• Michael Glass

    The law is the law. Either this woman does her duty, or if she has a conscientious objection to performing her job then there are several options.

    1 She can resign.

    2 Her employer can assign her to other duties and let someone else do the duties that she has a conscientious objection about.

    End of conflict.

  • Pingback: Ky. clerk defies Supreme Court, refuses marriage license to gays - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • Nathaniel Edwards

    She has her religious freedom, she quit her job which is what u should do if you are asked something u simply cant do. But to sue her over it is ridiculous. State shouldn’t be involved on religious aspects, thats not just a law, thats in the constitutions.

  • John Standard

    The only reason there are 135 other sites, is because the people running those sites have decided to do their job. If all of them cited a religious objection, then what? No one in Kentucky gets married?

    Also, “gay Rosa Parks” syndrome? I don’t know exactly what you mean by that but it sounds pretty offensive, and strange coming from someone who is trying to support an act of civil disobedience.

  • @Dominic,

    “keep fighting Kim”

    For what?
    Do you not understand our Atheist Constitution?

    “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion….”
    – THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

    You have YOUR freedom of religion expressly BECAUSE
    the Constitution is Atheist!

    THE SAME ATHEIST POLICY WORKS IN MY ATHEIST HOME:
    My children are free to have a religion if they want it.
    But nobody may force anyone else to have religion.

    Only our Atheist Constitution guarantees YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
    Otherwise you would be compelled to have a religion
    which you would not want!

    Learn to love your freedom
    instead of trampling on it in your IGNORANCE!

  • Bill smith

    She is an elected official. If the people do not want her as clerk of the circuit court they can vote her out. Thanks to our constitution we have checks and balances to our congress,president and courts.

  • Larry

    Elected officials can also be impeached out of office for violating their oath of office and duty to the government which employs them.

    She can also be thrown in prison for contempt of court in refusing to abide by several orders to do her job in accordance with the laws of the state. Leaving a vacancy which can be re-filled by a new election.

    That is also part of our checks and balances.

    Its funny, there is a subset of people who are against rule of law when it doesn’t go their way, but suddenly think they are legal scholars.

  • Leslie lawrence

    Time to fire her….and please hire a sane/stable person who will perform his/her duty for the public welfare…this person should understand the rule of law and be willing to abide by it.

  • Greg1

    No the law is not the law. Just like Arizona is now going to “vote” on ignoring federal law regarding sales and growth of marijuana, so Kentucky needs to quickly put together a referendum to ignore the political sham of a decision regarding gay marriage. Let’s go, Kentucky! Time to join California, Arizona, Colorado, and a host of other states that officially ignore the feds; time to join the Leftists of this Country, and ignore the waste we call the Federal Government. The new Right Left movement will be hard to stop once it is in motion. And keep up the good work, Kim. You are starting a great movement. Let’s get some funding going for the cause. I’ll double what Larry puts in.

  • Larry

    Do you have any cheese to go with that whine?

    Unlike your self absorbed clerk who thought everyone must follow her religion, nobody is harmed by changes in mj laws. Illegal aliens are not felons, but your nativist ignorance is duly noted.

    You don’t want rule of law, you want privilege. Tough crap.

  • labman57

    My advice to public sector Christian conservatives who deem that their warped interpretation of Biblical law trumps Constitutional law and therefore cannot stomach the recent decisions of the SCOTUS and the legally-binding mandates issued by state and federal court judges — quit your taxpayer-funded jobs, scurry on home, lock the doors, pull the blinds, and never come out again.

    Otherwise, you can express your religious convictions … from the happy confines of a jail cell.

  • Tee

    Am I missing something here…I thought that fundamentalists such as Kim believe that the rapture of the church will occur at any moment and the “bride elect” will be caught up in the heavens to reign with Jesus for 1,000 years. I don’t hear much talk about this anymore. Wouldn’t this hasten this event? Why are you worried about It? I notice Kim does not quote scripture or address gluttony. She is not so compelled to save the morbidly obese young man in the video clip sitting behind the counter, and she looks to be rather overweight herself. Demonizing others will not bring into reality your ideals of heaven or idealistic beliefs. Move on Kim……

  • Greg1

    Ever hear of Kate Steinle, Larry? Let’s get that fund going for Kim…

  • Doc Anthony

    If it is “abuse”, as Larry anxiously complains, then let the voters vote Davis out, or the legislators impeach her out, or the judge imprison her out. So be it. She says she’s ready to accept the outcome.

    There comes a time when you have to do the right thing, Larry. There comes a time when you have to say, “This mess is totally wrong, this mess is unmistakably evil, and I for one will NOT sign off on the evil, nor even voluntarily resign my voter-entrusted job just to make it easy for evil-doers to do their corrosive mess.”

    Sure, sure, the Supremes will never tolerate any “push back”, you say. Okay, got it. Understood.

    But that’s just too bad for them, Larry. The Supremes or their lower-court lackeys can execute whatever legal revenge they want on Davis, but that won’t remove the “push back.” The “push back” is NOT going away at all. Get used to it.

    Ermold and Moore, you’re doing WRONG and you know it. America will continue to remind you.

  • Doc Anthony

    So be it. Davis will go to jail for choosing to be a stand-tall Christian, instead of a whipped dog like the other county clerks. C’est la vie.

  • Larry

    Nope, not have you given me reason to care. Sorry I don’t speak wingnut. Do you have a point to make?

  • Larry

    Then we agree she has no business continuing her job and she should accept the consequences of her actions.

  • Larry

    Bullcrap! She knew she was wasting the time of the courts for an action which was indefensible. But as long as taxpayers and Wingnut Counsel was footing the bill, she didnt care how wasteful and pointless she was being.

    Saying she will accept the consequences now is like surrendering after running out of ammunition. You really still want to continue to attack but lacked the means. Malicious and self important to the end.

    There is nothing moral or excusable as religious freedom to attack others in the name of your faith. A moral person would have quit. She is not one. This is just malice by people too spineless to own up to their feelings. FTS and her narcissistic attention Ho supporters.

  • GOD IS LOVE, well….. both are in different s` kind of love, … I really invite all of yours to do all with love, it was the example that JESUS gave to us. SO she must to give that documents to their because it is a law, and the biblia said: give to Cesar wich is to Cesar and to God wich come from GOD.
    PLEASE WOMEN remember that LOVEEEE is a big key, is a great machine to change all abd in good. GIVE that paper to them be so friendly, give excuses with a good dinner, make them your friends, and pray for them everyday, you cant change the people, because you want, itttttt takes time, and we don’t know the right time. OUR UNIQUE JOB is give love to everybody everywhere it includes, gays, lesbian, prostitutes. etc they are equal us, and our FATHER GOD is LOVING THEM, MUCH MUCH. Dont make He sad, with your attitude. 🙂 WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE ALL YOURS IN THE PLACE GOD GAVE ME TO LIVE.Here in COLOMBIA SOURTH…

  • James 4:11-12 ESV / 26 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

    Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
    I invite all my dear brothers and sisters to find JESUS in each human person, to love each person as we love our FATHER GOD, without JUDGES. accepting OUR DIFFERENCES. Thats love, to live in love make us free.. Would you try ? 🙂

  • LWJR

    Ms. Davis will be fed to the LIONS. Nero runs this country.

  • Davey

    I agree…let her rot in a cell and fine her into oblivion.

  • Davey

    Let’s hope it’s soon….for the sake of Kentucky.

  • Dominic

    These Davids want to become historical footnotes, ala Rosa Parks, as the gay couple that changed America’s view of gay marriage. Why badger this same woman in particular?
    Her argument is honest and respectable, why bring this trite moral argument to the front pages, when Davids can apply elsewhere easily?
    They have caused crowds and reporters to follow their cause, yet can’t believe that some jeer them! They are publicity hounds, with marriage taking a back seat now to their 15 minutes of dubious fame.
    Have they found a baker, a caterer, and a photographer to harass after they ruin this woman’s life? I see a Davids reality show in the near future. Gays are becoming obnoxious boors.

  • Dominic

    The Constitution is not atheist at all. It allows the mentally challenged to practice atheism, just as it allows the gifted to practice their religious beliefs. It is actually very religious in the fact that it allows men to use their God given Free Will to believe or not believe without prejudice.
    So, Lil’ Kim here can exercise her religious liberty to defy an unfair judgement.

  • Larry

    “Why badger this same woman in particular?”

    Because she is a government official who is refusing to do her duty to the public for purely malicious reasons. Worse still she is pretending her bad behavior is somehow “religious freedom”. Its an insult to the intelligence of the public.

    Your support of her is repugnant. She might as well be refusing to issue marriage licenses to people of different religions or races. You can easily claim, “God says so” on that nonsense as well. The only reason you sympathize with her is because you both share the same bigotries.

    There is this myth going around among those of a theocratic bent that Christians can do whatever they want to whomever they want as long as they claim God says so. Sociopathic behavior with a religious veneer. It is not tolerated in a free society which values religious freedom.

  • Larry

    “So, Lil’ Kim here can exercise her religious liberty to defy an unfair judgement.”

    Right after I ritually kill your children in the name of the dark lord Cthulhu. That is my right as religious liberty as well under your definitions. I am defying unfair laws which keep me from practicing my faith.

    Kim is pretending the state adopts her religious belief. Calling that religious liberty is disgustingly inappropriate.

    Its clear theocrats like yourself labor under the delusion that religious liberty means, “Christians can do whatever they want and harm whomever they want”.

  • Larry

    Why subject majestic animals to such abuse?

  • Dominic

    A moral person would act exactly as she does concerning such an obvious sin as gay marriage. No religious ground can be found for gay marriage in any writing or tradition…..since time began. It is clearly a pagan ideology….rife with all kinds of sinful inferences, and has opened the door for even more degrading acts to be made “virtuous” by law.

  • Dominic

    The state is not adopting her religious beliefs, but they need to respect her exercising of them. The State kept her in an awkward position when gay marriage was legalized. Her job duties essentially changed without any concern for her religious conscience. We can’t just fire all peoples who don’t know tow to the gay hyperbole.

  • Dominic

    She has no religious grounds to deny licences to couples of different religions or races, unless they are same sex couples, also. Marriage is male/ female, nothing in Christianity bars other races or religions from marrying.
    So, you are over reaching. Is it okay to ask someone to sin, to defile their God?
    That’s nice.

  • Larry

    A moral person doesn’t force others to follow their religious dictates nor abuses public trust and power to carry out personal agendas.

    Christians like yourself have no concept of morality. You simply look for excuses in religious belief to act in any way which suits your needs.

  • Larry

    Of course she does. Plenty of religious beliefs extol racism and sectarian bigotry. Many even call themselves Christian.

    “nothing in Christianity bars other races or religions from marrying.”

    That is not what they were saying 50 years ago. Christians like to forget their embarrassing past. Here is a list of Bible quotes frequently used by Christians to justify anti-miscegenation laws:
    http://www.openbible.info/topics/segregation

    The Virginia judge who was overturned by SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia (1960) even quoted the Bible to oppose interracial marriage.

    We don’t live in a theocracy. We don’t need to judge whether actions based on the “true tenets of the faith” according to you, her or anyone else. You are entitled to your religious views, but I am also entitled never to have to give a flying crap what they are. Religious freedom means you can’t force me to act in accordance with them.

    Why do you hate democracy and religious freedom so much?

  • Larry

    She is an agent of the state. Her job is to represent it. She was claiming in various courts that the state should endorse her religious belief and let her continue to discriminate in her public position.

    We can fire people who refuse to perform their jobs. Hers was to uphold the laws of the state. If she could not do so in her conscience, the moral solution was to step aside. It was not to maliciously discriminate against the public in the name of God.

    She had as much right to disobey the laws of the state and continue with discriminatory conduct as I do to sacrifice your loved ones to my deity of choice.

  • Ben in oakland

    Dominic, she’s not in the sin business, she is in the doing the paperwork for her employer business.

  • Ben in oakland

    Honey, Unclutch your pearls.

  • Dominic

    No, she is not in the sin business, nor is she making any laws regarding sin. You seem incapable of understanding her personal inability to be a part of what she believes is a grave sin.
    What if gays were legally forced to undergo conversion therapy? Would you say the same about a defender of same sex attraction?

  • Sister Geraldine Marie, OP, RN, PHN

    The Constitution protects her right to practice her religion regardless of her public employment. The Constitution doesn’t even mention that! It’s only concern is the protection of fundamental freedoms, religion being one of them.
    In Ancient Rome, one had to prove loyalty to Caesar by offering a little pinch of incense and it didn’t matter what your position in the government might be. Christians were regarded as ATHEISTS and TRAITORS to the State if they didn’t sacrifice and were then put to death.
    Ms. Davis is absolutely correct. This is the USA!

  • Michael

    The Bible warns us that we will know false prophets by their “fruits.” What are the fruits of anti-gay “Christian” Kim Davis’ actions? Do we see love? Compassion? Understanding? No. We see crowds jeering and heckling a loving couple that simply wants to get married. Will we be able to add violence to her list of fruits before this is over?

    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)

  • Michael

    Discrimination is not a valid “religious belief.” It’s a sin.

  • Michael

    First, she will stand in the Courthouse doorway and shout, “Homophobia now, homophobia tomorrow, homophobia forever!” (Because such a thing worked so well for George Wallace.)

  • George Nixon Shuler

    :Facepalm: That Faux meme about this so-called “Gay Gestapo” is among the stupidest things ever made up. This is a public servant, shirking her duty and violating the law. There is no persecution of this hypocritical political hack. This individual spits at the rule of law and deserves contempt citations and removal from office. She is the one doing the persecuting. Besides, she’s set for life now that right-wing extremist law firms are representing her pro bono and will cash in whn her ghostwritten book comes out.

  • George Nixon Shuler

    Because people want a public official to perform their duty?

  • Enzo Bordonaro

    The terms “the Gay Gestapo” are despicable and I’ve reported that abuse of language. Some Jewish organizations would be hurt to read that kind of vocabulary.

  • @Dominic,

    ” It allows the mentally challenged to practice atheism…”

    That is just your bigotry talking.

    “just as it allows the gifted to practice their religious beliefs….”

    And more bigotry and self-righteous blather.
    So you are putting yourself above the rest of us by claiming your special “gifts” too?
    Just don’t call it humility – because that would be even more disgusting.

  • Jack

    Now the far left gets to be “the Man”….the Establishment….while evangelicals get to be the counterculture.

    Now all we need is protest music…along with another Jimmie and Janis and all the rest.

    But Ms. Davis needs to dress the part…..if some of you geezers or your wives can lend her some late 1960s garb, that would be……er….cool.

    Q. What does a Woodstock Establishment look like?

    A. Probably like Nero or Caligula on LSD.

  • Ronald L. Jones

    You dummy, she is an elected official and as the County Clerk, she only swearers to the voters…

  • Jack

    Hogwash, Lawrence. Being willing to go to jail for one’s beliefs is the epitome of a principled stance. An unprincipled person would not have put herself in such a position or would have knuckled under before things went that far.

    But of course, since Ms. Davis dares to disagree with His Majesty, Lord Lawrence, the sultan of sophistry, she is by definition an evil and immoral wretch.

  • Jack

    But to be fair, Ronald, if she violates a Supreme Court ruling, I would imagine that a federal court could act to remove her.

    If there are any legal scholars on this board who are even slightly to the right of Karl Marx or Fidel Castro, you’re welcome to weigh in.

  • Jack

    She should thank God that Larry wasn’t the judge.

    By the time he got through with her, she’d be stripped of home, money, even the clothes on her back, and put in solitary for life…..and Judge Larry would find a way to circumvent the 13th Amendment and enslave her to God knows who.

    And if anyone said, “that’s judicial tyranny,” he’d look at the person squarely in the eye and say, “you’re just a bigoted conservative.”

  • Jack

    It’s not even clear that anyone “jeered” at them. That’s what their lawyer said and lawyers are not exactly known for their scrupulous honesty.

  • Jack

    Max, put down your sandwich board and go back to the circus tent. The clown-on-the-bicycle act is about to begin and you need to change outfits.

  • Jack

    Just as it’s fun to watch lefties suddenly get religion whenever a conservative Christian is exposed for moral hypocrisy, so is it amusing to watch them suddenly growl like Law ‘n Order Joes when they have the law on their side.

    Of course, when the law’s not on their side, weelll…..time to tear everything down. *&^% the law!

  • Jack

    Looks like Lord Larry wants it both ways…..enforce federal law for Ms. Davis and Kentucky, ignore federal law for stoners in Colorado or sanctuary cities across the land.

  • Jack

    Labman, what are you talking about? Yes, a Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land so long as it’s not overturned, but to assume that every ruling is decided rightly, ie constitutionally, is silly. It assumes justices are never wrong. Plenty of lousy decisions that virtually shredded the Constitution have been duly noted as such. Some have been overturned; others have not.

    The one on gay marriage was circular reasoning on steroids. Yes, the 14th guarantees equal protection, including for marriage, but no honest person truly believes that a court can arbitrarily assign a new definition to a key word, in this case, the word, “marriage,” as part of the ruling. That opens the door for any court to change the meaning of any word of any statute in advance of a ruling it has already decided to make.

    Even if one is for gay marriage, honesty dictates that it be done the right way. But for those who believe the ends justify the means, it doesn’t matter.

  • Jack

    I have no doubt that if her enemies totally ran the country, there is no indignity they wouldn’t inflict on her.

  • Jack

    Fair enough, but what should she have done instead?

  • Jack

    Michael, it sounds like you want understanding for one side alone — the one that agrees with you.

    Both sides contain human beings who deserve to be heard and understood.

  • Jack

    Larry, you are right in this instance; as part of her job, she has to follow the law, even if the law was arrived at in an asinine way, which in this case it was by the Supreme Court impersonating a legislature. But it’s the law of the land now, and that’s that.

    But to pretend you give a hoot about religious freedom otherwise is itself a hoot. You epitomize what Jonah Goldberg once called “liberal fascism,” or what can politely be called a French rather than American view of religious liberty.

  • Jack

    No, George, because one can oppose her view in a sensible and fair way, without demonizing her. It’s the way she’s being opposed, where the goal is to destroy her as a person, that reveals all we need to know.

  • Jack

    Right, Davey. Torture her, but spare the life of the ax murderer on death row.

    Your moral compass is broken. Fix it.

  • Jack

    Well, Michael, she is a Democrat, as was George Wallace and a litany of racial bigots going back a century-and-a-half……soooo…..

    But my sense is that she’s not that kind of Democrat, although you may be.

  • Jack

    Look who’s talking Larry….looks like you want rule of law only when it suits you. You just admitted it.

  • Jack

    Ah, a cat fight based on weight……Not a good move, Tee. There’s always somebody out there who’s thinner than the one mocking others for their girth.

  • Clydene

    Davis is a prejudiced person who judges and persecutes others because she is indoctrinated to think she is superior to all other human beings. Her poor judgment comes from her ridiculous belief system that she thinks allows her to break civil laws and set other human beings aside as not equal to her. She is narrow and a poor example of a good human being.

  • @Michael,

    Using a word like ‘sin’ isn’t a good argument.
    Jesus commands Christians hate those who won’t follow him:

    “Hate them” – JESUS (Luke 14:26)
    “Have nothing to do with him!”- (Titus 3:9-11)

    How can religion fix this problem?
    Religion is the entire cause of it.

  • @Jack,

    “..But to pretend you give a hoot about religious freedom..”

    PRETEND?!
    We Atheists have always been the pioneers of religious freedom – OUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT!

    You have no right to leave your Jesus and change your religion!
    Oh, wait a minute! YOU DO!

    Thanks to blasphemers like Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who shrugged off God long enough to make some laws to ensure YOUR FREE RIGHT to leave JESUS and change your religion.

    The same laws protect Atheists 100%.
    Don’t tell us how much we care about Religious Freedom until you bother to apply more thought to your claims. You don’t seem to understand anything.

  • Larry

    No Jack, being willing to go to jail in order to defend actions in DENYING people their civil liberties is just being pigheaded in their prejudice. There is nothing worthy of respect here. She is just another George Wallace without his gift of gab.

    A principled moral person would have stepped down in protest. Davis being a malicious lout pretended her beliefs entitled her to harm others. Of course the crux of Christian morality is that any action no matter how malicious or harmful to others is excused if you can claim Jesus says so.

    “she is by definition an evil and immoral wretch.”

    Yep. A person who abuse their public position to deny people their civil liberties are evil and immoral. As are people who are making phony arguments supporting such bad behavior. It sends the message that Christians have no sense decency or propriety when it comes to anyone else. If you want to defend that, so be it. Just don’t expect to garner respect for it.

  • Larry

    Nope.

    Officials elected under state & local laws need to be taken out by the level of government which brought them in. Federalism has its limits. Violating federal law can give grounds for removal, but the act itself has to be done within that specific system the person works under.

  • Larry

    So you are telling me that Christians like yourself not only don’t have regard for rule of law, but no actual knowledge as to how it works. 🙂

    One who says, “that’s judicial tyranny” in this country is usually an ignorant nabob who wants to discount the entire 200+ years of the judicial review process under a common law legal system. Usually its to moan about decisions they don’t like (but never bother to read or understand).

  • Larry

    No Jack, I understand the laws far better than either of you. You guys are using crap talking points which bemoan a complete ignorance of Federal laws. I wonder which ignorant wingnut you guys quote for that argument?

    State and local officials have no duty to enforce immigration law and are prohibited from doing so unless asked by the Feds. They can inform CIS of possible violators, but they have no duty to do so.

    Federal MJ laws do not give state and local authorities guidelines on enforcement unless there is another uniquely federal issue at play here (growing on federal property, interstate commerce…). That is left up to individual states. They can impose whatever penalties they want of their own.

    So no, Jack and Greg1, you are full of crap.

    You only want to laws enforced that can be used against others. Asking Christians to comply with given laws appears to be too much for them.

  • Jack

    You missed the point, Larry. I agree with the judge’s decision because I don’t know what the heck else he was supposed to do in response to the Supreme Court ruling, legally ludicrous though it is. The law is the law.

    I’m simply saying that if you, not he, were the judge, she’s be a destitute galley slave from a Ben Hur movie once you got through with her.

  • Larry

    “You epitomize what Jonah Goldberg once called “liberal fascism,” or what can politely be called a French rather than American view of religious liberty.”

    You keep saying that, but it is not even remotely true.

    Unlike yourself, I don’t makes excuses for violations of the Establishment Clause, try to claim that certain religions are unworthy of free exercise of religion, nor claim “religious liberty” is license to harm others under color of law.

    “Supreme Court impersonating a legislature.”

    No, its called judicial review and application of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Judicial review is 200+ years old and using the 14th Amendment to shoot down laws which violate it is about 100 years old. Maybe you didn’t get the memo.

  • Jack

    Larry, you’re skirting the point about hypocrisy. There’s no question that the feds have failed to move against sanctuary city policy, but that doesn’t change the fact that sanctuary city policy is a blatant attempt to deny and defy federal law and federal policy.

    To pretend that such cities don’t know this and need to be told by the feds is really lame. Obviously they know and obviously they will continue on such a path until something is done about it and them.

  • Larry

    So just a blathering personal attack, OK.

  • Jack

    We’ve been through this before, Max, but I suppose I need to realize that I can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

    As I’ve said many times, the vast majority of scholars of all stripes do not doubt the historicity of the character of Jesus. The very few who do tend to be fringe characters featured on the hate sites you haunt.

  • Jack

    LOL….and you’re not argumentative, Mad Max?

  • Jack

    Larry, nobody is rearguing Marbury v. Madison/judicial review and nobody denies the age of the 14th Amendment.

    The argument pertains to the misapplication of the 14th Amendment.

    Does the amendment guarantee equal protection regarding marriage? Sure it does. Thus, if you and I live in, say Connecticut, and some magistrate lets Jack marry his girlfriend but steps in to prevent Lord Larry from marrying his girlfriend, then you, Larry, have been victimized by a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

    But if Jack is allowed to marry his girlfriend and Larry his girlfriend, but Oscar is barred from marrying his boyfriend, then Oscar only has a claim if some relevant legislature has already chosen to redefine the word, “marriage” to include same-sex couples. Legislatures, not courts, are place for changing the definitions of words in statutes. Courts are supposed to rely on existing definitions and rule accordingly.

  • Jack,

    Yeah.
    And I don’t care whether a real Jesus existed – as I’ve said.
    The Jesus as depicted in the Gospels is almost certainly impossible:

    JESUS ADMITS HE IS IMAGINED
    FROM ANCIENT TORAH MYTHS
    “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” – JESUS (Matthew 12:40)

    Jesus is superstitiously taking LITERALLY the Torah story Jonah 1:17 which says:

    “Now the LORD provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” (Jonah 1:17)

    So poor superstitious Jesus thought this story was real.
    And that is why he had to be buried for 3 days!? (it was only 2, but no matter)

    It is almost like somebody made up a little sentence for Jesus to say
    to make sure the other Jesus fables could fall into place. 😉

    Real grown ups might pause to do some thinking here.

  • Jack,

    There is nothing wrong with argument. But you need to face it when you’ve lost.

    If you have no case (Christianity) and no evidence (christianity) you need to retire your argument.

    Show us your god. I’m still waiting.

  • Scott

    Perhaps this woman judge simply needs some love and care toward her direction. It is obvious that she is dealing with a lot of trouble in herself and her past that is interfering with her ability to have the mature understanding that her religious beliefs are simply opinions. If she were to gain a more mature perspective it would allow her to say to herself “well just because i have my own opionion about two people of the same gender marrying does not mean i have the ultimate correct truth. And even though i think differently i am going to exercise my mature care for my fellow humans and honor their request that is 100% within the law. “. Of course this kind of inner maturity is not necessarily a part of her experience at this time. She would do well to recognize that her inner hot button is around the area of sexuality. It appears that while she is standing up like a “warrior” against same sex marriage in the name of love and jesus, what she does not understand ….

  • Scott

    Is that she is being handicapped in her understanding by her lack of ability to give due respect for others that have opinions different than her own which are informed by her religious beliefs. In fact the very religious beliefs she claims to uphold may very well be her own misinterpretation of those religious virtutes. And it ultimately takes the most courage to recognize this in onself. The strength to say “though i believe this to be true, there is enough love in myself to give respect for another that thinks different than me (and is still legal and within the las). High level official that is being hijacked by her own lack of inner maturity in this case.

  • Pingback: That "Old Time Religion" Isn’t As Old As You Think -()

  • xaviersx

    Mentally challenged, hmmm, that’s what some people unkindly say about people who practice religion, any of the hundreds of religions, but thanks for your judgemental statement. of faith, not facts. Which interpretation of God are the non-mentally challenged practicing . . the rest can be denied licenses with prejudice?

  • xaviersx

    It’s interesting that she can practice her religious beliefs at home, in the car, at church, even in public as long as it doesn’t break the law, but her job isn’t about religious beliefs, or more importantly her religious beliefs in the job she’s paid by the government to do. It’s an exercise in standing in someone else’s shoes that people forgo to play the wounded card.

    If the topic was a gay or Wicca or atheist Kim Davis denying marriage licenses based on personal belief structures (different religion or no religion), same Christian supporters of K. Davis would be on the opposite side, saying she should be fired, if possible, for failing to perform the duties of her job position, especially a government/tax payer supported position. It parallels closely enough to people who denied services during segregation and the end of it, citing their religious beliefs for why the races were not equal and not serviceable at the same establishments – bigotry.