Home / General / “State Officials Interposing Themselves Between Individuals and Their Rights is Deep in Our Heritage”

“State Officials Interposing Themselves Between Individuals and Their Rights is Deep in Our Heritage”

Comments
/
/
/
919 Views

Kim Davis, Kentucky county clerk firmly committed to the principle that marriage is between a woman and a man, and then another man, and then another man, and then another man*, continues to defy court orders on behalf of that most sacred of all rights, the right to refuse to do your job while still getting paid. Kentucky’s candidate for governor supports the ability of state officials to deny the rights of the state’s citizens based on their arbitrary whims:

A Kentucky clerk who is refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay couples is set to become an issue in the state’s gubernatorial race, as the leading Republican and Democratic candidates take opposing views of her actions.

“I absolutely support her willingness to stand on her First Amendment rights,” said GOP Kentucky gubernatorial candidate Matt Bevin on a national conference call, according to The Courier-Journal. “Without any question I support her.”

I’m sure he would feel the same way if state officials started withholding their services to him on the grounds that his economic views were inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount.

Part of me feels some sympathy for Davis, who’s clearly being used by cynical conservative litigators. Then I see the casual contempt with which she treats the citizens whose rights she is denying, and my sympathy pretty much vanishes.

*It may seem like cheap shot to bring up her serial marriages, but I don’t think it is. The tendency to be more rigorous about enforcing biblical principles when they impose burdens on others than when they impose burdens on you is one of the many reasons we don’t want state officials selectively applying the law according to their own “principles.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Thirtyish

    Justice Kagan’s entreaty to Davis to basically pound sand was most gratifying to behold.

    • Joe_JP

      Kagan didn’t say anything. She simply referred her petition to the Court, which rejected it without comment.

  • Randy

    Suppose a clerk decided issuing concealed carry permits for handguns violated her deeply held Christian beliefs: Handguns are carried for self-defense, and Jesus spent more time disapproving of self-defense than he did gay marriage. Would all of this clerk’s supporters still be cool with that?

    • Crusty

      I’ll bet they would not be cool with that.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      Well, *I* violate my firmly held religious beliefs, each and every day that I refrain from planting a sharp ax in the heads of annoying christianists.

      It seems that those christianists are of two minds when it comes to whether religious beliefs should be respected. I can help them with that, if needed.

      • Karen24

        A good friend of mine is an Odinist. She promises me that if she’s ever diagnosed with a terminal illness, she’s going to perform the Blood Eagle sacrifice on her ex-husband and use her right to the free exercise of her religion as a defense.

        • timb

          Scalia might be okay as long as she didn’t use peyote in the ritual. Wine is one thing, Peyote is another

          • The Temporary Name

            Wine is one thing, peyote another,
            Kiss your cousin, it’s fine,
            But don’t tongue-kiss your mother.
            You can torture and maim
            In the president’s name,
            But be nice to puppies
            Or there ends the ballgame.
            Oh what in the world can I do?
            All I want is to sacrifice you.

            • rhino

              I think I love you.

          • ajp

            I still think Smith is one of Scalia’s best opinions, and was decided correctly*. Mark Tushnet agrees with me, although I can’t find an interesting piece he wrote on the subject.

            *Never thought I’d side with Scalia over Brennan and Marshall.

            • Scott Lemieux
            • cpinva

              there have actually been two cases I agreed with Scalia on: National Starch (I’m pretty sure this was Scalia) & Schlier v. Commissioner.

              when he isn’t just being an idiotic, contrarian dick for the heck of it, he can do some pretty good opinionating.

    • Warren Terra

      What, you don’t credit the recent edit that has Jesus saying “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, load the other clip”?

      • cpinva

        this must be from the new King James edition, the hip one, for today’s manly man.

  • DrDick

    Actually bringing up her serial marriages is entirely apt and on point. Unlike homosexuality or same sex marriage, completely unmentioned by the Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef, there is a specific New Testament injunction against divorce.

    • guthrie

      The typically sexist wording of that seems to say that only the man can divorce, and only if his wife has been unfaithful. Which in the current situation would be slanderous or whatever to comment about.

      • BigHank53

        Actually, US News sent one of their reporters down to take a look at the publicly available divorce filings, and (snort) her twins were born five whole months after her divorce from husband #1. The father was not, as one might expect, husband #2, but husband #3. Husband #2 did legally adopt ’em.

        Far more egregious than her personal morals with regards to the marriage oath (and the persons she believes should be able to indulge in one) is that fact that this theocratic dimbulb is pulling down a six-figure salary. Apparently her family is the big cheese in this county and she feels entitled to perpetual graft.

        • sparks

          Does she get overtime or extra pay? I heard the figure $80,000 bandied about for the position.

          • BigHank53

            That’s my error; I have no idea where I saw the $110k number. I can only find the $80k figure today, so I’d believe that.

            Still a lot of money in rural Kentucky.

            • sparks

              That much is true, yes.

            • cpinva

              “Still a lot of money in rural Kentucky.”

              puts her in the top 1% in that county. my guess is she lives in a very, very nice house, relative to those of most of the people she’s supposed to be serving.

        • MAJeff

          But she got her “Get out of Jail Free” card by becoming a Christian four years ago.

          • cpinva

            yeah, I like that idea. be a dick for your entire life, engage in promiscuous sex, lie, cheat, steal, abuse your neighbors then, just before you cash it in, “find” god, and you start back at square one, good to go right through the pearly gates.

            actually, from my catholic school larnin, it doesn’t actually work that way. you are expected to do some penance first, then purgatory then, if things work out and you don’t screw up in purgatory, you just might make it to heaven. all of this could take a few millennia, but it’s not like you have anything better to do, so……………………..

            • rhino

              And genuflect, genuflect,genuflect…

              With apologies to the disappointed ghost of Tom Lehrer.

            • actually, from my catholic school larnin, it doesn’t actually work that way. you are expected to do some penance first

              That’s them wacky prayin-to-dead-people Catholics. Protestants (of which I assume on no evidence or research that Ms Davis is one, of the Southern Baptist variety) get the get-into-heaven-free card immediately, courtesy of the Prodigal Son in the parable of the same name.

            • Pseudonym

              From what I remember of my Catholic school larnin’, once you’re in purgatory you’re eventually destined for heaven, it’s just a matter of when. Hence the name, since you’re being purged of the temporal effects of your sin.

        • rm

          Her mother held this elected position before her, for many years. That’s how it works in this part of the world. The county, however, also is home to a state university campus, which means there is a cultural rift between a lot of the residents of the county and the local clan-loyalty-above-all culture.

          • Humpty-Dumpty

            Can we get Raylan Givens to haul her off to the pokey for her contempt sentence?

            • Ahuitzotl

              whats the over/under on corpses created in that effort?

        • Apparently her family is the big cheese in this county

          I understand the position to be a dynastic one. She inherited the job from her father and expects to pass it on to her son.

          • Brad Nailer

            The Divine Right of County Clerks; how could I have missed it? Is this 2015 or 1615?

            • Ahuitzotl

              1115 – we’re just working our way up to another crusade.

              • cpinva

                if it would clear all these bozos out, I’d be all for it.

    • Katya

      Not to mention, I suspect she would not meekly accept it if a clerk refused to issue her a license for her second marriage on the ground that she was divorced and the clerk’s religious beliefs forbade a divorced person from remarrying.

    • Dick Manley

      It wasn’t conservatives who pushed no-fault divorce, it was radical liberals in their war against the family.

      • John not McCain

        It’s just conservatives who take advantage of no-fault divorce, whenever they wanna fuck something else.

        • Dick Manley

          If you don’t like it end no-fault divorce.

          • John not McCain

            Or maybe people like Kim Davis could just live by their religious beliefs and not get divorced. But it turns out conservatives are liars.

        • MAJeff

          Ignore Jenny

          • Jay B

            But I have few problems with no-fault divorce and no problems with gay marriage. Does this make me a hypocrite somehow? Signed, “Constance McKinley”

      • The Dark Avenger

        I don’t have any children because I’m a conscientious objector.

      • Brad Nailer

        You’re right. Now go find me a liberal who won’t issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

      • CD

        it was radical liberals

        Like California Governor Ronald Reagan, who signed the first no-fault divorce bill into law.

    • sharculese

      Does Jesus ever specifically mention theft? Because I kind of feel like that’s what she’s doing every day she takes a salary for a job she refuses to do.

      • dn

        Sure does. Right in the same chapter (Mark 10) where He attacks divorce:

        And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

        And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

        Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

      • sanity clause

        Yes, he does. Mark 10:19 is one for-instance. (And it follows on the heels of Jesus saying that Kim Davis has been committing adultery in her last two marriages (Mark 10:12). So that’s two of the Big Ten commandments that Kim Davis is breaking.

        Which makes “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” relevant. That’s Matthew 7:3 for those keeping score at home.

    • Yankee

      Actually the proscription is against remarriage … see also Mark 10.. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

      But the main point is that the woman has forsworn a secular oath … which, strictly speaking, she shouldn’t have made.

    • Another reason is the frequent refrain that “gay marriage will destroy marriage as an institution.” Davis’s love life is an illustration of the fact that the institution of marriage in her cultural community has been getting destroyed for decades. As country music fans well know.

      The movement against marriage equality is an attempt to blame the destruction of redneck marriage on an innocent outsider group: but people like Davis and her husbands brought it on themselves.

      • swkellogg

        “The movement against marriage equality is an attempt to blame the destruction of redneck marriage on an innocent outsider group…”

        Nah, they just hate gay people.

      • ThrottleJockey

        Davis’s love life is an illustration of the fact that the institution of marriage in her cultural community has been getting destroyed for decades. As country music fans well know.

        Davis’ love life is a country song! Her behavior, not gay people’s, is why families are in danger!

    • ajp

      Ask her if she issues marriage licenses to divorced people. If she’s going to hide behind Christianity, force her to be consistent.

  • mikeSchilling

    Serial marriage is a long-standing tradition in Western culture — it’s what makes the Julio-Claudian family tree so damned convoluted..

    • I don’t know if this is Robert Graves or fact or both, but it’s my understanding that it was a divorce-hating Augustus that spread the one-man one-woman rule through the Empire–“traditional marriage” was a pagan Roman tradition, not a Judeo-Christian one. Kind of like Christmas.

      • timb

        He was such a weird old man….divorced his own first 2 wives and broke up Livia’s marriage while she was 5 months pregnant. One wonders if Augustus would have spoken to Octavian

  • John not McCain

    ‘Tis pity she’s a whore.

    • kayden

      No one here is calling her a whore. It’s perfectly fine to point out that she’s a hypocrite.

      • John not McCain

        Her lifestyle is notorious, the cause of comment in the community, and makes jesusanity look bad. No one need call her anything. She marks herself.

        Besides, this is happening in Kentucky and therefore an incest joke is mandatory.

        • CD

          Fuck off. Plenty of real issues here without adding this bullshit.

  • Joe_JP

    Her lawyer noted that she converted after her marriages so we should focus on her consistency now. Fine. Her religion appears to be against divorce. She is okay with giving licenses to people who remarry. Why? So, maybe Scott’s footnote does still have force.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      Well, one could hope that when she gets hauled in front of the Federal judge, if she still doesn’t want to issue SSM licenses she’s told:

      “FINE. Then your previous divorces and subsequent marriages are hereby NULLIFIED, you’re still married to that first asshole. Have a nice day.”

    • Rob in CT

      It’s a “family values” version of IGMFY.

    • kayden

      How would the public know when she converted? And what difference does that make? Her lawyer is silly to think that her hypocrisy is impacted by when she was supposedly converted. Plus, there are Christians who wholeheartedly accept marriage equality and don’t believe that gays can be fellow converted Christians.

  • sleepyirv

    On the bright side, if this is the “Governor blocking the school doors” reaction to SSM, it’s pretty clear that it’s been a complete victory for the good guys.

    • petesh

      Her Indiegogo beg for money has raised $2 in five days, with a goal of $75,000.

      I am also fascinated with the fact that her mother held the job for forty years before her. It adds that frisson of nepotistic entitlement that goes so well with schadenfreude. She was elected herself, admittedly, but IIRC rather narrowly, making me wonder if there is more of a story to dig up.

      • rea

        her mother held the job for forty years before her.

        And her son is one of her deputies.

  • Dick Manley

    So if a state decides to require all employees to draw Muhammad, Muslim employees would either have to do it or get another job?

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      I was unaware of any state having a job of “official cartoonist”, but sounds legit.

      • Dick Manley

        What if a state decided to require all employees regardlessof thier job to draw Muhammad?

        • Murc

          I don’t think this is Jenny, I think this is Dagney, so I’ll risk engaging, and because I want to get my own thoughts in order on the subject.

          That would almost certainly qualify as an undue burden unless the state could prove a compelling public interest. If, as Snarki said, a state were to have an official cartoonist position (states have done weirder things) then yes, that official cartoonist despite being a devout Muslim could be made to draw Mohammed despite their religious objection, because the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that someone they hired to draw any cartoons they might need drawn draws those cartoons. However, they couldn’t just require a random, say, Muslim secretary at the DMV to do so, because that’s not at all related to their job and the state would have a hell of a time proving they had a compelling interest in forcing people to violate their religious beliefs “just because.”

          In the case of Mrs. Davis, her position requires her to provide services including the issuance of marriage licenses to those eligible to all citizens. The state has a compelling interest in forcing her to do that job regardless of her religious objections. It’s a pretty slam dunk case.

          • Cassiodorus

            Texas has a Twitter Laureate, I believe.

            • rhino

              Is he called ‘the twat’?

          • timb

            Why engage a troll? (besides me when I disagree with you;)

            • Murc

              I don’t think Dagney is a troll; he’s a genuine reactionary Catholic, anti-Vatican II, the works. He’s crazy, of course, but not a troll.

              Also too, I sometimes engage directly with known trolls for two reasons. The first is to help me get my own mind right; if I can’t articulate a convincing statement of position or rebuttal to a known troll, maybe it is time for me to rethink my own positions.

              The second is that you never know who might lurking and sometimes I feel it is best to demonstrate that you can extend good faith even to people who don’t deserve it.

              That said, I’ve stopped doing it with Jenny both out of respect for our hosts, who have indicated they want us to stop doing that even in fun, especially when it creates a new thread, and because Jenny is really, really bad at this.

              • burritoboy

                Hey, hey, hey, I resemble that remark – there’s no reason to smear all of us reactionary Catholics with this nonsense.

              • rhino

                You, I like you.

                Some trolls, a very few, provide an necessary service to the discourse. Some are funny, some keep us on our toes, and some are simply people who disagree with us and as you say require us to get our heads straight…

                Jenny is none of those things.

          • DrDick

            It would also constitute and explicit “religious test”, which is constitutionally prohibited. Importantly, there is nothing in actual Christian teaching to prohibit her from issuing those licenses, even if it does prohibit her for engaging in such a marriage. There is the famous injunction to “render unto Caesar”, which directly relates to this very issue.

            • joe from Lowell

              Importantly, there is nothing in actual Christian teaching to prohibit her from issuing those licenses, even if it does prohibit her for engaging in such a marriage.

              This is key. In the troll’s hypothetical, the analogy isn’t right. The right analogy would be, what if she was ordered to register other people’s Muhammad drawings in, I don’t know, the County Cartoon Registry.

              • dr. fancypants

                The Register of Copyrights would be a good actually existing example.

                I’d be totally fine with a Muslim Register of Copyrights being required to register copyright in cartoons of Muhammad, and would call for their ouster if they refused to do so.

          • It is in fact Jenny, who has used this nym before.

        • Barry_D

          “What if a state decided to require all employees regardlessof thier job to draw Muhammad?”

          Review the First Amendment, and then go f*ck yourself get back to us when you’ve got a clue.

        • If stupidity was outlawed, would you have to kill yourself?

          • swkellogg

            Ouch!

          • Brad Nailer

            Three to eight, with a sentencing recommendation.

      • Troll

        I love that people feed me immediately, no matter how lazy and obvious my trolling is!

    • Karen24

      One could imagine a clerk in Dearborn, MI issuing marriage licenses to Muslim men who want their alloted four wives, and insisting that his religious liberty demands this. Let’s see how far that balloon flies.

      Other options: Catholic state comptroller refuses to issue sale tax exemption certificates to Protestant churches becase “error has no rights;” Jain meat inspectors closing every slaughterhouse and butchershop, and all pest control businesses, because killing any creature is immoral and possibly murdering someone’s reincarnated grandmother; Protestant state comptroller refusing to issue sales tax exemption to Catholic churches because the Bible condemns pagan idolatry. . .

      Any others we could add?

      • swkellogg

        If the Jain meat inspectors cancel Taco Tuesdays it’s war I tell you!

        My reincarnated grandmother be damned!

    • djw

      Obviously, that law would be plainly unconstitutional under the standard articulated by Scalia in Smith.

    • wengler

      Article VI violation.

    • Mike G

      If a Wahhabi clerk at the DMV refused to issue driver’s licenses to women, you’d be fine with that?

    • kayden

      There will never be a situation when the state will demand that all employees draw Muhammad.

      • swkellogg

        Not even a state that would elect someone like say, Louie Gohmert?

    • RobNYNY1957

      The difference is accommodating practices and observances versus accommodating beliefs. Under New York law, for example, businesses are obligated to make reasonable accommodation of employees’ practices and observances: Time off for religious holidays, ritually pure food choices in the company cafeteria. But businesses are not obligated to operate in accordance with employees’ religious beliefs. A business with Moslem and Jewish employees may serve pork in the cafeteria, and one with Mormon employees may serve coffee. A business does not need to allow a Christian employee to refuse to serve Jewish or gay customers. The equivalent to forcing employees to draw a cartoon of Mohammed is not forcing an employee to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, it is forcing an employee to get gay married. The lines, of course, can get blurry, but religion is not a trump card that immunizes against doing one’s job. In government, this is even more important, since one of the fundamental tenets of democracy is that all citizens are to be treated alike, without regard to religion.

    • ajp

      I’m dumber than dogshit

  • Murc

    I’m curious as to what her plan is. Because assuming she actually remains stubborn on this point, here is how it is gonna play out: jail time seems unlikely (this is a civil rights violation, not a criminal act) so she’s most likely going to be fined in ever-increasing amounts. If that doesn’t do the trick, when the Kentucky legislature comes back into session, she’ll be impeached. I know some people have their doubts about this but I doubt even the Kentucky lege is going to let a lowly county clerk continue to make them look bad. That’ll leave her out of money and with no job.

    The one “out” I can see for her here is if she parlays this into becoming a wingnut cause celebre and other peoples donations give her a revenue stream, and then when she’s shitcanned she goes on the wingnut welfare circuit until her 15 minutes are up, banks the money, retires early.

    • sharculese

      Yeah, I kind of feel like that’s the game plan here. What I don’t think she realizes is that it’s only a temporary plan not a career path. The perpetual outrage machine will create the next Kim Davis soon enough, and unless she proves to be an extraordinary grifter she’s gonna be shit out of luck.

      • Richard Hershberger

        Is the wingnut outrage welfare career path still a thing? I get the impression that a lot of people are trying to get in on the action. Surely the action to be gotten in on is not unlimited.

        • Lee Rudolph

          We’ll know for sure that the field has become overcrowded when we see second-generation metascammers setting up vocational schools where for a small fee you can learn how to break into Wingnut Welfare.

          • Gabriel Ratchet

            And, like that, another opportunity opens up for Bristol Palin …

        • sharculese

          Yeah, that’s what I mean. The number of people who make a career out of being a victim of the horrid secular world is probably way lower than the number of people who think they can do it. See eg: that asshole couple with the youtube channel.

          • Lee Rudolph

            that asshole couple with the youtube channel

            The syntax says there’s only one such couple, but the pragmatics says that’s impossible.

            • Thirtyish

              that asshole couple with the youtube channel

              The real question is, which Youtube couple vlogging their lives is not made up of assholes (and not being very familiar with this genre I cannot say definitively), but I do think that sharc is referring to the Raders (or “sam and nia,” as they so cutesily call themselves). I ordinarily have less than zero interest in lifestyle vlogging and/or the culture of white suburbanite families, but ever since I heard about these people’s existence a couple of weeks ago, I’ve been about as unable to look away as I would from a derailing train. It’s the distillation of right-wing Christian culture combined with shallow, narcissistic, special snowflake syndrome.

              • sharculese

                Yup, the Raders. They are kind of the worst.

                • Any relation to Dennis?

                  It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

              • swkellogg

                Yep, if it weren’t for the thoughtfulness displayed in youtube comments sections, the whole thing would be a waste.

                Except maybe for plumbing tips and that guy with the slingshot channel.

    • Randy

      [J]ail time seems unlikely (this is a civil rights violation, not a criminal act)

      It’s contempt of court, since she is in violation of a court’s order to issue marriage licenses. I would hope that it doesn’t come to that, since nothing would make her a wingnut martyr faster than a couple of days in the county lock-up (she could always team up with Dinesh D’Souza).

    • Hogan

      (this is a civil rights violation, not a criminal act)

      Additionally, the clerk risks a potential charge of official misconduct, a misdemeanor that could bring up to a year in jail.

    • Richard Hershberger

      I suggest a fine of one penny the first day she refuses to obey the court order, to be double each day following.

    • karlb

      She doesn’t have the looks for Fox TV. “A face made for radio” is the appropriate term, I believe.
      And she’ll be paying more than fines. Anyone denied a license also has a civil rights claim against her. I’m guessing she’s going to be in debt the rest of her life, and I hope that goes for the family members that are involved in this nepotistic, inbred fiasco.

      • Brian Adamson

        Indeed she has a face made for radio. Unfortunately for her, once anyone’s heard her speak for any length of time, they’ll know right away that she doesn’t have a voice for radio.

        So both of those wingnut welfare routes are out.

        • Lee Rudolph

          She’ll have to write magazine article and newspaper columns, then.

          • rea

            Assuming that she’s literate

            • Lee Rudolph

              Well, to be fair, according to the 1998 National Institute for Literacy survey document THE STATE OF LITERACY IN AMERICA: ESTIMATES AT THE LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL LEVELS, only 16% of the adults in Rowan county were estimated to be at

              level 1 literacy (ability to perform many tasks involving simple texts and documents but difficulty using certain reading, writing, and computational skills considered necessary for functioning in everyday life)

              which beat the Kentucky state level, 19%. (And no state beat Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, tied at 11%.)

    • Scott Lemieux

      she’ll be impeached

      The GOP gubernatorial candidate supporting Davis is a very clear indication that she won’t be impeached. Regrettably, I don’t think incarceration can be taken off the table, although escalating fines should be tried first.

      • Murc

        I confess to not being an expert Kentuckyologist; will they really let someone refusing to do their job just kick back and keep that job indefinitely? I mean… what if she is incarcerated? Will Rowan County simply… not have a working clerk, like at all?

        Because that’s even more insane than usual for a red state.

        • sparks

          Maybe her son can take over.

        • mds

          Because that’s even more insane than usual for a red state.

          Welcome to 2015! Here’s your Recent Revival from Suspended Animation Kit. On page 67, you will find the web address for Charles Pierce’s blog at Esquire. Focus in particular on the entries for “This Week in the Laboratories of Democracy,” a glossy catalogue of reactionary, often seditious batshittery that makes one county clerk getting away with not doing her legally-mandated job pale into insignificance.

          The Alabama legislature has been trying to deal with probate judges shutting their marriage licensing down rather than issue SSM licenses by … replacing the “license” part with “contract.” They’re not punishing the probate judges who are refusing to obey the law; they’re cutting them out of the direct loop. And I predict that shenanigans will still come into play when same-sex couples try to file their contracts.

          • Murc

            I am well aware of Charles Pierce’s joint, yes. (I wish he’d swing by more often.) I can’t believe he’s writing over at Esquire, although he of course has bills to pay; the rest of the site is a stew of clickbait and misogyny, and buried in the middle of it is a guy who is simultaneously one of the best political writers and one of the best sportswriters in the whole country.

            But anyway, I kind of feel like you’re actually buttressing my point. The Alabama (Alabama, of all places!) lege is actually trying to rein in their crazy judges out in the sticks. If Kentucky lets Davis get away with this, they’ll actually be going one better than the Deep South.

            Although you know what they say about Kentucky, the only state to join the Confederacy after the Civil War ended.

            (That is Kentucky, right? Not West Virgnia?)

            • mds

              The Alabama (Alabama, of all places!) lege is actually trying to rein in their crazy judges out in the sticks.

              Well, sorta. They’re letting their judges get away with not obeying the law in the first place, and their “solution” punts enough that a determined probate judge, or some other probate staffer, could probably still cause some mischief. Because they’re not repudiating the principle that the (right-wing Christian) religious beliefs of a government official always trump secular law.

              Similarly, given that there’s a SCOTUS decision at work here, same-sex couples will eventually end up being able to marry in Rowan County regardless of what the state legislature does. But one thing they’re not going to do is punish Davis for her defiance of the law, or pass a law reiterating that government officials in Kentucky have to do their fucking jobs.

    • Joe_JP

      a wingnut cause celebre

      Dan Savage suggested this was her plan. I’m not sure how lucrative this is long term. Also, she might figure especially since it’s Kentucky, the end game won’t be to fire her. Donations/royalties will help pay for any fines and such & the holier-than-thou value of being God’s servant will be just compensation. And, maybe she has limited finances, so getting heavy fines from her is unlikely in the long run. The “holier than thou” tax she will now have to pay in small installments again might be seen as worth the candle.

    • petesh

      It’s not working (so far).

    • MAJeff

      I’m curious as to what her plan is. Because assuming she actually remains stubborn on this point, here is how it is gonna play out: jail time seems unlikely (this is a civil rights violation, not a criminal act) so she’s most likely going to be fined in ever-increasing amounts.

      The county attorney, though, has asked the AG to file charges of “Official Misconduct

      Rowan County Attorney’s Office said on Friday that it has referred to the Attorney General’s Office a charge of official misconduct against Davis. A release from the county attorneys office says Kentucky Bar Association “Rules of the Supreme Court of Kentucky prohibit the Rowan County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting Davis” because they are involved in current litigation with Davis.

      ETA: I see Hogan beat me to it above.

      • DrDick

        It is contempt of court, which routinely results in jail whenever the judge wants it to do so.

    • kayden

      I assume she’s already a wingnut cause celebre and I know that she’s already begging for donations. Those Pizza owners demonstrated that this can be a profitable grift.

  • Lee Rudolph

    Dick Manley spillage in Aisle Three.

    • wjts

      Not one of Jenny’s more imaginative pseudonyms.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        not sure why an idiot is worth parodying, but that seems to be what we have in “dick”

      • Murc

        I don’t think this is Jenny, although I could be wrong; I’m thinking Dagney.

        • Hogan

          Dagney can consistently form grammatical English sentences. This one, not so much.

      • Scott Lemieux

        It’s Jenny, of course.

        • Murc

          Okay, yes, I see now that this is Jenny. I apologize for engaging, I thought Dagney.

    • ajp

      Dick Manley spillage

      Whoa! NSFW tag, please.

  • Derelict

    Of course, the big question is why this woman still has the job. In the private sector that we worship, she would have been on the bricks 30 seconds after refusing the first license. But even if her boss was sympathetic, she still would have been shitcanned minutes after the first lawsuit was filed.

    So why is she still working? Why isn’t she being held up as yet another example of a lazy, incompetent, arbitrary government employee who’s refusing to work is making government not work?

    • Hogan

      It’s an elected position.

    • Dick Manley

      In liberal Minnesota has forced target to set up meat free checkout lanes to accommodate Muslims. If Muslims can do it so can Christians.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        But where are the “NO HOT DOG BUNS” checkout lanes for the Discordians, eh?

      • Robert M.
        • Dick Manley
          • John not McCain

            So Minnesota didn’t force Target to do anything, and there are no such lanes. You do know what liar means, don’t you?

            It’s also interesting that Target is allowing workers who don’t want to handle pork products to not do so. That’s far more generous than adultress Kim Davis, who is refusing to allow any of her deputies to issue marriage licenses.

            • Dick Manley

              They were afraid of being sued like Abercrombie and Fitch was, lawsuits are expensive and they didn’t want to spend the money to defend themselves. Since The Supreme Court has ruled that Abercrombie and Fitch most make exemptions for Muslims Christians should also be allowed exemptions.

              • John not McCain

                And yet the state of Minnesota has not required Target to set up meat-free lanes for Muslim clerks. You, therefore, are either a liar or an idiot.

                But I already knew that.

                • Who says it has to be one or the other?

          • Randy

            You’re not just a liar, you’re stupid. You didn’t read that your story isn’t about “meat free checkout lanes?”

            Employers make reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious beliefs all the time. I used to know of an Orthodox woman who was a cashier at a grocery store who was allowed to wear a skirt instead of the pants other employees had to wear.

          • njorl

            Your own link contradicts what you say, liar.

      • Randy

        That is a bald-faced lie, Dickless. I shop at Target every week, and there are no such signs anywhere.

        And thank you for making me admit I shop at Target.

        • Lee Rudolph

          I shop at Target every week, and there are no such signs anywhere.

          Don’t blame the troll just because you can’t read Arabic!

      • CrunchyFrog

        Like all wingnuts, you lack the ability to think critically.

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/targetsharia.asp

        If I sent you a story that said all climate scientists were caught passing emails discussing how to fabricate their latest study in order to win a grant from George Soros you’d believe it without thinking.

        • grouchomarxist

          Hey, the important thing is it sounds like it should be true. That’s good enough for Jenny et al.

        • bexley

          you’d believe it without thinking

          TBH I suspect Jenny does everything without thinking.

    • njorl

      I believe she is elected.
      Why a bureaucratic functionary is elected, I don’t know.

      • Richard Hershberger

        Because it made sense in 1830, and they haven’t changed it since.

        • djw

          This is the state where every county has elected jailers, including the counties withou jails

          • Lee Rudolph

            Worst variation on Russell’s barber paradox ever.

      • Yankee

        Where I live, the County Clerk has the duty of supervising elections and certifying results, among other things you wouldn’t want the commissioners to dictate about. Not a bookkeeping job.

        • JohnT

          Where I live the Clerk does the same things. And people say that’s exactly why it should be a bookkeeping job. We just want the votes cast, counted and tabulated, thank you very much. Vote counting is one of those jobs (like airline pilot and brain surgeon) where you just want exactly what worked last time and a minimum of creativity!

          • ajp

            There’s actually a fair amount of creativity involved in surgery.

            • Those humans aren’t going to centipede themselves.

      • burritoboy

        It actually makes quite a bit of sense, since the County Clerk does things like making sure the county actually does it’s accounting more or less according to some guideline. Having the electorate being able to replace the County Clerk does form some protection (however minor a protection) against a totally corrupt political machine.

  • Robert M.

    I absolutely support her willingness to stand on her First Amendment rights.

    The problem is that she’s acting as an agent of the state, and the state has no First Amendment rights. On the other hand, the citizens petitioning her for marriage licenses do have First Amendment rights (not to mention Fourteenth Amendment rights), particularly including the right not to have the state or its agents impose a religious test on their marriage.

    This kind of nonsense irritates me to no end. It’s not quite on the level of Sarah Palin whining that people pointing and laughing at her is violates her freedom of speech, but it’s really close.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      Ms. Davis is only making a fuss about this because she secretly wants to gey-marry Sarah Palin.

    • Arla

      This kind of nonsense irritates me to no end. It’s not quite on the level of Sarah Palin whining that people pointing and laughing at her is violates her freedom of speech, but it’s really close.

      I think this is much worse. Sarah Palin’s CRITICISING ME IS VIOLATING MY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS was (is? is she still around?) irritating, obnoxious, and deeply intellectually dishonest, but ultimately, Palin indeed does have a first amendment right to herself be irritating, obnoxious, and intellectually dishonest.

      This tremendous clown, on the other hand, is interfering with peoples’ access to legal recognition and protection. That’s actively harmful in a way that Palin’s caterwauling wasn’t.

      Unfortunately, I don’t know what to do about it. She can’t be fired, since she’s an elected official. She can be fined, but I’m sure someone will set up a GoFundMe account for her and she’ll rake in far more than what she owes. (Maybe the court can come up with an order to disgorge those profits in addition to whatever fines she accrues?) Jail her, and she becomes a martyr–but that might well be the only way to remove her from office and actually ensure that folks have access to civil marriage protections in her county.

      I don’t think sending in the national guard to take over this kind of bureaucratic service is going to happen, satisfying as that might be to watch.

      • Pseudonym

        Sarah Palin at least did the “honorable” thing and quit her elected government job before going on the wingnut welfare circuit.

    • ajp

      But mah FREEZE PEACH!

  • Some Constitutional rights are more right than others.

    Davis has certainly humiliated and degraded the gay couples whom she turned away. But I wonder if, on some level, she isn’t a victim, too.

    The slate is well pitched.

    Stern demonstrates the weird (and frankly biased) Concern I often see when some ass gets his or her 15 minutes of fame by being mean to other people and other asses join in.

    If Liberty Counsel had sidled up to Davis: “Hey, it would be a great idea for you to refuse to issue licenses to same sex couples and yell about Jesus. Go on, it’ll be fun!” that would be one thing, and still wouldn’t make Davis less of a creep. But that’s not what happened.

    As for the fact LC is making money off of Davis’ actions would Stern feel better if she was getting a cut?

    What this comes down to is the assumption that Davis is just some poor dumb hick how doesn’t know no better, and the real villains are the suited shysters. No, they’re all villains.

    As for his suggestion she’s a victim along with the people she’s making miserable, Stern can fuck off with that bizarre fake empathy crap.

    • matt w

      The important takeaway I got from that piece is that Davis’s lawyers need to be disbarred. I don’t care about whether they’re serving her well because the hell with her, but advising a client to flat-out disobey a court order has got to be some kind of actionable misconduct. Doesn’t it?

      • I’ve heard quiet chatter about “Rule 11 sanctions” for a couple days now.

      • A couple of things could be at work – Dude sees Davis as a modern day Martin Luther King, Jr. and believes she should Stand Her Ground because History Will Vindicate Her … OK, I’m going to make myself ill.

        Or, he’s hit on another way to make money that doesn’t involve working. “Alas, I have been debarred by evil liberal doodyheads. Send money, I’ve got the lawyers and guns covered.”

    • MAJeff

      Matt Staver should have been disbarred after his involvement in the Miller v. Jenkins case.

      • matt w

        barred s/b emboweled

        I didn’t know he was involved in that. What a disgusting shitweasel.

        • matt w

          (Any CampusWatch-type trolls who are watching: I don’t think any physical harm should come to Staver, though I think it is not unlikely he abetted a conspiracy to kidnap and should be sentenced to prison. I also think he should burn in–I don’t believe in Hell, but lots and lots of purgatory.)

  • Hogan

    Jesus met the woman at the well
    Jesus met the woman at the well
    Jesus met the woman at the well
    And He told her everything she’d ever done

    He said, “Woman, woman, where is your husband?”
    He said, “Woman, woman, where is your husband?”
    He said, “Woman, woman, where is your husband?
    I know everything you’ve ever done”

    She said, “Jesus, Jesus, I ain’t got no husband”
    She said, “Jesus, Jesus, I ain’t got no husband”
    She said, “Jesus, Jesus, ain’t got no husband
    And You don’t know everything I’ve ever done”

    He said, “Woman, woman, you’ve got five husbands”
    He said, “Woman, woman, you’ve got five husbands”
    He said, “Woman, woman, you’ve got five husbands
    And the one you have now, he’s not your own”

    She said, “This man, this man, He must be a prophet”
    She said, “This man, this man, He must be a prophet
    This man, this man, must be a prophet
    He done told me everything I’ve ever done”

    Jesus, He met the woman at the well
    Jesus, He met the woman at the well
    Oh, Jesus met the woman at the well
    And He told her everything she’d ever done

  • Richard Hershberger

    This story was up on Yahoo news. I was pleasantly surprised that the comments lambasted this woman.

  • rewenzo

    I absolutely support her willingness to stand on her First Amendment rights.

    What does this sentence even mean? Is he even endorsing her action, or her legal argument, or is he just saying, “I sure approve of her moxie!”

    • Murc

      Code.

      Basically, the new hotness on the right over, mmm, I want to say the past year and a half or so? It’s relatively new, at any rate. But they currently have a thing going on where they say that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to not be called on to ever do anything that violates your religious beliefs, with no consequences. Saying “I support her willingness to stand on her First Amendment rights” is shorthand for signalling you buy into that argument; that you think pharmacists shouldn’t need to issue contraception, that clerks shouldn’t have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a whole lot of wingnut baggage.

      This isn’t an insane strategy on its face; fighting a rearguard action in the courts using the language of liberty when it becomes clear you’re losing on other fronts is decent strategy. And after Hobby Lobby came down there were signs that it could get some traction. But not even our current court is going to pop this can of worms all the way open, I don’t think.

      • Malaclypse

        If it does, I’m immediately enlisting in the Army, then pointing out I’m a Quaker.

        • I want to be an anarchist cop who steadfastly refuses to enforce any laws

          • rea

            All silliness aside, if she’d recuse herself from these matters, that would be fine as long as someone in the clerk’s office issues the license.

            Freedom of religious does not actually mean, “I’ve a right to make you obey my religion’s rules.”

            • Randy

              I don’t think that’s allowed. I think her signature has to appear on each license.

              Of course, anyone could make a big “X” and who would be the wiser?

              • rea

                I think her signature has to appear on each license.

                I’d be astonished if there was not a provision for a deputy to act in certain situations–what if she’s run over by a truck?

                • rea

                  And in fact (employing one of my superpowers for good), deputy clerks are empowered to act in place of the clerk, and county judges or executives can issue marriage licenses in the absence of the clerk. See KSA 402.100 and 402.240

                • Randy

                  [W]hat if she’s run over by a truck?

                  It’s probably Obama’s fault.

                  If I read the statutes you found correctly, the deputy can act only if she is not present. They don’t have the power to act when she’s just refusing to do her job.

                • rea

                  I read them as indicating that the deputy can act for her at any time (but is her subordinate, and so has to do what she tells him (and probably is her relative, anyway)). The county executive can act for her when she is absent.

          • Owlbear1

            I want to be a liberal Secretary of State who never issues voter registrations to conservatives.

          • petesh

            I actually did that at school, where the senior kids were supposed to monitor and discipline the juniors. No one noticed! If anyone important was looking, some other asshole always stepped in. The mid-60s were an interesting time, though not overall as liberal as their rep.

        • timb

          Nixon

      • fighting a rearguard action in the courts using the language of liberty when it becomes clear you’re losing on other fronts is decent strategy.

        That didn’t work out too well for the Defenders of Marriage or Enemies of Obamacare.

        But not even our current court is going to pop this can of worms all the way open, I don’t think.

        Not unless they can be 100% certain it won’t result in people having the right to refuse services to hetero Christians.

        • Murc

          That didn’t work out too well for the Defenders of Marriage or Enemies of Obamacare.

          I used the term “rearguard action” for a reason; this is what you fall back on after you’ve already lost and are seeking other ways to staunch the advance.

          Realistically speaking, aside from capitulation, what are their other strategic options that are better than “novel legal arguments?”

          • Lee Rudolph

            Self-immolation in the public square at noon?

          • I … guess I don’t understand how you’re using the words strategy and realistically.

            If the strategy is “Stay in the news and/or keep fleecing the marks and/or remind gay people that we hate them,” fine, it’s brilliant.

            But if the idea is “Sending screeds to the Supreme Court will eventually cause it to overturn their decision,” realistically speaking, it’s still garbage.

            • Murc

              But if the idea is “Sending screeds to the Supreme Court will eventually cause it to overturn their decision,” realistically speaking, it’s still garbage.

              That’s not the plan, though. The plan is “maybe we can find a way to be as minimally personally impacted by these laws as possible by finding legal arguments that appeal to 5/9ths of the court.”

              And it’s worth noting, that works sometimes. Look at Hobby Lobby. That carve-out is bullshit but it got the plaintiffs basically what they wanted; they don’t gotta obey the law and they face no consequences for it.

              These people all want to be the next one to find the precise reasoning that causes Tony Kennedy to nod his head. That’s not absurd.

              • But can you realistically (that word again) compare what happened with Hobby Lobby with what’s happening here?

                The SC has ruled and on Obergefell and said “Go away” to Davis. What are the chances that the court is going to turn around and say “Oh, all right” because enough people asked?

                Persistent, it may be. Smart? No.

                • Hogan

                  But can you realistically (that word again) compare what happened with Hobby Lobby with what’s happening here?

                  Since Davis seems to regard the county clerk’s office as a family business, it’s entirely possible that she thought you could.

                • BigHank53

                  These folks are convinced that if they find just the right magic words, Jesus will float down out of heaven and make all their dreams come true. They can’t give up, no matter how obvious it is that they have lost, lost, lost.

                • Pseudonym

                  Once President Cruz finishes packing the Supreme Court, though, they might have a different opinion.

      • CrunchyFrog

        Yes, it is code. If a wingnut says out loud what they say to each other in private all of the time they might find their business boycotted. Because they use backwards logic they imagine that the First Amendment protects them from being boycotted for saying, for example, that they don’t hire (fill in the blank ethnic slur) because they are (fill in the blank negative stereotype). It’s identical to the complaint about political correctness – they think they should be able to use any slur at any time without consequence.

        OTOH, if the Bush administration has police remove peaceful protestors from a public area they see no problem with that and in fact will advocate that the protesters be prosecuted under the sedition act.

        To a wingnut the First Amendment – like everything else in law or religion – means exactly what they want it to mean and nothing else, and in general the applicability changes depending on who is the subject.

  • Pingback: Let Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Suffer for Her God | Frankly Curious()

  • Crusty

    On a sort of related note, why do we elect municipal workers to perform ministerial tasks?

    • allium

      Could be worse.

      …that doesn’t actually answer your question, does it?

    • Arla

      Yanno, I was wondering that myself. Apparently 24 states *require* that county clerks be elected, and New York and California make it discretionary and allow each county to decide whether to elect or appoint (http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/Role%20of%20the%20County%20Clerk.pdf).

      My gast is flabbered.

    • JR in WV

      I think in this case the county official have been elected, is to perform low-level government tasks rather than ministerial tasks. The clerk is examining the would-be couple for fitness to be married in a legal sense. Then recording the fact of their intention to be married, and then the actual fact of having become married, mostly by a state-certified ministerial person, or sometimes a state-certified civil authority such as a judge or magistrate.

      In some states you may become certified to perform a marriage as a civil matter in order to marry friends or relatives, without becoming ordained as a matter of religious belief, I think this is not the case in Kentucky.

      I do have close friends who “eloped” together to become married in Kentucky, after having lived together for some years. I didn’t inquire, but I imagine they were married by a civil authority rather than a religious one, as they are quite secular people. Scientists, actually, both by training and occupation.

      • Hogan

        I think Crusty meant “ministerial” in this sense:

        A ministerial act is a government action “performed according to legal authority, established procedures or instructions from a superior, without exercising any individual judgment.”[1] It can be any act a functionary or bureaucrat performs in a prescribed manner, without exercising any individual judgment or discretion.[2] Under law, this would be classified under the rubric of public policy.

        • Warren Terra

          Ah. As you can see from my comment below, I took it to mean a task performed by a minister – ie a minister of the church.

          I thought it was an odd choice of word, but I’d bet essentially no-one not a lawyer, and maybe not all of those, has ever encountered the definition you cite.

          • rea

            “ministerial” like “administer.”

            • Crusty

              Exactly. Just like Hogan said.

              • Warren Terra

                I’m not saying either one of you is wrong – I’m saying this is a highly technical and rarely encountered piece of jargon that should not be used without explication.

                • Crusty

                  I will set a daily reminder in my iphone that because Warren Terra, who may or may not be a poorly educated idiot, and who has an internet connection, did not recognize a certain usage of the word ministerial, in the context of a government official carrying out a function, it should not be used without explication.

                  I didn’t think you were saying anyone was wrong, just that you were unfamiliar with that use of the word. Highly technical jargon? I don’t know, its a piece about a government official carrying out a task- those tasks can be discretionary or ministerial.

                • Warren Terra

                  And I won’t bother to set a daily reminder that Crusty, who may or may not be a graceless jerk, has no interest in communicating intelligibly.

                • Crusty

                  You are the graceless one who couldn’t just accept that you learned something new without giving me a lecture on how to communicate intelligibly.

                • Hogan

                  Oh please. You two are obviously crazy about each other. Just get it over with.

                • tsam

                  Fucking cease fire, you two. Sheeyit!

    • Warren Terra

      Because it’s not a “ministerial task”?

      I mean, we can debate whether it’s right that we have civil marriage, or marriage licensing, as opposed to some sort of recognized civil partnership for all – but this is an old, stale debate. If you dig back several years you can find whole essays enumerating the dozens of rights, privileges, and responsibilities bestowed on married couples, some of which were not available or not recognized for people in “civil partnerships”. So, yeah, people interested in parenting, or in visiting each other in the hospital and making proxy decisions, or in sharing benefits, or in inheriting, all without lots of expensive lawyering and painful uncertainty or failure – these people need a “marriage license”, as our society is constituted. Probably doubly so in Kentucky.

      This isn’t a “ministerial task”. The state isn’t interfering in the religious solemnizing of their union: they can get that without an actual marriage license (though the state will not force anyone to recognize such a ceremony without the license), and their marriage license requires no solemnizing by a religious figure.

  • CJColucci

    I want to start a movement to bring back elected dogcatchers, just so we can find actual people who couldn’t be elected dogcatcher.

    • Brad Nailer

      I thought that’s what presidential debates were for.

  • rea

    What the judge needs to do (speaking with my lawyer hat on) is require the clerk and all her deputies to appear in front of him. “You are going to prison,” the judge says to the clerk, “but you have the keys to your cell in your pocket. Either sign marriage licenses, or sign a resignation, and you are free to go. If you won’t do either, well, see you in a few years, when your term expires”

    Then start down the deputies in order of seniority, and give them the same choice, until you come to one who will sign a marriage license. If no deputy will do it, start on the county executives (who are empowered to issue licenses in the absence of the clerk, and she’s definitely absent, being in federal prison). If no one will do it, appoint a receiver to run the county government in compliance with the Constitution of the United States.

    • Warren Terra

      If a deputy signs the license, such that there are no outstanding issues for which the clerk is out of compliance, would that free the clerk while leaving them recalcitrant and unrepentant? Or would they have to sign a declaration of intent either to sign the licenses or to resign in future?

      And to be clear: I think it could be a terrible precedent to empower people to refuse to perform their duty on religious grounds because others can do it for them, as in that case what would happen when all the available officers refuse and insist another be found, either at another office or at a later date? And would the office be required to employ or even to have on shift at all times one person less restricted of conscience?

    • matt w

      The judge did order the clerk and the entire staff to appear. The plaintiffs have asked that the clerk be fined and not jailed, but I take it that ordering the whole staff in is a sign of a very POed judge who is gearing up to legally knock some heads together.

      • DrDick

        And in doing so, they have displayed far more Christian charity than the Talibangelical clerk is even capable of.

  • brownian

    It’s situations like these where I don’t understand why (other) atheists get all bent out of shape when a believer says something like “atheism is just another religion!” or “you worship yourselves as gods!”

    Okay then. You got me. I’m just as bad as those Westboro wingnuts. Also, I’m my own Jesus/Jesus’ Dad/third guy. Anyhoo, I just checked in with myself—stood on a higher-than-the-surroundings piece of frost-heaved asphalt and talked to some burning tobacco leaves—and it turns out “thou shalt receive thy same salary but only have to show up for four hours a day, four times a week” is one of my commandments. I’ll even write it in a book, if that’s somehow important. Anyway, defend my grift, Freedom of Religion-types.

    • brownian

      I should be clear that I have no problem with the establishment clause in general; I just wanna spend less time at work like my deeply held* religious convictions demand.

      *You can ask around: I’ve been against having to go to work for at least five times as long as Kim Davis has been a fan of the ol’ Christ Jesus.

  • Bruce B.

    The question I’d like to see asked of Ms. Davis is about what amends she feels she ought to have made for luring one or more other clerks into sin, in issuing her various multiple marriage licenses? She thinks now she made them engage in immorality. What is due to them, and what has she done about that?

  • Malaclypse
    • jim, some guy in iowa

      I thought earlier that woman looked like someone who was thinking, “damn, I should have taken vacation the week *before* Labor Day”

      • Hogan

        What are you doing in my world?

  • LosGatosCA

    Kim Davis, Kentucky county clerk firmly committed to the principle that marriage is between a woman and a man, and then another man, and then another man, and then another man*,

    In fairness, how many of these men were her brother, her father, her uncle, or her biological brother raised by her grandmother/aunt?

    Outside agitators don’t understand how deeply she may feel about each of her aborted marriages.

  • Matt

    Part of me feels some sympathy for Davis, who’s clearly being used by cynical conservative litigators.

    Not a goddamn PARTICLE of sympathy over here. She’s decided to be a martyr for her bigotry, so lemme find my hammer and the nails.

  • Pingback: [BLOG] Some Thursday links | A Bit More Detail()

  • Pingback: Doomsy’s Do-Gooders and Dregs (2015 – Pt. 11) | The Liberal Doomsayer()

It is main inner container footer text