A bigoted religious woman who should be fired

September 1, 2015 • 12:45 pm

Religion and bigotry don’t always go hand in hand, but when it comes to homosexuality, it’s a natural partnership. Such is the case, for instance, for both Christianity and Islam.  One Christian in particular has acted in such an outrageous way—flouting the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage—that she’s not only reprehensible, but deserves to be fired.

The New York Times reports this religiously-based bigotry:

A county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds denied licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, saying she was acting “under God’s authority,” just hours after the Supreme Court refused to support her position.

In a raucous scene in this little town, two same-sex couples walked into the Rowan County Courthouse, trailed by television cameras and chanting protesters on both sides of the issue, only to be turned away by the county clerk, Kim Davis.

As one couple, David Ermold and David Moore, tried to engage her in an argument, Ms. Davis said several times that her office would not issue any marriage licenses. “Under whose authority?” Mr. Ermold asked.

“Under God’s authority,” she replied.

See for yourself:

Davis has defied the Supreme Court (a recent order directed specifically at her); one of the people denied a marriage license has filed a contempt of court suit; and Davis is defying lower court rulings, and the state governor’s own directive. She’s exhausted all her appeals (except to God):

On Monday, a stay granted by the District Court expired, and the Supreme Court rejected without comment Ms. Davis’s emergency application for a new stay, pending the outcome of her appeal. That left her no legal grounds to refuse to grant licenses to same-sex couples.

“She’s certainly in contempt of court by any definition of the term, so the District Court has an array of sanctions it can resort to, to deal with that,” said Daniel J. Canon, a lawyer for some of the same-sex couples seeking licenses.

It hardly needs noting that Davis is a Christian—an Apostolic Christian—and is whining about the fact that her “rights” have been violated by the court orders. But legal rights are determined by the courts, and she has none. She can be fired, but only after being convicted of a misdemeanor; they can’t just remove her outright. And of course some God-fearing folk of Kentucky are demonstrating on her behalf, asserting their “right” to discriminate.

I end with two statements in the Times piece. The good one:

“It really just blows my mind that people can be so closed-minded,” said Shaina Cercone, a 22-year-old student at nearby Morehead State University. “We’re out here trying to support love. Christianity supposedly supports love in all ways, so it seems kind of contradictory that they’re out here, I guess, discriminating.”

It was Cercone’s mistake to think that all Christians actually practice Christian values.

And the dumb one:

But [Flavis McKinney, a Davis supporter] also said he was confident that with God’s help, Ms. Davis would ultimately prevail, even though her odds appeared to be narrowing.

“He delivered Daniel from the lion’s den,” Mr. McKinney said. “So I trust he will deliver her.”

I hope He delivers her from her job. I have no patience for bigots like Davis. And while I don’t readily call for people to be fired, an extreme act, in her case it’s well deserved.  If she can’t learn to accept equality, at least she can be forced to practice it in her job—or leave her job.

h/t: Randy

143 thoughts on “A bigoted religious woman who should be fired

  1. Keep in mind that she is an elected official. She cannot be fired. She must be impeached by the state legislature. The president of the senate however, has expressed support for her.

    However, her and her staff have been called to report to court for contempt. That will land her in jail.

    As a reminder, she can’t use the religious defense because she seems to have no problem filing divorce papers.

    1. I would add that the claim that SCOTUS told her she has to is technically incorrect. SCOTUS refused to even consider her case, so the Appeals court ruling is in full effect. That is the ruling that tells her she has to follow the original Supreme Court ruling. It’s the Appeals Court that can hold her in contempt.

    2. I believe that the people who she has blocked from getting married are asking for her to be fined, not jailed. Personally, I’d like to see her in the clink, although she’ll just play the martyr card then.

      1. =D I read “clink” as ‘clinic’. Because she looks like she is “legally insane” (or at least religiously insane).

      2. Prefer jail? So you reject the idea that punishment should serve no purpose beyond deterrence?

        The US justice system has many failings but impotence is not one of them. The license will be issued because the court can find her in contempt and escalate punishment until she complies.

        1. Did I say that?

          I think jail is a better deterrent for contempt of court. It has a more personal and immediate impact than fines which might be paid off by people who set up “Go Fund Me” accounts, etc.

        2. Here is a pretty good case explaining how fines can be more effective as a remedy than jail. Basically it blocks donations from being used to pay the fine.

          The author suggests $1000 per day of non-compliance, but maybe $666 would be effective.

      1. Consider Clerk Davis’ own marital history, perhaps down deep she feels she’s doing the gay applicants for marriage licenses a favor?

      2. Yeah, that’s why one of the applicants stated that he’d been in his relationship for 17 years and asked her how long her relationships have lasted…not long if you look at how many times she’s been divorced.

        1. I wrote about this on my website a couple of weeks ago: http://www.heatherhastie.com/brickbats-and-bouquets-23-august-2015/

          My post included the words: “In the case of Davis, I find her refusal particularly hypocritical. Her opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the tenets of her faith. However, she has been married four times herself (and presumably divorced at least three times), which is considered a sin in the Apostolic Church. It opposes divorce except in the case of infidelity, and expects divorcees to remain unmarried and celibate for the rest of their lives.”

          Then I wrote some stuff about what the Apostolic Church actually teaches, then I concluded: “Perhaps that’s what this is all about – the guilt Davis has been made to feel by the teachings of her Church about her own divorces and remarriages are making her try to atone. She somehow believes that forcing her religious beliefs on others will make up for the sins she has been made to think she has committed.”

          1. I brought this up with my thrice-married fundamentalist cousin, and not unexpectedly, he described his ‘out’. His divorces and remarriages don’t count as being against the clear teaching of the New Testament because he was not ‘at fault’ and therefore blameless. I think he cited some irrelevant scripture, but cannot remember the justification. A fine example of eisigesis.

            1. I have an uncle in a similar situation….five times married to four women. Yes, #1 and #3 were one and the same. He’s a birther, young earth creationist, anti universal healthcare (despite just having had to borrow money from family to cover unpaid medical bills) and has boasted on Facebook that he has no gay or black friends. And of course, he totes around guns in a state that he’s proudly cited stand your ground after having fired a weapon at an intruder. You simply cannot make this stuff up…these people exist, and they vote.

              1. Chris – it is scary that such folks exist and vote as you note, but it is even scarier that there are so very many of them. Look at Trump’s numbers – they love him not for any specific policies, but rather that he spouts their venomous opinions. He will no doubt get another bounce since he told Jeb Bush to stop speaking Spanish.

              2. I find it amusing that his followers who claim everyone should speak English often don’t have a proper grasp of it themselves. They should probably master one language before knocking others for being bad at a second.

              3. Wait — what? Spanish!?

                …on second thought…no, don’t tell me. There’s a reason I’m not seeking out political “news” any more….


  2. Well, if nothing else, if you refuse a direction from your boss (the Governor), then you are liable to being fired.

    She is refusing to perform the job for which she was hired. End of story, in my opinion.

    You don’t get to pick and choose the work you do within the job you are hired for.

    1. She wasn’t “hired”, she was elected. There are lots of elected officials who would be fired if one elected official could just fire another one.

    2. As already pointed out:
      She was not hired to do a job.
      She was elected, and consequently, she cannot be fired. Only impeached.

      If she was just an employee, rather than an elected official, this issue would already have been taken care of, one way or the other.

  3. She holds an elected position, so it’s more complicated to fire her-requires action by the legislature and the Governor Some question how likely that is in as red a state as KY.

    On the other hand, she seems curiously selective on her application of Biblical law, as she’s been divorced three times and remarried after each.

    1. I am reluctant to admit it (given my passionate commitment to LGBT equality) but there is nothing especially wrong with a Christian saying, OK the United States may recognize your marriage but my church does not.

      She’s working here as a rep of the US government, not as an employee of any church. If individual churches don’t want to recognize gay marriage, that’s their prerogative (as it is mine to not set foot in their doors), but they can’t obstruct the US from doing it.

      1. I am reluctant to admit it (given my passionate commitment to LGBT equality) but there is nothing especially wrong with a Christian saying, OK the United States may recognize your marriage but my church does not.

        Even that has practical limits, as was established by the sudden about-face by the Moronic Church with respect to Blacks.

        Fringe wacko cultists can probably get away with that for a while, but the mainstream churches are, sooner rather than later, going to have to be as welcoming of gays as they are of Blacks.

        Probably won’t be that hard for them. Catholic priests, especially, are proportionally much more likely to be gay than the general public, so I suspect that they’ll lead the charge amongst the conservatives. Episcopalians and Reform Jews and similar liberal sects, of course, have long embraced the LGBT community. I won’t be surprised if the Morons are, again, the last holdouts….


        1. But those changes occur because of social pressure rather than governmental fiat. The Free Exercise clause prohibits the government from meddling in any religion’s internal decision-making — though a religious entity’s actions may jeopardize its entitlement to special privileges (as Bob Jones U. found out regarding its ban on interracial dating and its tax-exempt status).

          1. Not in the case of Morons and Blacks. That only happened when the IRS started breathing hard down their necks, at which point they had a mysteriously well-timed revelation….


        2. I’m not sure what headway Catholic priests will make while they still face the 1000+ year policy of celibacy. The Church lumps in heterosexual relations outside of marriage, homosexuality and pedophilia all into the same boat heading straight into the abyss. Technically, they officially accept gay priests now in the same way they accept straight ones–with the mandate of not acting on their desires. Gay priests have 2 hurdles here whereas straight priests have one and it sure as hell doesn’t look like either of these hurdles are getting smaller. This binary thinking that has been established for two millennia is more likely to change only through the steady exodus of the laity in my view.

          1. Could be. At the same time, the war is over.

            I’m sure there’ve got to be at least a few gay priests galled by the fact that they can perform straight marriages (even if they themselves can’t get married) but that they can’t perform gay marriages (which is the type of marriage they’d get if they weren’t priests).

            More to the point, there’s a really big strategic consideration. The Catholics are losing parishioners left and right — and, of course, their donations. The gay ones are going to get married. They can get married in a Catholic church or in some other church or in no church. If the Catholic church won’t marry them but some other will, what do you think the chances are that they’ll ever darken the door of the Catholic church ever again?

            Weddings and funerals are the only times many people wind up in churches, with Christmas and Easter being the primary exceptions. If you’re in the wedding party, you’re more likely to wind up at that same church for Christmas and / or Easter than at the bigoted church that wouldn’t marry your friends.

            I’m sure these and similar points have already occurred to many of the gay priests.


            1. The Church in America is well aware of it’s rapidly declining attendance; however, I see a large contingency of Catholics doubling down in the same way that the American right wing has somehow, against all rationality, determined that they just aren’t conservative enough.

              Part of me would love to see them continue to double down and relegate themselves quickly to the dustbin of history. Even among regular churchgoers, there is much disagreement with the Vatican on topics such as abortion, birth control and divorce. I just don’t think the far right segment is small enough yet to minimize their impact, so maybe a more realistic hope is that the Church as a whole does indeed modernize, but I just don’t see that happening. They have a track record of running several centuries late with progress (see Galileo).

              Perhaps the greatest miracle of all would be if they disappeared tomorrow; I for one would not mourn the loss.

              1. I don’t know how confident I should be in the particulars of how it’ll all play out…but I am confident that, a decade or three from now, gender discrimination in religious marriage will be every bit as incomprehensible as racial discrimination is today.

                The only options for the churches are to adapt or die.


              2. Right on Ben. About 40 years ago in the Goshen College Mennonite Church, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding allowing a divorced and remarried fellow to be a member of the church. He pressed the issue, the congregation had numerous meetings and votes, and they finally accepted him. Today there are Mennonite preachers who are divorced and remarried. And today, some congregations are again wailing and gnashing teeth over gay marriage – the ‘progressive’ congregations understand that this is not much different than 40 years ago and have accepted gay couples. Goshen College and Eastern Mennonite University have raised the hackles of an association of Christian colleges because both schools have issued statements that married gay persons are welcome to be employed. Naturally many schools in the association want the two kicked out, or will themselves leave. Christian unity in action.

  4. I agree, except county clerks in Kentucky are elected not hired.

    But she does deserve to be JAILED for being in contempt of court. Let her sit there for a few months!

  5. What’s this I smell? A ton of bricks falling the heavens?

    Since she’s an elected official, chances are superb that she swore to her Christian God with her hand on the Holy Bible that she would uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States of America. And the word is most emphatically official: that Constitution prohibits her from denying gays the equal protection of the law.

    I seem to remember that oath-breakers such as Ms. Davis spend eternity in one of the nastier districts of Hell.


  6. The problem is, as someone pointed out elsewhere, if she is fired she’ll make more money on the Christian lecture circuit than she does now. It’s probably something she’s hoping for.

  7. Moreover, what’s really silly about this is that she is now famous, and notorious. She could do anything now; she doesn’t need to work in the public sector. There’s plenty of bigots itching to hire someone like her, and she could easily start her own private bigot-business as well. She could even make bigotry her selling point, as this is Kentucky. On the other hand, her continued drag on her county revenues should be ordered to come out of her pocket.

  8. Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
    “God” doesn’t sign her paycheque and her job is not doing god’s work, it’s doing legal work – she is exactly why religion needs to be out of hte public square and an excellent illustration of how religion prevents people from working and playing well with others, eh

  9. I wonder what she would think of a ten year old boy who told her he was an atheist. Although I doubt she would admit it, I would not be surprised if she would want him stoned to death.

    Most of the world is moving on without Kim Davies. It is likely her only friends, so long as she behaves like this, are just like her: ignorant and prejudicial.

  10. Given her marital history and her vehement protestation, one has to wonder if the woman is not a repressed lesbian.

  11. This whore of christ has no right to bend the law to her personal supernatural beliefs. She should be fired and charged for violating the law. She has every right to hold irrational, warped beliefs but cannot apply those federal/state laws. I would argue the opposite if she was the owner of a private business. I guarantee Fox News will praise her as a hero.

    1. Argue the opposite if Davis was the owner of a private business? A rather Rand Paul-ish take there. Thus far, the courts would not agree with you on this position.

  12. This country has a long tradition of civil disobedience. When a person considers a law morally repugnant and chooses to break it, that person should be willing to suffer the consequences. In this case, Ms. Davis should resign her position. But she won’t do that, indicating how little moral integrity she has. Or, perhaps she is looking forward to being sentenced to jail. In that way, she will become the hero of the religious right. She is probably fantasizing about being on FOX news and praised to the skies by Mike Huckabee.

    1. I’m sure all the predictions that she will become a martyr and a darling of the right are accurate, but given her behavior and the manner in which she has carried herself through this embarrassing episode, I’m dubious that she’s a savvy, master-manipulator of the media, playing a long con to get a book deal, or speaking tour.

    1. Could be, but that’s a pretty broad brush to paint with.

      I would ascribe it to a inborn human tendency to xenophobia re-enforced by childhood conditioning.

      It would be considered child abuse if parents did not toilet train their children but when religiously damaged xtians defecate in the public marketplace of ideas their parents get a free pass.

    2. “You can safely assume that you’ve created god in your own image when it turns out that god hates all the same people you do.” (Anne Lamott)

  13. It was Cercone’s mistake to think that all Christians actually practice Christian values.

    In this case I have to agree with Cercone.

    The values she is practicing are right out of her holy book.

    I hasten to add the xtians who act ethically are also practicing xtian values.

    It’s all in there, one big jumbled, incoherent and contradictory mess – the good, the bad, the ugly, the incomprehensible, the banal, the inane and the just plain weird.

    Good people will pick the good values, bad people will pick the bad values.

    And rational people will discard the book and use human values.

  14. Maybe she should go work for God since she claims to be doing “God’s work” for free right now. What a lazy god, getting its followers to do its work.

    I hope her god pays well.

    1. The gods can pay very well. The Pope, for example, probably doesn’t get all that much in the way of direct salary…but you’d be hard pressed to find anybody with a better benefits package.


    2. AH. Atheist do think alike – go work for god was exactly my thinking on this employee.

      After all the good legal input here, I still wonder why the state. Elected official but it is hard to see this at state level. Would she not be a county employee? She would over here in Iowa. If so, the county supervisors should be able to deal with her? If the state legislature of Kentucky has to impeach, that is very unlikely to happen.

  15. KY ACLU, on behalf of the original couple denied a license, have already filed a motion in the District Court (whose order it is that told her not to deny marriage licenses – the 6th Circuit just said “no stay on appeal” and the Supreme Court did likewise, so it’s the original District Court judgment she’s flouting) to hold her in contempt for denying them a license this morning. Hearing is set for Thursday morning.
    The plaintiffs do not ask for incarceration, but for a sufficient financial penalty to compel her to “purge the contempt” and do what she’s been told to do – but it’s almost entirely within the judge’s discretion how he decides to enforce his decision. The problem with even a swingeing fine is that someone else will surely put up the money: the judge may just have to say “do it, quit, or go to jail” or see her continue her ways. And “go to jail”, however justified, is an order no-one really wants to see.
    And someone else (forget who, but Google is your friend if you want to know) filed a criminal complaint with the county attorney for her failure to issue licenses – that request was bounced by the county attorney to the KY state attorney’s office, as I recall.
    Unclear how, or even whether, this will move forward.

    1. Unclear how, or even whether, this will move forward.

      Make no mistrake: those licenses will get issued, and sooner rather than later. The only question is how much heavy artillery fire Davis is going to call down on her own position first.


      1. Ben, that sentence referred to the KY criminal complaint not the whole issue – sorry for the lack of clarity.
        I completely agree that the plaintiffs will get their license; but the consequences to Davis of her act remain unclear.

    2. “And “go to jail”, however justified, is an order no-one really wants to see.”

      Why not? Despite court order, she’s still denying basic civil rights to people, when she could always just resign if she feels she can no longer perform the job she was elected for. And as you pointed out, a fine is likely to be ineffectual. Maybe a couple weeks of jail time is just what’s needed.

      1. The judge can order her jailed until she issues the licenses – there’s a not too old Federal court of appeals case that allows indefinite jail for civil contempt, I guess on the theory that the comtemnor can always comply and purge the contempt.
        But who wins on that? Davis spends time in jail and the religious right gets a martyr. The plaintiffs want a license, not Davis in jail.
        The only wins that I see are:
        she quits, in which case one of the deputy clerks can issue the license, OR
        she is convicted in KY for failure to carry out her job and removed from office, in which case one of the deputy clerks can issue the license – but that’s a slow process.
        If she’s jailed, I suppose the county executive judge could declare her absent and issue the license, and that would moot the case as to the named plaintiffs; but I don’t think that would purge the contempt, though the judge might be inclined to let her out.
        I suppose a state court could hold that her instruction to the deputy clerks was illegal and should be disregarded (or perhaps even state officials could order the deputy clerks to disregard her instruction), but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this is likely.

        I’m with you that she is a civil servant failing to carry out her duty and that this should cost her the job – but KY can’t easily force her out since she is elected, and Federal contempt law is a blunt instrument.

  16. I can’t wait to see if God intervenes on her behalf! So far, he seems to be sitting idly by and being ineffable. Hmmm…

    I read her salary is $80,000 a year – a pretty tidy sum for a dinky town in Kentucky. That red-neck husband of hers might be the first to start squealing for her to do her job if the fines are hefty enough!

    1. She got the job through nepotism and political loyalty. Her Mom hired her as her deputy. It is hard to make $83,400 with those skills in the private sector.
      Generations before, there were religious objections to mixed marriages. Same situation, same remedies.

  17. In the UK, and I guess in many other countries, this person would be an appointed employee of the local authority. She would be required to carry out the duties of her position, and subject to disciplinary procedures if she failed to do so.

    There have been a couple of similar cases in the UK (sorry,can’t find the references) where the individual has lost their case of ‘conscience’ up to and including the European Court of Human Rights. This seems to me to be fair and due process. The notion that an ‘elected’ official should be able to resist a legal ruling seems bizarre.

    Are all such officials elected in all states, or only some? And if so, why not the members of SCOTUS…

    1. Each state has its own rules and things can get confusing about who is elected and who is hired (or even if the job exists and what the roles are) and the relative power of state, county, incorporated town/city, or townships. Some states have generally large counties and some relatively small ones (Kentucky seems to go for small, it has 120 counties more than any other state except Texas or Georgia even though it is 37th in area and 26th by population, Rowan county has less than 25,000 residents and 286 square miles [741 square kilometers, a bit smaller than the Isle of Anglesey though far fewer people]).

      1. 25,000 residents are taxed to cover that one clerk’s $83,400 a year salary? That’s $3 per resident per year, just for that one employee! And I bet they don’t average near what she does, even with two employed adults in the household!

        There’s something really rank.

  18. Where’s the gang of apologists like Karen Armstrong and Reza Aslan claiming this isn’t religiously motivated or isn’t true religion? It’s likely northeastern elitists making her act this way, yeah that must be it…

  19. I’d have someone else issue the licenses to the homosexual couples. I haven’t been able to find out if that is what happened – if licenses were issued by someone else in the office. Davis should have been reassigned pending the court’s ruling and once the ruling came out against her, she should have been transferred to another position or fired.

    We have to keep in mind that in Davis’s deluded mind, she is being courageously righteous – trying to see to it that His will be done. Unfortunately, she cannot see that to us she may as well be saying she is acting on the authority of the tooth faerie.

    Davis also seems unable to appreciate that if she were to prevail in imposing her religious beliefs on everyone, she would be opening the door for Moslem’s and practitioners of Santeria to impose their beliefs on all of us as well.

  20. Many people have declared that they were or are acting “under God’s authority”. All it means is that they are ashamed of their actions and want to shift the blame.

    1. While we’re on the same side, I disagree with that. I don’t think that they’re ashamed at all. We have to realize that these sorts of individuals are still in a state of infancy. They have submitted to an imaginary father figure, and have their minds fully in the “off” position, preferring instead to just follow what sky-daddy says. They have been hypnotized by a book. One book. A primitive, pre-scientific book written by superstitious, patriarchal, ignorant, tribal men. They don’t have to lift a single brain cell, they just follow the book.

      So sad that these impoverished “beliefs” still exist in 2015, but…..believing is easier than thinking, thus, so many more believers than thinkers.

      1. I agree. Generally, they claim to be “humbling themselves before the Almighty.” They are but a meager servant to his will.

        The more self-righteous ones go so far as to flaunt their faux humility by saying, “Even if I didn’t agree, this is God’s law, not my law. Who am I to question the maker of the Universe?” Then, in one fell swoop they manage to act as a humble servant while having the incredible arrogance to proclaim that they have a hotline to the desires of an omni-powerful being. Of course, in practice, they always do agree with whatever bigoted principle they are standing up for as can be attested by the fact that “If I didn’t agree” is almost always their choice of words…

  21. If she thinks she is being a good Christian, she needs to read Romans chapter 13. That bit of scripture says she should obey the government powers because g-d has put them in place.

    Of course, she would probably counter that as an elected official, she is the power that has been put in place by g-d.

  22. This is an irking case but also an interesting one that rises some question about the American justice system.
    I know now this woman can’t be fired because she is an elected official. She can just be impeached (unlikely in a red state) or found guilty of contempt by a court. The most probable outcome of this is the application of a fine and I bet she knows that someone else is going to come in her help, which could be a single donor or by raising a fund among the wing nuts (the millions of bigots who are ready to donate to other bigots). In this case my question is: how much time the fine is going to allow her to buy? You can be fined for parking where is not permitted, but you have to move your car or you are going to accumulate another fine tomorrow. So, the lady is going to be fined, some other bigots are going to pay the fine, but does she have to comply next day? next week? next month? or is she going to be buying forever her right to discriminate an disobey the law?
    Any lawyer or someone savvier than me to help me with this?
    In the case she is convicted to time in jail, can I assume an interim is going to be appointed, not by the lady but someone else? and that the new official is going to have to comply immediately with his duties?
    I think the lady and her advisers have already thought about all these possibilities and their strategy is to stretch the issue as much as she can, becoming a martyr, a right winger’s hero, and maybe running later for a higher office.

    1. Another remedy that might be available is Recall. They sometimes do it to Governors. I just think she is a county official so if elected, the county should be able to take care of it.

    2. If the judge finds her in contempt, and this is civil contempt and not criminal contempt, fines and/or imprisonment can be applied until the contempt is purged – there is, as far as I know, very little limit on the judge’s power, since (as I mention in 26 above), she can always do what she’s been told to and relieve herself of the penalties.
      At least one of her deputy clerks is reportedly willing to issue licenses, and some others not: the problem is that she has told them all not to.

  23. I’m not aware of any Biblical injunction against same gender marriage, just same gender sex, and I suspect that ship has already sailed for the couples she’s denying. Not that she could stop that, anyway.

    1. That’s really following the letter and not the spirit of Biblical law.

      And I’m pretty sure the various men who wrote the passages in the Bible condemning homosexual activity were worried about same sex relationships, not same gender.

      *Ugh. I included that link for the few passages it had at the top, but then skimmed through the rest of it. Now I feel dirty.

      1. “That’s really following the letter and not the spirit of Biblical law.”

        Rather the reverse, I think. The sex will continue regardless of whether they’re married or not.

        1. The letter of Biblical law says that the two shall be put to death by stoning.

          Which, of course, is simultaneously evidence that American laws are most emphatically not Biblical in origin nor inspiration; evidence that it’s a damned good thing they’re not; and evidence that the Abrahamic religions are very, very, very evil.


            1. Hmm…I’d have to do the research. I know death is specified for homosexuality, and I know stoning is often the specified method of execution, but it’s possible I could be conflating the two in my mind.

              But I’m sure it’s not worth my time to go digging….


    2. > just same gender sex

      Not even that. Just male-male incest (Google “lyings of a woman”). The women can do as they please (Leviticus). And Jesus approved a gay couple: Google (centurion pais).

      1. “And Jesus approved a gay couple: Google (centurion pais).”

        I did, and the gay couple interpretation seems a stretch. It appears to be a minority opinion.

  24. If she really cared about her principles she’d step down from the job and let someone who can do all it requires run for the office. She must think that by being stubborn she can make the Supreme Court change its mind. Or perhaps she’s following command hallucinations from gawd.

    1. “If she really cared about her principles she’d step down from the job”

      No, I don’t think so. I’m sure there are some moral values that you’d go down fighting for, rather than merely stepping aside.

  25. I hear she’s just trying to get revenge. Apparently an Irish Catholic hairdresser denied her service at his salon because she’s a Protestant and she never got over it.

  26. This will get resolved according to the rule of law. She will be held in contempt and then can decide to what extent she wants to carry her ‘principled stand’. Civil disobedience is a perfectly reasonable tactic if one wants to draw attention to (what one considers) unjust or unethical laws. Sometimes, for example draft resistance during the Viet Nam conflict, acts of civil disobedience can sway society and influence how laws are interpreted or even get their repeal.

    Once must be prepared to accept the consequences of these acts, however. Kim Davis can certainly refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay people, but she cannot both refuse and carry out her duties as an elected official. As she is on the losing side of this particular social issue, her act of defiance will likely not sway anyone who does not already hold her views (and may alienate some of them).

    Too bad she’s getting such media attention.

  27. I was listening to this story on NPR, and at first I was feeling some qualified sympathy for this clerk who was, by her reckoning, between a rock and a hard place.
    But then I heard quotes of what she has said toward gay people trying to get married, and the pennies fell from my eyes. I suppose she can be re-assigned, but if not then fire her. She won’t be missed.

    1. I was feeling some qualified sympathy for this clerk who was, by her reckoning, between a rock and a hard place.

      I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to express sympathy. I’m sure many other readers here, including myself, can even empathize with her position while at the same time dismissing it for the vile position it is.

      I have no doubt that this woman has a legitimate fear of eternal damnation should she perform these ceremonies. Given that, it is rational to act the way she is acting. This whole situation beautifully illuminates the problems that religion can cause. I don’t know that there is much hope she turns from her views at her age, but you never know. A much more likely outcome is that young people will see her opponents as good human beings and with each passing generation, these people’s beliefs eill continue to be marginalized.

      1. Is no-one else legally permitted to issue marriage licenses? What happens when she takes her annual holiday?

        I assume some assistant deputises. Well, the silly baggage should simply pass it over to her assistant if she won’t do it herself.


  28. I think she needs to be sentenced to community service (cultural sensitivity training) with LBGTQ human rights organization.

    1. Excellent idea! And let the community service continue as long as she is in contempt of court! That’s way better than a fine or jail time!

      She’d probably refuse to do it, though. I wonder how she could be made to do it…

      In the process, she just might find that the LGBTQ are loving, caring human beings, even moreso than she sees herself. Her Grinch heart might grow a few sizes.

      Yes, your idea is exactly what she needs.

  29. At one time, I lived in a place where the motor vehicle department duties were administered by the county sheriff, who was elected. This wasn’t the entire state, but only places with low population, so things could get a bit odd. The sheriff was elected.

    Imagine that a Muslim were elected sheriff. Not likely there, but as a thought experiment. Now imagine that he is of a sect that believes that women should not operate a motor vehicle or be in public unaccompanied. I know that there are Christian sects with similar beliefs, but given the parties involved here, I’ll go with Muslim.

    If he, this hypothetical sheriff, were to refuse to issue driver licenses to women based on his religious beliefs, what do you think the response of this bigot in KY would be? What if, instead of being an elected official, he were just a general purpose DMV employee?

  30. According to reports: Kim Davis got pregnant with her third husband’s twins while married to her first husband. Her second husband adopted them before she moved on to her fourth husband.

    You don’t even need a dog or a truck to make this a country song – or an episode of “Trailer Park Boys”!

  31. A county Clerk in Kentucky
    Thought gay couples were yucky
    She took it to court
    The answer was short
    You’ll keep your job if you’re lucky

  32. I don’t understand the religious defense – these are applications for civil marriages that we are talking about.

    Also, for once I wish that people like her and her defenders would be honest. Would they support a fundamentalist Muslim clerk who refused to grant driver’s licenses to women?

    They aren’t for “religious freedom”; they are for imposing their religious beliefs on others.

  33. I wonder how many of her supporters would be so supportive if she were a Quaker, and denying them their gun licenses because of her passivism.

    1. And her son just took over top spot, can anyone spell nepotism?, job has gone from grandma to daughter to grandson. He’s refusing to issue marriage licenses as well, maybe at this rate will get the whole inbred family in jail!

      1. From the article: “She also claims that “this is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes…”

        I nailed it (pardon the expression) in my earlier comment. Just follow me, for I am a prophet! She’s terrified of Hell. Sitting in a secular jail instead of suffering eternally is infinitely more rational than the alternative, were it true. This is the evil part of religion. Make no mistake about it.

        1. The gay couples and their lawyer(s) offered a deal that the judge approved: She could be released from jail, if she allowed someone working under her to issue the marriage licenses. She refused, of course.

Leave a Reply