Kim Davis remains in jail, but seeks compromise

September 4, 2015 • 1:00 pm

Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for contempt of court for failing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples (she directly violated a Supreme Court order), clearly doesn’t like having her tuchus in stir. Ordered to remain in jail until she complies with the Court, Davis has now proposed a compromise. According to CNN:

Mat Staver, Davis’ attorney, told CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that his client would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.

“Because that in her understanding and mind is authorizing something that is contrary to her Christian values and convictions,” he said. “That’s where the conscience rub is.”

Davis’ husband, Joe, told reporters Friday that his wife was willing to remain in jail until the state government allows her to keep her name off the licenses.

That’s not satisfactory, for as county clerk her name must be on the licenses. If it isn’t, she’s not doing her job, and the licenses will not have the proper imprimatur. I don’t know how long she will stay in jail before she agrees to follow the order, for she appears to adhere strongly to her faith and she may be in a long while. But there’s an easier solution to the problem. If she wants to get out of jail free, she should resign her position.

I can’t say that this photo causes me much distress:

150903174608-kim-davis-mug-large-169

*******

On a related note, reader Doug N. alerted me to a nice piece about Davis’s religious defense written by John Corvino, a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit: “Davis defenders no better at interpreting Bible than interpreting Constitution.” (He had a nice piece in the Detroit Free Press about her, too.) By now Davis’s tortuous marital history is widely known; as Corvino notes:

. . . “she has been divorced multiple times, which shows how inconsistent she is in enforcing Biblical law. Others have made the point more sharply, noting that she became pregnant with twins from husband number three while married to husband number one, in Maury-Povich-worthy twists. Husband number two, who adopted the twins, is also her current, fourth husband.

Davis’s own answer, and that of her defenders, is that these are past actions, and ones that have been forgiven by God. As another country clerk said, ““That’s something that’s forgivable just like any other sin, but if you continue in it and live in it, there’s a grave danger in that.” But Corvino quotes the Bible in his response:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10: 11-12).

Notice that, in Jesus’ words, divorced and remarried people are not people who did sin (past tense) and then had their slate wiped clean. They are people who are sinning, as persistent and unrepenent adulterers. Why isn’t there “grave danger in that”?

Why? Because Davis and her defenders are doing what all Christians do: cherry-pick morality from the Bible.

160 thoughts on “Kim Davis remains in jail, but seeks compromise”

  1. I got your bible verse, lady

    “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ).[Matthew 22:21]

    Problem solved.

    1. I also think this one applies, although it might as well have been removed from the Bible:

      “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

      1. Was her job to issue gun licenses too? What about that verse about weapons and plough shares? (Plow for you USians.)

    2. Really. If her religious conviction is really that strong, she should have no problem resigning from a position that requires her to participate in sin or whatever it is she’s saying. The fact that she’s clinging to the job in the face of that contradiction shows she’s more tied to “the things that are Caesar’s” than her god’s things.

      But, of course, continuing to analyse the mind of this small-town bigot is a pointless exercise. I just can’t wait to see how it ends! Maybe a position as a Faith Correspondent on Fox News?

    3. YES – she must follow the law, otherwise she is NOT “rendering to Caesar” what his his. The LAWS of the land are NOT among “…the things that are God’s”.
      If she were to follow this quote (Matthew 22:21) she would issue the licenses.

          2. Could be. He literally ascended clean off the Mount of Olives rather than hang out with his buds.

            Hmmm. Mount Olive sounds rather like something Popeye might’ve liked to do. But enough in-u-endo.

            Can you count the number of innuendos on this page?

            I feel like James Burke, in “Connections”.

          3. The way I’ve heard the tale told, Jesus took the matter firmly in hand, stood tall, and explosively thrust himself up into the welcoming embrace of his Father above him. As they came together, Jesus was heard to ejaculate, “I and my Father are one.”

            Not that there’s anything worng with that. I mean, pretty much standard practice for divine relations in the Mediterranean of that era.

            b&

  3. How about if Kim’s current husband were to be denied spousal benefits (health care though the county, etc.) on the equally valid religious grounds that her present marriage is not valid because divorce is an abomination in the eyes of God?

  4. I’m not particularly impressed by this particular argument applied to this particular case. If Davis now views her past actions as a “sin” from which she has “repented,” then she might very well happily agree that why, yes — she should have been refused a marriage license back then. Doing so might have helped lead her to Christ even earlier!

    More pertinent to the argument might be an analogy where a clerk refuses to grant marriage licenses to Born Again Christians because of their personal conviction that God doesn’t really bless their marriages.

  5. I think these several lines, from right after the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount, pretty much cover the entire situation and put it in its appropriately hypocritical and horrific context:

    Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

    [So why hasn’t she agreed with her adversary at all, let alone quickly?]

    26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

    [Or at least resigned her position]

    27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

    [News to Davis!]

    28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    [How many members of the Davis household are missing limbs and organs from righteous self-mutiliation? What’s that? Not a single one? Fancy that.]

    31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

    32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

    It’s one thing to be completely batshit fucking insane. But to be completely batshit fucking insane and yet shit in the face of the imaginary friend writing your ticket to Hell?

    Damn, but that woman’s an idiot.

    b&

    1. you know what I wonder.I wonder what would happen if Christians started reacting like Muslims do.Would judges be more careful?Would newspapers think more about what they print? Would big mouth internet posters be careful what they posted.Would immoral celrbrities keep their opinions to themselves.You will persecute Christians into non existence in America.There will be no military as 80 per cent of our military is Christian.Then ISIS or Al Qaeda or Iran will come for you and you will find out what truly extremist religion looks like.

      2. There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, it is simply not accurate to suggest that that many people have a monolithic reaction to anything. Are you actually suggesting that there should be some small faction of militant Christians whom behave as ISIS, al Shabab or al Qaeda behave? A sort of Jesus Jihad? Help me out here, please tell me I interpreted your comment incorrectly.

      3. “I wonder what would happen if Christians started reacting like Muslims do.”

        Well, nobody would expect it. Your chief weapon would be surprise. Surprise, and fear. (Am I forgetting anything?)

    2. Have you no mercy? GoFundMe has refused her (her supporters)! Is there no end to the persecution?

      2. Is GoFundMe for-profit? If so, are they refusing on account of their high-minded principles, or on account of protecting their “brand,” as for-profit types are wont to do?

      1. Of course. Can’t have any Jesus without chesemakers to make them.

        Anybody fancy some Wensleydale? Perhaps a nice wedge of Camembert, or some shavings of Reggiano?

        b&

  7. Ooh! I just had a great idea!

    She can sin like fuck for the rest of the year, convert to Catholicism on the last day of the Jubilee, get absolved for all of it, and go back to being a sanctimonious asshole the next day.

    b&

          1. If you haven’t checked out John Oliver’s bit on starting his own church, by all means look it up on Youtube.

          2. …and, if the spirits move you to give, you can give generously with a clean conscience. He’ll be closing the church sooner rather than later, and giving all donations he receives to Doctors Without Borders.

            b&

  8. Ah, yes another true Defender of the scriptual sanctity of the institution, that marriage is ordained by g*d to be between one woman and one man, and then to another man, and then to the man you committed adultery with, then to another man, and then back to the man that adopted your bastard twins. I’m guessing that’s in Leviticus?

    3. I find myself contemplating a woman (married to the father of the below twins) adopting the “bastard twins” of another woman. That can happen, right? Or not?

      Also, what’s the opposite of that term of endearment, “bastard,” (other than “non-bastard”)?

      1. Also, what’s the opposite of that term of endearment, “bastard,” (other than “non-bastard”)?

        “Legitimate.” As my dad likes to observe, it’s really, really difficult to think of how a child could somehow be illegitimate simply because of the marital status of the parents at the time of conception.

        b&

        1. I certainly agree with your dad.

          If “legitimate” is the opposite of “bastard,” then is “bastard” synonymous with “illegitimate”?

          Looked at “bastard” on http://www.etymonline.com. Noted that William the Conqueror referred to as “William the Bastard” on certain legal documents. So I guess it’s not a totally offensive term, although who nowadays uses it without intent of offense?

          I’ve never heard it directed at women, only men. (Though if a woman’s parents were unmarried at the time of her birth, she would be described as a “bastard child” by those noble souls inclined to so describe an innocent infant. And later a good chance she would have it hurled at her by cruel juvenile human primate schoolmates.)

          I see no positive point in mention ever being made, wherever, about the KY clerk’s “bastard twins.” What have they possibly to do with their mother’s decision-making/circumstances?

          1. The circumstance of their birth is exemplary of her gross hypocrisy when wielding her religious beliefs. I agree that it’s not a positive point, but it certainly is relevant.

          2. Except that her hypocrisy is irrelevant to her actions. So what if she’s being hypocritical, no one would care if she just did her job. Shaming her for her marriages, adultery, whatever personal choices she’s made, is really beside the point. She didn’t follow the law, for whatever reason, so now she’s in jail.

          3. The point is, she’s claiming her Xtian principles override the law. Fair enough to point out that her principles weren’t always so rigidly Xtian, IMO.

            cr

          4. It is precisely her actions that make the hypocrisy relevant. As you note: no one would care if she just did her job; but her refusal to do her job is exactly what makes the hypocrisy palpable.

      1. She’s always got a great response to these things – there’s a meme she’s done for this situation that I saw a couple of days ago too.

          1. Isn’t the caption to that cartoon just the most wonderful thing you’ve read this week? It merits reprinting here:

            “Smelling cash contributions, parasitic grifter Mike Huckabee latches onto criminal Kim Davis to pander to rightwing persecution complexes.”

            The spirit of Mencken lives!

  9. Ms Davis should have said “In good conscience, I cannot continue to issue marriage licenses, so I immediately resign my position.” Then she could be a Christian martyr, and perhaps deserving of a small modicum of respect. (Yes, I know “small modicum” is redundant.)

    2. Yes. That would be the proper way to protest, and I could respect that. I’d still it daft. People seem to be too easily accepting her main claim, which is that *issuing a license with her name on it somehow implies her approval*. But that is wrong, since even the most extreme fanatic would not think granting her a license to plant a tree implies approval of the kind of tree she choose to plant for instance (if her religion frowns on the larch). But this false premise seems widely accepted.

    3. Exactly. Thus the contempt. She hasn’t been jailed for prcticing her religion. She’s been jailed for trying to use the government to enforce her religious beliefs on others.

    4. But then she wouldn’t be making $80,000 a year.

      Her mother held the same position for decades before her and her son works in the same office. County clerk is basically the family business.

  10. 3 possible outcomes, each of which resembles a kind of “happy ending”:

    1. She resigns and gets out of jail.
    2. She stubbornly refuses to resign and her term in office expires and she gets out of jail.
    3. She is impeached while doing time and gets out of jail.

      1. 5. She plays the martyr to the bone, becomes a Christian media darling, then gives interview after interview about how she was “persecuted” by the evil secularists whom have taken over government in an effort to imprison Christians, turn your kids gay and force you to watch soccer.
        I actually hear that she’s going to have to watch the Alabama vs Wisconsin game in Standard Def on a jailhouse TV.
        Will the madness never stop?!?!?!

        1. 6. Rapture.

          According to Fox News, it’s imminent.

          Although, since she’s a Democrat, she might get left behind. That would be embarrassing.

        2. What if she were atheist and issued the marriage licenses, but could not care less for football? Would that be a sign of madness?

          2. I remember clearly the day when I, among the Orange and White ecstatic masses giving themselves over to the sacraments surrounding that oblate spheroid in Neyland Stadium in Knoxville, TN, asked myself to the effect, “What am I doing here? How is this contributing to my quality of life?”

      2. She’s an elected official the only way to leave are

        1. lose or not stand the next election which is a few years down the line
        2. resign
        3. die
        4. be impeached (process can’t start until the legislature next meets which is scheduled for January)

        Recall elections are apparently not possible in Kentucky

  14. “Davis’ husband, Joe, told reporters Friday that his wife was willing to remain in jail …”

    Now that’s mighty generous of her!

    1. i’m joey the fourth, i am
      joey the fourth, i am, i am
      i got married to the bigot next door
      she’s been married three whole times before

      and every one was an hetero
      she wouldn’t wed a willy to a man
      i’m her fourth old man, i’m joey
      joey the fourth i am

      second verse, same as the first …

      (apologies to herman and his hermits)

  15. I think it is time the good folks of Rowan County, KE, demand a financial audit of their County Clerk’s office.

  16. Her cherry picking is irrelevant to her claim of a religious exemption. That’s the law and it’s also consistent with what most of us here say about ISIS. Just as there isn’t only One True Islam to claim ISIS isn’t, there isn’t One True X, where X is any religion, that adherents must prove fealty to to claim an exemption. She can be a dreadful christian and still claim an exemption, if a religious exemption would apply.

    However her claim to religious exemption is baseless. She is not being required to perform any private act, such as to eat bacon, and she is not being asked to express approval of gay sex, or indeed to express any opinion or belief at all. No-one imagines granting a license to plant a tree implies approval of the tree.

    Further she is not engaged in civil resistance either. In civil resistance you defy a law and accept the costs of doing so, but she is inflicting the costs on couples who wish to wed while continuing to accept her salary.

    1. Indeed. As I’ve commented above (above?), she is attempting to use the government to enforce her religious beliefs on other people.

      1. Here is an intelligent discussion of the law that suggests she might, alas, have a case under Kentucky’s RFRA law.

        I don’t agree because I don’t think her name on a license in any way implies approval, as I have said above, but this is a good article.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/

        If Volokh is right than we need to repeal some of these laws!

  17. She went to jail, due to her inability to separate her duties under the Constitution and her new found relationship with her god. No doubt, she brought this on herself. However, given her history of marital mistakes and personal troubles, I’d cut the woman some slack, and just go with sign or resign. No gloating here.

  18. I feel a little bit sorry for Kim Davis and the position she has found herself in.

    When she was elected to her position she had no problems fulfilling her duties. Since then it is as if her employment contract has been unilaterally altered by her employer without any form of consultation.

    Perhaps my less than outright condemnation of her actions is the result of viewing employment law from the east side of the Atlantic, where it is illegal for an employer to change a contract without any form of consultation.

    1. Not convinced. Her contract was essentially to uphold and implement the law as it relates to the county clerks officeThat should come with a reasonable expectation that laws will change during a term in office. Given that her term began this year it was a good guess at the time she ran that this was a likely outcome. It’s not like she is being asked to marry people, just to confirm that they meet the legal criteria for marriage thus allowing someone else to perform the rite.

      1. I fully appreciate the argument you are putting forward, but I have also considered another hypothetical situation which I think is equivalent.

        I am performing a role where my signature is required to ensure prisoners are correctly processed. As the result of a change to the law capital punishment has been reintroduced and my signature is now an integral part of the steps required to execute someone. If I don’t provide my signature the execution can’t go ahead.

        I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t be happy providing my signature.

        1. First, comparing marriage with murder is a rather dicey rhetorical play, not one I’d recommend.

          But, even in your scenario…the proper response would be one of flat-out civil disobedience, which is not what Davis is attempting. She’s bargaining with the Court, suggesting that, if they let the marriages go through but without her signature, she’d be okay with that. In the murder example, you should absolutely refuse to participate, even to make things easy for others to participate. If you could indefinitely postpone the murders for the rest of your natural life by yourself remaining in prison, that would be what would be called for — and not some sort of technicality that would let you keep collecting a paycheck by letting somebody else sign the murder orders for you.

          No; Davis is a coward and a bigot and an idiot, and deserves damned little sympathy.

          b&

        2. That’s fine, so you either do it or resign. You don’t have the right to continue taking pay as a public official and not doing your job, your sworn official duty. One can think of all sorts of examples, and yours is a good one, I think. They can be right wing or left, Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist. But none of that matters. You do the job or resign. Perhaps “reasonable accommodation” can work — move the troubled individual from one department to another. But in this case, there is nowhere to move the elected County Clerk, and she insists her signature is required and that her deputies follow her orders. Nope. No respect for her views, either substantively in this case, nor legally. But in the final analysis only the legal problem need concern us. She is in contempt of a final Federal court order determining the case against her. So resign or suffer the consequences. Peacenik or raving nutcase “Apostolic Christian” loony, doesn’t matter.

    2. But it’s inherent in the contract that laws do change and when they do you must adapt. That’s already accepted when you accept the role.

      In fact, Davis was last elected in 2014 and the possibility that gay marriage would soon be legalized by the Supreme Court was a very live possibility indeed. She knew very well that the likelihood was that she’d be in exactly this position. She wasn’t blindsided or caught unawares by forces outside of her control. This is a very planned and controlled protest.

    3. No. Her contract will be to fulfill her duties under the law as it exists at any given moment. Period. Laws, by-laws, and regulations change all the time.

    4. [My comment is similar to the two which now immediately precede it. “Ninja’d”, I think they call it in internet-speak? Bright minds and so forth.]

      Yeah, but nobody changed her contract. As a public official she undoubtedly swore an oath to uphold the laws of Kentucky and the United States. Marriage equality became the law of the land in all 50 states (it had already been granted in 36 states anyway) when the US Supreme Court delivered its opinion on June 26, and thousands of county clerks went right on quietly doing their jobs, issuing marriage licenses to all couples that met the legal requirements. Kim Davis could have done the same, or, as many have said, simply resigned her position if she felt she couldn’t fulfill her responsibilities.

      It’s not even about marriage! The Bible doesn’t have a word to say about same-sex marriage. It’s the same-sex sex that the Bible condemns, and that these Christian asshats can’t abide. I am led to believe that’s continuing without interruption, whether or not the relationships are solemnized by the state. So this whole will-of-God, “higher law than the Constitution” stuff is just a phony excuse for them to trumpet their piety, to “take a stand” in the face of the changing social landscape. Which they have the right to do, within the limits of the law, and not at the expense of couples who are claiming their own rights.

      2. I wrote something similar in the comment thread to another of these Kim Davis posts, but saying, “The Bible doesn’t have a word to say about same-sex marriage. It’s the same-sex sex that the Bible condemns, and that these Christian asshats can’t abide.” is really looking at the letter of Biblical law and not the spirit. Do you really think that the various writers/editors/redactors who put together the books of the Bible that condemn homosexual sex would have been okay with celibate homosexual marriages? For that matter, do you think they would even have been okay with celibate heterosexual marriages?

        I’d just as soon not argue the finer points of Biblical interpretation with Christians on this issue, since it’s really beside the point. Our government is secular, and we have the First Amendment saying that government can’t impose religion on the people. Kim Davis in this case is the government, and can’t impose her religion on the couples asking for marriage licenses.

    5. Her contract didn’t change in the slightest. The oath she swore, when she took office begins;

      “I do solemnly swear 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;”

      She broke the contract, in that she did not support the Constitution of the United States, nor did she faithfully execute her office according to law.

      1. Thanks for tracking that down.

        It seems that I am in a minority of one on this issue, and it would appear that I am wrong in equating a position that requires a pretty general purpose oath with one that has a contract and enumerates ones duties.

        As for your last point, can you tell me which article or amendment of the Constitution of the United States has changed since she was elected? I can understand how she didn’t “faithfully execute her office according to law” since the law has changed, but how “she did not support the Constitution of the United States.”

        1. On June 26 the Supreme Court determined that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates both the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution. That means that until the Constitution is amended, or the Court changes its mind, marriage equality the law of the land.

        2. In essence her role as clerk is to review and then sign a piece of paper. In that sense nothing has changed. She’s not being asked to put a lipstick mark on the paper, or perfume the paper.
          Her function has in no way changed. The difference is she’s taking a step further and making personal characteristics of the signatories her business when it isn’t.
          She’s overstepping.

        3. The Fourteenth Amendment states, “No State shall […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has recently ruled that same-sex couples are denied that protection when states refuse to recognize marriages they would otherwise grant to different-sex couples.

          Part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. By refusing to grant licenses to same-sex couples, she is denying them the equal protection of the laws.

          b&

          1. Is it a propitious time to have another go at the Equal Rights Amendment? Or does the Fourteenth Amendment suffice?

          2. I don’t think the ERA has a realistic chance in the current misogynistic Republican-dominated climate. However, the Fourteenth Amendment is increasingly being used to guarantee a gender-neutral legal system, so there’s less need for the ERA today than in past generations.

            That said, were somebody on the left to pick it up again, it would do wonders to move the Overton Window back in a sane direction.

            b&

    6. I might agree with you if she was working for a private corporation. But she isn’t; she’s working for the State of Kentucky. States and the federal government change the laws she is sworn to uphold every year, and this annual change has been a consistent pattern for literally hundreds of years. So any civil servant who claims they were caught completely by surprise because, OMG, the Supreme Court ruled differently than before on a case or because a legislature passed a new law…yeah sorry, no, I don’t see any basis for complain there. Legal stasis is simply not a reasonable expectation. This is junior high civics stuff, not something that should catch any adult civil servant by surprise.

      Now I understand that maybe some people don’t like jobs where the laws they swear to uphold change every year. In that case, go work for corporate America where contract details don’t change. But don’t complain that this aspect of government surprised you or was unexpected, because its been the norm in our country since the late 1700s.

  19. The picture makes me a little sad. She could (and should) have been fired from her job, why put her behind bars? What is that going to solve? If anything it reinforces the perception that Christians are being persecuted.

      1. I didn’t know that. Still, if being a confused religious bigot is punishable with imprisonment, a lot of people would qualify. It just seems disproportionate for a non-violent crime.

          1. I guess it’s all legally sound but I doubt if it makes society any better. In terms of religiously inspired bad behavior I deem scumbags like Peter Popoff much worse, and yet he walks free.

          2. So… This lady violating her oath of office and denying people their legally guaranteed rights while serving as a govt. official shouldn’t be punished because Popoff is a piece of crap?

            Nonsense. Both should be punished; her by the legal system, since her offense is an illegal one, and Popoff by social means, since his offense is being an asshat. One offense has nothing to do with the other.

        2. She’s not being punished for being a confused religious bigot. She’s being held in custody until she consents to comply with a direct court order. She has the keys to the jail in her pocket and can leave any time she wants; all she has to do is comply with the order.

          b&

          1. Yes. The fact that the law she won’t comply with is a religious one is actually purely incidental.

        3. While Kim Davis is in jail, same-sex couple can get marriage licenses. She made it quite clear that she wouldn’t allow that if she was free.

    2. She is an elected official so she can’t be fired, only impeached or recalled. She can, however, resign, which would be the honorable thing to do.

    3. If she had blocked your marriage for a month, even though you had no connection, because she didn’t approve of the match, even though she was just a paper-pusher CLERK you’d be looking for redress. Now she is offered accomodations but rejects them and she is violating the law. She says she doesn’t like your kind.
      She brought this on herself. She could have quit. Hard for someone of her limited skills to make $83,400 in her county. Actions have consequences.

  20. If you break your oath then recall or impeachment should be kind of automatic. This is particularly true when firing is not an option. Hell, they have attempted to impeach two presidents and would have a third if he had not resigned.

    The killer is this. She will most likely continue to receive her tax payer’s paid salary while sitting in the crowbar hotel. The joke is on Kentucky.

  21. I don’t see how her compromise changes things – she will issue the licenses if her name and signature aren’t on them? She’s still issuing them – does she think Jesus won’t realize that?

    It’s a bit like those nuns who have to cover up in the bath in case God sees them – he can see all the way from Heaven and through the roof, ceiling, and any upper floors, but not a plastic sheet?

    As others have said above, the thing to do would have been to resign. That’s taking a moral stand, and for that she would deserve respect for standing up for her principles, if not for the principles themselves.

    And just as an aside – all this business about gouging out eyes and cutting off hands that lust? Why don’t they just tell these “sinners” to cut of their dicks? The Bible was written by men you say? Well, I’d never have guessed that!

    How many of you guys made an unconscious protective movement at the mere mention? 🙂 Or shouldn’t I even joke about stuff like that?

    1. You can joke but not many guys are going to be laughing. Makes sense but then, look at who wrote the rules. That appendage gets a pass.

    1. Is it the significance/notoriety of the events leading to the as-a-matter-of-procedure mug shot – or something about the mug shot itself – which has resulted in this popularity?

  23. Husband number two, who adopted the twins, is also her current, fourth husband.

    We had a guy like that on the rig once. Canuck with IIRC six alimonies to 4 women.
    We considered him clinically mad at the time. Six weeks on and two weeks off – that’s living for work, not working for a living. Not allowed these days.

  24. I’ve got the solution! She can keep her name off of wedding licenses by keeping her ass out of the job!

    Next case!

  25. That’s not satisfactory, for as county clerk her name must be on the licenses. If it isn’t, she’s not doing her job, and the licenses will not have the proper imprimatur.

    I don’t see that as a critical part of government. If the State of Kentucky wanted to decide to change the name on the bottom of the form to the governor or Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court with the clerk acting as a proxy, I wouldn’t be outraged. However (a) until/without such a change, she shouldn’t be allowed to keep her job while refusing to do it, and (b) I really doubt that’s going to happen. I doubt very much that the Governor or the legislature care that much about her to go to the trouble.

    In fact if I had to guess, I’d bet that the thought running through their minds right now is “how do we get this idiot out of government as fast as possible while still looking sympathetic to her in public?”

  26. (Not sure if I mentioned this)
    My facebook background pic is her mugshot, with the rainbow overlay.

  27. Isn’t it convenient how many of these moral crusaders turn out to have questionable pasts? God* must have a supreme sense of irony.

    (*If God existed, that is)

    cr

  28. A had a discussion with a Lutheran minister about this yesterday and explained my view that religious thinking cripples critical thinking. She accused me of “intellectualism.” She asked me to provide her with empirical evidence that her church causes harm. I found a publication on her church’s demographics, which points to her church being so white, it can’t even stratify by race and that only 22-37% of its members have college degrees. I said this was a tragedy in the modern era, an unacceptable insularity and instance of institutional racism, and a signifier of illiteracy. Instead of talking about the Trinity, their church’s identity, and ways to encourage membership, they should urgently devote their resources to engagement with the secular world; their members should be fast-tracked into universities and urged to go into fields that expand their economic and intellectual horizons. She then accused me of having a big ego and thinking that people’s lives are only good if they have college degrees. To this I explained that my view of a good life is one that is prosperous, free from unnecessary and avoidable health problems. When the poor bear the burden of our society’s chronic diseases – obesity, diabetes, psychological distress – it’s an ethical imperative for churches to steer their members towards the best possible lives they can have. And to do this, they need to get out of churches and into environments where they have the opportunity to learn and connect with others in ways that position them for better SES. This is the least churches can do for their members.

    2. Thank you for sharing that exchange. It’s great that you provided verifiable proof of the harm this specific Christian sect is guilty of.

      With more and more families home schooling or sending their kids to charter schools in order to prevent the bad influences of science and diversity, we have more and more young adults who are totally unprepared to live in a modern world.

  29. My religious friends have defended Kim Davis with the argument her past “sins” have been forgiven now that she is right with God. These homosexuals are continuing to live in sin and therefore are evil, cursed and must be fought with every means at the believer’s disposal. Kim Davis’ sin was redeemed by the blood sacrifice of Jesus getting nailed to a cross. So she has a clean slate in the eyes of her specific Christian worldview. If these homosexuals would just repent, stop living their evil lifestyle, which they chose, they too can be forgiven and then get a God sanctioned heterosexual partner, you can get a marriage license from Kim Davis. It’s enough to make one’s head explode.

    1. Point out that since everyone lives in sin according to Christian theology, she should either deny marriage licenses to every applicant (because they all live in sin) or none of them. And that, on top of that, her and they thinking that she is somehow less sinful than the applicants means they are living – swimming in – the sin of pride.

  30. I do not know anything about Judge Bunning’s judicial temperament, and I suppose it’s possible he might still be willing to find some compromise that would put this sideshow behind him and allow the Court to get back to its pressing docket.

    But at this point — after Madam Clerk chose martyrdom for herself by snubbing her nose at the Court’s efforts during the original contempt hearing to fashion some compromise by which it could ensure its order would be obeyed — the vast majority of federal judges would require a full-on Battleship-Missouri-style unconditional surrender (or resignation) from Ms. Davis in order to spring her from stir.

    The Court is entitled to assure itself that its direct order, the law of the land, and the rule of law will be followed without waffle or confusion or hesitation and to assure the people of Rowan County, Ky., the business of their clerk’s office will be conducted in an according-to-Hoyle fashion.

    1. And there is not a snowball’s chance of surviving a Labor Day parade on the hot Kentucky pavement that Judge Bunning’s order of contempt will be reversed on appeal — never mind that such an appeal will be heard by the Sixth Judicial Circuit, the only federal appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage in the lead-up to the recent Supreme Court decision allowing it.

      Even if the Sixth Circuit were convinced that Judge Bunning was wrong on the underlying law (which, under extant law, he most certainly is not), and even if the Sixth Circuit were dripping with sympathy for Ms. Davis’s cause (which, who knows?) that court would still undoubtedly affirm Judge Bunning’s contempt citation. There is something much bigger at stake here than Ms. Davis or marriage or religion or God — that is, the authority of a federal court to adjudicate the cases and controversies that come before it. Without the power to compel compliance with its orders from contumacious parties, the court’s authority would be naught but a form of words in Article III of the US Constitution.

      Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit will affirm Judge Bunning’s finding of contempt, even if it were to subsequently reverse on the merits of his initial order directing the clerk-of-court to issue the marriage licenses in question (which it will also certainly not so find). Consider in this regard that the Warren Court upheld the 1963 contempt citation issued by an Alabama court, for the violation of its injunction prohibiting public demonstrations, that landed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in a Birmingham jail (whence he wrote his famous letter), even though the Supreme Court was obviously sympathetic to Dr. King and the civil rights movement, and even though the Alabama court’s injunction was patently illegal on its merits.

      A party must obey, on pain of contempt, a federal district court order unless and until that order has been found to be invalid by a higher federal court. Such is the interest of our federal courts in preserving their constitutional domain.

  31. For a fascinating profile of Judge David Bunning, see this article in the Washington Post. Although he is apparently a devout Catholic, he understands the concept of separation of Church and the State and the need for the rule of law. I think this is all we can ask from people who persist in adhering to religion.

    The article quotes Bunning:

    “Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, regardless of our personal opinions,” Bunning wrote last month in his decision ordering Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses. “Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court’s opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/04/he-has-guts-judge-david-bunning-the-same-sex-marriage-decisions-unlikely-enforcer/

    1. That’s why he got ‘Bouquet of the Week’ on my website three weeks ago.

      He is committed to upholding the law, and not letting personal opinions get in the way.

    2. “Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, regardless of our personal opinions.”

      Is there a constitutional warrant for U.S. presidents’ “signing documents”? (I gather that this issues from the so-called “unitary executive” concept of the presidency.) As with Supreme Court decisions, so with Congressional legislation, eh?

    3. Also, as regards respecting Supreme Court decisions, were Judge Bunning alive in 1857, would he himself no less respect the Court’s Dred Scott decision, and the Fugitive Slave Laws?

      1. Yes, Judge Bunning would have upheld the Dred Scott decision, even though he may have disagreed with it. In fact, Lincoln accepted the decision, although disagreeing with it and hoping to see it overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court Decision.

        Here is Lincoln responding to Stephen A. Douglas on June 26, 1857:

        “We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.”

        http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/

  32. According to the county attorney of Rowan County, he told Davis at the beginning of her misadventure that he would not & could not support her in her defiance of the law. He also said she didn’t represent the inclusive values of Rowan county. He says Davis has terrorized her staff and everyone that works at the courthouse. People coming to work have to endure curses coming from her office when they enter the building, & they are scared to come to work.

    I believe her 15 minutes of fame are about over. Soon the cameras will go away, her charlatan lawyers will slink away to their next sucker, and she will still be in jail cooling her heels. I don’t feel a bit of sympathy for a tyrant like her. She brought it on herself with her self-righteousness & zealotry. Her staff was always willing to issue licenses, but she refused to allow it.

  33. I don’t understand Kim Davis’ position.

    NY times:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html

    The licenses issued by the deputies today did not bear her signature. There seems to be a dispute over whether they are valid – and Kim Davis’, through her attorney, is insisting that they are NOT valid because she did not authorize them.

    But why would she take this position? Her own suggested “compromise” was to issue licenses without her name on them. That’s precisely what seems to be happening today, so why does she object to that?

    I’m not to clear, is her name on the licenses, but not her signature, perhaps?

    It seems, also, that she may have painted herself into a corner. Gov. Beshear says he does not have the power to issue an executive order to take the County Clerk’s name off licenses; nor is he willing to waste taxpayers’ money to call a special session of the state legislature to do so. He said he’s fine with the current situation at the County Clerk’s office now that licenses are being issued; and that Kim Davis’ situation is between her and the courts.

    At this point, how can the judge release her unless she capitulates?

    1. And, from the NYT article: ” Matt Bevin, the Republican candidate for governor, proposed a license form that couples could obtain online, without a county clerk’s involvement.”

      In other words, neither side (Dem. or Rep.) wants to touch this one with a bargepole.

      cr

    2. … why would she take this position? Her own suggested “compromise” was to issue licenses without her name on them.

      Consistency, thy name is not Kim Davis.

  34. I really don’t get how people think freedom of religion means freedom of imposition of religion. Freedom of religion would be self-defeating if one could push their religion onto you i.e. that your religious freedom would be violated by the religious sentiment of others. It says something for the education system in the US that basic notions like the bill of rights (one of the greatest ethical doctrines ever composed!) aren’t actually understood by the population. You’d think that’d be civics 101…

  35. First, she’s not marrying anyone. Getting g a marriage license doesn’t require anyone to marry. It allows people to marry.
    Second, the SCOTUS ruling that allows marriage equality doesn’t require two people to be gay to use. Two straight women or two straight men can now get married.
    Third, show me the Bible verse that bans marriage equality. I don’t care if it’s a sin – by that standard no one can get married because the Christians tell us we are sinners. And homosexuality doesn’t even make the top ten list unlike adultery (you know, like marriage after divorce). From the perspective of her claim, the problem is not that she’s divorced. It’s that she issues marriage licenses to divorced people.

  36. This situation provides reason #1,456 (or so; I’ve lost count) to vote Democratic – most or all of the Republicans running for President are supporting this crazy woman under the guise of “religious freedom”. Can you imagine what the Republicans would be saying if she was Muslim and claimed that her religious beliefs were such that she could not sign marriage licenses unless the people being wed swore allegiance to Allah?

  40. I once worked for Aerovironment Inc. They are a military contractor. I am morally disgusted that they make products that spy on people and kill people. EVEN THE “Enemy”. Its wrong to kill. I believe christians call it THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT. I ended up getting very physically ill and while I was on disability, they “Asked me to leave or come back to work immediately” even against doctors orders. I made a choice. I could have gone back… but I left. I dont have the money for fancy lawyers such as the object of our discussion. And I did not make a big ta-do about it. And not once did I try to make them stop killing people because it is against my own moral code. I ended up working for a company that makes oncology capital equipment. “CyberKnife” if any of you are unfortunate to have cancer or know someone that does. My dad passed away from brain cancer while I worked there. I have since met many people who have been treated with a product that I contributed to, and they thanked me over and over. Much more rewarding than killing people. I made a moral decision, so can she. So can YOU! (Everyone)

    1. Good for you. I think being in a situation where you are contributing to the military can be pretty unnerving. I worked for a military contractor long ago who did software for strategic nuclear missiles. I had my qualms, but it was early in my career and I needed to build my experience. I stayed on for several years, but it did bug me. I felt relief when I moved to a civilian employer.

Comments are closed.