Type to search

The Four-Time Bride Who Won’t Let Gays Get Married

Memo Pad Top News

The Four-Time Bride Who Won’t Let Gays Get Married

marriage equality

If ever there was an argument to make teenagers take citizenship exams before they can get a high-school diploma, it’s the Kentucky clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and her all too supportive husband. Make that fourth husband.

“They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won’t accept our beliefs and our ways,” Joe Davis said of gay protesters at the Rowan County Courthouse, The Associated Press reported. “Their beliefs and their ways” is a reference to gay people who are trying to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s June ruling that they have a constitutional right to marry. “Our beliefs and our ways” refers to his wife Kim’s contention that she has the right to ignore the high court in favor of “God’s authority.”

That authority apparently includes godly approval to marry four times in a life so wildly imperfect that U.S. News & World Report could write this paragraph: “She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second.” All is now cool, though. According to her lawyer, Davis converted to Christianity a few years ago and her slate was wiped clean.

Would it be churlish to mention here that Davis has denied a marriage license several times to David Moore and David Ermold, who have been together for 17 years? Also, exactly what part of “separation of church and state” doesn’t she understand?

Davis has been sued for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and the Supreme Court declined Monday to get involved. She can’t be fired because she was elected to her position, but she could be found in contempt of court.

The honorable thing would be to step down, as county clerks have done in states such as Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas and Mississippi. There is a long, long tradition of resignations over conscience issues. But Davis would rather keep her job and exempt herself from whatever she thinks her religion demands, regardless of how that affects the lives of the taxpayers she is supposed to serve.

There is plenty of precedent for exemptions based on faith or personal morality, of course. Conscientious objectors in wartime. Doctors who oppose abortion. And for over a year now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, certain corporations run by religious families who don’t want to offer insurance coverage for contraception methods they consider tantamount to abortion.

Yet war is a matter of life and death, and for those who believe that life begins at conception, so is abortion. Gay marriage is different. Nobody is at risk of dying, not even a fertilized embryo. Beyond the happy couple, in fact, few—if any—are affected at all.

So it’s hard to see this Kentucky case as anything but religion injected into the public sphere, with intent to discriminate against adults who are pining to make the ultimate commitment to one another. Some of them already have done so informally, for years and years, their unions far more enduring than those Davis cemented with official vows. All they are asking now is to be married in the eyes of society, the law and their God.

Why would people want to deny others rights and happiness in their personal lives, which should be none of their business? Why is it so hard for some people to embrace or at least accept diversity? Human differences — of appearance, temperament, chemistry, biology and all the rest — are clearly part of The Plan, whether the design is God’s or nature’s or not a design at all.

Back in 2009, Gallup found “a strong case that knowing someone who is gay or lesbian fosters more accepting attitudes on many of the issues surrounding gay and lesbian relations today.” In 2013, three-quarters in a Gallup poll said they personally knew a friend, relative or co-worker who was gay or lesbian. This year, 6 in 10 people said gay marriage should be legal. Not surprisingly, that was a record high.

The Davis case is now a headline cause for Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit “litigation, education and policy organization” that offers pro bono legal assistance in cases related to its mission of “advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family.” But the data — and the Supreme Court moves — underscore that Davis, Liberty Counsel and their allies are outliers, bucking social and political trends that are rapidly leaving them behind.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Twitter @JillDLawrence. To find out more about Jill Lawrence and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Image via

Jill Lawrence

Award-winning journalist Jill Lawrence is a nationally syndicated columnist and a contributing editor to U.S. News & World Report. She also contributed to The Surge: 2014's Big GOP Win and What It Means for the Next Presidential Race (2015). Lawrence has discussed political and policy developments on television, radio, and many other media outlets. She was an adjunct professorial lecturer at American University in 2014, teaching on the relationship between politics and the media.

Lawrence has covered every presidential campaign since 1988, as well as historic events such as the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, the Clinton impeachment, the Florida recount, and the 1993 and 2009 battles over health reform.

  • 1


  1. Daniel Jones September 3, 2015

    Liberty Counsel is as false about liberty and equality as Liberty University.

  2. jamesowens September 3, 2015

    she ants her 15 min of fame and hoping so conservative whackos send her money

  3. anothertoothpick September 3, 2015

    How frustrating it is not to be able to reason with the religious.

    As the storm clouds gathered Galileo thought that reason and common sense would rule the day.

    A big mistake when it comes to faith.

    1. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

      Hi anothertoothpick: It should not frustrate you to not be able to reason with the religious. Frustration should result only from failure to achieve expectations. But no one should expect any religious belief to be based on logic (i.e. reason). Religion is, I believe, based on faith. Faith is accepting premises for which rational support is insufficient. It must be equally frustrating for a religious person who expects everyone to share their beliefs.

      1. anothertoothpick September 7, 2015

        Hi Larry. So in other words you cannot reason out an idea that has not been reasoned in.

        1. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015


          1. anothertoothpick September 7, 2015

            Yeah! That is a problem we are never going to solve.

  4. itsfun September 3, 2015

    This is just the beginning of the problems. This should be a state issue not a federal one. The constitution guarantees the right to practice your religion, and no where does the word marriage appear in the constitution. How can religious freedom be denied by the feds? Another question I have is why does anyone need a license to get married?

    1. Eleanore Whitaker September 3, 2015

      Wrong. You have religious freedom. What YOU don’t have is the right to impose your religious beliefs on anyone else. It figures yet another Dixie Belle raised by her Big Daddy hypocrite would be preaching her “ignernt” gospels, all the while she is pure white trash.

      When you work for municipal, county, state or federal government, YOUR religious rights are not for you to impose on others. Practice your religion in YOUR church and keep your hypocritical phony religious beliefs to yourselves.

      1. itsfun September 3, 2015

        if a government that guarantees the right to practice freedom of religion, then decides to put qualifiers on that right, how can it be called freedom of religion? On the other hand we have separation of church and state. Which is more important? Just because some one doesn’t agree with you, that doesn’t make the white trash or any other kind of trash. I suspect your name calling is just a weak mind trying to express its self.

        1. The lucky one September 3, 2015

          No one is restricting Ms. Davis’ religious freedom. If she cannot in good conscience perform the duties stipulated in the job description for her position she can do what any honorable non-hypocrite would do, resign.

          1. itsfun September 3, 2015

            The problem is and will continue to be is Ms. Davis and others like her believe their religious freedom is being violated and no one will change their minds

          2. tomtype September 3, 2015

            Wonder if we could also convince them the couples’ religious freedom is also being violated, like the straight couple that wants to get married, but she is preventing them from doing so.
            I guess she has a new religion that now advocates just shacking up. It saves the incoveniece of paying for a license, paying for a wedding, paying for a reception, and later paying for a divorce.
            Given the location, appalachia, maybe she is also upholding the Christian ideal of only one spouse per life too. All those straight couples also refused license were likely retreds, or maybe they weren’t virgins, or maybe they were not going to serve liquor at the reception (it is the mountains after all), or the girl was using BC, or there would not shouting at the wedding, and Pentacostal hoopla. And number 1, the brides were over 14!

          3. itsfun September 3, 2015

            This is the kind of issue that all sides will stick to their guns, no matter what. I doubt if any minds will be changed, regardless of the arguments.

          4. The lucky one September 3, 2015

            We don’t need to change their minds, just enforce the law.

          5. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

            Hi itsfun: You seem to be correct that Ms. Davis and others like her interpret religious freedom as the right to dictate the beliefs of others. But there are very many inconsistent sincerely-held religious beliefs. So, if we try to structure a society’s laws based on sincerely-held religious beliefs, we will immediately confront unsolvable conflicts. Even Christians do not all think alike. We also have many other religions represented in the U.S. and agnostics and atheists. ShiI do not understand how Ms. Davis and like-minded people think their paradigm is feasible. Shia and Sunni are both devout Muslims. They are paying a tremendous price in areas where they insist on their branch of Islam being sacrosanct.

          6. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

            “Shil do not” is a typo. Meant to write “I do not”.

        2. tomtype September 3, 2015

          The old saw. You have the right to swing your fist until it contact someone elses nose. She has freedom of religion until it interferes with someone elses freedom to practice their religion.
          She is not issuing marriage license to anyone, currently. So she is also discriminating against those of similar beliefs that a man and a woman ought to get married.
          In fact, since she is not issuing licenses to anyone, she seems to be advocating just living in sin. How is that for a Christian message.
          Under law, federal and state, there is an accommodation for people who have a religious objection to performing certain acts. She can allow or arrange for another person to perform the specific act. But she refuses to allow the 2 volunteers in her office who are legally empowered to handle any other clerk business, and to sign her name for her. She is not objecting to providing the legal service required but to having her name associated with it. This case goes away if she simply lets the other clerks sign for her, or use the name stamp, or what ever.

          1. itsfun September 3, 2015

            That’s probably what she should do.

        3. anothertoothpick September 3, 2015

          Are we to be a society ruled by laws, or religious dogma?

          1. Eleanore Whitaker September 4, 2015

            Reckless, irresponsible tyrants never do live long. Jim Jones took 900 innocent people with him. Koresh was another religious freak tyrant…both are dead. The Mormon pedophile Warren Jeffs is in prison for marrying a 12 year old girl and impregnating her and heaven only knows how many others.

            This woman is a pathetic loser. She can’t earn a living unless she gets it from taxpayers. She knew when she took this job she was not going to be working with people of her religious beliefs. How stupid was she to think she could mastermind a way to ram her religious beliefs down everyone else’s throats?

            First of all, this dippy woman is another of those southern “Got Religion” babes who spent more time with her legs open and is now in repentance mode. But, like all penitents, she doesn’t want to suffer in misery all by herself. This is how these idiots become “converts” and move on to demanding others convert to their way of thinking. Control freaks always gravitate to conversion after a misspent youth.

            These religious freaks all have one thing in common…massive guilt for their youthful sins.

        4. Eleanore Whitaker September 4, 2015

          I am a Catholic. YOU HAVE TO BE A CATHOLIC because I am. Get it yet?

          The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the free practice of religion of any kind. This stupid idiot woman is not practicing HER religion. She is imposing it on others and her religious “beliefs” on others.

          I always call “ignernts” ignernt. I loathe ignorant tyrants. So..when shall I start your Conversion to Catholicism? Your religious beliefs do not fall in line with mine. Therefore, your religious beliefs have to adhere to mine.

          Do slugs of the right EVER get the concept of “responsibility?” The guarantee of any right carries with it responsibility. The same idiots who walk into public places armed like Rambo are violating the 2nd Amendment because like this stupid woman, they are irresponsible and ignorant.

          When my taxes contribute to their educations, I damn well expect them to BE educated enough to figure out that shutting one’s mouth when all that comes out is reckless and irresponsible is the proper operative.

          We have separation of church and state because the Founding Fathers already saw in England what happened when Catholics under Queen Mary forced Protestants to their beliefs and turned it into a papist country.

          The Founding Fathers knew how to compartmentalize that which is governance and that which is religious beliefs.

          Ready for Catholic Christian Doctrine Lesson 1 yet?

          1. itsfun September 4, 2015

            stupid idiot woman, ignorant tyrants, slugs of the right. same idiots, stupid woman irresponsible ignorant.
            Like I said a weak mind trying to express its self.

          2. Eleanore Whitaker September 4, 2015

            I noticed you are evading my demand to convert to Catholicism. Is that because you know you are wrong and not man or woman enough to admit it and therefore fall in the same league as the ignorant woman you are so avidly defending?

            I have NO weak mind. You do. YOu actually defend a woman from Kentucky who has a lousy reputation already in the public eye and “got religion” after years of her dishonoring her commitment to marriage and lives off MY federal tax dollars?

            Answer my demand to convert or admit you are wrong. There’s no grey area. And, ignorance is not an insult when it’s fact. Get over it. You are wrong, wrong, wrong and not mature minded enough to admit. it. Another dippy right wing mind trying to prove negatives.

            And you didn’t “Say” anything. And all you know how to do is contradict facts and truth. Grow the hell up. Most of us are not as tolerant of your “ignernce” either.

          3. itsfun September 4, 2015

            Just curious, do you confess your name calling and cursing to your priest when you go to confession?

          4. Eleanore Whitaker September 4, 2015

            Just curious. Do you have a Roman collar? Sorry if I am not going to pander to your need to prove phony superiority. You don’t get to hear MY confession, until you convert to Catholicism.

            Don’t your narrow minded lunatic fringe ever admit when you are wrong?

            Or do you just play your contradiction, insistence and superiority games until your brains explode.

            A simple “I was wrong.” will do. Or …in Latin…”Mea culpa.” And in your case that would be “mea maxima culpa.”

            Yeesh what a lunatic.

          5. itsfun September 4, 2015

            Yep just as I said, a weak mind trying to express its self.

          6. Eleanore Whitaker September 5, 2015

            The only weak mind here is yours Reverend. Get thee to a confessional. Your massive guilt complex is showing. Oh and don ‘t forget to confess your phony deceptions and superiority act. After all, that does come under Commandment No. 8.

            Still can’t be adult enough to admit you are wrong? Good. Now get your dopey butt to church and start practicing what you clowns of the right preach.

          7. itsfun September 5, 2015

            I am curious about another issue. You claim to be a good Catholic, but you support abortion. How can you be both a devoted Catholic and support abortion?

    2. The lucky one September 3, 2015

      “why does anyone need a license to get married?” That’s a good question but since they are required and issuing them is part of Davis’ job her employment should be terminated immediately.

      1. itsfun September 3, 2015

        I think she is elected, so she can’t just be fired. They probably need a recall vote, which would probably fail because a high percent of people don’t want same sex marriage.

        1. The lucky one September 3, 2015

          I don’t know what the percentages are in the district that Davis runs in but nationally the majority do approve of the right for gay people to marry.

          ” Where does the constitution say gay rights are more important than religious rights?” It doesn’t and no one is implying that it does. The constitution also does not sanction a religious zealots “right” to impose her beliefs.

        2. tomtype September 3, 2015

          She can be removed by certain state officials. Already she has rejected the governor’s call for her to begin doing her job.

    3. latebloomingrandma September 3, 2015

      Since the SCOTUS determined that gays have a right to marry, rights are equally applied in all 50 states. Religious weddings aside, marriage in a civil society is a legal contract and contains hundreds of federal benefits. One little clerk who was elected to a government job is supposed to follow the Constitution, which means NOT denying citizen’s of their rights.

      1. itsfun September 3, 2015

        That was part of my comment. Why is marriage a federal issue? It should be a state issue. Where does the constitution say gay rights are more important than religious rights? Whose rights are more important?

        1. tomtype September 3, 2015

          It is not a federal issue so long as all the citizen are treated equally. If you start issuing parking tickets only to gays, or only to Blacks or only to women, the issue is not parking fines, but the inherent unequal treatment based upon some other factor than the cause of the fine—extended parking.

          1. itsfun September 3, 2015

            So by not issuing a license to anyone, she is treating all the citizens equally it should not be a issue

          2. tomtype September 3, 2015

            And since she is not doing her job, her getting not paid shouldn’t be an issue either.
            A true misanthrope. Hates everyone without regard to race, creed or color.

          3. itsfun September 3, 2015

            I believe she truly believes her religious rights are being violated. She has put her career and freedom from a jail sentence and fine on the line for her beliefs.

          4. tomtype September 3, 2015

            I don’t doubt that she is sincere. Exceot she is not willing to allow the same freedom of religion to others that she claims. He actions deny all kinds of other people their freedom to do all kinds of things. In fact, I don’t know what she hopes to do. Gay marriage is not going away. Straight marriage is not going away. People being resistant to getting married is not going away. Divorce is not going away. And least of all sex is not going away in any of its forms. Is she planning to call attention to the problem? We have just gone through a national discussion. What is she trying to do?
            And how would a ton of gay marriages ever hurt her 4 marriages, which are also unChristian. Is she panning to be selective about who can get married now back in the hills.

          5. itsfun September 3, 2015

            Just read she is headed to the slammer.

          6. anothertoothpick September 3, 2015

            And they just created a martyr. She will be on fux notnews very soon.

          7. ococoob September 4, 2015

            And she’s hoping a gofundme will be set up for her.

          8. tomtype September 3, 2015

            The judge had lawyers appointed for each in the office. Asked each if they would sign. Each except her son agreed. She seems to have threatened the willing. If she agreed not to try to stop the other clerks, she would be allowed out. She opted to stay in the magnicent county suit. So starting tomorrow people should again start getting married in Rowan county. Meanwhile she will continue her all expense paid vacation with the finest slop cuisine and the comfortable, wide single mattresses at the Gray Bar Hotel.

          9. tomtype September 3, 2015

            I don’t doubt her sincerity. Nor do I doubt Hitler’s sincerity that the Jews did it (whatever it) that threatened Germany. And I don’t doubt he and she are dead wrong.

        2. anothertoothpick September 3, 2015

          Once again we have to start at square one with the righties. We have been over this a million times.

          The vast majority of Americans do not want to have to check the marriage laws in a given state that they may move to.

          Your marriage might not be considered legal in Kentucky and then if you moved there you would be forced to divorce your spouse.

          1. tomtype September 3, 2015

            And make any children illegitmate. All states need to honor the documents and actions of another state. What if your divorce were legal only in the issuing state? Instant bigamy? What if your driver’s license became invalid at the border? Instant fines. Even wartorn Eureope realized that the more we allow in common the less hassle and the more freedom we all have.
            Itsfun is some kind of enemy of freedom, or maybe he just doesn’t think.

          2. anothertoothpick September 3, 2015

            He is using the worn out righty classic tactic.

            They keep pushing the argument further and further back in time until they get to a point where they think they can dig in their heals.

            Notice how he is now asking why have marriage licenses at ALL?

            If you argue with this guy long enough he will be telling you that the caveman did not have marriage licenses and did quite well.

          3. tomtype September 3, 2015

            An aside: K T B signifies writing in the Semitic languages. KiTaB is a book while KuTub, the equivalent word in Hebrew means the marriage contract. SaFeR, indicating reading is used for book inHebrew.

        3. johninPCFL September 3, 2015

          Possibly because there are federal laws dealing with married couples – like survivorship rights, inheritance rights, tax issues for married couples, etc. and of course the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment. Once two states disagree on the treatment of citizens, the federal government becomes involved.

        4. Joan September 6, 2015

          It is not a matter of gay rights or straight rights it is a matter of equal rights. According to the 14th amendment which grants us equal protection under the law. The constitution protects religious rights but it also sets up a strict separation between church and state. Ms. Davis does not have the right to inflict her religious beliefs on anyone else. As the country clerk she is a representative of the state when performing or not performing the official duties of her office.

    4. tomtype September 3, 2015

      You need a license because the state says you do. Nearly every government in the world does. Civilized society everywhere has had some sort of control over marriage. Check marriage contracts. There is always some legal process because you are setting up a new family organization, which will have legal responsibilities and benefits. I find it very suspicious that nobody really seriously considered eliminating marriage licenses/registrations until the advent of gay marriage. They were right and proper, really needed, until they didn’t stop gay marriage.
      Name one way, one incident of injury or impact of any gay marriage on any straight marriage.

      1. itsfun September 3, 2015

        I don’t know of any impacts, just trying to show there are 2 sides to every issue.

        1. johninPCFL September 3, 2015

          Yes – one side of the issue is supported by the 14th amendment, the other, weak, gimpy side is supported by what?

          No one is denying her the right to practice her sect of Christianity (which has the same restrictions as Sharia law.) Episcopalians don’t have that problem. Maybe she should only deny the legal rights of gay men, since there is absolutely no mention of gay women in her sect’s holy book, and thus no restrictions?

          However, she may snub and otherwise mistreat those gays who apply for a license just as the Charles Manson, David Koresh or Jim Jones of her sect instructs. What she may NOT do is fail to uphold the oath she took when elected. She MUST deliver the license to the individual citizens who properly, legally applied for it.

          Unless, of course, swearing before God to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States is just not required by her sect. Maybe she received some private counseling from God that lying in that instance is OK. Maybe God will one day explain to the rest of us why lying is OK in that circumstance.

      2. 788eddie September 3, 2015

        If you go back in time far enough, you’ll find that the marriage contract was a document that transferred ownership of a female from one party (father) to another (husband). Chattels, anyone?

        1. tomtype September 3, 2015

          Fortunately now it just is a record that there is this legal partnership claimed from this day. It won’t catch bigamy. It won’t catch polygamy or polyandry. It won’t help select a true lifetime partner, it won’t prevent or even deter divorce. Gay marriage harms no one, so why put any effort into preventing it.

          1. 788eddie September 4, 2015


    5. jonesky September 4, 2015

      Nobody’s interfering whatsoever in her religious freedom. She is still free to worship, in whatever non-harmful fashion (and a few harmful ones) God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Krishna, Isis, Baron Samadhi, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster to her heart’s content. She has not been arrested for going to church/temple/grove/whatever. She can pray, sing, dance, spin or crochet in the name of her Deity and she can read the holy text of her choice on her lunch hour. What she cannot do is force her religious beliefs on others, denying their legal rights because she does not like them. She doesn’t “believe in” gay marriage? Fine. Don’t marry a lesbian, and don’t perform the ceremony She is in jail for treating the order of a legitimate court with arrogant and illegal contempt. Even Jesus preached rendering unto Caesar what is his due. If her job offends her conscience, she needs to resign and let someone willing to do it do it.

      1. latebloomingrandma September 7, 2015

        Well said.

  5. latebloomingrandma September 3, 2015

    Sure, religious freedom is important, but one’s own rights stop if they interfere with another’s rights. A gay couple being denied a legal marriage license effects their very life, while the distributor of that license has her conscience pricked. Good grief, grow up, woman! If she can’t be fired, why can’t her paycheck be withheld for not doing her job?

    1. Joan September 6, 2015

      They would have allowed her not to personally issue licenses to gay couples as long as someone else in the office was doing it. She rejected that “fix” because as the elected county clerk her name would still appear on the licenses. The humility, compassion and lack of judgement that Jesus taught does not appear in “her bible” apparently.

    2. Carolyn1520 September 6, 2015

      The ACLU who is representing same sex couples, wanted her heavily fined rather than jailed. Since she can’t be fired, only impeached as an elected official, she’s getting paid for NOT doing her job. Sitting in jail and getting paid isn’t much of a deterrent.

      1. latebloomingrandma September 7, 2015

        And she can now play the martyr and be elevated to sainthood for all the homophobes out there.

  6. tomtype September 3, 2015

    She must have issued her own marriage license for her 4th marriage. Since that definitely violated her Christian principles also, she seems able to violate Christan ideas occasionally. Maybe she should have sent herself to another town to get that license.

    1. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

      She was “born again” after she married for the 4th time. Now she’s a Christian . ten years from now she may be something else. Born again, wipes the slate clean. Sort of like that group of men called The Promise Keepers. They had all sorts of fun before they vowed to never do it again and started preaching their Thou shalt not spiel to those who likely better behaved than they were at any time. Religion is a great vehicle for controlling the masses. It’s all a leap of faith and each makes up their own rules, changes them as they see fit and interprets their teachings anyway they want.
      I have the greatest respect for those who follow the tenets and doctrines of their chosen faith but they aren’t the ones out there demanding the world follow their rules.

      1. tomtype September 3, 2015

        It should teach a little humility, like gays might not be so bad. Or I guess they now have a right. I don’t agree, but with my history (Davis’s history), she surely isn’t a poster child for any kind of moral high ground. Just a bit of humility.

        1. jonesky September 4, 2015

          I’m rather hoping that, if she’s in jail long enough, a largeish, tattood woman who likes to be called “moms” will, um, inform her opinion on gays.

          1. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

            Hi jonesky: I laughed out loud at your comment. On the serious side, I think we should begin with the assumption that people like the lady here are acting in good faith. I do not want people to violate their own moral code. The burden on her was to find a way to comport her behavior with her legal duty. If she could not, she should have resigned or asked to be transferred or …. There are simply far too many people of good faith with conflicting ideas about what is moral to create a workable society where everyone can superimpose their morality onto the legal structure. It simply cannot possibly work, no matter how honest or sincere the actors.

          2. jonesky September 7, 2015

            Agreed. Had she simply allowed her deputies to issue the licenses, I’d have had no complaints. However, as THE Clerk, she must sign the licenses and her refusal to do so, thus blocking any compromise, makes her behavior unacceptable. Being elected to the post, she can’t really be transferred, so if she couldn’t find a way to make it work, it’s on her to resign. I’ll admit to having some doubts about, in her case, the line between “moral code” and simple homophobia, since no hetero couples have reported being asked if they have engaged in premarital sex, if they’ve been married before, or any other “moral” violations.

          3. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

            Hi Jonesky: I can only guess that Ms. Davis would not refuse a license to anyone based on them having engaged in premarital sex or whether they were previously married. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

          4. jonesky September 7, 2015

            That’s my point. If it was strictly about morals, she should. Instead, she cherry-picks the “sin” she doesn’t like and ignores the rest. All sins or none, my dear moralizing Ms Davis.

        2. Carolyn1520 September 6, 2015

          I agree.

      2. Larry Gagnon September 4, 2015

        Hi Carolyn: Very well said. There is almost an infinite variety of religious beliefs among people of good faith. If each individual is free to place their religious beliefs above the law, there can be no law. I have very strong moral objections to much of what the federal government does. I still pay all my taxes, although I would much rather not pay for some of the U.S. Government activities.

        1. Carolyn1520 September 6, 2015

          Thank you. I’m with you there!

      3. johninPCFL September 6, 2015

        Yes. All of the Catholic priest child molesters were also “born again”, forgiven of all past sins (including child rape), and that was the justification the Church used to re-assign them instead of turning them over to law enforcement.

      4. David September 6, 2015

        That is totally BS. My religion does not change what is right and what is acceptable. Jesus Christ WAS, IS, and will ALWAYS be. What changes, Carolyn, are the mores of society. What the SCOTUS rules today may not be what it does tomorrow. E.g., ‘Separate, but equal.” What is immutable is the Word of God.
        P.S. You are a lot like Karl Marx. He said that, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

        1. Don_B1 September 6, 2015

          I see you refer to “My religion…” and you have every right, at least in the U.S., to believe and follow any religious (or non-religious) beliefs you chose. But that choice is yours, and it is a choice that others do not have to make. And you have no right to force others to chose as you desire.

          President Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were deists and had seen the devastation of various states going to war over religious differences, which is the necessary background to understand why Jefferson considered the First Amendment to be the foundation for a “wall separating church and state.” That wall meant that the state had to treat all citizens equally, which is the basis the Supreme Court used to decide that homosexuals had an equal right to be married because marriage conveys benefits and responsibilities that otherwise would be denied to some but not others.

        2. Carolyn1520 September 6, 2015

          I’ll repeat. “It’s all a leap of faith and each makes up their own rules, changes them as they see fit and interprets their teachings anyway they want.”
          I stand by my statement and there is no part of it you can refute with facts. History bears it out and the facts are out there. No matter how devout one is, all religion is a leap of faith. There is nothing to refute there. Period.
          Your religion. That’s it in a nutshell. Not everyone shares your personal beliefs. The word of God is immutable to you but not everyone. This country is not a Christian nation. We’re a religiously pluralistic nation.
          None of those religions or it’s members will be permitted to override the Constitution or the rights of others.
          It’s that simple.

          1. David September 6, 2015

            Wrong again. This country was founded on Christian fundamentals. Google your history. Love your God with all your heart; with all your soul; and, with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself. That’s about it. Every other variance between Christian denominations are ultimately unimportant. God doesn’t check your Union card when you go to heaven.
            We didn’t build this country on Buddhism or Islam. The Founders of this country were Christians.

          2. Carolyn1520 September 7, 2015

            😀 Thanks you make my point each time.

          3. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

            Hi David: Are you saying that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc. in our country should be forced to live according to your interpretation of the Bible?

          4. David September 7, 2015

            Larry…MY interpretation of the Bible is that everyone should hear the Good News. Not all will accept it. In cases such as that, dust off your shoes and move on. No one should be “forced” to live according to anyone’s interpretation of the Bible.

          5. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

            David: Agree with last sentence completely. Thanks for appropriate (non-accusatory) answer. These issues trigger strong emotions in many people and cause them to resort to verbal attacks on those perceived not in agreement.

          6. David September 7, 2015

            True. We should remember to ‘love our God with all our heart; with all our strength; with all our soul; and, with all our mind. And, love our neighbors as ourselves. Have a blessed day.

        3. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

          So, does your sect still accept slavery as OK? (check out Matt 18:25 for an example) After all, even Jesus told the slaves to work hard for their masters (Ephesians and 1 Timothy) , and compared serving him to being an obedient slave.

          But you’re right, the religion hasn’t changed. In fact Jesus did not object to Mosaic slavery and thus the New Testament continues to argue FOR slavery. Paul, in fact, broke Mosaic law by returning a slave to his “master”, when Jesus said that escaped slaves were to be freed. Oh, crap. Is that a change in the religion?

          1. David September 7, 2015

            Well, let’s see… The Greek word for “slave” was doulos. It meant servant both voluntary and involuntary. There was no other word. There were two types of slavery in those times. One type involved putting yourself under someone’s control in exchange for food/clothing/shelter. The other was forced conscription. The Bible doesn’t come out and decry all forms of slavery because some of it was voluntary. The Bible does however, instruct on how slaves are to be treated. Exodus 21:16; 1 Timothy 8:10. Christ said we are to “love our neighbors as ourselves.” My religion ain’t changin’!

          2. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

            So keeping other humans in bondage is OK as long as there is no specific word for it? Sounds like you are justifying a crime by denying that it exists.

            So, how about this: is there a word for involuntary servitude in Hebrew or Aramaic? Why would Jesus NOT tell the masters to release those in bondage, like He commanded that escaped slaves were to be freed? Why was Paul still welcome even though he returned an escaped slave? Once saved, always saved?

            By that logic, Catholic priests didn’t commit any crimes because they received “grace” after confessing. So, they’re all OK, right?

          3. David September 8, 2015

            What? You have apparently found a thread of convoluted reasoning whereby you believe you can discredit and destroy Christianity. Sorry. Doesn’t add up. Pick your verse and let’s analyze it. Taking the position that something ‘is praised by faint damnations’ isn’t compelling.

          4. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

            Sorry, David. Nothing convoluted about it. Jesus accepted involuntary slavery. You claim your “religion hasn’t changed”, so either you’re mistaken and involuntary slavery is now wrong, or you are correct, your sect has not changed, and slavery is OK with you.

            Simple question David, which is it?

          5. David September 8, 2015

            Simple reply John — Jesus never “accepted” involuntary slavery. Have you stopped beating your wife? Simple question John, which is it?

          6. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

            Jesus specifically said for slaves to be obedient. Paul was ordered to not return escaped slaves. Neither Jesus nor any of his apostles EVER spoke out against slavery, but always spoke of their followers who were slaves honoring and obeying their masters. So which scripture do you point to that claims Jesus didn’t accept slavery? Because the verses in Matthew, Ephesians, and 1 Tim were often quoted during the 1800s attesting to the acceptability of slavery to Christians.

            The Southern Baptist sect branched off in about 1845. Maybe they were the first to openly support African slavery? “From the advocacy of white supremacy and black slavery emerged a new Baptist denomination. Foreshadowing the Civil War, white Baptists in the South withdrew fellowship from their northern counterparts on May 10, 1845, forming the Southern Baptist Convention in order to better defend the South’s practice of, and dependency upon, black slavery.”

            This is a REL101 Intro to Christian Theology question. The answer most give is that Jesus never spoke out against it, that was a mistake driven by the politics of the time. Christianity has moved on, and it is NOW regarded as evil. Given that the religion has changed on this issue, what says that they wont change on other issues? I understand that you WANT desperately to believe that your religion is a constant, but the mere fact that there are some 200 Christian sects says it definitely is not.

          7. David September 8, 2015

            John — the word “dulous” encompasses “servant” as well as both types of slave. Not everything Jesus said and did is recorded for us. What we know Jesus did say is, “Love thy neighbor as thy self.” That includes slaves. Christianity is constant.
            Now, why won’t you answer my question to you?

          8. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

            I beat my wife as often as you beat yours.

            I notice he didn’t say “love your slaves as yourself and let them go”. None of the apostles said “do not behave as the world does, let go f your slaves and treat them as you would like to be treated.” No, instead they told the slaves to honor their masters and obey them.

            Since the Southern Baptist sect was founded on the duality of southern state secession and continued African slavery in the United States, how about an answer to my question? Has YOUR RELIGION changed its position on slavery since it was founded specifically advocating chattel slavery over 100 years ago?

          9. David September 8, 2015

            I am not married. Now, please answer question. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?
            I don’t know all the things that Jesus said and did. I do know what is set forth in the Bible. What you infer because of what is not written down is, at best, guesswork. Based upon all the things we know that Jesus said, involuntary slavery would not be favored. My religion doesn’t change, but, my guess is that your position on the existence of a Supreme Being has changed over the years and will likely change again before you die.

          10. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

            Your marital status does’t change my answer. In one of the thousands of translations of Jesus’ words: you are the one saying it.

            So Jesus would not favor involuntary servitude (chattel slavery), but the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 supporting it (in fact, giving full-throated advocacy for it and backing southern state secession to get it), and does not support it today (“Southern Baptists Apologize For Slavery Stance”, NPR 8/28/09). How does that square with your “religion doesn’t change”?

          11. David September 8, 2015

            I am not married. You still haven’t answered.
            God’s Word is immutable. It doesn’t change. Interpretations of God’s Word have changed. Some have been wrong. However, erroneous interpretation doesn’t change what the Bible says. My religion doesn’t change.

          12. johninPCFL September 9, 2015

            I did answer. You choose not to understand. Do you really want to focus your energy on being obtuse?

            So, if God’s word says nothing about gay marriage, then all the hooplah MUST be interpretation, right? And if it’s all about interpretation, those can change, right? So if the underpinning of all of this divisiveness is just interpretation, why pin all of the emotional energy on it?

            In fact the Bible says nothing at all about gay women, so that arrangement must be just fine.

          13. David September 9, 2015

            I am trying to focus your energy on not being obtuse.
            God’s Word does talk about homosexuality, including women:
            Intercourse between men – Leviticus 18:21-22; Leviticus 20:13; and, Romans1:27
            Intercourse between women – Romans 1:26
            Marriage is by God’s design the union of one man and one woman:
            Genesis 2:18, 24
            Proverbs 18:22
            Ephesians 5:33
            Corinthians 7:2
            God does NOT approve of homosexuality.

          14. johninPCFL September 9, 2015

            WRT Romans, that’s YOUR interpretation. How about another: “Other Christians interpret the passage differently. They note that the persons involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature — their heterosexual orientation — and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature — their homosexual orientation — and engaged in opposite-gender sexual behavior would also be sinning.”

            Or also from the Mormonism (a modern extension of the canon from the fourth century): “The private practice of polygamy, or more specifically, polygyny, was instituted in the 1830s by founder Joseph Smith. The public practice of plural marriage by the church was announced and defended in 1852 by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.”

            That was at roughly the same time the Southern Baptist Convention was defending chattel slavery directly from the scriptures, in many cases from the same book you referenced above: Ephesians. So, if slavery is wrong but approved of by the apostles (“slaves be obedient to your masters”), why is this issue so contentious?

          15. David September 9, 2015

            That is an interesting interpretation. But wrong. The Bible proscribing against homosexual behavior is NOT because it goes against natural inclinations, it is because that type of behavior is sinful and wrong.

          16. johninPCFL September 10, 2015

            Well, faith is used for all kinds of things, not the least of which is rowing against the flow.

            Good luck to you and yours.

          17. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

            Another thought popped up after the earlier post. So the term duolos referred to both types of slavery. If the word is duolos in both cases, why would you have to ESCAPE voluntary servitude?

            Does that mean that the ancient Greeks didn’t have a problem with involuntary servitude, so we shouldn’t either (because Jesus obviously didn’t?) If He did, He would have spoken out, right? Oh, wait, He did. He said ESCAPED slaves were to be left free.

            So, again, does your sect accept that slavery is OK?

          18. David September 7, 2015

            You don’t have to ESCAPE something that you put yourself into. Again, “doulos” means both types of slavery — voluntary and involuntary. To clearly discern what was said, you first have to put the statement made in the Bible in context. So, which particular verse in the Bible would you like to study with me?

          19. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

            It’s not terribly surprising that you both missed the point and don’t want to answer the basic question. So, again, Jesus specifically referred to leaving ESCAPED slaves free. As you just realized, you don’t escape voluntary servitude. So, Jesus recognized involuntary servitude and allowed it to continue, i.e. did not speak out against it.

            So, since your religion hasn’t changed, is involuntary servitude still practiced in your sect as Jesus prescribed? Or has your sect changed and recognized slavery as an evil institution? Or maybe your sect allows it but since it’s illegal you just don’t get to do it?

          20. David September 8, 2015

            Let me see if I can put together what you are saying. On one hand, you say “Jesus recognized involuntary servitude and allowed it to continue, i.e. did not speak out against it. ” and on the other you say that Jesus “prescribed” involuntary servitude? Which is it?
            You are the one avoiding dealing with this question. I invited you to pick a verse for us to discuss concerning this subject. You haven’t selected one.
            By the way, the word “sect” means a group separate from a main church. I am a Christian. I guess my “sect” is Baptist as regards “church” being the body of Christ.

          21. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

            prescribed: to lay down as a rule or course of action, to ordain. By not speaking out against the Mosaic slavery, Jesus ordained it. In fact he told slaves to be obedient and honor their masters.

            Simple question David. Jesus allowed slavery, dictated actions for those in slavery, recognized that their slavery was not voluntary. Does your sect follow that set of teachings, or has your religion changed?

  7. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

    Marriage is not a religious event. A marriage license is required by law because it makes it a legal binding contract between two parties.. A religious ceremony is and always been optional. It’s only some holy event if you choose to make it one. It’s also your option to have a Disneyland theme. 🙂 At it’s core it’s a business arrangement.
    This woman is looking to be a martyr for the cause and probably a book deal. The same ilk who bought Palin’s “book” will buy hers. Since she’s an elected official, she can’t be fired, only impeached. In Kentucky, the chances of having enough votes for that are probably as good as having a person of color elected by a landslide. 🙂
    The problem could be solved entirely and prevent future assholery by having state not county offices issuing marriage licenses.They can then abolish her job and she can go work for the religious org of her choice. Right now, so she understands there are consequences for not doing the job she was hired and is being paid to do, fines equaling her pay should be imposed. The court has that right. Let’s hope they set an example for future would be religious martyrs.

    1. anothertoothpick September 3, 2015

      By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

      1. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

        Exactly and they had to change too!

      2. johninPCFL September 6, 2015

        The Mormon church refused to allow blacks to serve as ministers until the 1980s. So, how about one of Warren Jeffs’ kids refusing to issue a marriage license to a mixed-race couple? I guess that’d be OK with Glenn Beck…

    2. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

      Hi Carolyn: A fine equal to her pay does seem logical. Whether she is “right” or “wrong”, she is refusing to do the job for which she is being paid. I would guess that if such a fine worked a real economic hardship, she would receive significant monetary support from like-minded people.

  8. Daniel G September 3, 2015

    Why does the government get involved in marriage? Its simple:
    Consent (of the)
    Old, old rule…really old.

    1. Böcker September 3, 2015


    2. tomtype September 3, 2015

      In the middle ages, the lord of the manor got the first night with any new bride. He didn’t bother with used goods. That was left to the peasants.

  9. TZToronto September 3, 2015

    Deuteronomy 14:8 — “The swine also, because it divideth the hoof, but cheweth not the cud, shall be unclean, their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.” Hey, Kim, how about a good rack of ribs?

  10. P`tar September 3, 2015

    I don’t care who or how many people she’s been married to, or, who fathered which child(ren) at what time, or, when she “found” God. It’s irrelevant. As an agent of the state, of the courts imparticular, I just expect her to do her job.

    1. jonesky September 4, 2015

      Very true, but her multiple marriages, several baby daddies and “finding ” God (can they not keep track of Him? Should get leash or something…) just make her refusal to do her job even more galling.

    2. Phil Linehan September 6, 2015

      Where was her god hiding?

  11. Bren Frowick September 3, 2015

    An ignorant fanatic who sought to abuse her office in a futile attempt to impose her own version of Sharia Law on her community. She terrorized her own subordinates, who apparently loathe her, and will now sit in jail until she either submits, agrees to resign from a job she is obviously unqualified to hold, or is replaced.

    1. Bill September 6, 2015

      If she can’t or won’t do her job she shouldn’t receive her $80,000 a year and if her son can’t do his job he should be fired.

    2. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

      Hi Bren: What have you heard that makes you believe her subordinates “apparently loathe her”? I have seen nothing either way on this issue (but I probably have missed much).

  12. Kathy C. September 6, 2015

    she is a hypocrite who is just trying to impose her religion on everyone else. WHAT would they say IF a Quaker gave out gun permits and refused to because they are PACIFISTS? WHEN will all this stupidity stop???

    1. johninPCFL September 6, 2015

      Or a Jehovah’s Witness not issuing a business license to a hospital because they perform blood transfusions.

      1. Larry Gagnon September 7, 2015

        Hi johinPCFL: Your example is just more evidence that it is impossible to have the legal system parallel religious beliefs — no matter how sincere those beliefs. I suspect that the majority of devotedly religious people do not oppose transfusions. We are lucky to live in a country that does not force JWs to have transfusions and does not prevent people from obtaining transfusions just because other people sincerely believe transfusions are god-awful.

        1. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

          There are far more man-made “religious obstacles” than a society can put up with. Where a book like the bible (or its extensions the Quran and Book of Mormon) fails to provide specificity, new laws like the Torah, “Ex Cathedra”, “Papal Circulars” and Sharia crop up to fill in the “squishy” spaces.

          There’s always somebody else not “behaving properly”, and a priest or some other “in the know” to make a law for it.

  13. patrick g van meter September 6, 2015

    Maybe she can talk to god about making bail for her.

    1. Phil Linehan September 6, 2015

      What does her god look like. Has she or anyone else ever seen him, her or it?

      1. patrick g van meter September 6, 2015

        Of course not. Thats why I said that.

  14. ddm1959 September 6, 2015

    The Problem with the world today is that everyone want to feel acceped.
    Te problem also with the Gays is they want to be accepted by all but, they will not accept the belief of others.

    1. johninPCFL September 6, 2015

      Yes. They refuse to believe that it’s OK for a bigot to discriminate against them.

    2. Kathy C. September 6, 2015

      NOT beliefs it IS called respect which IS severely lacking in this country today!!! NO matter your faith you MUST respect OTHERS IF YOU want respect

    3. johninPCFL September 6, 2015

      So in your mind it’s OK that a PETA member just doesn’t issue hunting or fishing licenses? Or an Amish clerk refusing to issue gun permits? Or a Jehovah’s Witness refusing to issue a hospital, trauma center, or blood bank a business license? Or a Mormon refusing to issue a mixed-race couple a license to do, well, anything? Clerks in countries that practice Sharia Law do these kinds of things because the church IS the government.

      At what point does a public official just need to do her job?

      1. ddm1959 September 6, 2015

        It’s not ok to call someone a bigot because they want to homer their belief

        1. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

          She’s not honoring her beliefs. Jesus said “to the extent you do this to the least, you do it to me.” Is snubbing a sinner not dishonoring Jesus? After all, didn’t he work on the Sabbath? Whatever happened to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”?

          Since the bible never mentions gay women in any sense, is it OK if she issues marriage licenses to them?

          You didn’t answer any of the original questions. Is it now OK for a county clerk paid by the citizens to deny hunting and fishing licenses because they believe that’s wrong? Is it OK for a Jehovah’s Witness to deny a business license to a trauma center because using blood violates a scripture in God’s word? Is it OK for a muslim clerk to refuse service to ANY woman not wearing a hijab or burka?

  15. ridemybroom September 6, 2015

    Hey Kim Davis….Like using the religion to back you up…lets use religion to back me up…ever heard of …”render to Cesar what is Cesar…render to Jesus what is Jesus…” or how about in Exodus or Dueteromy…OBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND….thats from the lips of God you hypocrit…..Kentucky can raise some real Douchbags….!!! YeeHAA !!!

  16. delbartonmom2008@aol.com September 6, 2015

    Hey, Ms. Lawrence, you neglect to mention the most paramount fact and that is the First Amendment right to religious PRACTICE and EXERCISE. In a free society it can not be any other way. So, what needs to be done (across the country in every district) is what North Carolina and Utah have done. That is, provide the law for religious restoration where clerks can opt out providing licenses. We all can do business with or take our business where people will help us. That works across every topic and business type in our FREE society. The homosexuals just want everyone to affirm that their marriages are valid, normal and correct.
    It’s not about marriage as much as it is about shutting up the little voices in their heads pricking their conscience and they know it’s mainly religious people who object. We know the real motive. Also, I never heard of anyone’s right to anything EVER having the ability to shove aside the first Amendment and their right becomes first ahead of that. You may as well trash the constitution then or water it down!

    1. FrankSFO September 6, 2015

      She’s not running a business, she’s an elected public official who took an oath of office that she would uphold the Constitution and that she would faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which she entered. One of her duties is to issue marriage licenses. If she can’t do that, she needs to resign.

      Prior to same-sex couples marrying, did she ask potential brides and grooms if this was their first marriage, if the bride was a virgin, if they’re currently living together in sin, if she’s a sinner by taking or continuing to take birth control? I doubt it. So this has nothing to do with her practicing her religion, but more to do with her picking and choosing Bible verses, interpreted in her way, to restrict legal rights of taxpayers, who pay her salary.

      1. delbartonmom2008@aol.com September 6, 2015

        The move toward tyranny is ever so subtle. As I stated earlier, any person, whether working in a private company, our government or an elected official can confidently invoke their rights to practice and exercise their religion or else you have a restriction and there were never conditions when our framers wrote this Amendment. Do you think they were stupid as to omit that there can be conditions that if employed by the government or any other limits, then you can’t use this right? Also, the defense you make about other sins is irrelevant because this sin is in another category. It is a violation against nature and a crime against nature and man so as to fool people into believing that homosexuality is normal and valid. This sin has now been nationalized and legalized into America. Not so with lying, cheating, theft, adultery, birth control, loss of virginity. This sin is uniquely an affront to the very male female paradigm. Why do you think people don’t rally against the other sins like the same-sex marriage debate has garnered so much division about? Finally, are you aware that the supreme Court simply rendered an opinion or decision. It is NOT law. In fact, no governor in any state in our country has to enforce it legally if they chose not to. But most if them are political cowards. After this perverted decision was given, I even contacted my governor’s office asking him not to enforce it.

        1. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

          “Crime against nature”? What are you talking about? Gay sex among animals has long been documented, and there’s a book out detailing it. Grow up.

          Yes, the Supreme Court decision is not law. It does not create new law. It does, however, strike down any laws that contravene the decision, like Kentucky’s anti-gay marriage law. That law is now invalid and the governor of Kentucky cannot enforce it. So the older laws governing marriage are now back in effect, and licenses must be issued to all who apply that meet the older requirements, like clean blood tests, etc.

        2. FrankSFO February 15, 2016

          You seem to think you know it all. You seem to somehow know exactly what the framers thought, or not, when coming up with the Amendment. But, with your last thoughtless point that the Supreme Court renders only opinons or decisions, and NOT laws, tell me you don’t know very much — at all. Don’t embarrass yourself by making such ridiculous comments (Hint: the court of law). And with your uselss and sensless thoughts and opinions of what is legal versus illegal sin, male female paradigm, nationalized and legalized sin (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean), spare me. Your thoughts and opinons are just that. It’s not the rule of law. But, I expect no less with someone still freely and willingly using “aol” as their email choice.
          BTW, what did your governor say to you when you asked him not to enforce the Supreme Court decision? He probably thanked you for the good laugh.

  17. jamesowens September 6, 2015

    what do you expect of a state that educated the like of mitch mcconnel and rand paul

  18. Eleanore Whitaker September 7, 2015

    Remember what happened when Richard Nixon realized Archibald Cox, chief Water Gate prosecutor was going to demand Nixon hand over those tapes and Nixon flat out refused trying to use the same GOP style “executive privileged” Bush and Cheney used to get Rove and Rumsfeld out of testifying before the Water Gate investigation?

    Nixon was acting like a tyrant. And the people demanded he be impeached. Many of us recall the protest signs demanding he be impeached. Only the GOP has erased that from memory.

    Today, the GOP believes it can reinterpret the Constitution to suit. So, they get away with allowing gun manufacturers to manufacture millions of guns a year, flush 65% of our taxes to Republican states and then try to ram their southern and midwestern religion down our throats.

    This lady knows exactly what she is doing. She is defying the intent of the US Constitution and the GOP is cheering her on. Robertson, Huckabee and even JEB are all in agreement with her. What does that tell you about the GOP agenda?

    1. David September 7, 2015

      Eleanore!!! I thought I wasn’t going to get my chuckle for the day…then I saw your post! Hmmm…the GOP “believes it can reinterpret the Constitution to suit. So they get away with allowing Gun manufacturers to manufacture millions of guns a year.” Please enlighten us on exactly which interpretation of the Constitution you are referring to that applies to gun manufacture?
      “Defying the intent of the U.S. Constitution”? I’m afraid that that “intent” is subject to which particular Supreme Court is in session. I think Trump would agree with her and I know all my coon huntin’ buddies down here do!
      Eleanore the only thing I would like to see “rammed down” your throat is your daily medication to deal with your dementia.

      1. johninPCFL September 7, 2015

        David: off topic, but I found this interesting WRT A2: “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the “Gun Protection Act.” The law dismissed all current claims against gun manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims. The law could not be clearer in stating its purpose: “To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” There are some narrow exceptions for which liability is allowed, such as actions against transferors of firearms who knew the firearm would be used in drug trafficking or a violent crime by a party directly harmed by that conduct.” Law passed by the GOP-controlled Congress and signed by GWB in 2005.

        What the law specifically did was to shield manufacturers from suits arising from the proper operation of their weapons: kill people. The unintended consequence: death resulting from a poorly designed (or improperly designed) weapon cannot be handled through civil tort. The US Army sued Colt Firearms in the 1960s for a poorly designed M16 and forced design changes. That cannot happen today.

  19. itsfun September 8, 2015

    Another side of the discussion:

    Stand Up for Religious Beliefs and Get Thrown in Jail… But What Law Was Broken?

    By Bobby Eberle September 8, 2015 7:13 am

    has been much said and written about Rowan County (Kentucky) Clerk Kim
    Davis. Citing her Christian beliefs, Davis refused to issue marriage
    licenses with her name on them to same-sex couples. A judge took issue
    with this action and threw her in jail. This was a clear attack on
    religious freedoms, but it goes much deeper than that, and before we
    rush to judge whether Davis is right or wrong, we should be asking,
    “What law is she actually breaking?”

    People have had plenty of opinions on the actions of Kim Davis. Even
    the GOP presidential candidates have gotten into the mix. Carly
    Fiorina said that Davis should do her job or resign. Others have
    supported Davis and claimed that religious exceptions should be made.
    Even on my Facebook page, people have expressed varying opinions. One
    woman wrote, “This is wrong on so many levels. Truly our freedom of
    religion is now under attack.”

    A man followed by writing, “If your job and your religion are
    incompatible choose one. She is breaking the law. There are legal
    avenues for protest and this is not one of them. She is a government
    employee and must abide the law.”

    Here’s my take on the situation. First of all, the fact that this
    woman sits in jail for refusing to do her job based on her religious
    beliefs should have EVERYONE terrified. This country was founded on the
    notion of religious freedom. Tyranny (religious or otherwise) is one
    of the reasons we broke away as colonies and formed our own country.
    And yet, Kim Davis sits in jail for standing up for her religious
    beliefs, and there is barely a murmur about it.

    People… wake up! A man was run out of his job (CEO of Mozilla, the
    company that makes the Firefox browser) simply because he donated to a
    pro-marriage organization. Business owners are getting fined and
    threatened, because of their Christian beliefs. And now, a woman has
    been thrown in jail. Where is the outrage?

    But let’s dig deeper, because many people out there seem to be
    missing some key points as to what’s going on. First of all, the reason
    she is refusing to do her job is irrelevant. She could cite religious
    beliefs or she could say that she no longer believes that the job should
    be performed on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, or Fridays.
    She could say that she has decided to watch Real Housewives of Whatever
    instead of doing her job. In doesn’t matter. There is no government
    entity (courts or otherwise) that can order an American to do a job
    (outside of military service). You cannot be forced to do a job under
    penalty of prison. Period! This isn’t the middle ages. There is no
    law on the books that says a county clerk must perform x, y, and z
    functions or else be thrown in jail.

    A person holding a job in the private sector is accountable to his or
    her boss. If the person does not perform the job, the boss can fire
    that person. But the person is certainly not going to get thrown in
    jail. The same applies in the public sector.

    As an elected official, Davis is accountable to the voters of her
    county… not some judge. If she sat at home and drank all day and
    never came to work, would she be thrown in jail? No! She would face
    discipline by the voters in the form of whatever actions are set up in
    Kentucky law and the laws of Rowan County. Whether it is a recall
    election or some kind of impeachment, elected officials are accountable
    to the people, and if the people don’t like what she is doing, then they
    are the boss and can take action.

    The point is that Davis could cite religious beliefs or a desire to
    sit at home as a reason for not doing her job. Neither breaks a law,
    and neither deserves a trip to jail.

    Now, let’s look at this from another angle. Forget the fact that
    there is no law which forces Davis to do her job, but instead, let’s
    look at this from the recent Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court
    said that the 14th Amendment applies to same-sex couples (which it
    doesn’t), and they declared that state laws defining marriage as between
    one man and one woman are unconstitutional. (In clear violation of the
    10th Amendment). However, that’s where the Court’s power stops. The
    Court does NOT make law. That is a legislative function. This is basic
    civics, folks.

    GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee got it right in a recent speech to supporters.

    Huckabee: “Kim is asking the perfect question: ‘Under
    what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage
    license?’ That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics
    lesson that they never got in grade school.

    The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a
    ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no
    law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the constitutional
    authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”

    As Bryan Fischer points out,
    “The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in
    its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man
    and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in
    2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote.”

    Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:

    Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
    recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or
    substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
    shall not be valid or recognized.

    Thus, in Kentucky, according to the rule of law, marriage licenses
    can only permissibly be extended to couples consisting of one man and
    one woman. A “marriage” between two people of the same sex is “not valid
    or recognized.”

    Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the
    constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.

    The Supreme Court does not make laws. As it currently stands,
    Kentucky law is written as is, and in order for same-sex couples to
    marry, there has to be a new law. Until that time, Kim Davis is
    actually FOLLOWING the law, because marriage between same-sex couples
    does not exist in Kentucky.

    It’s way past time for Americans to wake up and realize that our
    constitutional rights are under attack. We have the Supreme Court
    addressing the marriage issue when marriage is not addressed at all in
    the Constitution. We have Christians being fired, fined, threatened,
    and now imprisoned for their religious beliefs. And we have political
    leaders who are doing nothing about it. This is the America we live in!
    Do you recognize it?

    1. johninPCFL September 8, 2015

      The Supreme Court ruling invalidated the Kentucky constitutional amendment, thus the laws holding were those in force before the amendment was passed. There was no mention of the sexes of the couples in the previous laws, so none could be enforced now.

      The law that Kim Davis broke was her oath of office, which includes affirming that she will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, including the 14th amendment. The judge gave her the option of obeying her oath or resigning. She chose neither, and he held her in contempt of court.

      Jailing someone for contempt is common. Reporters are threatened every time they refuse to reveal a source, and many have been jailed just as Davis was.

      1. itsfun September 8, 2015

        If not honoring a oath was a crime, most of our politicians would be in jail with her. The Supreme Court only rules on the constitutionally of a law. It has no power to either create or stop a law. Only the House and Senate can make or revoke laws. She probably didn’t break any laws. The judge in this matter has no power to make a law either. I wonder if he overstepped his authority in this issue.

        1. johninPCFL September 9, 2015

          Incorrect. When the Supremes find that any law (federal or state) goes against the US Constitution, the law is unenforceable, thus “stopping” the law. Legislatures may leave a law “on the books”, but the law cannot be enforced until or unless the Supreme Court reverses itself. That is why there’s normally a big scramble to write up a new law to replace it. Most recently, the use of drugs for the death penalty was reviewed by the Supremes, causing Tennessee to change its capital punishment law to include firing squads in case lethal injection “was ruled unconstitutional”.

          I’ve asked the question as to what her contempt citation was issued for and have not read an answer. Many have commented, but none have provided a link to the judge’s findings and ruling. Maybe the judge found that since she had sworn to do her job and would not, she was committing fraud, a criminal offense.

          1. itsfun September 9, 2015

            The Supreme Court cannot invalidate or change or pass any laws. They give opinions nothing more. We have 3 different branches of government. The legislative branch creates, changes, removes laws, the President signs them into law if he wants to (veto) if he doesn’t like the law. Then the Legislative branch can try to override the veto. The Supreme court has no police powers to enforce anything. They don’t make laws.

          2. johninPCFL September 10, 2015

            The Supreme Court certainly can invalidate a law; it is part of their role in governance: “Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.”

            “When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.”

          3. David September 9, 2015

            John –
            She was found in contempt for failure to follow the judge’s order. That is what contempt is. It is NOT for breaking any law.

          4. johninPCFL September 10, 2015

            From the original article: “There is no government entity (courts or otherwise) that can order an American to do a job
            (outside of military service). You cannot be forced to do a job under penalty of prison. Period! This isn’t the middle ages.”

            I believe this is correct. So, if she was ordered by Judge Bunning to “do her job”, the order on its face is unenforceable. It may be exactly what the judge ordered, and failing to do so may indeed be why she was held in contempt, but I’ve not seen a link with those details.

      2. delbartonmom2008@aol.com September 8, 2015


        The Supreme court ruling you mention is not LAW. It is an opinion. As I said in my earlier post, every governor in the country has the legal right not to enforce the perverse, immoral ‘ruling” you mention. Also, the founders, especially, Thomas Jefferson can be googled who also, among many, refer to this crime against nature being punishable. Also, the priary purpose in science and anatomy for sex is first, to reproduce. the pleasure we derive is a component of sex, not why it exists in the first place. Go take a basic anatomy course. So the gays are doing what? Masturbation. Too bad the truth is ugly. Facts are being omitted and the dumbed-down Americans who are also apathetic and self absorbed don’t’ know their history nor their most basic scientific facts. The gays have only “won” because they marketed very cunningly this entire issue of accepting them on emotion!!!!

        1. johninPCFL September 9, 2015

          Yes the decision is not law. It specifically strikes down a law, meaning that the law it adds to or replaces is back in force. The underlying law does not require that the marriage license be applied for by opposite sex applicants, so it is not applicable now.

          So since the reason for sex is reproduction and menopausal women cannot, does that mean that older folks will also be denied marriage? How about if two folks marry and find they cannot have children? Is it then a state-sponsored annulment?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.