the local NAACP chapter.
Ms Davis. had the forethought to request a remedy to avoid problems for all involved, but no, not allowed, we will make you obey.
The Governor, who is a lame duck, says he won’t call a special session of the state legislature to fix this. (on grounds it is going to cost money? Or because the activists don’t want this fixed? EVERYBODY MUST AGREE.)
Sammy Finkelman (39761f) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:39 pmA problem with ongoing conversations is that it is not clear who remembers what.
The judge’s aim has already backfired, there are at least 2 other clerk refusing to issue licenses in KY, one of whom is riding his bike across the state to bring attention to the issue.
At least 2 other states already have law to make such accommodation commonplace, it apparently isn’t hard to do if one wants to (tick, tick, tick, countdown to when one of those states is challenged by the feds.)
As said above, it is a question whether people want to affirm the rule of law or affirm order. One way to highlight the problems with unjust law is to put a face to it. We now have one, a face for every caterer, baker, photographer, event host, musician, florist, etc. who is wondering when they will be forced to compromise their principles or lose their livelihood because it was said gays just want a chance to do what they want.
As more issues come to the forefront of every day life, it will become more difficult, if not impossible to keep one’s head in the sand.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:55 pmDana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:51 pm
I’m not a judge so I’m willing to be corrected on this but I don’t think keeping other clerks in line is an appropriate consideration for a trial court judge. Judges know that court decisions impact more than the parties to the case but, in theory, they are supposed to decide the case before them without regard to how it may impact other potential litigants.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:56 pmYou will be forced to care. And affirm.
JD (34f761) — 9/5/2015 @ 6:57 pmPutting aside that this is a “hot” political issue, involving freedom of religion and important principles –
I’m kind of stoked that church folks are approvingly coming to terms with sex between boys and girls.
It always felt like “You like boobies? Shame on you filthy, dirty, boy!” when I was growing up.
So thanks Adam and Steve, for that much.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:01 pmDRJ, not to be an irritant to you, but since when have judges felt the compulsion to act according to the law when it comes to SSM??
2 groups of people, the shut up and let the assimilation commence, the SCOTUS ruled and we are reaching the end of history
and the so what if the SCOTUS ruled, we are approaching the end of history
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:02 pmIt is a shame you were given that impression, papertiger. Sex is a great thing, God invented it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:04 pmropelight:
The legal issue is whether the clerk’s religious belief is sincerely held and whether accommodating it poses an undue burden on the government. The issue isn’t and shouldn’t be whether the religious belief is reasonable, primarily because that means only commonly-held beliefs would be approved. The Constitution doesn’t give government the right to decide which beliefs are reasonable and which aren’t.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:07 pmI stand corrected Bunning knows what he is doing:
http://christiannews.net/2015/09/04/judge-who-jailed-kim-davis-ordered-students-who-opposed-homosexuality-to-be-re-educated/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:10 pmMD,
I can only speculate about Kentucky and Judge Bunning, and it probably wouldn’t help for me to do that. In general, judges are lawyers who care about legal issues, but they are also interested in keeping the legal system and government running smoothly. I can understand that a judge — who knows the legal process will eventually unfold — is also concerned about keeping the marriage process running smoothly. It’s the same concern that makes lawyers like Patterico think about the importance of having county clerks who actually do their jobs.
Everything is easier to diagnose in hindsight. This may be, too.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:14 pmDana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 5:46 pm
If interested, get my email from the site or from DRJ, JD, or Pat and I’d share ideas back and forth with you.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:14 pmThen again, after reading narciso’s link, maybe he has an agenda.
DRJ (521990) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:17 pmBeat me to it, DRJ, re the link.
If (per Kevin M.) the judge feels no compulsion in stomping over state procedures in making things compliant with his view of federal law,
could he not have ordered her to go ahead and document the licenses “County Clerk according to the instructions of Judge Bunning” and leave her own name off? The licenses would be completed, she would feel accommodated, and the judge and gov would not have such a mess on their hands.
It would sure seem, especially with the new link, that he thinks a person’s religious freedom in daily life is limited to what they are allowed to think in their head, and he is going to make sure the people of his jurisdiction know it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:26 pmoh. So this is just about doing licenses that clerks don’t sign to where all the clerks can anonymously participate in issuing same sex marriage licenses in a positive faith-affirming way.
We just have to redo the signatures for so no one specific clerk gets to take all the credit for issuing the license.
If Kim Davis believes the way to honor Jesus is to issue same sex marriage licenses without her signature for so gay people can get married then that seems entirely reasonable and is obviously a solution she’s given a lot of thought to already.
happyfeet (831175) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:28 pmPapertiger…https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song+of+Solomon+1&version=KJV
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:31 pmI thought the headline might be overwrought, but the text of his decision is clear, crimethink is not tolerated,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:34 pmThe minds and souls of the children belong to the state, parents are just convenient for providing room and board.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:37 pmI think that Pink Floyd was being ironic in the Wall, they did indeed ‘want thought control’ and that is what pervades Perfidious Albion today,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:39 pmMD@87
Actually, those two clerks were already campaigning for an accommodation. The ACLU went looking for plaintiffs in those counties but could not find any (per the Guardian article someone posted on one or the other of these threads).
The accommodation is simple, as you say. But it needs the governor to call a special session, which he refuses to do. So everyone has to wait until January, or get him to call that session.
Y’all are worked up about the judge. I am more worked up about the governor, who is blocking the simple obvious solution.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:43 pm#93, DRJ, it doesn’t matter if the clerk’s religious beliefs are sincere or not, her beliefs are completely irrelevant. Davis is against same sex marriage and has raised a phony issue (her signature) to inject her personal opposition into an emotionally charged hot-button issue where it doesn’t belong.
As I understand it she’s being paid to issue marriage licenses to qualified applicants, not to discriminate against otherwise qualified perverts. If she refuses to perform that task in an efficient and professional manner, the county must replace her forthwith.
ropelight (2e9234) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:44 pmRope- she is elected, so they can’t just replace her, and her entire job does not revolve around issuing marriage licenses.
JD (3898b3) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:47 pmI stand corrected Bunning knows what he is doing:
This passage from that article is most telling:
Bunning is supposedly a Republican, perhaps even a rightist (although I doubt it), but just as Ronald Reagan was not immune to left-leaning biases (ie, his secretly negotiating with hostage-taking Iran), and certainly George Bush Jr and Sr were not immune to such behavior (“read my lips…”, “kinder and gentler”), the same appears to be quite true of the judge.
Liberal sentiments can make anyone a fool.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:49 pmElected? Well that changes everything. Who knew? Please consider my previous comments inoperative.
ropelight (2e9234) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:51 pmagain you miss the point between policy and doctrine,
http://christiannews.net/2015/09/02/kentucky-governor-steve-beshears-pastor-drunkenness-not-sin-homosexuality-up-for-interpretation/
leading figures in the CIA, saw an approach to Khomeini, as an imperative, before he passed, the Tower Commission reported at least two other back channels, including one tied to fmr Secretary of State Alexander Haig
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 7:53 pmshe was elected by Jesus to redo the licenses so that nobody signs them they just put down the names of who’s getting married so it’s all official
a lot of people are trying to keep her from instituting the new Jesus-friendly signature policies but she just needs to persevere like how Rosa Parks did
it’ll be worth it cause then everyone what gets married in Rowan County – don’t matter if they’re straight or gay or what have you – they’ll get married with licenses what are pleasing in the eyes of the Lord
it seems kind of unfair cause you’re gonna have some gay people what get married with regular old licenses and some what get married with the fancy new Kim Davis licenses what glorify Jesus
but nobody ever said life was fair did they
happyfeet (831175) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:03 pmwell pikachu you picked a city where the mayor doesn’t allow for chick a fil franchises, but had no problem doing business with a figure who debates the shape of the stones one uses to crush gays, so take your doublestandards where the sun don’t shine,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:06 pmkishnevi- The judge seemed to go out of his way in his comments to attack her and brings the spotlight on himself. As I said before, I imagine there is responsibility to go around and I’m not willing to rule anyone out.
ah yes, narciso, something about finding teachers who will tell you what one wants to hear and sensuality
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:08 pmwha?
i go to chik fil a all the time it’s at the corner of state street (that great street) and lake
see it there at the bottom right? That’s where a pikachu gets his chicken biscuits but it’s a sometimes food, usually in winter.
happyfeet (831175) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:10 pmoops bottom left i mean it’s at the right when you’re looking at it from where you get off the elevated train people conveyance system
happyfeet (831175) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:10 pm“At some point, I would like to discuss this with you. I have been a Christian for more than 35 years and am still not at ease with the scripture on this matter, so I can understand being in disagreement with MD. However, recognizing my very finite limitations, I yield to God as much as I am able. He will have to do the rest.”
– Dana
I have been a Christian for 12 years, since I was 14. I confessed with my mouth that Jesus was Lord and believed in my heart that God raised him from the dead. A few years later, I had an experience that convinced me, inalterably, in the reality of God. My life since then has been a process of continually assessing and questioning and attempting to grow in my faith.
I took (and take) it as my responsibility to read the Word, and to pray about it, and to process it, and to attempt to reconcile through interpretation verses and sentiments that seem at odds. Some of them do, but I don’t believe them to be contradictory. I believe them to be divinely inspired, not for easy answers, but to promote a struggle of faith that humbles us, sharpens us, and fuels our hunger for God.
I have read a lot of Scripture – not all of it, and probably not as many times as many here, but a lot of it. Here are a few of the fundamental takeaways that reconcile much of Scripture, for me:
– All human beings are born in a state of sin.
– That state of “sin” is aptly named. It is a state of being without God, of being separate from God, of incompleteness. It is a proper noun, not a verb. It is the state in which we exist, not a thing that we do. Within that state, we act – and our acts may be good or bad, but should not be confused with the “sin” that is ever-present and defines us.
– We are only without sin when we are reconciled with God – and then we are complete. While we are alive, we are in a state of sin and fundamentally sinful.
– There are many who hope for and long to be reconciled with God, but they need to be shown the way.
– Jesus is the way. By His life and death, He showed us how to be reconciled with God – by love, mercy, and self-sacrifice, and by belief in the unseen, the life of faith. He is how we seek, and He is how we find.
– In the meantime – recognizing our fundamental sin-state – we attempt to show love and mercy to those around us, and to engage in self-sacrifice as a process of seeking God through Jesus Christ. This is the righteousness that comes by faith.
– We absolutely do not have all the answers. The entire book of Job drives that point home.
So: I am still not at ease with the Scriptures on this matter either, and recognize my own finite limitations as well. I try to yield to the message of Scripture as a holistic text, not as a series of disconnected verses to be taken as expressing whole truth in their disconnection. I try (and sometimes fail) to reconcile each verse with each other, and with the things I learn from the people and the world around me.
I believe that homosexuals and heterosexuals are born and live their lives in the same sin-state. I believe there is absolutely no difference between them, that one is no more sinful than the other, and that both may find God through Jesus Christ. I believe that marriage is a good thing, an affirmation of love and devotion between people who understand it as such, which can provide stability and provide a safe and stable environment for raising children. I believe that marriage is this good thing regardless of the genders or sexuality of the people participating in it. So, being called to love my brothers and sisters, and to want all of the good things of God for them, and remembering my own sin, I will support them in the pursuit of marriage. On what grounds would I (me, a sinner incapable of grasping the mysteries of God) impede it? Would I say that they can’t marry because they are sinful? We are all sinful, and their sinfulness is no different than ours. Because they commit bad acts? We all commit bad acts. Because they commit a particular act that some have magically determined to disqualify them, among the untold number of acts that are overlooked in others? That is a bridge of self-righteousness I will not cross.
Homosexuality in America has become the speck of sawdust in our brother’s eye that keeps us from seeing the plank in our own.
I do not judge or condemn. It is not my place and I don’t have the wisdom and I live in the state of sin like everyone else. I will not do it. I seek God, because I long for reconciliation with God. I fear the weaponization of faith, because it distracts from seeking God. If faced with a difficult question, and a choice between love and judgment, I’m going to go with love. I will risk being condemned for being too lenient rather than risk being condemned for being a hypocrite.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:17 pmAddendum: I believe that the essence of our faith is struggle. I do not have the answers. I struggle with these difficult questions all the time. But that’s the point – to struggle all our lives without answers. I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and certainly not such easy answers as the ones weaponized on a regular basis on this issue in particular.
Everyone trumpeting the “definition” of marriage as “one man plus one woman” is conveniently forgetting about David (called a man after God’s own heart). A man living in the state of sin? Yes. A man seeking God? Yes. I believe that David sought, and that he found, and that he had eight wives or so, simultaneously.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:24 pmNarciso, I see Mr. Feets’s point there. Her proposed solution is a technical weaseling way out. “I don’t help abort babies. I just file the paperwork for Planned Parenthood in their front office.” “Comrade, why such a look? I never mistreated a prisoner in my life. I just made sure they were put in the right van for transport to the work camp.
Compare the Catholic nurses from New Jersey…I think they were cited in the other thread…who refused to participate not only in the actual abortion procedure but also in the before and after care.
kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:28 pmAbraham had two concubines in addition to Sarah. Jacob had two wives and two concubines. Solomon had 1000 women in his harem.
The examples are found all through the OT.
kishnevi (31ba4e) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:35 pm#90 …. It always felt like “You like boobies? Shame on you filthy, dirty, boy!” when I was growing up. ….
The amount of idiots and idiotic interpretations of religious doctrine is breathless.
I dunno but for those of us who listened to what we were taught in religious classes this is exactly NOT what we learned.
What we learned was that to control oneself made us apart from the animals and helped us avoid bad situations and outcomes that could ruin our lives or materially worsen them.
To the knuckle dragging imbeciles who were too hormonal or too ignorant, they heard “Shame on you filthy, dirty, boy!”
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:39 pmLet’s think about David for a second:
Option 1: Marriage is between one man and one woman, and that definition is unchanging.
Option 2: Marriage is something else, or is no one fixed thing.
If we choose Option 1, we are forced to face the fact that David violated that definition. Then we face a choice between Option 1a (David did not live a life pleasing and honorable to God) or Option 1b (David nonetheless lived a life pleasing and honorable to God).
If we choose Option 1a, I submit that we miss the entire point of much of Scripture (and I would be interested to see if anyone identifies with Option 1a). If we choose Option 1b, then we must grapple with the question that two people can knowingly violate the definition of marriage and still live a life pleasing and honorable to God.
If we choose Option 2, then the easy answers disappear.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:40 pmAnd if there are other Options re: David, I’d be interested to hear them.
Leviticus (48a857) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:41 pmthe sin begins with the thought, not the act, going all the way back to the Garden, Eve coveted, that which did not belong to her, and followed through with it, there are myriad ways the ‘the devil choses to ‘steal, kill, and destroy’ sometimes in brutal ways, often more subtlely, driving Christianity out of the public square, so the language of sin and goodness would be extant was the first step, on the basis of diversity, then compassion mandated no fault divorce, and now we have all forms of chimera, deviant behaviors beyond count,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:41 pm#118 Which is why the OT is really an inferior book to the NT insofar as moral setting paradigms. OT is certainly focused on how we humans are and setting up rules to keep order (in particular the 10 Commandments). So maybe in that sense the OT is superior to the NT as a practical book for setting up societal law and norms. Cuz the Golden Rule is all fine and good to construct moral code but humans are not exactly sticking to that ethos is most of their daily acts.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:46 pmI believe there is absolutely no difference between them, that one is no more sinful than the other
The famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato (who predates Christ and Christianity) would disagree. He ended up strongly, harshly denouncing homosexuality, certainly among males. The reason probably was due to his natural instincts, best illustrated by the fact that almost no sane man will ever sense there is no difference between a scenario of “I just saw my teenage son passionately kissing a boy” and a scenario of “I just saw my teenage son passionately kissing a girl.”
Simply put, there IS a difference.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:47 pm#122, Yes but sin is action, not thought. One can think many evil thoughts and if one does not act on them then one is not a sinner. That is why 9 of the 10 Commandment are about behavior and only one about thought (coveting). With that said if your thoughts are always on bad things — likely you end up their sin the flesh is quite strong.
Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:49 pmthe world of the OT, was much like this one, there was war, pestilence, covetousness, indifference, Israel’s regional allies were nearly as cooperative as the current ones, re David he had much to atone for, three books worth, if memory serves, but that’s what the Psalms are about,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:53 pmThe examples are found all through the OT.
Meaning the examples of polygamy. Or relationships that in the past and today are actually more of a mainstream (or less of an aberrant) type of relationship, more in keeping with human nature—ie, the innate, non-monogamous characteristics of the typical male. Or more mainstream (or less aberrant) compared with anything involving two males in a social-sexual relationship or, for that matter, two females in a similar setup.
So it really isn’t a slippery slope (since polygamy in some ways is less of an outlier and conforms to more cultures, more people) to say that if SSM is fine and dandy, than that goes double or triple for polygamy.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:54 pmand that was the nature of that fallen world, that the tower of babel, the flood, and the parting of the red sea, somehow did not impress upon the people,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:59 pmThank you Leviticus for the thoughtful response.
Wall of text theology warning-
I think we can misunderstand what love is. Love is sometimes more like war than peace. Love is not just to want things to be nice, it is to want what is true, what is genuinely the best.
I think there is a great under appreciation of what it is that we should experience as a Christian. While some would like to say that a Christian is not much other than a forgiven sinner, that neglects a lot of what Scripture teaches.
Scripture says that one who has come to faith in Jesus has the power and the presence of the Holy Spirit, the same power that raised Christ from the dead, in us to help us to want and be able to live life pleasingly to God. Very sadly, we see too little of the reality of this fleshed out in daily life.
I do not believe that a person who comes to faith in Jesus is destined to live as a slave to those things that are sinful in their lives anymore. The person who is a promiscuous heterosexual should know the self control to no longer live that pattern of life. If they still do, the Bible would question whether the person truly came to a place of being restored to a relationship with God through Jesus. If they truly did, then there is still something at work in their life in a destructive way that they “should not settle for”.
The issue is not one of condemning sin and sinners, it is freedom. Freedom from bondage to sin. I consider it to be not loving to tell a person it is no problem to continue to live in sin. Homosexuality is a departure from our original creation by God, I agree with you that is from one perspective no different than any other way we have departed from what we were intended to be. I agree that from this perspective it is not to be treated any differently than any other sin.
However, that does not to mean to ignore it being sin,
and from another point of view, it is not loving to leave a person in a state less than free.
Being a Christian means one understands there is a spiritual nature to humanity, not all is explainable by the material. To ask whether homosexuality is “genetic” or “acquired” or “chosen” is limiting the issue to categories that don’t matter. It is a distortion of God’s image, not to be treated with contempt (as all too often it has been) but to be addressed by seeking redemption.
Jeremiah’s condemnation of the people of God at one point was centered on 2 simple things:
1) They had forsaken God, the fountain of living water
2) They had replaced him with other things, “false cisterns that didn’t hold water”
Seeking fulfillment in life through sexual expression is a false god, a dead end, an empty cistern, whether that is serial monogamy through multiple marriages, heterosexual activity outside of marriage, sexualization of children and everything else in life through advertising, popular culture in media, etc. really makes no difference. Romans 1 clearly describes homosexuality as a consequence of man’s uncontrolled pursuit into sinfulness. David knew that marriage was between a man and a woman and he sinned greatly with great consequence. In a sense, homosexual behavior is no worse a sin, but it is in a sense farther along down the road in departing from not only God’s design, but God’s revelation in nature.
In one sense I can live in a society that allows abortion and not have one and relatively easily (usually) not be required to be part of one. I can also choose that marriage is a lifetime commitment and divorce is not an option except for some specific extreme circumstance. It is more difficult now to avoid playing a role in it, such as granting a marriage license for someone on their third marriage. Perhaps once upon a time it was different. Perhaps when no fault divorce was coming into popularity more county clerks should have opted out of that, too. But still, to voice an opinion, “I’m against most reasons for divorce” make for strange looks and awkward conversation, but I’m not in danger of being accused of civil rights violations.
The current issue with homosexuality and gay marriage, though, is that we are being told that there is a legally approved way to think. If I say that I think premarital sex is wrong, people may wonder what kind of idiot or fool I am, but they don’t think of me as a hater, bigot, and dangerous. That is different with homosexuality. I did not choose it to be this way, the circumstance is not of my making.
Now, if confronted with a situation where my opinion of SSM is “called into play” by discussions or circumstances not of my own making, I can either present a false front either because I am too scared to rock the boat or because I don’t think it would do any good anyway, or be truthful because I think the truth is what is more loving and because I am warned that if I deny God’s truth out of fear that is not consistent with being in a relationship with him.
As I said originally, I probably would have gone the route of resigning. The problem with that is that many Christians will increasingly need to withdraw from the general culture. Again, if that is really what the culture as a whole wants, that is the way it will be, but I don’t think the influence of <5% of the population should be allowed to dictate to the society at large.
The Christian church should be known by their love for God and one another, love which includes helping people win freedom from the bondage of whatever sins would destroy them. Unfortunately we do not typically see the love or the power of God that actually changes peoples lives. I've seen it much less than I would like.
The practical response is to water down our expectations and give everyone a pass as it seems no one has much success overcoming their sins anyway. That is shortsighted and the devil's lie.
I've known people who had homosexual desires as long as they could remember who live lives in happy heterosexual marriages. I've known people whose homosexuality, just as often heterosexual promiscuity, can be directly linked with childhood abuse and trauma. The most loving them for such people is not to patiently indulge them in their situation but to help them find freedom.
I do not harp on this because I don't like gays or that I do bad things when I meet one, I've applied my skills to keep many alive as best I can. I harp on it because I do believe that it is a lie to say it is just a variant or normal, a lie not just of human origin but of spiritual origin. Alinsky perhaps was more factual than he realized when he tipped his hat to Lucifer. I'm concerned about 14 year olds dealing with a history of abuse by acting out, I'm concerned about people being deluded.
In some ways an apologetic to a specific Christian belief like this is absurd nonsense to those who are not convinced there is any kind of God to bother with. So be it. I would appeal more to what should be obvious in nature and throughout human history for a defense of marriage as man and woman to a nonbeliever (Robert George's book).
The short version to a believer, that homosexuality is not normative is obvious in Scripture. How one then responds to that takes into account other things, such as recognizing all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (so what's the big deal??)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 9:50 pmPaul tells Timothy to stay away from people who hold a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. I am afraid too much of my life and what we see as "typical" Christianity in the US is more like what Paul would warn us to stay away from, than what he would recognize as normal.
Oh my goodness, have you read about the tragedy that David’s life was??? Or the legacy that Solomon left (a divided kingdom?)
A heart after God did not mean sinless, it meant that on some level, in spite of his sin, he wanted a relationship with God, as opposed to Saul, who was proud and fearful for his own well being.
Abraham is held up as a person “whose faith did not waver”. Well, that must have been a “big picture” view, for more than once he reacted in fear and unbelief and lied about his wife being his sister.
That is why being justified before God will never be accomplished through human effort, but through the grace of God for those willing to receive it.
BUT
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 10:00 pmWe are living in the times of prophecy where the dried bones have flesh put on them, the heart of stone replace with a heart of flesh, when God will pour out His Spirit upon all mankind. As I was saying above, we too often live as if we are still OT sinners doomed to sin.
No, the power that raised Jesus from the dead is in us to bring life to our mortal bodies also. It would be mean and evil to tell any sinner, drug addict, prostitute, a gay acting out on his/her desires, whoever, that the best they can do is muddle through until the end.
I believe the essence of faith is a real, “tangible” relationship with the Living God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, who dwells in unapproachable light yet made a way for sinful man to be forgiven and be reunited to Himself through the substitutionary atoning death on a cross of Jesus, and this relationship exists through the working of the Holy Spirit, the incredible idea of the presence of God somehow making Himself real inside the life of one who believes.
Oh my, if I thought faith was essentially a struggle of my own trying to figure things out I would have lost it some time ago.
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/5/2015 @ 8:41 pm
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/5/2015 @ 10:08 pmyes. The growing delusion.
These were some of the accommodation suggestions from the petition to the Supreme Court:
Further, here Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation discusses accommodations, primarily that which has been put in place in South Carolina.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 10:46 pmLeviticus,
I see that you have posted a very open and thoughtful comment at 115. I would like to respond to it tomorrow given that I’m headed to bed now.
Dana (86e864) — 9/5/2015 @ 10:48 pmDoesn’t giving Davis a harsher penalty to keep other clerks in line violate the equal protection under the law clause? It also sounds like the act of a bully, especially given how he violated the civil rights of the students previously.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/5/2015 @ 10:51 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/04/the-kentucky-miracle-kim-davis-teaches-liberals-to-value-the-rule-of-law/
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:23 amDoesn’t giving Davis a harsher penalty to keep other clerks in line violate the equal protection under the law clause?
I’m pretty sure that doesn’t apply to sentences unless it’s systemic.
There were these two guys who worked for the World bank. Since they worked for an international agency, they did not have the normal US taxes deducted, and the IRS received no W-2s. However, being US citizens they were required to report their earnings and pay tax.
Both filed taxes but their software did not ask them about money earned at an international agency and, they each said in separate procedings, this is why they failed to report the earnings or pay taxes.
One of them went to prison for tax fraud. The other one was Timothy Geithner, and Teasury Secretary (and IRS over-boss) at the time his friend was prosecuted.
So, no, outcomes do not have to be the same.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:35 amThe 3% have changed America into a minority rules sex first country.
mg (31009b) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:21 amHere is a good read from a self-proclaimed atheist (that I would suggest is more anti-theist, but that’s a quibble) that relates to current events insofar as the ultimate worldly experience of Christians is concerned.
In the not-to-distant future, Christians will be publicly beheaded in the United States for the crime of remaining Christian. Of that, I am absolutely certain.
John Hitchcock (91a83b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:04 amThe state legislature does not meet until January, and if the legislature must take action for such an accommodation, then mrs Davis must languish in jail until at least then.
But remember: the state House of Representatives and the Governor are Democrats; Republicans control only the state Senate. If this required legislative action, we just might see the spectacle of the homosexual lobby pressuring the legislature to not pass such an accommodation, because their goal is not just same-sex “marriage,” but to compel everyone to accept same-sex “marriage” as good and wholesome and normal.
The Dana from Kentucky (48d128) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:33 amI suggest as remedy, the tarring and feathering of the 5 SCOTUS justices and Bunning, followed by a month in the stocks for each of them for each day the County Clerk is locked away and that those stocks be in the public square of the county seat of the county the Clerk serves.
John Hitchcock (91a83b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:59 amI’m still trying to figure out how it is that leftist mayors can institute sanctuary cities and refuse to enforce the law and not a peep about throwing them in jail, but let one little clerk……
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:12 amThe are many variations to an “Oath of Office” at the Federal and State levels, but all have one thing in common: NONE of them state that the affirmer will “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE US.”
As a society, we have become inured to the notion that SCOTUS is the final word on all things legal, regardless of how they reach a decision. This is tyranny by the BRPs – Black Robed People.
In cases like Obergefell which was pulled from Kennedy’s ass (like Roe), the average person who pays reasonably close attention to these rulings, has to shake their head, and be seriously tempted to tell the Justices to f**k off, or as HL Mencken stated, “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
Congress doesn’t have to pay attention to a SCOTUS ruling
Horatio (237b98) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:24 amThe President doesn’t have to pay attention to a SCOTUS ruling
Both are CO-EQUAL branches of the government, and just because SCOTUS declares itself to be the final arbiter, doesn’t make it so…
Let me try to condense/put more orderly what I wanted to say above.
My understanding (not mine alone, but “mine” as opposed to saying what “you” should agree to) of Scripture is the following:
There is a God who created heaven and earth and all that is in it, including humans. Humans he created uniquely different from other life by making us “in His image”.
We were created to enjoy a relationship with our Creator, which would have been “paradise”.
We fell into sin and became alienated from God our Creator, our Heavenly Father.
Having fallen into sin, the image of God in us became corrupted,
since we all share in this corruption we are all equally alienated from God and need Him to do something to reconcile us to Himself, it is beyond us. This He did eagerly because of His love, in taking our sin upon Himself in Jesus, God manifest in the flesh on this earth.
While we all share in corruption and alienation from God, the degree of corruption is not necessarily the same, the image of God had been more distorted in some than others. In fact, even non-believers recognize that some people do things that seem to make them “less than human” (not only less than God’s image).
The worst thing that can ever happen to a person is to be stuck in a state where one drifts farther and farther away from what God meant for them to be, not only in this life but after physical death. (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory)
This is where Romans talks about people falling farther and farther away from God’s design. Yes, David and a gay couple share in having fallen from God’s design and share in alienation from Him,
but in another way homosexual sin is “farther away” from God’s design than David’s (male and female He created us, “at least” David was still in that framework).
This does not mean the gay couple are worse sinners, but it means they have fallen into greater foolishness, that even the revelation of nature around us points that we are meant to be male and female, that there is a difference, a complimentary relationship.
Scripture says worse than being entrapped in sin is to be outside and approving, instead of knowing better.
The most appropriate Christian response to homosexuals is compassion, compassion that does not encourage their state, but would encourage them, like everyone else, to be reconciled to God, to enter into relationship with Him, and begin a new life.
Like anyone else, the only way to do that is by accepting God’s offer of Jesus paying for our sin, that we may then live life in His power.
The testimony that those who believe in Jesus have given by our actions on this earth has often been pitiful compared to what is possible and intended, and for that we will give account.
But those who refuse to believe can’t use that as a final excuse.
The reality of Christian faith is not described in the NT as simply having a mental assent to some propositions, though it is easy to see how a few verses can make it look that way. But it is having a new life in a restored relationship to God and their should be evidence, or fruit, in a person’s life not because they have learned to “try harder”, but because God’s nature is inside and it is natural to change, one would have to work to not let change happen. As I said before, especially in the West we have largely not appreciated this and are content with a weak, limp version of Christianity. There are examples of this in the book of Acts, where people had become believers but had not been taught/learned about how the power of God was to work in their lives.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:30 amWhile I believe that she should follow the law or resign, I DO find the people who show up against her are complete hypocrites. We have a President who routinely violates the Constitution and these same people seemly ignore that because he is on their side on gay rights issues. The Bill of Rights means little to such people; that is until it impacts them.
amr (d02c7e) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:25 amThis case is confusing to me. This report indicates Bunning recognized the clerk was acting based on a sincerely held religious belief — he called it a “genuinely held religious belief” like his own — but said that didn’t matter because the clerk had taken an oath to perform her job and she wasn’t doing it.
That approach completely rejects any place for religious accommodations. It’s an easy approach to this issue and it’s certainly simpler to apply than the process of identifying, balancing and protecting religious beliefs, but it ignores the Constitution. Perhaps the judge thinks public officials can’t serve two masters so they forfeit their right to religious protection when they are at work serving as public officials. If that’s true, then this truly is (as Ted Cruz said) judicial tyranny designed to force Christians out of government. It’s also not the law.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:59 amThat link also has more about why the judge sent the clerk to jail instead of fining her. It reports that the judge felt a fine would not force the clerk to comply with his order because, although the county’s insurance would not pay her fine, “efforts to raise funds for her were already in motion in various circles” at the time of the contempt hearing.
The judge also said “Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense.” Again, he found she had a sincerely held religious belief. Perhaps he felt it imposed an undue burden on persons seeking marriage licenses but I think he needs to take evidence regarding and consider whether there are religious accommodations that can be made. It’s not clear whether he did this. Either he didn’t or the reporters didn’t understand the legal issues so that aspect hasn’t been reported. I think either one is possible but the statements by the clerk’s counsel suggest to me that the judge didn’t give much attention to the role of religious accommodations.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:09 amSince when do judges gave the ability to violate the Constitution (the 1st Amendment ) without penalty or repercussion?
Wonder if she would think about when she starting liking horror movies or decide it was in her genes and she was programmed to do so. Food for thought.
njrob (c4bc2e) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:28 amShe was offered numerous possible accommodations and refused them all. The vast majority of other KY clerks worked it out. If she is so offended, quit. There is no right to permanent government employment. The woman has a martyr complex.
And were she a believing Muslim at DMV refusing women drivers’ licenses because of their BS prophet, a lot of people here would rightly be singing a very different tune.
The job involves following the law. Sometimes following the law means doing things you don’t like or agree with. As an assigned counsel attorney for the local criminal court, the 6th Amendment meant that sometimes I had to defend guilty people, and defended people who’s crimes were especially abhorrent to me.And I had to do so to the best of my ability regardless. Cops every day are required to enforce laws the do not agree with. We are government of laws, and when individuals decide to enforce or not enforce laws based on their personal beliefs, things go to hell. Obama is doing exactly that with immigration laws. The well-intended road to hell is paved by public officials picking and choosing such enforcement, or nonenforcement based on their own caprices.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:58 amthis lady is saying that you can’t trust christians to execute the duties of a public office
she’s doing christians a big favor here
she’s a goddamn hero really
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:00 amHappyFascist no longer pretending to be a Christian. At least something good has come out of this horrid situation brought on by leftist fascists like himself.
njrob (c4bc2e) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:16 am@ Bugg,
She was offered numerous possible accommodations and refused them all.
Do you have a link that shows she was offered any number of accommodations and refused all of them? There were accommodations that she would accept, but it was the governor has resisted changing the state law to accommodate her, not Davis.
The situation is putting pressure on political leaders in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear (D) has resisted calls to hold a special session of the state legislature to consider changes to state law that would allow accommodations for Davis and the two other defiant clerks.
Among the accommodations that Davis has said would be acceptable is a proposal to remove county clerks’ names from marriage licenses.
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:39 amyou can be a christian and not be a weird hateful backwoods freak Mr. rob
i happen to know a lot about this subject cause of dad was a christian and he was a leader in our church doing lots of lay ministry and such
he was also a jp what did marriagings
he had to keep an eye out for to make sure the fundies were appeased cause they built their giant trailer park megachurch monstrosity in his district, but fortunately most of the people what actually went to this church were trash what lived in the sticks and just went there for cheap daycare
anyway the church never targeted him like they did others
they played holy hell on the school board though
dad used to be president of that too for awhile
he got outta there while the getting was good
dad woulda done gay marriagings no problem I know cause of he was pro gay marriage but he only told family that cause of in case the fundies found out
dad taught us all a lot about public service and how a lot of times you have to be selfless and work with a lot of people and programs and duties what you don’t agree with for example he had to handle a lot of truancy cases and at first his hands were very tied as to how these cases were to be disposed of but over the years he worked hard to get more latitude
he’d speak very passionately about how the court wasn’t doing right by these kids and we had to change the rules
but until they changed the rules to where he had more better alternatives for these families he followed the rules and went way way way above and beyond to stay in touch with these families and keep track of the consequences (which were bad)
all in all what I learned from growing up in Texas is being a Christian in public office is not always easy but you have to do your best and not be a big narcissistic weirdo like this loser in Kentucky
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:40 amShe was offered numerous possible accommodations and refused them all.
You obviously haven’t gone through this thread and seen posts like the one from Dana dated 9-5 at 10:46 pm. Either that or in a bit of momentary confusion you’re still projecting onto her the type of no-justice-no-peace intransigence often displayed by people on your (or closer to your) side of the political aisle, referring to the two-faced, loud-mouthed left.
I’m still trying to figure out how it is that leftist mayors can institute sanctuary cities and refuse to enforce the law and not a peep about throwing them in jail, but let one little clerk……
I’d like to strip away all the legalese, all the back and fro about who is or isn’t constitutionally or legally in the right, and find out the visceral responses that people in this forum and elsewhere have towards the thought of the county clerk from Kentucky and the thought of the federal judge ruling against her (a judge, by the way, who apparently in the past has mandated that a public school create classes dedicated to what in effect is political correctness).
In turn, I’d like to know the visceral reaction that a person will have towards the specter of a city official flouting laws regarding immigration compared with the reaction such a person will have towards the image of Kim Davis.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:41 amthis lady is saying that you can’t trust christians to execute the duties of a public office
she’s doing christians a big favor here
she’s a goddamn hero really
This lady is saying that her commitment to God supersedes her commitment to man. Even moreso, she’s not just “saying” it, she’s living it. Or in nauseating modern lingo, She’s walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
And so, yes, she is doing Christians a big favor here. She is showing us how we then should live when push comes to shove and we are challenged to stand firm in our faith, in spite of the consequences. This is the essence of the faith. This is what God demands.
I would agree with you, she is a goddamn hero.
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:43 amyou can be a christian and not be a weird hateful backwoods freak Mr. rob
happyfeet, you’re bigoted underpants are showing.
Look more deeply, if you dare and if you are able, because there is a reason why it is this “backwoods freak” that is standing on the Rock and in the limelight.
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:46 amBugg- don’t let the facts and the law get in the way of a good self-righteous rant.
JD (34f761) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:47 amyou can be a christian and not be a weird hateful backwoods freak Mr. rob
You’re so two-faced, happyfeet, that you’ve yet to admit whether you’ve had or would ever have a socio-sexual relationship with another male. That’s not a “gotcha” question, by the way, but simply an illustration that even you, in your ongoing hesitancy, are displaying the fact that, yes, there IS a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:48 amno Dana at the end of the day even if her freak ass gets accommodatered girlfriend is still gonna head up the office what gives out gay marriage licenses they just won’t have her name on them
but at the end of the day miss walk the walk is sure as hell gonna collect her piggy pension some of which will have been paid for by the gay marriage license monies her office collected
she’s a hypocrite a a fraud
look at me i love Jesus she says
no sweetie
you love people looking at you as is if you love Jesus
there’s a difference and people with class know that whereas trash like you just get off on making a spectacle of yourselves
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:49 amshe’s a hypocrite *and* a fraud i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:50 amyou love people looking at you as
isif you love Jesusi’m a go get a 4-shot nonfat latte brb
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:51 amthis lady is saying that you can’t trust christians to execute the duties of a public office
There’s lots of that going around.
Funny, I don’t remember you being so upset then all those AGs wouldn’t defend the laws and constitutional amendments that their states had adopted.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:53 amI’m sorry, I don’t get this. The job is to follow the law. she has been offered any number of possible alternatives, and instead she has in fact chosen to make a spectacle of herself. Don;t like the law? Quit, and go earn a living some other way. because here beliefs conform to a Evangelical Christianity doesn’t not give her the right to refuse to follow the law in her government job.
This is not “conservative”. it the same exact thing as Obama refusing to follow immigration laws, or Islamic people putting their religious beliefs above the law. Anyone can say they believe anything they want, but if you work for the government on company time the job is following the law whether you like it or hate it. And for conservatives to embrace this yahoo as some paragon of virtue is exactly this kind of stupidity that costs us elections.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:57 amhappyfeet,
You know who shares your somewhat similar views about Davis’s hypocrisy and not upholding the oath of her office?
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:05 amBugg,
Where does it say that the clerk refused many alternatives? Everything I’ve seen here and elsewhere indicates she is the one who offered many alternatives but the Judge and governor refused. Help us out with links, please.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:17 amBugg – continuing to misrepresent it doesn’t make it true.
Mark – that was creepy.
JD (9cad5d) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:17 amAlso, I don’t think her religious beliefs cause her to be unable to hold public office. We could make a rule that says you can’t hold office if your beliefs are in conflict with your duties, but we don’t. Instead, the Rule is that the government and private employers must make reasonable accommodation for sincerely held beliefs, provided they don’t cause an undue burden.
The judge held that the clerk has a sincerely held belief, as shown in one of my earlier comment links. It’s not clear whether he considered accommodations or if he said, as you do, that any conflict means the employee loses. If the judge said that, without considering possible acvomodations, then I don’t think it’s a correct reading of the law.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:24 amher failings have less to do with her broken oath than with her puerile interpretation of the role of the clerk in issuing licenses
are these people legally able to get married in kentucky is all she’s being asked to affirm
that’s it
she’s lying (for attention) and saying she’s being asked to say that gay marriage is in accord with bible teachings
she’s a deluded loon
and it’s not doing her a christian kindness to feed her delusions
it’s mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:25 amFor those claiming that Davis rejected any number of accommodations, please cite a link. I have googled repeatedly for such a claim and cannot find any confirmation of such. If you cannot verify your claim, you should not be making it simply to further your argument.
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:27 amshe rejected the accommodation of letting her deputies do the licenses instead of her
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:28 amHappyfascist now blames his dad for his illiterate understanding of Christianity and his bigoted behavior towards Christians. At least we know why he thinks the way he does.
A shrink could be helpful in sorting out that anger you have towards others happyfascist. Might even show you have unresolved issues with family.
njrob (2cbf9c) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:32 amTell it to the judge, hf, he said her belief is sincerely held. Are you now the boss of which ideas are allowed in America? That’s a cool job. How did you get it?
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:32 amShe rejected the accommodation of letting her deputies sign because her name would still be on the license, but she offered that as an option if her name was removed.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:34 ami will tell it to the judge i tell it to his face!
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:37 amI’ve linked this before but here are the accommodations the attorneys for the clerk said she offered but we’re not accepted:
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:38 amthe Rule is that the government and private employers must make reasonable accommodation for sincerely held beliefs, provided they don’t cause an undue burden.
Of course, Christianity is not permitted to be one of these beliefs. Islam, not so much.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:38 amshe’s a deluded loon
I originally thought the way you posted here was a form of shtick, with your high-school-girlish way of writing or composing — which makes it hard to take you seriously (certainly since you choose to visit a website that isn’t owned and managed by a goofus-doofus type of guy) — being sort of an online character or masquerade of yours. Now it apparently seems to be the real you, which is not just sad but also purposefully or inadvertently trollish.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:41 amThe pleadings claim the law already authorizes the chief executive of the county to issue licenses, so it seems nothing legally would have to be done other than the clerk requesting it and the chief executive agreeing to do it. It may be the clerk isn’t the only official in Rowan County who objects to issuing these licenses.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:41 amdeluded loon is the charitable interpretation Mr. Mark
she night very well could just be a plain old evil bigot making a spectacle to help her get re-elected
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:52 amPut the crack pipe down and then step away, happyfeet.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/6/2015 @ 10:53 amThe judge is obviously not sympathetic to the clerk or her position, but even he accepts that she is acting based on a sincerely held religious belief. He didn’t agree to be nice or polite. He agreed because he took testimony that substantiated she believes what she says, and he was convinced by the testimony.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:00 ami don’t agree to be nice or polite either
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:03 amthe republican party is just awash in this let’s mollycoddle the special snowflakes huckabee nonsense
it’s really starting to look like trump might could be the best they can do anymore
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:07 amIt was only a matter of time until he started accusing her of lying, based on nothing. This is his normal protocol.
JD (3b5483) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:08 amhow can she work in a county clerks office and not understand what a marriage license is
99% of what that license does is make sure you’re not marrying your sister
she’s either lying or she’s just really really stupid
but this is all to the glory of her own self-aggrandizing sense of piety, not to Jesus
she’s a narcissist and a fraud
and to accept her argument is to accept that people like her simply can’t be entrusted with public office
she’s already demonstrated that she down not believe that everyone is equal under the law
and i for one will not accede to a redefinition of christianity as trashbigot religion of hate
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:13 amI’ve tried to discuss this topic in a serious and helpful way, even though it’s been difficult the past few days. It isn’t worth it anymore. I hate feeling this way because it leaves someone who has an agenda that isn’t serious or helpful, but I trust others will step up. Good luck and God bless.
DRJ (521990) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:14 amack that she *does* not believe that everyone is equal under the law
i also don’t want to accede that poochie creamcheese here is the face of the republican party at this late date in failmerica’s decline
but it’s really starting to look that way
and it give me the queasies
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:15 amHF, when you have DRJ and the woman Dana declaring you to be way out of line, you’ve royally screwed the pooch. Think about it.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:33 amDRJ,
you will be missed. Your contributions are always welcome and useful to those of us that cannot post often.
NJRob (2cbf9c) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:33 amoh. as *a* trashbigot religion of hate i mean
but the point is the scores and scores of Christian Kentucky clerks what are upholding the law prove that this is neither mainstream christian thinking or even remotely representative of christian behavior
poochie creamcheese is an extreme outlier and an aberration and wile this may or may not have any legal bearing on whether or not any accommodations are required in this case it certainly provides a helpful context for interpreting poochie’s motive
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:34 am*while* this may or may not I mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:35 am“Do not have sexual relations with those of the same sex because that is an abomination.”
“Do not even wish good luck to those who are about to involve themselves in sin as that is condoning the sinful behavior.”
THAT is the County Clerk’s motive.
HF, your motive is to force everyone to accept your LIBERTINE view of everything, and to hate on anyone who walks a truly CHRISTIAN walk.
Again, the woman Dana and DRJ have both declared YOU to be the one who is way out of line and a serious detraction to the conversation.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:42 amthat’s from the link where DRJ says establishes that the judge thinks poochie has a good faith belief
I don’t think it’s very compelling because it lacks any characterization or description of what the genuinely held beliefs in question might be
nobody doubts that poochie believes it’s wrong for gay people to get married
but that’s not the question
the question is does she really believe that issuing a marriage license with her name on it that certifies that a gay couple meets the legally qualifications to marry in the state of Kentucky is a “heaven or hell” decision
i find that very hard to believe
she’s saying all them other Kentucky clerks are gonna burn in hell
yeah that’s not weird
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:46 amI’m with happy feet on this. The GOP spends inordinate time and energy catering to evangelicals who think limited conservative governance means incorporating their religious beliefs rather than simply respecting them. So when Obama flouts ignoring the law, this is no different. There are a whole host of people in the middle who look at this spectacle as akin to backwoods snake handling, who otherwise are by now open to, after 8 years of the incompetence of The One, a sensible limited governance conservative approach. Instead they are confronted with this intolerant woman disobeying the law and her oath, and supposed conservatives bending over backward to embrace this stupidity.
This woman is entitled to her beliefs, to disagree with these policies, and if she wishes, to campaign to change them on her own time. But when she is in the office on company time she has to respect and follow the law.
The culture war is over. The religious right lost. Abortion, same sex marriage and a host of other social issues are settled law. If you want to legally pursue the avenues to change that, by all means, knock yourself out. Meantime, stop spending time and energy which might be more useful applied to spending and debt, the size of government, our unending wars and commitments.
And as to the baker, et al, I do business every day with all kinds of peoples of ethnicities, sexual orientations and religions. And the idea is to make money. If someone asks me to do business, barring something outrageous, I do business. As to the “baker” case, if your business is making cakes, put 2 grooms on top of the cake and be quiet. If they’re asking for something obscene, different situation. But we cannot confront the next wave of Islamic stupidity in this country (which is coming) unless we deal with such nonsense. This woman’s insane position is going to be used as a hammer by Islamic civil servants and businesses otherwise.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:53 amCan we have a referendum as to whether:
A) feets should be put in moderation, if he has something valuable to add that he hasn’t said already, let it through
or
B) DRJ gives up because she is not willing to put up with the BS anymore
I vote A, with every device in my house.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:55 am*legal* qualifications i mean
HF, your motive is to force everyone to accept your LIBERTINE view of everything
nonono nobody has to accept my views
I just throw them out there Mr. Hitchcock
I get in trouble cause of I say what I actually think about this stuff and I try not to couch it in a way that suggests this is a subject upon which reasonable people what love the first amendment more than beans and fishsticks can disagree
i do not want to suggest that because i do not believe it
i wish we had more data
here’s a Baltimore Sun poll on the subject (online, mostly worthless)
but so far over 80% think Kim Davis has earned some sort of sanctioning for her behavior
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:56 am“even though it’s been difficult the past few days.”
Blog comments are a good example of the heckler’s veto. I had a guy stalking me on Althouse’s blog the other day.
Time to go to Europe and have some fun at Waterloo Battlefield. Two hundred years ago.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:56 amToo bad we can’t just list a few comments, and then have people vote on how many times they would like it repeated.
The issues of abortion and gay rights and a host of other things will never go away because they are part of the moral fabric of creation. If every bit of faith in Jesus is extinguished from the US, or even the entire planet, the issues will not go away,
especially because one, or 2, or 2 million people post it so.
The existential problem for the country is that it is the existence of people like Ms. Davis who made this country possible. Though it is terribly flawed, more freedom and justice has been found here than elsewhere. that is why, even if one disagrees with her, having people like her excluded from public office is counterproductive to the country.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:01 pmMD, I vote (A) as well. Put HF in moderation.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:01 pmThe GOP spends inordinate time and energy catering to evangelicals who think limited conservative governance means incorporating their religious beliefs rather than simply respecting them.
So, they don’t deserve a hearing ?
I’m agnostic and pro-choice. Am I allowed to think that the religious deserve respect ?
Proposition 8 in California passed with 60% of the vote. A federal judge declared it unconstitutional, then married his gay lover. Jerry Brown and his AG declined to appeal.
We are going to see a revolution in this country in a few years unless something changes to restore some semblance of law and the classical culture. Richard Fernandez, and I have no idea of his religion or politics, has some thoughts on this.
The West is filled with millions of people like Alex, all of them waiting for Someone. They are the product of a multi-decade campaign to deliberately empty people of their culture; to actually make them ashamed of it. They were purposely drained of God, country, family like chickens so they could be stuffed with the latest narrative of the progressive meme machine. The Gramscian idea was to produce a blank slate upon which the Marxist narrative could be written.
Too bad for the Gramscians that the Islamists are beating them to the empty sheets of paper. And they are better at it too. Maybe the old Bolsheviks could have given ISIS a run for its money, but today’s liberals have declined from their sires.
Something bad is coming and the gays will have slipped the chain off the door they will enter.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:02 pmMr. Dr. I do not believe that any of you who disagree with me should be silenced
i think it’s important for your arguments to be heard cause of how uncompelling they are
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:04 pmHF, people don’t want you silenced, they want you moderated. Do we need to explain why?
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:09 pmMike-
Religious believing Christians are entitled to participate and share their views. Plausible that on many issues the already carry the day. However on SSM, divorce, abortion, et al, they have lost. They are not entitled as civil servants to ignore the law because they disagree with it. And if so allowed to go on, plays into the hands of exactly the Islamists we both fear.
And as to those who without any basis throw around the word “God” in connection with the Constitution, you are on very thin ice. it’s one thing to respect the free practice of religion, quite another to give any religion a right to veto or ignore settled law.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:11 pmDo we need to explain why?
Mr. felipe please be reasonable
why don’t you ask Mr. Dr. Mike to explain his amazing technique for just ignoring me using his own ignoring skills what he has honed almost to perfection over the years
it’s not that hard there’s lots of you I skim over
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:14 pmTwo specific issues that I don’t think have been directly adressed:
1) I assume there is something akin to a presidential Executive Order for the governor of a state. I suppose this varies from state to state, and I assume it is a discretionary thing open to wide interpretation. Whether to make one or not is likely a political move as well as a legal one. I don’t know how it is in Kentucky. We have statements from the gov that he can’t do anything. That could be hiding behind a smokescreen and he could do something if he wanted to.
We know Obama uses E.O.s to impose upon the nation things the country is against as an end run around Congress. We know that previously 75% of the people of KY voted to keep “marriage” between a man and a woman. It would seem like an EO, if possible (and even temporary until next legislative session), would be a quick way to implement a change popular with the people of the state pending legislative action.
But he is a “D” and may want to do everything in his power to further the GLBTQetc agenda.
2) As clearly discussed previously, she weeks ago made an appeal under standard legal principles that was totally appropriate. There is clear precedent for that in the NT where Paul made an “appeal to Caesar” under Roman law. A simple request made under standard legal procedure.
The sermon today at church was on Luke 14:25-35, about the cost of following Jesus and that salt that has lost its taste is good only to be thrown out. Ms. Davis seems to be doing a good job of being salty, bringing stinging to the likes of some.
feets, did you know you were written about in the Bible?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:23 pmJude vs 18,19, take heed
While it is true that the word “God” appears nowhere in the Constitution, because – separation of Church and State, I find it parochial of you to invoke “thin ice” because if it. Was Dredd scott, settled law, Bugg? The answer is yes, it was. So I find the idea that Obergefell must be obeyed because it is “settled law” to be laughable.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:28 pmAs clearly discussed previously, gay couples weeks ago made an appeal under standard legal principles that was totally appropriate. There is clear precedent for that in the NT where Paul made an “appeal to Caesar” under Roman law. A simple request made under standard legal procedure.
But poochie creamcheese decided that standard legal procedure does not apply to gay people. cause they be all gay and whatevs. Jesus!
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:28 pmit’s not that hard there’s lots of you I skim over
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:14 pm
And yet no one is asking that I be moderated. Would you like to buy a vowel?
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:30 pmno thank you I would not like to buy a vowel
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:31 pmMD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:23 pm
Pearls and swine doc. But St. Matthew would be proud of you, none the less!
– Father George David Byers
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:35 pmno thank you I would not like to buy a vowel
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:31 pm
You are most welcome HF. Your honesty is refreshing.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:37 pmIsn’t it widely assumed that the Declaration of Independence was to some degree a starting point from whence the Constitution proceeded? nature and nature’s god
Davis is not asking that her religious views be enforced on anyone, and she is not violating law that was designed to guide her conduct in office. It is up to the people she works for to decide if they can make a reasonable accommodation for her, like other states already have.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:37 pmMorals and values are legislated, it is only a question of which ones and by who. Five people all from the Ivies made an imperial pronouncement, the people of KY were not allowed to legislate their own morality. That is where the imposition of religious views lies, the imposition of the secular state, not separate from belief in God, but rejecting belief in God.
and i for one will not accede to a redefinition of christianity as trashbigot religion of hate
i think it’s important for your arguments to be heard cause of how uncompelling they are
As far as I can determine happyfeet’s argument is to call anyone who takes a biblical Christian position on this issue as being “hateful”, “trailer park trash”, “bigot” etc. over and over. Which isn’t an argument at all, compelling or otherwise.
In fact happyfeet’s “argument” technique corresponds to a propaganda technique known as jamming.
Is this not EXACTLY what happyfeet does:
I have commented on a number of occasions how happyfeet’s “arguments” are generally devoid of any logical content. He’s a committed systematic propagandist who has adopted these “jamming” tactics, nothing more. This is why it’s totally pointless to try to engage him in any logical argument on any aspect of this issue, for example by pointing out that a baker who won’t bake a SSM cake has no problem baking a birthday cake etc. for gays. Someone motivated by hate wouldn’t bake a cake for a gay person, regardless of the occasion. But that’s a logical argument. The whole point of jamming is to avoid a logical discussion of this and keep repeating the bit about “hate” etc. in Joseph Goebbels fashion.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:37 pmI hope that DRJ is simply fed up with the recent logorrheic excesses of happyfeet, rather than actually contemplating withdrawing … I value her contributions to this blog – happyfeet’s contributions, not so much (OK, recently, not at all) …
It would be instructive to see Judge Bunning with a case in his courtroom brought against the Obama Administration for not upholding the current laws of this land …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:37 pmyes, felipe, I’ve already quit engaging a number of people, and even now I wasn’t engaging feets on his posts, just making a final appeal, so if nothing else, he can not say, “But nobody told me!!!”, but maybe it will not come to that.
Otherwise my appeal is to JD, Dana, and Pat. To make no decision is to decide, hf has soiled the pool.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:40 pmFelipe-
Dredd Scott was in fact settled law. Ugly, wrong, etc. as was later Plessy, and whole bunch more. We had a whole war to deal with that, along with the 14th Amendment afterward.And Plessy was eventually overturned by Brown.
If you find following the law and your oath as a civil servant laughable don’t bitch when Obama fails to do so. Why have laws at all if it’s a game of follow your whatever.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:42 pmHowever on SSM, divorce, abortion, et al, they have lost.
So what? The left was losing a few decades ago but it kept pushing and pushing — and promoting and promoting — its agenda with their big mouths and enablers throughout the media and academia. Just because the shoe is now on the other foot doesn’t mean that the rules of the game suddenly have to change and cultural conservatives need to sit down and act like meek little church ladies. Or to follow the edicts of the handbook of political correctness, written and endorsed by the left.
One reason why Donald Trump is doing so well, across the political spectrum, is because a cross section of the populace is totally sick and tired of the lunacy of Nidal-Hassan-ism (probably accepted nonchalantly by — if not fostered by — the judge who ruled against the clerk in Kentucky) in modern Western society.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:42 pmAs Gerald A says above. Similar to my quote from Robby George that ridicule is what is left when there is no logic, and I guess the same thing as Mike K.’s “heckler’s veto”.
Those, like hf, that want her to resign are essentially doing the same thing, harass them and get them to slink away.
HF hides his domineering attacks with cuteness, while he is wicked and deceitful.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:44 pmIt would be sad if hf was the last person to make comments here.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:46 pmNothing to add, bye.
So what, let’s have chaos. Do what ever you want because the left are lawless and don’t respect legal statutes nor precedent, why should anyone else. Again, don’t complain about Obama doing what ever he wants.
Trump, by the way, does not support Kim Davis.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:48 pmGerald A (949d7d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:37 pm
Thank you, Gerald A, that was most helpful. I seem to remember reading this – did you post this before?
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:49 pmI can’t take happyfeet seriously, so I skip over his posts. To keep debate lively and interesting, what Patterico.com needs is a good, non-trollish, regular, long-term forumer of why a government employee must do A, B or C instead of D, E or F, or someone whose sympathies lie with David Bunning and not Kim Davis. Or a liberal who isn’t a typical liberal.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:51 pmSo Bugg, your solution is for every conservative to whimper and crawl back into their hole while the left is unabated?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:52 pm(Last comment, hopefully.. I .. will .. walk .. away . from . the . keyboard).
Mark, if there were such people who could make logical defenses they would be here already…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:54 pmkishnevi seems to have been pretty fair while in opposition to Davis
that’s all very well and good about the jammering Mr. A but my point is less that people should stop being bigots it’s more that embracing this kind of bigotry is not a winning issue for Team R
and Team R does its cause a great disservice when it embraces people of this ilk
a woman who is patently abusing her office to unlawfully further a religious agenda
people what truly believed in religious freedom would defend the rights of christian gay people to receive the marriage license what they are legally entitled to, even if they did not agree with it
the rankness of the hypocrisy on display is, well, it’s egregious
but in all honesty that is not what compels me to speak out
me and millions of others are counting on Team R to get its act together and be an effective bulwark against American decline
but too many Rs just want to yammer on and on through the twilight and into the ensuing darkness about gays and planned parenthood while the titanic sinks under the weight of debt incompetence and neglect
and in the coming dawn of fascism we can begin to dimly see that so many on the right covet the lawlessness of obama
they want to be as this clerk, and jimmy jam jammer their views down the throats of hapless supplicants like our gay kentucky friends
it is a great sadness to me
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:57 pmSo what, let’s have chaos.
First of all, Bugg, I wouldn’t take where you’re coming from with a big grain of salt if you said that you respected the philosophy and gut instincts of Kim Davis but believed she should still follow the edicts handed down by the people above her, whether the judge or others. IOW, you seem like the type who in this instance is less worried about the effects of chaos than whether that chaos (or “chaos) is originating from the left or right.
Chaos is always going to be a phenomenon largely rooted in leftism far more than rightism, so I’m not concerned about a clerk in Kentucky arousing too much social-political commotion throughout society.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:58 pm“If you find following
thean unjust law and your oath as a civil servant laughable don’t bitch when Obama fails todo soenforce a just law. Why have laws at all if it’s a game of follow your whatever.”Yeah, we “hypocrites” only bitch when one side gets jailed.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:00 pmHere are two bumper stickers aimed at Independants”
Too big to fail = Crony capitalism
Too big to jail = Crony liberalism
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:11 pmShorter hf: “You can talk about jamming all you want, but I’m going to keep jamming because that’s what I do.”
Moderate him already.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:16 pmBugg is proud of hf. Gil, Perry, imadimwit, and SEK would be proud of him, too.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:19 pmVolokh’s article is all very well, but I think he misses the key point in this case, which is that Davis, as an elected official, has the right to decide for herself what her job entails. If the voters disagree they can oust her at the next election; if the state legislature thinks her behavior constitutes a “misdemeanor in office” it can impeach her; but no court, state or federal, has any business telling her what to do. She is not in the same position as an employee who is defying her employer’s orders; she is her own boss, and decides what “orders” to “give herself”. If she can decide (as she surely can) that the marriage license office will be closed on Mondays, then she can also decide to close it on days ending in Y.
Patterico offered the example of his own office, where the DA apparently supports the death penalty and has a policy of asking for it when appropriate, but accommodates those ADAs who have a problem with it. But what happens when the DA opposes the death penalty, and refuses ever to ask for it? I can’t imagine that any court has the authority to order a DA to ask for the death penalty in any case, no matter how egregious the crime. Indeed there are many districts where that is the case, and the result is that no capital cases are ever brought, and somehow this is not regarded as “lawlessness”.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:19 pmThose are some very good points Milhouse.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:22 pmIf so, then why do you think she should obey it? If a decision is lawless then surely by definition it isn’t the law. Even if the Supreme Court’s supervisory role over lower federal courts compels them to accept it, how does that extend to her? She doesn’t work for the judicial branch, so why should she accept what you yourself call a lawless decision?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:22 pmshe doesn’t get to defy a court order Mr. Milhouse
there are czechs and valances in america
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:23 pmKim is the girl who shot liberty valance.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:23 pmResigning her position would be appropriate if she accepted that the position requires her to do something her conscience won’t allow. But she doesn’t accept that, so why should she resign?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:26 pmI believe the judge is ultra vires, so yes, she does get to defy his order. Judges are not dictators.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:27 pmshe should resign cause she’s not doing the job she’s paid to do
it’s like if you work in the toy section of walmart but every time the assistant manager come lookin for you he finds you over in automotive wagging your ample cleavage all up in the face of all the mechanics
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:29 pmok well fine technically she can defy his order but she might have to do it from a jail cell i guess is the point
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:31 pmNot even the president is a dictator, so how can a mere judge be? What sort of country do we live in, anyway? Is this what the revolution was fought for, that there should exist public officials whose every order must be obeyed?! In the 18th century not even the King had that power!
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:32 pmSays who?
What part of she is the manager do you not get? The judge isn’t even an assistant manager, he’s just a busybody who pokes his head into the break room and yells at the people there to do something that the manager said wasn’t their job.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:34 pmIn this case she is Caesar, and insists that those things are not hers.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:37 pmshe’s free to resign or do her job Mr. Milhouse
to say the judge is a dictator is silly
the takeaway is that people should think twice before putting people like Kim Davis in positions of authority
April Miller is one of the people who made a big mistake thinking Kim Davis was a person of integrity who could be entrusted to fulfill the oath of her office.
don’t let this happen to you
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:39 pmBut what would such disobedience consist of? Roe v Wade doesn’t require government officials to do anything; it struck down certain criminal laws, and thus prevents government officials from arresting and prosecuting people for breaking them. The judicial branch can easily enforce this by refusing to try any cases brought under these laws, and using habeas writs to release anyone arrested. It can also entertain suits for false arrest, and impose damages on the offending officials.
Here, however, the situation is reversed. The judiciary is poking its nose into a matter that lies entirely in the executive branch. I don’t see how the judidicary has the authority to order an executive to issue a license.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:44 pmShe does not work for you, or for the judge, so neither you nor the judge get to tell her what her job is. She’s her own boss, she gets to decide what her job is, and she says she’s doing it.
Really? What do you call someone with the power to issue whatever orders he likes, to anyone he likes, and imprison anyone who dares disobey them? What otehr word is appropriate for such a person?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:48 pmThe solution is to throw Bunning in a Federal Penitentiary, in GenPop, for as many days as he forces Davis to be in the county lock-up. Activist judges like Bunning, who should never have been on the bench in the first place, will think twice before they try to become petit tyrants.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:48 pmIANAL, but should her case go to SCOTUS, I see an amicus curiae filing in your future, Milhouse.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:50 pmMr. Milhouse she patently doesn’t have the emotional maturity necessary to do this job
she’s a mess
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:53 pmBut could a court order him, or them, to issue such licenses? I don’t see how. I can see it ordering him not to issue them to men, if he won’t also issue them to women. And if it were impossible to get licenses, I can easily see a court refusing to entertain prosecutions for driving without them. But where does a court get the authority to order the DMV commissioner to do something just because it thinks he ought to?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:55 pmIf you’re a voter in her county you are free not to vote for her at the next election. Otherwise, how is that your business?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:57 pmi’m just mouthy
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:57 pmThat would be morally appropriate, but I don’t see how anyone would have the legal authority to do so. Just as she is her own boss, he is more or less his.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:58 pmWhere did you get that understanding? How much do you think she is being paid for this? What portion of her salary do you think is attributable to this duty?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:12 pmThe culture war is over.
Tell that to those babies going through a living hell in PP clinics, Bugg.
The religious right lost. Abortion, same sex marriage and a host of other social issues are settled law. If you want to legally pursue the avenues to change that, by all means, knock yourself out. Meantime, stop spending time and energy which might be more useful applied to spending and debt, the size of government, our unending wars and commitments.
It’s a sad and telling day when working toward defunding PP clinic baby crushers and shutting down the heinous practices that take place in side their walls is considered not useful or as important as spending and the debt, etc. Because life just doesn’t rate for some, I guess. Aren’t we the party under the big tent? As such, I would assume that there is room for work at all levels on various issues plaguing our society. Who are you to say which is viable and worthy of time and energy and what issues aren’t?
Do you understand, Bugg, that the debt and spending and big government takes second place to a whole swath of the population in light of babies being killed? Because if there is no value of human life, what does anything else matter?
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:15 pmEnjoying a *very* rare totally free day and catching up on a number of sites, including this one, and this thread.
My understanding is that DRJ and (I think) MD in Philly have left the thread. I hope that doesn’t mean they’re taking a hiatus from commenting. I lurk at sites quite a bit incl this one and really enjoy reading what others have to say. And — no reflection on anyone else; people here are great — but I’d really, personally miss both MD in Philly and DRJ as both contribute so much to the commentary here. (and to be honest they frequently say what I want to only I wouldn’t say it so well 🙂 )
Guess this is a request to both of them to reconsider. I hope they change their minds.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:17 pmBugg,
One of the benefits of being a conservative is that we are fighters for the principles we stand upon and we don’t give up easily. I see that as an admirable quality, and one that defines us from Democrats where only the company line is expected and accepted. Why would you want us to resemble them?
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:19 pmReally? What do you call someone with the power to issue whatever orders he likes, to anyone he likes, and imprison anyone who dares disobey them? What otehr word is appropriate for such a person?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 1:48 pm
Yep. And if they take advantage of that power — a bully.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:19 pmshe’s free to resign or do her job Mr. Milhouse
You conveniently missed her other option, one that all of us have and should be grateful for: she’s free, exceedingly free, to protest the requirement through her civil disobedience.
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:22 pmNo, we are not, because you have fundamentally misunderstood option 1. In the Bible’s view a marriage is an arrangement between a man and a woman, in which the woman binds herself to be exclusively dedicated to the man, and out of bounds for all other men, while the man binds himself to provide all the woman’s physical and emotional needs. Thus a woman cannot be in more than one marriage at the same time, but a man can. Each of a man’s marriages, though, is with one woman. Each marriage is a separate relationship. A man’s wives are not married to each other, and are not related to each other, and his obligations to each of them are not affected by his obligations to any of the others.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:23 pmBy the way, scripture explicitly endorsed David’s polygamy: When Nathan admonished David for messing with Bathsheva he told him “Aren’t your six wives enough for you? If they aren’t, you can always marry some more. But why are you messing around with a woman who isn’t your wife?”.
And in Deuteronomy scripture forbids a king from having “too many” wives, thus endorsing his having some number that isn’t too many.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:27 pmthis requirement though exists only in her head
all she’s being asked to do is to say whether or not there’s a legal reason a couple can’t get married
that’s it
it’s profoundly dishonest for her or anyone else to say that she’s being asked to condone gay marriage
so number one what she’s protesting is a chimera
number two the net effect of her protest is an assault on the liberties – inclusive of religious liberties – of gay people, many of them christian, who wish to formalize their relationship
…many of whom are paying the taxes this deceitful woman is receiving in the form of a salary while she refuses to do her job
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:29 pmCoveting, in the sense used there, isn’t a thought, it’s an action: making plans and taking steps to acquire something that belongs to someone else. But the first commandment, “I am your God who took you out of Egypt”, is pure thought. It doesn’t require or forbid any action, it just requires belief.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:30 pmJust like Presidents can do absolutely anything they like, and if people don’t like it they can vote them out!
An excellent defense of Obama’s excesses.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:36 pmOne of the benefits of being a conservative is that we are fighters for the principles we stand upon and we don’t give up easily. I see that as an admirable quality, and one that defines us from Democrats where only the company line is expected and accepted. Why would you want us to resemble them?
Dana (86e864) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:19 pm
One of the things that’s really surprised me most about the ongoing public debate (seen on social media and in family conversations and so forth) is we’re seeing so many (usually more “progressive”) Christians say that they don’t see the point of the civil disobedience, or even that it is civil disobedience. Someone who won’t compromise what they believe to obey a government authority is semmingly completely incomprehensible to them. It’s breathtaking to me. Especially since the current “authority” was only put in place just over two months ago.
Had thought initially this was the longstanding leftist impulse that the moment they win a court victory, “oh!wewonandthescienceissettled and everyone needs to shut up now; disagreement and discussion only comes from bigots!” Not sure if that’s true or not.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:44 pmThat is absolutely not true. Christians’ beliefs are treated the same way as anyone else’s, and employers are required to accommodate them if they can reasonably do so. For instance, Christian women who don’t believe in wearing pants must be allowed to wear skirts, unless it would place an undue burden on the employer, exactly the same as with hijab.
Actually more so, since allowing hijab is more likely to be an undue burden. For instance, in the case you cited, A&F is very likely to prevail on the question of whether allowing sales clerks to wear hijab is unreasonable. (No, the supreme court did not say they have to allow it. It just said they can’t avoid the issue by not hiring any Moslem women for fear that they might ask to wear hijab on the job.)
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:46 pmShe doesn’t work in a county clerk’s office; she is the county clerk.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:47 pmyeah but she worked there for many years when her mama was the clerk
she should know what from what by now
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:53 pmOf course. And for every executive, including county clerks. No executive could possibly do anything without issuing orders to his employees.
I think you’re not understanding what an EO is. An EO is not a law, it’s just an order from the boss to his employees, telling them how to do their jobs. 0bama has, for instance, ordered immigration officials not to deport certain people, and IRS officials not to enforce certain inconvenient clauses in 0bamacare. Similarly Davis has ordered her employees not to issue marriage licenses. By definition an executive can only lawfully order things that are within his power.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:57 pmyeah but she worked there for many years when her mama was the clerk
she should know what from what by now
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 2:53 pm
From her perspective, her longstanding job description changed quite a bit about two months ago, so methinks you are not being fair, hf. I think she’s trying to determine “what from what.”
And so is everyone else in this situation, including the bully judge who wants to coerce her into changing her conscience. He thinks he knows “what from what” but I think he is in for a few surprises, from more than one inconvenient county clerk.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:01 pm– from more sources than just one inconvenient county clerk
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:02 pmSo tell me, Patterico, who has the authority to order the president to “do his job”, if he decides that his job doesn’t require doing whatever it is? Which court has such authority, and where did they get it? Remember the separation of powers; just as the president can’t tell the courts how to do their jobs, the courts can’t tell the president how to do his. All they can do is apply their view of the law when a case comes before them. As Jefferson pointed out, if the president thinks a law is constitutional and the courts think it isn’t, they can decline to try any cases he brings under it; but if they think it’s constitutional and he thinks it isn’t, they can’t make him bring any cases.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:03 pmOh, I missed this the first time. No, presidents can’t do anything they like, because they have limited powers. There are many things they may not do, and courts can punish them if they do these things, or declare such acts to be invalid and that people should feel free to ignore them. But there is precious little that a president must do.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:08 pmbut consequence she has to know from all the sordid goings on in Rowan County that a marriage license doesn’t mean you condone the marriage you’re giving a license to
surely some very very questionable unions done been licensed through that office in Rowan County
back where I grew up in the scrub of south Texas daddy would marry people all the time knowing one or both of them was making a highly questionable choice but he’d give em the best ceremony he could no matter what he thought of their union
you just gotta hope for the best and leave the rest in God’s hands
but even if it turned out badly it’s not the clerk’s fault or the fault of the person what did the service
this is obvious to anyone what is willing to do the analysis
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:16 pmFor instance, the president can’t declare war; but if Congress declares war and the president is a pacifist, he is not required to prosecute the war. He is free to order the armed forces not to shoot at the enemy, and no court has the authority to countermand that order. If a majority in the house and 2/3 of the senate doesn’t like it they can remove him.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:17 pmI have mixed feelings now.
steveg (fed1c9) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:18 pmPart of me wants Davis to be given a way to work around her religious objection, but another part of me despises petty bureaucrats and the sometimes absolute power they have. Sure they should be voted out, but to me they are the “Government” imposing their values onto me.
A free society should always bristle and fight when some county clerk decides she is going to impose her beliefs on everyone… I despise our own Kamala Harris because she imposes her political philosophy on us and pays no heed to the law unless it suits her.
The system is rotten from County Clerks and up through AG’s.
There is some goalpost shifting here, Milhouse. Your statement was:
That is a fatuous view of how our system is set up. Much more goes into the duties of elected officials than their own personal conception of what that duty is.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:19 pmShe’s not imposing any values on you. You’re free to believe whatever you like. You’re even free to act on those beliefs. You can live with whomever you like, you can have whatever ceremony you like with them, and if you want an official government license for it you can even get one of those by simply driving a few miles away. I don’t see how what she’s doing is any sort of imposition on anyone. Now if she were arresting people or closing down their businesses that would be different.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:22 pmSo who gets to tell an elected official what his duty is? If a DA doesn’t want to prosecute marijuana cases, or doesn’t want to bring capital charges, is it anyone’s place to tell him that he must?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:23 pmHere in NYC we had a DA in the Bronx who said he would never bring a capital charge no matter what. At the time the state AG supported capital punishment, and he said if such a case were to arise in te Bronx he would take the case away from the DA and prosecute it himself. But he couldn’t order the DA to do it.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:27 pmI will move on to the issue of how one enforces a particular limitation on an elected official’s powers once you have first defended, retracted, or altered your ridiculous claim that elected officials have the right to decide for themselves what their jobs entail.
Put the goalposts back where they started — it will be easier on your back — and let’s stick with that silly claim before we move on to related issues.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:28 pmBut we’re not talking about limitations on people’s powers. We’re talking about deciding what someone’s job entails, i.e. what they’re required to do, not what they lack the power to do or are forbidden from doing.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:32 pmbut I think he is in for a few surprises, from more than one inconvenient county clerk.
From your lips to God’s ears.
But given the general mindset and demeanor of many people on the right — best exemplified by the way the mall in DC was left clean, if not cleaner, after hosting massive rallies sponsored by conservatives or right-leaning causes, in marked contrast to the trash heaps left at that same mall following rallies touted by liberals and dedicated to liberalism — I suspect more of an outcome exemplified by a general numbness on the part of the so-called silent majority, in which people will be quietly voting with their feet and withdrawing from situations and their fellow humans who they find objectionable.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:33 pmAnd a blanket statement that elected officials get to determine what their duties are, by virtue of their being elected officials, is every bit as fatuous as a statement that they can alone determine the limitations on their authority.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:36 pmFor instance, if Davis purported to give someone a license to marry a horse, I can easily see a court saying that the license is invalid, because she doesn’t have the statutory power to issue it. The court wouldn’t be saying what she ought to be doing, just that the license she purported to issue is of no legal effect. If there were a law forbidding her from issuing such licenses, a court could even order her not to do it, and if a prosecutor with jurisdiction were to prosecute her for it the court could try and convict and sentence her under that law. None of that would involve deciding what her job is or isn’t.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:36 pmIs it? How so? Isn’t it the nature of any job that the boss decides what it entails? And isn’t an elected official by definition her own boss? So who should decide what her job entails, if not her?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:38 pmNope. Because one boss has another, and even the top boss must operate within the law. Who decides what her job entails? The state legislators who passed the statutes that describe her duties, operating within the constitutional framework within which all American government must operate.
If she decides her duty is to fight fires, or embezzle money from the county treasury, is she correct, as an elected official with the exclusive right to determine what her job duties are? Under your logic, the answer would apparently be “yes.”
Stop being ridiculous, Milhouse.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:44 pmsurely some very very questionable unions done been licensed through that office in Rowan County
back where I grew up in the scrub of south Texas daddy would marry people all the time knowing one or both of them was making a highly questionable choice but he’d give em the best ceremony he could no matter what he thought of their union
you just gotta hope for the best and leave the rest in God’s hands
Well, your first paragraph translated means: “She’s a anti-gay bigot and a hypocrite, I just know it!” not buying it, happyfeet.
And how do you think believers in God such as yourself got gay marriage legalized? Not by just “hoping for the best and leaving the rest in God’s hands,” Lots of action and activism and legal challenges going on. But I guess that recommended course of action only applies to those who are “on the right side of history”, amirite?
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:47 pmi don’t get how you get that translation out of the first paragraph
and that’s the question – is poochie creamcheese an anti-gay activist or does she just want a religious accommodation?
if she’s an activist then i think it’s clear as the shine from her seventh husband’s still that this activism is an abuse of her office
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:53 pmDRJ made it clear, time and time again, hf, that Davis has sought an accommodation.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:57 pmSince when do elected officials have bosses? Who exactly is a county clerk’s boss? Or a DA’s, or a mayor’s?
Operating within the law is irrelevant to the question before us. The law doesn’t say what someone’s job is. If your boss tells you that your job requires selling cocaine, the law doesn’t say he’s wrong; it just says you can’t do it.
1. And did they say that she must issue marriage licenses?
2. If they get to say what her job is, then let them decide whether to discipline her. They have the power to remove her if they think her guilty of a “misdemeanor in office”. Last I heard a majority of them were not inclined to do so.
I can’t think of a legal reason why she couldn’t fight fires, unless there’s some law reserving that activity to the fire brigade. Embezzling money is a crime, so she couldn’t do it even if it were part of her job.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:59 pmas the shine from her seventh husband’s still
OK, that was kind of bigoted. But I confess I laughed, unfortunately…
I personally think she wants a religious accommodation. After all, she did offer some to the court already but the judge refused. If she were an activist (meaning, she’s looking to get the law changed ASAP through her actions) she wouldn’t have done that. I think she wants to keep her job — what I’ve read of her actions makes that clear.
What I meant by “action and activism” in her particular case was actually taking a stand and making her conscience mean something — i.e. worth sacrificing for. She could scream and shout about religious discrimination all day and still have signed the licenses. But she didn’t. She took her beliefs seriously and it really doesn’t matter whether they make sense to you.
What matters is whether an accomodation can be reached that lets her keep both her job and her conscience intact. And I think the jury’s still out on that, so to speak, bully “thou shalt not think differently from the state which handed this down two months ago” judges notwithstanding.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:59 pmDRJ made it clear, time and time again, hf, that Davis has sought an accommodation.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 3:57 pm
Posts crossed – thank you. Should have referred to DRJ’s info from this thread, first.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:00 pmMilhouse, you misspoke, and that’s OK, people do that. Why not just acknowledge that, upon reflection, one cannot make a cogent argument that Davis has sole power to determine the nature and extent of her duties? Then we can move on to perhaps more interesting discussions of remedies.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:00 pmThere is such a thing as a writ of mandamus, but it’s very limited. There must be an explicit law requiring an official to do something, and a person who is left with no option if the official refuses this duty.
A much more appropriate remedy would be for the judge to find that the state requirement for a marriage license is unconstitutional as applied to residents of Rowan County who have applied in good faith for a license and been unable to obtain one for no good reason. Such people, the court could find, are entitled to get married without a license.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:04 pmOh, almost forgot. Re: your question about the first paragraph. When you say:
surely some very very questionable unions done been licensed through that office in Rowan County
What that means is, you think that surely she must have issued other licenses with which, as a Christian, she disagreed. But none of them were for gay marriage. Therefore (since you feel sure that happened), you think that she discriminated against gays by not making a stand of conscience against those other objectionable licenses. That would make her both an anti-gay bigot as well as a hypocrite, since she didn’t seek accommodation from those other licenses, just the SSM ones.
I don’t buy that logic. Or else why did you make that statement, hf?
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:04 pmThere go those goalposts! We had them still for a moment.
Put another way: there are legal limitations on her ability to self-define her duties?
I can’t seem to quote it from this phone, but your answer on fire-fighting answered a different question than I asked — and I think you know that. I did not ask whether she could fight fires. I asked whether she gets to be the one to decide whether that is her legal duty.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:05 pmBecause I think she does have that sole power, and that all executives, public and private, have that power. I think it’s inherent in the nature of the position. They may not exceed their legal bounds, but within those bounds they decide what they must do and what they needn’t.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:06 pmYou’re losing this argument, Milhouse, and looking foolish in the process, because you made a ridiculously broad overstatement and you seem hellbent on standing by it, even though we all see it’s silly.
I repeat my advice to let the silly argument go.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:07 pmSorry, I’m late for something and have to go right now. But I’ll try to come back to this later tonight.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:08 pmThe law defines the nature and extent of the executive power in broad strokes, Milhouse. Executives may have broad discretion to operate within those strictures, but they don’t get to self-define those duties, especially if their self-definition runs counter to the laws and other documents that define and circumscribe those duties.
A DA cannot decide it is his duty to issue marriage licenses, or veto Congressional legislation. A county clerk can’t define her duty as appearing in court to defend or prosecute murderers. A senator cannot define his duty to be to assault members of racial minority groups.
I’m about done arguing this because your point is self-evidently ridiculous and it’s starting to feel like a waste of time. Whether it is your intent to troll me or not, the feeling is the same.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:12 pmthe accommodation she seeks is weird though Mr. P
weird to the point of senselessness if not borderline frivolous
she don’t mind heading up the office that issues gay marriage licenses as long as her name’s not on them?
that’s some weird-ass kentucky logic right there
What matters is whether an accommodation can be reached that lets her keep both her job and her conscience intact.
are you sure?
i’m not sold
I think she knows darn well that having her name on a marriage license for a same sex couple is not a “heaven or hell” situation as her dork lawyer puts it.
It is what it is.
You realize yes that not every marriage license even has a corresponding wedding? And you know why that is?
Cause the function of the license is just to say that there’s no legal objection in the state of kentucky to the marriage of that couple. It’s not itself an instrument of matrimony.
The question what has to be answered before she’s given an accommodation is simple as puddin pie.
Does signing your name as a county clerk on a marriage license imply that you condone the marriage of that couple?
baby girl is confuzzled and she need help
but she don’t need no accommodation
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:17 pmyes yes yes at #294 that’s exactly what I meant
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:18 pmOK, now we’re starting to get somewhere. (Comments are crossing.) You recognize that an admission that one cannot exceed their legal bounds appears to contradict your initial blanket assertion that she can define her duties any way she likes. Right?
So now that we have established that she cannot exceed her legal bounds . . . can she decide that her duties consist of filing her nails and putting her feet up on her desk?
I’m not asking what the remedies would be for failing to do her job. I’m asking whether she can define that to be her duty: to come in, put up her feet, file her nails, and collect a paycheck.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:19 pmWow, Patterico, you are a Unionist!
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:51 pmInteresting what bothers people.
happyfeet repeats the same disgusting garbage “This is what I think so that’s the way it is” every third post until DRJ and others of us give up…
and by default he wins his propaganda game. (Gerald A (949d7d) — 9/6/2015 @ 12:37 pm)
I wonder if I tried to out-insult happy feet (very hard to do, even if it was my nature) which of us would get censured first?
Feets, one day, if you are not careful, you will get your wish to never have to put up with us gap-teethed hick Christians ever again.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:15 pmBut you will not find it as enjoyable as you thought.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:15 pm
You hit the nail on the head, doc. In a sense it is the “Atheists vs God” in miniature: without God, there are no atheists. Without Christians, there are no happyfeets.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:22 pmBy the way, nooc, thanks for the kind comments and taking the baton for awhile. Maybe a few of us should rotate shifts putting up with hf so none of us will wear out.
Not that the people who need to understand will care, but here’s a thought-
Once upon a time it was common to hear a military person say, “I disagree with you but will fight to the death for your right to say it”.
Of course, most of the folk who said things like that were hick friends and neighbors of Ms. Davis.
Also, of course, they did think the idea was shared in return by most Americans.
As all of those folk get the idea they are not wanted around,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:25 pmmaybe they will just stay in their hick home towns.
it is the nature of the world, that this misogynist troll, represents, today’s meditation on Romans 8, included Paul’s quoting of Psalms 44;22,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:27 pmfelipe, if hf is allowed to continue to soil the threads at will, you, me, nooc, maybe Steve57, we all can invite DRJ back and assign shifts.
That and work on copy and pasting our last reply to hf.
It is a shame to let the BS build up until everyone else has to leave the room.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:29 pmThanks for volunteering, narciso.
Sorry to leave you out,
you seem to be able to suffer fools better than some of us.
And thanks again, nooc, I was wondering earlier whether I was writing mainly as an exercise (ungraded) to practice my composition skills to know real end.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:32 pmFeets, one day, if you are not careful, you will get your wish to never have to put up with us gap-teethed hick Christians ever again.
that’s not fair I never put all christians under the same umbrella
there’s good uns and bad uns
phony ones and the for reals ones
then you have outliers like the third whirl global warming anti-capitalist fascist weirdo pope
i don’t know which the hell column you supposed to put that boy
probably in the same column you put Prince Charles maybe
but the key thing is there’s no monolitic “Christians” of which we can speak
it’s not just me
there’s people like poochie creamcheese and yourself what deny that gay people are even welcome members of christendom nonono you say they are inherently unchristian
which is not a little rude i think, since a lot of them are Christians born and raised
but i always make it very clear that I think hateful ones like poochie are an actual minority of Christians as you can clearly see by looking at how many of the good Christian county clerks of kentucky do NOT do the bigotry on gay people
same with hicks by the way
you got your good uns and bad uns
it’s a mixed up muddled up shook up whirl
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:39 pmfeets, that’s right, people who are willing to stand by the truth are the minority.
People prefer to be lovers of self and lovers of pleasure, slaves to their lusts be it money, hetero, homo, feeling intellectually superior or whatever.
But the Lord knows those who are His, and who He will say, “I never knew you” to.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:45 pm*monolithic*
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:45 pmBut the Lord knows those who are His, and who He will say, “I never knew you” to.
well why don’t you and poochie just set back and let the lord do his job
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:46 pmwe have become conforted with the notion we are a moral majority, when the reality is why must be prophetic minority, (not my words)
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:48 pmFWIW, some, perhaps most, of those other clerks believe just like Ms. Davis, its just that they have buckled under the coercion, by their own tearful admissions.
yeah, the judge can get people to fall in line under duress by taking away their livelihoods
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:48 pm(oh, wait, that seems to be a theme…)
😐
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:49 pmBecause the Lord will ask the watchmen on the wall if they delivered His message that people may turn from their foolishness and be saved, feets.
And as far as the legal issues go,
(this is way above my non-lawyer pay grade)
the governor does nothing and the fed judge orders a remedy that is not in accordance with the ruling statutes of the state of KY
If they weren’t interested in maintaining the law anyway, couldn’t they have figured out a way to make things work like other states?
This is not rule of law of a representative republic as the primary issue, it is stomping on the necks of the dissenters.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:53 pmthe watchmen are also supposed to deliver messages?
whose screwy idea was this
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:57 pmIt’s in the Book, do your homework.
I wonder if even Jesus would be able to say something that would leave hf silent…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:00 pmOK, I’m back.
1. A marriage license is a legal instrument, and a DA doesn’t have the power to issue them. I would say he has the right to issue pieces of paper that say “marriage licences”, but they wouldn’t be marriage licenses. Not because issuing them is “not his job”, but because the law that turns a piece of paper into a marriage license says it only does so to the pieces of paper that a county clerk issues, not to ones anyone else does.
2. Similarly, a DA has no power to veto legislation; it’s not that he may not do it, it’s that he’s incapable of it, just as he’s incapable of flying.
3. I would say that a county clerk may decide it’s his job to appear in court, but the court isn’t obliged to agree with him.
4. If a senator (or anybody else who is his own boss) decides his job includes assaulting people, or selling cocaine, then I’d say it does, but so what? It’s still a crime to do it. “I was just doing my job” is not a defense, even if it’s perfectly true. I’m sure many of the people you prosecute are genuinely employed to commit the crimes you’re prosecuting them for; that is literally their job, but they’re still going down for it.
I would have no problem conceding an error if I thought I’d made one. But you’ve given me no reason to suppose I’ve done so. You’ve made no argument against my position, you’ve simply declared it to be wrong.
HOWEVER, I now see that it’s a red herring. We can debate it another time, but it’s irrelevant to the current topic, which is Ms Davis’s job description. For the purpose of discussing that, it’s not necessary to determine whether an executive can add functions to her job description; all that’s necessary is to determine whether she can remove or de-prioritize functions that others think are part of her job description.
No, I don’t; the legal bounds on a person are not at all the same thing as their job description. But let’s leave that aside for now, since it’s not relevant. I would like to discuss it further some other time, though. For now let’s get back no topic:
You are correct that this is what I’m talking about. Not what remedies are available, but who sets her duties. And I would say that yes, unless there are laws that specifically say otherwise, she can indeed do exactly that, just as your boss could, in principle, decline to prosecute any cases at all. I would expect the voters to take exception to such a decision, and I would even expect the legislature (or whoever has the power to remove CA DAs) to take action, but as far as I can see the decision was within the person’s competence and authority.
If there’s a law that says the county clerk (or the DA) must do a certain thing, then it’s no different from any law imposing a duty on someone (or on everyone). If a valid state law says red-headed people must eat a stick of celery every Wednesday, then that’s what they must do; and if a valid state law says a county clerk must issue marriage licenses then that’s what she must do, not because it’s her “job” but because there’s a valid law that says she must. (Of course whether a law is valid is a question that must be determined, but for the purpose of this argument I’m supposing that it has been.)
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:08 pmIs there such a thing? I was under the impression that there wasn’t. Being Jewish is a matter of legal status, acquired by birth or naturalization, but I thought being Christian was entirely a matter of belief. Am I mistaken?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:13 pmOf course they are. “Four o’clock and all is well”; or “Wake up! Fire! Flood! Invading army coming from the north!”.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:15 pmMr. Milhouse raise up a pikachu in the way that he should go and when he gets old he’ll say I been watchin you dad ain’t that cool
oh. ok I get about the messages now
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:17 pmMilhouse, you will get a very esoteric view of Christian doctrine paying attention to hf,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:20 pmI would say heretical, even.
And that would be even if he was being serious and trying to be precise.
So I would take what he says in that context.
Of course, he would not think so (the heretic part).
it is the irresponsibility of Judge Kennedy, whom Scalia foresaw would lead exactly in this direction, that is at fault,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:22 pmno i am not a heretic Mr. Dr. I know how my mama and daddy taught me to treat people and it is NOT how poochie creamcheese treats people
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:24 pmwell if one listens to the likes of the Governor’s pastor, one would find little solace, this is the fundamental issue of our age, christians have not been bold enough, facing the maneuvers of ‘whom kills, steaks and destroys’
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:24 pmPatterico, in the interest of narrowing and focusing our dispute I’ll even stipulate that Ms Davis could not cancel all her duties and do absolutely nothing for her pay. Even supposing that to be so, I would still argue that she does have the authority to cancel or de-prioritize some of her supposed duties, which take up only a small portion of her work year, and to which only a negligible portion of her salary could be notionally attributed. If you concede that, then we can explore how great a portion of her supposed duties she could cancel, where you would draw the line. (As I said, I don’t actually think there is such a line to be drawn, but I’m assuming you do. Unless you don’t agree that she can cancel any part of what anyone in the world supposes to be her duties.)
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:27 pmMD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 5:29 pm
Sign me up, doc, I’m in. Also, Milhouse was dealing with HF until Patterico took issue with one of Milhouse’s comments.
5 people pig-wrestling with HF. He is in hog-heaven.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:28 pmumm, I think that was “steals”.
We have usually not taken Alinsky’s inspiration seriously enough to even realize he maneuvers, let alone face them.
Of interest is that the gov used to (years ago, I think) go to the church that Davis does now.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:29 pmAnd thanks again, nooc, I was wondering earlier whether I was writing mainly as an exercise (ungraded) to practice my composition skills to know real end.
Heh, MD — it is easy to forget that people are reading and taking things in if one doesn’t get replies (not that people have to reply) but I should reply more for that reason. Most of the time by the time I’ve gotten here and read the thread it’s long dead. But I get a lot oout of people’s comments anyway. I like your idea of shifts too. For example to deal with confusing things like this:
yes yes yes at #294 that’s exactly what I meant
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 4:18 pm
OK, happyfeet, so if i hit it on the head the first time, why did you say you didn’t get why I drew that conclusion. Here’s your comment:
i don’t get how you get that translation out of the first paragraph
I don’t expect an answer necessarily, unless you want to, but I’d like you to know I noticed that you (it sure seems to me) feigned innocence about accusing her of anti-gay bigotry and hypocrisy, when that is indeed exactly what you implied with your comment; you just confirmed it at 4:18 above. Unjust of you, I think.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:30 pmhere’s an excellent way to get your lil footsies wet with alinsky Mr. Dr. I learned a lot from this series
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:31 pmyes, that was very curious, and he is the son of family,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:32 pmSending an email to DRJ, team…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:32 pmMillhouse, nobody is born a Christian. That is why The MESSIAH said you must be born again. Born of the water (what everyone thinks of when being born, definitely a medical consideration) and born of the Spirit (which happens later when one chooses to follow Yeshua ha’Mashiach). And hf is most clearly and demonstrably preaching heresy.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:35 pmof ministers, but sadly that is not enough nowadays,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:36 pmWell, thanks, hf, that was thoughtful.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:37 pmI do still think you are a heretic, though.
Not to be flippant, I take it very seriously.
i should’ve been quicker on the uptake consequence lady but no i don’t deny that I think poochie is not a good person, that she is unkind, bigoted, and not any different in terms of her character now that she’s lil miss suzy christer than she was before she got jesus
this whole look at me I’m super jesusy act reminds me of casey anthony
she was this girl in florida that
well let’s just say she was kind of a mess like our friend poochie
i wouldn’t be mean to her (either of them) but I wouldn’t go out of my way to have her be a part of my life because she does not add value (either of them)
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:38 pmthe motivation was somewhat different, I think,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/05/kim-davis-christian-gay-rights/71772980/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:39 pmOh, and the Philadelphian doc, I very much like reading your apologetics. They’re usually spot-on. I say usually because, while I haven’t found a point where you went astray, I don’t know all of your doctrinal positions.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:40 pmi am NOT a heretic I stopped giving money to my college cause of they abandoned the heritage of western culture program in favor of some diversity nonsense
I’m a very strong believer in the traditional western canon of literature going back at least to milton and marlowe and et cetera and even the stuff before that is a guilty pleasure – chaucer and the like – but I think of a lot of that stuff as being kind of pre-literary in terms of the canon
but nonono I’m a very very very true believing kool-aid drinker about an extraordinary amount of what we used to understand was accepted wisdom
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:43 pmneither have I, John, admittedly my survey of the gospel, has been more recent,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:45 pmHF,
THE BIBLE, THE WHOLE BIBLE, AND NOTHING BUT THE BIBLE
Detract from that, and you’re a heretic. Which means, you’re a heretic, as you’ve readily admitted–proudly proclaimed, in fact–that you’ve rejected large swaths of the Bible in order to think the way you think.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:53 pmyou are so not selling it
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 6:56 pmYou have loudly declared your rejection of huge swaths of the Bible. Because those sections of the Bible do not comport with your evil, carnal desires, nor do they comport with your support of killing the unborn. As Jesus said, not even a comma or apostrophe in the Law will be changed until the Earth and the heavens are destroyed; thus, the Law concerning homosexuality will not be changed to accommodate your abominable stance.
Your position on those issues and rejection of The LORD’s Holy Word make you a heretic. And I care not one whit if your itching ears want to hear what I say.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:02 pmon to another narrative:
http://www.weaselzippers.us/233627-media-created-story-behind-aylan-kurdi-little-boy-on-beach-has-some-falsehoods/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:03 pmThe doc from Philadelphia is definitely a Philadelphian and hf is, at best, a Laodicean, and at worst, among those who claimed to be a Jew but was not, as referenced when Jesus was talking to the Philadelphian church.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:09 pmyou’re defining heretic down into meaninglessness
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:10 pmI appreciate that, John and narciso. Likewise, even if we were in more-or-less agreement in content we say things differently and don’t want to put words in each others mouths, or take ownership of each others words.
As I’ve said before, for the person dealing with same sex attraction I think the issues are too personal to be discussed, even in general, on a forum like this, but since the subject is pushed into our face we can only slink back in silence or try to be clear and the least offensive as possible. I am much more patient with the person in the midst, there are reasons why the person is dealing with what they are, but for the onlooker, they have failed to be truthful in a mistaken idea of compassion.
hf, as I’ve said, I do not take saying a person is a heretic glibly or for my own benefit.
The passage of scripture I have already referred to speak of people who call themselves followers of Jesus who are still slaves to their sensuality and deny the power of God to work in a person’s life. The Bible, not me, has very stern words of warning and even condemnation.
For those looking on and wondering if we are nuts or what, I understand. If people were arguing over how to do a calculus problem you would suggest look in a calc textbook. If one wants to see what the writings of the NT support and what they don’t read it yourself,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:17 pmdon’t take my word for it or any other person’s.
Actually, hf, your arguments amount to an out of tune chorus of braying burros, but not as enjoyable.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:18 pmCarry on, I’m off to deal with those maneuvers of the boss.
I’ll be by in the AM to see where I need to pick up,
No one, be ready to jump in again as necessary,
invitation sent to DRJ.
Braying burritos….
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:24 pmit’s hardly fault if i grate a little when my arguments are juxtaposed with your mellifluous and godly appeals to logic and reason Mr. H
but I’m taking notes and stuffing em in my trapper keeper
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:34 pm*my* fault i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:34 pmburritos!
i got cuban delivered for the rest of the weekend
it’s a big step for me my delivery has been veitnamese all year
mostly cause they make an amazing avocado smoothie and ridiculously authentic banh mi – and they’re super cheap too
but a pikachu cannot live on banh mi alone
thus endeth the reading
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:37 pm*vietnamese* i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:40 pmplease don’t banh mi
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:40 pmDoc, I would not want a burrito made of burro meat, but I do eat at Taco Bell sometimes and did eat at Taco Bueno once (but never again), so I might already have.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:47 pmi’m learning so much about jesus from
the people
the people who are
literally
turning gay people who want to enter into formalized committed relationships away from public offices
for jesus
no seriously
this is something that really happened
in district 12
in the last years of the obama ascendancy, in america, just before the final victory over israel
(but after justin bieber released his what do you mean song)
but before The Expanse show debuted on ScyFy
(but after that Fox disaster with the fantastic four starring jamie bell as mr. fantastic)
but before Donald Trump was nominated
(but after Nabisco gave us brownie batter oreo cookies)
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:50 pmwell at least it’s not tasajo, you don’t want to know where that comes from,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:51 pmDRJ,
Please don’t leave. I appreciate your posts, comments, and humility. You are one of the positives of this site
Very rarely does hf say anything of consequence. I read hf’s comments as first calling people names, using ad hominem attacks, and saying he is right over and over and over again. He rarely seems to respond to someone’s argument without calling people names, questioning their motives, and stomping his feet saying he is right.
If you want I can write a bookmarklet that collapses or simply removes hf’s comments.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:52 pm10,000 comments and still happyfeet slanders everyone’s arguments.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:52 pmoh wait
jamie was the thing
nobody effing knows who mr. fantastic was
(this would be a good idea for a master’s thesis)
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:53 pm10,000 comments and still happyfeet slanders everyone’s arguments.
this is an exaggeration and you are an exaggerator
yeah i got your number mister
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:55 pmYou’re welcome felipe. I believe I did post something about that before.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:55 pmI know discus allows for collapsing comments, it’s one of their solid points,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:56 pmi’m collapsing your comments right now Mr. narciso
with my mind
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 7:59 pmYeah, but what we need for feets is a singularity.
felipe (56556d) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:00 pmcheck out Jason Hough’s Zero World, honestly you can be such a jackalope, you abuse the generosity of our host, you disrespect people’s well established beliefs for what reason,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:02 pmGerald A.
I also appreciated your comment on jamming, it was informative.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:04 pmok i put zero whirl in my cloud
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:05 pmit’s a future cyber spy thriller, alt reality tale, like Farscape crossed with Jason Bourne,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:07 pmyou abuse the generosity of our host
oh you impertinent picklepoo i can’t belieber you said that
first of all do you have any idea how hard it is to get a commenter of my caliber to frequent your blog
go start a blog and try
good luck amigo
second of all nobody wants a blog where everyone agrees that jesus rules and homos drool
third of all would require naming names which I’m not gonna do
fourth of all… if you’re gonna put up posts discussing the finer legal aspects of the manifest righteousness of anti-gay kentucky bible bunnies you can’t seriously think this is gonna end with everyone roasting marshmallows and singing cumbaya (the pee wee version)
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:14 pmi’m supposed to make time for mr. robot i think it’s called
but i’m still slogging through that netflix trannypalooza wachoosker bros disaster
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:17 pmwe are all sinner, pikachu, the folks behind jupiter descending need to be flayed to discourage any further attempts,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:20 pmyeah that one’s not anywhere on the agenda anytime soon
but i feel like at some point i have to see it
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:21 pmoh. Wing Commander is still on netflix and i can’t explain why it’s charming and watchable, as bad as it is
“Saffron Burrows” for sure has something to do with it
but they really did throw a lot of casting at this little thing
and everyone is so into it, Starship Troopers style
loved it far beyond what it deserved
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:25 pmjust pretend it’s battlefield earth, and the curiousity will pass, as for mr, robot, run not walk away from it,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:25 pmHF, your caliber is that of a first-year troll apprentice. It’s easy to get your caliber to show up, but difficult to cleanse sites after you do show up.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:26 pmoh.
that sucks about mr. robot
my friend p recommended it to me
he’s the one what insists I need to keep watching the trannypalooza
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:26 pmJudge Bunning needs to get in touch with his inner man-love, I think.
It could not have been easy visiting his dad in that baseball locker room.
With all those young, naked athletic guys.
And there was nothing he could do about it.
Not in Kentucky. Not the son of a Hall of Famer. Not the son of a U.S. Senator.
Except pine.
And wish.
And imagine.
And be mean to women.
And eat lots of oblong-shaped sandwiches.
He should give David Geithner a call.
And Leif Derek “Ryan” Truitt.
And arrange a trip to Bangkok with them.
Where he can have all the banh mi he wants.
And get it out it of his system.
And come out with a better judicial temperament.
And have fewer stains on his robe.
nk (dbc370) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:29 pmyou mock
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:37 pmThe Declaration of Independence starts who gives us rights. It is the Judeo-Christian God, not any other god. Then it proceeds to a list of complaints that the king is violating. The constitution is the instrument addresses the complaints.
I believe that the Obergefell decision violates the 10th amendment in that marriage is not an in the constitution and therefore not delegated to the federal government, but the states.
Since the Supreme Court’s purpose is to adjudicate constitutional issues and marriage is not in the constitution they have no right to judge marriage. They 14th amendment does not apply as it does not make everything equal, otherwise they wouldn’t have needed to to create the 15th and 19th amendments.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:37 pmno really you do
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:37 pmCongress should defund PP. Abortion being legal under an emanation or penumbra right of privacy doesn’t mean the government and really all of us should pay for it. We have rights of freedom of the press, and to bear arms, and those are specifically enumerated .Yet the government doesn’t provide us all with a blog or a gun free of charge.
We are $19 trillion in debt and don’t control our border. This KIm Davis nonsense is akin to rearranging deck chairs as the Titanic sank. Which is the problem with government at all levels in the USA; everyone wants to have a foodfight over nonsense instead of government simply doing their job competently. And further if you want to embrace the lawlessness of Kim Davis you no longer can complain about the lawlessness of The One.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:38 pmAlinsky Rules, my foot. The Greeks invented farce, satire, and irony 2,500 years before he was a gleam in the deli delivery boy’s eye.
nk (dbc370) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:40 pmThe Bible, good book that it is, is of no legal value as precedent nor statute in American jurisprudence. Nor, more shockingly, does the Declaration of Independence.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:43 pmalinsky is about making people accept socialism, the Papandreous succeeded for a time, I beg to differ with the 55 million destroyed through abortion, no fault divorce, the dismantling of the traditional family, we have been dealt several severe blows, the first helped shape our immigration policy for instance,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:45 pmBugg, the Bible determines whether you go to Heaven or Sheol; thus, it is of far greater importance than some human judge or even a series of human judges.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 8:49 pmAnd further if you want to embrace the lawlessness of Kim Davis you no longer can complain about the lawlessness of The One.
Bugg, there will be some parallel or moral equivalency to your argument when Bathhouse Barry is in jail too.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:01 pmWhat a load of manure. The Bible is the basis of all western law, which includes the United States.
John Adams helped frame the constitution, the religious people he’s talking about are Christians.
Check out the federalist papers which contain many bible verses.
What did the founders have to say about the bible and law. Here’s one.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:03 pmWhere there is government there is vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war.
nk (dbc370) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:06 pmI know she’s not a government official, however this is an intrisic part of her job,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:06 pmhttp://therightscoop.com/muslim-woman-refuses-to-do-her-job-because-of-her-religious-beliefs-isnt-thrown-into-prison/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:06 pmMr. O’Haley-
You can cite scripture all day;despite many of the Founding Fathers being believing Christians, it has no legal effect.
The world is filled with KIngs and Queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams; it’s heaven and hell. Kim Davis is a blinding while they really rob us all blind with insane spending and an open border.
And legally Ronnie James Dio offers as much legal import as the Bible.
Bugg (137ba5) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:15 pmSince the Supreme Court’s purpose is to adjudicate constitutional issues and marriage is not in the constitution they have no right to judge marriage.
But the question whether marriage is a constitutional issue is itself a constitutional issue.
And the default position of the Constitution is that all rights adhere to the individual, whether specified or not. Just because the right of privacy is not mentioned does not mean it does not exist,and does not mean it is not protected. The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the rights of people.
BTW, this site needs DRJ far more than it needs Mr Feets. If I need dessert recipes, I can fibd a foof site. I don’t need his buffoonery for that purpose.
kishnevi (a2a16c) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:23 pmit’s not either/or picklehead
you can haff bofe!
with just 14 easy payments of 64.99
happyfeet (831175) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:28 pmCan you never stop being a buffoon? Or will you try it even in front of the Heavenly Tribunal?
Night, all. I at least have to go to work in the morning.
kishnevi (a2a16c) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:32 pmStatement on the Supreme Court Decision
No since marriage is not in the constitution it is not a constitutional issue.
BTW, I agree with you on DRJ.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:32 pmTrust me, hf will be too busy prostrate before The LORD to even consider attempting any of his normal buffoonery.
John Hitchcock (79d9ed) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:39 pmThere is a great argument for federalism.
And for 21st century ideas requiring 21st century laws and not the torture of 19th century Constitutional provisions by an old Californicator, two lesbians, and two senile progressives.
But I can see how gays and lesbians are between a rock and a hard place if they want a permanent relationship.
How they don’t know which way to turn.
I heard of a gay young man in Khartoum.
He took a lesbian up to his room.
And they argued a lot.
About who would do what.
And how and with which and to whom.
nk (dbc370) — 9/6/2015 @ 9:41 pmNaciso,
Are airline stewardesses now government officials? And was she under court order to serve that alcohol? Simple yes/no questions. Let’s see if we can get yes/no answers
prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/6/2015 @ 11:35 pmNo, it is the generic Creator, deliberately shorn of all detail so that everybody is included. As its author described his second-most-famous work, which used a similarly ambiguous term, it “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” The very concept of “Judæo-Christian” anything would have been alien to the signers of the Declaration; in their day the Jew’s religion was considered as alien as that of the Mahometan.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:01 amTanny, John Adams was not a Christian, by most standard definitions. Like most of the other leading founders, he was a unitarian. The only orthodox Christian in that lot was Patrick Henry. And Webster was not a founder of the USA.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:08 amSuppose a judge were on the plane, and he ordered her to serve him a drink, and to show him her lovely hair and some leg while she was about it. Would she be legally obliged to obey him? Is that really the sort of country our founders gave us? What is the name for such a country?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:13 amKim Davis is just following Justice Kennedy’s own suggestions when the law conflicts with conscience:
“Mark [Levin], writing in his 2005 bestseller Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, notes this of Justice Kennedy – and noted this years before Kennedy’s ruling on same sex marriage this year.
Recently, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a 2003 speech to the American Bar Association, spoke out against federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws that the courts – and Kennedy – are obliged to uphold: “I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.”
Kennedy again decried Federal Sentencing Guidelines in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee when he said, “I do think federal judges who depart downward are courageous.”
This is a remarkable declaration. We have a Supreme Court Justice praising judges who violate federal law, and almost no one noticed, and even fewer cared. I doubt Kennedy would be so complimentary about lower court judges – or legislators – defying his Court rulings.”
– See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2015/09/06/kim-davis-media-and-constitution#sthash.0gUXf2J1.dpuf
Scoob (764148) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:50 amThere is a possibility that Pope Francis will send his representative to see Kim Davis in prison. Or will she be moved away, like this prisoner, to avoid even the most remote possibility of spiritual comfort?
felipe (56556d) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:08 amShe should not be in jail at all, anymore. The plaintiffs have gotten their licenses. There is no other remedy for them to compel by the use of contempt. This is a “WTF, Judge?” situation now.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:16 amActually, unless I’ve missed something, I know the WTF. The judge wants her to swear a loyalty oath to his homosexual agenda for the future. He cannot do that. C-a-s-e a-n-d c-o-n-t-r-o-v-e-r-s-y, all y’all.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:22 amnk,
I don’t think he will release her from jail, if this report from the contempt hearing is correct:
Apparently he sees her as standing up to his authority, and clearly federal judges have more power than county clerks.
He may also think that she will try to undermine her deputy clerks from issuing licenses if she is released. If so, this is unfortunate because I think there are reasonable accommodations that could resolve this problem, and that could have resolved it without so much discord.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 8:56 amSo, nk, do you really think on legal principle that he has no right to keep her in jail?
Or is it possible, as some argue, that the licenses that were issued aren’t really valid because they don’t have her signature and there has been no determination of how to issue them alternatively, so the condition of leaving jail continues to be go directly to the office and finalize those licenses?
Or is he saying,”I can keep you here until you promise that I will not have to do this again in a few days when somebody else walks in and makes a request.”
Hmmm,
Ken-tuck-y,
same syllables as
Chi-ca-go
Perhaps a song is in the offing
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 8:58 am(Hum, hum, hum,
…how can such a thing be fair,
won’t you please come to Kentucky
for the help that we can bring
We can change the world,
rearrange the world
it’s dying
if you believe in freedom
it’s dying
let a girl live her own life…
…
(But I imagine Graham Nash would have my butt in court pseudonym and all in a flash the moment it appeared in public…)
DRJ beat me to it
I need to be convinced there is not an easier way to accommodate her,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:02 amgiven the ease with which this judge thinks he can order the state and county to override their system
he could force them to override it another way, couldn’t he???
But no,that would preserve her right for a reasonable accommodation under the law along with the other folks rights for a SSM
can’t have that
Here is the correct link for comment 409.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:03 amNot the legal reasoning we agree with,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:11 ambut the sentiment is nice:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/madonna-openly-gay-brother-defends-ky-clerk-kim-davis-article-1.2350959
I am proceeding on two principles that overlap. 1) That federal court jurisdiction is limited to “cases and controversies, and 2)that the purpose of civil contempt is to obtain the remedy requested by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiffs got their licenses, they got their licenses and there is no longer a case or controversy. Looking at future conduct, there is the principle of ripeness which further narrows cases and controversies. Those cases have not happened yet. Which is why I consider the judge’s actions to be extremely activist and pursuant to a pro-homosexual agenda.
I also have a limerick about it but I’m saving it till happyfeet shows up.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:15 amSince the plaintiffs got their licenses, they got their
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:18 amlicensesremedyAccording to my earlier link regarding the contempt hearing, Judge Bunning said:
I don’t want to be unfair to Judge Bunning. We don’t have a transcript of the entire proceeding and it may be unfair to draw conclusions based on isolated statements. But this bothers me, and I think it also illustrates why it’s important to understand legal issues. I think the legal issues here are:
The judge held that the clerk has asserted a sincerely held (he called it a genuinely held) religious belief, so we know the answer to issue 1 is Yes.
We can’t tell if the court addressed issue 2 regarding accommodations. I feel sure the clerk’s lawyers raised the issue and it may be the judge determined he had no power to order an accommodation — perhaps because marriage licenses are a matter of state law — but we can only speculate on the answer to question 2 based on the information we have now.
I think the judge’s statement — that allowing an individual’s beliefs to supersede the court’s authority would set a dangerous precedent — touches on issue 3 regarding an undue burden. He seems to say the individual’s belief can never be allowed to infringe on government authority. (Is he speaking of his authority as judge, the clerk’s authority to issue licenses, or both?) But the law does allow individual beliefs to infringe on government authority when the belief can be protected by a reasonable accommodation that does not cause an undue burden. Perhaps the judge believes any refusal to do one’s job, if that job is a government position, creates an undue burden. I think some here agree with that, but that’s not what the law provides.
As an aside, I think there is benefit in discussing events like this. Learning about this case also helps us understand the issues in stories like the Muslim stewardess who won’t serve alcohol. Do you see the parallels in the language used in that story and in the clerk’s case?
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:33 amI completely agree with your analysis, nk. I’m not certain Judge Bunning does, but I do.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:34 amI get the feeling that Judge Bunning is looking at this as more than one case. His reference to the impact on other Kentucky clerks is one example.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:35 amNarciso’s link at #94 outlines the history of a Bunning reeducation decision dealing with homosexuality and Christianity that dates back to 2003. One view of this earlier episode is that Bunning’s required “reeducation” was fairly nominal, just viewing a video:
But there was more to this than just viewing the video, as this ruling overturning Bunning’s action suggests:
It seems to me that Bunning has an agenda that is more than just saving a same sex couple the trouble of driving to a nearby county to obtain a certificate.
He also exhibits a pattern of behavior that routinely resorts to the use of the State’s life-threatening force to effect changes in the minds of those who disagree with him. The use of “reeducation” camps, often with very high mortality rates, is a common feature of the culture of communism as practiced in modern societies. The face of this monstrosity was changed when the Soviet Union began using Psychiatry as a cover for their actions, but this only meant that instead of exterminating through beatings and malnutrition, the victims were robbed of their mental facilities using drugs before they were released as vegetables for the tender care of the socialist society.
At the very least, Bunning must be a very frustrated revolutionary. The masses continue to defy him.
bobathome (c93b3f) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:35 amOne thing I forgot to say earlier: The statement that “Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense” makes no sense to me. Establishing the clerk’s good faith belief triggers an inquiry into reasonable accommodations. There is no defense involved. My best guess is that the judge views her religious beliefs as a “defense” to performing her duty to issue licenses, but that’s not how I would express it.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:47 amIf he is using his contempt power to vindicate the authority of the Court and to deter future conduct by Davis and/or other officials, then it is not civil contempt but criminal contempt. I concede that most lawyers and judges agree that civil contempt and criminal contempt can be hard to distinguish in some instances.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:47 amI think he has multiple motivations and may not have been very precise in his wording. It doesn’t matter in the big picture but it does matter to picky lawyers. It may also matter to the appeals court.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:49 amIt seems to me that Bunning has an agenda that is more than just saving a same sex couple the trouble of driving to a nearby county to obtain a certificate.
I wonder if Bunning’s personal life history is influencing his response to not just Davis but to those school students several years ago? It certainly was the case with the federal judge in California who ruled against Proposition 8.
Of course, one doesn’t have to be homosexual him or herself — or have predilections towards that — or have a good friend or dear family member who’s gay (eg, Dick and Lynn Cheney) to develop sympathy for the GLBT, but I bet in a good number of instances that very well could be what’s behind the motivations of someone like Bunning.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:32 amSuppose a judge were on the plane, and he ordered her to serve him a drink, and to show him her lovely hair and some leg while she was about it. Would she be legally obliged to obey him?
– Milhouse
This question is so stupid that it beggars belief that anyone would actually ask it. But just in case you are this stupid, I will answer it. No. A judge sitting on an airplane is in no way in a position to issue judicial rulings, so she would not be legally obliged to obey him.
If, however, in the course of the lawsuit she filed, a judge ruled that serving drinks to all patrons was legally required of her, and that her employer was justified in termination, and further ruled that she could either return to her job and perform her assigned duties OR return all monies paid while she was refusing to do her job, then yes, she would be obliged to comply that order or face contempt charges.
prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:42 amAnd Milhouse, I’ll note for the record that since you did not answer my direct query, it is obvious that you acknowledge that the flight attendant was neither a government official nor under court order,and thus the outrage expressed regarding her not being in jail is the vacuous, spittle-flecked, sputtering, impotent rage generally associated with Code Pink and BLM. Your inability to respond to a direct query is very telling about your lack of reasoned response, intellectual honesty, and moral character.
prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:49 amI’m guessing that if he is in fact prejudiced against her view (of which we have some evidence he is), and thought “society” was with him,
maybe he didn’t bother to think all that hard and express himself clearly to standup to close scrutiny,
i.e., he got sloppy because it really doesn’t matter to him, IDK
good to see you, DRJ
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:49 am(no, you’re not chopped liver, nk, Bob, or Mark
it’s just that DRJ had excused herself yesterday after too much of one participant)
This artivle portrays Judge Bunning as doing what he thinks is right, and that’s also my impression. I don’t see clear evidence of a partisan or other agenda on his part. I’m not sure about his legal ability, though.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:52 amNo, at least that part of the 13th Amendment is still alive. A labor contract cannot be specifically enforced. At most, the employer could sue her for the unearned pay, training, uniforms tailored to her, and similar, and get a money judgment. And it does not have to be a Playboy bunny. The LAPD sues cops who transfer out to better-paying jobs at other towns before completing the required three(?) years of their contract for the cost of their training at the LAPD academy.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:54 amMy 428 was to prowlerguy’s 424.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:56 amI took my anti-“Crichton Gell-Mann Amnesia pill” this am,
and am not as swayed as you, DRJ.
If I had anywhere seen one, just one, comment by him mentioning her seeking a reasonable accommodation but that he “was sorry he doesn’t have jurisdiction for that”,
then I would believe he was “just doing his job bravely”.
Otherwise, here is my suggested translation of that article,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:05 am“Reasonable people like average Republicans and Catholics know this lady is on the fringe and needs to be put in her place”.
You implied you knew her church, MD. Is she Primitive Baptist or Disciples of Christ?
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:10 amnk, that really wasn’t the point. I was stretching for some way that Milhouse’s nonsensical statement could possibly be relevant or valid. But in the end, that would be highly unlikely (if not impossible), thus making the “Muslim refused to do her job and WASN’T sent to jail” headline all the more insulting to anyone with more than room temperature IQ.
prowlerguy (3af7ff) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:10 amOh, yeah. Totally agree about that comment of Milhouse’s.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:12 amHere is a link to Judge Bunning’s Order.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:18 am“Apostolic” something.
From Wikipedia”
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:23 amDavis is described as an “Apostolic Christian”[8] who worships three times a week[53] at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead.[54] It is a congregation in the Apostolic Church, a Pentecostal Christian denomination.[55][56] She experienced a “religious awakening” in 2011, following her mother-in-law’s “dying wish” that she attend church.[54] Following her conversion, she let her hair grow long, stopped wearing makeup and jewelry, and began wearing skirts and dresses that fell below the knee. This was in accordance with the standards of her church regarding modesty and dress for women.[2] Davis has held Bible study for inmates of the Rowan County jail.[54]
if you change your mind
you’ll be first in line
honey to go free
cut the piety
if you need me let me know – got a helpful hint
you can use to pass the time while you do your stint
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:25 amThis is an ad hominem attack on the clerk and an attempt to propagandize/intimidate that is not based on logic. Unless you can clarify your argument in a non-abusive, logical manner, I view your comment as an admission that you have lost this argument.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:28 amThe judge found her religious beliefs to be genuine. By refusing to do the same, you are being illogical, inflammatory, and abusive.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:29 amThat answer speaks for itself, Milhouse.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:31 amthank you very much my team is reviewing your submission and we will respond appropriately once we have all our “ducks” in a “row”
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:32 amGet used to it, team. This is what I’m going to say every time you leave an ad hominem comment.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:33 amThank you, DRJ and MD. That order looks like a conscientious analysis of the law. I like the part (if I read it right) where he says that she is the face of the office and the office is not she personally. Because that’s my view, too. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:36 amI’ll see if I can reword my limerick for the attorney general who refused to defend the SSM lawsuit against Kentucky in the Obergefell series.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:39 amMD @ 435,
She could not be more mock-worthy in the eyes of the world. Interesting.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:41 amThe clerk’s position is that “[c]ompelling all individuals who have any connection with the
issuance of marriage licenses . . . to authorize, approve, and participate in that act against
their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, without providing accommodation,
amounts to an improper religious test for holding (or maintaining) public office.” (This is the only time the word “accommodation” appears in the opinion.)
The judge’s response was that “the act of issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple merely signifies that the couple has met the legal requirements to marry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval.” Many, many people feel that way. Unfortunately, the clerk isn’t one of them.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:41 amnk,
The AG section of the opinion was interesting, wasn’t it? Do you agree with the judge’s statement that it was unconvincing evidence of different treatment? I need to think about it because I’m not sure what I think.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:43 amThis artivle portrays Judge Bunning as doing what he thinks is right, and that’s also my impression. I don’t see clear evidence of a partisan or other agenda on his part.
I’m more skeptical about that, or him, than you are, DRJ. Although he does say the following…
…I’m cynical about exactly how sincere he is mainly because not too many years ago he did force high school students to attend a class he himself mandated be created by their school, a course that, in effect, would sanctify political correctness, particularly regarding homosexuality.
Something stinks in Denmark, and it may be coming from the direction of Bunning.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:55 amI might decide the same way distinguishing between ministerial act versus discretionary act (and that as a practical matter you don’t want a lawyer who would rather be playing for the other team). Here’s the problem. She really does not exercise discretion if all items on the marriage law’s list check out.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:58 am— Over 18 or over 16 with parents’/court’s permission?
— Not currently married?
— Not closer than second cousins in relationship?
Nothing significantly more than counting the money for the license fee.
A piece about the governor in the other thread indicates she belongs to his previous church.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:59 amThese cases are all skirmishes in the culture war that the left thinks it is winning but that may not be the last word.
The Prop 8 case in California was egregious in my non-lawyer opinion. That judge, without revealing as best I can tell, his own bias, threw out the ballot initiative which passed with 60% of the vote, and then married his gay lover.
The California governor and AG declined to appeal. I believe they had a duty to do so but the cultural left applauded their decision and they have gone on to worse, if possible.
The Muslim woman who sued Abercrombie and Fitch and the Muslim woman who refused to serve alcohol are examples of how lunatic this thing is getting.
Muslims get preferences in the legal system and Christians go to jail.
I just think this is turning up the heat on a boiler that is getting warm.
There’s no outrage because the media, our bipartisan political establishment, and indeed the American people themselves are unwilling to face the scope of the challenge the Islamic State presents. To uproot it we would have to send U.S. ground forces to Iraq in large numbers, not just special forces operating in tandem with unrestricted air support. We would have to retake and hold ground lost in the years since we departed Iraq, and we would have to commit to remaining in Iraq and Syria for a long time.
I don’t see anyone willing to face facts.
At this this time in history the Left may be correct about what truly matters. The institutional Republicans are still playing the game of administration. By contrast Obama is playing the game of revolution. By slow degrees the entire political system is coming around to Obama’s point of view. Perhaps this is no ordinary time. When Hillary calls Republicans “terrorists” and Obama calls them “crazies”; when Sanders and Trump are outflanking the established wings of their respective parties, each of these in its own way suggests the emphasis of the next ten years will not be on public administration but on determining the power relationships within America and among the countries of the world.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:00 pmIt still does not answer the question why she is still in jail if the lovers who been hurt (baby, they ain’t the first) got their booboos kissed and made well (ahem) I mean their licenses.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:16 pmBeshear is claimed, by Wikipedia, to be formerly Baptist now Disciples of Christ, that’s why I asked. I affirmed out loud yesterday that I belong to a Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, myself. It does not have to be The Apostolic Christian Church which is the name of a particular Anabaptist denomination.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:23 pm*Primitive* Baptist
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:24 pmDoc, happily enough, I was fishing yesterday (4am to 2 pm) and we managed to catch 3 nice King Salmons, 10 to 13 pounds, so I missed much of the battle. But, like you, I was concerned when I read the posts last night and saw DRJ was bailing out.
The thing that drives my interest in this issue is the question of “OK, what next?” Looking back on Germany in 1934, the Nazi’s had just assumed a little bit of power, and they exercised it extravagantly, but “non-violently.” Jews were prevented from holding government jobs (which included university professorships) and nothing was said. No protests, no statements about what might come next. Next, Jews were prevented from joining the army. Later, Jews could not be doctors, and later yet Aryan doctors (the only kind allowed) were prevented from administering to Jews. This happened step by step, and no one said anything. And when 934 Jews fled Germany on the St Louis in 1939 (before the invasion of Poland,) only a handful were accepted by Cuba, and none by the U. S. Other countries like the U. K., Belgium, Holland, did accept a portion of them finally, but 532 were trapped in Nazi territory when France was overrun, and 256 were eventually caught and murdered. But, of course, this was all perfectly legal in Germany, so it would seem to satisfy the requirement that government officials obey the law. After all, the alternative is chaos, right?
And relying on public opinion to protect us is silly. Even when we had the plight of the Jews thrust onto our newspapers front pages, as the St. Louis sought a friendly port, few did anything, and what was done was ineffective.
This is ancient history, of course, but it makes we wonder how long it will be before Christians will be prevented from holding many public offices, or even joining our military. These will all seem sensible as time passes, and as our public schools’ “reeducation” takes hold. And who knows, maybe our host might even support it if the legalese is compelling. But I think we will lose a lot if people of conscience are consigned to be spectators in our system of government.
And just to make it clear, I am an agnostic. And I don’t hold the same concerns for “devout” muslims, since their devotion makes them sworn enemies of our Constitutional government.
The fact that five lawyers have made this new “constitutional” discovery doesn’t satisfy my concern that their epiphany and its political fruit has the consent of the governed. Only 14 states have actually voted to approve SSM, and Federal coercion played a big role in California’s surrender. It would have been far better to leave this to the states, as the Bill of Rights calls for.
The Supreme Court keeps discovering all this stuff, and this also makes we wonder “what next.” They could discover any number of new rights that even non-Christians would find repulsive. It need not be done in dramatic steps, just many little ones, all leading to results we can’t imagine. If these discoveries were subject to a public vote, I think much of the excess and potential for abuse would be exposed to sunlight and sterilized. As things stand now, we are hostages to a majority on the Court.
bobathome (c93b3f) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:30 pmThanks for the link to the order, DRJ. The judge does not really address the issue of an accommodation. He acknowledges that the couple seeking a license could fairly easily travel to another county but says, in essence: why should they have to? I think he would do well to read Eugene Volokh’s post.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:31 pmSo all that matters is where he’s sitting?! That is so stupid as to beggar belief. Either he has such dictatorial power or he doesn’t. And the answer is that he doesn’t have such power. What matters is neither who he is nor where he is sitting, but whether the order itself is lawful. Neither the fact that he is a judge, nor the fact that he issued it while sitting on the bench in a courtroom, are sufficient to make the order lawful. So if you want to defend the order you need to show how it was lawful. Under what legal authority it was issued. Without that, Davis is no more obligated to obey Bunning’s order than the flight attendant would be obliged to obey any order he was to give her.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:41 pmI did answer it. I answered that neither of the distinctions you drew between the two cases is at all relevant.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:44 pmspeaking of stuff unrelated to Kim Davis and what have you with respect to her indefinite incarceration in jail but what’s still in the social con realm of things
you can get Ted Dawes’ banned book what is called into the river on sale on Amazon today!
it’s $9.99 that’s a good value and i got a copy for myself so I can read it after i finish the expanse series
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:44 pm*Ted Dawe’s* i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:45 pmIt was relevant for the simple reason that the judge has no more legal authority to order Davis to issue a license than he has to order a flight attendant to serve him a drink. Show me the statute that gives him such authority.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:47 pmWhat do you mean by that? Are you seriously claiming that it cannot be a person’s job to commit crimes?! That’s ridiculous. You know very well that there are many people who are employed to break the law. You prosecute enough of them. And once you concede that it is possible for someone’s job to include committing crimes, then who determines whether any person’s job does include that, if not that person’s boss?
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:53 pmI bet Bunning is one of those non-liberal, quasi-conservative, ideologically wobbly enough type of people who are the main reason why even the US military (and not the ACLU, Act Up, the NAACP, Emily’s List, etc) has given into the ethos of political correctness run amok.
Such derangement is bad enough when it comes from or is fostered by outright, flat-out liberals, but for people like Bunning to be a part of the trend is what makes the phenomenon of “let’s tolerate Nidal Hassan!” increasingly pervasive and ultimately quite dangerous.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:53 pmYet John Adams wrote this:
From a site on John Adams.
The Unitarian church much like mainline denominations is not the same as when it was started. They followed Christ, but no longer.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/7/2015 @ 12:56 pmThank you. 👍
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:02 pmThat isn’t true. Moslems and Christians are treated equally. And I see nothing lunatic about either case. A&F’s position in the supreme court case was absurd; it claimed that it could do an end run around the anti-discrimation law by deciding not to hire the plaintiff as soon as it suspected she might want a relgious accommodation, before finding out whether she actually did want one. That just makes no sense. Now A&F will have to hire the plaintiff, and then if she asks for an accommodation, and it doesn’t want to comply, then it will have to demonstrate that the requested accommodation is unreasonable. That would probably be easy to demonstrate in this case, but it will have to go through the exercise of demonstrating it, and the plaintiff will have a chance to make a case that it is reasonable. A&F wanted to deny her that chance.
The same applies to the flight attendant; she has asked for an accommodation she thinks is reasonable, her employer thinks it isn’t reasonable, so it’s up to a court to decide who is right. If the court finds that the accommodation would create an undue hardship on the employer, it will find against her. But she gets to have her day in court, because that’s justice.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:12 pmAt the time nobody knew that France — or Belgium and the Netherlands for that matter — were going to be overrun. Every single passenger on the St Louis found safe haven in a country outside Germany. It’s not the USA’s fault that some of those countries later came under German occupation. So why should the USA have taken them, rather than the countries that ultimately did? What special duty did the USA have to them, just because they were on a ship off the coast of Florida?
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:19 pmThat isn’t true. Moslems and Christians are treated equally.
You’re ignoring the ideological biases that Mike K was referring to in his post. Or the biases of judges, jurors, any variety of people employed by the judicial system, and politicians or legislators (certainly in blue-blue states), and beyond.
In the past, such biases, at least on certain occasions, were flipped around in the opposite direction, perhaps overly conformist to so-called Americanism and even xenophobic or flat-out bigoted. But in today’s society, we’re now witnessing things being tossed upside down, in which the idiocy of Nidal Hassanism is on full display.
As the saying goes, this will not end well.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:34 pmTanny, here is a link to the whole text of the letter, which shows that Adams was explicitly mocking orthodox Christians for believing such nonsense. Even in the excerpt you quoted, how can you not see the obvious mockery?
Adams, of course, was a republican, a deadly enemy of monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings. How could you possibly have read that excerpt and thought he meant it as the truth? In any event, immediately after the bit you quoted he makes his meaning explicit:
I guess your credulity proves him right.
The Unitarians of Adams’s day were not the Universal Unitarians of today, but they were not Christians, if that term means believing that Jesus is God. They followed Jesus’s teachings as those of a wise but far from perfect man, no more. Adams, exactly like Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of that crew, believed in a Creator, a Providence, Who is aware of and takes an interest in human affairs, Who rewards virtue and punishes sin, and Who answers prayer. They did not believe Jesus was this Creator.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:38 pmHe hasn’t demonstrated that they exist to any statistically significant extent. There are a lot of anti-religious people in this country, some of whom are in positions of authority, but by and large they are biased against all religions equally. Meanwhile most people in authority are not biased against any religion.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:42 pmGet used to it, team. This is what I’m going to say every time you leave an ad hominem comment.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 11:33 am
thank you *picture non-obscene hand gesture for emphasis here*
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:54 pmThank you. 👍
Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:02 pm
OK, now that’s funny. Typed my comment as soon as I saw DRJ’s, without seeing yours first. lol
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/7/2015 @ 1:55 pmAaaand the sophistry continues. Recall your initial absurd claim:
In debating whether that patently absurd statement is patently absurd, Milhouse, we are discussing a normative question: ought she to have the right to determine the nature of her duties for herself, no matter how facially ridiculous or even criminal that definition might be?
Now you have grabbed the goalposts and moved them to the area of a descriptive assertion: is it possible that someone can define their job to be criminal action x, or totally unrelated function y.
That is not what you are discussing when you assert that she has the “right” to determine what her own function should be. The proper scope of one’s “right” to determine one’s own function is a normative question and not a descriptive one.
If this is too complicated for you, then I’ll answer it this way: yes, it can be a person’s job to commit a crime. However, nobody has the “right” to define their job as committing crimes. And they certainly don’t have the “right” to carry out their “job” in accordance with such a self-definition.
And you started this whole thing by making a (ridiculous) assertion about her “right” to self-define her duties.
You’ve spent this entire thread throwing up dust to distract us from what your original assertion actually was, which (to repeat) was “that Davis, as an elected official, has the right to decide for herself what her job entails.”
No, she doesn’t. And I am having fun watching you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify that unjustifiable statement.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:00 pmI’ll give you this, though: you’re good at professing outrage that anyone might question your utterly absurd propositions. A+ for “bluster.”
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:02 pmwhen the shoe is on the other foot:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-parker-receives-outflow-applause-local-group-performing-marriages-10102447.html
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:06 pmMeanwhile most people in authority are not biased against any religion.
In a way you’re already illustrating the pernicious effect of political correctness run amok, since the very idea of “not biased against any religion” (including presumably one founded by a nice, wise, humane, decent, ethical, non-bloodthirsty human like Mohamed!?) — which I’m guessing you state approvingly and positively — is at the heart of the nonsense detailed in what’s pasted below. IOW, the inability to filter out illogical or silly biases (which I suspect is a weakness of David Bunning) and, in turn, to inculcate, sensible, practical ones is why we’re dealing with so much lunacy or outright stupidity throughout society, particularly Obama’s America 2015.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:16 pmGiven the information above, that Davis was saved in 2011, it sheds more light on the Westboro cult (who claim to be a church and claim to be Christian, but everyone with any sense agrees they are neither) accusing her of being hypocritical in that she’s thrice divorced. There was a clear change of lifestyle and attitude after her salvation, so, unless it can be shown she got thrice divorced AFTER 2011, the ‘hypocrite’ label cannot be attached to her for her divorces. And if she got divorced after 2011, the circumstances of her divorce must needs be examined. If her husband was a non-Christian and divorced her, she’s free to remarry. If her husband committed adultery, she’s free to remarry. Those are cut-and-dried Scripture.
And, again, hf (who has declared that if someone doesn’t have a piece of paper from a Leftist indoctrination center to show that person has completed at least phase 1 of the indoctrination, that person is a rube) aligns himself with the Westboro cult.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:20 pmshe broke an oath she took before god Mr. H
goodness gracious you would think if you could trust anyone to honor their word it would be a county clerk
this is very disappointing and reflective of the general decline in morals and values in America today I think
but it gets worse!
right now she’s fleecing the taxpayers who pay her salary by collecting monies for a job she’s refusing to do
this says a lot about poochie’s character i think (and none of it very good if you ask me)
she still has time though to repent and redeem herself i will pray for her
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:34 pmAgain, hf, you are a heretic. And The LORD will not reward you for honoring an evil oath. Those who are not His, He doesn’t hear their prayers except for the prayer of Salvation. He does not hear your prayers.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:40 pmThe link I gave you contains the complete letter and debunks the John Adams was mocking Christianity fraud.
John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians? Addressing Modern Academic Shallownes
While early Unitarians did not believe in Jesus as a second God, they did believe in Father God.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/7/2015 @ 2:48 pmTanny, your 479 link goes to patterico. Aside from that, if Jesus is not God, then the person who says that is not Christian. I don’t have anything to say on the “mocking” part, but the Christianity part is very clear. The Holy Trinity as One God in Three Persons, or no Christianity. There is no middle ground.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:11 pmit seems to be a blanc mange creed:
https://carm.org/what-unitarianism
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:14 pmSorry about that, here’s the correct link. John Adams: Was He Really an Enemy of Christians? Addressing Modern Academic Shallowness
John Hitchcock,
What I was pointing out is that the phrase “their creator” in the Declaration of Independence is the Judeo-Christian God. I gave a quote from John Adams to bolster my point. Milhouse seemed to be making a point that because John Adams was a Unitarian, he was not saying “a religious people” is the Judeo-Christian God. Milhouse was saying that “their Creator” was a generic god as opposed to the Judeo-Christian God.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:33 pmIt is a sad day when I quit reading Happyfeet’s comments.
JD (34f761) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:36 pmI agree, Tanny, the Declaration and Constitution are most definitely referencing the Judeo-Christian God. Anyone with any sense of context would understand that. And I’m agreeing with you on that whole point, in contradiction to Millhouse.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:41 pmhappyfeet 477:
We’ll ignore the ad hominems for now since it’s been established that you lost this debate. Instead, let’s try some Compare & Contrast:
Don’t think for a minute that I’m not watching for ad hominem attacks, team.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:42 pmSorry, no sophistry. I am 100% serious.
I’m sorry, but you have yet to make any argument demonstrating its absurdity. It seems to me obviously true.
No, I have not. The goalposts are exactly where they were from the beginning. I am not discussing what a boss can get away with, but what lies properly and inherently in a boss’s authority. Everybody’s job description is set by his boss; that’s what it means to be the boss. And someone who is his own boss sets his own job description.
On the contrary, that is exactly what I am discussing.
How do they not have this right? If a crime boss does not have the right to define his underlings’ job as committing crimes, then pray tell me what are their jobs? What is the job of a drug seller, if not to sell drugs? What is the job of a leg-breaker, if not to break legs?
Of course not. Who ever suggested that they do? As I have repeatedly written, “I was just doing my job” is not an excuse. Nobody has an inherent right to do their job. If your job is illegal, then you shouldn’t do it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is your job.
That’s right, she does; who else can define her duties if not her?
I am not trying to distract anyone at all. That remains exactly my assertion. And my purpose is to reply to those who claim that her job is to issue marriage licenses, and she should do it or resign. Who decides whether that is her job? The only person who can possibly decide that is her boss, which is herself. It’s really very simple: your job is whatever your boss says it is; but who tells her what her job is, if not herself?
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:43 pmThe concept of a “Judæo-Christian anything did not exist then. The phrase could only mean either the Christian God or a generic God of no particular religion. And since the author of the declaration was not a Christian, and stated explicitly about his second-most famous work that it was intended to encompass people of all faiths, including Moslems and Hindus, it’s clear that the second option is the true one.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:50 pm(third attempt to post this; I don’t know why it keeps disappearing)
No, it does not contain the complete letter, though it links to it. And it certainly does not “debunk” the assertion that Adams was mocking Christians’ belief in the Holy Ghost; it merely desperately denies it, while making no argument at all to support that denial. The text of the letter speaks for itself, including the quoted bit. No honest person can possibly read it and not see that Adams is mocking this belief.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:53 pmI am an honest person and do not see how he was mocking anything.
JD (713216) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:57 pmJD,
happyfeet is incredibly entertaining, witty and clever but he’s turned into Jon Stewart, trying to be both the comedian and the serious pundit (or, as our host says, Clown Nose On, Clown Nose Off). He has to pick one or the other.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:00 pmno, it illustrates how Christianity was made to conform to State interests, which is not at all related to doctrine, real christianity has little to do with that,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:01 pmThe Clerk does not define their role. The position is defined by either state or local statute. It is the pinnacle of absurdity to suggest than any individual simply gets to define their role according to their whim. The rhetorical knots you tie yourself into are hysterical.
JD (713216) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:02 pmYou’d think if you could trust anyone to honor their word it would be an Attorney General.
this is much different than poochie’s perfidy and i will tell you why
the AG’s approach here is a lot like how in the DA’s office they don’t assign death penalty cases to people who do not believe in the death penalty
why?
cause of it’s not fair to the case to assign someone who doesn’t really believe the case should be won
it’s way better to be like the AG and be honest that he’s not the right guy for the case
contrast this with poochie who is NOT being honest enough to simply resign her position and say yeah I’m not the right person for this job – remember we already know she doesn’t believe gay people are equal under the law
oh my goodness!
self-aware much?
not our poochie creamcheese
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:04 pmDoc, happily enough, I was fishing yesterday (4am to 2 pm) and we managed to catch 3 nice King Salmons, 10 to 13 pounds, so I missed much of the battle.
Oh,I get it, you missed the battle here because you didn’t miss the battle with the fish…
Can we switch next time… 😉
Reading the judges ruling it includes (all?) the text of the Gov.’s instructions. There is no mention of possible accommodation arrangements being worked out.
Are we to believe this gov and the fed judge are too ignorant to be aware of other legal remedies such as instituted by other states?
Or are they conveniently ignoring it because, “Shut up and leave, you hick bigot!”?
I ask you, counselors, what is your opinion?
The thing about a person’s conscience is that it is that person’s conscience, not another.
I understand the argument some, such as nk make, that she is performing an act as the functionary of the govt., and it seems to him and others as splitting inconsequential hairs whether her name is on it or not. IOW, if she is that against it, maybe she shouldn’t have anything to do with it at all?
I think it is a reasonable question and point, but it is her conscience.
She is asking for an official version of the unofficial (brilliant) suggestion nk made about writing that she was signing under duress according to the order of judge so and so.
Some could have said Daniel could have closed his windows when he prayed to the true God instead of Darius, but his conscience wouldn’t let him do that.
Certainly the Fundamental Transformation of America would proceed more quickly if all of these dissenters would quietly disappear from public view, and trying to force her to quit instead of giving her legitimate legal options as other states have is an encouragement for her to do so.
I applaud her for being willing to go through this, maybe even especially if KY never accommodates her.
The nation needs to understand what is happening to someone who still holds the societal norm of all of history up until 2010 or so.
My goodness, the human race has advanced so far in a mere 4 years!!! (sarc off)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:06 pmThat idea is at the heart of what it means to be American. It’s the “meta-religion” that the founders intended to establish for America: that America is equally the home of “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” It’s why the Treaty of Tripoli said that since the USA’s government is no more Christian than it is any other religion, there’s no reason why there should be conflict between the USA and any Moslem country.
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:08 pmHow can you read the letter and not see that? Especially when he points out that there are two vials, each of which is supposedly the one brought down by a dove, that contains the Holy Ghost? How do you not see that if he really believed that the Holy Ghost is “transmitted from monarch to monarch”, he couldn’t have joined the revolution, or been a republican? And how can you ignore his explicit words right afterwards, that “this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart”? He says it’s nonsense, and wonders at how they can believe in it, and you don’t see that he’s mocking them?!
Milhouse (42399d) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:14 pmNotice to all, happyfeet’s comments are getting special attention due to his use of a propaganda tool known as “jamming”. (see https://patterico.com/2015/09/05/volokh-on-a-religious-accommodation-for-kim-davis/#comment-1790032)
His thoughtful comments are welcomed by us guests, his vile propaganda pooping all over the thread are not.
WKWWAAWAWY (We Know Who We Are And We Are Watching You)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:14 pmhappyfeet 493,
If there’s anyone who can represent either side of an issue, it’s an attorney.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:14 pmDRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 3:42 pm
thanks for that info about the unequal treatment of the AG who was for “the other side”.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:17 pmThe powers and duties of a Kentucky county clerk are summarized in Chapter 5, beginning at page 53. It includes a duty to issue marriage licenses and record marriage certificates:
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:21 pmmaybe that’s true but if you lose your death penalty case and later on you become an anti-death penalty activist it’s kind of awkward for the office i would think and it opens you up to criticisms and accusations
this is why i don’t think poochie is representing her office with honor and distinction
she’s doing incalculable damage to any reputation that office may have had of being an impartial and fair administrator of the law
this troubles me but only to an extent
does it trouble you a little too?
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:22 pmThe Kentucky Revised Statutes relating to marriage.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:22 pmcrimethink will not be tolerated,
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/04/king-spalding-says-yes-to-gitmo-detainees-no-to-congress/
might have been the subject of a post here,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:23 pmWhat troubles me is your insistence on calling this person “poochie” instead of “the clerk” or “Kim Davis.” One of the definitions at the Urban Dictionary for “poochie” is:
I’d call that an argument-losing ad hominem.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:25 pmoh my goodness
that’s not the definition that applies here
“poochie” is just a name i made up cause it goes good with creamcheese
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:28 pmit’s a question of finding a name what has both alliterative and assonant resonance with the chosen surname and that also captures something essential about the person to whom it refers in this case it’s her dull uncomprehending eyes the way they look at you in her mugshot
they remind me of a cocker spaniel
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:31 pmglad we could get that cleared up
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:31 pmAnd it rhymes with “hoochie”, right?
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:32 pmFrom the Kim Davis’s official Rowan County Clerk’s website:
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:33 pmI guess Dana maybe but it depends a lot on what syllable you accentuate
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:35 pmMD,
I don’t know Judge Bunning, and I’m not going to agree he has a bias or agenda. He might, of course, but most judges are like most other people. They try to do their jobs as well as they can. Like most people, they don’t enjoy a lot of strife and attention — although there are certainly exceptions.
My initial thought is that he doesn’t want to do something wrong, i.e., he doesn’t want to be reversed on appeal. In 2011, the reversal rate for federal courts in the Eastern District of Kentucky was the lowest in the Sixth Circuit, with “only one case reversed in full” during the prior two years. Few judges like to be reversed, so my assumption is that Bunning was trying to apply the law as best he can.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:36 pmit’s her dull uncomprehending eyes the way they look at you in her mugshot
It’s unfortunate you are fixated on her physical appearance. That tends to be the reaction of those who are incurious to grapple with the issue and thoughtfully consider it. But given that your go-to response to women in the news that you disagree with most decidedly end up in the physical realm, one way or the other, it’s not all that surprising.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:36 pmWith “as best he can” being defined as “without getting reversed.” We’ll see if it works out that way.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:38 pmBunning said Kim Davis would be released only when she agrees to follow orders and issue marriage licenses. He also warned the clerks that they must issue marriage licenses to gay couples or face fines or jail.
Hopefully, I’m not reading into this, but to me, Bunning is saying that no accommodations will be offered. It seems like a power struggle. He is going to put her in her place and every other clerk and deputy clerk will then understand they are expected to toe the line in like fashion. What he didn’t count on, however, is that Davis’s faith is stronger and more critical to her than Judge Bunning. Two different perspectives at play: she is looking at the eternal, he is looking at the here-and-now.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:41 pmI am not happyfeet, I just like double-spacing once on holidays.
Oskar Schindler was not immoral for refusing to carry out his duty to his government.
Pontius Pilate was not moral and he did not do right when he carried out his duty to Tiberius.
It’s ridiculous to say the county clerk’s office is a holy avocation.
And taking the oath of office is a pact with God.
And that Davis is breaching a duty to God by refusing to sin (as she sees it) before God.
Somebody, and he knows who he is, reaching.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:48 pmThis just in:
As to how long Davis will remain in jail, Davis’s lawyer said she is “willing to stay in this jail as long as it takes in order for her to win back her constitutional rights not just for her but for Americans of all faiths.”
She just may remain in custody until January when the legislature will be back in session.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:48 pm*once in a while*
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:48 pmTrue, DRJ,
but if one assumes he is simply trying to be a thorough judge,
would one not expect the topic of reasonable accommodation, like in neighboring NC, have come up?
besides, he did have a case overturned before when he tried to force gay-friendly re-education on a high school student
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I make tentative diagnosis of “duck”.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:51 pmGov Beshear is a coward. No way that he will cross the SJW wing of the party.
JD (34f761) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:52 pmwe can only reasonably infer from similar circumstances like that 2003 case, wbich is a ‘tell’ like they say in poker,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:53 pmThe judge’s Order offered several reasons for why the State’s interest in issuing marriage licenses outweighed the clerk’s objections. The topic of accommodations was barely discussed. Instead, the judge held that since the Governor’s instructions to clerks was facially neutral (e.g., did not suppress religious rights/practice).
It appears to me that the judge felt no accommodations were required because there had been no government limitation on the clerk’s religious beliefs or rights.
The clerk raised the disparate treatment by the Governor toward her as compared to toward Attorney General Jack Conway that I addressed above. The judge distinguished that as anecdotal evidence that was based on prosecutorial discretion, not religious convictions. To me, that is not consistent with what AG Conway said and wrote and the time.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:53 pmHere is a link to the pleading the clerk’s attorneys filed today that seeks relief from the Sixth Circuit and, apparently, the Governor.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:57 pmDRJ – I think Bunning’s prior history shows quite clearly that he doesn’t really give a shlt about being overturned. He wants obedience.
JD (34f761) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:59 pmJD,
I think you’re right, which is odd considering he is termed out and can’t run for re-election. His record appears to be fiscally conservative and more liberal on social issues.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 4:59 pmnk,
Apparently it is a moral question to this clerk. We may be able to view this as ministerial but she doesn’t. Are you willing to bet your soul on a promise that she doesn’t have to worry about this? Because that’s how she views it.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:03 pmBut she made a reasonable appeal within the law and has been denied to be heard, nk, a request made by dozens of other KY clerks and a request already fulfilled in several states. It is not an odd thing with her, lots of people see her point,
especially since they went through a whole lot more to let the AG keep his job and not fulfill his sworn duty, just because it was on the opposite side of the ball. (They should have at least deducted the additional cost to the state out of his pay.)
If I was practicing medicine in a state where there was still an MD form to be completed it would be an issue for me if I could do it or not.
I do not know if you saw it yesterday, at least one judge is “under investigation” because “it is suspected” that he has stopped signing marriage licenses in order to avoid having to sign a SS license.
Niemoeller, you can’t work her anymore, in fact, you can’t even live free here anymore!!!
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:03 pmJD,
Because of that one case or do you have more information about this judge? Maybe he does have an agenda but it’s equally likely that he didn’t like being reversed and has vowed to do anything he can to keep that from happening again.
Dana,
He’s a federal judge so he’s appointed for life. His father was the Senator.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:05 pmDRJ,
I was referring to the governor.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:06 pmDRJ has a more forbearing nature than some of us…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:06 pmShe is probably a terrible poker player.
The obedience rhetoric strikes me as a judge who is speaking to the appeals court. He’s trying to give them a basis to affirm his decision, but I think he may have missed the boat from the standpoint of his legal analysis.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:06 pm…which I now see that JD was referring to the judge, not the governor. Got my “B’s” mixed up.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:07 pmOh, sorry, Dana. You were talking about Beshear and I thought you were talking about Bunning. I was confused.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:08 pmI think the governor is in hot water. He’s in a fairly conservative state that overwhelmingly believes in traditional marriage, and he’s taken the other side. He can’t sit this out forever.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:09 pmDRJ – I was referring to his prior re-education order. And subsequent jailing as opposed to looking for reasonable accommodation.
I was calling Gov Beshear a coward. Bunning is much worse.
JD (34f761) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:11 pmyes, an amendment passed 75% in KY to make marriage a male and a female as it had been since the beginning of time.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:12 pmOne would have thought he could have anticipated this if he wanted to, other states did.
Ok, I’ll stop now.
What is the governmental interest in compelling Davis to violate her religious freedom? And how does her refusal place an undue burden on the state? This could all be so easily be over with, and yet it would seem that ending this isn’t what the governor wants.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:18 pmDRJ, I was responding to this:
477.she broke an oath she took before god Mr. H
goodness gracious you would think if you could trust anyone to honor their word it would be a county clerk
this is very disappointing and reflective of the general decline in morals and values in America today I think
We don’t even know that she swore and did not affirm when she took office.
I kind of think she affirmed.
Those fundamentalists have a thing about taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Or even swearing on the hair of their heads.
Something to do with the Bible I think.
The closest they come to swearing is “Oh, fudge” and “Oh, sugar” and “Aw, shucks” is how I see them.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:19 pmBeshear is term limited. He’s out on December 8, 2015. So he doesn’t really give a shuck.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:22 pmGet this, from the appeal linked:
The Kentucky RFRA, which was enacted by an overwhelming majority in 2013 over Gov. Beshear’s veto, protects a “right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,”
Beshear clearly has animosity towards religious conscience objections.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:23 pmExcept maybe he wants his legacy to be that he greased the wheels for Obergefells in Kentucky.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:24 pmFrom today’s filing:
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:25 pmI remember it was noted that it was a useless bit of CYA by Kennedy,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:27 pmbut didn’t the Opinion include some rambling about how long held religious and societal views would need some time to adjust to the ruling or some such, an appeal to avoid stuff like this??
Though as i said, people said it was a bunch of meaningless window dressing (that I know some Christians thought was all that).
I think that, nk 540. Maybe he has goals or ambition that doesn’t involve Kentucky, especially since he’s term-limited and has already been governor.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:28 pmThe Kentucky gubernatorial election is between Jack Conway the Attorney General, and Matt Bevin who ran against Mitch McConnell. On November 3. I’m learning more about Kentucky than I wanted to.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:30 pmDana 536,
No one likes it when people get in the way of business as usual. This may be especially true for government since it has the power to jail, fine, and otherwise punish people who get in the way.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:32 pmGo Matt Bevin.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:32 pmnk,
According to today’s filing, Davis has never requested any religious exemption in 30 years of service, therefore I am guessing that she swore the oath when she was hired. Of course, back then, she wasn’t a Christian, so what difference would it have made? Since her conversion, I’m sure it would take on new meaning.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:32 pmI think Davis was elected last year and took office in January 2015. But, prior to that, she served as a deputy when her mother was clerk and deputy clerks may have to take oaths, too.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:36 pmAccording to teh webz, Beshear has declined to run for U.S. Senator (against Paul) in 2016.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:38 pmShe knew what the job entailed because she had been a deputy for almost 30 years. I imagine she had no trouble taking the oath, which I believe her pleading says includes the phrase “so help me God.” For her, the problem arose when the definition of marriage changed this past summer.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:38 pmYou mean Jack Conway, the AG who wouldn’t defend the marriage amendment that 75% of KY voted for, that Jack Conway.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:38 pmOh, he’s gotta love this…
I was thinking a lobbyist in the energy sector or something else related to Kentucky. Someone like that would be in demand as long as Democrats are in power.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:39 pmFrom the clerk’s complaint (at page 9):
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:43 pmMost oaths I’ve seen are the variety of “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that…”, which allows Christians to let their yes be yes.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:43 pmI have been in court a few times, and I affirmed that I would tell the truth. I did not raise my hand or “swear, so help me” … just affirmed.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:45 pmExactly, John. Just as a matter of course, no explanation needed.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:46 pmKentucky law also offers elected officials the choice of an oath or affirmation, but it also ends with “so help me God.” An alternate ending isn’t offered.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:48 pmOk, DRJ, that knocks out my case. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:49 pmLaw is so interesting, isn’t it? I love this stuff.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:50 pmStates are interesting, too. And history.
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:51 pmLack of history causes repetition of history.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:54 pmIt is also interesting that Prophecy said the End Times would find a re-awakening and revitalization of the Church, concurrent with a “days of Lot and Noah” complete crumbling of society. Back in the 70s, I could not fathom the seeming contradiction of those two events taking place simultaneously. Now that I’m living in those days, I see how it happens.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 5:56 pmThat idea is at the heart of what it means to be American.
But, again, each and everyone of us brings innate biases to the table, so much so that “to be an American” can trigger different responses in various people, with one person (perhaps a state or federal judge or mayor or legislator, for example) naturally flinching at aspects of Islamism — knowing full well what its history is all about — and, by contrast, not flinching at most aspects of Christianity.
Unless a person is a robot or totally high on drugs, such biases will exist, such biases DO exist.
I don’t know Judge Bunning, and I’m not going to agree he has a bias or agenda. He might, of course, but most judges are like most other people.
And if Bunning is like “most other people,” then if anything — and even more so — he sure as heck is going to be bringing his own set of biases to the case involving Kim Davis.
OTOH, if he were more of a robot — or not influenced by innate biases — he could have easily handled the following case quite differently, perhaps more like the way it was dealt with by the judges who overturned him:
I’ve been wondering for a few years exactly what kind of fools in the FBI and US military who aren’t dippy, dingleberry liberals but who nonetheless harbored biases that led them to coddle Nidal Hasan until it was too late must be like in terms of their background, their life history, their characteristics in general. My hunch is they are all variations of David Bunning.
My disgust for such people — and alarm about how they endanger society — increases as time goes by.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:06 pmI read my daughter the Kentucky oath of office, including the part about dueling. She said “That’s so random.”
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:09 pmIt does seem strange. Where is Kentucky Dana when we need him?
DRJ (521990) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:11 pmDueling was an institution that should be given a second look.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:13 pmLast I heard, he was actually IN Kentucky. His FB says he was last online there 24 hours ago.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:15 pmAnd, yes, dueling was a “thing” back when Kentucky became a state, so they added that in there to keep hotheads out, I guess.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:16 pmSpeaking of – I was considering adding a couple new handguns to my collection. I want a 1911 .45 ACP, nothing match grade, already have that. Just a durable reliable reasonably priced 1911. Rock Island arms seems to be pretty reasonable. Taurus?
I recently added short barrel Mossberg Persuader 12 gauge Flex Tactical, Ruger SR45, and Mossberg 715p .22LR to my collection.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:18 pmDueling was an institution that should be given a second look. JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:13 pm
taking lessons. so is daughter
So, JD, when it all comes down do we meet at your place or head south and take up DRJ’s back 40?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:22 pmWorks for me. So far all mine fit in the new extended saddlebags on my Harley.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:25 pmWell, I need to add to my collection. And I definitely need to add to my ammo stores. I have:
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:34 pm.22 magnum rifle
.22 pistol
.50 Desert Eagle
500 Magnum S&W (x2)
I think I need to add a .357 or .38 special and a military colt .45 to my collection of pistols, and I need more rifles. I wouldn’t mind having a pre-gimp AR-15, but beyond that, I don’t know anything about rifles on the market. Large capacity, high accuracy, strong stopping power are what I’m looking for, so I don’t actually have to double-tap the zombies.
Thinking about the fact that Davis has never asked for a religious exemption in 30 years , either as a deputy or as the clerk, makes her current status all the more frustrating. Clearly, she’s not being frivolous about this. But it seems like she is being treat as if she’s just making noise for the sake of attention. And again, how is she burdening the state other than to put them in the position of easily accommodating her?
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:44 pmDana, to answer your question, first I’ll have to give you my true name.
I am Locutus.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:46 pmAlso, this coincides very well with End Times Prophecy, where there is no safe place for Christians.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:48 pm.50 Desert Eagle is on the wish list. You might consider a Henry lever action 44 magnum.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:50 pmwhy accommodate a bigot what purpose is served
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:51 pmJim Bowie was the coolest duelist. Under the Code Duello, the challenged party has the choice of weapons, time and place. He used a big knife at the Natchez Sand Bar fight, but that was more of a brawl than a duel. One time, when challenged, he chose sledgehammers in neck deep water. Another time, he chose snowballs, in New Orleans, in August.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:52 pmI currently have a Glock 19 9mm, a Beretta 9mm, a Colt 1911 .22, M700 African plains .457 win mag, and an old Remington side by side double barrel 12 gauge in addition to the aforementioned. The shotgun and rifle don’t fit in Harley, but don’t need to.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:54 pmperhaps or it could just be Heinlein’s ‘crazy years’ which end in the regime of Nehemiah Scudder, but that resolution along with the Luna Federation, seems increasingly unlikely,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:55 pmHappyfeet – we understand you don’t care about principles.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:55 pmHappyfeet,
Quit being a stupid ass. I happen to believe it’s beneath you, in spite of your continual efforts to prove otherwise. Frequently you can be sharp and insightful and interesting to read. Maybe it should be a goal.
Dana (86e864) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:56 pmDana – knowing him personally, I know it is beneath him. Which makes it more frustrating.
JD (3898b3) — 9/7/2015 @ 6:59 pmWhen you make the pretty Dana curse at you, you really jumped an entire flock of sharks. Maybe even an entire flotilla of P-40s.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:02 pmMy daughter fired one of my big guns and said it wasn’t all that bad. She can’t remember whether she fired the Desert Eagle or one of the S&Ws, but she said as long as you have a solid base and a good hand/arm position, the recoil won’t do much. I would have loved to watch that 5’0 girl fire it.
John Hitchcock (0e29b0) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:05 pmI do too care
This lady is not furthering a principle she’s tendentiously misrepresenting what a marriage license is and what her name on that document means.
Eventually Kentucky can change the licenses to where they don’t have names on them but what does that accomplish?
Nothing is what.
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:06 pmthis whole situation is nuttier than squirrel poop I changed my mind I would like to buy a vowel
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:10 pmThis does not seem to be mentioned.
I think I see the Chancellor’s point, although I think he has made it in a rather asinine way.
kishnevi (2bcf76) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:17 pmYeah, they can make a marriage license that looks like this. It would be fitting. Nobody is being raised up with Obergefells. It’s just that up is redefined as the gutter.
nk (dbc370) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:22 pmBTW, when I said a couple of days ago that I thought Davis should resign, I was not aware of her attempt to get an accomadation and the governor’s refusal to, in effect, do his own job. But now I know of it, I tend to think she should stick to her guns…although I think she is wrong to think her signature on the form means moral approval of SSM, and that if does mean approval the change she wants is meaningful.
kishnevi (2bcf76) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:40 pmthat is no good besides ms. creamcheese has been accomodated already
her clerks figured out how to do the licenses without her name
all she has to do is say ok that’s how we’ll do it from now on and she is no longer in contempt
done & done
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:43 pmbaby cried the day the circus came to town
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:44 pmthere’s a big surprise, at the end of zero world, not ‘sixth sense’ but kind of twilight zone,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:49 pmOK for sure that one’s next then the into the river one
happyfeet (831175) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:51 pmon to the next hill:
http://twitchy.com/2015/09/07/special-review-by-cia-concludes-hillary-clinton-received-top-secret-emails-at-personal-account/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/7/2015 @ 8:08 pmQuit being a stupid ass. I happen to believe it’s beneath you
Nothing is beneath him/her/it.
I skip the comments.
Sorry, I only come by from time to time.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/7/2015 @ 9:38 pmAs DRJ said:
Stop being a jerk. Asking for an accommodation is not being intolerant.
She is saying that she recognizes a difference in beliefs, but that she does not want to have the appearance of supporting a behavior that she believes is harmful to those asking by having her signature on the license. She is asking for an accommodation as defined in Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in state and federal law. She is saying that she will issue SSM licenses if she can have a legally entitled accommodation. In this case it is the Governor and judge Bunning who are being intolerant of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
As bigot is defined, you appear to be the bigot because you are intolerant toward Mrs. Davis’ beliefs. That is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply describing your actions.
If I’m a sincere Christian and see someone participating in actions that the Bible say is an abomination and will prevent that person from getting to Heaven and don’t say stop, I’m condemning that person to hell. The kind and loving thing is to tell that person the consequences of their actions and ask them to stop.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/7/2015 @ 10:14 pmshe’s already been accommodated though
the other clerks are doing the licenses without her name on it
that’s what poochie wanted
so what’s her problem now? it’s an enigma
and just because a religion sanctions bigotry does not make bigotry right
it’s still bad, bad to where you need to check yo self before you wreck yo self
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 2:58 am598.she’s already been accommodated though
the other clerks are doing the licenses without her name on it
Youse gots that backwards.
Da pairs got accommodated.
They got their licenses.
So there’s nothing more to be gained from keeping her in jail.
Unless da judge gets some weird bondage/domination kick out of it.
Which wouldn’t surprise me.
It would be part of the gamut.
A Kentucky court clerk named Giles.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 3:56 amHeard a scream that resounded for miles.
He said, “Goodness gracious,
Has that new bailiff Ignatius
Been told that Judge Bunning has piles?”
So there’s nothing more to be gained from keeping her in jail.
nope nothing more to be gained all she has to say is she won’t order the deputies to stop like how she done before and they can keep doing the licenses without her name on it and there will be peace in the valley, for poochie
so what’s her thang?
all the pieces are now in place for so she doesn’t have to be in contempt anymores
why’s girlfriend still sitting in jail like she don’t got good sense?
she ain’t right in the head
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:06 amEppur si muove.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:14 amkishnevi (2bcf76) — 9/7/2015 @ 7:40 pm
That’s the problem with 500+ comment posts dominated by hf’s BS, the facts get lost.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:16 amgirlfriend gonna need to martyr smarter to be in Mr. G’s league i think
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:20 amHier stehe Ich! [Ich kann nichts anderes tun]. And then they put him on a Diet of Worms.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:24 amOXI!
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:29 am[…]all she has to say is she won’t order the deputies to stop like how she done before and they can keep doing the licenses without her name on it and there will be peace in the valley, for poochie
Why does this statement keep getting repeated? My understanding was, Kentucky law did not allow her to leave her name off the bottom of the licenses no matter who actually signs it. And still does not. Is that not correct? That’s why she was maybe going to wait in jail until January – because that’s when the law could be changed when the legislature reconvenes. It’s the judge who is ramming compliance through by “superseding” the law (is my understand) because he believes he can do that.
In any case, I know for a fact she offered BEFORE to leave her name off the licenses. But that wasn’t acceptable to the judge, who (apparently) just wants obedience and submission, as someone said above. She must be punished until she agrees to his opinion of SSm in thought and deed. That does indeed make him the bigot.
I want to compliment you on your refusal to stop calling her “poochie,” hf. A clever portmanteau of “pooch” and “coochie,” (which two descriptors you clearly agree with) it also manages to insult her according the the Urban Dictionary definition DRJ looked up. The best part of your using it? As several others have said or implied, it immediately in bright shining lights handily a) identifies you as someone whose statements about her are clearly not serious advancements of your position and b) makes obvious your position stems from bigotry and hate.
You’re the hater and the bigot here, hf, not Davis. I don’t expect you to admit it on this thread but guaranteed, everyone else here sees it clear as day.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:40 amOXI!
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:29 am
Do you celebrate that, nk? Happy Ochi Day!
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:42 amMy understanding was, Kentucky law did not allow her to leave her name off the bottom of the licenses no matter who actually signs it. And still does not. Is that not correct?
obviously if Rowan County is a.) issuing licenses without her name on it (and it’s undisputed that they are)
and b.) this solution meets with the approval of the judge what is holding her in contempt (which it clearly does since the deputy clerks aren’t languishing in the pokey),
then this is not a pertinent issue anymore
so what’s the dill, pickle
i will ignore your puerile name calling for the nonse
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:45 am*nonce* i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:45 amThank you, nooc.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:48 amyour puerile name calling
LOL
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:50 amobviously if Rowan County is a.) issuing licenses without her name on it (and it’s undisputed that they are)
and b.) this solution meets with the approval of the judge what is holding her in contempt (which it clearly does since the deputy clerks aren’t languishing in the pokey),
then this is not a pertinent issue anymore
so what’s the dill, pickle
Yes! Yes! Yes! Why is she in jail? To compel what?
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:51 amYes! Yes! Yes! Why is she in jail? To compel what?
i fear it’s cause she’s still resolved to order the deputies to stop issuing licenses upon her release Mr. nk
she’s not thinking clearly
and I don’t know how to help her
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:53 amThat is an illegal reason to keep her locked up. Also very Fascist. Not to mention Stalinist, Maoist and Pol Potist. But most of all illegal.
Did I mention that it’s illegal?
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:03 amall i can tell you Mr. nk is the quickest way out of that cell is for pooch to comply with the judge’s order
which basically means telling him that she’ll comply
now that they don’t need her name on the form anymore she should be able to tell the judge she can comply and then he’ll let her go and she can go get her some tasty flapjacks and set back on the trailer porch with her corncob pipe while she enjoys the last gorgeous vestiges of this most sublime kentucky summer
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:11 amNotice to all, happyfeet’s comments are getting special attention due to his use of a propaganda tool known as “jamming”. (see https://patterico.com/2015/09/05/volokh-on-a-religious-accommodation-for-kim-davis/#comment-1790032)
Briefly, jamming is using repetition of ridicule and attack instead of logical arguments to wear down opponents and force an end to discussion. (or something like that)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:14 amHis thoughtful comments are welcomed by us guests, his vile propaganda pooping all over the thread are not.
WKWWAAWAWY (We Know Who We Are And We Are Watching You)
Noting that the gov was all supportive of the AG refusing to do his job in defending the KY marriage amendment supported by 75% of the voters,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:19 ambut has refused to lift his little finger to avoid this,
I think Ms. Davis is pointing out the progress in the Fundamental Transformation of America (FTOA),
and is providing a service for us.
I think Ms. Davis is pointing out the progress in the Fundamental Transformation of America (FTOA),
and is providing a service for us.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:19 am
exactly
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:21 amDRJ, if you’re around, I think other folks here would like to see the you know what about you know who that you linked for me you know where.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:21 amI don’t think she started out doing that, MD. Even the judge said he knew that her religious beliefs were sincerely held. But as a side benefit, her actions of conscience sure are pointing up some massive hypocrisy on the part of more than one other government official.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:23 amDRJ, if you’re around, I think other folks here would like to see the you know what about you know who that you linked for me you know where.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:21 am
yes please
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:29 amat this point what she’s showing is the right is just as eager to embrace lawlessness as the left it
this is no bueno
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:33 amI am sure all she did initially was thinking to work out an accommodation from the gov. as other states already have in law. It was a simple request.
(Although I suppose if approval of the AG’s actions required action by the legislature, then the gov has a point about them not being in session.)
I think the saying, “Where there is a will there is a way” applies,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:35 amand the Gov and judge are not willing.
That some people cannot distinguish between lawlessness and principled civil disobedience doesn’t mean that none of us can.
no one of consequence (f4d463) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:36 amat this point what she’s showing is the right is just as eager to embrace lawlessness as the left it
I would argue this is not true. She is willing to sit in jail while the issue is addressed,
from Obama on down the left just gives each other a pass.
It’s called civil disobedience,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:38 amit worked for Martin Luther King, Jr.
high 5 to nooc.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:40 amI am going now, carry on WKWWAAWAWY.
Mr. Dr. all that civil disobedience stuff *did* apply before the issue was in fact addressed.
But there’s now a way for Rowan County to issue marriage licenses without her name on them.
So were left to assume there’s more to this.
My guess is that upon her release she intends to order her deputies to return to the status quo ante.
What other explanation is there for her to be sitting in jail now that she’s gotten the relief she requested?
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:42 amso *we’re* left to assume i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:42 amWhat other explanation is there for her to be sitting in jail now that she’s gotten the relief she requested?
That the judge is an ignorant jackleg hick lawyer who only became a judge because daddy was a Republican U.S. Senator when a Republican was President and does not understand that you do not lock people up for not promising to do what you tell them, but only when they don’t do, or do the opposite of, what you tell them.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:48 amit still doesn’t make any sense Mr. nk
the licenses are being issued without her name on them
so why is the judge keeping her in jail?
is it just a timing thing where they’re set to review the situation at a later date? That doesn’t make sense to me given that you’d think everyone would want this resolved asap.
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:59 amthis makes me so sad
y’all are getting creepy and threatening so I have to go away now
I hate it but i have a lot of responsibility for people and i can’t let internet stuff make it to where i don’t feel safe and if anything happened to where I couldn’t be there for people who need me I’d never forgive myself
i’m sorry it got to this i never would’ve hurt none of you guys ever it never ever occurred to me my whole life
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:07 am630.it still doesn’t make any sense Mr. nk
the licenses are being issued without her name on them
so why is the judge keeping her in jail?
It doesn’t make any sense, daddy. My bed is made, the dishes are washed, my homework is done. Why are you still beating me?
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:13 amThere’s some chance that Mrs. Davis will accomplish an unexpected transformation … the FTOTKDP … the Fundamental Transformation of the Kentucky Democratic Party. It must be increasingly clear to all those little people in all those little counties that their Governor and the Judge don’t just want their taxes, they want their minds and souls as well.
This issue of Imprimus explains the problem on the large scale, as it applies to the U. K. It’s pretty clearly at work in the large urban areas under Democrat control in the U. S. also. The assumption by the DNC (and Hillary!, Bernie, et al) is that same phenomena is at work in all those little counties in flyover country. This episode in tyranny may serve as a sufficiently stark warning to those who haven’t been paying attention for the last eight years that life will be very different in the near future if we continue to stumble down this path.
Now if we could just find a way to begin the FTOTRNC. It’s taken two to dance the tango that got us to where we are today, and McConnell and Boehner fit very nicely into Daniels’ topmost cohort who are enjoying the view of all the little people grubbing for their table scraps.
bobathome (c93b3f) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:22 amy’all are getting creepy and threatening so I have to go away now
Hmm… I think I’ll call foul. Who’s threatened you? They’re answering your posts. Playing the victim, IMO, won’t work at this juncture in your relentless attacks on Davis (trailer porch? corncob pipe? spare me)
I could be wrong, happyfeet, but it seems to me that you want the forum to say whatever you want but not be answered with directness and honesty. That you call that “creepy” and “threatening” is more than a little revealing. Just my opinion.
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:30 amIt doesn’t make any sense, daddy. My bed is made, the dishes are washed, my homework is done. Why are you still beating me?
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:32 amnk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:13 am
Perfect. it does seem the judge is being the perfect bully.
Playing the victim is part of jamming. And I suspect happyfeet is putting us on. Sure, he’s cracked about gay rights, privileges and immunities. But I think he’s enjoying this and not feeling threatened. At least I hope he’s enjoying it, with all the work he’s putting into it.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:48 amAnd I suspect happyfeet is putting us on.
That “if anything happened to where I couldn’t be there for people who need me I’d never forgive myself” was a particularly hilarious touch. Like we’re going to show up at his doorstep with, oh I don’t know, let’s give this a happyfeet fever-dream flourish, a Kentucky double-barrel. And a corncob pipe — to finish off the job!
Yes, happyfeet, I’m laughing at your “I’m a victim” posturing. More than a little ridiculous.
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:01 amThe link Nk mentioned above.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:13 amHas anyone seen use of the cutesy child like affect part of jamming as well, or is it original to hf?
Jesus said that the children of this world (and the ruler of this world) are more clever/sly than the children of God. So many not only never think of doing something like this themselves, they don’t catch on when it’s being done to them. They just politely leave the conversation after saying their piece, meekly,and leaving.
I do hope and pray that the (appropriate) meekness and politeness stays in the face of agitation. It would be a win for the L if just one person loses their cool. (false flag alert)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:17 amthe law seems to apply to some, and ignore others, in practice,
http://pjmedia.com/blog/its-not-classified-because-its-marked-its-marked-because-its-classified/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:18 amFWIW, I read somewhere that in the years after his appointment, that at least some of Bunning’s critics now have a favorable view of him, maybe this was in the WaPo piece previously linked. It seemed on cursory reading that the main complaint was lack of experience at the time of appointment. I don’t think that can’t be a good criticism (or excuse) at this point.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:24 amUnless I missed something.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:26 amcan’tcan“and i can’t let internet stuff make it to where i don’t feel safe”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! HF finally runs out of gas. And it all happened before I got to take my turn.
felipe (b5e0f4) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:31 amIndependent of personal differences (and the name calling I have such trouble with), I want to thank every person who posted seriously regarding their opinions here. I have learned a lot. And that is the value of commenters here. I mean, it’s fun to talk knives with nk (I took your advice; though I want to get back into throwing knives) and firearms with JD (I’m fond of the .357 magnum, with GP100, Marlin 1894S, Vaquero, and SP101). But getting a chance to read what people seriously think—again, on either side of this issue—has great value to me. And it gives me hope.
Thank you all. Especially MD and DRJ.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:35 amDRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:13 am
Thanks, DRJ. I read the document. So how did this guy end up a Federal Judge?
felipe (b5e0f4) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:47 amMD,
I’m sure he’s a competent, conscientious, ethical judge, and I mean that. But this case involves some very difficult legal issues and not every lawyer or judge can handle complex issues when they are cases of first impression, like this. It’s one thing to take existing law and apply it to a similar fact pattern. This is much different and much harder, plus it’s getting national attention and there are time constraints. That’s not a good combination for doing your best legal work.
Eugene Volokh’s article analyzes these issues and he *almost* makes it sound simple, but it’s not. Again, this isn’t a slam on the judge. There aren’t many lawyers who can consistently decipher issues like this. Volokh can and so can Ted Cruz, which is why some of us like him so much. There are others who can, too, but many others can’t. I know I couldn’t have done this.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:48 amfelipe,
There’s a lot of state and local politics involved in who gets appointed to be federal district court judges. I know about Texas politics but not Kentucky’s.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:58 amDRJ, he has shown a history of inflicting the gay agenda on hs students, the gov has a hx of backing the AG declining to do his duty in support of the SSM agenda.
I don’t trust anyone at face value anymore unless I have specific direct reason to. Not paranoid, just evidence.
One doesn’t have to be brilliant to listen to somebody say, “Look,see how NC and Utah and other states are handling this”. There is no evidence that he was willing to do that. It should have been an obvious upcoming issue, kennedy even said so in the opinion. Not all other states did what the KY gov chose to do. If one state didn’t take into consideration of what other state were doing, I say that is arrogance or failure of thoroughness.
I appreciate your fair mindedness. I try to be so too. But I have come to see all that does, too often, is put one at a disadvantage when being manipulated.
If sufficient evidence is shown to the contrary of my concerns, I will apologize on these pages (in all CAPS even…)
We do need to pray that truth will out, that’s all.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:59 amMD,
Let me put it this way: Judges typically deal with legal subjects they know or that involve cases that are similar to cases that have already been decided. They can use the other cases like we might use a road map to get to someplace we’ve never been before, but that others have been. This case is like going to the North Pole. There aren’t very good maps and roads, so you have to plot your course from scratch. It takes greater skills to do that.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:08 amThere’s no reason to trust someone, but if a decision is well-reasoned then it stands for itself. I’m not convinced this decision stands for itself.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:11 amWe are a nation of laws, not men. People have biases and they always will, but people will follow laws that make sense, no matter what type of biased human made them. The best legal decisions aren’t the most popular ones, they are the ones that convince people they are right.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:14 amI’m not a lawyer, DRJ, but I truly worry that this is a matter of what the judge feels instead of interpreting the law.
And that worries me, because I see it many places today (HRC’s server, for example). It quickly evolves into “humblebrags,” where people sprain their shoulders patting themselves on the back for GoodThink.
That means that people who don’t agree with GoodThink must be bad, demonized, and forced to accept GoodThink.
Which worries me, because GoodThink is entirely dependent on the ever changing and malleable culture. Just look at changes over five year periods…
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:19 amWe all let our feelings guide our decisions, including judges. It’s part of how we make decisions. I don’t want yo be judged by a Spock who has no emotions, but I also don’t want emotions to overcome logic. It’s hard to be a judge but good ones make it look easy. (Remember Solomon?) The best judges are good because they write well -researched, thoughtful opinions that convince us they are right, or as right as they can be. And even the best judges have bad days.
Are there terrible, biased judges? Yes, absolutely. Maybe this is one but I don’t see it at this point. I see a judge who wants to be approved.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:28 amI agree with DRJ. I think he wants to go with the Obergefell flow and get attaboys from the gay Mafia and from those parts of the legal and judicial communities who don’t want to still be dealing with Obergefell fifty years after, like we still are with Roe v. Wade.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:45 amAnd he is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He would not be there but for daddy.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:46 amPlus his mother says he doesn’t agree with the Obergefell decision, so there’s that. People are also protesting at his home. I bet he won’t let that change his mind, though, just like the clerk won’t change her mind. This is a stalemate for now.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:49 amIt’s up to the governor to end this, but will he?
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:52 amLong thread and pardon me if I have not read it all. I think this woman is doing the right thing although I personally don’t care about gay marriage and I am agnostic. This is a tolerant country and the gays have over reached. They want, not just tolerance, but approval and from everyone. The aggressive actions in California after Prop 8 were an early warning. The Mormon Church was attacked. A woman was fired from her job as a waitress in a Mexican restaurant because she had donated to Prop 8. The gays threatened a boycott and the restaurant folded. The judge who declared it unconstitutional, married his gay lover afterward.
The backlash is coming and this woman, if she has the guts to stick it out, may be the Rosa Parks of this situation. Black churches were heavy supporters of Prop 8. It will be interesting. I think somebody said “Hard cases make bad law.”
We may yet see Muslims throwing gays from rooftops here and the Christians will watch silently. I hope it doesn’t get there but they will have brought this on themselves with this triumphalism.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:00 amIt’s up to the governor to end this, but will he?
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:52 am
He does have the power to do that without the legislature having reconvened yet, is that right?
and since I’m asking — don’t know the details of her refusal post-jail. Is it true, as I’ve read, that even though other clerks are signing the licenses, her name remains at the bottom? And is that why one of the “solutions” was to wait until January to let the legislature change that requirement?
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:00 amWe may yet see Muslims throwing gays from rooftops here and the Christians will watch silently. I hope it doesn’t get there but they will have brought this on themselves with this triumphalism.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:00 am
Not sure what you mean. I don’t know of a single Christian who would stand still for a gay — or anyone, for that matter — being thrown off a roof. Or physically attacked in any way. And, from my viewpoint, anyway, it’s those who support SSM who are now engaging in triumphalism. Simon Jester put it well — they pat themselves on the back continually, posting big posters “I’M ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY” on FB and Twitter and so forth. (Yes, have literally seen this.)
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:03 amnk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 8:45 am
Your statement there is what I believe, so if you agree with DRJ, and I agree with you, then why are we interacting as if we don’t agree???
DRJ, as I have said before, we were a nation of laws, there are too many examples of lawlessness in the highest offices of the land to say we are a nation of laws anymore.
That said, I do not support the flaunting of the law. Ms. Davis made a very reasonable appeal to solve a problem already solved elsewhere. Her appeal has been ignored, she has been willing to go to jail in protest of what she feels is an unjust state of affairs, and for that I applaud her, even if I would not have necessarily made the same decisions she has.
If all of the law-abiding people quietly slink back into their holes as told while the L flaunts the law, that gets us where we are today and worse.
It’s either jail when publicizing the cost of dissent now or worse later.
What happened on this thread is a microcosm, a pitiful analogy in some ways, one disgustingly rude person can forego logic and just keep dumping BS until everybody else gets fed up and leaves, or people wise up and say, “no, we’re not going to let you get away with your scheme”. Non-violent civil disobedience is the same thing a step or three up in intensity.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:04 amThe more I think it over, the more I think the judge has rather limited options.
He issued an order to Davis that said, in effect, do the job you are supposed to do.
Davis refuses.
The solution is in the hands of the governor and legislature. He can not order them to do anything, since they are not parties to the suit. He can not rewrite the statutes of Kentucky ( more precisely, he could, but only by stretching judicial activism and federal interference in state affairs even more than SCOTUS and Obama have done).
He can not say to everyone, you just have to wait until January and give Davis a free pass until then.
Where he is at fault is not writing his opinion in a way that clarifies the governor needs to take action now
(To be clear, I think Volokh’s proposed accommodations by executive or judicial fiat would be valid, and that the solution us, like in North Carolina, a statute passed by the legislature.)
kishnevi (86e9bc) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:06 amThanks for contributing, Mike K. yes,you said that before, but you saying it 2 (or even 10) times on a thread with 650+ comments is necessary,especially when 100’sof the posts have been hf’s crap.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:07 amI especially appreciate it as you are one of the few who are not really sympathetic to her religious views but see the threat to our republic at stake.
He does have the power to do that without the legislature having reconvened yet, is that right?
Volokh says he does, but I disagree with that. At best they would be stopgaps and subject to challenge.
But I think he does not want to. He certainly seems to have no interest in arranging a temporary work around.
kishnevi (86e9bc) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:12 amHere is a very pertinent question,for people with legal knowledge (and time) to look up:
When the AG of KY refused to do his job and defend the KY hetero marriage amendment to the Constitution, leading to a private person being hired to do it paid with taxpayer money, was he given a pass by the gov or by the action of the legislature?
Is the gov willing to intervene for a SSM supporter but not a SSM dissenter?
This interested person wants to know.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:13 amDRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 7:13 am
didn’t know anything about him so this was helpful. Thanks.
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:13 amI think Volokh’s proposed accommodations by executive or judicial fiat would be valid
Just realized I left out a small but important word there. It should be “would not be valid”.
kishnevi (86e9bc) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:15 amJust realized I left out a small but important word there. It should be “would not be valid”.
kishnevi (86e9bc) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:15 am
Interesting. Wonder what Davis’ lawyers are telling her about the various options. Sure hope she doesn’t have to stay in jail for very long.
no one of consequence (325a59) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:19 amHasn’t the judge imposed a “non-valid” solution of his own? She is not signing them, how can they be valid with people in her office signing them without her? If they can be authorized to sign them without her approval, he orders that and she doesn’t need to be in jail.
With my little knowledge of the law and my limited reading, the most appropriate remedy is for the County executive to sign them because “the clerk is absent”, which is what KY law already says.
the CO said he would not sign them because he wasn’t sure if he had jurisdiction since it was not true that the clerk was “truly absent”.
From my ignorant view, it looks to me that they are working hard to eliminate solutions that would accommodate her, even options that are “more legal” than what they are doing.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:23 amWhen the AG of KY refused to do his job and defend the KY hetero marriage amendment to the Constitution, leading to a private person being hired to do it paid with taxpayer money, was he given a pass by the gov or by the action of the legislature?
It was the governor, MD. At least he’s claiming that it was.
nk (dbc370) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:27 amMy prayer is that she and her family are given the grace and strength to stay in jail as long as necessary.
I guess we are waiting on what the appeals court says next. I wonder what their opinions are.
There’s this (obviously not detailed enough to conclude anything):
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:32 amIn response to the Governor’s ensuing decision to appoint another attorney to argue the case, Cothran said, “If I were the Governor, I’d get another attorney too.”
from: http://www.citizenlink.com/2014/03/04/kentucky-attorney-general-bails-on-voters-refuses-to-appeal-marriage-case/
He could have abstained, kishnevi. That would have legally pressured the Governor and Legislature to step in in order to resolve this so people wouldn’t have to leave the county to get licenses. This is especially true given that the clerk had sued the governor to get an accommodation in August 4. You act like it’s such a big deal to go to another county but the state court proceeding was already in place. Further, is it such a burden if it’s only for a few weeks or months? The ban had been in place since June and only 4 sets of plaintiffs sued, including one set from Lexington. They had to travel to Rowan County to get the license.
I’m still not clear whether the judge considered accommodations. He only mentioned it once in his Order, and that was simply to say the clerk had asked for an accommodation. The judge seems to have taken the view that the importance of getting local licenses outweighed the clerks religious beliefs so he wouldn’t even address the possibility of an accommodation. I get that. It’s the idea that we must keep the trains running on time, which is appealing in theory but it’s not the law.
E do allow people religious accommodations if they don’t cause an undue burden. It’s tempting to say anything that interferes with licensing is, by definition, an undue burden, but I don’t think that’s what the law says.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:34 amSo,if the gov can excuse the AG from his task defending an amendment voted on by 75% of the KY public,
how can he “in good conscience” deny an accommodation for a clerk on an order voted on by 5 of 9 SCOTUS????
other than he doesn’t want to and hides behind legalese
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:35 amThe clerk’s attorneys claim the licenses issued after her jailing are void. That probably means they don’t have her name on them, or maybe that they do but she says they aren’t authorized.
He also said the judge could have ordered the licenses be changed to delete her name. I feel sure they argued that and provided legal authority, but I’m not sure a federal judge would have jurisdiction to change a state form. On the other hand, federal judges do a lot of things that impact states, so he may be right.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:42 amAgain, in my limited understanding, judge “deems County clerk not available for marriage licenses” (pending legislative action) and the County Executive has clear jurisdiction.
I bet the Gov could have done that to.
there’s a way if there was a will.
BTW, do you remember all of those Dem. state AG’s thrown in jail for refusing to do their duty as voted on by the majority of their state?
If we were a nation of laws,that would have happened before Davis being put in jail.
Got…to…go…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:46 amI agree this case is starting to focus on the governor, MD. I don’t know the judge’s motivations but I think there is evidence the governor doesn’t want to act, especially since he was sued on August 4 by the clerk but has thus far refused to address accommodations. He is the clerk’s focus now, not the judge.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:46 amThe pleadings say that, although the county judge has authority to issue licenses “in the clerk’s absence,” the judge believed her refusal to act constituted a legal absence. That’s a legitimate podition. Of course, being in jail is an absence but her deputies are issuing the licenses now, so it’s not needed.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:48 amCorrection: … her refusal to act did not constitute a legal absence,
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:50 amAh, I see Ted Cruz is on the case…
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 9:59 amI can “relax” now and go get some work done…
The visits by Cruz and Huckabee may pressure the governor even more, because this story will continue to be in the news.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:02 amWhat happened on this thread is a microcosm, a pitiful analogy in some ways, one disgustingly rude person can forego logic and just keep dumping BS until everybody else gets fed up and leaves
MD, I’m really puzzled why anyone in this forum is all that bothered by the person in question. Such a reaction indicates the observer takes that person all that seriously, which — in light of that person writing and sounding like a brat — says more about the observer than the person being observed.
The phrase to keep in mind is: “Love me or hate me, but please don’t ignore me.”
Mark (dc566c) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:06 amI don’t know of a single Christian who would stand still for a gay — or anyone, for that matter — being thrown off a roof.
I certainly wouldn’t recommend it but I wonder. The Muslim invasion of Europe is not going to stay there.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:10 amSome are, mark.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:17 amI am not so much bothered by him,
but I do not like the idea of letting him drown out rationality, and spend much more time commenting than I would like. I’ve used up my next 3 months of allowable time in the last 3 days.
drown out rationality?
i was right all morning and y’all were meandering all over the place not asking the right questions except for nooc did pick up the ball after i left at #659
if you recall i said this
and also i said this
among many other perspicacious comments what foreshadowed the judge’s action today
i should get a prize like my very own corncob pipe
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:38 amoh and I see I misunderstood Mr. nk at #619
my bad
but a lot of you guys are getting really creepy how fixated on me you are
(not to name any names)
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:42 amHey, a lot of us have thought you’ve been very creepy for a very long time how you are fixated on being pornographically rude and repeating your disgusting phrases
besides, “jamming”
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:48 amhttps://patterico.com/2015/09/05/volokh-on-a-religious-accommodation-for-kim-davis/#comment-1790193
always trust content from happyfeet is the takeaway I guess
I’m jamming! I’m jamming!
i hope you like jamming too
happyfeet (a037ad) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:51 amShe has been released.
narciso (7c7aed) — 9/8/2015 @ 11:03 amwell pluperfect tense:
http://therightscoop.com/breaking-kim-davis-to-be-released-from-jail/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/8/2015 @ 11:35 amYou act like it’s such a big deal to go to another county but the state court proceeding was already in place
I’m going by what Volokh says regarding the “next county over” argument. Here is the paragraph in which he discusses the issue, and cites two cases that say, in effect, plaintiffs should not have to go to the next town, much less the next county, to get a license.
And if you getting married, made all the arrangements, would you think it reasonable to be told, “Sorry, you have to wait a few months until the lawyers make up an arrangement that satisfies me”?
kishnevi (d764f4) — 9/8/2015 @ 12:05 pmMark (dc566c) — 9/8/2015 @ 10:06 am
Well, for one thing, the substance of what he says is mostly what most people here agree with. The only real exceptions are on abortion and SSM. And some of us agree with him (well, at least me )even on SSM. [He seems to be out on his own limb regarding abortion and PP.]
It’s the style–the smutty insults to various female public figures, the insults to people who think SSM is wrong–that is the turn off. I agree with him on SSM, but I don’t agree that makes the opponents (which of course includes a bunch of people here) into backwoods bigots. Or urban bigots, or any other kind of bigot.
And his interjection of culinary discussion into various threads may be comic relief, but in some places radically inappropriate. Reading about desserts in the middle of a thread devoted to PP’s abuse of fetal remains leaves, so to speak, a very bad taste in my mouth.
kishnevi (d764f4) — 9/8/2015 @ 12:16 pmkishnevi,
I agree that courts have held a temporary infringement of First Amendment rights unacceptable, but I don’t think that means there can be no infringement when (1) there are competing rights at issue, and/or (2) during the pendency of litigation regarding the competing rights (and any accommodation, undue burden, etc.). Each of the cases cited by Volokh involved a temporary infringement of the rights while the cases were decided, and that’s what I’m suggesting here.
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 2:00 pmBy the way, I think I would be very unhappy if my wedding plans were put on hold. I might even be inclined to travel to another county for a license, as the plaintiffs in Ezell vs City of Chicago did to get their handgun training, while the lawsuit worked its way through the courts. I suspect they were all unhappy at that inconvenience. I bet this clerk is also unhappy about the temporary infringements on her First Amendment rights.
PS — Did you know that 11 days ago, on August 28, 2015 — well before the clerk was jailed — the Kentucky Attorney General said he is fine with removing the Clerk’s names from the marriage licenses? Why was all this drama even necessary?
DRJ (521990) — 9/8/2015 @ 2:06 pmUm, DRJ, I think I know. But I hope I am wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Gl8aMOpcg
I don’t like the book ad, but I like the commentary even less.
It takes a village, redux. Which depends entirely upon the village.
Again, I hope I am wrong.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/8/2015 @ 2:17 pmSomething I haven’t seen brought up yet, and might be, in the words of Joe Biden “a big f’ing deal”…
Legal documents from government agencies usually need the top office-holder’s signature.
The top office-holder has a rubber stamp that has that signature.
Lower level people use that rubber stamp to affix the top office-holder’s signature to something without that person being present.
If the top office-holder is in jail because she won’t sign,
John Hitchcock (81341d) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:28 pmAnd lower level people are affixing the rubber stamp of the top office-holder,
Could that be considered a forged document?
Perry used that tactic all the time.
John Hitchcock (81341d) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:34 pmSpew forth asininity constantly, then accuse people who stood up to his asininity of being fixated on him, them having the problems, not him. Of course, like Perry, hf’s asininity is what is causing the blowback against hf. Because hf is an arse, a disease, an infection in the community, completely unreasonable and illogical in his rejection of all facts presented before him, so he can be a “pornographic” “vulgar” “bigot” and arse. And yes, according to MD and me, he is most definitely a heretic.
you’re a blowback
happyfeet (25a710) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:47 pmIf the deputies have continuing authority to use the stamp, and the chief is eligible to sign if she were there, probably no problem.
The trigger would not be that she was in jail, but if she was suspended from her duties by the governor because she was charged with a crime. (That, roughly, is how it works in Florida. I would assume Kentucky has a similar procedure.)
At which point some new official assumes her duties and they make a new stamp.
But remember, in this case, everyone is trying to avoid putting her name on the document. In a way, it is the reverse of what you are suggesting.
kishnevi (480bf9) — 9/8/2015 @ 4:57 pmDRJ,
I would agree re having wedding plans disrupted and having to be inconvenienced by driving to another county -if y priority was to be wed to the person I love. When gay couples, however, drove to Rowan County from out of state just to get rejected by Davis,being wed to their beloved was not the priority.
Dana (c2a627) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:03 pm#477
steveg (fed1c9) — 9/8/2015 @ 5:07 pmCA State AG Kamala Harris and Gov. Jerry Brown did the same, but laws, rules and regulations are for the little people.
As of today I do not care at all for petty bureaucrat Davis, but I do care about religious liberty.
My personal opinion is that Jesus dealt with this in his interactions with government well enough for us to understand that who or what we give ourselves over to can rule us.
You take the paycheck of big government, then it owns you. The Governor of KY and the Judge Bunning seem to be intent on making an example of her.
yes yes yes the ethos of public service is pretty much a dead letter anymores
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:10 pmThe ethics of hf is pretty much Bill Clinton.
John Hitchcock (81341d) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:13 pmi don’t even play golf
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:14 pmYou don’t even try to understand reasoning or Christianity as relating to the Bible. You also got the pretty Dana to curse at you, DRJ to tell you to knock it off, JD to tell you to stop, DR to declare you a heretic, and those are the more circumspect individuals on here telling you that you are
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
John Hitchcock (81341d) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:18 pmoh huh
happyfeet (831175) — 9/8/2015 @ 6:19 pmI’d like to know what specific law Mrs. Davis broke. Not contempt of court, but what actual law given that on the federal and state level only the legislature can legally make law. So what law did she break?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/8/2015 @ 11:45 pm