She should, simply, be fired. Period. If I don't do my job, I can't expect to keep it. Neither should she. All these politicians bleeding heart about her rights---she does a government job and has no right to impose her religious beliefs on anyone. Issue the marriage licenses, or be fired.
1
"Every one of us will have to decide whether we want to keep this great country or whether we want to surrender and sacrifice it to tyranny": did she mean to say this? She and her followers are clearly the tyrants she is indicating, breaking the law of the land and defying what is clearly a lawful dictate.
6
I'm looking at this picture and I'm wondering how many people are in the crowd looking at this spectacle??? I'm willing to bet that there are more reporters then there are people in attendance at this vote getting event!!! I'd say this is a made for TV event for the low information bible thumping Christian Right wing dunderheads!!!
2
Ms. Davis says, " I just to give God the glory...." Full stop. Why is it that religious extremists believe they can *give* God anything - as if somehow it is in their power to give (grant) God anything. The narcissism in her statements, as with those of her attorney and Mike Huckabee, presume they are ceding something to God they never possessed. This is just another example of "it's all about me" and if it isn't I'm going to ensure that you know it is. As a religious person, and as an American, this is beneath my contempt.
2
How is her release from jail under the condition of not interfering with issuing marriage licenses to all eligible couples, which includes same-sex couples, a victory for her and her supporters? Don't they realize that she has lost this fight? Maybe she should get a Particpation Trophy.
1
Kim Davis' self-aggrandizement and disregard for US law cannot be supported. Whatever extreme brand of Christianity she follows, it does not include tolerance, or Christ-like kindness of spirit.
Quoted in the NYT, Davis said of her impending jail visit, "...they’re preparing to strike the final blow because they know how much I hate LGBT people. Moving me to an all-female prison is enough to scar me for the rest of my life.”
She added: “All-women prisons are filled with clans of dangerous lesbians who engage in disgusting lesbian sex all day long because they’ve got nothing better to do. And I’m not afraid of them, but I’m smart enough to know that they’re terrified of me, of what I represent. That’s why it’s my life that’s in danger.”
Kim Davis is paid by taxpayers. She has a right to her opinions and beliefs, but it is her job, as a government employee, to keep her hate, fear and prejudice to herself. She has sworn to represent the government of Kentucky, and therefore must appear neutral on all matters. What part of separation of Church and State does she not understand?
To see her weeping for comfort, then strongly exhorting a crowd to continue believing as she does, with an air of self-righteous anger and disdain, is sickening. Her love for the spotlight makes her an ideal televangelist.
Her resignation must be demanded. She is not representing government with neutrality, nor has she upheld the laws of the land, as she has sworn to do. She must go.
Quoted in the NYT, Davis said of her impending jail visit, "...they’re preparing to strike the final blow because they know how much I hate LGBT people. Moving me to an all-female prison is enough to scar me for the rest of my life.”
She added: “All-women prisons are filled with clans of dangerous lesbians who engage in disgusting lesbian sex all day long because they’ve got nothing better to do. And I’m not afraid of them, but I’m smart enough to know that they’re terrified of me, of what I represent. That’s why it’s my life that’s in danger.”
Kim Davis is paid by taxpayers. She has a right to her opinions and beliefs, but it is her job, as a government employee, to keep her hate, fear and prejudice to herself. She has sworn to represent the government of Kentucky, and therefore must appear neutral on all matters. What part of separation of Church and State does she not understand?
To see her weeping for comfort, then strongly exhorting a crowd to continue believing as she does, with an air of self-righteous anger and disdain, is sickening. Her love for the spotlight makes her an ideal televangelist.
Her resignation must be demanded. She is not representing government with neutrality, nor has she upheld the laws of the land, as she has sworn to do. She must go.
6
She should issue the licenses, or someone else in the office.
However, suppose Davis were living in Nazi Germany and was ordered to play along by playing a simple part in the mass executions in the chambers. Allowing her subordinates to assign people to train cars for instance. Suppose Davis said she can't do that because it goes against her religious beliefs (throughout history religion has more often led to compassion than to brutality) . How would people feel about her standing by her religious beliefs then?
The real point here is that the issue of marriage as practiced in the United States has deep religious origins and overtones, just as would questions of mass executions. In this case in a sense it is the supreme court that has torn deep into religious beliefs not the other way around.
However, suppose Davis were living in Nazi Germany and was ordered to play along by playing a simple part in the mass executions in the chambers. Allowing her subordinates to assign people to train cars for instance. Suppose Davis said she can't do that because it goes against her religious beliefs (throughout history religion has more often led to compassion than to brutality) . How would people feel about her standing by her religious beliefs then?
The real point here is that the issue of marriage as practiced in the United States has deep religious origins and overtones, just as would questions of mass executions. In this case in a sense it is the supreme court that has torn deep into religious beliefs not the other way around.
The freedom of religion for all US citizens guaranteed by the Constitution is not absolute. Yes, you are free to practice any religion of your choosing. However, such freedom is limited in that while practicing your religion, you are NOT free to infringe on the rights of others, nor break any applicable laws. Kim Davis, though exercising her constitutional right to practice her religion, not only infringed on the rights of others (those who have the right to marry, despite being a same-sex couple), but broke the law that now requires clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
She was jailed because she violated the law, not because she is a Christian who does not approve of same-sex marriages. You are free to believe whatever you want in this country and will not be jailed as a result of any such beliefs. However, if you break a law that is punishable by jail time, you will be jailed, regardless of the motivations behind your actions, whether religious or otherwise.
If my religion dictates that I must eat the meat of a cow, does that mean I can walk onto a farmer's private land and kill his cow without penalty, since I was acting according to my religious beliefs? No - though exercising my freedom to practice my religion, I would have violated the laws against trespassing and destruction of personal property.
Kim Davis is not a hero. She was unlawfully attempting to impose her religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.
She was jailed because she violated the law, not because she is a Christian who does not approve of same-sex marriages. You are free to believe whatever you want in this country and will not be jailed as a result of any such beliefs. However, if you break a law that is punishable by jail time, you will be jailed, regardless of the motivations behind your actions, whether religious or otherwise.
If my religion dictates that I must eat the meat of a cow, does that mean I can walk onto a farmer's private land and kill his cow without penalty, since I was acting according to my religious beliefs? No - though exercising my freedom to practice my religion, I would have violated the laws against trespassing and destruction of personal property.
Kim Davis is not a hero. She was unlawfully attempting to impose her religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.
6
This is Christian nation, found by Christian, (Except for Washington, Jefferson and a few others) But the point is we love Jesus. And as long as you are white, protestant, (Catholic's as long as you are againts gays and abortion then we will clame you, but at church on Sundays we think you are damed to hell for not trusting Jesus as your savior)
The point is, this women is just standing up for God and her faith. It does not matter how many times she gets married, that has all be forgiven. What cant be forgiven is mean gay people. Its not personal, its the word of God. It does not matter if it is two men who have been faithful longer then her, or if they are kind, funny, loving, artistic, and just good people. We have a right to perecute and discriminate them abased on our love of God. She is our "Rosa Parks, or MKL" she is standing up for her faith and god.
The point is, this women is just standing up for God and her faith. It does not matter how many times she gets married, that has all be forgiven. What cant be forgiven is mean gay people. Its not personal, its the word of God. It does not matter if it is two men who have been faithful longer then her, or if they are kind, funny, loving, artistic, and just good people. We have a right to perecute and discriminate them abased on our love of God. She is our "Rosa Parks, or MKL" she is standing up for her faith and god.
Kim Davis works for the government, the government, not God, pays her $80,000 a year to issue people marriage licenses regardless of what sex they are. If she cannot do this, she needs to resign her job. By the way she herself has been married 4 times, maybe she should read what the bible says about adulterers like her.
2
Hallelujah! MY side won! A hollow victory until all sides win We don't believe in the same faith lady, I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, or the teaching of any faith that tells people to love thy neighbor as thyself!
1
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on "Morning Joe" simply dismantled Mike Huckabee's biblical support for Kim Davis.
Scarborough, who was raised Southern Baptist and attended Catholic school, led off by posing a hypothetical to Huckabee: If a county clerk such as Kim Davis can deny legal same-sex marriages, what’s to stop another biblical literalist county clerk from denying a marriage license to someone who has had a divorce — especially since Jesus Christ explicitly condemns divorce in the Bible? In other words, how can Mike Huckabee cite the Bible while supporting Kim Davis’ opposition to same-sex marriage, but ignore the fact that she is on her fourth marriage — which, to a traditional biblical literalist, would mean that she is actively living in sin?
“Jesus was much more explicit about divorce,” Scarborough, who is divorced, said. “And you could much more easily make an argument that a judge would refuse to grant divorces because Jesus was much more explicit about divorce equaling adultery. So what would you think if a judge in Arkansas said ‘I’m not going to divorce these people, because Jesus Christ said that divorce is an abomination and that it is adultery’?”
Scarborough, who was raised Southern Baptist and attended Catholic school, led off by posing a hypothetical to Huckabee: If a county clerk such as Kim Davis can deny legal same-sex marriages, what’s to stop another biblical literalist county clerk from denying a marriage license to someone who has had a divorce — especially since Jesus Christ explicitly condemns divorce in the Bible? In other words, how can Mike Huckabee cite the Bible while supporting Kim Davis’ opposition to same-sex marriage, but ignore the fact that she is on her fourth marriage — which, to a traditional biblical literalist, would mean that she is actively living in sin?
“Jesus was much more explicit about divorce,” Scarborough, who is divorced, said. “And you could much more easily make an argument that a judge would refuse to grant divorces because Jesus was much more explicit about divorce equaling adultery. So what would you think if a judge in Arkansas said ‘I’m not going to divorce these people, because Jesus Christ said that divorce is an abomination and that it is adultery’?”
8
She also denied licenses for straight couples...she is a pathological bigot using the Good Lord's name to blame.. Huckleberry & Cruz to Lose are capitalizing on the Good Lord too..what a pathetic shame... Hope they don't make it past the primaries..and go back home where they belong.
2
You don’t take a poll on a religious issue. Last time they took a poll, Barabbas walked.
2
This reply to a very valid comment makes no sense whatsoever.
What I find so strange about this situation is the fact that Jesus Christ addressed this exact situation. When a follower asked him what to do when his civil responsibilities conflicted with his religious ones, Jesus replied, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22: 15-22).
2
Ms. Davis is not as assured a place in heaven as she believes. If she will read her Holy Bible, Luke 18: 9-14 she will see the problem.Luke 18:9-14New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
She needs re-read this and do some soul searching. All this public display of her righteousness is frowned upon my Jesus and God.
Plus, I believe there is a separation of church and state in this country.
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
She needs re-read this and do some soul searching. All this public display of her righteousness is frowned upon my Jesus and God.
Plus, I believe there is a separation of church and state in this country.
8
"'I just want to give God the glory,' she told the crowd ...."
No, if she wanted to give God the glory, she would've resigned from a job she finds objectionable, and for which she's unfit.
*She* wants the glory. Just look at the video clip, where she stands with hands in the air, Rocky style, V for Victory, a broad smile on her upturned face. She's just one more narcissistic publicity hound basking in her 15 nanoseconds of fame.
If she wanted to give *God* the glory, she would humbly devote her life to providing service to others and, with equal humility, obey teachings of His Son: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love thine enemies. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. (This is all from her point of view. To me, gay marriage is very much a thing of God, and gay people are "us," not enemies.)
No, if she wanted to give God the glory, she would've resigned from a job she finds objectionable, and for which she's unfit.
*She* wants the glory. Just look at the video clip, where she stands with hands in the air, Rocky style, V for Victory, a broad smile on her upturned face. She's just one more narcissistic publicity hound basking in her 15 nanoseconds of fame.
If she wanted to give *God* the glory, she would humbly devote her life to providing service to others and, with equal humility, obey teachings of His Son: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love thine enemies. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. (This is all from her point of view. To me, gay marriage is very much a thing of God, and gay people are "us," not enemies.)
10
Let me understand this; a marrige is between one man and one woman according to kim davis. what about the 4 men she is married to. It's OK for her have sex with everyone in town because??????? How can we we take this mental case seriously?What moral high ground? Some one tooth trailer Park minister and his blind followers against the law of our land?I know this will never be printed; but some one has to call these make believe christians bsers for what they are
4
I don't understand why Mrs. Davis's boss didn't simply remove her from her position. She could have been fired or transferred to another job. On the other hand I APPLAUD MRS. DAVIS for standing up for her beliefs. The thought of 2 men kissing each other and having sex makes me want to VOMIT ! Same sex marriages are unnatural and against the laws of nature. This world is in a state of severe MORAL DECAY.
The evangelical crusader politicians need a reality check - SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE. Evidently, the whole GOP is strutting to the drum beat of religious freedom; denial & deception trademark.
3
Why won't these fundamentalist evangelicals do the right thing and stone the adulteress until she is dead, as their Bible commands them?
6
Kim Davis might be seen by many as a Christian martyr, but her beliefs are born of the same bigotry as segregation.
That she could interpret the presence of her signature on a marriage certificate as evidence of her own sin isn’t a testament to the strength of her convictions, but to the height of her arrogance.
She's a public servant and took an oath of office to perform her duties. If she cannot do that, she can simply resign from office.
That she could interpret the presence of her signature on a marriage certificate as evidence of her own sin isn’t a testament to the strength of her convictions, but to the height of her arrogance.
She's a public servant and took an oath of office to perform her duties. If she cannot do that, she can simply resign from office.
4
There's no ambiguity here. The job description, not the person in the position, determines the duties and responsibilities. Davis is simply on the wrong side of this, as our her clueless supporters. Religious belief does not allow believers to discriminate when it comes to the civil rights of citizens. Get over it and move on.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
2
The Kim Davis fiasco may be a blessing in disguise: now the country has seen what it would be like if religious zealots like Mike Huckabee had real political power. Frightening. Truly frightening. I hope Americans got the message.
3
Question in my mind regarding..."The Legislature could change the law on marriage licenses to accommodate objections like Ms. Davis's."
Does this mean anyone can morally or religiously reject doing part (or all) of their job if they feel that what they are doing is against their religion? If so, would/should this be regulated at the state or national level?
Does this mean anyone can morally or religiously reject doing part (or all) of their job if they feel that what they are doing is against their religion? If so, would/should this be regulated at the state or national level?
Some on the Christian Right likened Ms. Davis to Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr. The more apt comparison is to the later Gov. George Wallace, who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama and refused to acknowledge the authority of the Supreme Court to end segregation.
3
One can only wonder how Ms. Davis' violation of her sworn oath of office was informed by her self-proclaimed "Christian" beliefs.
The controversy over the Ten Commandments thrust Justice Roy Moore into the national spotlight years ago. He's been the focus of praise and criticism since 1992 - the year he placed a wood carving of the Commandments in his Etowah County courtroom.
In August 2003, Judge Thompson stood by his original ruling and order the monument be removed from the public spaces of the judicial building by August 20, 2003. The judge said the state could be fined up to $5,000 a day if the monument was not removed.
When Moore refused to follow the court order, his fellow justices had the monument removed instead. Moore was then suspended
from his position and now awaits a trial by the court of the judiciary. He is also appealing the monument rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can either promote homosexuality or promote the Christian Church, but not promote both at the same time. The supreme court is taking away the constitutional rights from the American Christian Church, and is giving those rights to homosexuals. How? By allowing same sex homosexual pretend unions at the court house, and eventually closing all American Christian Churches who refuse same sex homosexual pretend unions. The supreme court will also make it mandatory for all children in U.S. schools to be taught homosexuality from pre-kinder on up to high school and teaching how homosexuals have sex and create babies. Does this mirror nazi germans hatred and extermination of German Jews up to 1945?
In August 2003, Judge Thompson stood by his original ruling and order the monument be removed from the public spaces of the judicial building by August 20, 2003. The judge said the state could be fined up to $5,000 a day if the monument was not removed.
When Moore refused to follow the court order, his fellow justices had the monument removed instead. Moore was then suspended
from his position and now awaits a trial by the court of the judiciary. He is also appealing the monument rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You can either promote homosexuality or promote the Christian Church, but not promote both at the same time. The supreme court is taking away the constitutional rights from the American Christian Church, and is giving those rights to homosexuals. How? By allowing same sex homosexual pretend unions at the court house, and eventually closing all American Christian Churches who refuse same sex homosexual pretend unions. The supreme court will also make it mandatory for all children in U.S. schools to be taught homosexuality from pre-kinder on up to high school and teaching how homosexuals have sex and create babies. Does this mirror nazi germans hatred and extermination of German Jews up to 1945?
Nobody should be "promoting" either homosexuality nor Christianity. It's a marriage license, not a bureau of promotion of religion or morals. We just want equal protection under the law to get married. It's not a sacrament unless you go to a church. It's a secular license to marry. Period.
3
What a misshapen sow she is! There was a very funny photoshop on facebook with Dick Cheney's visage seamlessly pasted over the enormous Kim face above the enormously obese body. I can envision Kim twerking a Jerry Springer audience when she eventually takes the act on tour. By way of reply an angry gay male black couple who were turned down initially for a license, will stage a 'dance off' to let off accumulated steam!
1
If NYTimes censors will allow me....I'd like to point out that Kim Davis is an elected official and not a hired civil service employee. That's why she can't be simply fired. That's why she can get away with not doing her job and breaking the law, and not be fired. Any civil service government employee that pulled a stunt like this would be fired.
2
Why is she not being impeached?
Am I missing something? When is K Davis going to be asked to step aside so that someone else can perform the job adequately? Who has the power to do this (official on the state or county level)? And why haven't they acted already? What are they afraid of? Assign her to another job. Period.
3
I just don't see the comparison to contentious objection in these cases. If you have religious objections to war you can avoid serving in war. But you cannot break any laws to impede the conducting of the war or you face legal consequences. If Ms Davis was being forced to marry a woman she could plead this objection but she can not create obstacles to others. As the Sunday cartoon in the Times made satirically clear, a Christian Scientist pharmacist really can't avoid writing prescriptions. And a Catholic institution ought not to be allowed to avoid providing funding for contraceptives. This whole debate is founded on an entirely bogus understanding of the principal
2
Ms. Davis, in her capacity as county clerk, is the government, which means that her actions violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion. End of story.
3
Most people have heard famous comment concerning freedom of expression, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Of equal, or perhaps even greater importance than freedom of expression, are freedom of belief and conscience. Without them, freedom of expression is an empty right.
You can disagree with what Kim Davis believes about marriage, just as you can disagree with what someone has to say on politics, society or religion. But you can't be a good citizen in a democracy without respecting her right to hold her views, and to act according to her conscience to the greatest degree possible. Ethically and politically, preventing Mrs. Davis from acting according to her beliefs is the same as silencing someone from expressing her opinion. Democratic societies should bend over backwards before they impose any such limitations.
You can disagree with what Kim Davis believes about marriage, just as you can disagree with what someone has to say on politics, society or religion. But you can't be a good citizen in a democracy without respecting her right to hold her views, and to act according to her conscience to the greatest degree possible. Ethically and politically, preventing Mrs. Davis from acting according to her beliefs is the same as silencing someone from expressing her opinion. Democratic societies should bend over backwards before they impose any such limitations.
Her 'religious freedoms' were in no way violated; she is still free to worship and bible-thump to her heart's content. She must, however, uphold the law instead of impinging on other people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The whole coming out of jail to cheesy 80s music, arms raised, was sickening. She acheived no victory over anything, nor does she stand for anything but ignorance and oppression.
The whole coming out of jail to cheesy 80s music, arms raised, was sickening. She acheived no victory over anything, nor does she stand for anything but ignorance and oppression.
7
If a person's religious, ethnic, or other belief will not permit him/her to do his/her job, the person should quit that role and find a position which does not require adherence to that person's belief.
1
God must be really frustrated at how stupid some of His followers are: Davis' duties as county clerk do not include exercising judgment about whether marriage license applicants should be allowed to marry. All she can do is determine that they qualify under the standards set by the government. It also appears that her name does not even appear on the license - only the title "County Clerk", unless she signs it herself. Further, her deputies, by definition, have all of the same powers and duties that Davis has, so they do not need her permission or approval to issue licenses to qualified individuals. If she does not have that authority, then she can't bestow it upon or take it away from her deputies. The licenses are valid. She should butt out. Isn't that what she wants? To not be involved? If she tries to stop her deputies from issuing licenses when she comes back to work on Friday, then she is revealing her true plan: trying to stop gays from marrying at all.
1
My understanding is that one of the sub-clerks working for Kim Davis is her own son. He is also refusing to issue marriage licences to same-gender applicants. We know Davis was elected; how did her son come by his job? Is this nepotism?
If so, perhaps she can be fired for hiring her own relative, a situation I would consider to be unethical.
If so, perhaps she can be fired for hiring her own relative, a situation I would consider to be unethical.
2
' “It’s time for all God-fearing Americans to take a stand for truth, just like Kim Davis,” Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, said at the rally.'
Perhaps the difference between the Catholic God and the God of these so called Christians is that the Catholic God is one of love and forgiveness. These are not things to be feared but rather embraced. It is a strange group of people indeed that fear the God they worship. That God must be an awfully vengeful entity. I'm glad my God practices love and doesn't instill fear in the hearts of His followers.
Perhaps the difference between the Catholic God and the God of these so called Christians is that the Catholic God is one of love and forgiveness. These are not things to be feared but rather embraced. It is a strange group of people indeed that fear the God they worship. That God must be an awfully vengeful entity. I'm glad my God practices love and doesn't instill fear in the hearts of His followers.
2
I'm glad this was able to be resolved in a timely manner.
I am afraid for sanity since Ms. Davis sounds so tenuous mentally. Having just been in Eastern Europe and Austria, I met one man in Vienna who talked of the increased religiousness in the States. He mentioned how "God Bless Austria" or "In God we Trust" would not fly there. Friends in Southern Italy are more Catholic but so clear about the separation of Church and State. They talk of using God to be on one side or another, is taking His name in vain.
I am scared as to what might happen if we had a Presidential candidate was was agnostic, or god forbid an atheist. I mean that as an agnostic myself. It's getting lonely out there.
I am scared as to what might happen if we had a Presidential candidate was was agnostic, or god forbid an atheist. I mean that as an agnostic myself. It's getting lonely out there.
1
Government and religion can't be mixed, period, which the founders and writers of the First Amendment were explicit about. Hypothetically, if Jefferson had Kim Davis' job, he could refuse licenses to gay couples who were not Deists, as he was; or county "clerk" Ben Franklin only to polytheists like he was; John Adams with his Puritanical background; or to at least half-Jewish people, as the "clerk" Alexander Hamilton himself almost certainly was. Our nation was built on Judaeo-Christian ethics, yes, but not on the Jewish or Christian (or the Muslim, Egyptian, Pythagorean, Nordic, or even Newtons' alchemical) theological foundation. (Which religious Jewish beliefs, orthodox or reformed; which Christian -- Huckabees' Baptist beliefs or Catholicsm; which Islamic, Sunni or Shi'ite? and which subsets of all of these religions: Southern or Northern Baptist; which Catholics, Roman or Eastern (or specifically Greek or Armenian or Rusisan Orthodox; the options are growing.
1
She is the lady trying to get rich and famous. She claims she is a Christian. But Christ said love your neighbor. He also said he who has no sin cast the first stone. But Kim Davis has decided to play judge jurer and executioner. She refuses to give marriage license to people who want to marry because of their sexual orientation. She claims its a conflict of he religious beliefs. But yet she is forgetting that when she ran for the office of Clerk of Court. She chose to have two masters. Also she claims its anti Christian to let theese people marry if the license has her name on it. But all death sentence cases in her county have her signature on them. So she is OK with signing death warrants issued by the court. But not marriage licenses. What a wonderful Christian woman this Davis woman is. She practices Christianity when it serves her purposes.
12
Isn't it ironic that protesters (and many commentators) compare the US Supreme Court to an "Islamic State?" In those theocracies where religious belief always trumps secular law, courts of law are largely irrelevant. The very foundation of "religious liberty" is that religious beliefs may NOT be endorsed by courts.
The two most likely outcomes of allowing religious beliefs to govern the courts are an Iran-like theocracy, where mullahs can overrule any legal decision, or an out-of-control country of zealots and cranks who ignore civil laws because they're instructed to do so by an imaginary Friend/Savior/Supreme Being. Kim Davis and her sycophants are trying to lead us down the second path.
The two most likely outcomes of allowing religious beliefs to govern the courts are an Iran-like theocracy, where mullahs can overrule any legal decision, or an out-of-control country of zealots and cranks who ignore civil laws because they're instructed to do so by an imaginary Friend/Savior/Supreme Being. Kim Davis and her sycophants are trying to lead us down the second path.
4
The United States Constitution gives "We, the People" the right to freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion, through the SEPARATION of Church and State.
Why is this so difficult for GOP politicians, and narrow-minded proselytizers, to understand?
The same Constitution which gives you the freedom to worship as you choose, gives the rest of us that same freedom. And that means we do not have to live as your religion dictates.
How long is it going to take until people, especially politicians, to get it right?
Why is this so difficult for GOP politicians, and narrow-minded proselytizers, to understand?
The same Constitution which gives you the freedom to worship as you choose, gives the rest of us that same freedom. And that means we do not have to live as your religion dictates.
How long is it going to take until people, especially politicians, to get it right?
11
Kim Davis is a Democrat.
1
Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and GOP gubernatorial candidate Matt Bevin all support a return to divine rights. They utterly and completely repudiate the reason why this country was settled. America's first settlers wanted to be free of government imposed religion such as Davis is imposing on the citizens of Rowan County KY. It is nothing more than a return to the tyranny of the executive--divine rights all over again.
Our founder wrote the First Amendment to protect the beliefs of all citizens or opiinions as Thomas Jefferson called them in the Declaration of Independence. Our founders wanted future generations to be free from this kind of government religious tyranny.
"Sincerely held religious beliefs" is a contemporary term to return to divine rights. It needs to be stricken from IRS regulations defining religious institutions seeking tax-exempt status. The term needs to be stricken from all federal and state laws.
Our founder wrote the First Amendment to protect the beliefs of all citizens or opiinions as Thomas Jefferson called them in the Declaration of Independence. Our founders wanted future generations to be free from this kind of government religious tyranny.
"Sincerely held religious beliefs" is a contemporary term to return to divine rights. It needs to be stricken from IRS regulations defining religious institutions seeking tax-exempt status. The term needs to be stricken from all federal and state laws.
11
this is very simple.
columnist george precisely distilled the situatuion on sunday, when he pointed to an 1892 oliver wendell holmes decision concerning a police officer and political activity and the right of free speech.
ms davis has a constitutional right to practice her religion. she does not have a constitutional right to be a state employee.
columnist george precisely distilled the situatuion on sunday, when he pointed to an 1892 oliver wendell holmes decision concerning a police officer and political activity and the right of free speech.
ms davis has a constitutional right to practice her religion. she does not have a constitutional right to be a state employee.
16
How would Ms. Davis have felt if, when she applied for any of her several marriage licenses, the clerk had been a strict Roman Catholic who did not personally believe in divorce and, thus, denied her the right to marry (again)?
18
I wonder if all the supporters of Kim Davis would rally to my side if I, as an atheist, were a county clerk who refused to issue licenses to Christians? Because they are not of my faith and their beliefs contradict my own, which I hold near and dear.
7
Now there's a picture to make one gag. Get religion OUT of politics in America. Anyone who doesn't agree with OUR Constitution that provides freedom of and FROM religion can get a job outside OUR government. No religious wars in America.
17
I think I may have to sue Kim Davis, on behalf of Jesus Christ, for defamation of character. She does not represent my God.
16
I couldn't help but notice that when the press asked Ms. Davis if it was worth it to go to jail, her head nodded yes, and her eyes and face said, no no no, and she kept her mouth quite shut.
Methinks her righteous male handlers may have a tough time inducing her to defy the judge again when she goes back to work.
Methinks her righteous male handlers may have a tough time inducing her to defy the judge again when she goes back to work.
5
If Davis defies the Fed.Judge again..she needs to go to the General Population in the Federal Penitentiary. She certainly got by with breaking the law, defying a Federal Judge..and threatening her staff... she should be relieved of her position by the Governor and KY State Legislature...They should be embarrassed. All supporting Companies for Equality/Equity/Due Process should economically withdraw all conference and business seminars from all of the State of Kentucky and other States that fail to obey the law on Marriage Equality. Upon failure to comply..withdraw Federal funds..especially entitlement programs since Kentucky and similar states have greater use of Federal entitlement funds. Please check the data if you dare...
If we believe in separation of church and state, then let's make a distinction: civil unions are sanctioned by the state and 'marriages' are sanctioned by religion. Civil unions and marriages should then also have the exact same weight in the eyes of the law. We have to make this distinction because otherwise the state is getting mixed into religion and vice versa. Finally, if your church won't marry you, then find another church; but you will still be able to get married in your own town.
4
Your suggestion has the exact opposite effect. Making two different types of unions brings the government into religion unnecessarily. It is up to the individual if they want a religious aspect to their marriage and no business of the government. The government should never be in the position of sanctioning a religious practice.
2
Wrong. My marriage took place in a park and was presided over by a judge, it's just as valid in the eyes of the law as my sister's marriage which took place in a church.
We have a system that works just fine. Bigots just need to realize that and learn to mind their own business.
We have a system that works just fine. Bigots just need to realize that and learn to mind their own business.
2
Marriage existed as a secular arrangement long before it became appropriated by the church. Who are you to say that the word "marriage" can be used only in the religious context?
1
Thinks Kin Davis, sitting in her cell: "PRAISE THE LORD! Best move ever! Book deal? Fox? I'll never work again!" Amurica the Bountiful!
8
Unhinged, histrionic performances from characters straight out of something like 'Elmer Gantry' — Praise bigotry! Let us heal ourselves by persecuting others and denying them their constitutional right to marry. We are a morally inferior people, but we are strong when the cameras are rolling!
I'm surprised these charlatans forgot to bring the snake.
I'm surprised these charlatans forgot to bring the snake.
14
Still no comments here in support of Kim Davis. Editors have only allowed hateful excoriations of this woman to be posted.
Who ever said that effete liberals could tolerate free speech?
Who ever said that effete liberals could tolerate free speech?
1
Why should anyone support Kim Davis?
Piffle, there is a strongly worded support post that is actually in the NYT Picks section. Reality is that most people do not support her antics.
Oooh, he called people mean names. Geez, how unlike a conservative.
Feel free to go over to Fox News and you'll see all kinds of people fawning over someone who doesn't know history or the law and doesn't do her job.
Feel free to go over to Fox News and you'll see all kinds of people fawning over someone who doesn't know history or the law and doesn't do her job.
As a Christian, I admire the actions of an East Texas county clerk who, in the same position as Kim Davis, decided to resign her position in July, with little fanfare. It's likely that her decision to leave her position was carried out with great faith that God would provide for her and those who depend on her earnings. By demonstrating such faith, she showed how when we take the burden of our decisions on ourselves and not hurt others, we give God the glory for his love and support and also of our fellow Christians. The benefit of following Jesus’ way is spreading kindness in a more personal contact within our communities, our friends, our neighbors, and especially to those who do not know Jesus. This is the difference in trying to be the aroma of Christ rather than the hammer of Christ.
12
Davis makes $80,000 without much job requirement; plus she probably gave herself exemplary job evaluations thus draining more money from the State or County Coffers for outstanding work bonuses. The folks of Kentucky can't possibly let her inability to perform her duties to stay at such a high rate of payment when they make considerably less while she hires her son too..What Is his salary? He too refused to issue licenses to anyone seeking marriage licenses.
As an atheist, I can respect the integrity of those clerks that respectfully resigned in order to fulfill the personal requirements of their faith. This person seems to think that the clerk's office belongs to her and that she can rewrite the law herself. Hubris is a mild term for her actions.
3
The Constitution of the United States clearly accords certain kinds of matters as proper for the Federal government to exert its jurisdiction. What law was actually passed that had to do with what constitutes marriage? What law was passed that says marriage is not what it has been commonly known as for many years, many centuries, many thousands of years?
How can the Supreme Court rule on a matter as if it could override state and local laws concerning marriage, concerning rights going with marriage, licenses, etc.?
And that is apparently what it did.
When the Supreme Court, which is supposed to uphold the Constitution, instead flaunts it, it's time for a revolution again!
Besides that, if in fact the Supreme Court even needs to be obeyed when it does such a thing, state militias should have the right to uphold the law in various states where a Supreme Court ruling had no proper validity, just because it amounted to blatant violation of that state's laws.
And according to the Constitution, the Federal government has no business interfering, or even affecting, the laws which are not properly under its jurisdiction!
How can the Supreme Court rule on a matter as if it could override state and local laws concerning marriage, concerning rights going with marriage, licenses, etc.?
And that is apparently what it did.
When the Supreme Court, which is supposed to uphold the Constitution, instead flaunts it, it's time for a revolution again!
Besides that, if in fact the Supreme Court even needs to be obeyed when it does such a thing, state militias should have the right to uphold the law in various states where a Supreme Court ruling had no proper validity, just because it amounted to blatant violation of that state's laws.
And according to the Constitution, the Federal government has no business interfering, or even affecting, the laws which are not properly under its jurisdiction!
1
Have you ever thought about the phrase "equality under the law"?
1
I think you mean "flout" not "flaunt". In any case, the Supreme Court has an absolute right of review of any and all laws and practices with a view to deciding on their constitutionality.
In the case under discussion, a clear majority felt that the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection justified a decision striking down a clearly UNEQUAL treatment of couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.
It's interesting that those most directly affected by this decision, welcomed it. Those NOT directly affected it appear to be lamenting the loss of their "right" to involve themselves in other people's business.
In other words R. Karch, mind your own business and leave other people to live their lives as they see fit. None of the gay couples presenting themselves at Ms. Davis' government office are preventing her from praying or going to church.
In the case under discussion, a clear majority felt that the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection justified a decision striking down a clearly UNEQUAL treatment of couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.
It's interesting that those most directly affected by this decision, welcomed it. Those NOT directly affected it appear to be lamenting the loss of their "right" to involve themselves in other people's business.
In other words R. Karch, mind your own business and leave other people to live their lives as they see fit. None of the gay couples presenting themselves at Ms. Davis' government office are preventing her from praying or going to church.
4
I assume you feel the exact same way about interracial marriage? It was handled by the SCOTUS the same way under similar circumstances. EXCEPT, it was considered far less acceptable by the public than gay marriage currently is. By your logic, we should have kept the ban in interracial marriage.
1
Say what?
Ms. Davis wants state accommodation for her current religious flavor by having her name removed from the marriage licenses. OK.
Then Ms. Davis wants the state to rule the licenses are invalid without her name on them.
Can a judge conclude that such tactics suggest conscientious objection when she attempts to check mate the state or is she just a selfish grandstanding trouble maker?
She might recall the bible passage which states that "He/she who troubleth their own house shall inherit the wind".
Ms. Davis wants state accommodation for her current religious flavor by having her name removed from the marriage licenses. OK.
Then Ms. Davis wants the state to rule the licenses are invalid without her name on them.
Can a judge conclude that such tactics suggest conscientious objection when she attempts to check mate the state or is she just a selfish grandstanding trouble maker?
She might recall the bible passage which states that "He/she who troubleth their own house shall inherit the wind".
5
A bunch of scarey white people (spoken by non-scarey white person).
5
She has the chutzpah to be coy about whether she will try to block marriage licenses for gay couples. If she does block them, my fondest hope is that she is returned to jail so fast her head spins.
And boy, she seems to be enjoying the role of evangelizer in that video. Nauseating.
And boy, she seems to be enjoying the role of evangelizer in that video. Nauseating.
12
It is unlikely tht she will try to block the licenses. Since her deputies are issuing them, she is irrelevant to the process. The only thing she can do to block the deputies from doing their job is to fire them. Her community will not allow her to expose them to the lawsuits for wrongful termination. They will get it together and get her out of there to avoid paying that kind of money.
2
The dying gasp of a religious structure that can't sell it any longer. If the majority of people thought the way this woman thinks (as she says), there's no way same sex marriage would have become law. People just aren't buying it any more. HOORAY!
4
It would seem that marriage licenses issued following the Supreme Court ruling would be valid even though there might be some documents in which the wording is inappropriate. Indeed, should a court clerk have so much power that she can hold up the law? I am thinking of the Civil Rights Era when many house deeds' wordings were overruled by anti-discrimination legislation. I purchased a house in the 1980's in Texas, for example, in which the original deed and abstract listed a long list of specific ethnic and racial groups to which the property could not be sold. I told the realtor & title office that I did not want to purchase the house if that was the case. They told me that the restrictions had been thrown out when ruled unconstitutional and the law advocated for the right of anyone to own property. This is no different. Anyone who is mentally capable of making a decision should be allowed to follow up their own decision to marry by being allowed to do so. The law is on their side now. By the way, Texas was not the only state that put restrictions on which ethnic groups could purchase property. There were some residential developments even in New York State that prohibited Italians, as well as others, from owning property. Concerning the denial of equal rights to all, we all can say "mea culpa", not just the South, but the North as well. Thank goodness the world is changing and more are realizing the injustice of exclusion.
5
The article's title – Kim Davis, Released From Kentucky Jail, Won’t Say if She Will Keep Defying Court – is the wrong question. The right question is "Why Is She Allowed to Keep Her Job? What happened to separation of church and state? Religious and individual freedoms for all?
The law in Kentucky now gives everyone the right to marry. She, in her position and paid with public funds, has the legal obligation to uphold the law. If it so offends her religious beliefs - fine, she should resign. If her refusal to sign her name to the marriage licenses of homosexual couples in any way invalidates their legitimacy, she is violating the law, adding to the consequent problems and discrimination of those couples and has no legal right to do either. Who the hell does this woman think she is - entitled to hold her religious freedom above the right of citizens to benefit from their legal protections? And who are these disgusting ultra-right Conservative politicians - and presidential candidates (God forbid) – who hawk their support at every possible opportunity. Shame on all of them. Disgusting.
The law in Kentucky now gives everyone the right to marry. She, in her position and paid with public funds, has the legal obligation to uphold the law. If it so offends her religious beliefs - fine, she should resign. If her refusal to sign her name to the marriage licenses of homosexual couples in any way invalidates their legitimacy, she is violating the law, adding to the consequent problems and discrimination of those couples and has no legal right to do either. Who the hell does this woman think she is - entitled to hold her religious freedom above the right of citizens to benefit from their legal protections? And who are these disgusting ultra-right Conservative politicians - and presidential candidates (God forbid) – who hawk their support at every possible opportunity. Shame on all of them. Disgusting.
12
I wonder what the reaction would be if Kim Davis were Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish, and refused a court order based on her religion? The pomposity and hypocrisy and outpouring for support of Christian beliefs is disgusting.
Public officials should keep their religious beliefs private and serve ALL the people. We live in a democracy not a theocracy.
Public officials should keep their religious beliefs private and serve ALL the people. We live in a democracy not a theocracy.
18
Run Kim Run! With the support of the conservative religious right wing of the Republican party, the money of the Koch brothers, and the likes of Senator Cruz, I envision a bright political career, a Senate seat perhaps, and why not, even a Vice Presidential nomination....
8
The Roman Catholic Church holds that divorce, except in a few specific circumstances, is a serious sin. What is the thrice-divorced, four-times-married Kim Davis had been denied a marriage license by a Catholic clerk? Would that have been OK? What if a Hindu clerk refused to process a license to a burger chain? What if a clerk from one of the many religions that harshly condemn alcohol were to refuse to process a liquor license for a restaurant, bar, or liquor store? Get real, people!! This dispute is not about religious freedom. It is about one woman's prejudice against our fellow human beings who happen to be born gay.
12
Can Ms. Davis, Huckabee, Cruz, or Mr. Staver explain to me how, exactly, their stance - that my beliefs must not only yield to their beliefs but actually become their beliefs - differs in any material way from Muslim sharia law?
It truly is amazing that those afflicted with evangelical fundamentalism are not actively beheading and stoning and hanging those who in their eyes are sinners. If you are taking the bible literally in one way, you must, to be consistent, take it literally in every way. Jesus didn't tell the crowd assembled not to stone the woman accused of adultery, just that to be fair those heaving the rocks shouldn't have committed any sin. The logical solution to a conundrum like this would be to round up a bunch of strong 5- and 6-year-olds and have them do your dirty work, since they are not mature enough to understand when they are sinning and when they aren't.
Having walked away from religion half a century ago, I have become much more tolerant of those wired a little differently than I am, and less accommodating of those convinced it is their place to dictate my beliefs and actions.
This country practices a soft version of sharia law. Here is a sample of "crimes" that wouldn't be on the books were they not religious "sins" to start with: Prostitution, public profanity(Lord's name in vain), drug use (defiling god's holy temple), polygamy, public nudity [Why do so many of them begin with the letter '"p"? Is "P" just innately nasty?], sodomy, abortion.
It truly is amazing that those afflicted with evangelical fundamentalism are not actively beheading and stoning and hanging those who in their eyes are sinners. If you are taking the bible literally in one way, you must, to be consistent, take it literally in every way. Jesus didn't tell the crowd assembled not to stone the woman accused of adultery, just that to be fair those heaving the rocks shouldn't have committed any sin. The logical solution to a conundrum like this would be to round up a bunch of strong 5- and 6-year-olds and have them do your dirty work, since they are not mature enough to understand when they are sinning and when they aren't.
Having walked away from religion half a century ago, I have become much more tolerant of those wired a little differently than I am, and less accommodating of those convinced it is their place to dictate my beliefs and actions.
This country practices a soft version of sharia law. Here is a sample of "crimes" that wouldn't be on the books were they not religious "sins" to start with: Prostitution, public profanity(Lord's name in vain), drug use (defiling god's holy temple), polygamy, public nudity [Why do so many of them begin with the letter '"p"? Is "P" just innately nasty?], sodomy, abortion.
4
"Outside the jail here, a planned demonstration by people who, like Ms. Davis, say that same-sex marriage violates their religious beliefs "
please do not allow the religious extremists to frame the debate on their terms.
Their beliefs are not 'violated', they are simply offended by gay marriage.
If they were raped the word violated would be appropriate.
If they were forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies in their churches it might also be appropriate.
But it is hardly the right word for holding a strong opinion on something two consenting adults engage in because of love, and to have access to the same legal benefits as other couples.
It is also hardly reasonable for a county official to think their religious beliefs have any bearing on her job.
This is not a theocracy. If you want to live in one, there are several flavors to choose from in the middle east. All very un-democratic!
please do not allow the religious extremists to frame the debate on their terms.
Their beliefs are not 'violated', they are simply offended by gay marriage.
If they were raped the word violated would be appropriate.
If they were forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies in their churches it might also be appropriate.
But it is hardly the right word for holding a strong opinion on something two consenting adults engage in because of love, and to have access to the same legal benefits as other couples.
It is also hardly reasonable for a county official to think their religious beliefs have any bearing on her job.
This is not a theocracy. If you want to live in one, there are several flavors to choose from in the middle east. All very un-democratic!
3
Looking ahead: I understand that in order for Ms. Davis to remain out of jail is to allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses to gay couples without interference. If does, then she'll be heading an office performing a civic function that is against her beliefs, but still receive her $80k salary. Of course, she can choose to defy the court order. And that would bring everything back to square one.
1
Of course, she can quit this job. She is breaking the law.
When one testifies in court, in most jurisdictions an oath is administered with the admonishment of "so help me god". Clearly there is undeniable and almost unescapable pressure on the witness to conform to this ridiculous rite. So until there is definite "theology-out-creep" from the inroads of civic ritual, her civil disobedience is expected and appropriate for this stage of our cultural evolution. Ms. Davis world view is predicated on a certain ordering of things--she is not ready to reweave the upholstery of her life into an embrace of same sex marriage, a new paradigm for our country. Many are not ready for this either for reasons both perceived as ecumenical and/or secular. She is neither to be castigated nor lauded but merely held up as a living reflection of a crossroads of morality in evolution.
Except she had the same option that several people of religious integrity chose. Resign.
Instead, she is attempting to subvert her PUBLIC office to fight against the rights of those who pay her salary. I wonder if she would refuse to cash tax bill checks from those same married couples when they pay them later this year. (In Kentucky the checks are made out to the clerk by name.)
Instead, she is attempting to subvert her PUBLIC office to fight against the rights of those who pay her salary. I wonder if she would refuse to cash tax bill checks from those same married couples when they pay them later this year. (In Kentucky the checks are made out to the clerk by name.)
Kim Davis is a criminal. If she violates the law, put her in jail again. She can quit this job; it is not her birthright. She and her ilk lost the marriage equality battle and are sore losers. If Huckabee, Cruz or any other running for public office break, please remind them of Nixon. Place them in jail and remove their ability to run for public office. This lawlessness needs to stop here and now. And, Huck, you mess with my laws, we'll fight you again and again and again... you lost!
8
Could someone remind me why we even need marriage licenses? Why do I or anyone else need the state's permission to marry? Sure, we can notify them after the fact for documentation. But why can't marriage operate more like having a baby? There's a birth certificate, not a birth license. (Thank God.)
2
Kim Davis was sworn into office as county clerk in January 2015 before gay marriage was brought before the Supreme Court and became legal. She held her religious beliefs on gay marriage before it became law so she should be able to hold those same beliefs now. Anyone who was hired after the gay marriage bill was passed should adhere to this new law and perform them.
I sympathize with her strong values and principles and feel she is being treated unfairly and unjustly by many people. Christians are not condemned to death in our country but many of us have experienced ridicule and mockery because we hold dear our religious faith and practices. If you are a practicing Christian, you will at some point be challenged by those who have no faith. This is prevalent today in our society.
I think Kim Davis has brought to light the difficulty some Christians have experienced and that is why many of us support her. I hope she continues this battle of religious freedom.
I sympathize with her strong values and principles and feel she is being treated unfairly and unjustly by many people. Christians are not condemned to death in our country but many of us have experienced ridicule and mockery because we hold dear our religious faith and practices. If you are a practicing Christian, you will at some point be challenged by those who have no faith. This is prevalent today in our society.
I think Kim Davis has brought to light the difficulty some Christians have experienced and that is why many of us support her. I hope she continues this battle of religious freedom.
2
Why is "religious freedom" always about sex and discriminating against other people?
She is sworn to uphold the law, whatever the law is and no matter when it was passed. She is more than free to disagree with the law but, as a paid employee of the state's bureaucracy, she has no option but to execute and enforce the law as written. She has no right, on moral or legal grounds, to interfere with its execution or enforcement. If she can't or won't comply with what the law requires, her only option, as a matter of conscience and as a matter of law, is to resign and trust her God to help her make that kind of money in some other job. I'm not ridiculing her beliefs, just her attempts to reconcile them with her desire to salvage her income at the same time. Looks like Mammon is winning.
What utter foolishness. I can't even imagine the quagmire we'd end up with if people in elected offices all over the country are able to pick and choose whether or not they're going to follow new laws based upon the timeline of their election. It simply is amateur hour for Kim Davis and her supporters.
What a tawdry demonstration, and Davis behaving like a preacher. Shame on the politicians for supporting her.
This is a country of the division of church and state. Kim, you need to quit your job If you cannot follow the law. You are free to believe as you wish but don't try to push it off on other people.
This is a country of the division of church and state. Kim, you need to quit your job If you cannot follow the law. You are free to believe as you wish but don't try to push it off on other people.
3
As bad as Kim Davis's behavior is, Huckabee is the truly nauseating spectacle here, pandering to ignorance and homophobia in the name of Christ.
2
Isaiah 40:3 - "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.' "
John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life...' "
And Ms. Davis to same-sex couples seeking a marriage license:
MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
She should be ashamed of drawing the limelight on herself in "the name of God". That goes for all the would-be Presidential candidates, and their media-seeking feeding frenzy. And of course, the unnamed financial backers. Such narrow-minded people cloaking their bigotry in the Bible. Very sad.
John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life...' "
And Ms. Davis to same-sex couples seeking a marriage license:
MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!
She should be ashamed of drawing the limelight on herself in "the name of God". That goes for all the would-be Presidential candidates, and their media-seeking feeding frenzy. And of course, the unnamed financial backers. Such narrow-minded people cloaking their bigotry in the Bible. Very sad.
2
The definition of Sharia law is an imposition of religious beliefs into the legal system. How is what Kim Davis, Huckabee and Cruz proposing any different?
5
As citizens, and according to the way it's done here in Kentucky, the gay couples who presented themselves to obtain licenses will, in December, write their property tax payments out to Kim Davis, Rowan County Court Clerk. No word yet whether she will send them back.
16
In the amount of "30 pieces of silver" no doubt....
Well, aren't you special, Mikey Hucksterbee. So, religious freedom means that as long as someone agrees with Mikey's religious view, they should be free to impose that view on any nonbelievers. Pretty much the same way the Taliban and ISIS operates.
As for the rule of law...throw that out the window if Mikey Hucksterbee doesn't like a law. It's tyranny if the court's act and Mikey doesn't approve. So, how can we ever, ever possibly believe that anyone like Mikey or the other candidates beholden to evangelical Christians will actually uphold the constitution should they gain the Presidency? How? It would be PERFECTLY reasonable to assume that if the constitution and their religious beliefs conflict, the constitution will be ignored. And if any court should disagree with their edicts, those courts...including the supreme court, will also be ignored at best, with impeachment and worst threatened. The tyranny of 5 "lawyers" will be replaced by the tyranny of one evangelical dictator...no doubt claiming to be inspired by his god. Tyranny indeed!
As for the rule of law...throw that out the window if Mikey Hucksterbee doesn't like a law. It's tyranny if the court's act and Mikey doesn't approve. So, how can we ever, ever possibly believe that anyone like Mikey or the other candidates beholden to evangelical Christians will actually uphold the constitution should they gain the Presidency? How? It would be PERFECTLY reasonable to assume that if the constitution and their religious beliefs conflict, the constitution will be ignored. And if any court should disagree with their edicts, those courts...including the supreme court, will also be ignored at best, with impeachment and worst threatened. The tyranny of 5 "lawyers" will be replaced by the tyranny of one evangelical dictator...no doubt claiming to be inspired by his god. Tyranny indeed!
5
More proof that we should indeed begin a "war on religion", and purge it's falsehood+insanity completely from all secular affairs. The absurdity of being able to claim exemption from laws will bring great chaos, mischief, and inequality.
6
there is no religion on earth that prohibits processing paperwork.
stop hiding behind religion to excuse yourt personal prejudice.
stop hiding behind religion to excuse yourt personal prejudice.
6
I am a Christian Scientist and a former Sunday School teacher, a denomination generally associated with an abstention from alcohol, drugs (both medicinal and recreational) and adherence to the ten commandments.
Just about every person I meet does not adhere to my religious beliefs. They ridicule them, as a matter of fact.
Sometimes I argue; sometimes I don't. But one thing I am always reminded of when I feel like pontificating: Jesus's admonition that we "enter the closet, and pray in secret, and the God we pray to in secret, will reward us openly."
Therein lies the difference. To pray in secret, to practice in secret, the most inner workings of belief — this is what Jesus admonishes his followers to do. He also said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars."
Ms. Davis and her supporters also ignore another time-honored value: do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
I imagine they'd complain bitterly if a Christian Science clerk denied them equal access to medical treatment and alcohol; if a Jain clerk (or a vegan) denied them fishing and hunting licenses; if a Muslim refused to license weddings where male and female guests were allowed to co-mingle.
Apostolic Christians aren't the only folks in this world who see values they don't uphold. But we are told to uphold the law for the greater good, and to love those we may be inclined to hate.
I don't know how they've lost that lesson; they would be wise to enter their own closets and pray about it.
Just about every person I meet does not adhere to my religious beliefs. They ridicule them, as a matter of fact.
Sometimes I argue; sometimes I don't. But one thing I am always reminded of when I feel like pontificating: Jesus's admonition that we "enter the closet, and pray in secret, and the God we pray to in secret, will reward us openly."
Therein lies the difference. To pray in secret, to practice in secret, the most inner workings of belief — this is what Jesus admonishes his followers to do. He also said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars."
Ms. Davis and her supporters also ignore another time-honored value: do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
I imagine they'd complain bitterly if a Christian Science clerk denied them equal access to medical treatment and alcohol; if a Jain clerk (or a vegan) denied them fishing and hunting licenses; if a Muslim refused to license weddings where male and female guests were allowed to co-mingle.
Apostolic Christians aren't the only folks in this world who see values they don't uphold. But we are told to uphold the law for the greater good, and to love those we may be inclined to hate.
I don't know how they've lost that lesson; they would be wise to enter their own closets and pray about it.
15
Please, somebody put Huckabee in jail! Mixing politics and religion is the fundamental problem with the right wing. Hold your conservative views, but don't put them in the context of religious fervor.
13
Uphold the laws of the land, that is the bottom line. That includes all religion that is contrary to this law. We cannot have religion dictating what we should do and should not do.
6
Can someone please explain what the separation of church and state means in America? I honestly need an answer to this question because the Kim Davis debacle leads me to believe that it doesn't ecist.
7
Well, for the most part it is affirming the separation. It is merely one misguided government official and a couple of pandering candidates that are being un-American about the whole thing. The judge and the Governor are responding normally so far and not a peep from the legislature that is probably thrilled they are not back til January.
I'll go out on a limb and predict that Kim Davis will obey the judge's order not to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses -- because if she interferes again, she'll eventually lose her job and the very generous $80,000 taxpayer-paid salary that comes with it.
Resigning, which is the honorable thing to do, would probably be a financial disaster for the family, I'm guessing -- not to mention she would cease to be newsworthy, as well, causing her lawyers, Liberty Counsel, to walk away.
Resigning, which is the honorable thing to do, would probably be a financial disaster for the family, I'm guessing -- not to mention she would cease to be newsworthy, as well, causing her lawyers, Liberty Counsel, to walk away.
8
What I don't understand and can't get past is the fact that this woman and these religious fundamentalists who support her do not seem to understand that the same rights that grant them their religious freedom also grants gays the right to marry. Nowhere in the Constitution -- or any other government document -- does it say the right to religious freedom also contains the right to deny others their religious freedom. Davis says that signing the marriage licenses is against her beliefs, but has taken it upon herself to deny the same freedom of expression to couples seeking to marry. I can't think of anything more hypocritical and more offensive to any kind of God than the kind of bigotry and prejudice Kim Davis is exhibiting. She is the worst kind of "Christian" using her faith to bludgeon other people. My suggestion is that Judge Bunning offer her this ultimatum: Step down voluntarily or go back to jail. Except that I think this is exactly what Kim Davis wants. She wants to be a Christian martyr publicly fed to the lions -- to be Daniela in the lions' den. (This seems to be the kind of martyrdom she really wants.)
And the circling of these political vultures only makes the situation worse. I fear greatly for America if these are the choices we have for President. When Bush was re-elected in 2004, there was a headline in a national Swedish newspaper: How can 54 million Americans be so stupid? I fear it is only getting worse.
And the circling of these political vultures only makes the situation worse. I fear greatly for America if these are the choices we have for President. When Bush was re-elected in 2004, there was a headline in a national Swedish newspaper: How can 54 million Americans be so stupid? I fear it is only getting worse.
15
Watching Hucksterbee, Cruz and the newly annointed Davis parade in front of the media and exploit the situation for the greedy sake of attention was appaling. Perhaps they should heed Proverbs 16:18, commonly surmised as, "Pride goeth before a fall."
13
What a spectacle! Proof positive that the danger of the establishment of a religious state in America will not come from Muslims (i.e. Sharia Law) but from misguided people like Kim Davis and pandering politicians like Mike "Jail me instead" Huckabee and Ted Cruz.
And the Huffington Post refuses to cover Trump in its politics section because it does not consider him a serious candidate--it covers him in the entertainment section.
But it considers Huckabee and Cruz credible? We are fortunate that the overwhelming number of Americans polled thus far on their choices for the Republican presidential nominee think differently.
And the Huffington Post refuses to cover Trump in its politics section because it does not consider him a serious candidate--it covers him in the entertainment section.
But it considers Huckabee and Cruz credible? We are fortunate that the overwhelming number of Americans polled thus far on their choices for the Republican presidential nominee think differently.
6
What a trashy display..An embarrassment for this country...And Hucksterby
milking it for all it was worth... Once again, religion demonstrates its capacity for
exploiting ignorance.
milking it for all it was worth... Once again, religion demonstrates its capacity for
exploiting ignorance.
20
She made her point. Martyrdom remains the best tool to fool.
2
I'm not shocked that some people are sexist. But when it comes to her beliefs I thinks it’s ridiculous that she has a "grudge" against gay come on now God doesn't have any problems with gay. If you truly love someone then be with Her/him. I don't personally believe in "God", but I'm not disrespectful to others that have their own beliefs. People that have supposedly religious "rules". I think She would become a "sinner" in the bible. All my aunts are lesbian. I think people who defy the rule should go to jail. Because people who defy rule should be punished. Antislavery/~/ same-sex marriage think that a really far-fetched comparison because slavery in the U.S is abolished by law I don't understand why that people think that Antislavery case can go to same sex marriage. It doesn't make sense what so ever. People who discriminate over gays are "haters" to society. People who want to join her is fine by me less hatred in U.S is needed. Same-sex marriage is obviously fine by me but what I'm worried about is when things get out of hand. Gay live their lives "Straight’s" live theirs. I really don't understand the whole gist of the battle against gays and straights I think it' unnecessary.
The clerk Ms. Davis needs to get a reality check we don't discriminate over Different people.
This is my response to that outdated clerk that need to check her religious "rules"...
By
Doug
Hough
The clerk Ms. Davis needs to get a reality check we don't discriminate over Different people.
This is my response to that outdated clerk that need to check her religious "rules"...
By
Doug
Hough
2
I was offended by Mike Huckabee's image-profiteering over Ms. Davis's release. Her own conduct was bad enough but, although misguided, it was at least conceivably based on faith.
Mike Huckabee's was not. Think about it: a "Christian" patriot who accepts Ted Nugent's bigotry but not the U.S. constitution? Theatrical fake tear-wiping and all, the man is a divisive hate-monger and a more shameless self promoter than Al Sharpton ever was. If God is watching, he must cringe.
Mike Huckabee's was not. Think about it: a "Christian" patriot who accepts Ted Nugent's bigotry but not the U.S. constitution? Theatrical fake tear-wiping and all, the man is a divisive hate-monger and a more shameless self promoter than Al Sharpton ever was. If God is watching, he must cringe.
16
And she stands in the picture raising her arms to a chairing crowd like she has done something groundbreaking, something historic. The ignorance and pure stupidity of this woman, her supporters and the media covering the story is mystifying. Basic lack of US history and the Constitution has been ignored and somehow replaced with this one-stop shop religious ideology that makes these people comparable to the Islamic fundamentalist that are running through the Middle East and terrorizing the world based on "God's [Allah's] authority." She is a national embarrassment, symbolic of the backwards- backwoods hick stereotype that Kentucky seems unable to escape. If these Christians really believed in God's power, I wonder why they insist on acting as God and neither have the patience or trust that God will deal with the sinners in time?
15
The video makes clear she is disturbed. I grew up with this kind of religious sickness. I only hope she is a dying breed. I don't mean her personally - I am not wishing her dead, but I sure wish what she represents would die and never be heard from again. It makes me physically ill to listen to people like her talk in her hectoring, quasi-hysterical voice, anything to elicit another moment of manipulated emotion from the crowd - you can almost see these people mentally picking up their pitchforks and lighting their torches.
If I were a praying person, I would only pray this sort of thing will surely be a historical footnote soon. These people sicken me.
If I were a praying person, I would only pray this sort of thing will surely be a historical footnote soon. These people sicken me.
14
I'm glad she got out of jail. And I hope and pray she finds the true meaning of religion and love.
2
Rhonda, a prediction: Not a prayer of your hope happening as long as Ms. Davis remains in thrall to evangelical fundamentalism.
Ms. Davis was elected to do a job; one that had a clear job description attached to it. And I'm sure that job description did not include a clause that gave her the latitude to pick and choose the functions she wanted to perform. It's all or nothing. And now she needs to decide whether her job or religious beliefs are more important because she can't pick both. If she picks the job then she needs to perform ALL of her responsibilities without regard to her religious beliefs. However, if Ms. Davis feels her religious beliefs take precedence then she needs to resign her position. That action I would respect. Defying a court order I do not.
13
I, for one, don't believe that Ms. Davis's refusal to issue the marriage licenses was ever *solely* about her personal religious convictions. This was nothing from the start but willful obstruction and grandstanding. Had it really been true, that it was about her personal convictions, then she would not have gone so far out of her way to be obstructive at every single turn.
She exercised and exhausted her legal options to have the courts rule, they refused meaning they stood in opposition to her request. She refused to accept Judge Bunning's decision that the other clerks issue the licenses, a remedy she herself could have quietly put into place. None of whom objected, except for her son. Instead, her reaction was to attempt to use her position as their supervisor to intimidate them into also refusing. She elected jail time for herself as the consequences of her continued denial. Once she was in jail, she and her lawyers decided that the licenses issued by the clerks were invalid, and now request that her name be removed from them entirely, which makes no sense in light of their previous claim as to their validity without it.
In addition, it's also about an $80K job. Many, if not most, convictions come at a personal cost to those who profess them. Apparently the strength of her closely and vehemently held religious convictions, as well as her trust in her god, was not worth the price to be paid, but was instead shifted to others to bear.
She exercised and exhausted her legal options to have the courts rule, they refused meaning they stood in opposition to her request. She refused to accept Judge Bunning's decision that the other clerks issue the licenses, a remedy she herself could have quietly put into place. None of whom objected, except for her son. Instead, her reaction was to attempt to use her position as their supervisor to intimidate them into also refusing. She elected jail time for herself as the consequences of her continued denial. Once she was in jail, she and her lawyers decided that the licenses issued by the clerks were invalid, and now request that her name be removed from them entirely, which makes no sense in light of their previous claim as to their validity without it.
In addition, it's also about an $80K job. Many, if not most, convictions come at a personal cost to those who profess them. Apparently the strength of her closely and vehemently held religious convictions, as well as her trust in her god, was not worth the price to be paid, but was instead shifted to others to bear.
11
Plainly, she's unable to do her job, so she needs to find another job. She's not queen of her office kingdom, she's a public servant, that simply needs to do her basic job.
8
Maybe there's a Hobby Lobby nearby.
I find a disturbance in the force when Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump are the reasonable voices of the GOP on this issue.
Says a lot about the GOP ... a party of cowards, except for a meager handful.
Says a lot about the GOP ... a party of cowards, except for a meager handful.
8
Next, a Mormon will take a job in a liquor store and refuse to wait on customers because drinking is against his religion.
8
Her protest is apparently getting some local support but I suspect that if she were Muslim and refused to issue liquor licenses to bars or Jewish and refused to issue business license to any restaurants serving pork or shellfish the same folks who support imposing her beliefs on the community would raise a hue and cry about having someone's religious beliefs imposed upon them. Invariably most people's view of "religious freedom" changes when they are in control from actual freedom to the freedom to impose their religious views on everyone else.
4
Ah, but that's just it. She and her handlers, Matt Staver and her supporters like Mike Huckabee, would not DARE impose the same religious judgement on ALL the people coming to their offices. Davis and all the wedding vendors in the news who refused service to gay people had NO religious test for any other members of the public.
ONLY gay people have been confronted with this contradictory and hypocritical test. As they were in the courts of law initially.
Which one could rightly surmise, this isn't about religious freedom, but anti gay bigotry.
It's the moral and intellectual dishonesty of those who support Davis that are insisting otherwise.
ONLY gay people have been confronted with this contradictory and hypocritical test. As they were in the courts of law initially.
Which one could rightly surmise, this isn't about religious freedom, but anti gay bigotry.
It's the moral and intellectual dishonesty of those who support Davis that are insisting otherwise.
If she keeps defying the court, she should be arrested and kept in jail until she is removed from her job. This is ridiculous. The far right fundamentalist who scream that the the Supreme Court has no right to interpret the law have no qualms about interpreting it themselves.
7
It is so disheartening how ignorant the right-wing is about our government. Just what do they think the Supreme Court (1/3 of federal government power) actually exists for in the first place? Interpreting the law is their one and only function.
These people are effectively anti-American. They stand against the fundamental principals that are the greatest aspect of our country.
These people are effectively anti-American. They stand against the fundamental principals that are the greatest aspect of our country.
1
Of the 2,000 or so recognized hate groups in America today, almost all of them also have a religious component and that includes the one from the article, the Family Research Council run by Tony Perkins.
These are the people who are supporting this nonsense and the white supremacists groups all operate out of churches or claim to be Christians of some stripe.
They will be demanding their rights to discriminate too soon and how will that be handled?
Are we a country of laws? Are we a secular nation? Are we all equal under the eyes of the law? Or do we allow fear, hate and superstition to rule us?
These are the people who are supporting this nonsense and the white supremacists groups all operate out of churches or claim to be Christians of some stripe.
They will be demanding their rights to discriminate too soon and how will that be handled?
Are we a country of laws? Are we a secular nation? Are we all equal under the eyes of the law? Or do we allow fear, hate and superstition to rule us?
14
So Huckabee wants to be the one sent to jail in place of Ms. Davis? Great. All those Christians lining up for their chance at martyrdom, what a precious sight!
"Come down off of that cross, we could use the wood", my favorite line from a Tom Waits' song.
Humor is the best defense against would-be martyrs.
"Come down off of that cross, we could use the wood", my favorite line from a Tom Waits' song.
Humor is the best defense against would-be martyrs.
14
The photograph of the crowd is instructive. So many people are upset by same-sex marriage, expending energy fighting a lost cause: to make it disappear. Even without same-sex marriage, homosexual coupling will continue. If those in the crowd are real Christians I suggest they use that energy to help people in need. I think they should "live and let live." If God really finds same- sex marriage sinful, the so-called sinners will pay the price in heaven. In the meantime, to the frantic crowd I'd say "Judge not lest ye yourself be judged."
11
The religious right has lost every significant court battle, on every significant issue, in the last thirty years. America, as a whole, does not countenance extremist views. The Tea Party may win individual races but has never elected a national candidate.
Memo to Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum - each of you has one thing in common: you try to impose your beliefs upon others using unethical or unlawful approaches. What I love about America is that, when push comes to shove, Americans shove back at those whose agendas are extreme and pushy. Learn from history, you all.
Memo to Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum - each of you has one thing in common: you try to impose your beliefs upon others using unethical or unlawful approaches. What I love about America is that, when push comes to shove, Americans shove back at those whose agendas are extreme and pushy. Learn from history, you all.
11
This woman is a Democrat. It's HER party that is responsible for the new law that demands gay marriages. She probably voted for Obama and other democrats that are pushing the gay agenda. Why should she not be expected to abide by the dastardly rules and regulations that she wants mandated on every body else?!?!
Huh? "a new law that demands gay marriages'? What new law are you referring to? Do you mean the Supreme Court upholding one of the most basic concepts to be found in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all? THAT new law? The one that says in part: "equal protection under the law to all people" and led to the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. THAT new law?
This isn't about religious freedom, my friend. It's about how you assume your religion legalizes all manner of discrimination and bigotry that allows you to do your damndest with a free conscience.
This isn't about religious freedom, my friend. It's about how you assume your religion legalizes all manner of discrimination and bigotry that allows you to do your damndest with a free conscience.
1
There is no gay agenda. Democrats favor equal treatment for all Americans. Why don't you?
1
When watching the press conference or whatever the shindig was called upon Kim Davis' release from the County pokey, why did I feel as though I was watching Granny's kin folk back home while Jethro and Ellie Mae spent their Golden Years in Beverly Hills?
8
Hi Kim haven't see you around the office lately, hope everything is OK. Oh by the way I would appreciate you not misrepresenting me all the time. And those three divorces and 4 husbands, not exactly what I had in mind when I created Marriage.
Haven't seen the new husband around on Sundays, I guess he has better things to do; and that farmer John outfit yesterday isn't fooling anyone. Well have to run, I've been busy with all those people who think they know what I said better that I do.
Jesus
Haven't seen the new husband around on Sundays, I guess he has better things to do; and that farmer John outfit yesterday isn't fooling anyone. Well have to run, I've been busy with all those people who think they know what I said better that I do.
Jesus
10
Mr. Huckabee told the crowd. “Every one of us will have to decide whether we want to keep this great country or whether we want to surrender and sacrifice it to tyranny.”
That's exactly right, but the only tyranny in evidence here is the religious tyranny that is suppressing genuine freedom.
That's exactly right, but the only tyranny in evidence here is the religious tyranny that is suppressing genuine freedom.
13
"When Fascism comes to America, it will arrive wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross." -Sinclair Lewis
16
Stealing that!
Dear god ... please spare me from all religions ... thank you and sincerely, Steve
13
I am SO disgusted with people like Kim Davis. How many times has she been divorced? How many children has she had out of wedlock?? And SHE is throwing right wing platitudes out? This thinking public thinks she needs more time in the tank ...
8
Let's make a few things quite clear. Not ALL Christians accept the bible so literally! In fact few do. There are many in the gay community who ARE Chistians themselves and Christian churches which accept them. Marriage is about FIDELITY and COMMITMENT. I would think these fundamentalists, (and I prefer to refer to that term, not Christians), would be incensed by no laws regarding unions with no FIDELITY and no COMMITMENT as result, and perhaps promiscuity and debauchery.
6
This fight is so eerily reminiscent of the fight to end slavery or to grant civil rights. Many so called protectors of religious freedom cite the Kentucky law that they say "0ver 75% of Kentucky voters supported" to deny equal right to marriage to same sex couples. The same probably could have been said of the South and slavery. I am sure it was supported by a majority of southerners.But to these supporters of the current fight, the right to religious freedom does not give Ms Davis the right to discriminate and the First Amendment does not trump the Fourteenth giving everyone in Kentucky equal protection. And to those that say the Supreme Court overstepped? You obviously did not pay attention in Kentucky to your Civics class. This is exactly the type of fight that the Supreme Court was put in place to guide. They are the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. What is scary to me is that Ms Davis' supporters are all to willing to set aside the Fourteenth Amendment to protect her so called religious freedom.
6
Does nobody get that the reason this woman didn't do the simple expedient thing, resign, is that she has a cushy "government" job where she doesn't have to work too hard, gets great benefits and can retire early and leave the job to her son. She'll do anything to preserve that. What a shallow phony.
12
When bigots like Huckabee and Cruz join this hypocritical buffoon is 'celebrating' religious freedom, you know that ALL the freedoms of Americans are threatened by these neo-religious fascists. Secular Nation does mean Christian law.
I am so tired of these Republican monsters trying to destroy the United Stares.
America, please wake up before the cross becomes our new flag.
I am so tired of these Republican monsters trying to destroy the United Stares.
America, please wake up before the cross becomes our new flag.
15
Lock her up and next time throw the key away
5
How did some Americans citizens get so screwed up about religious freedom? This country was founded on freedom FROM religion, and the default is people cannot impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. I spent much of my life as a Christian but have always heartily resented those who think their beliefs trump mine, no matter what brand of doctrine they espouse. You want to work for our government? Then accept that civil service is secular, even if you are not.
14
They really do cling to their guns and their bibles.
18
Fire her!
2
Circus Maximus!
• Outside the jail here, a planned demonstration by people who, like Ms. Davis, say that same-sex marriage violates their religious beliefs turned buoyant when she was released, the sense of triumph mixed with a dose of presidential politics.
She walked onstage to thunderous applause..., her hands held aloft by one of her lawyers, Mathew D. Staver, and Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor. Another Republican presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was also in attendance but largely overshadowed.
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." ~ THOMAS GRAY
• Outside the jail here, a planned demonstration by people who, like Ms. Davis, say that same-sex marriage violates their religious beliefs turned buoyant when she was released, the sense of triumph mixed with a dose of presidential politics.
She walked onstage to thunderous applause..., her hands held aloft by one of her lawyers, Mathew D. Staver, and Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor. Another Republican presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was also in attendance but largely overshadowed.
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." ~ THOMAS GRAY
6
I suspect Ms. Davis will try to block her deputies from issuing licences.
Does this country really want to go down the road where every person has a personal veto over which laws they want to follow?
Does this country really want to go down the road where every person has a personal veto over which laws they want to follow?
8
"Accommodations" sounds an awful lot like "Let's issue marriage licenses to gay couples out of the broom closet on the third floor." As has been the case so often in the past, the sweet and seductive reasonableness of accommodations opens the door to a raft of special treatment provisions which are just another way of making gay couples continue to occupy some second or third class status. The thinking behind "religious freedom" is the same as that which got us "separate but equal."
5
Yesterday's performance in a word: Pathetic
Yesterday's implications: Scary
Yesterday's travelling minstrel show: Huckabee
Yesterday's begged question: Is she still being paid $85,000 for not doing her job?
Yesterday's implications: Scary
Yesterday's travelling minstrel show: Huckabee
Yesterday's begged question: Is she still being paid $85,000 for not doing her job?
3
Ms. Davis has the right to her beliefs but not to impose those beliefs on anyone else. She was elected to do a job for the state and if she cannot do that job as specified by the highest courts in the nation then she must resign. I am either gay nor Christian but I support gay rights and Christian rights and resent anyone telling telling me thru their actions what I an or cannot do when it is within the laws of our country. Shame on ms Davis
2
Dear fellow non church going folk,
When asked why you don't go to participate in organized religion - just show a picture of Kim Davis.
I have to endure these people Monday through Friday, I sure am not going to voluntarily spend Sunday with them.
When asked why you don't go to participate in organized religion - just show a picture of Kim Davis.
I have to endure these people Monday through Friday, I sure am not going to voluntarily spend Sunday with them.
7
John, it's people like Davis that make Sunday mornings from 9 AM to Noon so peaceful and quiet. As long as you don't get within earshot of their houses of "worship" or whatever that caterwauling they do is called.
Where was the disinterested prosecutor? The Supreme Court has ruled that a disinterested prosecutor must be appointed in prosecution for contempt. The S.C. specifically ruled that the attorney for the civil party claiming violation of an injunction cannot be the prosecutor in contempt. See Young v. U.S. Ex Rel Vuitton et Fils. S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987).
When was her bail hearing? She was entitled to a bail hearing. See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules 42 and 46.
When was her bail hearing? She was entitled to a bail hearing. See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules 42 and 46.
The legal authorities you cite apply only to criminal contempt. They do not apply to civil contempt. Ms. Davis was cited for civil contempt, not criminal contempt.
To see this video, the auto-vindication of the self-righteous (the same that asks of others to obey the law of the land), is deeply distressing and disheartening. The religious wars of the Middle East are mirrored in our own religious vs. constitution wars.
5
Looking at the photo of the crowd of people supporting Ms. Davis, it is hard to believe----and frightening---that there are so many ignorant and bigoted people in our country.
8
This is not a question of whether gay marriage is right, or acceptable.
It is not a question as to whether anyone could claim that someone is showing: bigotry, prejudice, or other 'crime' in refusing to carry out government laws. From dictionary definitions:
prejudice ---
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
bigotry ---
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
In fact, showing bigotry or prejudice was never itself made a crime in this country. (Yet laws were recently enacted that refer to such terms and imply that evidence of such non-crimes, and effects of purported such non-crimes, if proved, amount to proof of some crime already pronounce as such,)
So it comes close to making bigotry or prejudice a crime. And such non-crime, technically not crime, is immediately seen as crime in the common thinking of most people.
But the case of Kim Davis has not been about bigotry or anything like that, per se. It is about non-compliance with government law.
Government law has been encroaching upon expressions of conscience. This is not the first time. This began happening to any appreciable extent, back in the 60s, perhaps earlier. Then with the new Affordable Healthcare Act, people are required to buy medical insurance. What if doing so is against someone's beliefs?
So isn't any of this kind of a heavy price to pay for having democracy?
It is not a question as to whether anyone could claim that someone is showing: bigotry, prejudice, or other 'crime' in refusing to carry out government laws. From dictionary definitions:
prejudice ---
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
bigotry ---
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
In fact, showing bigotry or prejudice was never itself made a crime in this country. (Yet laws were recently enacted that refer to such terms and imply that evidence of such non-crimes, and effects of purported such non-crimes, if proved, amount to proof of some crime already pronounce as such,)
So it comes close to making bigotry or prejudice a crime. And such non-crime, technically not crime, is immediately seen as crime in the common thinking of most people.
But the case of Kim Davis has not been about bigotry or anything like that, per se. It is about non-compliance with government law.
Government law has been encroaching upon expressions of conscience. This is not the first time. This began happening to any appreciable extent, back in the 60s, perhaps earlier. Then with the new Affordable Healthcare Act, people are required to buy medical insurance. What if doing so is against someone's beliefs?
So isn't any of this kind of a heavy price to pay for having democracy?
Living in any society means that the members agree, tacitly or not, to follow a set of rules...known as laws. Without rules, you have chaos. You can believe whatever you want, but if you act outside the rules, society must react. If rules are broken and society does not respond, then that society will eventually collapse. If should be obvious, but I will state it anyway, that everyone in a society will have certain rules they don't like. Democratic societies allow members to act to change the rules they don't like, but no one ever achieves a situation where they like all the rules unless they become a dictator. So, unless your goal is to become a dictator, if you want to live in society, you must accept the fact that there are rules that you don't personally approve.
These Christian fanatics are no different than the Islamist. Both want Sharia (God's Law). The right wing Christians want the Christian Sharia here instead of our secular constitutional law.
5
This is what results when people think that religious beliefs are sacred and therefore higher than laws created by mere mortals. The problem here is with religion itself. Numerous commenters here have already pointed out that, in flouting the law and refusing to issue marriage licenses, Ms. Davis is violating the terms of her employment as a civil servant. The honorable thing for her to do, therefore, in order to reconcile her beliefs with her actions, would simply be to resign. That way she can continue to believe that same-sex marriage is ungodly without appearing to be a hypocrite by giving her imprimatur to same-sex marriages by affixing her signature to same-sex-marriage licenses. (Never mind that she is obviously a hypocrite in numerous other ways, beginning with her failure to follow the dictum to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.) Ms. Davis has no special right to hold the office of county clerk. But none of that matters to her because she answers to a higher authority. This is exactly the thinking of ISIS, whose members routinely violate laws against war crimes, rape, slavery, and destruction of world heritage sites simply because such laws are in conflict with and of lesser importance than their religious beliefs. Both of these cases, albeit at different points along the spectrum of harm, demonstrate how religion itself is incompatible with civil society and leads ultimately to anarchy. This case is just a symptom; the disease is religion itself.
3
If you choose to violate the law or break your government oath because of an objection of conscience, you need to be willing to go to jail. Martin Luther King Jr. understood and accepted this better than anyone. Ms. Davis's allies, especially Huckabee, appear not to understand this aspect of conscientious objection.
10
When my mother and father attempted to get married in the early sixties a similar situation took place because my father was black and my mother was white. The county clerk did issue a marriage on license in Queens NY at the time and my mother and father after searching forn3,monts or more found a paster to marry them. However, when a I was born there was no marriage license registered, so the powers that be wanted to claim my birth as illegitimate. My mother wasn't having it and marched back down to the cityclerks office to inquire why the marriage wasn't registered and showed them her copy. My mother told me the man chuckled and said, "We thought you were joking about that Nigger! But we see you were serious." Gestering to her brown baby in her arms being me! The motto of this story I'm sure this man was a good Christian too! At the time NY had laws allowing interracial marriages, but that didn't stop the county clerk from violating my parents civil rights! Kim Davis is nobody's martyr! She could have just as easily gotten another post if she felt her religious beliefs were being challenged. As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible that says an interracial marriage is an abomination. But it makes me wonder if my parents had walked into that clerks office where she worked would she have denied them a marriage licsence for the same reasons that county clerk did years ago?
5
Does she think "L'état, C'est Moi"? That's the only way the state's approval of same-sex marriage indicates her personal approval.
4
"Won't say is she will keep defying court?"
So... she still works for the state even though she willfully broke the law? Nice job security there.
So... she still works for the state even though she willfully broke the law? Nice job security there.
2
She is elected and has to be impeached. Our governor brought the suit that meant laws against same-sex marriage were struck down by the Supreme Court. It's all faux conservatism: got to keep that evangelical base fired up, because right now, it's what they've got. I have no issue with evangelical Christians. I just wish they'd read more, including the Bible, before they get themselves into such impossible situations. "Eye of the Tiger"--which accompanied Huckabee's campaign appearance--is (ahem) not a hymn.
She was elected. She's essentially a politician. Do not confuse a politician with a civil servant, government employee who would most definitely be fired for disobeying the law.
Yes, absolutely Davies has to be impeached. Her wrongdoing cannot be ignored, but at the risk of enraging thousands of ignorant fundamentalist evangelicals convinced that they're "right with God", no matter whose civil rights they're eager to see violated. I thought that upholding the Constitution was part of the oath of office for just about any political office. So technically, supporting anyone who knowingly and wilfully violates anyone else's civil rights (Huckabee and Cruz, are you listening?) ought to be enough to start impeachment proceedings.
George Takei said it best today:
"Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others. If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side? In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American."
"Well this is a bit of a circus. So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated. She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married. She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others. If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side? In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American."
19
Ted Cruz was born in Canada....so you can't really blame him...can you? Davis and Hucksterbee are evangelical first, and American second...at best.
I suppose it's too late to put her in the stockade.
Nice to see Huckabee pandering to the christian crazies. You're gonna get that book deal and talk show yet, Mike!
Nice to see Huckabee pandering to the christian crazies. You're gonna get that book deal and talk show yet, Mike!
6
The way it works is if you can't do your job, you don't get to keep your job. In this case, she's an elected official - who can't do her job. So, they need to impeach her for choosing to not do her job. Or she can resign.
She's not special. She's having trouble doing her job because of her personal and religious beliefs. So, out she goes. And ditto for anyone else in her office who can't do their jobs.
It's all pretty simple. Not sure what all the commotion is about.
She's not special. She's having trouble doing her job because of her personal and religious beliefs. So, out she goes. And ditto for anyone else in her office who can't do their jobs.
It's all pretty simple. Not sure what all the commotion is about.
4
The commotion is about money and fame. Kim Davis wants both...if she simply resigned, all she would have is honor.
Kim, when it seems that God hates the same people you do, you've probably created God in your own image. (Credits to Annie Lamont and her priest friend).
14
Smart move by the judge. In jail this silly woman is a martyr for Republican religious fanatics. Out of jail with no ability to interfere with the process of issuing licenses she's an irrelevance.
11
Watching this fracas unfold -- viewing this woman as an all-too-easy object of abuse, trying to keep up with the subsequent debate -- let one aging gay say this:
It will be too easy to forget that any public discussion of gay rights, let alone the unthinkable dream of same-sex marriage, would have been impossible not so very long ago -- within my lifetime, for whatever that's worth.
As times change, younger folks won't have a sense of what it meant to take "religious" posturing in stride -- Anita Bryant, anyone? Sneering, sanctimonious disapproval was a simple fact of gay life. One it was a thrill -- a way of life -- to rise above.
Difficult for me, then, to view the Kentucky circus as anything less than a cause for celebration. The word is out, the tide is turning, the dinosaurs are dying all around.
Next year at this time, I'll be happily married to my Charlie (of 13 years). The Kentucky fuss will be a footnote. Just like Anita Bryant.
It will be too easy to forget that any public discussion of gay rights, let alone the unthinkable dream of same-sex marriage, would have been impossible not so very long ago -- within my lifetime, for whatever that's worth.
As times change, younger folks won't have a sense of what it meant to take "religious" posturing in stride -- Anita Bryant, anyone? Sneering, sanctimonious disapproval was a simple fact of gay life. One it was a thrill -- a way of life -- to rise above.
Difficult for me, then, to view the Kentucky circus as anything less than a cause for celebration. The word is out, the tide is turning, the dinosaurs are dying all around.
Next year at this time, I'll be happily married to my Charlie (of 13 years). The Kentucky fuss will be a footnote. Just like Anita Bryant.
56
Both Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde went to prison for being gay. I have always admired Wilde's writings and Turing is, for me, a hero. At the same time I also sympathize with Kim Davis. Once we see that the issue is one of government oppression of people for being who they are, we can see that all three belong in the same basket.
What Turing and Wilde did was against British law of their time. Why aren't people here rushing forward and saying that they should have "obeyed the law"?
Many people (like me) who are fine with gay relationships, even gay marriage, are going to be horrified by the double standard. And whether you like or not, the Republicans are going to benefit in 2016. I don't much like the Republican party but see nothing wrong with Democrats having to learn a lesson in kindness.
What Turing and Wilde did was against British law of their time. Why aren't people here rushing forward and saying that they should have "obeyed the law"?
Many people (like me) who are fine with gay relationships, even gay marriage, are going to be horrified by the double standard. And whether you like or not, the Republicans are going to benefit in 2016. I don't much like the Republican party but see nothing wrong with Democrats having to learn a lesson in kindness.
1
You're confusing things. Davis is refusing to carry out her SWORN DUTIES of office because of a personal issue and willingly violating the civil rights of others. What Turing and Wilde did was against British law of their time, but it had nothing to do with willingly violating the civil rights of others.
Congrats, Brian and Charlie!
Let's say this the correct way: Ms. Davis’s failed argument and eventual release from appropriate incarceration have resonated deeply among other less narrow-minded Americans, many of whom fear an erosion of freedom from religion. She, Mike Huckabee, and flocks of those incapable of independent thought want a theocracy, and will not be satisfied until they get it. Iran already has one - give that one a spin and get back to us.
5
These Christian extremists don't see the connection. Islam bad, Christianity good, therefore, the only good theocracy is a Christian theocracy.
1
How efficiently our government could operate these days!!!
Why, we need not go to all the trouble of electing officials to help make laws. Just five "wise guys"
can do it for us!!!!!
Oh, by the way; if the is no right or wrong (which is true of course) then what do we need to worry about!!!right:-)
By the way, can anyone tell me what vested interest the state or the Fed for that matter has in marriage???
Can't have to do with reproduction, there are " too many people in the world now" right.
Marriage is a religious concept, most heterosexuals now of days don't bother with it any more.
The reason the Church lost this argument is because marriage has been reduced to not much more then a sexual relationship I.e." kids are optional" so what's the difference. And if it is okay to kill them ( Roe v Wade) there goose the good old supreme court again, making laws( or rather shoving there opinion on a nation who took it as law).
I'm so in awe of those who can tell me that the earth is "about so many billions of years old" how anyone can know that is amazing, or maybe not.
Most of them can't stand to here of someone who would believe anything out of a book a mere thousands of years old at the most.
Why, we need not go to all the trouble of electing officials to help make laws. Just five "wise guys"
can do it for us!!!!!
Oh, by the way; if the is no right or wrong (which is true of course) then what do we need to worry about!!!right:-)
By the way, can anyone tell me what vested interest the state or the Fed for that matter has in marriage???
Can't have to do with reproduction, there are " too many people in the world now" right.
Marriage is a religious concept, most heterosexuals now of days don't bother with it any more.
The reason the Church lost this argument is because marriage has been reduced to not much more then a sexual relationship I.e." kids are optional" so what's the difference. And if it is okay to kill them ( Roe v Wade) there goose the good old supreme court again, making laws( or rather shoving there opinion on a nation who took it as law).
I'm so in awe of those who can tell me that the earth is "about so many billions of years old" how anyone can know that is amazing, or maybe not.
Most of them can't stand to here of someone who would believe anything out of a book a mere thousands of years old at the most.
'Why, we need not go to all the trouble of electing officials to help make laws. Just five "wise guys"can do it for us!!!!!'
The right used to put up billboards with "Impeach Earl Warren" on them. Now they want to abolish the whole court.
The right used to put up billboards with "Impeach Earl Warren" on them. Now they want to abolish the whole court.
"By the way, can anyone tell me what vested interest the state or the Fed for that matter has in marriage???"
The government, at various levels bestows certain rights and benefits to married couples. The rights and benefits are not religious, but civil. That's where "equal protection" comes in, and that's what the fight is about, not about whether God approves or disapproves of same-sex marriage.
The government, at various levels bestows certain rights and benefits to married couples. The rights and benefits are not religious, but civil. That's where "equal protection" comes in, and that's what the fight is about, not about whether God approves or disapproves of same-sex marriage.
If this woman were truly acting on her conscience, were truly as principled as she claims to be, she would resign her position. She would refuse to serve in any government that sanctioned marriage for same-sex couples. She would find the entire US government completely tainted because of this decision, and refuse to have anything to do with it. But that job is a peachy position that pays her $80,000 a year in a county where, given her evident lack of education and sophistication, she would probably make the median wage for Rowan County, Kentucky, which is about $15,000 a year. So far she's managed to have her cake and eat it too. She can protest and make a stink, but so far, nothing really significant has happened to her. She hasn't made a single sacrifice for her so-called religious faith. A weekend in jail? Big deal. Has she been chased by cops with dogs or been beaten with billy clubs? Jailed in Birmingham? Gone on a hunger strike? Led a band of devoted followers to protest on the steps of the Supreme Court? No. She's a first-class fake.
17
It will be interesting if any Christian clerks will start asking if people have obeyed all of the Bible's passages before issuing licenses. Or Christian Judges denying divorces because of faith.
6
"'This is not a political campaign, and I don’t want it to be and neither would Kim,' Mr. Staver, her lawyer, said of the rally. 'This is an event to honor God.'"
I wonder if Staver is prepared to defend ISIS engendered actions with the same defense. Surely they are as religious and have as firm a belief in God as does Davis.
As to Huckabee and Cruz, it would appear that, instead of running for President, they are running for Grand Ayatollah. They appear to be more comfortable with the way things are done in Iran than in America. How times change. Once upon a time Republican candidates for President were all about "Law And Order."
If you violate the law you may get probation, but if you continue to violate it, you go to jail. The legal issues have nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- to do with marriage. It is about Davis violating the law.
I wonder if Staver is prepared to defend ISIS engendered actions with the same defense. Surely they are as religious and have as firm a belief in God as does Davis.
As to Huckabee and Cruz, it would appear that, instead of running for President, they are running for Grand Ayatollah. They appear to be more comfortable with the way things are done in Iran than in America. How times change. Once upon a time Republican candidates for President were all about "Law And Order."
If you violate the law you may get probation, but if you continue to violate it, you go to jail. The legal issues have nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- to do with marriage. It is about Davis violating the law.
10
Golly! After reviewing my handy-dandy copy of the U.S. constitution I can't find the word "God" even once. How could our Founding Fathers make such a glaring oversight? Hmm...
10
I blame both Ms. Davis and her legal counsel, Mr. Mathew Staver for unnecessarily dragging out this drama. Mr. Staver is unquestionably confusing his past duties as a pastor with those of his duties as an officer of the court. Even a child could have explained very easily to Ms. Davis why she had no legal standing to deny the rights of our fellow citizens. The foreseeable legal arc of Christian fundamentalism is well established; however, politicians and undoubtedly churches, and more importantly, the coffers of Liberty Counsel are the real beneficiaries of this circus.
My hats off to those citizens and their supporters who were simply seeking the enforcement of their hard earned right to receive a marriage license. Mr. Staver should be sanctioned for his poor knowledge of American law, and God only knows what bible version Mr. Staver refers to. Woody Allen said it best in "Bananas,"'-- "It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."
My hats off to those citizens and their supporters who were simply seeking the enforcement of their hard earned right to receive a marriage license. Mr. Staver should be sanctioned for his poor knowledge of American law, and God only knows what bible version Mr. Staver refers to. Woody Allen said it best in "Bananas,"'-- "It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."
31
Actually, in another article, her lawyer did say she would keep defying the courts, and we all know that is what she is going to do anyhow. Hopefully though, the next time she goes to jail, the judge will keep her in there for longer than a week!
6
Kim Davis should have resigned her job if following the law conflicts with her faith.
11
“She’s not going to violate her conscience.”
No...Just her responsibilities, sworn duty and the freedoms and civil rights of those American citizens she has unilaterally decided are unfit and unworthy...
Davis should have resigned her position the day after the SCOTUS ruling was released. She knew she wouldn't be able to comply and it was a 'fraud perpetrated upon the public' for her to remain in her position creating this debacle...to say nothing or the raging hypocrisy of a thrice secularly divorce woman with 4 holy matrimonies in her resume - her faith, obviously, is highly provisional.
No...Just her responsibilities, sworn duty and the freedoms and civil rights of those American citizens she has unilaterally decided are unfit and unworthy...
Davis should have resigned her position the day after the SCOTUS ruling was released. She knew she wouldn't be able to comply and it was a 'fraud perpetrated upon the public' for her to remain in her position creating this debacle...to say nothing or the raging hypocrisy of a thrice secularly divorce woman with 4 holy matrimonies in her resume - her faith, obviously, is highly provisional.
13
Ignorance isn't bliss...its Kim Davis personified.
As a member of the Court, I can not understand how a fellow member of the Court can willfully defy a legal order, much less established law.
She is a person who should resign from the Court, she has show she can not do the job as required.
As a member of the Court, I can not understand how a fellow member of the Court can willfully defy a legal order, much less established law.
She is a person who should resign from the Court, she has show she can not do the job as required.
7
Why do we need marriage licenses in the first place? Is it not enough to have marrige registrations instead? It seems giving marriage some religious meaning through this procedure already violates freedon of religion.
2
There is nothing new about grandstanding politicians. What is particularly interesting this time is the amazing hypocrisy of Ms. Davis and her political friends, who all conveniently ignore the fact that under the Bible they cite as their bedrock rule book, it's absolutely clear that Ms. Davis's own second and third marriages should not have been recognized. And yet the Bible is silent about gay marriage, and certainly about how government clerks should react to gay marriage. Where exactly is Ms. Davis getting her rules?
7
If I shared Ms. Davis' faith and her perspective on this issue, I also would not be able to perform the duties of County Clerk which I find repugnant to my faith. I would immediately resign from office, as my faith would require no less! Her remaining in office undermines her sincerity and commitment to her faith. She should resign from office to remain consistent with her faith!
5
Of course she won't say what her plans are. That keeps the cameras and reporters focused on her, because that's what it's all about. Any other supposed excuse is a sham advanced by her and by the lawyers and other hangers-on who benefit from this circus.
7
If she feels unable to perform the duties of a county clerk, why does she not resign her county clerk position? I am a bus driver. If I were to stop performing the duties included in my job description, that is driving a bus, I would quickly be without a job. How is situation different?
6
Resign and lose the spotlight? Never! Resign and stop those donations coming in from fellow bigots? Never!
I presume the taxpayers are still paying her a salary while she wastes everybody's time with this grandstanding. Make her pay it back. Fine her whatever it cost in legal fees. We'll see how long she keeps at it.
15
Poor America, torn between religious fundamentalists and their followers and the rest of the world. Kim Davis had her 15 minutes of fame and now has to decide if she wants to keep her job and do it proprly or follow her religious beliefs. One or the other- not both.
10
Can anybody explain to an outsider why this woman went to prison? Obviously she is a government official who didn't do her job. She should be fired for refusing to do her work. And replaced. But where does prison part come in?
She simply has not understood the separation of church and state and should keep her prejudices private.
She simply has not understood the separation of church and state and should keep her prejudices private.
4
Because, as has been explained in these comments repeatedly, she didn't just break some little old law. She's an agent of the government, she is paid to UPHOLD the law - to ADMINISTER the law. She IS the law, as it comes to the issuance of marriage licenses in this locality in Kentucky. She cannot be fired because she is elected. She can however be held in contempt of court for failing to follow a court order. Te court ordered her to do her job, and she refused.
She is like a traffic cop who shows up to direct traffic one morning and announces that stopping at red lights is against his religious beliefs, so he won't be ticketing anyone who just blows through the light. Now imagine that cops are elected and can't be fired ...
She is like a traffic cop who shows up to direct traffic one morning and announces that stopping at red lights is against his religious beliefs, so he won't be ticketing anyone who just blows through the light. Now imagine that cops are elected and can't be fired ...
1
The prison part came in because she was ordered by the courts to perform her job which she then Co tinted to refuse to do...when you fail to comply with the courts it 9s called contempt of court and usually you are put in jail for being in contempt of court....all she had to do was apologize to the court for not performing her job...she was not asked to give up her faith or apologize for her beliefs but for failing to do the job she was elected to do. But as usual the self righteous christians have to make this I to a poor me I'm being persecuted for my faith claim which is the farthest thing from the truth. This whole case is simply over her refusal to do the job she was being paid a large salary to do. The courts never once asked her to give up or apologize for her beliefs but to just do the job to which she was elected to do period. There is a reason for separation of church and state...9f you can't understand why the is just look at the rest of the country tries in upheaval and war because they don't keep with separation of church and state. To many wars and too many civilian deaths as a result of religion.
In her county, Sämi, her position is elected, not hired. To remove her, it legally requires impeachment proceedings by the state legislature. They are currently not in session and won't be until January. The governor refuses to call a special legislative session, which would be even more costly to the taxpayers, to deal with her obstinance.
Her time in jail is the typical consequences of being in contempt of court, which she was in refusing to follow the court order to perform the functions she was elected to do, swearing an oath 'before God' to uphold the U.S. Constitution in doing so.
Her time in jail is the typical consequences of being in contempt of court, which she was in refusing to follow the court order to perform the functions she was elected to do, swearing an oath 'before God' to uphold the U.S. Constitution in doing so.
1
She's an embarrassment to all professional women! As a professional in the legal services industry, I'm embarrassed by Kim Davis' behavior upon release from jail. She cried and buried her face in her husband's shoulder! I have NO respect for a woman who isn't professional in her job! No man would have ever cried and buried his face in his wife's shoulder! Is it no wonder that many don't view women as their equal in the work place? She not only was unprofessional then, but at least as importantly, was unprofessional in not doing her job as she was elected to do. She doesn't understand that we can't bring our religious beliefs into the workplace. To not understand something so fundamental, I have to question her intelligence. Perhaps it's only because she has 5 assistants that she's able to be the figurehead of the office. They have proved they can get along without her. It's time for her to go!
8
Obviously Davis was mistaken about her capacity as Rowan County clerk.
Technically she is NOT authorizing marriage of any sort. The county office issues marriage certificates to eligible couples and the clerk sign on it to certify the document that it is issued by the Government. Davis, and all clerks are representing the Government, a secular institute to certify a document, just like a birth certificate or a driver's licence, that it is properly a document issued by the Government.
Davis is on taxpayer's payroll and it is not for her to choose who she serve. If she can get away with this by not performing all of her duties, she should resign and that was just what countless other county clerk did after the Supreme Court ruling.
Technically she is NOT authorizing marriage of any sort. The county office issues marriage certificates to eligible couples and the clerk sign on it to certify the document that it is issued by the Government. Davis, and all clerks are representing the Government, a secular institute to certify a document, just like a birth certificate or a driver's licence, that it is properly a document issued by the Government.
Davis is on taxpayer's payroll and it is not for her to choose who she serve. If she can get away with this by not performing all of her duties, she should resign and that was just what countless other county clerk did after the Supreme Court ruling.
9
I think to quit her job was the most logical thing to do. If you take up a public post you have to treat everyone equal according to the public definition. If you hate gays don't work in a marriage permit office. This is simple.
8
One has to wonder whether what set her off was actually increasingly coming into contact with gay people. I would imagine that hanging out in a marriage license office in Kentucky was a pretty good way to basically never interact with gay people - until now. Suddenly they actually walk into her office and expect a professional interaction with her! I suspect that actual CONTACT with openly (not closeted) gays is what pushed her over the edge.
I think the Kim Davis case is an appalling demonstration of a woman who recently found her "God" and decided that the entire country should follow her lead. This is not about justice and faith. It is about one person who apparently disagrees with the law and blames her actions on her Christian faith, which is relatively new by the way. Her lifestyle is her business however; do Christians truly believe that four marriages and children by an unknown partner is a Christian teaching. All those so called Christians rallying in her defense look at their own behavior in supporting breaking the law; support multiple marriages as a message from God. Many reminders from them saying that God supposedly said marriage between one woman and one man however I do not remember him saying to do it over and over again.
6
Will someone please explain why Ms Davis isn't being fired from her job? I truly do not understand.
5
She is an elected official and cannot be fired, only impeached.
1
It is that simple, She is a Christian. Why a Christian go to the church ? to pray of course. What is he/she is praying for ? For Jesus. Who is Jesus ? as a Christian person and will tell you the answer. Hence the church defined the marriage as the union between man and a woman that is what Jesus said.
Now you said I am going to do against that by making it legal to disobey Jesus. That means forcing him/her to disbelieve what he/she believes in.
Forcing someone to do against his/her will isn't it an offense ?
There is no similarity between a marriage between man and a man on one side and a man and a woman on the other side. There is a huge difference . One is negative the other is positive at least from the Nature point of view , even if you are not a religious person you know that. One can end and can't go through life cycle, the other will continue the life cycle. There are tens of facts that need to be identified before making a term clear in its definition. You can't call the water ( a Fire) or the fire ( a water). Fire can't born from water but water can born from fire ( heat, vapor ) . there is no definition that can be both positive and negative. How does the law define marriage is the problem because it can't be both positive or negative. It is a physical state , natural state of existence. Can something that will end be similar to something that continue ?
this is the life cycle ( a physical state of human existence) .
Now you said I am going to do against that by making it legal to disobey Jesus. That means forcing him/her to disbelieve what he/she believes in.
Forcing someone to do against his/her will isn't it an offense ?
There is no similarity between a marriage between man and a man on one side and a man and a woman on the other side. There is a huge difference . One is negative the other is positive at least from the Nature point of view , even if you are not a religious person you know that. One can end and can't go through life cycle, the other will continue the life cycle. There are tens of facts that need to be identified before making a term clear in its definition. You can't call the water ( a Fire) or the fire ( a water). Fire can't born from water but water can born from fire ( heat, vapor ) . there is no definition that can be both positive and negative. How does the law define marriage is the problem because it can't be both positive or negative. It is a physical state , natural state of existence. Can something that will end be similar to something that continue ?
this is the life cycle ( a physical state of human existence) .
2
Okay. So people who are infertile, or who don't want children, or who are too old to have children, or who have medical problems that contraindicate having children, should not get marriage licenses either.
Got it.
Got it.
When I was growing up, the Catholic church blamed Jews for killing Jesus. My friends told me how many hail Marys and our Fathers I needed to say to be forgiven, and everyone took it with good humor. My friends felt bound by the church's teachings but understood that I did not. Religious beliefs need not cause conflict if everyone concerned respects everyone else. I respected my friends' beliefs and they respected mine. The abortion debate and gay marriage bring out the worst in the religious and the worst in the secular. Each has the right to believe what he or she believes --secular women are entitled to abortions, the religious are entitled to oppose them, gays are entitled to marry and the religious are entitled to oppose them. We're talking about one tiny county in Kentucky and the mutual anger is huge. If folks can't respect their differences and let each other go their own way they lack common sense as far as I'm concerned.
2
As an immigrant I have always been fascinated by the fundamental principles upon which this country is build, separation of church and state and rule of law being the two biggest ones to me.
I have always said that the misfortune of the third world countries particularly the Middle Eastern countries stems, among other factors, primarily from the immense power and role of religion in running the state and an outrageous lack of rule of law.
It is unfortunate that a court clerk sees herself above the law because of her religious belief. Ms. Davis should exercise her democratic right to resign from a post that undermines her religious ideology. She wants the tax payers to continue paying her salary and benefits while she becomes a darling of the conservative Christians by simply refusing to fulfill her duties at her job! I was wonder was the Bible say when people get paid and yet refuse to do their job!!!
The right is crying that their religious freedom is being trampled on by or being replaced by tyranny!
We should all be leery that if we allow religion into the affairs of running the state, a religious tyranny will replace the democracy that we all enjoy.
Those who are interested to experience the power of religion in writing the civil laws and in running the state need to spend a few days in Iran or in Saudi Arabia where the weight of religious-based government makes breathing an impossible task.
I have always said that the misfortune of the third world countries particularly the Middle Eastern countries stems, among other factors, primarily from the immense power and role of religion in running the state and an outrageous lack of rule of law.
It is unfortunate that a court clerk sees herself above the law because of her religious belief. Ms. Davis should exercise her democratic right to resign from a post that undermines her religious ideology. She wants the tax payers to continue paying her salary and benefits while she becomes a darling of the conservative Christians by simply refusing to fulfill her duties at her job! I was wonder was the Bible say when people get paid and yet refuse to do their job!!!
The right is crying that their religious freedom is being trampled on by or being replaced by tyranny!
We should all be leery that if we allow religion into the affairs of running the state, a religious tyranny will replace the democracy that we all enjoy.
Those who are interested to experience the power of religion in writing the civil laws and in running the state need to spend a few days in Iran or in Saudi Arabia where the weight of religious-based government makes breathing an impossible task.
56
I simply have no sympathy for this person. By refusing to allow gay persons to marry pursuant to law, she has abused her position and violated her oath of office. She is not a martyr or a hero - she is a religious bigot and a liar (since she must have known when she took her oath that she would not uphold the law and do her job if it "interfered" with her religious beliefs). She should be treated as such. Shame on Mike Huckabee for arguing that Christians are a persecuted people in this country. They are not and never have been. Shame on Ted Cruz for advocating the same complete nonsense. As a lawyer and officer of the court, he is being stupendously disingenuous - and that's the best thing I can say here. And shame to Ms. Davis's lawyers, who have broken their oath as attorneys and deliberately led people to believe this is a question of workplace accommodation. It is not. Ms. Davis is an elected official who took an oath to uphold the law, which is not the same as being an employee. I hope a majority of Kentucky Republicans agree and hand her her marching papers. But I am pretty sure that will not be the case, politics being what it is.
44
In a world where Rosa Parks started a revolution and made a point that struck the heart of racism in America, Kim Davis is not the same sort of person. I believe that Christian conservatives encouraged her to do this. To bring attention to their cause. Fundamentalist Christians want the Supreme Court ruling reversed. The Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer is long, long overdue. Our country, and especially fundamentalist Christians, has allowed Gay/Lesbian citizens be treated as inferior to heterosexual citizens. I do not think putting Kim Davis in jail is appropriate, but the State should assess huge fines for her refusal to do her job. Kim Davis is now a martyr. And I predict she will collect a huge financial settlement when she sues over this. What a shame.
11
Those school teachers who refused to cooperate with Vichy France and hand over the names of their young Jewish charges, who therefore were then arrested, and without a proper trial, deported to the death camps to be exterminated, were true heroes and heroines.
The Land of the Free has few heroes these days but many religious fanatics who want to persuade themselves that they are engaged in an heroic struggle to live in accordance with God's will. Such fanatics, grouping together for mutual support, will invent heroes on the flimsiest of pretences.
Ms Davis is not a hero. She does not face arbitrary arrest and physical injury - let alone death. Financially, she will prosper thanks to the donations of her supporters. Having stepped into her mother's $80,000 pa plum job after years as the senior deputy clerk, where she has appointed her son Nathan as one of the six deputies, she is on nice little earner.
Having campaigned for election as County Clerk of Rowan County promising the voters of Rowan County that she would carry out diligently and properly all the duties of County Clerk in accordance with the letter of the law, she now finds it convenient to put aside her electoral promises on the grounds of religious conscience.
Saving children from the gas chambers, being willing to die in their place is what heroes do. There is nothing courageous about refusing in 2015 to marry two people of the same biological sex or chosen gender in a nation of laws such as the USA today.
The Land of the Free has few heroes these days but many religious fanatics who want to persuade themselves that they are engaged in an heroic struggle to live in accordance with God's will. Such fanatics, grouping together for mutual support, will invent heroes on the flimsiest of pretences.
Ms Davis is not a hero. She does not face arbitrary arrest and physical injury - let alone death. Financially, she will prosper thanks to the donations of her supporters. Having stepped into her mother's $80,000 pa plum job after years as the senior deputy clerk, where she has appointed her son Nathan as one of the six deputies, she is on nice little earner.
Having campaigned for election as County Clerk of Rowan County promising the voters of Rowan County that she would carry out diligently and properly all the duties of County Clerk in accordance with the letter of the law, she now finds it convenient to put aside her electoral promises on the grounds of religious conscience.
Saving children from the gas chambers, being willing to die in their place is what heroes do. There is nothing courageous about refusing in 2015 to marry two people of the same biological sex or chosen gender in a nation of laws such as the USA today.
46
Thistle Dew hit the nail square on the head. This is why there is a separation of church and state. And enough already with blaming the gay couple for going after Davis and imposing their lifestyle on her. They simply went in to get a marriage license. That's all. But instead of just giving it to them, Davis refused and imposed her own religious beliefs on them, as well as the clerks that work under her. I would be sympathetic if they asked her to conduct the actual marriage ceremony, but all they wanted was the license. This case is no different than a Jewish waitress at Denny's refusing to serve bacon to a customer because under Jewish law pigs are unclean.
26
Once again, folks: It is your JOB, not your church. If you do not want to perform your JOB, then simply QUIT, and get one that you DO want to perform. Stop begging to be paid to NOT work because you are "religious".
And of the court disagrees, we can all claim "religious exception" for early "retirement" and never have to go to our jobs again! We just cash those checks and play all day.......Until we have a heart attack and the nurse / doctor at the ER refuses to do CPR because they are an atheist. Oops! Dead you know.
And of the court disagrees, we can all claim "religious exception" for early "retirement" and never have to go to our jobs again! We just cash those checks and play all day.......Until we have a heart attack and the nurse / doctor at the ER refuses to do CPR because they are an atheist. Oops! Dead you know.
24
She was only supposed to certify that the petitioners met the state requirements for a marriage license, nothing more. She has a big head, full of self importance. Doing her duty would not have been a sin. Only certifying that they met the requirements under law, nothing more.
33
Does anyone else find it hilarious that Kim Davis exited the detention center to "The Eye of the Tiger" and not a hymn more indicative of her and all of her supporters' allegedly deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ? It was church à la the WWE.
35
Kim Davis does not want her name on a same sex marriage license.
I would bet the last thing the people trying to obtain such licenses want is her name on their license.
Regardless of the fact that Davis should obey the law, this problem should be so easy to fix.
This is the sort of trivial accommodation that any governor should be able to accomplish via an executive order.
I would bet the last thing the people trying to obtain such licenses want is her name on their license.
Regardless of the fact that Davis should obey the law, this problem should be so easy to fix.
This is the sort of trivial accommodation that any governor should be able to accomplish via an executive order.
3
Wrong. If that were the case, they would have traveled less than 20 minutes to the other county.
From the applicant's perspective: If you can't or won't do what the job requires, look elsewhere.
From the employer's perspective: If the applicant can't or won't do what the job requires, look elsewhere.
From the employer's perspective: If the applicant can't or won't do what the job requires, look elsewhere.
23
This sets forth the notion that people no longer need to fulfill their job description/requirement due to their personal beliefs. For " GOD" sake, people like you need to stop taking stances at the tax payer's expense. Quit your job, be the martar, forever the victim, be the idol to your followers, and go to heaven like the hero you think you are. A fellow commenter said it best. Kim Davis not issuing liscenses to gay couples is equivalent to a cashier working at McDonald's refusing to serve hamburgers because she's a vegetarian
26
Tax. Religious. Institutions. Please. I'd be much more willing to listen to their opinions if they actually contributed to the governmental process like I have to (and am proud to).
27
I also downloaded the Court's order. Did you happen to notice the file path at the end of it? It's a WORDPERFECT file. And "Eye of the Tiger" (from... 1983) as the celebratory soundtrack? I thought this was just about a silly woman who the townsfolk let run the county like a family business in an otherwise pretty normal place, but apparently modernity took a look, ran the other way, and hasn't been back in 30 years.
24
The judge is a federal judge, and not one of the "townsfolk." But I am sure that he and the other underpaid, underfunded members of the federal judiciary would be happy to accept some newfangled software donations from you cityslickers down in San Antonio.
Sorry, the court hearings were held miles away from where she works.
Why would they let her out . She is a criminal . She should have been jailed for at least a year . What a joke our court system is.
6
Now she's a martyr.
Contempt of Court jailings traditionally only last until the law starts being upheld. The judge at the time he jailed her said as soon as licenses start being issued he would let her out and that is what he did. If they stop again she most definitely will be going back to jail.
1
A martyr? To what? To whom? The tempests and tantrums of low information voters?
1
Would there be this type of media coverage, and outrage, if the clerk was Muslim and refused to issue land deeds to unmarried women citing Sharia law?
Would you still feel she was right/wrong for the same reasons?
We should all be very careful about submerging secular law to religious canon.
Would you still feel she was right/wrong for the same reasons?
We should all be very careful about submerging secular law to religious canon.
48
Whenever a public official declines to do his/her job, regardless of the reason, removal from that office is the just remedy.
5
To answer your question directly, there is no way any of these people supporting "religious conscientious objectors" would support a Muslim's right to do the same. That "right" is reserved only for Christians, and even then only certain ones.
.
Dangerous, bigoted, hypocrites.
.
Dangerous, bigoted, hypocrites.
6
Most religious people I have met are trying to do the right thing. I give them credit for that even when I am convinced they're doing the wrong thing. I find that they will usually return the favor for me and that our many conflicts will not lead to hatred.
The problem with separation of church and state is caused by the contradictions of the founding fathers in their language. But since many had wives and affairs, and children with their slaves, we can assume they were not religious zealots.
4
Perhaps not merely religious zealots, but like so many who claim to be religious both zealots and hypocrites, viz Matthew 23.
1
It took more than 10 years after Brown v. Board of Education before schools were integrated. Women have been discriminated against in violation of multiple laws enacted decades ago. Why is anyone surprised that one woman in one small county won't issue marriage licenses? Anyone who expected total change overnight was just not being realistic.
6
This reminds me of one of those late night televangelist tv programs. At any moment I expected a plea for funds to keep up the good fight. But I suspect there are already wealthy donors involved.
When Kim Davis goes back to work, how will things have changed? And what is the downside for her? She can repeat the whole operation and get national television exposure, and likely buckets of money. I think we'll be seeing more of her, unfortunately.
When Kim Davis goes back to work, how will things have changed? And what is the downside for her? She can repeat the whole operation and get national television exposure, and likely buckets of money. I think we'll be seeing more of her, unfortunately.
13
Re: Kim Davis's post-release remarks:
Here are a few "Truths" about Christianity.
Church of Christ: Everyone but us is going to Hell. And lots of us are going there, too.
Apostolic Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell. Well, you might.
Catholic Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell (no matter what Pope Francis says).
Baptist Church: Almost everyone but us is going to Hell. (Dang it.)
Methodist Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell. Well, almost everyone.
Presbyterian Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell, although there's still hope for some of them. Maybe.
God loves you. And He'll fry you for eternity if you don't love him back.
God loves you. Only He could, you sorry bastard.
God loves you. Sometimes I don't understand God.
God loves you. Even if you are queer. And going to Hell.
Here are a few "Truths" about Christianity.
Church of Christ: Everyone but us is going to Hell. And lots of us are going there, too.
Apostolic Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell. Well, you might.
Catholic Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell (no matter what Pope Francis says).
Baptist Church: Almost everyone but us is going to Hell. (Dang it.)
Methodist Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell. Well, almost everyone.
Presbyterian Church: Everyone but us is going to Hell, although there's still hope for some of them. Maybe.
God loves you. And He'll fry you for eternity if you don't love him back.
God loves you. Only He could, you sorry bastard.
God loves you. Sometimes I don't understand God.
God loves you. Even if you are queer. And going to Hell.
14
Ms Davis, surrounded by republican presidential contenders Cruz and Huckabee, a playing a cheesy game of politics that has little to do with her private religious convictions. It's pretty clear from the comments Ms. Davis made upon her release that this is hardly about her being forced to violate her religious conscience, but rather, how's she's allowing her defiance to be hyped and stage-managed as yet another volley in the right wing culture wars of homophobia. Eager republicans like Huckabee will line up to reap the political fallout in the hopes that Ms. Davis' campaign - and she is running a campaign - will help propel his own. Meanwhile, it becomes apparent to more and more onlookers that the grist of Davis' legal claim is measly stuff; religious liberty is not the issue here, but rather how Ms Davis has abused her office and liquidated its public function.
28
This woman nauseates me.
40
It's well past the time when intelligent people need to begin a conversation about the limitations of faith-based beliefs of all stripes. I thought 9/11 would have been an obvious time, but here we are again ...
21
This woman is a menace to civil society. Send her up the river where other lawbreakers go. What is the message this charade is sending to many vulnerable young gay and lesbian in the United States (and elsewhere). It is one of self righteous, simplistic, incivility and exclusion. She should be ashamed.
28
Yes this country is getting a bad place to be because to me she had her right violated as well trying to force her to except the gay rights position. Hey as a Veteran of 3 conflicts where in each case we fought for the oppressed this is no different. Gay, Christian or what ever your belief no one I mean no one has a right to shove their beliefs on others as the gays did to her. Don't like my message well to bad go look into a third world country before you confirm someone as this woman. God is great and always shall be I for one think its time for the human race to die and to make room for a species that has better mind set. I tolerate anyone until you try to impose your beliefs on me I think homosexuality's are not normal logic being if we were all gay then we'll my friends the human race would be texting because babies are born as nature intended
1
I think it's pretty funny how it is always the religious Zealots that come crawling down from their mountains to tell us how we are all wrong, but can't type or write properly.
17
The showing happened backwards here. The couple did not ask the 4 time married Kim to not marry. Kim refused to give the couole their due license.
Let me give you two examples;
1. Your wife walks into a dmv and the clerk is a Wasabi muslim. He refuses to give her the driverse lisense on the grounds that per his religion women are not supposed to drive or go out without a male.
2. You go to get your self a hunting permit. The clerk is a buddhist. He says to tou that he cannot give tu the license because his religion forbids hunting.
How dare your wife shove her religious believes on to the faithful clerk and how dare you shove your belief onto the buddhist clerk?
Let me give you two examples;
1. Your wife walks into a dmv and the clerk is a Wasabi muslim. He refuses to give her the driverse lisense on the grounds that per his religion women are not supposed to drive or go out without a male.
2. You go to get your self a hunting permit. The clerk is a buddhist. He says to tou that he cannot give tu the license because his religion forbids hunting.
How dare your wife shove her religious believes on to the faithful clerk and how dare you shove your belief onto the buddhist clerk?
13
I assume none of those conflicts was a spelling bee
17
Didn't she have to take an oath (hand on the Bible?) to uphold the law when she assumed office? She lied then?
12
cyclone,
That... Depends on what the law says.
Read Kentucky Constitution section 233a
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/233A.htm
That... Depends on what the law says.
Read Kentucky Constitution section 233a
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/233A.htm
I am a democrat but I agree with her stand on this issue. Marriage is between a man and woman period.
2
Legally speaking, no, it's not. You're just factually wrong.
17
Says who, exactly? Your church? Why do we have to listen to them?
4
Ken, agree with her position all you want. If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, then don't you marry a man. No law is forcing you to do so or to believe otherwise. This is a free country. Go to church and shout "Amen" every Sunday morning as your pastor denounces same-sex marriage. No one is telling you or Kim Davis that you cannot hold onto those beliefs as strongly as you'd like, but don't accept a government position requiring you to uphold the law of the land if you don't want to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Separation of Church and State. We live in the freest nation in the world and because of that sometimes we have to agree to disagree to protect our own freedoms and the freedoms of our fellow citizens.
16
A prior comment of mine garnered a reply from fellow commenter who styles him/herself as "Truth." My reply to "Truth's" reaction to my post has apparently run afoul of the Comments cops, despite containing no profanity, obscenity or ad hominem attack.
I will try again, addressing my words to all.
I don't believe the bible is a myth. I know it is.
I know THIS with more certainty than Mike Huckaby, Ted Cruz, and Kim Davis "know" that their (capital "G") God exists. They are, one and all, terrified that when they die some obscure sin for which they failed to beg forgiveness will still be writ on the book of life. And they will find themselves spitted over the flames of Hell for eternity. Such is the magnanimity, love and tenderness of their (lower case "g") god.
When I die I will return to the beautiful oblivion from which I emerged, some 68+ human years ago.
It's a peaceful and quiet place, Oblivion is. With neither past nor future about which to worry, there just "IS." And "IS" began billions and billions of aeons in the past and will end some billions and billions of aeons in the future.
It'll be quite some time before I find it necessary to worry.
Meanwhile...
I will try again, addressing my words to all.
I don't believe the bible is a myth. I know it is.
I know THIS with more certainty than Mike Huckaby, Ted Cruz, and Kim Davis "know" that their (capital "G") God exists. They are, one and all, terrified that when they die some obscure sin for which they failed to beg forgiveness will still be writ on the book of life. And they will find themselves spitted over the flames of Hell for eternity. Such is the magnanimity, love and tenderness of their (lower case "g") god.
When I die I will return to the beautiful oblivion from which I emerged, some 68+ human years ago.
It's a peaceful and quiet place, Oblivion is. With neither past nor future about which to worry, there just "IS." And "IS" began billions and billions of aeons in the past and will end some billions and billions of aeons in the future.
It'll be quite some time before I find it necessary to worry.
Meanwhile...
16
The truth of the matter is that no one knows what happens to us or where we "go" after our time on this earth is finished.
Some religious folks may think they know because the religion they believe in that is full of fairy tales assumes it knows what happens but the truth of the matter is that it is unknown.
Just as I don't know where I was before I was born I have no idea what will happen to me after I die. And......I am just fine with that.
Some religious folks may think they know because the religion they believe in that is full of fairy tales assumes it knows what happens but the truth of the matter is that it is unknown.
Just as I don't know where I was before I was born I have no idea what will happen to me after I die. And......I am just fine with that.
3
I find this extremely frightening and bizarre on every level.
12
The problem with people like Ms Davis is that they can't take ancient text and use it literally to ruin lives like ISIS, LRA etc. We should deal with this cancer as early as possible if not we may end these religious nuts spreading into other parts of govt and before you know we will turn into a theocratic society.
19
Does this apply only to Christians? What about other religions? If it was a Muslim-would Huckabee trot his butt down to defend someone who was disobeying civil laws, because it was in violation of Allah's law and Allah's law trumps US law? I think not. They are hypocrites--but I forget, Christians rights are always being violated.
23
The louder the hallelujah, the tighter you hold on to your wallet.
15
LOL. Thank you for the pithiest, probably most to-the-point comment here. There is no doubt she is already sitting at home comparing book contract offers and fielding calls from the Republican presidential nominees who are inviting her on tour with them and calculating what she can earn from speaking engagements, before her brief moment passes.
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" - Sinclair Lewis.
28
It seems that the whole absurd problem is a belief that the word "marriage" has a single definition. Like many other words it does not. "Cleave" and "sanction", each their own antonym, are nice examples.
And so marriage. The Catholic Church probably wouldn't recognize a Baptist marriage (the test would be in divorce), and Hindus, Zoroastrians and Janis ditto.
And none of those would alone garner rights under Social Security, IRS and other U.S. laws. Those rights flow from the civilly issued license, and the marriage that license authorizs is an adjunct to, and not part of, the Catholic/Baptist/Presbyterian /whatever marriage.
The "marriage" she licenses has nothing to do with her god or her church, their issuance is not a prerequisite to a church marriage, and her refusal has everything to do with sticking her finger in the eyes of people she doesn't like, her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding
Sent over Verizon's sketchy 1-bar network from my crummy Samsung phone and its user-antagonistic 10-clicks-to-dial GUI
And so marriage. The Catholic Church probably wouldn't recognize a Baptist marriage (the test would be in divorce), and Hindus, Zoroastrians and Janis ditto.
And none of those would alone garner rights under Social Security, IRS and other U.S. laws. Those rights flow from the civilly issued license, and the marriage that license authorizs is an adjunct to, and not part of, the Catholic/Baptist/Presbyterian /whatever marriage.
The "marriage" she licenses has nothing to do with her god or her church, their issuance is not a prerequisite to a church marriage, and her refusal has everything to do with sticking her finger in the eyes of people she doesn't like, her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding
Sent over Verizon's sketchy 1-bar network from my crummy Samsung phone and its user-antagonistic 10-clicks-to-dial GUI
15
I'm surprised no one has made more of the hypocrisy inherent in Ms. Davis's situation. What if, after her first divorce, she had to get a license for her second marriage from a Catholic clerk who felt it would violate his or her religious principles to allow a second marriage. What part of the oft cited "one man one woman" adds "at a time?" What god has joined together let no man set asunder. Yet she reportedly set aside her first marriage. She appears to pick and choose her own interpretation of what she calls god's law - what right does she have to impose her interpretation on others in execution of a civil duty. What if it was a Muslim working at a state liquor store who couldn't sell the main product? Do you job or get another one.
18
Narcissistic that she felt the need to make herself a 'martyr' over a non existent issue that was merely an expression of her anger/hate/intolerance rather than any 'goodness' in her.
Hopefully, she'll be sent back to jail if her behavior continues.
I remember Lester Maddox well. That's all she is, another Lester Maddox.
Hopefully, she'll be sent back to jail if her behavior continues.
I remember Lester Maddox well. That's all she is, another Lester Maddox.
12
Oh boy ... what was the name of the crazy rancher who wouldn't pay his grazing fees?
Looks like we have another winner!
Looks like we have another winner!
11
"the name of the crazy rancher who wouldn't pay his grazing fees?”
That was Cliven Bundy. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/opinion/collins-of-fox-and-the-cattle....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the...
A crowd of low-information right wing zealots rallying behind a previously-obscure figure, who in the spotlight quickly shows why the obscurity was well-deserved, at the same time as the Huckabys, Cruzes, etc try to milk the scene.
Yeah, Jeff, this one is a parallel to the Cliven Bundy scenario.
That was Cliven Bundy. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/opinion/collins-of-fox-and-the-cattle....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the...
A crowd of low-information right wing zealots rallying behind a previously-obscure figure, who in the spotlight quickly shows why the obscurity was well-deserved, at the same time as the Huckabys, Cruzes, etc try to milk the scene.
Yeah, Jeff, this one is a parallel to the Cliven Bundy scenario.
2
I'm confused. Unless she ignores the judge's instructions and winds up back in the slammer, what exactly did these people "win" today?
11
Finally justice is done. People have the right to their own opinion. People include gay people, non gay people, and Kim Davis. Kim Davis has the right to her own opinion, as do gay and non gay people. Good to see the U.S. support religious freedom and the freedom of speech. I do not hate gays. I hate imprisioning people for exercising religious beliefs.
1
She was not imprisoned for her religious beliefs. Neither a marriage license, nor a county clerk's name on that license, represents anybody's approval of the marriage that may -- or may not -- take place under that license. It is merely an official certification that the couple are eligible to be married under existing law. That question of legal eligibility is one of empirical, legal fact, and the answer does not rest on anybody's religious beliefs. Kim Davis was jailed not only because she, herself, refused to comply with a lawful order of a federal judge, but also because she refused to permit her deputies to issue licences to those she claimed she could not, as a matter of religious conscience, serve. And it was that refusal, more than anything else, that gave lie to her claims of religious conscience.
11
I cannot issue you a hunting license because hunting is against my buddhist religion.
I cannot issue your wife ir daughter a drivers license because women driving is agaisnt gods law in my wahabi religion.
See the point?
I cannot issue your wife ir daughter a drivers license because women driving is agaisnt gods law in my wahabi religion.
See the point?
3
She wasn't imprisoned for exercising religious beliefs. She was imprisoned for defying a Federal court order.
1
In a related, religion as defense for not doing one's job, a Muslim flight attendant was suspended by Express Jet for refusing to do her job and serve alcohol.
She says it violates her religious beliefs.
Actually, Muslims are not forbidden to serve alcohol; they are forbidden to consume it.
She became a Muslim after she got her job and now says she is unable to perform her work duties as previously.
She has announced that she is suing the airline for discrimination.
What next?
A Buddhist prison guard refusing to serve meat because it violates their religious conviction?
This is a pandora's box with no seeming end.
She says it violates her religious beliefs.
Actually, Muslims are not forbidden to serve alcohol; they are forbidden to consume it.
She became a Muslim after she got her job and now says she is unable to perform her work duties as previously.
She has announced that she is suing the airline for discrimination.
What next?
A Buddhist prison guard refusing to serve meat because it violates their religious conviction?
This is a pandora's box with no seeming end.
12
A flight attendant is a private sector employee, not a government official. So that comparison is completely and utterly irrelevant.
1
Ms Davis is a shill of the "religious freedom" scam that raises millions for
the CEOs and execs of money-racket such organizations by mounting such media blitzes. This is disgusting to see in USA, where people are willing
to believe lies, gallop toward any scam that appeals to their emotions,
and refuse to t-h-i-n-k or be educating themselves by asking questions and demanding answers. Instead, they go for phoney baloney that feeds hatred and delusion.
the CEOs and execs of money-racket such organizations by mounting such media blitzes. This is disgusting to see in USA, where people are willing
to believe lies, gallop toward any scam that appeals to their emotions,
and refuse to t-h-i-n-k or be educating themselves by asking questions and demanding answers. Instead, they go for phoney baloney that feeds hatred and delusion.
7
Christie is showing his ignorance as usual. They can't "move her into another job"; she's an elected official.
11
One would think that Christie, as a former U.S. attorney, would know this.
1
Be thankful that she isn't YOUR boss. <>
8
If I had been married four times, I think I would choose something other than the sanctity of marriage on which to make my stand for the christian faith. Maybe righteous Kim should make a die-hard stance for being her brother's keeper? What she does for the least of her brethren? Even defending the golden calf seems more suited to Kim than defending the christian sanctity of all of her marriages.
17
He, who is without sin, cast the first stone.
The distastefulness of this situation is centered in the very fact the gay lobby chose to make an issue of this, confirming every religious conservative's fears. The couples applying in question could have gone one town or county over and gotten their license. But they wanted to rub the face of a devout Christian with moral reservations in their newfound rights. They made it a point to let America know that the culture war has been won, and people of faith are the losers. They targeted Mrs. Davis to make an example of her. It may have backfired. While most conservatives believe she should enforce the laws, a policy Obama selectively ignores with respect to illegal immigrants, they also recognize a bully when they see it. In this case, grandstanding by the gay lobby highlights how rights aren't enough, that they demand humiliation for those with faith or traditional values. It's an all secular, anything goes country at this point, unless you are a Christian, a white male or make money. My empathy for gays is significant, my empathy for the gay lobby is running out.
3
No. The issuing of marriage licenses is a service to which taxpayers (and yes, gay people are taxpayers, too) are entitled to receive in ANY jurisdiction on an equal basis. And following your argument, what if clerks in the neighboring counties were also refusing to issue marriage licenses?
2
Yes, TL, I'm sure you wanted the 'gay lobby' to just keep quiet and allow individuals, like Ms. Davis, to pervert the meaning of 'equal protection' under the law, just as white southerners sought to use states rights to discriminate against non-whites claiming the same under the law in the 1950s and 60s.
As for 'targeting', Ms Davis did everything she could to make sure she was a visible 'target', starting by making herself available to her Liberty 'lawyers'.
As for your 'gay lobby', they're the same as the 'Irish lobby', or the 'Italian lobby', or the 'Black lobby', or the 'Asian lobby'. They are simply people organized to claim what the law says is their due in the face of organized (that means YOU, TL) opposition that make extra-legal claims that have nothing to do the law or Constitution. They only exist only because some other 'group' is challenging what is rightfully theirs to claim.
In other words, if there's a 'gay lobby', YOU and people like you made sure that it came into existence. Whether or not you 'empathize' with gays is irrelevent if they cannot receive equal treatment under the (secular) law this nation was founded on.
As for 'targeting', Ms Davis did everything she could to make sure she was a visible 'target', starting by making herself available to her Liberty 'lawyers'.
As for your 'gay lobby', they're the same as the 'Irish lobby', or the 'Italian lobby', or the 'Black lobby', or the 'Asian lobby'. They are simply people organized to claim what the law says is their due in the face of organized (that means YOU, TL) opposition that make extra-legal claims that have nothing to do the law or Constitution. They only exist only because some other 'group' is challenging what is rightfully theirs to claim.
In other words, if there's a 'gay lobby', YOU and people like you made sure that it came into existence. Whether or not you 'empathize' with gays is irrelevent if they cannot receive equal treatment under the (secular) law this nation was founded on.
3
Your idea of a gay couple going to another county works as long as only one person holds a belief. If the clerk in the next county holds the same beliefs as Kim Davis and then the next clerk over and the next clerk over, your idea leads to Jim Crow. Treating one group one way and treating another group another for the very same thing. Asking that everyone be treated equally when it comes to government activities doesn't humiliate people with faith. You can do what you choose in your worship. But when it comes to laws, everyone should be treated the same, regardless of the religion of the person carrying out those laws.
11
People like this scare the tar out of me. They defy the law with enthusiastic self-righteousness based on their zealous religious beliefs. Sound familiar?
17
Wasting the taxpayers' money on her own personal agenda. She wants to preach hate in a trailer park, well, it's her right. But the citizens shouldn't have to pay for it.
20
She said, "We serve a living God, who knows exactly where each and every one of us is at". If that is truly what she believes, then her God would know where her heart lies, that she is doing her job and adhering to the oath she took when she was probably sworn into her position, and that her oath probably was sworn "under God" also. Even if it was not "under God" she is betraying the position that she accepted with the knowledge of what that oath involved. In short, she lied.
10
what if marrying a bi-racial couple was against your religious views..... where does it end. enforce the laws of the land, start a movement to change them, or quite!
6
I somehow think that the God that created the vastness of everything
from all time and every marvel in the universe
is not reveling in the glory of a Kentucky clerk
breaking the law, living in religious hypocrisy
while keeping loving committed couples apart.
Since when is religious liberty the right of a government official to impose their own religious values on all citizens regardless of the law?
from all time and every marvel in the universe
is not reveling in the glory of a Kentucky clerk
breaking the law, living in religious hypocrisy
while keeping loving committed couples apart.
Since when is religious liberty the right of a government official to impose their own religious values on all citizens regardless of the law?
17
God exists only in the minds of people. Therefore, God's law is just another people's law, and Kim Davis' people law is not the law of the land.
3
Kentucky owes her a debt. She's a tourist attraction now. She's a biggest ball of string east of the Mississippi sort of thing.
7
Fox, Rush and Laura will soon come a-calling. congratulations to Kim for her upcoming opportunities to rake in money, surely a gift from god.
4
Out of curiosity, we have downloaded and read the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky's files on the Kim Davis case.
As a result, I was shocked when I saw Kim Davis' attorney giving a press conference and answering questions on FOX. He downright lied about what had happened in court since last Thursday. He said "Nothing new."
In fact, on Friday, as ordered by the judge, the Assistant County Clerks issued a number of marriage licenses, including some to same sex couples. As ordered by the judge, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed a report as to what had happened, in terms of license issuances, by Friday afternoon.
Court was closed on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
As of Tuesday morning 2 things had happened:
(1) The Governor of Kentucky, who had also been sued, had his lawyers file a brief with the judge saying he told the County Clerks to issue licenses to same sex couples and he was standing by that order.
(2) While freeing her, the judge issued a further injunction against Kim Davis interfering with the Assistant County Clerks issuing marriage licenses. The judges ordered all of the lawyers back to court in two weeks to discuss Ms. Davis' compliance with the non-interference order.
That ain't "Nothing".
Yet her zealot lawyer is ready to battle on, clearly hinting he is going to try to manipulate his client into somehow interfering. This is typical of situations where an unsophisticated client is a mere puppet of a lawyer with an agenda.
As a result, I was shocked when I saw Kim Davis' attorney giving a press conference and answering questions on FOX. He downright lied about what had happened in court since last Thursday. He said "Nothing new."
In fact, on Friday, as ordered by the judge, the Assistant County Clerks issued a number of marriage licenses, including some to same sex couples. As ordered by the judge, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed a report as to what had happened, in terms of license issuances, by Friday afternoon.
Court was closed on Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
As of Tuesday morning 2 things had happened:
(1) The Governor of Kentucky, who had also been sued, had his lawyers file a brief with the judge saying he told the County Clerks to issue licenses to same sex couples and he was standing by that order.
(2) While freeing her, the judge issued a further injunction against Kim Davis interfering with the Assistant County Clerks issuing marriage licenses. The judges ordered all of the lawyers back to court in two weeks to discuss Ms. Davis' compliance with the non-interference order.
That ain't "Nothing".
Yet her zealot lawyer is ready to battle on, clearly hinting he is going to try to manipulate his client into somehow interfering. This is typical of situations where an unsophisticated client is a mere puppet of a lawyer with an agenda.
14
Not one (1) note in support of beleagured clerk Kim Davis. Not one.
Tells you something about how the editors are leaning on this issue. They have censored anyone who supports her act. They have prevented dissenting voices from being heard. Just like they will censor this.
Sad. The PRAVDA of the American Left.
Tells you something about how the editors are leaning on this issue. They have censored anyone who supports her act. They have prevented dissenting voices from being heard. Just like they will censor this.
Sad. The PRAVDA of the American Left.
2
No, there are indeed people are supporting Kim on NYTimes here, they are just the minority, ad are people who support her in the real world.
Fact is, more people care about everyone getting the same baseline level of respect then they care about a poorly written propaganda book that is 1700 years old.
Fact is, more people care about everyone getting the same baseline level of respect then they care about a poorly written propaganda book that is 1700 years old.
1
I've read a few comments supporting her position. There are just not that many.
1
"Scroll down" button missing on your keyboard? There's lots of dissenting opinions here.
1
Huckleberry and Davis look like kinfolk. Hmm, I wonder. Nah.
4
She should have never been jailed. I still don't understand why she was not fired? Somebody in the government with authority (the Governor?) should have fired her on national television, and held a press conference immediately thereafter explaining the reasons for separation of church and state, and why Ms. Davis had no authority to look past that.
1
Tom: She wasn't fired because she's an elected official. She'd have to be impeached. That requires the legislature - which was not in session - to impeach her. The Governor cannot unilaterally fire her.
2
Just change the wording of the license to say that it comes from the Rowen County Clerk's Office. Problem solved!
2
Andy knew. Everyone gets 15 minutes
3
I am also not gay, but our gay brothers and sisters deserve the civil right to marry. Afterall marriage is about love between two consenting adults who wish to create family. I do not know of anything more spiritually beautiful, nor life affirming then allowing all persons to marry, regardless of their sex. That fact truly shows the face of God.
7
"On one side, there were signs with Bible verses and one comparing the Supreme Court to the Islamic State..."
Ahhh...the irony!!!
Ahhh...the irony!!!
10
I would love to see all the people in the crowd holding the Holy Quran and for someone in Ms. Davis' position to say - thank you, Mohammed, and "god is great and referencing Mohammed. What would happen then?
Those that back Ms. Davis and her ilk couldn't even handle a mosque / community center to be erected within a stone's throw of the World Trade Center. And so what happens when a non Christian wants to exert religious rights? I don't think they'd be too happy.
Separation of church and state exists for a reason. They will be not happy when they realize what they reap, they sow.
Those that back Ms. Davis and her ilk couldn't even handle a mosque / community center to be erected within a stone's throw of the World Trade Center. And so what happens when a non Christian wants to exert religious rights? I don't think they'd be too happy.
Separation of church and state exists for a reason. They will be not happy when they realize what they reap, they sow.
11
Behold the cancer that has spread across the nation since the Congress went beyond its authority to enact a law decreeing that children should recite daily in school that the US is "under God".
Natural law always winds up enforcing itself.
Natural law always winds up enforcing itself.
9
How nice of God to get Ms. Davis out of jail. She was the Rowan County Clerk, which gave her the power of God to defy man's law -- a power then usurped by a mere civil servant! The judge was acting all on his own when he imprisoned her but was a pliable instrument of God when he set her free. Isn't it great how government religion works?
4
Nothing about this demonstrates government religion, which is a completely corrupt concept.
Religion or no religion- it's time for people like Kim Davis to participate in modern society. Get real, woman, it is 2015. Wake up!!
5
Sanctified bigotry is nothing for religious people to be proud of. History has embarrassed the church so many times before. Future churchgoers will not look back fondly at this moment. I wish pastors would retell the story of the good Samaritan with the new pariah(s) of the day: cast pastor, churchgoer and gay couple as the actors in the story.
4
And that's why I'm agnostic. The Muslim example and the Christian example. To me, both of them are just earthbound farces from the imaginary man in the clouds.
7
The scenes from Kim Davis's release from jail with the music in background looked like a scene right out of "Elmer Gantry" with Mike Huckabee as Burt Lancaster, who could of also been Ted Cruz if the director hadn't pushed him off the stage.
5
I am surprised if no one has mentioned this, but she provides an interesting contrast to Sandra Bland. Kim Davis seems not to have faced any particular hardships during her few days in jail in the deep South, hmm, wonder what was so different for her.
6
Religion is the tyranny Mr. Huckabee!
12
Dear Linda Clark,
No, prohibiting gay marriage is not what "a majority of people want." 55 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. I don't know about Kentucky, but I can say that it is untenable to be married in one state but not in another.
I also know that if Kim Davis were Amish, she wouldn't be able to withhold licenses at the DMV, just because she disapproved of motor vehicles. Case closed.
No, prohibiting gay marriage is not what "a majority of people want." 55 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. I don't know about Kentucky, but I can say that it is untenable to be married in one state but not in another.
I also know that if Kim Davis were Amish, she wouldn't be able to withhold licenses at the DMV, just because she disapproved of motor vehicles. Case closed.
42
Actually, you misrepresent Amish beliefs. Amish are not opposed to others owning automobiles. In fact, when the need arises, Amish folks will even pay to be driven somewhere in an automobile. The objection isn't to automobiles, per se, but to the materialism and "worldliness" they believe them to represent.
2
The Amish are better then that. They don't expect everyone else to live by their rules.
1
I stayed at an Amish farm when I was a teenager and there was no photography allowed, either. However, they were lovely people. So Kim Davis would never have gotten her 15 minutes of fame if she were Amish. She also would never have been such a pill. She's just a typical small town clerk having a break down, and desperate to interject her big, fat ego onto others. A disgusting mess all the way around. The faster she disappears -- and takes all her bigoted crowd with her -- the faster America can move on into the future.
So the former U.S. Attorney, Chris Christie suggests moving the elected clerk to another job? What sort of idiocy is this? How can one move an elected official from her elected office to another office? No one elected her to the other office. This isn't some private corporation where the CEO can shuffle people from one job to another. Hers is an elected position.
8
As Mr. Huckabee quoted Forest Gump, a fictional character so will I:
"Stupid is what stupid does." Forest Gump
"Stupid is what stupid does." Forest Gump
6
Kim Davis position is not at all unreasonable.
She simply argues that if a county clerk has serious moral objections to obeying the law then the law must be changed to conform to the clerk's religious beliefs. In effect the election for county clerk nullifies any rulings of the Supreme Court, or Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders. This of course is the end of the rule of law and of American democracy.
Davis is too stupid to know this. But the right wing politicians who are urging her on do know, and are attempting to use Davis to destroy the Constitution.
She simply argues that if a county clerk has serious moral objections to obeying the law then the law must be changed to conform to the clerk's religious beliefs. In effect the election for county clerk nullifies any rulings of the Supreme Court, or Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders. This of course is the end of the rule of law and of American democracy.
Davis is too stupid to know this. But the right wing politicians who are urging her on do know, and are attempting to use Davis to destroy the Constitution.
15
As the deputies have agreed to continue providing marriage licenses to gay couples without regard to Ms. Davis's will, the only way that she can prevent her name from being minted on every new license is to resign.
If she wants to prevent a thriving eBay market in Kim Davis-approved gay marriage licenses, she may want to resign sooner rather than later.
If she wants to prevent a thriving eBay market in Kim Davis-approved gay marriage licenses, she may want to resign sooner rather than later.
6
Well it seems that Cruz and Huckabee have ruled themselves out of contention for the Presidency (not that either of them had any chance anyway). The President must swear an oath, inter alia, to uphold the Constitution of the USA - and yet here they are openly aiding and abetting somebody undermining it. Fiorina, Christie and even Trump at least know the job requirements.
5
Huckabee is only doing enough to keep himself in the public eye and extend his Fox contract while collecting speaking fees. These people have no shame and the one's who enable them have not a wit of commonsense.
This seems like a very astute order. By releasing Davis, Judge Bunning moots her appeal to have the contempt ruling reversed. He also ensures that she won't block the deputy clerks when they issue marriage licenses. If she does, she's back in the slammer.
Davis's lawyer says that the licenses that the deputy clerks issue "aren't worth the paper they're printed on." Let's see if he brings a legal challenge to those licenses. If he does, then it's even more clear than before that this whole charade has nothing to do with Davis's exercise of her constitutional rights. She simply wants to impose her belief system on her clerks and, by extension, on Rowan County -- and that's wrong.
Davis's lawyer says that the licenses that the deputy clerks issue "aren't worth the paper they're printed on." Let's see if he brings a legal challenge to those licenses. If he does, then it's even more clear than before that this whole charade has nothing to do with Davis's exercise of her constitutional rights. She simply wants to impose her belief system on her clerks and, by extension, on Rowan County -- and that's wrong.
4
But if she spends the next few weeks filing losing appeals, it will remove her from the spotlight much more effectively than having her sit in jail.
Another ugly, nasty attempt by conservatives to usurp the Establishment Clause using gays and lesbians as scapegoats by which to make that attempt.
Religious zealotry at its finest.
Religious zealotry at its finest.
11
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau
It was valid when he wrote it and it is still valid today. Some of you should take the time to read it.
It was valid when he wrote it and it is still valid today. Some of you should take the time to read it.
Different religious beliefs are accepted by different people based off of their beliefs. This doesn't give anyone the right to try to force their beliefs on anyone else. In this case Ms.Davis denied two gay people their rights. She was trying to force her own beliefs on other people which isn't acceptable. Even if her beliefs say one thing she needs to remember that what the government says is law. Religion isn't law, and it's not going to be enforced like law. As a Christian I believe that what the Bible says on same-sex marriages could be taken in the wrong context. It states that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman." Religion doesn't give people the right to go against the rights of American citizens. Religious freedom is a great thing to have in the United States. But when freedom is taken to far people get hurt. Hate groups date back all the way to the Civil War. But some groups take their rights and find loopholes to get their "message" across. Freedom of speech is also a very important part of being a citizen. But when you start committing crimes that's when freedom of speech and religious freedom don't matter. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Religion isn't an excuse.
3
Generally when you don't perform the required functions of your job you get fired. Why is this person being glorified when she should be out looking for a new position?
3
Can we forget now this silly, self righteous bible thumper? There are many people like that unfortunately, and they are a bane of civilized society (fanatics). Giving so much coverage to foolishness only glorifies it.
6
I am glad that Ms. Kim Davis is free. Now professional politicians like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee can spend more time and money to be with Ms. Davis and spend less time on shutting down federal government and spend even less attention on us common folks. Anything to divert their attentions away from keeping others living their contented life in their own private ways is a blessing from God.
2
OMG - people like Ms. Davis seems to have stepped whole out of a Flannery O'Connor story! I have seen them wax and wan since the early Sixties. Really, truth is stranger than fiction.
3
I am a conservative and evangelical Christian but I believe that if you are employed by the government you must follow the law. Otherwise we have a dysfunctional country. It may be a different story if you are working for a private business or in your own enterprise.
3
Judge Roberts' could not have summed up Kennedy's mistake any sounder on legal grounds:
"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not," Roberts wrote. "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage. And a state's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational."
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/26/3918995/us-supreme-court-rules-same-s...
"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not," Roberts wrote. "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage. And a state's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational."
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/26/3918995/us-supreme-court-rules-same-s...
1
Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines.
1 man - 1 woman blathering is bearing false witness, sin.
1 man - 1 woman blathering is bearing false witness, sin.
4
So. We lionize this so-called Christian who broke the law, then defied it, and would undermine and attack the Constitution. If I did this, or anything remotely like it, I would be disbarred. Why hasn't this you-need-to-act-the-way-I-believe incarnation of invincible ignorance been fired from her state job?
She probably thinks she doesn't know any gay people.
She probably thinks she doesn't know any gay people.
5
The judge is a genius. Now the law is being complied with by other members of the same office. If Davis interferes when her signature is not on the document then she will be saying "you cannot issue licenses even when I am not a party to issuing them". That is a big unambiguous step beyond individual religious freedom to theocracy. The solution is inelegant but it will be very hard for a religious bigot to maneuver around. A judge will simply find those in the same office that are willing to comply with the law and throw the miscreant in jail if s/he interferes with a person doing their job by upholding the law of the land.
1
That Huckabee, you gotta give it to him, heck, he seemed genuinely unhappy they would not let him be a martyr, too, at least until the primaries...
1
This is such a slippery slope. Muslims and born again christian clerks refusing liquor licenses. Could easily happen.
3
What part of separation of state and church does this elected official not understand.? As an elected official she has to put personal beliefs aside and obey a ruling determined to be constitutional. If her personal beliefs are so strong, then resign.
We do not have an official religion in this country yet she feels she can impose her personal religious beliefs on the rest of us. Not!!!!!
We do not have an official religion in this country yet she feels she can impose her personal religious beliefs on the rest of us. Not!!!!!
4
The vast majority of our service men and women were brought up to believe killing is sinful, yet they must carry out their duties as prescribed and for good reason. Perhaps jail time is a bit extreme for this Clerk, However she should unequivocally be relieved of her duties and sent back to the life of a private citizen.
Public officials are no longer required to follow the law. Take for instance our federal officials not enforcing immigration law, or the Democrats in Wisconsin fleeing the state to avoid a required vote.
This woman is a hero. A modern day Rosa Parks.
This woman is a hero. A modern day Rosa Parks.
What a circus! I take special pleasure in Huckabee out maneuvering Cruz. I'll take even more pleasure when this strange woman becomes yesterday's news, which, fear not, will happen.
6
Kim's 15 minutes is hopefully coming to an end.
I am tired of all this attention being focused on this ignorant religious bigot and hypocrite. She needs to either do her job or resign and get out of the way.
She and her equally ignorant supporters are on the wrong side of history. In due time same sex marriage will be viewed the same way as interracial marriage now is.
I am tired of all this attention being focused on this ignorant religious bigot and hypocrite. She needs to either do her job or resign and get out of the way.
She and her equally ignorant supporters are on the wrong side of history. In due time same sex marriage will be viewed the same way as interracial marriage now is.
1
Mr Huckabee has now demonstrated that he has NO IDEA what the Constitution means. I would remind all that the first job of a new President is to swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America," a promise made within seconds of the start of a term. Were Huckabee to take that oath -- more unlikely than my being a world champion tennis player -- we would have to worry that, since he doesn't understand the Constitution and readily supplies meanings that are incoherent, as a practical matter, he would have no obligations.
5
She is entitled to her convictions. Especially the one for contempt of court.
13
Kim Davis is being used by policians Hucklebee and Cruz and Liberty Council , the arm of Jerry Falwell's so-called Liberty "University." What a farce.
2
It's to bad her "legal" team isn't facing sanctions.
Well let's just praise the lord; she should have been left in jailt until she agreed to obey the law. And we worry about ayatollahs and the Islamic State. A religious fanatic is a religious fanatic. But here they are not supposed to bring their religious intolerance into government and make it the law.
She should be in jail for the rest or her life or until she carries out her duties as prescribed and now as defined by the United States Supreme Court or until she resigns to let someone else obey the law.
She should be in jail for the rest or her life or until she carries out her duties as prescribed and now as defined by the United States Supreme Court or until she resigns to let someone else obey the law.
2
God doesnt pay this woman. I do. She follows the dictates of my land, my nation, my laws. If she thinks her faith trumps them, she can resign.
6
She's out until she does something stupid again.
4
Interesting that she's giving her god the glory when the deputies in her office were the ones satisfying the Judge's requirements, and let her out.
When she got tossed in the slammer, did she give him all the glory for not parting the sky and reaching down to help her?
I know, god moves in mysterious ways, the sentence we always here when something happens that we don't like or feel we deserve.
When she got tossed in the slammer, did she give him all the glory for not parting the sky and reaching down to help her?
I know, god moves in mysterious ways, the sentence we always here when something happens that we don't like or feel we deserve.
2
It's important to remember that Marco Rubio also supports Davis. This is further proof that he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House.
11
Nor should any self serving opportunistic politician who thinks Davis is in the right just to pander to the religious right lunatics in this country just to try and get their votes.
While I don't doubt this lady has the courage of convictions, I do doubt doubt her integrity. After all, she could have simply resigned.
3
Time for her to resign and give up her 15 minutes of fame
5
Im outraged that the NYT left out the best part of the video: After finishing her speech a mighty staircase did descend from the heavens and she was last seen travelling on it in a generally Southwest direction;ie back towards Rowan Cty KY. There are reports that it stopped over a Chick Fil A for a few minutes
10
Why put her on the front page and let the NYT serve as a tool in her cynical publicity stunt? Granting Ms. Rowan a platform to proclaim otherwise just plays along with this farce. This nothing to do with religious freedom. She belongs in the archives, next to the obituary for Orville Faubus.
4
The utter simplicity of the argument is what seems to continue confounding so many people, namely that NOT ONE SPECK of her (twisted) expressions of religion are in question here. She was elected and swore an oath to perform CIVIL duties for her county and state and there's no question that in THIS country, supposedly ruled by laws, one's personal religious beliefs do not have any role to play. It would be like a nun volunteering at Planned Parenthood and then refusing to counsel on abortion. NO, the nun works through her church and convent and if parishioners seek her advice she gives in in her capacity as a Catholic nun. CIVIL INSTITUTIONS ARE AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE FREE from any religious contagion. This person can believe and preach as she chooses at church but the oath she swore was NOT to obey the laws of heaven but the STATE OF KENTUCKY. If she can't carry out her oath she must resign. She is NOT entitled to any exception and why should she be? This is clear. This is easy to understand. It's the FANATICS that are making this an issue to forward a hateful political agenda. There isn't much else to say about this because it's clear to ALL thinking people and those that don't see this for what it is aren't going to read The Times and engage in thoughtful analysis anyway.
12
Well thank you, common sense. This situation is so Shakespearian as to be laughable in the sense of "Much Ado About Nothing."
Seriously, are we so collectively stunted that we can't make accommodations for people who have been nearly thirty years in their job and are reluctant to embrace a brand new legal ethos? Can't we as a nation be bigger than that? It's CHANGE. People need time. I wish Davis' opponents would stop sounding like they're about to adopt Stalin as their mascot, and lose the anti-Christian rhetoric. It may serve to vent frustration, but it doesn't serve anything else. The gay community can boast a huge victory in the SCOTUS ruling. So bask in that recognition but allow for a minor reluctance. I'm so tired of people trying to push every single inflammatory button. And I don't want to see Americans- already stressed - now divided over something as insignificant as a stupid certificate.
Seriously, are we so collectively stunted that we can't make accommodations for people who have been nearly thirty years in their job and are reluctant to embrace a brand new legal ethos? Can't we as a nation be bigger than that? It's CHANGE. People need time. I wish Davis' opponents would stop sounding like they're about to adopt Stalin as their mascot, and lose the anti-Christian rhetoric. It may serve to vent frustration, but it doesn't serve anything else. The gay community can boast a huge victory in the SCOTUS ruling. So bask in that recognition but allow for a minor reluctance. I'm so tired of people trying to push every single inflammatory button. And I don't want to see Americans- already stressed - now divided over something as insignificant as a stupid certificate.
Denying people government services to which they are entitled under the Constitution as per the Supreme Court is not "Much Ado About Nothing."
Kim Davis wasn't seeking mere accommodation. In her capacity as County Clerk, she had forbade even her deputy clerks from issuing licenses to those she claims she could not, as a matter of religious conscience, serve. That refusal gave lie to any notion that this was about her ability to exercise her own religious conscience.
Kim Davis wasn't seeking mere accommodation. In her capacity as County Clerk, she had forbade even her deputy clerks from issuing licenses to those she claims she could not, as a matter of religious conscience, serve. That refusal gave lie to any notion that this was about her ability to exercise her own religious conscience.
Well I guess you care more if it was YOUR certificate.
I think what's at risk here is something significantly more than merely a certificate. It's about religious fanatics believing that they are exempt from the laws of this land. That's a slippery slope that will land us all in hot water.
I think what's at risk here is something significantly more than merely a certificate. It's about religious fanatics believing that they are exempt from the laws of this land. That's a slippery slope that will land us all in hot water.
Look at this woman. Talk about 15 minutes of fame!!! I am embarrassed to be an American....would this happen in the UK or France???
7
In Europe laws regarding who can marry or form civil unions are made by ELECTED LAW-MAKERS (the Parliament), not by the Supreme Court, whose members are nominated and not elected. During her confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan testified that in her opinion the US Constitution does not contain a right for people of the same-sex to marry (an opinion she apparently has now reversed). The Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect the right to equal treatment for freed slaves. It was not intended to assert the right of people of the same sex to marry, there is no language referring to marriage or gender in it, and it is really hard to see how the generic statement "people have equal protection under the law" could mean that anyone can marry whoever he or she wants. If "equal protection" means "marry whoever you want", then what about polygamy? The US is the only country in which the Supreme Court has claimed that the existing Constitution ALREADY contains a guaranteed right to marry for people of the same sex. In Europe, legislators have enacted new laws to establish this right. I don't think Europeans would want their Supreme Courts to do what the US Supreme Court has done.
Let's say that I am a Catholic and an employee of the US Postal Service. Should I have the right to decide that I won't deliver mail sent out by Planned Parenthood because the organization provides abortions, which violate my church's beliefs? I think not. Those supporting Kim Davis's stand need to think again: they would put our nation on a slippery slope toward Anarchy!
5
No one wants Ms. Davis to go against her conscience. However, she should not be allowed to misuse her office to force her religious views on anybody else. Nobody has a God-given right to a public office. If the duties conflict with her personal views or religious sentiments, the logical move should be to resign from office.
12
Fire her already. Th
As has been stated over and over and over again, for many days now, since she is an elected official, there is no on who has the legal authority to summarily fire her (would that there were someone). Try to keep up.
So when an elected official decides to ignore U.S. law and start conducting official government business according to sharia law, Mike Huckabee will be okay with that?
8
As long as he volunteered, I'm all for putting Mike Huckabee in the slammer. He's an embarrassment to the political process, and a lot more dangerous to society than this woman.
11
Davis took an oath to perform her duty as a civil servant ..."so help me God." That oath says Davis, with God's help, will perform her constitutional and civic duties according to the laws of the United States.
Now, out of jail, she continues to say that she will not perform those laws and duties, so help her God, because those laws contradict what she claims God says is wrong.
It seems to me she's put poor God in an unfortunate pro/con situation.
Does God help her to follow the laws of the US Constitution she swore she would perform with God's help?
Does God tell her disobey the laws she swore with God's help to uphold?
Has anyone seen King Solomon lately?
Now, out of jail, she continues to say that she will not perform those laws and duties, so help her God, because those laws contradict what she claims God says is wrong.
It seems to me she's put poor God in an unfortunate pro/con situation.
Does God help her to follow the laws of the US Constitution she swore she would perform with God's help?
Does God tell her disobey the laws she swore with God's help to uphold?
Has anyone seen King Solomon lately?
5
Illegal immigrants openly flaunt immigration laws and are hailed as heros. Obama does not enforce the laws he doesn't like and is called sensible and humane. The Judicial system are ruled by prevailing political correctness and the Laws of or Nation are enforced arbitrarily.
Kim Davis did not deserve to be jailed and I am glad she is free.
Kim Davis did not deserve to be jailed and I am glad she is free.
What you fail to understand is that it is perfectly legal for a president to issue executive orders. What Ms Davis has done is illegal. Got it?
Why is this woman in the news? She should be in jail. She has broken the law. She can either do her job or quit. What gives her the right to defy the law and the courts? It is sickening to watch all of the religious fanatics come out of the woodwork to defend a law breaker!!!
7
When she and the rest of the clerks who object in Kentucky also refuse to issue licenses to divorcees, I will believe they believe those beliefs they carp about so often. As I see it, they're really just bigots.
11
They don't actually issue licenses for divorce but I get your drift.
Kim Davis, your ship has come in! Get started on raking in the dough on the talk show and GOP campaign rally circuit. Book deal certainly in the works as well.
I have to admire how she set all this up - she'll be rich within weeks and a low-level clerking job just a memory. Beautifully played.
I have to admire how she set all this up - she'll be rich within weeks and a low-level clerking job just a memory. Beautifully played.
3
I find the fervor of Kim Davis' emotional words frightening.
I find the extreme bias of Kim Davis' actions more frightening. I find the entire "religious entitlement" argument most frightening.
There is nothing scarier than a zealot being allowed to manipulate others' lives and the law in the name of religion.
This entire Kim Davis situation just validated a deeper and darker chapter of blatant prejudice under the thin veil of "religious liberty".
8
Last week I wrote that this woman is a narcissist and that she has never been happier in her life than she is now with this attention. Of course, the New York Times did not print that comment and I suppose it won't print this one. She is an elected official in a constitutional democracy and she wants to be a warrior for a theocracy. People please. Stop writing about this. It just gives her fuel.
8
These people are dangerous and should not be taken lightly. Their means to an end for getting rid of abortion and gay marriage, and any other issue they do not approve of, has taken the form of 'death by a thousand cuts' and they're succeeding at it, right down to getting elected individuals who support their causes. This is The Religious Right I'm talking about. They are crafty. clever, and conniving and exceptionally good at 'getting the vote out.' And unless the Democrats start doing the same, this state of affairs is only going to get worse. And when the time is right for Elizabeth Warren to be given the go ahead, I can only hope the Democratic Party is ready to stand behind her 100% with no dilly-dallying around like they're doing with Hillary.
5
About time and it should have never happened. State persecution of religious values can not stand.
2
Mike Huckabee's understanding of the Constitution and, more particularly, the separation of powers and Bill of Rights in the Constitution is so woefully inadequate and misinterpreted that he has effectively disqualified himself from the Presidency.
7
I wonder if anyone has brought this up: About state officials issuing gun permits when arguably it is against ones faith in the prince of peace to provide guns whose only purpose is to commit acts of incredible violence and therefore against one sincerely held religious beliefs. Do you think those that are supporting Davis would also vehemently support the clerk who refused to issue gun permits. I wonder?
4
I don't know why she and her henchmen are celebrating her release. She wasn't released because she was right, but only because she is now irrelevant to the issue. If she breaks the law again, she'll be jailed.
3
If I am a Southern Baptist public clerk can I refuse to serve people who drink? Worse yet those who dance?
4
Kim Davis is free to practice her religion as a religion but not as the law. This is the separation of church and state.
5
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.
4
There is no "religious freedom" to impose one's personal view of what the law should be on the public he or she serves. Ms. Davis took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court, which has the final word in our system, has said that the Constitution means same sex couples must be given civil marriage licenses. Whether Ms. Davis agrees with this ruling, or whether it accords with her personal religious views about marriage, is irrelevant to her job function. She must uphold the law as the Supreme Court has announced it or she must resign. There are not other choices.
3
Whoever was blasting "Eye of the Tiger" might like to know there is a copyright on musical compositions and a fee must be paid. The owner of the rights can and may sue for damages. Frequently, artists do not wish their work to be identified with bigoted nut jobs.
6
Ms. Davis is wrong. First of all, I don't support gay marriage. If I was in her position, I would resign. However, as an agent of the government, she has amoral obligation to follow the laws and all court rulings.
If her conscience tells her that a certain law is contrary to the scriptures, the honorable thing would be to resign. But by wanting to defy the rule of law and still hold on to the perks of her jobs is wrong.
She can't have it both ways. No one, not even president of the Southern Baptist Convention, can thumb their nose at the law or the courts and expect no consequences. Such actions lead to anarchy.
No one can hide behind Christianity as an excuse not to follow the law.
Unfortunately, she does not take into account what Jesus said,""Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
The bad news is that by allowing her out of jail too soon, Ms. Davis will be back in the news as she continue to defy the courts.
Instead of a few days in custody, Judge Bunning should give her a minimum of 6 months behind bars and hold her personally liable for financial penalties starting at $10,000 per day.
No, this is not a war on Christians. It is the story of a public official who feels her beliefs trumps the law of the land.
Rather than having kinship with Rosa Park by defying a unjust law, she's closer to George Wallace when he said, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever."
If her conscience tells her that a certain law is contrary to the scriptures, the honorable thing would be to resign. But by wanting to defy the rule of law and still hold on to the perks of her jobs is wrong.
She can't have it both ways. No one, not even president of the Southern Baptist Convention, can thumb their nose at the law or the courts and expect no consequences. Such actions lead to anarchy.
No one can hide behind Christianity as an excuse not to follow the law.
Unfortunately, she does not take into account what Jesus said,""Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
The bad news is that by allowing her out of jail too soon, Ms. Davis will be back in the news as she continue to defy the courts.
Instead of a few days in custody, Judge Bunning should give her a minimum of 6 months behind bars and hold her personally liable for financial penalties starting at $10,000 per day.
No, this is not a war on Christians. It is the story of a public official who feels her beliefs trumps the law of the land.
Rather than having kinship with Rosa Park by defying a unjust law, she's closer to George Wallace when he said, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever."
4
When are people going to just grow up and admit that "religious freedom" is code for "freedom to discriminate without consequence"?
Because that's what "good Christians" like Kim Davis are really asking for.
Because that's what "good Christians" like Kim Davis are really asking for.
6
Ms. Davis is one of the best advertisements for atheism, or, at the very least, agnosticism, that's come along in long time.
7
So far the best news that has come out of this idiocy is that Kim Davis has actually caused a setback for the Fundamentalist Religious agenda. Politicians are moving to take the providing of marriage licenses out of the County Clerk's domain. The worst news is yet another political blunder: jailing her made her an instant celebrity who wants to be a martyr and world-famous. She should have been fired. That's what you do in cases of insubordination. You fire them, you don't jail them!
Like Kathleen Kane of PA, Kim is an elected official and cannot be fired.
Davis is a "conscientious objector" and therefore should accept the penalties that go with being such.
3
Kim this is God. Knock it off. I never mentioned same-sex marriage in the Bible.
7
The judge who put her in jail was a moron. When San Francisco issued same sex marriage licenses against existing California law nothing happened. While I do not agree with Kim Davis, this is clearly a political show trial.
Unlike Ms. Davis, San Francisco did not disobey a court order.
The city adhered to the ruling of the California Supreme Ct, when the ruling was made.
FYI Court decisions can be stayed pending appeal. When the appellate court makes its decision, the stay gets lifted.
The city adhered to the ruling of the California Supreme Ct, when the ruling was made.
FYI Court decisions can be stayed pending appeal. When the appellate court makes its decision, the stay gets lifted.
1
It is lucky that Ms Davis did not try to get the last 4 of her 5 marriage licenses from a devout Catholic who found divorce against her religious principles.
12
Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if every local clerk/official in the government could decide which laws to abide by, given their religious beliefs. Nobody would know with certainty beforehand what kind of prejudice or discrimination they might face.
6
Governmental entities issue marriage licenses entitling recipients to enter into a civil contract and nothing more. They do not require any religious institution to provide a sacrament, ceremony, rite, etc. of marriage under any circumstances. That means that Ms. Davis's church is free to shun same sex couples to their hearts' delight. Ms Davis as the County Clerk however, must perform her constitutionally required duty, which she is under oath to perform. Period. If she is permitted to continue in to hold office and violate the laws she swore to uphold, then we are on our way out as a nation of laws.
7
To Huckabee and his Right Wing Christians, God might not be all that powerful, so they want to help him out.
4
Cruz actually thinks he can win; Huckabee is running to boost is speaking fees.
5
As an American, I am offended that this woman is being celebrated. What part of separation of church and state don't these people understand? If she were Islamic, and did something similar, these same groups would be rallying to see her jailed or worse. They would be the first to scream "separation of church and state" then.
12
When are the rest of the Christians (not that I'm not one) going to be released from jail?
1
Haha! So much bigotry coming from the comments section! I'm glad she's out, she didn't belong there. There is a simple solution, which was included in an op-ed a couple of days ago here on The Times. Change the law so she's not partisan to what she feels is wrong. She's not a part of it. Everyone gets their oh-so-important licenses. All sides win.
But who looks to law making as a solution any more? Why do that when there's so much whining to be done...
But who looks to law making as a solution any more? Why do that when there's so much whining to be done...
Making law respecting an establishment of religion like Ms. Davis's purported divine revelation isn't a constitutional option.
1
It is hard to understand what has happened to so many people in the U.S. today, as to their views on religion and rights for people I am referring to readers of the New York Times. Readers of other newspapers of course might have different views.
It appears so many readers and commentators take a kind of dim view of a person having, or acting, on the basis of having a 'conscience', or having for that matter, religious tenets.
Do any of these people in fact attend any church of their choice? Do any of them recall a time when they might used to have done so?
How many people like this, who say a conscience isn't important enough for the government's laws to respect it at all, subscribe to the principles of any religion beyond the relativism of such 'religions' as 'humanism?
They seem to think anything should be 'alright with God', and of course that would be tautologically true, made the easier to happen, if God were not regarded as even 'existing'.
So what the government has done lately, is to agree with this non-existence of meaningful tenets of any sort that people should abide by.
Most laws enacted by a government are actually for the purpose of serving the most evil people in a society. ONLY the basic kinds of laws, such as the TEN COMMANDMENTS, serve ANYONE ELSE but the worst, serve ANY GOOD PURPOSE!
People just don't know, don't respect, don't even try to understand, any of this.
It appears so many readers and commentators take a kind of dim view of a person having, or acting, on the basis of having a 'conscience', or having for that matter, religious tenets.
Do any of these people in fact attend any church of their choice? Do any of them recall a time when they might used to have done so?
How many people like this, who say a conscience isn't important enough for the government's laws to respect it at all, subscribe to the principles of any religion beyond the relativism of such 'religions' as 'humanism?
They seem to think anything should be 'alright with God', and of course that would be tautologically true, made the easier to happen, if God were not regarded as even 'existing'.
So what the government has done lately, is to agree with this non-existence of meaningful tenets of any sort that people should abide by.
Most laws enacted by a government are actually for the purpose of serving the most evil people in a society. ONLY the basic kinds of laws, such as the TEN COMMANDMENTS, serve ANYONE ELSE but the worst, serve ANY GOOD PURPOSE!
People just don't know, don't respect, don't even try to understand, any of this.
"People just don't know, don't respect, don't even try to understand, any of this."
And with spokesmen like you they never will, because you're a loony. Check again and you might notice there is no Commandment prohibiting same sex marriage.
And with spokesmen like you they never will, because you're a loony. Check again and you might notice there is no Commandment prohibiting same sex marriage.
You just take the name of God in vain. Why do you expect to be respected for it?
I just wonder when this is not going to be front page news anymore. Frankly, I'm tired of reading and hearing about it.
1
Ha ha ha ha. I see such great advocates for Ms. Davis. Now, let us assume that a Muslim was put in charge for issuing liquor licenses in this same county, and this Muslim would refuse to issue liquor license because of religious beliefs. What would happen? What would these same advocates and hallelujah shouters, the religious faith backed individuals think? Do you think they would admire this Muslim for not violating his/her faith? I think not. This is all a side show for publicity hounds. Ms. Davis should not accept employment in a place where obeying the law violates her conscience. Instead, she promotes her violation of the law for self publicity under the guise of religion.
She is not the first and she will not be the last to use religion for self promotion.
She is not the first and she will not be the last to use religion for self promotion.
13
She won't say if she will comply with the judge's instruction not to interfere in the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses?
Ok.i If she interferes, I have every confidence the judge will put her behind bars again. But I suspect that if that does happen, it will take a written promise from her to refrain from interfering to get out a second time. This judge strikes me as a "play for keeps" kind of guy. Pass the popcorn. This reality TV show is not over yet.
Ok.i If she interferes, I have every confidence the judge will put her behind bars again. But I suspect that if that does happen, it will take a written promise from her to refrain from interfering to get out a second time. This judge strikes me as a "play for keeps" kind of guy. Pass the popcorn. This reality TV show is not over yet.
3
All I can say, to the people who support Ms. Davis, who liken this to the civil rights struggle, who feel victimized in all of this, is - it's about time. White and evangelical and Christian? You have had it "your way" for too long, at the expense of blacks, and Jews, and Asians, and Muslims, and immigrants of all kinds, and races other than your own. You are NOT special. You're just like all of us. High time you got some of your own. And get used to it. Your time is gone.
14
Well, I'll share my thoughts on this blazing hot afternoon; I'm sitting in the shade with a fan at my disposal to cool me off when it just gets too much to bear. In the other room lies my sweetie, who has such an aversion to hot weather, just melts immediately; no trips to Mexico for us! We've put up with each other for almost 30 years, even with our differences. Did I mention what gender my darling is? Well, no I didn't. It's none of your darn business, Kimmie, which is my own deeply held & sincere belief. Now I'm going to go give my love-pot a little kiss, even though I'll get a growl. It's just too hot to argue.
7
If the President declared that his religious views prohibited him or her from funding the Pentagon, who would complain?
5
I’ve always felt the basic problem here is inappropriate government entanglement in religion and/or social institutions. And the solution to it is that government should stay out of the "marriage" question entirely (or as much as possible) because it's a question of a religious sacrament to be argued & decided upon in churches, synagogues, etc., not by government. Or it might be considered a secular social institution to be argued in public forums, not the business of government. Government should only recognize legal contracts/civil unions, & these can be among opposite OR SAME-SEX couples.
We could gradually change the terminology of legal/government documents to speak of "civil unions", "contracts", “partnerships”, etc., & the civil/legal laws, responsibilities & rights attached thereof & agreed to in writing. Get the word "marriage" with its religious/social connotations & emotional baggage out of legal documents. ANY 2 people can consent to enter into a legal "civil union"(or similar term) with its attendant legal responsibilities, rights & benefits, independent of whether they consider themselves "married" or not according to their religious beliefs, conscience, religious denomination, understanding of scriptures, adherence to secular social customs/institutions, etc. If their religion, congregation, social group, etc. won't recognize their "marriage”, they can withdraw from it & find or form another.
It’s a free country, or it should be.
We could gradually change the terminology of legal/government documents to speak of "civil unions", "contracts", “partnerships”, etc., & the civil/legal laws, responsibilities & rights attached thereof & agreed to in writing. Get the word "marriage" with its religious/social connotations & emotional baggage out of legal documents. ANY 2 people can consent to enter into a legal "civil union"(or similar term) with its attendant legal responsibilities, rights & benefits, independent of whether they consider themselves "married" or not according to their religious beliefs, conscience, religious denomination, understanding of scriptures, adherence to secular social customs/institutions, etc. If their religion, congregation, social group, etc. won't recognize their "marriage”, they can withdraw from it & find or form another.
It’s a free country, or it should be.
Several points:
(1) If, as you suggest, marriage is "a religious sacrament to be argued & decided upon in churches, synagogues, etc., not by government." how would you propose accommodating those who do not subscribe to any religion, and thus do not recognize the authority of any particular religious body, who wish to get married? Freedom of religion includes the freedom not to subscribe to any religion.
(2) As a historical matter, civil marriage preceded any religious notion of a sacrament or rite. The Christian church, for nearly the first 1,000 years of its existence, didn't even have a marriage rite. People simply got married according to whatever was the local custom, and if they wished, they could present themselves to the local bishop afterwards for a blessing.
(3) The government couldn't get out of the marriage business even if it wanted to. Whatever else marriage may be, it is a civil contract that courts are sometimes asked to enforce and/or mediate. That civil contract has ramifications for all sorts of things, from child custody, to certain government benefits, to inheritance/survivorship rights, hospital visitation rights, and on and on. There is simply no way foe the government to extract itself from the business of marriage. And since the government is required to treat all people equally under the law, there must in any case be a provision for those who do not subscribe to any religious faith (which brings us back to point (1) above).
(1) If, as you suggest, marriage is "a religious sacrament to be argued & decided upon in churches, synagogues, etc., not by government." how would you propose accommodating those who do not subscribe to any religion, and thus do not recognize the authority of any particular religious body, who wish to get married? Freedom of religion includes the freedom not to subscribe to any religion.
(2) As a historical matter, civil marriage preceded any religious notion of a sacrament or rite. The Christian church, for nearly the first 1,000 years of its existence, didn't even have a marriage rite. People simply got married according to whatever was the local custom, and if they wished, they could present themselves to the local bishop afterwards for a blessing.
(3) The government couldn't get out of the marriage business even if it wanted to. Whatever else marriage may be, it is a civil contract that courts are sometimes asked to enforce and/or mediate. That civil contract has ramifications for all sorts of things, from child custody, to certain government benefits, to inheritance/survivorship rights, hospital visitation rights, and on and on. There is simply no way foe the government to extract itself from the business of marriage. And since the government is required to treat all people equally under the law, there must in any case be a provision for those who do not subscribe to any religious faith (which brings us back to point (1) above).
3
James Madison just threw up
7
He's dead. He doesn't do that anymore.
There are many possible variations of this and here is mine. I am a vegetarian, and not just for health reasons. I believe it is wrong to kill animals to eat them, it is a religious tenet for me. What if I had a government job where I was required to sign papers for new businesses that wanted to start up in my district. Someone comes in to apply for a permit to open a steak house, or better yet, to open a slaughterhouse. What if I refused, on religious grounds? I would not do that, but what if? Who on Davis's side would not find that outrageous? I could be as earnestly opposed to "sanctioning" such things, just as earnest as Davis clearly is. Why not my view as well as hers? Thats why in a civil society we just cannot allow individuals to disobey civil laws and court orders. The only just thing for her to do is to look for an honest way to stand aside and let her deputies do it, or resign.
And I am truly amazed that Huckabee and others do not support the rule of law, rather than individuals [like me in my example] imposing their own personal principles on others in an office of public duty. If you insist that officials must be allowed to do that, then watch out, someone may prevent YOU from getting served as you should be entitled to.
And I am truly amazed that Huckabee and others do not support the rule of law, rather than individuals [like me in my example] imposing their own personal principles on others in an office of public duty. If you insist that officials must be allowed to do that, then watch out, someone may prevent YOU from getting served as you should be entitled to.
4
Why do people need a government license in the first place to marry? Why can't it be like a real estate deed..let people marry whoever they want and file the legal papers in a government office ???? .
2
What if...? It is possible but not even probable that every governmental office in this country could be held by individuals who share the same beliefs and act on them in the manner of Ms.Davis.What kind of country would that be? Not recognizable as the United States.
2
Davis's conscience is clearly torn between her faith and her $80K salary, so rather than stepping down, she looks like a woman who is on a campaign trail to find tat new paycheck. I suspect she will cling on to that $80K job, unless she gets better opportunities. I hear the Family Research Council is looking for a new spokesman after Josh Duggar had to step down.
6
She can replace Huckabee at Fox. Can she play the bass guitar?
4
I don't think conservatives get it. They do not like the way muslim countries use God as their "Messenger", but they do exactly the same thing. To avoid religious convictions in any state/country, the laws of the land (of the people) must be adhered to.
6
"Eye of the Tiger"? And a guy using a megaphone to urge people to repent? Remarkable. What a place.
On the first page of Popper's introduction to his book "The Open Society and its Enemies," he says that "this civilization has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth -- the transition from the tribal or 'closed society,' with its submission to magical forces, to the 'open society' which sets free the critical powers of man. ...The shock of this transition is one of the factors that have made possible the rise of those reactionary movements which have tried, and still try, to overthrow civilization and to return to tribalism."
It's difficult to accost people like Kim Davis. I know they have the best of intentions and are doing right by their lights. The difficulty in NOT doing so is that, left unchecked, they will dismantle the wall between Church and State. Of course we can't allow this woman to flout the law; but why she feels compelled to troubles me. Any religious movement whose members interpret the dictates of their holy text as endorsing discrimination should be intellectually combated.
Secular democracy is not the default setting, in case anyone hadn't noticed. I'll not be standing by while people like Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee try to tear it apart. Are there bigoted atheists who cannot abear Christians at all? Absolutely. But mostly it's the other way 'round: To literalists, secularism is synonymous with sinfulness and therefore must be destroyed.
On the first page of Popper's introduction to his book "The Open Society and its Enemies," he says that "this civilization has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth -- the transition from the tribal or 'closed society,' with its submission to magical forces, to the 'open society' which sets free the critical powers of man. ...The shock of this transition is one of the factors that have made possible the rise of those reactionary movements which have tried, and still try, to overthrow civilization and to return to tribalism."
It's difficult to accost people like Kim Davis. I know they have the best of intentions and are doing right by their lights. The difficulty in NOT doing so is that, left unchecked, they will dismantle the wall between Church and State. Of course we can't allow this woman to flout the law; but why she feels compelled to troubles me. Any religious movement whose members interpret the dictates of their holy text as endorsing discrimination should be intellectually combated.
Secular democracy is not the default setting, in case anyone hadn't noticed. I'll not be standing by while people like Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee try to tear it apart. Are there bigoted atheists who cannot abear Christians at all? Absolutely. But mostly it's the other way 'round: To literalists, secularism is synonymous with sinfulness and therefore must be destroyed.
4
Kim Davis claim that she is an allegedly apostolic Christian is belied by her judging and casting the 1st stone at gay seeking a marriage license. Kim Davis is an elected government official like Governor Pontius Pilate and Governor George Wallace who is breaking the law based upon her faith in god.
Davis has been married four times and has been a "Christian" for 4 years. Davis has freedom of her personal religion. But she has no right to impose her religion on others by her elected government office job.
Kim Davis is lucky that she is occupying the defiant law breaking space of the likes of Cliven Bundy. Their kind white privilege leads to being a hero or heroine on Fox News and the Republican Party.
Davis has been married four times and has been a "Christian" for 4 years. Davis has freedom of her personal religion. But she has no right to impose her religion on others by her elected government office job.
Kim Davis is lucky that she is occupying the defiant law breaking space of the likes of Cliven Bundy. Their kind white privilege leads to being a hero or heroine on Fox News and the Republican Party.
2
I know I’m commenting after at least 1700 others made their thoughts known, but my thought is this: couldn’t Ms. Davis have discussed this issue with a supervisor long before the situation came to jail time and hours of publicity on TV, print, radio, and internet? I am a Christian, but I don’t see how her stance draws people to Jesus, which is what a Christian is asked to do. We are to love others by our words and by our actions and in doing so, allowing people to get to know who Jesus is. “Go and Make Disciples of All Nations," Jesus said. This entire saga is not drawing the spiritually hungry, or those who are seeking. It is having exactly the opposite effect by making Christians look like bigoted, narrow-minded zealots. Please, NYTimes commenters, not all Christians are like that. I appreciate Ms. Davis’s right to opposition to gay marriage, but It seems to me that Ms. Davis could have resolved her problem by dealing with it months ago through discussion with someone in Rowan County government. She could have avoided all this controversy and then gone on with her life, but perhaps that wasn’t her motivation. While I’m in no position to judge, it tends to make one wonder.
4
She is an elected official, and as such has no direct supervisor. SHE ix the administrative head of her office. That is why it was incumbent upon HER to make sure that others in her office would service those she claims she cannot, in good conscience serve. But she refused to do that as well.
Welcome to sharia law.
5
No. The last chapter is not yet written.
"'This is not a political campaign, and I don’t want it to be and neither would Kim,' Mr. Staver, her lawyer, said of the rally. 'This is an event to honor God.'"
I wonder if Staver is prepared to defend ISIS engendered actions with the same defense. Surely they are as religious and have as firm a belief in God as does Davis.
As to Huckabee and Cruz, it would appear that, instead of running for President, they are running for Grand Ayatollah. They appear to be more comfortable with the way things are done in Iran than in America. How times change. Once upon a time Republican candidates for President were all about "Law And Order."
If you violate the law you may get probation, but if you continue to violate it, you go to jail. The legal issues have nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- to do with marriage. It is about Davis violating the law.
I wonder if Staver is prepared to defend ISIS engendered actions with the same defense. Surely they are as religious and have as firm a belief in God as does Davis.
As to Huckabee and Cruz, it would appear that, instead of running for President, they are running for Grand Ayatollah. They appear to be more comfortable with the way things are done in Iran than in America. How times change. Once upon a time Republican candidates for President were all about "Law And Order."
If you violate the law you may get probation, but if you continue to violate it, you go to jail. The legal issues have nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- to do with marriage. It is about Davis violating the law.
4
Isn't Cruz an attorney?
in a way, i do feel a little sorry for fundamentalist christians, seeing their religion die and not being able to do anything about it except cling harder and cry louder.
but then i think, if these people had a little more sense, and focused more on the new testament instead of the old testament, and recreated their gospel of love to suit the times and follow the evolving concept of humility and compassion, they might be able to sustain their creed into a new age.
instead, they're killing it even as they stand over it in defiance and illusory triumph. they lack the imagination to progress, and they lack the courage to change. and there's their epitaph.
but then i think, if these people had a little more sense, and focused more on the new testament instead of the old testament, and recreated their gospel of love to suit the times and follow the evolving concept of humility and compassion, they might be able to sustain their creed into a new age.
instead, they're killing it even as they stand over it in defiance and illusory triumph. they lack the imagination to progress, and they lack the courage to change. and there's their epitaph.
6
She was in jail for five days and she's acting like she's Nelson Mandela.
22
Keeping Ms. Davis in jail only further makes her the poster child for any rabid, anti-gay marriage zealot. I would defend to the death her right to religious freedom, but as an elected official her tightly held religious beliefs are secondary to upholding the law and the office to which she was elected.
To those that decry loss of religious freedom - please think again - the only thing lost here is the legal rights of those seeking a marriage license.
Sadly, the pandering by Cruz, Huckabee, et al. will only spur on this ridiculous theater of the absurd.
To those that decry loss of religious freedom - please think again - the only thing lost here is the legal rights of those seeking a marriage license.
Sadly, the pandering by Cruz, Huckabee, et al. will only spur on this ridiculous theater of the absurd.
7
As reprehensible as her behavior is this sort of falls into the Donald Trump category . Scary but in five years this probably leaves us stronger as a country. But boy. This woman is something special. And Mike Huckabee continuing to prove that being a governor endows one with about as much gravitas as a turkey sandwich.
6
In the dictionary next to the word opportunist is a picture of Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz standing next to Karen Davis.
I looked up grifter but it was Newt Gingrichs photo.
The big smile on her face is from finding out she's made a lot of money from those who don't know any better.
I looked up grifter but it was Newt Gingrichs photo.
The big smile on her face is from finding out she's made a lot of money from those who don't know any better.
4
EVERYONE WAS WRONG . . .
Ms. Davis, the two politicians who celebrated with her today acted as though they are unaware of the separation of church and state.
And, Kim Davis uses her religious beliefs quite selectively ... investigate her marriages and sexual behavior ... her choice to behave as a Christian seems to be quite convenient for her in this situation.
Finally, being sentenced to jail sans any bail was totally inappropriate as the judge did. And, why jail ... did she seem to be a flight risk?
Everyone acted foolishly.
Ms. Davis, the two politicians who celebrated with her today acted as though they are unaware of the separation of church and state.
And, Kim Davis uses her religious beliefs quite selectively ... investigate her marriages and sexual behavior ... her choice to behave as a Christian seems to be quite convenient for her in this situation.
Finally, being sentenced to jail sans any bail was totally inappropriate as the judge did. And, why jail ... did she seem to be a flight risk?
Everyone acted foolishly.
3
Being held in contempt of court is not the same thing as being charged with a crime. Bail is issued simply for the purpose of ensuring that a person arrested and charged with a crime shows up for trial. But jailing people in contempt of court has a long and established precedent in our legal system. The point is to compel compliance with a lawful court order, so the issue of bail is completely and utterly irrelevant here.
She was in jail for contempt of court after refusing to comply with the judge's order. It was the only way to re-establish order in the county courthouse and allow the deputy clerks to issue the licenses. Bail is only for people who are awaiting trial. It doesn't apply in this case.
1) “The founders never gave one branch of government the power to make the law,” Mr. Huckabee said, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage across the country".
Does that apply to Citizens United as well? Or the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act?
2) "When Senator Cruz exited the jail a throng of journalists beckoned him toward their microphones, but an aide to Mr. Huckabee blocked the path of Mr. Cruz, who appeared incredulous."
Now now boys--make nice--there's more than enough pandering to go around.
3) "“If you have to put someone in jail, let me go.” Mr. Huckabee said to a cheering crowd." Now there's a proposal I can go along with100%.
Does that apply to Citizens United as well? Or the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act?
2) "When Senator Cruz exited the jail a throng of journalists beckoned him toward their microphones, but an aide to Mr. Huckabee blocked the path of Mr. Cruz, who appeared incredulous."
Now now boys--make nice--there's more than enough pandering to go around.
3) "“If you have to put someone in jail, let me go.” Mr. Huckabee said to a cheering crowd." Now there's a proposal I can go along with100%.
15
Did they really secure the rights to use the music? Gonna laugh if and when they're sued.
9
The band's reaction has already shown up on my Facebook feed, not happy.
I guess Huckabee got tired of peddling phony diabetes cures and decided to go back to peddling bigotry and ignorance. That's a smart choice, there's good money in selling bigotry. Davis is hoping to cash in soon.
11
Writer and gay activist, Dan Savage, during a recent interview said something that really nailed it:
"She is not a minister, she thinks that she works for God giving out marriage licenses in the state court house when in fact she works for Caesar and somebody needs to acquaint Ms. Davis of this fact."
Indeed. When you work for the government you are tasked with upholding secular law. If you are a government employee then yes, you work for Caesar and not God.
"She is not a minister, she thinks that she works for God giving out marriage licenses in the state court house when in fact she works for Caesar and somebody needs to acquaint Ms. Davis of this fact."
Indeed. When you work for the government you are tasked with upholding secular law. If you are a government employee then yes, you work for Caesar and not God.
8
There are those who say there should be an accommodation made for Ms Davis. God already provides for an accommodation in Mark 12:17:
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
!. The Supreme Court "created" a gay marriage law out of thin air. There is no mention of gay marriage in the Constitution. Our Congress is empowered to do this not the Supreme's.
2. Kim Davis has shown better character through all of this than the Supreme's, Judge Bunning, and the gay marriage supporters that have commented criticizing her previous personal life before she was "saved". Many were contemptuous and bigoted themselves while calling her a bigot.
I could go on but it seems to fall on deaf ears......
2. Kim Davis has shown better character through all of this than the Supreme's, Judge Bunning, and the gay marriage supporters that have commented criticizing her previous personal life before she was "saved". Many were contemptuous and bigoted themselves while calling her a bigot.
I could go on but it seems to fall on deaf ears......
2
Before you go on, please familiarize with the way this nation of laws actually works. The Supreme Court created nothing. Rather, they ruled that LGBT people cannot be treated differently than anybody else.
1
Actually, the issue is that the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, and makes it very clear that elected officials and civil servants may NOT impose their private religious views upon members of the public.
In other words, we do not allow government to impose sharia law in America.
Sorry.
In other words, we do not allow government to impose sharia law in America.
Sorry.
1
Rick, you might have missed class when they covered the Constitution. The Constitution didn't say anything about a lot of topics where the Courts rule every day. The Courts rule because there is a Constitutional PRINCIPLE involved. LIke if someone says that all people who are left handed must go to jail. The legal principle is that people must be treated equally, left handed or right handed. Whether or not you like it, the Constitution also says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means to a given set of facts and circumstances. They did. Gay marriage is in.
The religous right was thown out england for their demands and inability to follow the law of the land and now, 400 years later they are at it again. The constitution gurantees your right to practice your religon but it does not grant your religous beliefs to violate law
8
She should be fired for not doing her job.
3
she shouldnt be allow to return to work... she refused to do her job...
3
Why shouldn't she return to work? Ms Davis is a woman of god. Those who love the Lord hate evil.
The judge acted in a manner consistent with enforcing contempt orders. Since the five deputies in the Rowan County Clerk's office began issuing marriage licenses, there was no reason to continue her incarceration. Before Ms. Davis lapses further into rapturous release mode in a victory lap, she will again find herself in the slam if she again "interfere(s) in any way, directly or indirectly to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples."
This whole affair has a ring of absurdity to it. Much like a Mennonite in charge of the DMV refusing to issue a driver's license out of religious preference for horse and buggy.
This whole affair has a ring of absurdity to it. Much like a Mennonite in charge of the DMV refusing to issue a driver's license out of religious preference for horse and buggy.
5
The answer to this one is simple. Mrs Davis should not have to sign the certificates against her conscience and let one of the other clerks do it. Case solved. Why the controversy?
1
She is IN CHARGE of the other clerks and - until now - refused to let them do it.
Mrs Davis would not do that. Too simple. And would not let others do it. Or let anyone of any persuasion get their document.
I worry we're going to find out the judge was premature in releasing her. Time will tell. Everyone should have suspected that same-sex marriage in the US was inevitable at some point in the near future. Anyone who might have felt that some aspect of their jobs would soon become untenable could have begun planning for this inevitability. If there is any evidence that Kim Davis had done anything to alter her job description to prepare herself, or if she had initiated any changes in clerical duties in her county, then I might be willing to give her the tiniest shred of respect. She took no proactive steps to allow herself to continue doing her job when same-sex marriage became legal. Different counties have different rules, and North Carolina gets some credit for trying to protect some of their employees. This is a nation of laws with prescribed ways of changing them. Huckabee and Cruz should drop out of the race since they seem committed to not upholding the US Constitution. Her beliefs have nothing at all to do with her job of collecting fees and issuing receipts according to law.
2
It is a complete charade for the Republican candidates to pretend that its only "liberals" who are behind gay marriage or who support enforcement of the Supreme Ct's marriage equality decision. Don't believe them.
Let's not even focus on the fact that this involves a Republican judge enforcing a Supreme Ct decision written by a Republican. All of the Republican candidates take campaign contributions from people like Paul Singer (a top 5 Republican campaign funder), a big force behind the gay marriage initiatives of the last few years ... a cause he embraced because his son is gay. The reality is that they all take his money and he is about as much of a power broker in charge of what the Republican party will do as anyone else at this time. The money that the candidates and the party get from big corporations and neocons like Singer rules the day. The religious right don't have huge hedge funds creating the kind of multi-billionaire wealth that Singer has - but they have votes, so Cruz and Paul pretend to care.
Carly, Chris and the Donald are more realistic, focusing on the massive corporate interests like GE and a few hundred billionaire families funding the Republican Party. Like that little environmental matter in NJ that Mr. Christie so efficiently made go away for GE, its time for Fiorina and Christie to move on to more important business ...like removing the estate tax, gutting medicare, reducing social security, and otherwise sticking it to ordinary Americans.
Let's not even focus on the fact that this involves a Republican judge enforcing a Supreme Ct decision written by a Republican. All of the Republican candidates take campaign contributions from people like Paul Singer (a top 5 Republican campaign funder), a big force behind the gay marriage initiatives of the last few years ... a cause he embraced because his son is gay. The reality is that they all take his money and he is about as much of a power broker in charge of what the Republican party will do as anyone else at this time. The money that the candidates and the party get from big corporations and neocons like Singer rules the day. The religious right don't have huge hedge funds creating the kind of multi-billionaire wealth that Singer has - but they have votes, so Cruz and Paul pretend to care.
Carly, Chris and the Donald are more realistic, focusing on the massive corporate interests like GE and a few hundred billionaire families funding the Republican Party. Like that little environmental matter in NJ that Mr. Christie so efficiently made go away for GE, its time for Fiorina and Christie to move on to more important business ...like removing the estate tax, gutting medicare, reducing social security, and otherwise sticking it to ordinary Americans.
3
If she grandstands again in refusing licenses to gay couples she will go straight back to jail. The Rowan County Clerk's office has 5 other people that will do her job and do it much bettter than she can.
KIm Davis is truly irrelevant. And if she's such a christian, why has she been married 4 times? Why did she have children out of wedlock?
She's a phony, using her cursory understanding of faith to discriminate.
She's a disgrace to christian people.
KIm Davis is truly irrelevant. And if she's such a christian, why has she been married 4 times? Why did she have children out of wedlock?
She's a phony, using her cursory understanding of faith to discriminate.
She's a disgrace to christian people.
6
Just imagine if her deeply held beliefs kept her from issuing permits to own a gun....
7
yes, "Thou shall not kill", etc.
It would be a safer world.
I read elsewhere that Mike Huckabee offered to take her place in jail if she is threatened again. I think we should let him. It bothers me that political hucksters jump in to build their own reputation on the backs of common people like Davis.
7
In most jurisdictions a Clerk such as Ms. Davis is essentially a manager charged with the ministerial duty running the day to day operations of an office according to law, and has not the discretion to deny anyone a licence who legally qualifies for one.
Adding fuel to the fire is her "every one goes down with the ship," mentality which is holding straight as well as gay couples hostage to her personal views.
Adding fuel to the fire is her "every one goes down with the ship," mentality which is holding straight as well as gay couples hostage to her personal views.
4
Ms. Davis says that God has forgiven her for her past poor choices, divorces and children out of wedlock. Would that same God forgive her at the end of each day for issuing marriage licenses? She should issue the licenses and ask for forgiveness each night. Problem solved.
5
The oddity about this is that she proclaims her 'liberty' while attempting to take liberty and freedom away from those who wish, according to Constitutional right, to be married to a person of the same gender.
8
I know! Let's all refuse to do parts of our jobs we don't want to do anyway and claim religious objection! It would make a helluva protest.
6
Why is it acceptable to impose "beliefs" (ex., on gay marriage, abortion, etc.) on others but not to impose religious "beliefs"? How is ideology imposed on another more acceptable than a religious belief?
I believe much of the dissent is based on the fact that it is a religious belief being imposed. Feels a lot like religious bias to me.
I believe much of the dissent is based on the fact that it is a religious belief being imposed. Feels a lot like religious bias to me.
1
Gays marrying, or women having abortions imposes NOTHING on you. You don't have to be gay and you don't have to have an abortion.
Conversely you seem to support the right to impose behavior on others..............as long as the standard is yours (as communicated by God).
Conversely you seem to support the right to impose behavior on others..............as long as the standard is yours (as communicated by God).
You are confusing rights with beliefs. No one is forcing anyone to be in a gay marriage or to have an abortion, but those you appear to support are trying to force others to live under religious doctrines.
It is embarrassing as an American to have to explain these kind of actions to people from the rest of the civilized world. These fundamentalist may be concerned about an erosion of religious liberty, but the real issue for most of us is having to live under the tyranny of a "religiously controlled society." Their excuse of exercising their religious liberty allows them to impose their ideas on everyone else so we can become a Christian version of Iran. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Shame on the Republicans presidential candidates for wasting time on this issue to the exclusion of substantive issues that matter to the rest of us!
7
What a pathetic display of grandstanding!
There is NO WAY UNDER US LAW FOR ANYONE TO "GO TO JAIL" IN PLACE OF SOMEONE ELSE!!! Huckabee may as well have said, "When the Aliens come to pick her up in their space saucer, I will go in her place!" Even making such a remark as a Presidential candidate cheapens the role of the Presidency!
All of these Right Wing candidates flocking to her side: She is BREAKING THE LAW YOU AS PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO UPHOLD!
I am truly horrified! The over the top antics of the Right, left unchecked by Law or the Media for years, is resulting in a Presidential race that already is unprecedented in it's clownishness and absurdity throughout our history. Doesn't anyone care? We deserve so much better as a nation: the world is watching!
When Huckabee and Cruz are scrambling over each other for a piece of this particular action, it's a truly sad day for America. We have gone from Kennedy in 1960 talking soberly about his Catholic faith not getting in the way of his role as president if he is elected, and the sacred concept of Separation of Church and State, to candidates falling all over themselves in their eagerness to violate that boundary. All religious people should be offended, as this means not that Religion is foremost, but *only their brand of religion is foremost!* If you are not in their very restricted tribe, be very afraid!
This is the ruin of the reputation of a once respected nation.
There is NO WAY UNDER US LAW FOR ANYONE TO "GO TO JAIL" IN PLACE OF SOMEONE ELSE!!! Huckabee may as well have said, "When the Aliens come to pick her up in their space saucer, I will go in her place!" Even making such a remark as a Presidential candidate cheapens the role of the Presidency!
All of these Right Wing candidates flocking to her side: She is BREAKING THE LAW YOU AS PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO UPHOLD!
I am truly horrified! The over the top antics of the Right, left unchecked by Law or the Media for years, is resulting in a Presidential race that already is unprecedented in it's clownishness and absurdity throughout our history. Doesn't anyone care? We deserve so much better as a nation: the world is watching!
When Huckabee and Cruz are scrambling over each other for a piece of this particular action, it's a truly sad day for America. We have gone from Kennedy in 1960 talking soberly about his Catholic faith not getting in the way of his role as president if he is elected, and the sacred concept of Separation of Church and State, to candidates falling all over themselves in their eagerness to violate that boundary. All religious people should be offended, as this means not that Religion is foremost, but *only their brand of religion is foremost!* If you are not in their very restricted tribe, be very afraid!
This is the ruin of the reputation of a once respected nation.
5
There is nothing to admire about this person. If someone refused to marry couples who were interracial, based on their religious beliefs, would that be ok? Would anyone be talking about the courage of her 'convictions' and willingness to stand up for them? Of course not. Ridiculous from start to finish. Just get another job, one where you don't have to confront the reality of a diverse society.
3
Hallelujah. Ms. Davis, who so believes in marriage as defined in her religion and mind, is on #4, all to the exclusion of others. The right person for the job, clearly. And she gets out of jail with a photo op with one of the Republican Candidates for President. There's a book tour to follow with Gov Huckabee, who knows how to use the prefix in his name. He knows he has zero chance to get the nod. Book sales and Fox TV, much better outlook. And he's gained back all the weight when he last Huckstered.
Who has heard of or read Elmer Gantry?
As my immigrant father used to say, a little education is a dangerous thing.
Who has heard of or read Elmer Gantry?
As my immigrant father used to say, a little education is a dangerous thing.
4
Founding Fathers: United States not founded on the Christian religion.
Article 11: “…the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796 during G. Washington administration, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
Article 11: “…the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796 during G. Washington administration, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
2
I think that in the first page of the NYT should appear an article regarding the danger of people like Ms Davis and Co., people who are trying to replace our democracy with their particular brand of discriminatory theocracy (as all theocracies are) and only in the last page of the NYT to reproduce (but perhaps not even that) a photo of this bigoted lady posing as a hero.
1
What moral superiority does adultresss Kim Davis offer?
What about huckster Mike Huckabee? Says he is Christian & marriage is one man and one woman though Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Cafeteria Christians, hypocrites.
What about huckster Mike Huckabee? Says he is Christian & marriage is one man and one woman though Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Cafeteria Christians, hypocrites.
4
Well Kim Davis succeeded in becoming the martyr and the face of hate. She is entitled to her religious beliefs, but she is not entitled to enforce her religious beliefs upon others. Also Mike Huckabee and Rubio can both forget about being president.
The Pubs are always talking about those not respecting our constitution. Well who's not respecting our constitution now? Those living in glass houses should not throw stones. This is especially true for Kim Davis.
The Pubs are always talking about those not respecting our constitution. Well who's not respecting our constitution now? Those living in glass houses should not throw stones. This is especially true for Kim Davis.
1
What about 11 million undocumented immigrants walking around and not in prison. What about the clerks who issued marriage licenses for gay couples when it was NOT legal? Do THEY belong in prison?
I have come to understand the liberal logic. Progress trumps law. Law trumps religion. That is why the clerks who issued licenses illegally do not belong in prison, and Kim Davis does belong in prison.
These are perfectly reasonable attitudes, IF you are a liberal.
But the country exists only because people with different values and beliefs work together. If liberals seek to impose their values on the rest of Americans, either everyone else will cry uncle, or more likely the country will fall apart.
Have you learned NOTHING from the fact that the Republicans captured the Senate? And no, Senate elections cannot be affected by gerrymandering.
Accept the fact that there are conservatives in America, they too have values and opinions, and they are citizens who can vote. Please do not be arrogant.
I have come to understand the liberal logic. Progress trumps law. Law trumps religion. That is why the clerks who issued licenses illegally do not belong in prison, and Kim Davis does belong in prison.
These are perfectly reasonable attitudes, IF you are a liberal.
But the country exists only because people with different values and beliefs work together. If liberals seek to impose their values on the rest of Americans, either everyone else will cry uncle, or more likely the country will fall apart.
Have you learned NOTHING from the fact that the Republicans captured the Senate? And no, Senate elections cannot be affected by gerrymandering.
Accept the fact that there are conservatives in America, they too have values and opinions, and they are citizens who can vote. Please do not be arrogant.
But it's okay for a bigot to impose her values on the rest of us? Riiight....
Speakong of arrogance, what's with the arrogant dismissal of the 14th Amendment, and the Constitution's guarantee that government may not impose religious values upon citizens?
The judge made a ruling that the clerks office was now issuing marriage certificates to all....and so now ruled because of this she, the clerk ,is no longer in contempt of the law...with stipulations...this is all the judge needed to decide not weather she is or others are entitled to religious freedoms over any constitutional law.She will be held in contempt if violations to the judges orders happen.(She should find a new job)
Religious freedom is an interesting narrative frame, but putting that aside for a moment, how would the presidential candidates recommended solutions sound if Ms. Davis believed that interracial marriage was against the law of God (a belief that used to be held just as ferociously)? Would we be so cavalier about her religious freedom to hold, much less enforce, racist dogma?
1
Since she is so consistent, steadfast, and, well, 'catholic' in her commitment to Catholic theology, surely Davis has always refused to grant marriage licenses to divorcees, right?
The Church says marriage is insoluble, Ms. D. That means that every time you've given a marriage license to a supposed "divorcee," you've given him/her license to commit adultery. With your signature. And your blessing.
Now what would Jesus say about that?
The Church says marriage is insoluble, Ms. D. That means that every time you've given a marriage license to a supposed "divorcee," you've given him/her license to commit adultery. With your signature. And your blessing.
Now what would Jesus say about that?
What a disappointment! As for Cruz and Huckabee and their sanctimonious endorsement of the new ruling, they are, in my view, unfit for the presidency.
3
Hey, let's stop calling them "Christian Conservatives". They are "Christian Radicals" intent on forcing their beliefs and practices on others. You can't be much more radical than holding a public office and willfully taking actions contrary to supreme court decisions.
Separation of church and state will be satisfied by separating Ms Davis from any duties where she can take actions that substitute her religious views for the rule of law,
To the extent that any politicians and candidates support the actions of Ms Davis, they are supporting insurrection. Radical enough?
Separation of church and state will be satisfied by separating Ms Davis from any duties where she can take actions that substitute her religious views for the rule of law,
To the extent that any politicians and candidates support the actions of Ms Davis, they are supporting insurrection. Radical enough?
1
So much for her claim that all she wanted to do was send people up the road, and not issue anything with her name on it. It's clear from her triumphal speech today that she doesn't want gays to get marrage licenses in the next county either. She wants there to be a movement that rolls back the rights of gays to be married. Let me put it this way. She's a liar.
1
My question is just what Ms. Davis understands are civil rights. She wants to enjoy her protection from discrimination while denying others their protection from discrimination. Either both sides are to be protected or neither. What is her fundamental lack of understanding of this concept?
3
It is simple really. If your religious beliefs conflict with the law and make it impossible for you to do your job you must resign and find a job that doesn't present a conflict with your religion. Bigotry by any other name would smell as foul.
5
So the bigot with the self-annointed halo has been freed. Fine. Let's hope she's learned that she was hired to do a job and that henceforth she does it.
The Supreme Court needs to rule on whether or not there is a god. When all the evidence is in (there is zero evidence) and all the arguments for the existence of a god have been made( none state up to scrutiny and criticism), perhaps we can dispensed with all references to this nonexistent entity and get on with governing ourselves through the use of reason. Our heroine here along with her supporters need to do a little growing up.
4
Separation of church and state is one of the most important axioms we must accept in order to live in the United States of America. Kim Davis is clearly unable to act as a secular public servant. If she cannot set aside her religious beliefs to perform her duties as a public servant, then she must resign her office. There is no other side to the debate, that is the rule of law.
3
Kim Davis, patron saint of intolerance and perverted Gospel Sharia Law emerges a martyr! Why is she still employed by the state? Could it rally that backward in Kentucky? Conscientious objectors don't have any right to a job especially when they object to the rights of others. What a stupid farce.
When will the "Christians" realize that this country was founded by immigrants and refugees who fled intolerance in Europe, who felt that no religion held sway in law and government, that our First Amendment protected us from religious tyranny and any brand of Sharia law? Apparently never. This is just another "Scopes Monkey" trial. Hallelujah! Disgusting. Every Republican presidential candidate will show up to lick the boots of these bigots and exploit them.
When will the "Christians" realize that this country was founded by immigrants and refugees who fled intolerance in Europe, who felt that no religion held sway in law and government, that our First Amendment protected us from religious tyranny and any brand of Sharia law? Apparently never. This is just another "Scopes Monkey" trial. Hallelujah! Disgusting. Every Republican presidential candidate will show up to lick the boots of these bigots and exploit them.
2
Her oath, for those interested clearly calls out supporting the U.S. Constitution and unless we're remaking the whole order of government the Supreme Court interprets the constitution and she must follow that interpretation. No dueling either, by the way. The oath says, ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
2
So? She lied before God. She'll just go to confession and get it cancelled out. You know, like all her divorces, including the next one.
What a bunch of sickos are loose in this country. Ms. Davis is a criminal - she has violated her path of office - and should no be rewarded with special visits from the likes of Huckabee and Cruz.
She is entitled to her personal views of gay rights, gay marriage, gay whatever - but they are personal views and she has no business trying to impose them on the citizens of the county she works for.
But of course she lives and works in a state that is still fighting the civil war and has not figured out that they lost that war.
She is entitled to her personal views of gay rights, gay marriage, gay whatever - but they are personal views and she has no business trying to impose them on the citizens of the county she works for.
But of course she lives and works in a state that is still fighting the civil war and has not figured out that they lost that war.
5
The ancient Greek tragedian Sophocles predicted this very same situation in the "Antigone." In that play a young girl defies the order of the king who had decreed it a crime upon penalty of death for anyone to assist in the burial of her brother who was declared a traitor. Defying this order, Antigone declared that she had a higher duty to obey divine law rather than man's law. Kim Davis makes the same claim which she backs up by her willingness to go to jail for her actions. Whether we agree with her or not, we must admire her idealistic commitment to her beliefs. Whatever our particular position may be, we must examine our own conscience and ask whether we too are willing to stand up for our beliefs or whether we are simply content to go along with accepted policies because it's easier to do.
Antigone wasn't an elected official of the United States of America.
And no, I do not have to honor her attack on the Constitution.
And no, I do not have to honor her attack on the Constitution.
It is absolutely hysterical how her supporters are seeing what they want to see rather than reality.
SHE CAVED. Don't you get that? The judge let her out on condition that she not interfere with the other clerks issuing the licenses. She interferes again she goes straight back.
Yet somehow, she's declared victory ?????
SHE CAVED. Don't you get that? The judge let her out on condition that she not interfere with the other clerks issuing the licenses. She interferes again she goes straight back.
Yet somehow, she's declared victory ?????
I don't admire bigots looking to cash in.
What a weak court we have in the U.S. Sad.
1
Thank God. May Kim be able to follow her conscious. In fact, may all elected officials be able to interpret the laws of their office in any manner they deem to be consistent with their faith. With Mike Huckabee as President, he should only be required to execute the laws of the Executive Office that are consistent with his interpretation of his faith, which of course, trump the other two branches of government, legislative and judicial.
Actually, being left out of the picture, Sen. Cruz might still have a prayer.
Actually, being left out of the picture, Sen. Cruz might still have a prayer.
1
Ms. Davis is a hypocrite! I am sure that her religion says that it is OK to have children out of wedlock - NOT. She had her twins out of wedlock. Also if she was so deeply religious she should be working in the private sector not in the public sector where she has to obey the laws of this country. But then again, she, her son and her mother have been on the dole in Rowan County Kentucky for decades. If she will not obey the laws, put her back in jail and let her stay there for a long while.
6
Jesus answered this dilemma Ms. Davis has created In Mark 12:17 which reads "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
By agreeing to work for the government (i.e. Caesar) Ms. Davis agreed to follow and enforce the law.
She either need to quit her job or shut up.
By agreeing to work for the government (i.e. Caesar) Ms. Davis agreed to follow and enforce the law.
She either need to quit her job or shut up.
6
Religious liberty MUST work both directions, or it is a farce - religious zealots do not have an exclusive right to religious liberty. Nobody has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others, which is what Ms. Davis is trying to do. Nobody is trying to force Ms. Davis into a gay marriage. She should do her job, or she should resign, or be fired. Those who hold different beliefs are no less entitled to religious liberty than is Ms. Davis.
4
What I dont get is that every single marriage, no matter what religion, is not 'official' until sanctioned by the government but no one screams and yells that god or God is the ultimate authority in these matters but when two people of the same gender decide to wed - regardless if they have any sort of religious ceremony - suddenly god/God is called in?
2
The Supreme Court didn't make a law. They found that laws put in place to discriminate against people in same-sex relationships are unconstitutional. What about that is so hard for them to understand? They speak about it as though they know nothing of constitutional law. I think it's an act.
5
Good for you Kim Davis for standing your ground and not sacrificing your values. If I had lived close to Kentucky, I would have been marching in support along side you. No one should have to go against their religious views and today that takes a lot of courage in our ever changing world where anything goes. You are admired by many of us and I am glad Mike Huckabee, a Republican, stood beside you. Keep up the good work and do not get discouraged. We are praying for you.
1
A sanctimonious nitwit, who has no respect for the law or for the separation of church and state. She doesn't even appear to know or understand what that is...
4
Religion has always been about excluding other people, and declaring yourself superior to them. In short, about hate, not love. Witness the existence of separate black and white churches to this day.
What all these people crying for religious freedom are really howling about is that their ability to inflict their hatred on other people is being curtailed. They have been used to doing it for a long long time, and so they have come to think of it as a right, which it isn't.
What all these people crying for religious freedom are really howling about is that their ability to inflict their hatred on other people is being curtailed. They have been used to doing it for a long long time, and so they have come to think of it as a right, which it isn't.
5
Religious "freedom" or practice ends when the result yields the denial of constitutional rights of others. Religious "freedom" is not absolute, just as none of the other enumerated or implied constitutional rights are. One cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, thus causing a panic, and consider that to be protected speech. Any religious practice which deprives another citizen of his or her constitutional rights can no longer be protected by the First Amendment's "religious practice" clause. And if a civil servant's religious practices result in the denial of constitutional rights for another citizen, it becomes the duty of that civil servant either to obey the law or else to resign from his or her position of authority. The U.S. Constitution prohibits a theocracy. Those who would impose such a despotism upon American citizens under the guise of "religious beliefs" are free to advocate for their beliefs, but if they are civil servants, they violate the supreme law of the land if their religious acts deprive other Americans of their constitutional rights.
1
What a travesty of justice--not only on this bigoted clerk by from the Circuit Judge who has lifted his confinement order. I can't believe that he is tacitly condoning her actions by not REQUIRING her to fulfill the duties of her position to the letter of the law. Trust me, if she had refused to allow an inter-racial couple to marry or even an international couple to marry, he'd be shamed mercilessly for his lack of resolve. But when it comes to we gay and lesbians, he's saying "Well, since she doesn't think they are worthy of the rights of others even though we pay taxes, are expected to obey the laws of the land, etc.", he has proven that prejudice in America isn't limited just to race.
Shame on all involved.
Shame on all involved.
1
Religious freedom does not include collecting an $80,000 salary for not doing your job.
4
this photo looks like she won something. Well she didn't. Hopefully, we won't have to see her or hear her or read about her in the days to come.
3
So tired of the Mrs. Davis' of the world. We have spent to much time on her, her hatred, her "good" Christian three times DIVORCED hypocrisy and her views will never change. Let's stop paying attention and take her out of the media rotation for the day. Surely there is some happy news somewhere. Hey NYT show us some wedding photos of happily married couples -- gay, straight, inter-racial, thin, fat, short, tall and have fun with this assignment I just would like to smile for a change.
2
Let's see, a book contract and speaker fees galore promoted by Fox using her to say, "See, even Democrats...." I wonder if her myriad ex-husbands can make an alimony claim on the basis of supporting Davis, while she developed the skills to be a a well-paid celebrity.
3
@Steve Fankuchen Oakland, CA
Can hardly wait to see how the media sponsors of Kim Davis' "martyrdom" and her "crusade for religious liberty" clean her up for the big screen interviews coming up if she gets her true reward.
I think it's going to cost a lot more than the much-discussed wardrobe purchased for Sarah Palin in 2008. Palin is as much of a bigot and a nitwit as Davis (ditto for fellow member of the NAR Michele Bachman, who has the same slightly crazy look too) But they were photogenic to begin with.
Then again, no less a figure than Mike Huckabee claimedthat G_d had come to earth today (presumably to aid in the "War Against Christianity") in the person of Kim Davis. That will sell some advertising somewhere, no???
Can hardly wait to see how the media sponsors of Kim Davis' "martyrdom" and her "crusade for religious liberty" clean her up for the big screen interviews coming up if she gets her true reward.
I think it's going to cost a lot more than the much-discussed wardrobe purchased for Sarah Palin in 2008. Palin is as much of a bigot and a nitwit as Davis (ditto for fellow member of the NAR Michele Bachman, who has the same slightly crazy look too) But they were photogenic to begin with.
Then again, no less a figure than Mike Huckabee claimedthat G_d had come to earth today (presumably to aid in the "War Against Christianity") in the person of Kim Davis. That will sell some advertising somewhere, no???
How disheartening to hear a Republican candidate for president proclaim today the unAmericanness of the principal of judicial review, one of the most sacred of national institutions, established by Marbury v. Madison, and which charges the Supreme Court with acting to end threats to constitutionally-granted rights!
I begin not to recognize the country in which I have lived for seven decades.
I begin not to recognize the country in which I have lived for seven decades.
10
"How disheartening to hear a Republican candidate for president proclaim today the unAmericanness of the principal of judicial review, "
Lets be fair here. Is it judicial review that is being criticized, or judicial activism?
Judicial review is supposed to be based on law and Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent.
"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking
even a thin veneer of law. "
If, hypothetically the courts issue an opinion contrary to the constitution, should it be free of criticism?
How about the courts failure to find the 14th amendment and the reset of the constitution allowing the Japaenese from being rounded up into internment camps? Or the Supreme court decison allowing separate but equal.
The Senate seems to put great effort into appointing judges who they believe will mirror their own ideology and perhaps much less that will honor the intent of the law.
John
Lets be fair here. Is it judicial review that is being criticized, or judicial activism?
Judicial review is supposed to be based on law and Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent.
"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking
even a thin veneer of law. "
If, hypothetically the courts issue an opinion contrary to the constitution, should it be free of criticism?
How about the courts failure to find the 14th amendment and the reset of the constitution allowing the Japaenese from being rounded up into internment camps? Or the Supreme court decison allowing separate but equal.
The Senate seems to put great effort into appointing judges who they believe will mirror their own ideology and perhaps much less that will honor the intent of the law.
John
Religion is the next Tea Party.
Huckabee, Cruz and the other Koch elves are only trying to stir up another demographic to cause another smoke screen and divide the nation on whatever emotional lines that it can.
Huckabee and Cruz are not interested in winning the presidency because even they know they can't win. They are doing what they’re doing to manipulate a certain group of people. The last time Cruz got involved with politics, he was working for the Koch Brothers and was just stirring up the tea party. He didn't have any other purpose. Now here again, he and Huckabee start off at Liberty (wannabe college) to begin the process of stirring up the very far right religious. Just look at what Liberty preaches, note that I didn't say teaches. Cruz is also plugging in Country vs Rock and Roll because it fits a particular demographic. It will give you an idea of what the GOP are using or are going to use to undermine the upcoming elections and congress. Huckabee and Cruz aren't stupid. They aren't presenting "their" beliefs, they are just doing the bidding of the Koch Brothers. They actually don't care about the tea party, the religious right or any other of the GOP base, they just sees them as lemmings.
Pandering to the religious fanatical right. Forget our nation is built on law until the ultra religious right release their version of Sharia Law. The last time that religion ran the world it was called the Dark Ages.
Rock and Roll is the Devil.
Huckabee, Cruz and the other Koch elves are only trying to stir up another demographic to cause another smoke screen and divide the nation on whatever emotional lines that it can.
Huckabee and Cruz are not interested in winning the presidency because even they know they can't win. They are doing what they’re doing to manipulate a certain group of people. The last time Cruz got involved with politics, he was working for the Koch Brothers and was just stirring up the tea party. He didn't have any other purpose. Now here again, he and Huckabee start off at Liberty (wannabe college) to begin the process of stirring up the very far right religious. Just look at what Liberty preaches, note that I didn't say teaches. Cruz is also plugging in Country vs Rock and Roll because it fits a particular demographic. It will give you an idea of what the GOP are using or are going to use to undermine the upcoming elections and congress. Huckabee and Cruz aren't stupid. They aren't presenting "their" beliefs, they are just doing the bidding of the Koch Brothers. They actually don't care about the tea party, the religious right or any other of the GOP base, they just sees them as lemmings.
Pandering to the religious fanatical right. Forget our nation is built on law until the ultra religious right release their version of Sharia Law. The last time that religion ran the world it was called the Dark Ages.
Rock and Roll is the Devil.
3
For a second there, I thought the headline read: "Jailed Clerk in Gay Marriage Fight Is Fired". I would like to think that's coming, but that would require either impeachment proceedings or a special election for her position; and even then I'm not sure enough of the local voters understand what the problem is with what she did.
2
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." This woman is not a Christian in any meaningful sense. She's just a bigot, attempting to hide behind the First Amendment.
6
I don't believe that Mrs. Davis should be able to hold a public position if she has beliefs that interfere with the laws put in place by our government! What part of her job will she refuse to do next based on her beliefs? I think she should resign her position if she feels that strongly about her beliefs. Get a job at the church!
It is setting a dangerous precedent when failure to obey the law results in just a weekend in jail. One can foresee all kinds of martyr wannabes attempting all kinds of wacky things and trying to get away with it by simply claiming religious freedom. Stop paying taxes on the basis that some acts of government are not in line with the Bible's teachings? Spray graffiti on someone's home on the basis that the owner is not a Christian?
1
I really like Mike Huckabee's suggestion that he take Ms. Davis' place in jail. In quotes attributed to him in this article he:
- shows a fundamental ignorance of the structure of our governance under the US Constitution.
- is encouraging lawbreaking by public officials.
Jail would be a good place for him.
- shows a fundamental ignorance of the structure of our governance under the US Constitution.
- is encouraging lawbreaking by public officials.
Jail would be a good place for him.
13
He'd better be careful what he volunteers for--Ben Carson says jails turn people gay.
If she had refused to sell someone a GUN LICENSE because it was against her religion, this would be an entirely different catfight.
26
Lord, yes. Wayne LaPierre would personally have flown in on his broom to rectify that situation tout suite. She would be in one of those wood-chop facilities til she "came round".
For those of you who have ready access to an evangelical see if you get her to explain Ms. Davis' action in light of Romans 13:1
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
Or 1 Peter 2:13-14 " (13)Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, (14) or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
I haven't had any luck with my acquaintances.
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
Or 1 Peter 2:13-14 " (13)Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, (14) or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
I haven't had any luck with my acquaintances.
An interesting story. As a child who went through both Canadian and American history in elementary schools where we mostly slept (regurgitating historical dates can become boring). The one lesson that stuck was the separation of Church and State. Both countries come under rule of law no matter how absurd they may seem to people at the time. Rule of Law wins or we go back to burning each others churches and synagogues down - that wasn't our best time.
6
As you quoted" The congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.", which should not be interpreted any other way....and does not apply to Ms, Davis and should not be....
What is be overlooked is the 10th Amendment perhaps which is indirectly relative to Ms. Davis's situation, when Justice Kennedy and the 4 other justices over ruled how some states within their sovereign rights when establishing or clarifying the criteria for legal marriage....
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
In certain states, the majorly of the "People" voted opposing same -sex marriage, yet these justices based on their social opinions, beliefs and with relatively little legal standing abolished these states' and peoples' rights.
So in essence, by the people voting and the states adopting their laws, there was "due process”, so how can Kennedy say there was a violation of the "due process" clause?
What is be overlooked is the 10th Amendment perhaps which is indirectly relative to Ms. Davis's situation, when Justice Kennedy and the 4 other justices over ruled how some states within their sovereign rights when establishing or clarifying the criteria for legal marriage....
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
In certain states, the majorly of the "People" voted opposing same -sex marriage, yet these justices based on their social opinions, beliefs and with relatively little legal standing abolished these states' and peoples' rights.
So in essence, by the people voting and the states adopting their laws, there was "due process”, so how can Kennedy say there was a violation of the "due process" clause?
States don't get to take away peoples' rights, even by a majority vote.
Ever heard of the Bill of Rights? 14th Amendment ringing any bells?
By the way, Kennedy's argument--he wrote the majority opinion--wasn't primarily a due process argument.
He said, and said rather eloquently, that governments may not deny rights that other citizens enjoy.
It's that simple. You don't have to approve; you aren't allowed to deny.
By the way, Kennedy's argument--he wrote the majority opinion--wasn't primarily a due process argument.
He said, and said rather eloquently, that governments may not deny rights that other citizens enjoy.
It's that simple. You don't have to approve; you aren't allowed to deny.
@MDCooks8 West of the Hudson
Please buy yourself a copy of the Constitution and read it all very carefully, focusing especially on the 14th Amendment and the due process clause in particular. The "majority" in any state could just as well vote for devil worship, the sale of virgins to the highest bidder, or domestic slavery -- and they would still be in violation of the law of the land.
I think yours is pretty much the same argument made by the Confederate States when it came to slave-holding, and later in many issues, including interracial marriage, school segregation, and other regressive actions and laws which are unconstitutional.
You're partly right about the 10th Amendment, proving only that a little learning is a dangerous thing.
Please buy yourself a copy of the Constitution and read it all very carefully, focusing especially on the 14th Amendment and the due process clause in particular. The "majority" in any state could just as well vote for devil worship, the sale of virgins to the highest bidder, or domestic slavery -- and they would still be in violation of the law of the land.
I think yours is pretty much the same argument made by the Confederate States when it came to slave-holding, and later in many issues, including interracial marriage, school segregation, and other regressive actions and laws which are unconstitutional.
You're partly right about the 10th Amendment, proving only that a little learning is a dangerous thing.
How ridiculous to define religious freedom as the freedom of a single government elected official to impose her specific religious values on over 4 million residents of Kentucky.
Are there sane Americans who believe that is what religious freedom means?
I am a Christian, but I would never think to impose my religious views on another.
I try to follow God's will, but I would never be so crazy as to think I always know what that is. I just try my best as common sense and the love of Jesus would suggest.
Devoting one's life and existence to making people feel inferior and marginalized is not a part of any religion I know of.
I can't imagine that God would create LGBT people and imbue them with so much creativity, artistry and love just to torment and persecute them. That seems to be the work of a far darker spirit.
It is increasingly clear that what we are seeing is not religious freedom at all, but rather elected government officials, judges and corporate chieftains choosing to push their own religious views - or bigotry under the guise of religion - to millions of people who don't share such views.
Your religious freedom stops when it encroaches upon my freedom - religious or otherwise.
Are there sane Americans who believe that is what religious freedom means?
I am a Christian, but I would never think to impose my religious views on another.
I try to follow God's will, but I would never be so crazy as to think I always know what that is. I just try my best as common sense and the love of Jesus would suggest.
Devoting one's life and existence to making people feel inferior and marginalized is not a part of any religion I know of.
I can't imagine that God would create LGBT people and imbue them with so much creativity, artistry and love just to torment and persecute them. That seems to be the work of a far darker spirit.
It is increasingly clear that what we are seeing is not religious freedom at all, but rather elected government officials, judges and corporate chieftains choosing to push their own religious views - or bigotry under the guise of religion - to millions of people who don't share such views.
Your religious freedom stops when it encroaches upon my freedom - religious or otherwise.
21
I see no reason to use anything but the harshest terms. If she goes back and tries to block things the public needs to take things in their own hands as our government has collapsed to religious tyranny. Get rid of her. There is no place for religion in our government.
7
@CJ: "There is no place for religion in our government."
All US currency, which is certainly issued by "our government", has the motto "In God We Trust". Is that motto out of "place"?
All US currency, which is certainly issued by "our government", has the motto "In God We Trust". Is that motto out of "place"?
Kim ,
Keep the faith and fight the good fight! God is pleased with your faithfulness and strength and courage, and so are all of your brothers and sisters in Christ. I am so pleased that Mike Huckabee is there for moral support. If you are sentenced to incarceration again for defending your faith, I would be honored to serve your sentence if that were possible, as I expect most true Christians would. I find it most disturbing that Supreme Court justices, who were not elected by the people of this country, can arbitrarily make decisions that take away the rights we were given in the Bill of Rights, namely the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. God's law will always supersede man's law. The day you were sentenced to jail was a shameful day for the American justice system. It's a shame that our judges, from the municipal to the supreme, don't have as much character and moral conviction as you do. God Bless you, and God Bless these United States of America.
A Sister in Christ,
Mary Paulsen
Keep the faith and fight the good fight! God is pleased with your faithfulness and strength and courage, and so are all of your brothers and sisters in Christ. I am so pleased that Mike Huckabee is there for moral support. If you are sentenced to incarceration again for defending your faith, I would be honored to serve your sentence if that were possible, as I expect most true Christians would. I find it most disturbing that Supreme Court justices, who were not elected by the people of this country, can arbitrarily make decisions that take away the rights we were given in the Bill of Rights, namely the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. God's law will always supersede man's law. The day you were sentenced to jail was a shameful day for the American justice system. It's a shame that our judges, from the municipal to the supreme, don't have as much character and moral conviction as you do. God Bless you, and God Bless these United States of America.
A Sister in Christ,
Mary Paulsen
5
Gee I wonder what Christ would say about Mike Huckabee peddling phony diabetes cures and singing dirty songs?
This isn't about God or religion, it's about insecure greedy bigots wanting to feel superior to other people and finding a way to cash in on their 15 minutes of fame.
This isn't about God or religion, it's about insecure greedy bigots wanting to feel superior to other people and finding a way to cash in on their 15 minutes of fame.
Really?
And shame on you, Sister, for standing in the way of love.
1
Don't feel bad Kim, lot's of people a whole lot smarter than you have been taken in by this religious nonsense. Now go do your job as the court has ordered.
13
This woman chose to run for office, and pledged to uphold the Constitution when she took office. She should have resigned when her religious beliefs contradicted the Constitution. On another note - don't you think its ridiculous that she refuses to give a license to people who have been together for more than 15 years while she has been married 4 times in that same period of time.
14
With her recent "conversion," God has forgiven her the sins she committed in past years. I wonder if he will forgive the sins she is now committing.
1
Should soldiers refuse to go to war because possibility of killing another person is against their religion. I think all soldiers who object the possibility of killing an enemy be allowed to separate from all military obligations with pay or they should be moved to jobs that does not require weapons training or handling. If it's fair for this lady to do it then that law must be applied across the board.
2
You apply for the status of Conscientious Objector in the military.
You do not just decide on the job that you are not going to do your job or keep others on your staff from doing their job.
You do not just decide on the job that you are not going to do your job or keep others on your staff from doing their job.
"Eye of the Tiger"... really? This reminds me of the bizarre segments from the Daily Show... where is Jon Stewart when we need him?
6
Religious zealots of all faiths are the bane of civilization. I am thankful that our founding fathers understood the critical need to separate church and state, and deeply troubled that so many seemingly intelligent and serious people cannot grasp the importance of this fundamental building block of American history.
14
Hear, hear, James! Let's call Sharia law when we see it. And here it is in Christian robes. Your words should be a rallying call: Religious zealots of all faiths are the bane of civilization. Agnostics of the World Unite! Throw off your chains! Let freedom reign! Down with the millennial tyranny of belief!
Well, at least we can dream. . .
Well, at least we can dream. . .
Whenever I first heard about this story on the car radio, I thought to myself, "Good for the judge and shame on that woman." She offered her services to become a clerk who gives marriage licenses. The fact that an extremely bigoted person was allowed to take charge over the signing of these licenses is just absurd. Even if she is a radical religious white woman, she still is required by law to do her job, which is to sign marriage licenses into effect. She was disobeying law and should be punished thus. The judge did well by putting her in jail for defying his judicial order. She was released days later, big failure. The constitution is clear, especially in the FIRST AMENDMENT. Freedom of speech, religion, and press. She has a right to her own religion, but she shouldn't impose her beliefs onto others or implicate it into her job. Whenever gay marriage was legalized, I was genuinely happy. I'm not gay myself, but there is no problem with being born gay. I am not a religious person myself, I am atheist. I do remember reading, however, that God loves everyone, no matter who or what they do. Gay people are still people and humans entitled to the constitution as much as anyone else along with marriage rights. This country is all about democracy and freedom of opinion, don't let someone stop you from doing whatever because their opinion conflicts with yours.
3
It's pretty simple, just don't sign her paychecks and claim that your "religious freedom" doesn't allow you to support adultery (which, according to the Bible, Ms. Davis is an adulterer). Then, let's see if she respects that decision and continues to do her job (or, not do her job as she is doing now). This is why we have to keep the church separated from the state. Otherwise, we will have a lot of people spitefully hurting others and claiming "religious freedom" with no repercussions.
13
The primary concern is that the county comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. At the same time surely a way can be found to allow Davis some sort of conscientious objection analogous to those who conscientiously object to military conscription in time of war.
@bd: "... surely a way can be found to allow Davis some sort of conscientious objection analogous ..."
Judge Bunning already found that way -- her deputies issue marriage licenses. The remaining issue is her signature on the licenses: "Mr. Staver has argued that the problem is that the licenses say that they are issued by the Rowan County clerk, and she, as the clerk, will not authorize them. If that wording were eliminated, he said, she would not stand in the way of granting licenses."
Obviously, there would still be a problem if all the deputy clerks also refused to sign marriage licenses, but they are not elected officials, so they could, presumably, be fired.
Judge Bunning already found that way -- her deputies issue marriage licenses. The remaining issue is her signature on the licenses: "Mr. Staver has argued that the problem is that the licenses say that they are issued by the Rowan County clerk, and she, as the clerk, will not authorize them. If that wording were eliminated, he said, she would not stand in the way of granting licenses."
Obviously, there would still be a problem if all the deputy clerks also refused to sign marriage licenses, but they are not elected officials, so they could, presumably, be fired.
She wasn't conscripted. Conscientious objectors who are conscripted can't resign. She can. She has no constitutional right to her job. Gay people have a constitutional right to get a marriage license.
Sure, she can take another job. Marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion. If she can't figure that out, she needs to be in another line of work.
The First Amendment protects the people that government officials DEAL WITH. It does not mean that government officials can enforce their religious prejudices on others--in fact, it means the opposite.
Acting as a private citizen, Ms. Davis, too, has a Constitutional right to not have government officials dictate religious beliefs to her.
Acting as a private citizen, Ms. Davis, too, has a Constitutional right to not have government officials dictate religious beliefs to her.
2
and does the KY law actually allow the issuance of certificates yet ?? if not then this "judge" ought to go to jail for ordering this woman to commit a crime.
As a European this madness has become an exercise in the absurd and seems to me so shockingly alien as well as a violation of any kind of freedom guaranteed by law as well as a salute to all those who are guilty of having made and still are making the lives of homoseksuals a misery.
A blind believe in higher divine powers that can outrank the laws of the land is basically a psychological defect.
A blind believe in higher divine powers that can outrank the laws of the land is basically a psychological defect.
35
@S.F.: "A blind believe in higher divine powers that can outrank the laws of the land is basically a psychological defect."
What "psychological defect" is that? Please cite the DSM-5:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5
What "psychological defect" is that? Please cite the DSM-5:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5
1
Shane, what she was doing--refusing to issue marriage licenses to qualified applicants, or allow others to issue them--was NOT legal a few months ago. And even if it were, laws change and we are all obligated to comply with the law as it exists today--not what it was a a few months or even one day ago.
I'm a whitee.
It really struck me that an important Baptist Minister, Martin Luther King fought prejudice and now the Baptist Pastor Huckabee supports prejudice against Gays.
Jesus never discriminated. The so called conservative Christians are a disgrace.
It really struck me that an important Baptist Minister, Martin Luther King fought prejudice and now the Baptist Pastor Huckabee supports prejudice against Gays.
Jesus never discriminated. The so called conservative Christians are a disgrace.
25
Is it too hard for some to get past her religious beliefs to see what is going on here? The Supreme Court does not have the right, to make law! That is the job of the Congress. Until CONGRESS redefines state sanctioned marriage, this woman did not break the law, by refusing to issue a license from her state with her name on it, ACCORDING to that states constitution.
She didn't break the law, maybe others who didn't break the law think it's okay for them to be thrown in jail?
Just because she voiced her personal religious agreement as the reason has no barring on the law.
She didn't break the law, maybe others who didn't break the law think it's okay for them to be thrown in jail?
Just because she voiced her personal religious agreement as the reason has no barring on the law.
1
She didn't break the law in the sense of an ordinary citizen violating some statute. She's a public servant who is paid to UPHOLD the law and she was refusing to do so. Therefore she should not be a public servant. And since she cannot be fired, she has two choices: do her job and uphold the law - implement the laws that HER OFFICE is charged witih implementing - or be held in contempt of court. There's no other option, is there.
I mean what do you people not get about this? She can go and be a hairdresser or a waitress or a dog catcher for all anyone cares, and she's more than welcome to her religious beliefs. Her JOB required her to uphold the law. She's like a traffic cop who suddenly decides he doesn't believe in red lights anymore.
I mean what do you people not get about this? She can go and be a hairdresser or a waitress or a dog catcher for all anyone cares, and she's more than welcome to her religious beliefs. Her JOB required her to uphold the law. She's like a traffic cop who suddenly decides he doesn't believe in red lights anymore.
How ironic.....
Kim is an official of the state.
As a government official, she is imposing her religious beliefs on others.
A clear violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments.
I understand that she believes the office is a "family business", groomed by her mom, grooming her son,
yet she remains the "state" imposing her religious beliefs.
And SHE'S the victim?
Kim is an official of the state.
As a government official, she is imposing her religious beliefs on others.
A clear violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments.
I understand that she believes the office is a "family business", groomed by her mom, grooming her son,
yet she remains the "state" imposing her religious beliefs.
And SHE'S the victim?
47
Conservatives always cry "victim" any time someone tells them they can't mistreat people.
1
A quote from Joseph Campbell's came to mind when this fiasco first began. "In choosing your god, you choose your way of looking at the universe.
There are plenty of Gods. Choose yours. The god you worship is the god you deserve."
There are plenty of Gods. Choose yours. The god you worship is the god you deserve."
22
Could you explain how your Campbell quote applies to Ms. Davis?
Thank God, and may Kim continue to follow her conscience.
1
Christian sharia law.
Right into the unemployment line.
Oh yes. "Her conscience". Presumably the same "conscience that destroyed three of her four marriages.
God has raised her up for such a time as this. All who look upon her will remember that God rescues people who stand for righteousness in love.
3
Those gay folks were in love, too.
Sorry darlin but God wasn't the one who "rescued her". The Judge did.
Tell Kim to "stand for righteousness in love" in a way that does not ram her religious views down our throats. Our nation's government is forbidden to favor a certain religious position. She is doing that. Why is that so complicated?
At first when I realized this woman was attempting to subvert the U.S. Constitution I was alarmed. Now I see this is just a money-making opportunity for her, and in that pursuit I wish her godspeed. After a few weeks she will be remembered only by a small group of right-wing Christian fanatics and fox news. Goodbye Kim Davis.
24
Yeah, I agree. Why didn't she resign her job in protest? Why would you take the money and refuse to do the job? Because if you continue to get paid and just refuse to do the job then you get your paycheck, the love of a group of believers, all that religious anti gay bigot money and endless paid speaking engagements. She is actually one shrewd cookie.
Wanna bet?
Allowing someone like her to remain in office is a threat to freedom for everyone. If she will not perform her sworn duties of office, she should be removed from office. Time to resign, Ms Davis.
26
until the congress redefines state sanctioned marriage, she was abiding by her states law. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to make law or change it! That's the duty of congress!
You'd think that "failure to perform" would cause the removal of even an elected official.
The solution here seems pretty clear. Let's start by defining religious belief as a disability. Under the ADA, Rowan County would then simply have to provide reasonable accommodation to Ms. Davis allowing her to function in her job despite her handicap.
20
Belief in God or Jesus is not a disability. It's not something you're born with and it is something that you can get rid of if you wish. I could say the same thing about trans-gendered people and everyone I know would hate me. You have to see how this is not fair for Christians.
There already are religious accommodation laws, but it is not clear that they are applicable to duly elected and sworn government officials acting as agents of the state. A web search for "religious accommodation" will find more info.
This is offensive. The majority of people in the US have religious beliefs. Those who think they are superior to such, are sadly undrinformed about the limits of epistemology, not to mention deficient in basic human respect. Atheists deserve respect; believers deserve respect; agnostics deserve respect.
I was on her side -- until I watched the video. (Honestly, I was expecting a suit... shows you my own preconceived notions.) I was on her side because I think people should make stands for what they believe in. If we don't, there is no hope for discourse.
But after seeing the video -- let's just say I wouldn't want her babysitting any kids I know. She give God the glory (not sure he/she needs it) and she can believe gay marriage is wrong, but she can't tell others what to believe and she can't be a one-woman source of law. We aren't Kim's citizens. We are a collective group with differences, each with a voice, a vote, and supposedly a shared ideal of what democracy looks and acts like. That said, this isn't saying the left is right; both sides are often bullies. I guess we're still a young nation...
But after seeing the video -- let's just say I wouldn't want her babysitting any kids I know. She give God the glory (not sure he/she needs it) and she can believe gay marriage is wrong, but she can't tell others what to believe and she can't be a one-woman source of law. We aren't Kim's citizens. We are a collective group with differences, each with a voice, a vote, and supposedly a shared ideal of what democracy looks and acts like. That said, this isn't saying the left is right; both sides are often bullies. I guess we're still a young nation...
9
Dear Ms. Davis,
When you enact your version of freedom you take away the freedom of others. When a gay couple marries, this affects the freedom of no one at all.
It's that simple.
When you enact your version of freedom you take away the freedom of others. When a gay couple marries, this affects the freedom of no one at all.
It's that simple.
34
She looks relieved, Jail must have been hard, even though I agree that that was not the appropriate 'punishment'. And she credits God for her release. Oh well, deep America needs some fine tuning. Even the Pope of Rome is up to date.
8
Mr Huckabee, Mr Cruz, Mr Republican candidate: has your personal marriage, been degraded, suffered, voided, or any other way been negatively affected because gays can now be married. Do you think that heterosexuals will hesitate to get married because gays can get married too? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," then it is imperative that you seek professional marriage counsel. If it is "no," then please be silent and turn off the pandering machine.
20
I am appalled that you all continue to skip the law! The United States Supreme Court doesn't have the power to make or change law! That is the sole responsibility of the congress, until congress redefines state sanctioned marriage, each state can put to vote! And Kentucky did in 2004...she broke no law!
Regardless of her personal beliefs, her state has defined what constitutes as license worthy! Not Ms. Davis.
She broke no laws!
Regardless of her personal beliefs, her state has defined what constitutes as license worthy! Not Ms. Davis.
She broke no laws!
I would suggest that they "seek professional counsel."
All religious fanatics worry me.
22
Freedom to require others to follow your beliefs is tyranny, not the freedom of worship promised in our Bill of Rights.
13
correct.... forcing christians to affirm the religion of sexual licentiousness is tyranny, not freedom. That is contrary to to our Bill of Rights.
If that's not how you meant it, then please explain how her refusal to affirm their actions is "requiring others to follow her beliefs?" They are forcing her to act in accordance with their religion... she isn't forcing them to act christian. See the difference?
If that's not how you meant it, then please explain how her refusal to affirm their actions is "requiring others to follow her beliefs?" They are forcing her to act in accordance with their religion... she isn't forcing them to act christian. See the difference?
@Truth
Kim Davis signature on a marriage license is not an her affirmation of the sexual orientation of those applying for the licence. It is merely a notary statement that the licence has been applied for
Kim Davis signature on a marriage license is not an her affirmation of the sexual orientation of those applying for the licence. It is merely a notary statement that the licence has been applied for
I really do not understand this case. It gives her hero status to put her in jail, and also galvanizes her supporters and worsens the divide on this issue. She wasn't doing her job; she should simply have been fired and replaced. End of story.
8
Again, as I've said repeatedly - she was elected and she cannot be fired. She may resign, or she can be impeached. But firing her is not an option.
1
Just one question I haven't seen in all the comments but which may have a simple answer of which I am ignorantly unaware. Why wasn't Ms. Davis fired when she refused to comply with the Supreme Court's decision and order?
6
She was elected, and needs a huge majority of legislature to vote her out, which will not happen there, or she needs to be recalled. Also not likely. Oh Kentucky.
She is an elected official and cannot be fired. However, she could be impeached, but that looks unlikely.
She can't be fired because she was elected to her office. BTW she ran as a Democrat.
A persons belief is really hard if nearly impossible to change. To Me Kim Davis is wrong ~ she is going to deny a relationship based on her views~ lets take a look how many marriages has she had ~ 3 at least? I AM NOT A RELIGIOUS PERSON ~but isn't getting a divorce considered wrong in the church? Times have evolved are we really going to base our lives on writings that were translated to us over how many years ago~as long as you are in a happy healthy relationship~ shouldn't that be what the good LORD wants for us all? Just because Kim or anyone else goes to church once a week a day does not make them the judge and jury of others. If we are to judge Kim Davis ~ wouldnt you say she gives into tempation~ of the sweets or food in general? She appears about 50 lb over size. We can go on an on ~ to me learn the difference of separation from church and state and not try and control / dictate with your personal belief .
3
Um--actually she's currently on her fourth marriage. But who on earth could stomach remaining married to the woman?
1
But you are "trying to control / dictate with your personal belief"... so why are you exempt from your own standards?
By the way... the Bible has never been shown false by ANY archeological digs... ever. It has been proven accurate. Reject it's message at your own peril.
By the way... the Bible has never been shown false by ANY archeological digs... ever. It has been proven accurate. Reject it's message at your own peril.
This is a travesty and it betrays our ideals the separation of church and state. The right to marry whom ever was granted by the Supreme Court. It is not for individuals who work for a government institution to impose their beliefs on others. If Mrs. Davis is unwilling to do her job then she should be relieve of it. In any business this would hold true, she is not the exception. As a practical person since the divorce rate is so high in the USA why shouldn't everyone have the right to get married? And one last thing before I close how does Mrs. Davis and her flock of conservative Christians feel about D-I-V-O-R-C-E? Surely there is something in the new testament about that too but I have not heard about her complaining about handing out the paper work for that. Have you?
10
Mrs. Davis has been divorced three times. Evidently NONE of those were joined by God because the Bible is quite clear on that point. From Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6 we see "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." and "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Yes, it's a little hard to see how Mrs. Davis, to whom God evidently speaks, could have lied to her THREE times but that just HAS to be the answer because every word in the Bible is inerrant and she follows every word in the Bible - or so she says. The other explanation would be that she's just another pick-and-choose fundamentalist. All about the sanctity of marriage and upholding the institution and all that blather. What a living example she is.
How about ADULTERY? I understand she practiced it.
It wasn't granted. Rights are recognized, but they exist in spite of government.
This is one of the strangest videos I have ever seen of strange behavior.
19
Tomorrow there will be more gay couples asking for their licenses, will Kim Davis throw herself across the counter and prevent her deputies from issuing them? Or will the clerks go along with her and just not issue any? The article says at least 50% of the clerks in the state do not want to do their jobs.
And will The Liberty Council sue to 'divorce' the couples who have gotten married?
And do all these Davis supporters really want a theocracy?
And will The Liberty Council sue to 'divorce' the couples who have gotten married?
And do all these Davis supporters really want a theocracy?
16
They really do
No they don't want a theocracy. They just want people to do what they think the bible tells us to do. Oh wait...
They are doing their jobs according to their states laws!
The Supreme Court can't legislate. Until congress redefines state sanctioned marriage she broke no law! Regardless of her reasons!
How would you like to go to jail for doing your job?
The Supreme Court can't legislate. Until congress redefines state sanctioned marriage she broke no law! Regardless of her reasons!
How would you like to go to jail for doing your job?
The problem is religion. How many in the name of religion have been killed, conquered, forcibly converted, deprived of their rights, raped, torture, and on and on? When will we abandon superstition and its mythical heaven or hell? When will we stop listening to religious leaders and hypocritical politicians? When will we just be good to each other?
14
So the adulteress defended her new-found faith and is venerated by the right.... WWJD?
15
You ask "What Would Jesus Do (WWJD)?"
Jesus would address the adulterers (as she admittedly once was, before she knew Christ) and warn them to confess their sins. He would offer to forgive their sins if they confessed and believed in Him as God and Saviour.
Kim Davis has confessed her sins and found forgiveness in Christ. She just wants to live obediently to the one who loves her THAT MUCH!
Jesus would address the adulterers (as she admittedly once was, before she knew Christ) and warn them to confess their sins. He would offer to forgive their sins if they confessed and believed in Him as God and Saviour.
Kim Davis has confessed her sins and found forgiveness in Christ. She just wants to live obediently to the one who loves her THAT MUCH!
Great news. Should never have been incarcerated to begin with. If courts can allow convicted drug users to stay out of prison, certainly a case can be made for this individual to avoid jail time.
1
The options for the judge were to fine her or book her. The goal, when one is held in contempt, is to try to move the person to go along with the judicial proceeding or ruling - in this case, issuing marriage licenses. It was very clear that Davis had zero intention of complying - nor did her staff, at first - and that money was being raised for her, which could be used to pay any fine. Hence the incarceration.
Now her staff is issuing licenses, meeting the judge's order, so she is being released.
Now her staff is issuing licenses, meeting the judge's order, so she is being released.
I am with mbkennedy, Have we not all heard of the separation of Church and State? The very reason our country was founded, the reason we fought the Revolutionary War! There is a reason for this not just for the convenience that it is so often used for. There is no stepping on anyone religious rights here as the (so called) Christian Conservatives are yelling. If she would just do the job she was elected to do and keep her religious beliefs to her self instead of imposing them on everyone else we could all get along much better.
8
I just wanted to mention that the primary reason for the Revolutionary War was financial -- we were being taxed by England, yet had no representation in the government. Remember The Boston Tea Party two and a half years prior? It wasn't the Boston Church vs. State Party.
Some people came to the "pre-United States" New World fleeing religious persecution, but let's not confuse that fact with the fiction that religious freedom was the motivation behind the Revolutionary War. Don't change the reason all those brave men fought and died to suit your needs.
Some people came to the "pre-United States" New World fleeing religious persecution, but let's not confuse that fact with the fiction that religious freedom was the motivation behind the Revolutionary War. Don't change the reason all those brave men fought and died to suit your needs.
Ms Davis will not be out of jail for long. She told the judge what he needed to hear to gain her release, but it seems pretty clear based on her past performance, and that of her mouthpiece, that this isn't about her being opposed to gay marriage, but about her wanting to STOP gay marriage in order to keep her cushy job.
4
The bottom line appears to be that, for all the grandstanding and weasel words, the licenses will be issued, a precedent set and we can forget this deluded person.
16
Exactly. Let her fade.
While all you Left Wingers try to pin this on Republicans, she is a lifelong Democrat. She ran in a Democratic primary and she ran as a Democrat in her election. And she worked for decades for her mommy, also a Democrat, who was the prior County Clerk.
2
Did someone say this was a republican issue? Seems more of an evangelical v. Everyone else issue to me.
And when she decided she hated gays getting married, the Republicans flocked to get her in a picture with them, or offered to go to jail for her.
Huckabee & Cruse are Republicans.
The absurdity of making this into a war on religion is astounding. Ms Davis and her ilk define religious freedom as the ability to impose her particular bigoted beliefs on both her co-workers and on the public at large. She should have rotted in jail until she found the integrity to honor her oath of office or step down
11
It's embarrassing and shameful for me to watch people get all proud and preachy about denying gays the right to marriage. It makes me cringe, and I get angry. The mind set is one of a "saved soul" preaching to a "sinner"; one is above and the other below. It's the peak of hypocrisy, and it needs to be relentlessly exposed for the sham that it is.
15
I've not met her (Joan), but Kim Davis is no Joan of Arc, even though Ms. Davis thinks she embodies a gifted, ecstatic, presence down to the beat. Crazy is as crazy does and Davis is just a dyed in the wool nut, along with her supporters who hear voices from the beyond. OF course her ilk think the same of those who demonstrate, what used to be called "a love that doth not speak it's name." Why would anyone bemoan love in whatever healthy, adult, kind, form it takes? Because she's self-serving and nuts.
7
Must be wonderful being a religious conservative: get paid (Davis gets paid $80,000, got the job from her mother and is evidently planning to pass it on to her son, who she has appointed Deputy), but not have to do any work. To the usual characteristics of the religious conservative (vanity, arrogance, malice, and wilful ignorance), now can be added laziness.
11
Have you ever seen a guy where he is very verbal about liking women, always talking about his conquests over women, always attracting a lot of attention in the process...some times described as "thou protest to loudly"? To me, Kim Davis is the female version of machismo. To me, she is denying her inner rainbow self. I also believe she draws a lot of power from waving the religion flag...a faith she declares but does little to follow its' doctrine. As far as giving "God" the glory, I don't believe "God" is on the front page of this article and I am pretty sure "God" doesn't need Kim Davis to give "God" anything. I pretty sure "God" can handle whatever pops up.
8
The thunderous applause and religous homophobic rhethoric gives the illusion that she has performed an heroic act. Actually, she just got out of jail for breaking the law. It was a noisy rally voiced by a self-appointed criminal presuming to understand the mind of God from an ancient text. Meanwhile, marriage equality rallys are about freedom and liberty, fortunately, they are noisier and more thunderous in my opinion.
14
I have been reading the thought provoking comments to this news story and frankly have little left to say that is new other than that I found Mrs. Davis' comments after her release: “I just want to give God the glory. His people have rallied, and you are a strong people” to be absolutely absurd. She obviously searched through the bible for a punchy line and seems to see herself as Moses. I have no indication as to the number of people who welcomed her at her release from jail, but I doubt it was more than 100.
My feeling can best be expressed by quoting mbkennedy below:"Kim Davis' opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief and should not be imposed on others through her state position."
My feeling can best be expressed by quoting mbkennedy below:"Kim Davis' opposition to gay marriage is a religious belief and should not be imposed on others through her state position."
7
Gay marriage ITSELF is a religious value, promoted by the religion of lefty liberalism and FORCED on the public by social engineering judges & legislatures.
I have to disagree with Judge Bunning. I see no evidence that Davis has purged herself of contempt. On the contrary, the judge has encouraged her to repeat the whole farce again, and her new handlers are already hinting at that. I can hear them arguing already that the licences issued are invalid because she was jailed illegally. A federal judge--an incredibly powerful position--can't afford to appear to be a paper tiger.
Judges who find parties in contempt should be prepared to wait for contrition from the offender. Her martyrdom is completely intact and this order will just encourage copy cats.
Judges who find parties in contempt should be prepared to wait for contrition from the offender. Her martyrdom is completely intact and this order will just encourage copy cats.
21
Actually, I believe Judge Bunning's position was a purely pragmatic one: he was less interested in punishing Ms. Davis than he was in insuring that the rule of law would prevail. He ordered the deputy clerks to process marriage licenses for gay couples, received the assurance of the attorney for Rowan County that those licenses would be valid if signed by deputy clerks, and warned Ms. Davis not to interfere with his order. If she does, it's back to jail for her. Personally, I believe it's a solution that might have been arrived at without putting Davis in jail but far be it from me to second guess a District Court judge on procedure.
If a certain sincerely held religious belief can be an acceptable excuse for breaking federal, state or local laws, then what other beliefs might cross the line into the realm of the unacceptable? Might a person of a non-Christian faith apply for a similar objection? I will refrain from any of the obvious, but likely provocative, examples of other religions and the beliefs that are sincerely held by people of those faiths.
If we really want to say "only Christian beliefs may override the law", then we are no longer a secular nation, and indeed already a long way down a very slippery slope headed far away from our Constitution.
If we really want to say "only Christian beliefs may override the law", then we are no longer a secular nation, and indeed already a long way down a very slippery slope headed far away from our Constitution.
24
I would like to believe that religion is just an excuse for Kim Davis. Her basic instincts are rebelling against this farce of same sex marriage but she doesn't know how to articulate her truth. Religion is a refuge. Our civilization becomes more dysfunctional as the over educated whiz kids go wheeling and dealing. The judges are a good example of this, and the preachers are helpless.
1
She is a narcissist and wants attention.
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Other people's marriages are none of your business. It really is that simple.
Ms. Davis steadfastly refused to resign. Would she have had that position if she earned $8 dollars per hour instead of her current salary of $80,000? Doubt it.
11
Especially when she lives in a county in Kentucky where the average income is $30,000 or less.
Both public and private service work require you to serve those that you don’t agree with. So if the responsibilities of a job aren’t in sync with your beliefs, be they religious or not, why take the job or start a business to then try to impose your views on others? Davis and other government employees are paid by the U.S. taxpayers. Therefore it is their obligation to follow U.S. laws and our Constitution. One of the cornerstones of our democracy is the separation of state and church. Religion is a private matter and doesn’t belong in politics. For the past 30 years or so we have allowed religion to be infused into the political discourse.
I was born in a country where for most of its history there was very little distinction, if any, between the state and church. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to leave the comfort of their coastline and for a time were the leaders of global exploration. However the introduction of the Inquisition into Portugal stifled the innovations brought about by the Age of Discovery to the country.
We need to be very careful about bringing religion into the public sector because history has many examples where the symbiotic relationship between the state and church brought about negative consequences for a country and its citizens.
I was born in a country where for most of its history there was very little distinction, if any, between the state and church. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to leave the comfort of their coastline and for a time were the leaders of global exploration. However the introduction of the Inquisition into Portugal stifled the innovations brought about by the Age of Discovery to the country.
We need to be very careful about bringing religion into the public sector because history has many examples where the symbiotic relationship between the state and church brought about negative consequences for a country and its citizens.
20
So why can Muslim flight attendants refuse serving alcohol & keep her job ? When Muslims work where food is sold, they don't want to touch pork to ring it up. Let a gay couple go to a Muslim bakery & ask for a wedding cake. They will refuse but nothing is done about it. They are coming to our country & getting all kinds of free things from our ppl. Did you know the men can claim 4 wives & all their children too?
My comment is for ALL religions not just one. I mentioned Davis because the article is about her. If a person doesn’t feel comfortable or feels that his religion forbids him from fulfilling his job’s responsibilities, then the person needs to find employment that will allow him to attend to his job without breaking any religious dogma.
I forgot to mention that since Davis has been married 4 times I can only assume that someone issued licenses for each marriage without passing judgment on her. She has been divorced 3 times and gave birth to twins 5 months after divorcing her first husband who was not her children’s father. Her third husband has been identified as their father. This makes me think that there was adultery in her past. It seems to me that if Davis had run into a clerk whose religion forbade divorce or adultery then using Davis’ reasoning, the clerk would have been justified in refusing to issue Davis more than 1 marriage license. But then her mother was her predecessor and held the position for 37 years.
Don't forget, many people far above Kim Davis' pay level continue to assert that Congress can and should respect faith in legislation, either in support or reaction, notwithstanding "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit free exercise thereof..." with the understanding that "exercise of religion" constitutes worship of whatever one idolizes.
3
Finally, an intelligent person who has an understanding of the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution!
A perfect example of how-to-get-rich the all-American way. Let's all follow the clerk to the TV talk shows, maybe a reality series, movie of the week, book and/or lecture tour, church revival meetings, motivational speaking engagements, What am I missing? Blog or web site? I'm not totally convinced this matter wasn't orchestrated in advance for maximum notoriety.
16
As others have noted, she is making $80k in a county where the median income is ~$33k, her son works in the office, and her mother also held the clerk position for many years. Someone local in KY needs to do some investigating here - looks like there might be a few more reasons for Ms. Davis to be in jail...
31
What I've gotten out of all this Kim Davis stuff is that we need to stop giving non-profit status to people who look up to the sky to get their exclusive information about what's right and true. End the non-profit status of churches.
If your belief is strong and if you are "of God" and if God is all-powerful, then surely you don't need a tax break--paid for by the rest of us.
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Would you really want me to get a tax break that you have to pay for?
If your belief is strong and if you are "of God" and if God is all-powerful, then surely you don't need a tax break--paid for by the rest of us.
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Would you really want me to get a tax break that you have to pay for?
28
So a former governor thinks that the Supreme Court's rulings can be ignored? It is a good thing he wasn't around for Brown v. Board of Education or the Loving v. Virginia decision which removed barriers to inter-racial marriage.
15
This whole situation--this woman flanked by Mike Huckabee--is shaping up to be the duel of the century: what does the phrase "freedom from" and "freedom of" religion mean in the 1st amendment.
Based on my reading of so many comments, it appears there remains--willful or not---confusion about where the line is between religious liberty and secular laws in the United States.
Maybe it's time to really, really get to the bottom of this. Because the way things are going, we are in danger of losing the very distinction that made the establishment of our democracy so important in world history. We already have a SCOTUS with a majority of Catholics who rule more in line with their religious views than with the "meet the needs of all citizens" nature of secular laws.
In my lifetime, John Kennedy vowed to step down if he felt his Catholicism was influencing his application or implementation of policies and programs that affect all US citizens. I don't hear any of the same promise from the GOP, largely dominated by Christian and evangelical Christian denominations. Au contraire: I hear statements to the effect the "US is a Christian nation."
Excuse me, this is just flat out wrong. We are a secular nation that guarantees freedom of, and freedom from, religion.
Nothing more and nothing less. Anything more is truly frightening.
Based on my reading of so many comments, it appears there remains--willful or not---confusion about where the line is between religious liberty and secular laws in the United States.
Maybe it's time to really, really get to the bottom of this. Because the way things are going, we are in danger of losing the very distinction that made the establishment of our democracy so important in world history. We already have a SCOTUS with a majority of Catholics who rule more in line with their religious views than with the "meet the needs of all citizens" nature of secular laws.
In my lifetime, John Kennedy vowed to step down if he felt his Catholicism was influencing his application or implementation of policies and programs that affect all US citizens. I don't hear any of the same promise from the GOP, largely dominated by Christian and evangelical Christian denominations. Au contraire: I hear statements to the effect the "US is a Christian nation."
Excuse me, this is just flat out wrong. We are a secular nation that guarantees freedom of, and freedom from, religion.
Nothing more and nothing less. Anything more is truly frightening.
43
We live in a country that constitutionally denies power to any legislature to respect articles of faith in legislation, or prohibit worship of whatever idols we like.
1
Perhaps Kennedy should have step down sooner...
When people vote on an issue and a state makes this law within their sovereign authority, "due process has been served.....
When people vote on an issue and a state makes this law within their sovereign authority, "due process has been served.....
Gradually, we are seeing the death of reason. Ironically, this country was founded as the flowering of the Age of Enlightenment, but the Republican Party has another agenda. How can a party that panders to the human Id become so powerful? Maybe there is something to this "original sin" thing. Humanity seems to default to its darker side when some sunlight tries to creep into its psyche.
19
Indeed-- and the press , especially radio and tv, helps in feeding the irrationality .
"Ignorance is not innocence but sin."
--Robert Browning
"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and can never be."
--Thomas Jefferson
--Robert Browning
"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and can never be."
--Thomas Jefferson
Republicans have had help from Democrats who are too lazy to get out and vote.
Well this whole situation has given the likes of Paul, Cruz, and Huckabee an opportunity to display their appalling lack of understanding of constitutional law, and of the very concept of freedom.
There is no clause in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or legal interpretation of them, that bestows the right to discriminate against your fellow citizens based on your personal beliefs.
In September I learned which Republican candidates are most likely to attempt to transform my beloved country into a Christian theocracy.
There is no clause in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or legal interpretation of them, that bestows the right to discriminate against your fellow citizens based on your personal beliefs.
In September I learned which Republican candidates are most likely to attempt to transform my beloved country into a Christian theocracy.
23
Why is this news? What am I missing?
A small town clerk goes rogue?
Is it really that slow of a news day with the West Coast in flames, European beaches awash with refugees and the Middle East in melt-down? This county clerk gets moved to the front-row and leads the nightly news and page one?
Isn't this "news" that's more appropriate for People than NYT? Personally I believe the next chapter of this "news" is when we read that she is the next contestant on Dancing with the Stars.
Oh, and if things get slow next Summer I got a crazy uncle in the attic who can give interviews too.
A small town clerk goes rogue?
Is it really that slow of a news day with the West Coast in flames, European beaches awash with refugees and the Middle East in melt-down? This county clerk gets moved to the front-row and leads the nightly news and page one?
Isn't this "news" that's more appropriate for People than NYT? Personally I believe the next chapter of this "news" is when we read that she is the next contestant on Dancing with the Stars.
Oh, and if things get slow next Summer I got a crazy uncle in the attic who can give interviews too.
10
Humans are quite capable of multi-tasking and paying attention to multiple issues simultaneously.
We can care deeply about refugee families fleeing their war-torn nations, suicide bombings, chronic low wages, struggling schools, AND....couples - both heterosexual and homosexual- being denied a license to which they are entitled, by a small-town clerk who has decided to let her religious beliefs inform her public office, all with the support of well-moneyed lawyers and politicians who see an excellent opportunity in her - an opportunity to chip away bit by bit at any secularity in this country, separation of church and state be damned.
We can care about many things, all at the same time, Richard.
We can care deeply about refugee families fleeing their war-torn nations, suicide bombings, chronic low wages, struggling schools, AND....couples - both heterosexual and homosexual- being denied a license to which they are entitled, by a small-town clerk who has decided to let her religious beliefs inform her public office, all with the support of well-moneyed lawyers and politicians who see an excellent opportunity in her - an opportunity to chip away bit by bit at any secularity in this country, separation of church and state be damned.
We can care about many things, all at the same time, Richard.
It is a constitutional issue, for all sides. That seems fairly important.
It's super stupid -- this is a tiny county. The people involved can drive a few miles to the next county. ONE COUPLE DROVE DOWN FROM OHIO -- hundreds of miles away -- just to harass this poor woman.
The whole point was to take a conservative Christian and publicly whip her and humiliate her, and reveal her private life to the public in order to try and shame her -- so that they can instill terror in all other public officials that "you dare not mess with gay marriage!"
The whole point was to take a conservative Christian and publicly whip her and humiliate her, and reveal her private life to the public in order to try and shame her -- so that they can instill terror in all other public officials that "you dare not mess with gay marriage!"
When I watched her emotional speech she gave to supporters upon her release, I thought it was from 1960s. By refusing to issue marriage license to same-sex couples who are in a committed loving relationship and entitled to the legal documents, this county clerk failed her sworn duty and turned a public-service establishment into a place in which an public employee could interfere with her office duty with her personal religious belief. Yes, there are many like-minded people who support her and rally around her. It's a big country and people believe in different things. But her stance does not turn back the clock and does not change the time. It's the fact that we have all been more than one decade into the 21st century, a time in which people can get educated in schools, libraries, and internet in an open society and people refresh their perspectives with new, wholesome and nourishing knowledge every day. I respect others' faith, but faith is a personal and diversified thing and it should not be imposed on others, especially when it comes to professionalism and public service.
10
Huckabee wiping a tear from each eye. Oy vey.
Our nation was founded in part on the principle of separation between church and state. If the Kentucky clerk wishes to continue in her job as an agent of the state, Then it seems she would need to recognize the operation of this principle. Supposing this woman adhered to a religion which held it a sin for people of different skin color to marry. With this person then feel empowered on the grounds of religious freedom to deny licenses to onterracial couples ?
It's private citizens we are free to adopt and follow a religion which operates about any set of principles that we like As public servants, we must be required to confirm to the principles of our government
And let's be clear – Supreme Court was performing exactly those responsibilities assigned to it: Judy Kayden conflicting interpretations of existing laws.
It's private citizens we are free to adopt and follow a religion which operates about any set of principles that we like As public servants, we must be required to confirm to the principles of our government
And let's be clear – Supreme Court was performing exactly those responsibilities assigned to it: Judy Kayden conflicting interpretations of existing laws.
2
This is complicated at first glance, but shouldn't be. Ms. Davis took an oath to support the laws of the country (which apply equally to the county where she is clerk). She should do the job she was hired to do. While it's true that some laws are unjust (such as laws allowing for segregation or forbidding mixed-race marriage or in fact allowing slavery), and should be challenged, unjust laws should not be challenged by applying one's religious beliefs to the secular law, which is the situation here. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, and that should be true here as well.
Granted, the law changed after Ms. Davis took the job (I am guessing this), and I wonder whether she would have sought election had she known the requirements of the position. Maybe not.
While this is being sorted out, wouldn't it make sense to remove the duty of issuing marriage licenses from her job description and endow one of her deputies or another official with that legal role? Same-sex couples who seek marriage in that county (as they have every right to do so) should not have to bear the burden of her objection, grandstanding, or the likes of Mike Huckabee and the weak-willed judge who refuse to uphold the federal law.
Granted, the law changed after Ms. Davis took the job (I am guessing this), and I wonder whether she would have sought election had she known the requirements of the position. Maybe not.
While this is being sorted out, wouldn't it make sense to remove the duty of issuing marriage licenses from her job description and endow one of her deputies or another official with that legal role? Same-sex couples who seek marriage in that county (as they have every right to do so) should not have to bear the burden of her objection, grandstanding, or the likes of Mike Huckabee and the weak-willed judge who refuse to uphold the federal law.
4
According to what I've heard/read, she was well aware that there was a good possibility that at some point in her tenure (especially if she planned to serve as long as her mother before her) same-sex marriage would be legal in most or all of the states. And she told a close friend that she just couldn't possibly do it - issue licenses to same-sex couples.
Makes me wonder - why not resign, if she already knew ahead of time that she'd refuse to carry out her duties (or just not run for election in the first place)? Or had she already anticipated that she'd refuse and set up a showdown?
Makes me wonder - why not resign, if she already knew ahead of time that she'd refuse to carry out her duties (or just not run for election in the first place)? Or had she already anticipated that she'd refuse and set up a showdown?
She is the clerk and the leader of her office. She took and oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. That means all of them - not just the ones she likes or agrees with. We can't have government officials failing to conduct their official business every time they find they dislike a new law. So no, she doesn't get to not do her job because the law changed since she took office.
If we THE PEOPLE cannot define our own marriage laws, then yes -- local government should GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS.
Let people marry in whatever church (or mail order minister) they want. But don't force government officials to carry out these shameful acts.
Let people marry in whatever church (or mail order minister) they want. But don't force government officials to carry out these shameful acts.
Ms Davis became a liability for SSM advocates, and a martyr for religious conservatism when she was jailed.
Maybe the Bush-appointed judge had that in mind.
People ignorant of the Constitution see her being persecuted. It's ridiculous.
This could effect which party wins the presidency in 2016.
Maybe the Bush-appointed judge had that in mind.
People ignorant of the Constitution see her being persecuted. It's ridiculous.
This could effect which party wins the presidency in 2016.
1
Your voice in God's ear -- I HOPE SO!
If Kim Davis is allowed to return to work and pick and choose which licenses she feels like issuing to people, then there's nothing to stop another "Christian" from deciding that a non-Christian teacher shouldn't be issued a teaching license or diploma with an education major.
Who are we to stop a Christian from deciding that a non-Christian is "unfit" to teach a class of kids? This has to nipped in the bud.
Who are we to stop a Christian from deciding that a non-Christian is "unfit" to teach a class of kids? This has to nipped in the bud.
16
This woman knows nothing about love or about God. You can see the hatred and bigotry in her eyes as well as the enjoyment she gets from grandstanding and hurting others. It's frightening and tragic.
21
Huckabee is not running for president. His appearance with this clerk is the evidence. He is in it to build a profile that will allow him to stay relevant in the Fox circle and gain financial security. Staking out a position like this as a presidential candidate guarantees him another gig at fox, speaking tours, another ghost written book (God, Gays and County clerks). He couldn’t be happier over the publicity this issue is garnering.
22
Throw her back in jail.
She took an oath to uphold h law which she refuses to uphold.
She took an oath to uphold h law which she refuses to uphold.
18
She seems to be really embracing her role as oppressed martyr. Perhaps she would also also enjoy reliving her first divorce. Instead of taking her money and issuing the paperwork, I want her to have to stand there in front of a room of government officials while the county clerk spits pseudo-religious vitriol in her face and refuses to grant it, because it is against god's will. And then make her relive that same experience for her second marriage, her second divorce, her third marriage, her third divorce, and her fourth marriage. Maybe then she'd understand the experience of actual religious oppression.
15
Curious that an allegedly Christian person feels she has the right to prevent all legal marriages in her district. She did not simply refuse to allow gay marriage, but all marriages. Apparently, forcing everyone who wants to marry to be celibate or "live in sin" in her county is just fine all of the alleged Christians who support Ms. Davis position. Marriage is a sacrament to most Christians -- and many others. Ms. Davis is denying many Christians the ability to participate in a key sacrament of their religion.
She should resign or be "fired" from her position if she can't perform it.
Further, we should all ask why her rights are more important than the rights of everyone else, no matter what religious beliefs they hold or who they wish to marry. To me this is all pure selfish twaddle--it is the "principle" of a publicity hound.
She should resign or be "fired" from her position if she can't perform it.
Further, we should all ask why her rights are more important than the rights of everyone else, no matter what religious beliefs they hold or who they wish to marry. To me this is all pure selfish twaddle--it is the "principle" of a publicity hound.
11
I am trying to decide what offends me more: Ms. Davis injecting her personal beliefs into (not) performing her secular job OR Mr. Huckabee always pandering to the lowest common denominator.
27
Correct SAT answer: Both of the Above.
3
She gave up, but she's being praised even for that. I gave the story a good though, and I would like to ask her one question. She's divorced two times, if I am not mistaken, so what would she say to a clerk, who'd refuse to give her her second and third licenses, because God disapproves of divorce too.
8
She's been married 4 times, divorced 3.
Thrice divorced, actually - but her current husband is both #2 AND #4, so maybe she can get extra credit for that?
And here's another celebrity minted for the unlikeliest of causes. Good for Huckabee - I thought I'd never hear from him again.
Incarceration is not an appropriate solution in dealing with an employee of the state who refuses to carry out out his or her duties. Firing seems more suitable and traditional. If a person feels that his or her religious views preclude carrying out their duties he or she needs to make a decision: quit or comply with the law, or be fired.
2
She was imprisoned for contempt of court. Her incarceration was strictly dependent on her continuing refusal to abide by the court's decision.
In other words, she was free to leave jail at any moment, as soon as she capitulated to justice and law, which she now appears to have done, and yet is still being feted like a triumphant general.
In other words, she was free to leave jail at any moment, as soon as she capitulated to justice and law, which she now appears to have done, and yet is still being feted like a triumphant general.
She can't be fired. She's an elected official.
1
She's an elected official. She can't be fired. She can be found in contempt of court for breaking the law...
2
What a circus and what a laugh, First, Kim Davis acts like she's in the colosseum in ancient Rome and the hungry lions in the form of harmless LGBT couples, who simply want to legitimize their love, are ready to eat her alive. That's a real stretch,
Then we have the press coverage hungry Republican presidential candidates, with an aide to Mike Huckabee blocking Ted Cruz from getting to the mic to show his love and support for Kim. I'm sure Kim will get a few really good meals out of this; but the party is not likely to last long because a federal judge who is appointed for life and immune from local hate is on her back like white on rice
Then we have the press coverage hungry Republican presidential candidates, with an aide to Mike Huckabee blocking Ted Cruz from getting to the mic to show his love and support for Kim. I'm sure Kim will get a few really good meals out of this; but the party is not likely to last long because a federal judge who is appointed for life and immune from local hate is on her back like white on rice
6
Four times married. She shouldn't even be allowed to issue marriage licenses. My God says one marriage only. She's a piece of work. She should just go issue weapons licenses, because even though guns kill and maime, I guess her God is cool with that. Enough already.
11
But God forgave her. You can be forgiven for adultery and being married four times but you absolutely can not forgive two guys who sosomize each other. It's in the bible.
Your god is what you believe. This shapes your world. True for anyone... gay, straight, whomever.
Sometimes what you believe is not in alignment with secular law. Generally, you conform and have a measure of freedom, or you don't and face hardship or go to jail.
Anyone may stand on a principle they strongly believe in, but it is good to be wise enough to know when and how to take that stand. I think Kim Davis is going to learn this lesson here, at least at some point. Most of the time you simply have to abide by the law of the land, regardless your personal beliefs.
Sometimes what you believe is not in alignment with secular law. Generally, you conform and have a measure of freedom, or you don't and face hardship or go to jail.
Anyone may stand on a principle they strongly believe in, but it is good to be wise enough to know when and how to take that stand. I think Kim Davis is going to learn this lesson here, at least at some point. Most of the time you simply have to abide by the law of the land, regardless your personal beliefs.
2
It's not just a good idea - it's the law. Personal ideas, be they good, bad or in between, don't enter into it.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Ms Davis should not have been jailed in the first place. Any punishment for breaking the law or civil disobedience has to be reasonable and appropriate. I guess the judge realized the error of his judgment and did not anticipate the support from high profile Americans as well as the Americans from the main street. Anyway Kim Davis has been freed by the judge and hopefully the law of the land will be exercised without disregard to the rights of an elected official and expectation that he or she will comply with all laws that are on the books even though some of them were changed from the time of hire.
1
I read that she was jailed because there was no indication that she was going to do her legal duties and the only way for the law to prevail was to remove her. The office then began fulfilling its duties and there was no reason to keep her jailed. The point was the law had been restored. Mrs. D could have made accommodations all along but apparently chose not to. Probably, cynically, for $$$ in "her story".
Please check your facts. She was not jailed for breaking the law; she was jailed for civil contempt of court, i.e. failing to follow a court order. The jailing was coercive, not punitive, i.e. she herself was in full control of how long it would last.
Oh my goodness, I read your comment and my jaw dropped. What makes you think the judge saw ANY error of his ways? Please take a civics class.
If you can't follow the law, don't work for government. She's breaking the law; she has to be punished. I wish, though, that the judge had gone with the ACLU's recommendation of serious and escalating fines - instead of becoming a martyr, she'd be in foreclosure.
9
Apparently her lawyers indicated that she was or potentially would be receiving financial support from likeminded people. Knowing that she would be able to pay whatever fines he imposed, and then go back to not performing her duties, the judge recognized that he had to choose the other option for trying to get compliance: incarceration.
I don't like the optics of it either, because of course some people will add it on to the whole "Kim Davis, Martyr/Hero" mystique, but I don't see that he judge had much other choice.
I don't like the optics of it either, because of course some people will add it on to the whole "Kim Davis, Martyr/Hero" mystique, but I don't see that he judge had much other choice.
As the judge said, her supporters would have simply raised the funds to pay the fines so time in jail carried more weight.
Kim Davis is not Rosa Parks. She is George Wallace.
25
One who takes a public job must follow the law. If one finds a conflict in their religious beliefs and the Constitution they must leave their public job. If they refuse to fulfill their duties they should be fired.
4
I do love the image of Cruz and Huckabee fighting it out to see who can best exploit this situation to win the votes of the religious extremists. Hopefully someone has a video of the brave Huckabee staffer who dared to step between Ted Cruz and a microphone.
8
I guess the release of Ms Davis ends the possibility of a Go Fund Me campaign for a "martyr."
Now that Ms Davis has been released, Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal & Paul might once again fade from view without a cause to claim as their own since the Donald has steered clear of this one.
Now that Ms Davis has been released, Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal & Paul might once again fade from view without a cause to claim as their own since the Donald has steered clear of this one.
3
This front page side show has stoked the illusion of the only opposition to same sex marriage being Fundamentalist Religion. Primitives like Huckabee and those who gain fame from this mentality have usurped any other discussion based on disciplines of social-political analysis that date from the Enlightenment.
The danger to civilization is not from those who would have reserved the word "marriage" while granting identical rights under "civil unions" but from those who have ceded one side of the debate to demagogues, whether of Christian, Muslim or any other faith, who exalt their creator above the decisions of mere mortals.
AlRodbell.com
The danger to civilization is not from those who would have reserved the word "marriage" while granting identical rights under "civil unions" but from those who have ceded one side of the debate to demagogues, whether of Christian, Muslim or any other faith, who exalt their creator above the decisions of mere mortals.
AlRodbell.com
3
This was absurd. If you are elected to a public office and decide that you cannot perform your required duties .. then you step down. You DO NOT try to force the hand of the government to change in order to accommodate you.
This woman has neither integrity nor a lick of common sense. She clearly either doesn't understand how our government works or she doesn't care and is happy to roll over the rights of others whenever she feels like it.
This is exactly the type of government employee or for that matter citizen that we do not need or want in this country. For the record it has absolutely NOTHING to do with her religious beliefs.
This woman has neither integrity nor a lick of common sense. She clearly either doesn't understand how our government works or she doesn't care and is happy to roll over the rights of others whenever she feels like it.
This is exactly the type of government employee or for that matter citizen that we do not need or want in this country. For the record it has absolutely NOTHING to do with her religious beliefs.
14
She wants to feel special. I am sure she us a narcissist.
I am not a religious scholar. I understand that very intelligent people make what they consider to be an irrefutable case for the existence of God and for the divine inspiration of certain holy books. Yet. I submit that all incontrovertible arguments for the existence of God and all holy books are, in fact, created by human beings. Too often there is more arrogance than humility to the religious perspective.
7
Is that not the case for all historical data?