Gay Marriage

Kentucky Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses Found in Contempt, Taken Into Custody (UPDATE II: Clerk Won't Let Deputies Issue Licenses)

Kim Davis stands fast against acknowledging gay couples.

|

Kim Davis, on the left, is about to have a long day herself.
WSJ

Kim Davis, the county clerk for Rowan County in Kentucky who refused to give out marriage licenses in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision mandating same-sex marriage recognition, is off to jail. A federal judge has found her in contempt of court. From USA Today:

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies.

More than 100 protesters gathered outside the courthouse to bolster both sides of the debate.

Demonstrators lined the street, waving signs either with religious messages or calls for marriage equality.

Her counsel attempted to prevent the contempt finding by pointing out there were other ways to achieve the same goal, such as authorizing the state to hand out marriage licenses or somebody else in the office. But those would certainly require legislative fixes that most assuredly could not happen immediately and probably not something the judge could just order.

Read more about today's decision here. Read Stephanie Slade discussing Davis' refusal and how it's not a matter of religious liberty here.

As for me, I've reached the point where I just want people to stop trying to find ways to punish each other. I do want gay couples to be able to get their marriage licenses in Rowan County and not have to go elsewhere. But I don't want Kim Davis thrown in jail. I generally don't want anybody thrown in jail unless they're a physical threat to people's safety or property. I understand why this decision happened and the legal principles behind it, but as somebody who celebrated when Gavin Newsom defied California law years ago and married off same-sex couples and who just recently wrote positively about a police chief refusing to arrest heroin users if they were willing to go to rehab instead, I find these kinds of punitive responses to nonviolent defiance deeply unsettling. That I disagree with the defiance and the principles that motivate it doesn't change my concern. 

UPDATE: Five of the deputy clerks in Davis' office have told Judge Bunning they would be willing to issue marriage liecenses.

UPDATE II: Davis has said she will not grant her clerks authority to hand out licenses in her stead.

LEGAL INFO UPDATE: Some folks don't seem to understand that Davis is an elected official and simply cannot be "fired" for refusing to hand out licenses. Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed explains all the complications with trying to remove her that have led to this situation where the judge is left with having to find her in contempt.

NEXT: In Colombia's Civil War, Peasants Try to Build an Island of Peace

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Agree entirely. That woman is gross and lame and needs to find a job that doesn’t require her to do things she isn’t gonna do. But she doesn’t belong in jail.

    1. I don’t get why they don’t just fire her and call it a day.

      1. Because she was elected to the position.

        1. What does that have to do with anything? Can’t a judge remove an elected official?

          1. Um, no. Generally the legislature has to do that, or the electorate if recall elections are an option.

            1. Oh, I dunno. If judges can read a right to same-sex marriage into the constitution, removing elected officials seems like only a minor usurpation of power.

        2. Right, we can’t disrupt democracy by removing elected officials from office. The people are after all sovereign. We can however throw elected officials in jail until they obey what five guys in robes say.

          1. I didn’t make up the rules. But that does seem to be how it works.

      2. County clerk is an elected office.

    2. She clearly got special treatment. Had it been a “civilian”, she would have been on the business end of a SWAT raid and her dogs shot.

      1. With respect to special treatment, I am puzzled by the author’s statement:

        “I generally don’t want anybody thrown in jail unless they’re a physical threat to people’s safety or property.”

        Hopefully, this use of the term “generally” suggests that the author would agree with me that the insidious trolls of the Internet, those who “twist words to stir up controversy,”

        1. should be prosecuted and jailed as rapidly as possible. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

          http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. And those who claim to be someone they aren’t and then make statements intended to bring discredit on the one they are imitating, should, also, be prosecuted and Jailed as rapidly as possible.

            1. Indeed, any form of libel should be prosecuted and punished with incarceration. Particularly when the libel consists in portraying another as “admitting” to this sort of thing:

              “This is simply the politics of Dead Sea Scrolls studies. If I had given credit to this man I would have been banned from conferences around the world.”

              I am aware that some might think such a statement, spoken in the “voice” or “name” of a distinguished professor, is satirical on its face; but anyone who tries to hinder the course of criminal justice with that argument should, in my view, also be jailed. Another exception that the author should add to his list.

    3. It’s because they can’t fire her that she needs to go to jail to compel her to perform her duties. She is a public official who actively denies people their rights under the law. Refusing to do so requires that she be restrained from violating her oath of office and the rights of the citizens she is sworn to uphold. The story’s author seems to be obtuse to this. We are not talking about forcing a common citizen to do something they think is wrong, we are talking about an elected official who treats with contempt their responsibilities of office. Her jailing is not a violation of libertarian principles.

      1. while I agree that if you’re a govt employee, you don’t get to pick and choose the laws you follow, surely her stance is not surprising to those who elected her. Much like plenty of people hand-wave Obama’s dismissal of rules or laws he finds inconvenient. Maybe the county needs a recall election.

        1. What if the recall election re-elects her?

          Does she stay jailed until she complies, or her term expires?

          1. that puts the onus back on her. Someone else pointed out that an assistant in her office could handle licenses. Let that person do it till either this woman reconsiders and sits in jail a bit. I get that the purpose here is more to make a point with her than punish as I doubt prison is the ultimate goal, but seems an agent of the state ought to know better than most how the FYTW clause works.

        2. while I agree that if you’re a govt employee, you don’t get to pick and choose the laws you follow,

          The difference in treatment between this woman and Gavin Newsome is quite revealing.

          1. Gavin Newsome was recognizing that gays have rights. She is abrogating the rights of citizens. Yes, there is a BIG difference!

            1. Amendment 9: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
              Not by five out of nine glorified lawyers, who seem to think the Constitution is better used as toilet paper.
              Unenumerated rights can only be granted by the voters – that’s what they meant when they said by the people.

            2. She gave marriage licenses to no one, gay or straight. No one was denied rights because they could go to any other of the well over 100 counties in Kentucky and get a license.

              However, her position as clerk may compel to issue licenses to qualified couples. I have not yet found that wording in Kentucky law, nor have I found a copy of the judge’s order so that I can see what reason he is using to hold her in contempt (other than not doing what he says)

          2. that’s a good point. Principles vs principals.

        3. Hmmm, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
          Where, exactly, does the Supreme Court fit, along the lines of exerting the legislative power that is granted to the Congress.
          Unless the Congress makes it so, it isn’t a law.

        4. Well, she can always resign if she wants to clear things up. I don’t think the jailing would hold up after that.

          1. On the other hand, the power of judges to imprison arbitrary targets of disdain is rather excessive and usually abused. Regardless the legalities, jail is certainly ethically unjustifiable in this case.

      2. And, on the other hand, this is how civil disobedience is supposed to work. You refuse to obey the law, you go to jail, and IF you are in the right, over time the government becomes embarrassed to have you in jail and relents.

        OR the government had it right in the first place, your friends and neighbors don’t care, and you eventually become a self-taught expert on nature, like The Birdman of Alcatraz.

        1. We need more women in STEM fields.

        2. How does she not qualify as a political prisoner?
          Something we decry of dictatorships, isn’t it?

          1. I suppose that by some, not unreasonable measures, she IS a political prisoner. And so is anyone who engages in civil disobedience. And that is pretty much the point of doing so.

            Frankly damn few people on either side of the Gay Marriage issue come out looking good. The Gays could have, if they hadn’t decided to use the club of The State to MAKE people play nice, under threat of ruin. The anti-gay folks are beclowing themselves, the Gays are looking like Fascists, the Politicians on both sides have been grandstanding, and there’s a strong odor of smug lawyer over the whole thing.

            So, Gay coiples can marry. Now we get to see if they can also form stable marriages. I hope they can, but I’m not prepared to pretend that they can if the numbers show otherwise.

            Not that Heterosexual couples have been setting a high bar, lately.

      3. You mean like most progressive elected officials? Why are we focusing on this when progtards from Obama, Holder, DeBlasio, etc. regularly do far worse? As if this is anything like what those traitors have done. The worst case scenario for gays seeking marriage licenses is to go to the next county over. Jailing her is just another way for progtards t send a message to real Americans to bow down to their treasonous agenda.

    4. She should resign on principle or do her job. While I agree with her, it’s not government officials place to decide which laws they follow. This also another example of why marriage shouldn’t be entangled with government at all.

      1. She should resign on principle or do her job.

        Exactly. Just like Kentucky Attorney General Conway should have resigned if he couldn’t do his job of defending the marriage laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

      2. With the absurdity of our legal system, every public official with any authority whatever is required to decide what laws to follow and which to evade. It’s not a coherent system in which all the laws stand in clear agreement with one another. For a start, the vast majority of statutes seem to stand out of accord with the national constitution, in some way or other, a fact which would incline any rational person to greet every law with some suspicion. If anything, a reasonable approach would end a person up in some kind of legalistic paranoia in which even superficially innocuous laws are carefully registered and examined and even the most ghostly potential legal conflicts grossly magnified.

        1. that is one of the many reason why freedom loving, rational people do not become petty government beaurocrats in the first place.

      3. She’s done something with a long and honorable tradition; she’s gone to prison for her beliefs. I happen to think her beliefs are wrong, but she took a harder road, on purpose. Now we’ll see if her faith upholds her, or if she merely thought nobody would dare punish her.

    5. You know who else didn’t like “gross and lame” people?

      1. Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever?

        1. Nice.

          +1 “Don’t touch me”

      2. AWESOM-O 4000

    6. It would have helped if she didn’t want to go to jail. She’s getting off on this whole “victim-for-Jesus” thing, but she is just breaking her oath to keep an oath instead of resigning.

      1. Her oath was to do whatever someone else tells her to do?

        Meaning her office, an elected constitutional office, involves no independent judgement.

        Whether I agree with her actions or not, I find your argument uncompelling and entirely at odds with the concept of a representative constitutional republic.

        1. I didn’t really make an argument. I just pointed out that she wanted to be a #martyr4Jesus, and she broke her oath to fulfill the duties of her elected office to keep her oath with her god, instead of resigning and not directly violating either oath. You seem to have inferred a lot from two sentences.

    7. By requiring members of the public to meet her religious requirements before she’ll issue the state’s permission to get married, she’s establishing her religion as the official one in her county. The First Amendment’s quite clear that she’s not allowed to do that, and the courts have told her that she has to do her job.

      She belongs in jail for contempt of court, until she’s willing to follow the court’s orders to do her job, or to resign from her job.

      Also, Kentucky law says that her office can only issue marriage licenses with her signature, unless she’s absent from the office. I assume that while she’s in jail, that counts as absent, even if she’s in the basement of the same building, and if she were on vacation, that would also count as absent. If she’s in the building, but sitting in her office sulking, I don’t know if that legally counts as “absent” or not.

      1. She didn’t mention religious requirements.

      2. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
        Though the black-robed glorified lawyers in Washington have claimed they aren’t allowed to, in the lives of the Framers, some states had established religions and the residents seemed fine with it.

      3. To Billstewarts post:

        Bingo. Right on the money.

        Best way to end this and almost all other conflicts we have is to get government out of our daily lives so it does not inevitably mix with our personal and religious beliefs.

  2. #patientlywaitingforthecommentsshitstorm

    1. $10 on Bo v. John for 200+ comments

      1. Seems likely. I’ll go pop some popcorn.

          1. I STILL WANT MY LINK TO THE MAYO/KETCHUP FIGHT!!!

            *hangs burning mattress out of window*

            1. I do too. I know how passionate Sloopy is about mayonnaise.

              I made a white sauce for fish tacos out of mayo and lime juice the other day, and I bet that upsets him.

            2. If you dare.

              I was oddly transfixed at the retarded level of righteousness claimed by the opposing viewpoints.

              1. Like two bald men fighting over a comb.

                1. Oh God, that was great…

                  The Bo-derp in that thread so was so … mighty, it was almost like you could set it on a throne and call it a powerful tyrant.

                  1. That was exactly what I expected, complete with a horrible example that he kept repeating anyway.

                    On the plus side, I have a bottle of Kecap Malay in the fridge, and this reminded me to use it.

              2. It’s not about it being in the dictionary, numbnuts. It’s about it being the recipe in virtually every encyclopedia of cooking from Larousse to Escoffier to Better Homes And Gardens. Mayonnaise follows a basic recipe with variations for taste and desired outcome. But it must have the ingredients listed above for it to be considered mayonnaise. Period, full stop.

                Bo, you’re out of your depth here. Chefs are particular. More so about their sauces and condiments than anything else, in my opinion. There are rules. When you break a rule and create something new, you name it something new. You do NOT appropriate the name of something familiar but with different core ingredients. It’s simply not done.

                Oh my God. “YOU CAN’T CALL THAT MAYONNAISE BO, WHAT IS THIS CONDIMENT SOMALIA”

                1. “I name this bag of chalk and water….mayo!”

                  AND THUS IT WAS!

                  1. bag of chalk and water

                    Technically, that’s Miracle Whip.

                    1. Touche, Citizen X.

                      You win this round…

                      *grumbles*

              3. If you dare.

                Jesus H. fucking goddamn Christ that was stupid.

              4. I’m in between. I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I don’t want government involved in marriage at all anyway. I also am against govt. workers and politicians selectively following laws.

                Less government makes a lot of these headaches go away.

            3. Everyone is glad to see you burn that matress SS, we were tired of seeing you drag it around everywhere.

              1. Maybe Emma could come to any remaining Chicago Housing Authority projects and burn hers too?

      2. I was actually becoming more sympathetic to her position until I read that she had a deputy in her office that was willing to do the licenses but she ordered her not to.

        We’ve got a tradition of reasonable accommodations for conscience in this country, but she’s not even willing to be reasonable. It’s just she disagrees with what the law now demands and she’s not going to have none of it in her office, dagnabit!

        1. Because she’s the boss, her name is on the license even if a subordinate issued it. Couple could go to another county.

          1. Or she could do her job.

            1. She should. Or quit. Are you consistent on this? Like Holder and Co. Selectively enforcing immigration laws? What about ‘sanctuary cities’?

              1. Sanctuary cities have nothing to do with this. It’s not the city PD’s job to enforce federal immigration law.

                1. The principle is the same.

                2. But apparently it is the city PD’s job to enforce federal marriage law.

              2. Let me know when it’s the cities PD’s jobs to enforce federal immigration laws?

                Oh wait, wasn’t that specifically something they don’t want to do because it causes issues with reporting of and willingness to be witness’s to crimes?

              3. Or she could do what she apparently has done; decline to follow a law she considers to be wrong, and risk going to jail for it. Resigning is a cheap out.

                I happen to think she’s wrong, mind, but if we applaud people for doing this when we agree with them, we should at a minimum recognize that the Civil Disobedience blade cuts both ways.

                All of which depends on her staying in jail, rather than resign with an alacrity that would suggest she didn’t think she was risking anything.

          2. Why didn’t black folks before civil rights think of this? They could have all just packed up and went somewhere that let them vote. Let the poor white racists have their way and they get their way. Win-Win right? /sarcasm

            1. She is in government. There is a case to be made for bakers not being forced to serve clients for whatever reason, including religious convictions. She is a government agent that is refusing to recognize the religious rights of gays. The deals they [gay couples] make with their deity is their business, providing the legal protection in the eyes of the state is her business – which she refused to do.

            2. You’re quite right. It would have been a cruel irony for us to kidnap gays and bring them in chains to America, and then taunt their descendants with the suggestion that if they didn’t like the way we did things, they should just go to another jurisdiction. Yep. Exactly analogous to the civil rights movement.

      3. 336 at 2:07pm…I way undershot. Hey, Juvy Bluster – got any more popcorn?

        1. *writes in journal*

          “2:55 pm Central Time…476 comments. Not sure we can keep up anymore….need to reach 1 ton depot….”

        2. I ran out. I’ve gone through so much popcorn in this thread I think I’ve gained 5 pounds.

          1. I took a sip every time John and Bo talked past each other. Once that shit hits my bloodstream, I’m going to die.

  3. That I disagree with the defiance and the principles that motivate it doesn’t change my concern.
    THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS! THIS!

    Always this, forever this!

    By God, I love libertarian principles. Good on ya, Scott!

  4. Hell, as an elected official can they even say she’s not doing her job without a special election? She’s apparently refusing to hand out any marriage licenses, and if the voters vote for her again, then its hard to say she’s not fulfilling the duties she was elected to fulfill.

    1. For a Constitutional Office the voters choose the person to carry out the duties but the duties are defined outside of that jurisdiction.

      1. The powers are defined outside the voters jurisdiction, but the duties are generally made by the office holder. It’s just rare in this country to see someone go through all the trouble of getting an elected position and then not using all the powers they’ve been granted.

        1. You’re conflating powers and duties.

          1. Powers: The ability to do something. Duties: The requirement to do something. Duties and Powers can be held independently of each other.

            1. Her position has certain duties. One of them is to issue marriage licenses when criteria has been met.

              She’s not refusing to exercise a power, she’s refusing to fulfill a duty.

              1. To her, the criteria of her highest authority hasn’t been met.
                And she seems wiling to be martyred for it.

    2. Isn’t majority rule WONDERFUL?

    3. My concern is that the inbred redneck troglodytes of Kentucky (like SugarFree) will raise her up as the next Sheriff Joe, and keep re-electing her forever despite her willful refusal to do her actual job.

      1. Exactly, which is why we shouldn’t be allowed to vote!

      2. Her actual job is to act at the behest of her voters using the powers granted to her.

        1. I don’t think it is. She’s a damn clerk, not an executive or legislator. It’s not a political office that she holds. There is a specific job she is supposed to be doing and that includes issuing marriage licenses. If her conscience forbids her to do the job, then her recourse is to quit. Then she can protest however she wants.

          1. Not to nitpick, but if she is elected, than technically this is a political office. And technically a part of the executive branch for the county.

            1. Maybe “non-political” isn’t the right word. But at least where I live, there are lots of local elected positions that are just jobs that need to be done and the elections are usually non-partisan if they are even contested. The position is elected to make cronyism more difficult and to add some accountability outside of the government. Point is that the office is there because someone needs to do clerk shit, not to shape policy.

              1. seems that it would be easier to hire someone to do the clerk shit. At least if that person refused to do the required shit, fire him/her and move on. Without the sideshow.

                1. I think that would make a lot more sense. It’s funny the positions that are elected, especiall in small towns/counties.

                  1. Probably a reaction to Mayor Smith filling all the government jobs with Smiths.

                2. I’ve read the definitions at their county website. The clerk has a lot of power, almost like a city manager for the county. She doesn’t have policy making powers, but overseas most or all county office operations.

                3. Today’s civics lesson: County Clerk: Not just some paper shuffling pissant.

              2. Like Coroner around here. As far as I’m concerned, if you want that job, you’ve got it.

        2. Her position should not be an elected one. The ridiculous amount of elected positions is one of America’s worst problems.

          1. Worse than derpathy?

          2. Bullshit. Elected positions are a guard against tyranny of political elites. e.g. the sheriffs almost universally supporting CCW and gun rights, while chiefs of police want gun bans. Move to the fucking EU if you want almost no elected positions.

          3. Canada has government paid for housing for Muslims only. Toronto just removed a disabled boy from the housing list because the governmet htinks taxpayerr money is better spent providing Muslims only housing.

            http://goo.gl/V6SfQa

            Why don’t you worry about your country’s problems before you find time to worry about someone else’s ?

          4. Canada has government paid for housing for Muslims only. Toronto just removed a disabled boy from the housing list because the governmet htinks taxpayerr money is better spent providing Muslims only housing.

            http://goo.gl/V6SfQa

            Why don’t you worry about your country’s problems before you find time to worry about someone else’s ?

          5. Exactly! Everyone should be a political appointee, with one person making all the appointments.

            You know who had that kind of system?

      3. You know the easiest way to kill Hugh?

        Slam the toilet lid down on his head while he’s getting a drink.

        1. Multiple times. He has a Homer Simpson skull.

          1. Depleted uranium toilet seats, the latest in tacticool pooping…

        2. Does he lap it up with his Gene Simmons like tongue?

          1. Think “bobbing for apples.”

            1. Now I’m sorry for asking.

          2. No, he just has one of those bendy straws.

          3. He needs to irrigate his gills somehow.

  5. I don’t see how jailing her solves anything. The deputy clerks cannot issue licenses and if they issue them under her name, it’s fraud. Or at least I don’t see how a fraudulent license makes for a legally valid marriage.

    All the judge has done is make her a martyr and she can probably stay high in jail off her own farts for quite a while.

    1. Well for one thing having her in jail means one less bed for nonviolent drug offeHAHAHAHA I’m just kidding I’m sure they’ll find room.

    2. I mean, I can see the reasoning behind it. She’s defying a federal court order, which, whatever you think of it, is probably not a good idea. It’s no use fining her because she’ll make 10x the fine amount through donations. So jailing is the next option.

      Not agreeing with it (she should do her job, but I don’t think she should be thrown in jail), but I see his reasoning at least.

      1. As with so many issues, the problem is that the proposed remedies are not possible, due to laws enacted by the government. She *can’t* be fired. She has to be impeached and convicted before she can be removed from her job.

        Look, the issue is really simple (aside from the onerous burdens of legislation) — she works for a restaurant that used to be vegan and has become a barbecue joint. She insists she shouldn’t have to handle meat, should retain her job, but she won’t take orders for barbecue, she won’t serve barbecue, she won’t cook barbecue, she won’t prep barbecue, she won’t quit. Fire the bitch.
        Jail is wrong because we don’t jail persons for not performing their jobs (ordinarily), but it is the only real recourse the judge has.

        1. ” she works for a restaurant that used to be vegan and has become a barbecue joint.”

          Where is this paradise you speak of?

          1. “Playa’s Bar and Grill”

            What’re we eatin’ tonight?

            1. My short ribs take 3 days. If I start now, we’re eating on Sunday.

              1. Cool, see you then.

              2. 3 days? I can get a burrito at Chipotle in like 5 minutes.

                1. Yeah, but then you’re stuck eating a burrito from Chipotle, which will have completed its passage through your digestive tract less than a minute later.

                2. Or you can find something in the dumpster in less than a minute.

              3. My wife teaches ballet across the street from a BBQ resturant just named #1 in the nation for it’s brisket, Killen’s. The brisket is from heaven. Being a Texas country boy I’ve eaten a lot of brisket. A close friend’s aunt was named #1 by Texas Monthly as the best in Texas about 6 years ago. A cousin of mine owns a super successful upscale BBq joint in Houston. I know BBQ. Killen’s is the best brisket I’ve ever tasted.

                They cook a beef rib for $23 a pound. Each rib weighs about a pound. It looks like a Fred Flinstone rib. Nothing like you can find at a normal gorcery store.

                Sex is over rated.

              4. My wife teaches ballet across the street from a BBQ resturant just named #1 in the nation for it’s brisket, Killen’s. The brisket is from heaven. Being a Texas country boy I’ve eaten a lot of brisket. A close friend’s aunt was named #1 by Texas Monthly as the best in Texas about 6 years ago. A cousin of mine owns a super successful upscale BBq joint in Houston. I know BBQ. Killen’s is the best brisket I’ve ever tasted.

                They cook a beef rib for $23 a pound. Each rib weighs about a pound. It looks like a Fred Flinstone rib. Nothing like you can find at a normal gorcery store.

                Sex is over rated.

        2. mmmmmm…..barbecue

        3. “she works for a restaurant that used to be vegan and has become a barbecue joint.”

          Has become? I’m afraid this nonspecificity manages to avoid the real issue of *who* is trying to turn them into a barbecue joint and under what authority.

          1. That would be the SCOTUS under the 14th Amendment. That’s the same group and authority that, for example, gave us Heller and MacDonald (which, interestingly involved court orders to city officials to comply with the rulings in issuing government licenses).

            1. So, if Heller had gone the other way and the Court said 5-4 that there’s no individual right to bear arms, that would be the law, and everybody should just turn in their guns?

              1. Those in DC and Chicago would have to keep following those laws, yes. That’s certainly bad, but any other view gets you the flip side problem where those officials who disagree with Heller or MacDondald refusing to go along based on their conscience.

                1. Not for nothing, but Chicago has gone thru all sorts of bureaucratic fuckery to try to circumvent the ruling.

                  1. throw them in jail for contempt!

    3. It solves it by giving her the choice of following the ruling or rotting in jail. Eventually she will get tired of being there and agree to give the licenses. How else are they supposed to enforce the order? And if they don’t threaten people with jail, then what good is the decision?

      1. No, I’m saying that jailing her doesn’t actually mean that anyone else can issue the licenses. Of course jail is to pressure her, but it’s not like she has been removed from office and someone else can be appointed. It doesn’t even trigger a special election, as far as I can tell.

        1. That is because Kentucky is a sovereign and the people of Kentucky, not the Supreme Court as shocking as that no doubt is to them, determine who is their clerk. The feds can throw her in jail, but they can’t make her comply. So both sides are screwed.

          Ultimately, this kind of thing is the downside to winning issues in court rather than by elections and in public opinion. All courts have is brute force. That is it. They bring only as much legitimacy as the public wants to give them. So, if you have a decision that is not accepted or widely unpopular, it can be a real bitch to enforce it. Civil disobedience like this can be very effective, if it is determined and widespread.

          1. Ultimately, this kind of thing is the downside to winning issues in court rather than by elections and in public opinion. All courts have is brute force.

            Right, and the people who win elections govern by persuasion rather than brute force? Really?

            Public opinion, if actually opinion rather than empowering govt officials to enforce one’s views, not so much so.

            1. True. That is all government has too. They can’t force the public to do something it doesn’t want to either. My larger point still stands. Just because the government degrees gay marriage, doesn’t mean that the public is going to go along or that the issue is settled. That is up to the public. Sometimes it is a bit harder to shove things down their throats than our masters think.

              1. +1 Massive Resistance!

          2. The feds can throw her in jail, but they can’t make her comply. So both sides are screwed.

            The feds don’t have to throw her in jail. They can order her to stay out of her workplace, and stations guards at the door to hustle her off the premises if she defies that order. Then the judge can order the deputy clerk to issue the licenses. Continue working down the chain of command until someone says, “hmmm, I like getting paid.”

            1. No. Those licenses would not be valid under Kentucky law from what SF is saying. The judge can order them issued. But no judge can rewrite Kentucky law. If the law says only licenses issued by the clerk are valid, then ones issued by the deputy are not valid even if they were ordered to do it by a judge.

              1. If the clerk is in jail that likely qualifies as being “absent.” In that case a county judge or the county executive (the only people above the clerk in rank) can substitute for her.

          3. It is rather disturbing to see how many people at a “libertarian” website are celebrating the state’s use of force against a public dissenter.

        2. Actually I just read the following

          “402.240

          1. 402.240 County judge/executive to issue license in absence of clerk.
            In the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county
            judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties
            and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk. The county judge/executive shall return
            a memorandum thereof to the clerk, and the memorandum shall be recorded as if
            the license had been issued by the clerk.

            1. Interesting. Her office isn’t vacant, so I guess this is going to count as absent.

              I wonder if the judge/executive will refuse.

              1. There is also that pesky “may” wording, so he may decline rather than refuse.

    4. “probably stay high in jail off her own farts”

      So “meth” in prison is really methane?!?!?!

      1. You know nothing, Swiss Snow.

        1. Well, at least nothing practical, right?

      2. From the looks of her, there’s probably a bit of sulfur in there too.

        1. “I had a steak wrapped in bacon for dinner last night, huh huh.”

          1. “Beer, corned beef, boiled cabbage, and bean pie”

            1. loved boiled cabbage. last time I ate out with my honey went to the buffet and had a pile of boiled cabbage topped with pulled pork, with some fried okra on the side

    5. KY law says that in the absence of a clerk a judge can issue the MLs. Or a couple can go to another county.

      1. Thanks, I couldn’t figure out from the statutes if a judge could do it over her.

        1. a county executive can also do it

      2. Not a judge, what is stated above is the ‘judge executive’, which is a specific executive position, similar to being a comptroller or county commissioner for the county.

        The person holding the purse strings. Judge-execs don’t do regular judge work.

        1. I believe “county judge/executive” is short hand for “county judge or county executive”, which would be the two positions higher in rank than county clerk

          1. No, in Kentucky it is a specific constitutional office – the chief executive of the county.

            1. OK, thanks for the correction, but the idea in principle – the County Clerk’s superior, but not a subordinate

  6. If you don’t want her thrown in jail Scott, you should not have gotten the government involved. This is how government works. Either that woman goes to jail or the law doesn’t mean anything. When the Supreme Court issued the ruling in Oberfeld, it meant that anyone who didn’t follow it was liable to be imprisoned. That is what court orders mean.

    Yes, for the moment people are allowed to say the disagree. But certainly no state official is allowed to disobey the court. And once people start getting sued for not providing spousal benefits to gay couples, anyone who disobeys those orders will be subject to fines and ultimately jail if they don’t pay them or resist when the sheriff shows up to enforce the judgement.

    I guess my question is that if it bothers you to see someone who disobeys the Supreme Court being thrown in jail, why were you happy about the decision in the first place? The decision only means something if it is accompanied by the threat of jail for anyone who doesn’t comply. That is how courts, laws and government works.

    1. I have little problem with elected officials, even at this level, being held accountable. I just wish it happened more often.

      1. I think this is appalling. But that is because I think the gay marriage decision is appalling. If I agreed with the decision, I would have no problem with this. And good for you for not having a problem with it. It frankly turns my stomach to hear people who spent years cheering for the Supreme Court to do this now act all sad and shocked that winning means throwing any government official who won’t comply in jail. What the hell did they think was going to happen if they won? Forcing people to comply on threat of jail is why you go to court.

        1. I don’t care at all about marriage licenses and who gets them or who doesn’t. I don’t think it’s libertarian to be on any side other than removing the notion of state-sanctioned unions. I have a problem with an official taking a stand on her supposed beliefs but not stepping aside for someone who will do the job she campaigned, but fails, to do.

          Again, if this was a private citizen, I definitely would be up in arms.

          1. Don’t worry. There will be plenty of private citizens being hauled into court because they don’t recognize gay marriages in the coming years. So, you will have plenty of opportunities to be up in arms.

            As far as this woman, I think any person who applauded the gay marriage decision necessarily needs to applaud this. If you don’t like throwing people in jail, then you shouldn’t go to court to get what you want.

            1. I know what you’re saying but I think public accommodation laws need to be addressed separately. They’re unlibertarian with or without same-sex marriage recognition in the mix.

              1. You know what else is unlibertarian? The government deciding which marriages are valid and which aren’t and requiring everyone to recognize every marriage it says is valid. That is pretty unlibertarian. And so is dictating the terms of said marriages and requiring couples to go before a judge in order to break up. Government recognition of marriage is a public accommodation law. People can’t seem to understand that. Half the reason the government recognizes marriages is so that it can force everyone else to do the same.

                Yet somehow the greatest moral issue of our time to many Libertarians is ensuring that the government does that to more couples and expanding the reach of government involvement in our private lives.

                1. “Yet somehow the greatest moral issue of our time to many Libertarians is ensuring that the government does that to more couples and expanding the reach of government involvement in our private lives.”

                  You’re being dishonest here. You know well that most writers at Reason and most commentators here who disagree with you on gay marriage hold the view that government should not provide marriage recognition and benefits, but that if they do they should do it in compliance with the Equal Protection Clause. Likewise, most would argue we shouldn’t have public schools but if we do we have to run them in compliance with the EPC. A libertarian doesn’t have to be against Brown under the idea that it expanded government by forcing the higher funded schools to take in black kids and they don’t have to be against marriage equality on the grounds that now more people will get married. They can say ‘we shouldn’t have X, but if we do it should be available on equal grounds.’

                  In fact, I wonder if you’ve noticed that one upshot to the SCOTUS decision is more people are actually talking about the possibility, hitherto not discussed in the mainstream, of ending government marriage recognition.

                  1. Bo,

                    You have apparently stopped even trying to make sense. Like I say below, go post on a thread where you understand what is going on.

                    1. John, it’s evident you’ve got no response.

                  2. Who the fuck are you to speak for most people ?

                    No one’s elected to you any office to speak for them as far as I know and certainly none here at Reason.

                    1. No one’s elected to you any office to speak for them

                      Umm, why would he have to be elected?

                2. “The government should not issue marriage licenses, but so long as it does it should do so without discriminating against the people wishing to be married”.

                  That’s the libertarian position.

                  Libertarians have said for many years that the government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning marriages. Conservatives lambasted us. saying that if marriages weren’t required to be licensed then gay couples would be able to marry.

                  Oops.

                  Anyway, glad to hear that you’ve belatedly come around to the libertarian position, even if only for entirely selfish and hypocritical reasons.

                  1. Fuck off Dan.

                    You don’t believe in the Libertarian position. If you did, you wouldn’t be happy gays can get marriage licenses. Why do you think government marriage is bad? Frankly you are probably too dim to have given that issue much thought. But if you ever did and were a brighter than you are, you would object to government marriage because it makes couples subjected to it less free. And once you understand that, you would realize that you don’t extend a law that makes people less free to cover more people in the name of “equality”. Saying you should is like saying that we should have extended slavery to people besides blacks in the name of equality. Sure slavery is bad but as long as we are going to have it, people besides blacks should be enslaved too. Or in more modern terms that we should extend public accommodation laws to cover gays. Yes, they are bad, but if we are going ot have them gays should be treated equally and have access to them as well. The logic in all three cases is the same.

                    I don’t mind so much that you are a smug douche. What makes you so uniquely appalling Dan is that you have not a single thing to be smug about. You never once make an interesting point or say anything other than mindless left slanted drivel

                    1. “You don’t believe in the Libertarian position. If you did, you wouldn’t be happy gays can get marriage licenses.”

                      Notice John just totally elides and ignores Dan’s entire point which addressed this. And of course he gets in some cursing and stomping around.

                    2. Bo, John is making a good point.

                      It is always the more proper libertarian position to support less coercion, not more – even if some sodomites are thereby offended.

                    3. Libertymike, Bo is pointing out that the libertarian position is being more effectively advanced by this course of events than would otherwise be the case.

                      But far be it from libertarians to support pragmatism.

                    4. It is always the more proper libertarian position to support less coercion, not more – even if some sodomites are thereby offended

                      Yea, but John cleverly reverses who the aggressor is. Statists do that all the time.

                    5. For those of you new to Reason allow me to introduce you to Michael Hiln.

                      Mike was once very involved in Libertaarian politics.

                      It;s important that you know that.

                    6. Mike was once very involved in Libertaarian politics.
                      It;s important that you know that.

                      Only to the dumbfucks who say I can’t possibly be libertarian. Some, mostly followers of the Paulista Cult, even insist I am a “Progressive”
                      And the cowards who have no rebuttals.

                    7. He’s clearly very butt-hurt.

                    8. Did the pot-smoking Mexicans get him?

                  2. “The government should not issue marriage licenses, but so long as it does it should do so without discriminating against the people wishing to be married”.

                    That’s the libertarian position.

                    Except for followers of the Paulista Cult, who shit on the Constitution.

        2. I disagree with you about the gay marriage ruling, John, but I agree with you that this is what courts *must* do to uphold their rulings. Even libertarians seem to forget that even when the courts do something they agree with, the legal system will still have to employ force to get it done. Personally, I’m fine with that tradeoff, as long as it involves upholding individuals’ rights and holding people accountable when they violate them…which is the case with Davis.

          Also, she was a politician taking a paycheck while willfully refusing to do the job she was elected to do. That’s theft as far as I’m concerned, and I’m fine with jail for thieves.

          1. It’s an elected position, right? So, if her constituents relay to her that they want her to not issue licenses, is she then doing her job?

            1. She doesn’t swear an oath to the voters of her county, but to the US and KY Constitution and the laws of the US and KY, which charge her with certain *duties.*

              1. Maybe it’s in here and I haven’t found it yet, but is her office required to issue licenses to any qualified couple, or does she have the discretion to stop issuing any licenses.

                http://law.justia.com/codes/ke…..apter-402/

                1. Well, it’s right there where it says the license has to be issued in the county where the female resides unless the female is 18. Kind of a difficult hurdle for 2 men.

                  1. The SCOTUS decision strikes the language about ‘female,’ but it doesn’t strike the language about ‘shall.’

                    1. Does the “shall” refer to the county, or does it mean “must”.

                      The “shall” seems to only apply to when the female (or I reckon at least one of the people wanting to be married is under 18) and then says “in the county where the female resides”. This seems to be an exception to the principle that the license can be obtained in any county. People under 18 must/shall get the license in their home county.

                      If “shall” means “must” issue, why would it only apply to those couples where the female is under 18?

                      If you read 42.080, it clearly is talking about WHERE the license shall be obtained.

                    2. So SCOTUS decisions effectively re-write laws to suit whatever you think they should now read?

                      Um. No. Esq. you sure as fuck are not.

                      If the law is not severable then the law is invalid, and the State will need to revise it.

                      This ain’t make it up as you go along territory.

                  2. Well, it’s right there where it says the license has to be issued in the county where the female resides unless the female is 18. Kind of a difficult hurdle for 2 men.

                    Anyone tempted to believe this bullshitting bigot, this is the single excerpt he lied about.

                    http://law.justia.com/codes/ke…..n-402.080/

                    It deals with a restriction (consent) for women under 18, which, ummm, doesn’t even apply to two men. “Age of consent” applies only to women.

                    If anyone else doesn’t know what what “unconstitutional” means, I can’t help you.

            2. That it is an elected position isn’t really an interesting point, unless she was elected with the unanimous support of everyone in her county. Government officials are there to provide services to everyone, not just to their political supporters.

              1. Government officials are there to provide services to everyone, not just to their political supporters.

                Oh, that’s just too precious.

              2. The point of her being elected means she cannot simply be fired as many people have been saying.

                1. She can be jailed, has been jailed, which is phrased to be for the rest of her life if necessary..

          2. What Calvalier said. She works for the State of Kentucky not the Supreme Court. So her defying the Supreme Court is not failing to do her job. What is and is not doing her job is up to the state and the people who elected her not the courts.

            This is about the power of the courts to compel compliance to their orders. Her doing her job or not has nothing to do with it. Moreover, even if it did, you don’t go to jail for not doing your job. You get fired.

            1. Kentucky law says the Clerk of the County *shall* issue marriage licenses when criteria are met.

              1. And under Kentucky law they are not met. Kentucky law doesn’t recognize gay marriage. The only thing that recognizes gay marriage is the Supreme Court. What she is doing is perfectly legal under Kentucky law. She is running afoul of federal law and the federal courts not Kentucky law.

                1. It’s almost as if the US Constitution exists and it has a provision which applies to the states and there is a mechanism set up for deciding whether that is triggered here and that that process has occurred with the result that the part of KY law banning gay marriage is overruled but the part that says the Clerk *shall* issue licenses remains…

                2. And under Kentucky law they are not met. Kentucky law doesn’t recognize gay marriage.

                  She is refusing to issue marriage licenses at all, including to heterosexual couples. So, yes, the criteria are met, even if you mistakenly believe Kentucky law still bans recognition of gay marriages.

                  1. Wow Dan and Bo. It is like a vortex of stupid. Can there be this much stupid on one thread?

                    Kentucky law doesn’t recognize gay marriage you fucking half wit. If it did, there would have been no need to sue and go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordering it does not change the language of the Kentucky statutes. It just puts a federal requirement over it.

                    Fuck you are a special breed of dishonest moron.

                    1. Dan meet John, when people don’t accept the argument in the odd ways he wants to frame them he gets mad and curses and stomps around.

                      You can keep pointing out how the federal courts under the authority of the 14th Amendment which explicitly covers the states struck the language about females but didn’t strike the KY law that the clerk *shall* issue marriage licenses all day, he’ll just curse and stomp and misdirect. He wasn’t interested in making any honest point to begin with of course.

                    2. Kentucky law doesn’t recognize gay marriage you fucking half wit.

                      It does now that the Supreme Court said any restriction on same-sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

                      The Constitution didn’t stop at ten amendments…the others count. Swearing at people because you disagree with their opinions doesn’t change that you’re factually wrong.

                    3. “It does now that the Supreme Court said any restriction on same-sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment.”

                      No, it does not.

                      SCOTUS cannot replace existing law. Only rule on it’s constitutionality. If a law fails that test it is no longer valid. Period. End of story.

                  2. Any chance she’s refusing to issue any marriages because, per SCOTUS, Kentucky’s marriage law is no longer valid and requires legislative revision?

              2. 402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue.

                No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

                The criteria is not met for gay men seeking a marriage license under Kentucky law.

                1. So if she refused to grant a license to two lesbians then she’d be in clear violation of her duties, on that we’re agreed?

                  1. Could be, but there is a “shall” and a “may” in the same paragraph, so your analysis about whether issuing marriage licenses is a requirement subject to jail time if not followed is probably wrong.

                    1. I think the ‘may’ part refers only to the idea that some clerk other than clerk of the county can carry out the shall in the defined circumstances. It doesn’t negate the ‘shall’ at the beginning.

                    2. It doesn’t negate the ‘shall’ at the beginning.

                      You want to equate “shall” with “must” but then, by this logic she could just say, “come back in 5 years when I finish filling out your license” and still meet this “requirement”. The point being, it’s up to the people of her county to decide whether she is fulfilling her official requirements or not

                    3. The people of the county don’t make the requirement, the KY General Assembly does. That’s why they have the power to impeach her. She also, of course, must follow the US Constitution. If they were to find that she’s not performing her statutory duties in compliance with the US Constitution they can intervene too-which of course is what seems to have happened here.

                    4. There is no ‘other’ clerk, she is THE clerk of the county. Shall refers to which county

                    5. If any deputy clerk or any person other than a county clerk knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of this chapter, but not for a prohibited marriage, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and if he knowingly issues a license for a marriage prohibited by this chapter, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor

                      And you’re also wrong about deputy clerks being able to issue

                2. Who MAY Issue – Not who MUST Issue

                  This chapter is about which county to obtain the license

            2. So her defying the Supreme Court is not failing to do her job. What is and is not doing her job is up to the state and the people who elected her not the courts.

              Have you been following news accounts on this? SHE says (brags) that she follows “God’s Law” as her reason to intentionally defy a court ruling and defy equal rights. She also imposes her defiance on her Deputy Clerks.

              This is about the power of the courts to compel compliance to their orders.

              They’re called rulings. And they indeed have that power … unless you stand with Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who used armed militia to keep nine black kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High School …. Eisenhower sent federal troops with orders to use force if necessary … Faubus caved, and then whine about federal judges imposing their will over state law (which we hear today from Ron Paul and other authoritarian bigots)

      2. She can learn all about gay marriage in jail from her cell mate “Big Marge”

        1. +1 Large Marge

    2. John, would you feel the same way if some yahoo official in Chicago or DC decided to defy a federal court order to issue gun permits on some pacifist Christian grounds? Should someone like Scott have opposed suits like Heller or MacDonald because it could have led to such a situation?

      1. My point went right over your head Bo. I can only write the sentences. I can’t make you understand them, especially when you don’t read them and respond to the voices in your head. Why don’t you try reading my post again really slow this time and then think about it for a little bit.

        1. That’s a nice attempt at a dodge, but I’ll repeat my questions:

          would you feel the same way if some yahoo official in Chicago or DC decided to defy a federal court order to issue gun permits on some pacifist Christian grounds? Should someone like Scott have opposed suits like Heller or MacDonald because it could have led to such a situation?

          1. Your questions are stupid and answered by my original post anyway. There isn’t anything to dodge.

            1. That’s a nice attempt at a dodge, but I’ll repeat my questions:

              would you feel the same way if some yahoo official in Chicago or DC decided to defy a federal court order to issue gun permits on some pacifist Christian grounds? Should someone like Scott have opposed suits like Heller or MacDonald because it could have led to such a situation?

              1. I think the folks in DC are refusing to adhere to Heller because they’re proggies, not Christians.

      2. Why do people need permits to excercise their 2nd amendment rights to begin with?

        1. Becasue gunz er bad?

        2. In a better world there’d be no gun permits or marriage licenses from the government and people could pack or pair up however they wanted.

          My point is that both my hypothetical and this case involve a government official refusing to issue something under court order based on their conscience. John has made it plain how he feels in this case, would he feel the same in my hypo, and if not why?

        3. “Why do people need permits to excercise their 2nd amendment rights to begin with?”

          That’s the whole fucking point, and why this situation is so patently absurd. Regardless which of the popular sides of the thing one takes, he finds himself facing an indefensible logical infundibulum of error and confusion. It all makes no sense because self-defense is a natural fucking right to execute a power that arises from the person doing it. It’s the same for marriage. Why should anybody need to beg permission to marry? Or even worser, have to pretend that the marriage is somehow created by the power of the god-state? Ignoring this obviously wrongness, it’s inevitable the discussion will degenerate into nonsense, as the initial premise that a person requires an emanation from the king to be married to somebody is an insupportable absurdity from every angle. Things like the idea that the clerk should be forced to marry people because it is their right–if it’s their right, then why in hell do they need some stupid fuckinass clerk to do it to them? As a right, all that should be needed is that nobody interfere in it, not that anybody be required to participate. And there’s no fucking way that one can make up a coherent concept of marriage as a delegated power without descending into a combination of madness and raving stupidity.

      3. John, would you feel the same way if some yahoo official in Chicago or DC decided to defy a federal court order to issue gun permits on some pacifist Christian grounds?

        It wasn’t on religious grounds, but that’s pretty much exactly what happened in Chicago. While lawsuits were filed, nobody went to jail over it, and mostly nobody gave a shit.

        1. I remember that DC officials resisted and there was a court order. The officials complied, though I’m sure dragging and screaming and making it as painful as they could get away with.

          But hey, now we know they just should have dug in and couched their resistance in religious language and not only would Johns rush to their defense but they’d wag their fingers are all of us who supported Heller because we should have known how this would end…

    3. more to the point – elected officials and the wider population do not get to make up the law ad hoc as it may suit their belief system (or feelings that day) – based on biblical statements or some cultist they happen to follow or anything else.

      Have to wonder if some muslim clerk decided that their religious rights were violated because sharia was not followed whether the discussion would be the same.

      1. No they don’t. That is my entire point. If Scott finds putting people in jail wrong or distasteful, he shouldn’t have been happy about going to court, because that is how government and the law works.

        This is not about gay marriage. This is about the power of the courts now. If you don’t like the idea of locking up any government official who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses, you shouldn’t go to court and try to get a court to order them to do it, because throwing people who don’t comply in jail is what courts do.

      2. The way I read that statute, the license may be issued by any county clerk if the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her. The “shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time” carries an “unless”, and it is a big one.
        So, go to the nearest county where a clerk will issue the license.
        Sounds like a reasonable accommodation, to me.

    4. This is government all the way down. How is the government suddenly involved *now* in a way they weren’t already?

      1. Because before they didn’t recognize gay marriages, at least not in Kentucky, so no one was going to the government to get a license. If you want the government involved in your marriage, you need to understand what comes with that.

        1. Marriage is a government institution. Saying ‘government involved in your marriage’ is like saying ‘government involved in your Medicare’.

          1. Marriage is not a government institution. It is a private civic institution. The existence of my marriage in no way depends on the government. If the government decided tomorrow that it no longer recognized marriages, do you think every married couple in America or any married couple would split up or feel free to cheat? No. Those people would wake up the next day just as married and committed or not committed as they were before. The government just sometimes recognizes and regulates marriages. But the marriages already existed and exist outside of government.

            Saying marriage is a “government institution” is one of the most appealingly wrong and totalitarian things you can say.

            1. “Saying marriage is a “government institution” is one of the most appealingly wrong and totalitarian things you can say.”

              What the? You have said here in writing you think government has a place in recognizing marriage!

              1. Subtle difference, can you spot it?

                1. No Restoras he can’t. He is literally incapable of any sort of subtle reasoning. It is kind of amazing really.

                  1. It’s stupid to talk about non-governmental marriage in this debate since the entire debate is about government recognized marriage. John’s side wasn’t against government recognized marriage until gays started asking for it.

                  2. This is pretty rich coming from you John.

              2. God you are fucking stupid. Marriage exist outside and independent of government. They therefore are not a government institution. Government institutions are institutions created by and dependent on the government. Marriage exists regardless of government.

                Your stupidity as annoying as it is, is also kind of amazing when you think about it.

            2. “Marriage is not a government institution. It is a private civic institution.”

              Except for all those legal rights and obligations that come along with it of course. WTF are you talking about?

              1. John is talking about the idea that before there was a US government, before any government was involved, people had the idea that their religions demanded they enter into certain unions with duties and roles. He’s right, but of course it’s also neither here nor there in this current debate, which is about *if* government starts recognizing and benefiting these unions can it discriminate in which ones it recognizes and benefits? So to obscure the entire debate they start talking about something else.

                1. By that definition, there is no such thing as a “government institution.” Before the US (or any) government existed, there was also a criminal code where societies punished wrongdoers. And I’m certain that, given human nature’s desire to see wrong-doing punished, there would be such an institution of the US government disappeared tomorrow. But that doesn’t mean that current criminal criminal justice system isn’t a government institution seeing as it is set up and run by the government.

                  1. You’re right of course.

                  2. Yes, there is such a thing as “justice” which exists outside of justice. Justice is not a “government creation”. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a criminal code. It just means the criminal code is a recognition of our existing notions of justice. Marriage is the same thing. There is such a thing as marriage law and government marriage. That is just a recognition of the already existing institution of marriage in the same way the criminal code is a recognition of our already existing concepts of justice.

                    Marriage is a civic institution that is recognized and regulated by the state. It is not a state institution because it exists regardless of the state recognizing it. You don’t need a piece of paper to be married. If you did, everyone in America would stop being married if the government decided it to be so. And that is just not true.

              2. You mean it’s not about “who you love”?

            3. ‘Saying marriage is a “government institution” is one of the most appealingly wrong and totalitarian things you can say.’

              So also historicly, since marriage well predates government and it wasn’t till the sixteenth century that anybody in Christendom took to treating government as the source of the power to marry nor as an entity whose nod off were in any way needful for a marriage to be possible. People marry each other, under their own fucking power. God does not marry them. Jesus does not marry them. The fuckinass county clerk doesn’t marry them. Some soi-disants Christians nowadays may disagree, imputing some marrying power to their clerical overseers, but it’s a new thing. Traditionally, the distinction between Christian and pagan marriages didn’t describe any difference in the source of power (the persons marrying each other), but only in the degree of sanctity and the accessibility of special graces.

          2. How is marriage a government institution?

            1. It’s a legal status conferred by the state upon two people who have applied for a license and filed the appropriate paperwork with the county clerk’s office. It regulates a broad range of legal questions like inheritance, benefits, medical decisions, custody, property ownership, and taxation.

              Getting married requires government permission, as does getting unmarried.

              1. Sounds more like the government is just using it as an excuse to wring more money from people and exercise control.

                Did government invent marriage?

                1. They didn’t invent it, but they did codify it into its current form.

                  And it is a revenue stream/means of control, because those are the only things government does.

              2. Those are ways the govt has decided to treat married folks different from single ones. Doesn’t alter the underlying fact that they are married.

                The govt could also choose to treat everyone the same.

                I can still decide how to distribute my estate, give POA for medical decisions, buy land, all that shit, without being married or having govt involved.

                1. You can replicate some marriage rights through non-marriage arrangements, but certainly not all of them. A few things allowed only through marriage: 1) owning property in tenancy by the entirety without being married; 2) spousal privilege; 3) many federal and state tax benefits; 4) many rights concerning children, including adoptions in many states. Also, in many cases, replicating marriage is very tough and expensive, involving complicated legal documents, etc.

                  1. ^ This. My “wife” and I have been together for 25 years, have been living together for 23 of them, and have a child together.

                    *I* own the house. I cannot put her on the title without a hefty transfer tax. If she walked out with my daughter today, there wouldn’t be jack shit I could do about it.

                    Stuff like that.

                    1. In case it wasn’t clear, we aren’t legally married.

                    2. SINNER!!!!1!

                    3. My only regret is that if I had a son, I could refer to him as “my bastard.” I don’t know what to call my daughter. Is there a female equivalent?

                    4. Bastard is correct in both cases. It’s just taken on a male connotation as an insult.

                    5. But those laws can be changed

              3. It is possible to do so and to get it legally recognised without entreating our overlords for a permit (instead, you have to spend a lot of time for a while demanding recognition, which is perhaps more vexing, but also a heck of a lot less morally outraging and offensive than asking permission before being allowed to marry someone). If it were not possible to do so, I would never marry. Of course, it would be possible regardless whether the state recognised it, and so that wouldn’t hold me back, but as it is I obtained recognition without ever begging anyone’s leave. My parents were married as well as anybody, and they didn’t have a government permission slip. My brother also married without petitioning the Squire for the privelege. Some of you can play along with the pretense of authority, but it’s a talent that was never natural to me and which got wore really thin in the last couple decades; I just can’t play along and adopt a slave r?le whenever an agent of control come rumbling near. There’s virtue in the other approach, provided it’s done on the right philosophical bases. Anything is better than actually living the slave r?le, which I see in a lot of folks. They do their darnedest to keep down and strangle and choke that struggling free man inside them screaming to bust out.

    5. Yeah, Scott!!! You shouldn’t have gotten the government involved!!! What the fuck where you thinking?!?

      1. If you are uncomfortable with people being thrown in jail, yes, you should not get the government involved. That is what governments do.

        Scott should be happy to see this woman go to jail. Her going to jail is making the gay marriage decision real. If she doesn’t go to jail, then the decision means nothing because anyone is free to ignore it. Scott wants it both ways. He wants to be able to demand a court take action and give him what he wants but then also be able to claim he objects to the methods it uses to make that happen. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. If Scott doesn’t like the idea of sending people who won’t comply to jail, then he should not have supported courts deciding the gay marriage issue, because one necessarily means the other.

        1. We shouldn’t ask courts to enforce the constitution because some government official somewhere might disagree with the decision and then be sued into complying!

          Again, if this were some other constitutional provision and court decision John happened to agree with we’d be hearing another tune.

          1. If you don’t want those people thrown in jail, no you shouldn’t. I can’t explain it to you any more simply. If you are too stupid to understand it, and you clearly are, you need to go and post on a thread where you do understand the conversation.

            1. Again, if this were a federal court ordering a Chicago official to issue gun permits and the official resisted you’d be singing a different tune I’d bet.

              1. As I follow what John is saying:

                1) Law only exists if it is enforced.
                2) Law can only be enforced using force.
                3) Therefore, if one desires a law to exist, one must necessarily desire that force be used to enforce it.

                If all three of those statements are true, then it follows that one cannot simultaneously call for a law to exist, and decry using force to enforce that law.

                1. As I follow what he has written, all he is arguing is that simultaneously supporting a law and opposing that law being enforced is logically incoherent, since law only exists outside of abstract imagination as the real-world application of force.

                  I don’t see how opposing a law and opposing its enforcement would be incoherent, or how supporting a law and supporting its enforcement would be incoherent, or how supporting one law and opposing another would be incoherent. Only simultaneously supporting one law and then opposing *that* same law’s enforcement is incoherent.

                  1. I get what John is saying, my point is that he doesn’t follow this principle when it involves different issues, and that’s telling of something. What it’s telling of is that the idea that we should support officials deciding what the law is based on their individual conscience rather than the rule of law is not something good, though it may have some applications where one thinks the result is.

                    1. “I get what John is saying…”

                      No you don’t. A three year old child could follow along and understand what John is saying (especially with all the repetition and simplified exegesis). But you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t constantly be bringing up this crap about “Well, if it was about gun permits….” There’s no equivalency there, with regards to his particular argument.

                      As for me, however, fuck yeah I’d feel the same way if it were about gun permits. And both situations make no sense and can’t be logically comminuted into anything but a cat’s cradle of fantastic perversity and meaningless abstraction. Essentially, what we’ve got is not a right to marry, nor a right to bear arms, but rather the stupidest most inane thing ever–a right to ask for permission to marry, a right to entreat our masters for a license to bear arms (which does not include permission to actually defend oneself). A right to ask for permission… It’s fucking nonsense. Heck, everyone ought to be put in jail at this point, it’s got so fucking nuts. That border fence may not be such a bad idea.

                2. Exactly that arrowcrest. Bo only cries and whines because he doesn’t like it not because it is true.

      2. Yeah…..that one got me shaking the old noggin.

    6. “The decision only means something if it is accompanied by the threat of jail for anyone who doesn’t comply. That is how courts, laws and government works.”

      Yes. If you support a law, you support using force against resisters, or else the law becomes a dead letter.

      But is gay marriage* the law? I concede that in states which approved gay marriage, it’s part of the positive law which the feds can’t interfere with. But in the rest of the states, where did the feds, particularly the federal courts, get the power to change these particular state laws?

      Of course, I would be skeptical of a constitutional philosophy which achieved the substantive result I support in every case. And like I said, I don’t think the feds have the constitutional authority to *stop* gay marriage in a state. Nor can the feds stop divorce or otherwise interfere with the positive laws of the states regarding marriage. But that works both ways. The feds, IMHO, must under the 10th Amendment leave state marriage laws alone.

      1. Inevitable retort: But what about interracial marriage? Well, here at least there is a respectable historical argument that the states gave up the power to pass racist marriage laws when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. The evidence is not 110% clear, but there were contemporary sources – like the supreme courts in a couple Reconstructed states – that the 14th Amendment was so understood. This would create an exception to the general principle of federal nonintervention. But saying that the 14th was understood as abolishing the sex-binary definition of marriage doesn’t pass the laugh test. There was dispute over racial segregation and interracial-marriage laws from the beginning, but no dispute at all over sex-binary marriage – nobody thought it was even relevant to the 14th.

        *I’m using this phrase as somewhat misleading shorthand for government recognized SSM.

        1. Shorter Eddie: I think SCOTUS got this one wrong, therefore there’s no authority.

          It would be interesting if everyone reacted to every SCOTUS decision they disagree with this way.

          1. OK, if you want fewer words: The abolitionists – and many Northern state courts – resisted the federal courts over the Fugitive Slave act of 1850. Justified or not?

            1. The problem is that we can go tit for tat all day with examples of people who resisted a law that later were recognized as resisting an evil or bad law being matched with people who resisted a law where we later saw the resistance as based in evil. The question is, what system should we have? I think having a law of the land and process for determining that law is on the whole better than each person acting as a law unto themselves is better in the long run.

              1. Why have a single answer imposed by a central authority? If every decree coming from the Supreme Court was a Brown v. Board, then sure, call for obedience because they’re just rulers and their opponents are unjust. But the Brown decisions are not necessarily representative of what the Court decrees.

                Let me drag out Lincoln’s first inaugural yet again:

                1. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice.

                  1. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

                2. I can think of as many Browns as you can Dred Scott’s, that’s kind of the point.

                  1. I mean, if I were to accept arguendo, that Ogberfell was bad and should be resisted, then what’s to stop someone from saying Heller is bad and resisting it? What you’re left with is that you think there are good decisions that people should obey and bad ones people shouldn’t, but lots of people can think that way but with totally different goods and bads!

              2. Have you read Kennedy’s ruling?
                The system we have should be based on actual written words, not some Alice in Wonderland thoughts on how someone might feel if they woke up alone, at night.
                The Tenth Amendment covered things pretty well – the 14, as destructivly as it has been used – still said nothing about marriage and, as such should have had no bearing on laws dealing with that subject.
                Why is it the the “reborn Lewis Carroll” of the Supreme Court can order that marriage laws throughout all the states be equal ( an impossible concept) WRT the genders of the applicants but leave all the other differences in place?

          2. Every man is obliged to admit his own judgment as, ultimately, superior to that of everyone else. Failure to do so is wrong in every sense, immoral, irrational, and above all totally mad. If you really think the Supreme Court got it wrong, then you’re obliged to take whatever follows of it, and not be some kind of moral weakling, saying, oh, they got it wrong, but I got to pretend like it’s right, because it’s in my social motherfucking contract, or the categorical imperative, or some other equally reprehensible and lilylivered way out of standing up and speaking your mind like a man.

        2. One might rephrase to:

          “here at least there is a respectable historical argument that the states gave up the power to pass *discriminatory* marriage laws when they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment”

          Which is, in fact, the argument.

          Where is this “sex-binary definition of marriage” you feel is being abolished?

          1. “Where is this “sex-binary definition of marriage” you feel is being abolished?”

            man/woman definition.

            I said the *definition* was abolished, not that man/woman couples were being denied marriage licenses.

            1. Question was:

              “Where is this “sex-binary definition of marriage” you feel is being abolished?”

              Is this from the Constitution? Is it something we infer from the Federalist Papers? I’m looking for the reference that enshrines this in US law.

              1. There it is – it’s not in the federalist papers or U.S. law, because the feds don’t have responsibility for state marriage laws – the states do, with the exception of the racist laws whose constitutionality was at issue from the beginning.

                1. “the racist laws whose constitutionality was at issue from the beginning.”

                  No they weren’t. The Constitution as originally written defines Blacks as not being fully human and not having equal rights.

                  “the feds don’t have responsibility for state marriage laws – the states do”

                  You’re begging the question, which regards *discriminatory* laws, which the states don’t have the prerogative to pass.

                  You present “the sex-binary definition of marriage” as if it is enshrined somewhere that matters legally for US federal law. Where is that?

                  1. “from the beginning” – I should say “since the 14th Amendment.” Thank you for letting me clarify.

                    In the absence of any evidence that the 14th Amendment’s anti-discrimination principles were *ever* meant to apply to mean govt-recognized SSM, then it seems to be a matter of state not federal law.

                    Segregation and interracial marriage were debated in 14th Amendment terms since the beginning of the 14th Amendment. There was no unanimous acceptance of these things, even if for a time a majority got to impose racist laws – the minority vocally protested and invoked the 14th. Going back almost exactly to 1868. This would make the 14th Amendment’s meaning in these contexts unsettled and open for reconsideration.

                    Not the case with the sex binary definition.

                    1. The problem is that the actual text of the 14th isn’t limited to race. It says ‘equal protection’ and that can apply to more than just race.

                      If you want to restrict the concept of equal protection to just what was debated during ratification then you’d have to conclude it’s restricted to protecting blacks-there was little to no discussion of it being meant to protect whites after all-and therefore cases like Ricci are wrong.

                    2. “If you want to restrict the concept of equal protection to just what was debated during ratification”

                      I don’t actually recall saying that.

                      I *do* recall discussing the post-ratification debate over segregation and interracial marriage. I also recall mentioning the over-a-century period in which it never occurred to anyone that the 14th Amendment abolishes the sex-binary definition of marriage.

                    3. I guess if you don’t like a question, no reason not to ignore it. . .

                    4. What sex binary definition? You keep speaking of this thing, but you seem to have trouble actually producing it.

                2. Or, to put it a different way, could you not imaging Utah defining marriage differently from your “sex-binary definition of marriage”? Would such a definition, if voted into place by the people of Utah, not “pass the laugh test?”

                  If not, why not?

                  1. “Sex-binary” means “two sexes”. Polygamy (which I assume you’re referring to with the reference to Utah) could be “sex binary”, or not.

                    The federal government outlawed polygamy with the Edmunds Act in 1882, which they also didn’t really have any legitimate authority to do. But nobody really gives a shit, because polygamists are icky.

                    1. “The federal government outlawed polygamy with the Edmunds Act in 1882, which they also didn’t really have any legitimate authority to do. But nobody really gives a shit, because polygamists are icky.”

                      My point exactly. I suspect there is a double standard in Eddie’s reasoning that is based in his fundamental (but unacknowledged) opposition to religious freedom.

                    2. Could Circle clarify what (s)he means? Dare I ask what positions he imputes to me?

                  2. “if voted into place by the people of Utah”

                    As I discussed above, if a state recognizes same-sex marriage, there’s basically nothing the feds can do about it. So it wouldn’t matter whether the Utah law would pass the laugh test or not.

    7. If you don’t want her thrown in jail Scott, you should not have gotten the government involved.

      Yeah, it was Scott that got the government involved. The supreme court decision was his idea. Come on, cut it out. Having an opinion on something doesn’t make you accountable for the actions of all other people who share that view.

      And it’s pretty hard to change the laws on marriage without the government being involved.

      1. What got the government involved is the government requirement to get the Clerk’s assent in the license. If John could look past his gay-bashing he’d have to say the KY general assembly is to blame.

      2. Scott didn’t personally bring the suit but he certainly approved of it and supported it. If he is uncomfortable with the decision being enforced, why did he support the lawsuit in the first place?

        Stop being pedantic and literal. You know my point. Jesus Zeb you are not Bo for Christ’s sake.

        1. Reading what Scott wrote, it looks like he personally doesn’t like her being put in jail, but he understands that that is how it works if you defy a court order. One can dislike things and still understand why they need to happen.

          1. No Zeb you can’t. If you don’t like people being thrown in jail, then you shouldn’t like getting the courts involved. Scott is trying to have it both ways. He on the one hand did a happy dance and thought it was fabulous when the decision came down. Yet on the other hand is trying to act like he doesn’t want people thrown in jail. No, he absolutely wanted people thrown in jail and if he didn’t he should not have supported the law suit.

            Think of it this way. Imagine you are at Scott’s house and refuse to leave. Finally after several hours Scott calls the cops. And when the cops arrive and you refuse to leave, Scott laments that you were sent to jail.. Bullshit. If Scott wasn’t okay with you being sent to jail for refusing to leave, he shouldn’t have called the cops. Same thing here. If Scott doesn’t like people who refuse to comply being jailed, he shouldn’t have supported the lawsuit.

            1. The government has been involved in marriage for a long time.

              “He on the one hand did a happy dance and thought it was fabulous when the decision came down. ”

              Welcome to John Fuckbrain. Here, supporting one court decision means you must support them all.

            2. How about war? No decent person likes a war to happen. But most people recognize that sometimes it’s what has to happen.

              1. If you support war you necessarily support killing people. You don’t get to support war and then claim to really not support all of this killing.

            3. “Scott is trying to have it both ways. He on the one hand did a happy dance and thought it was fabulous when the decision came down. Yet on the other hand is trying to act like he doesn’t want people thrown in jail. No, he absolutely wanted people thrown in jail and if he didn’t he should not have supported the law suit.”

              No. He simply confronted a totally muddled and confused heap of tangled nonsense, densely laden with a lot of false social constructs and fantasy and pretense and formed an orientation toward the matter without ever sifting and puzzling through it long enough to recognise it for what it was–a fantastic absurdity, a travesty of the pretense of the idea of freedom. For all that, he’s a man like anybody, and sure as fuck he thought through it several piles of owl manure worth more than almost everyone else. You’re right to chastise him for it, since it’s a bloody thing that ends up with people in cages, but you’d be righter if you let up on being so flipping brutal for once. My word, you’re like Conan of Commentaria sometimes, and sometimes, even worser, like unto the dread pig Savonarola of Forums.

      3. Shackford had repeatedly written that going through the courts was preferable then going through the legislatures because that would end the issue in his opinion. He wanted to eliminate dissent in one fell swoop. Unfortunately, it is not quite working.

  7. Who issues marriage licenses if the court clerk is on vacation? Or in the hospital? Or in jail?

    1. The deputy clerk issues them in the clerk’s name.

      1. She’s ordered her clerks not to-she had one that said she’d be willing to do it.

        1. Then that clerk should do it. She can try to fire him/her but would fail as her order would be a violation of a court order. But I would watch my lunch food in the fridge after that.

          1. The marriage licenses issued by the clerk would be fraudulent as they would be signed in the name of someone who expressly did not give permission.

          2. But I would watch my lunch food in the fridge after that.

            From the looks of Ms. Davis, they had to do that anyway.

      2. I read that one of the deputies tried to issue a license without the clerk’s imprim?tur, but then he got killed by Satan.

    2. a county judge, in the absence of a clerk

  8. I was thinking about the “this is her job” argument – let’s say we have someone who is morally opposed to war who refuses to hand out draft cards. Should they just resign, as Scalia suggests, or actively defend their beliefs?

    Or are *Christians somehow not allowed to have their icky beliefs?

    *note I’m an icky atheist

    1. The “its her job” argument means she ought to be removed from office not thrown in jail. Since when is not doing your job a criminal offense?

      This has nothing to do with her job. This is about her defying a court order. The only way court decisions mean anything if if people who refuse to follow them are thrown in jail.

    2. private business equivalent – pharmacist not filling abortifacients.

      1. And I’d be OK if the pharmacy said, “then you can’t work here.” I’d have an issue with the GOVERNMENT telling someone they have to do it – hence my support for the Hobby Lobby deal.

      2. In the case of a one-person pharmacy that would be correct. Here the equivalent would be if CVS decided to sell such drugs and one of the local employees refused to comply. The difference is that in this case it’s much more difficult simply to fire the refuser, which is what would happen in about three minutes at CVS.

        1. CVS won’t sell me tobacco.

      3. OH, NOW YOU HAVE DONE IT, LORD H!

        *scurries into doomsday bunker and slams door*

        1. LET ME IN!

        2. Can someone find a way to work circumcision into this?

          1. *throws deep dish pizza at Rhywun and ignores Lord H’s plea*

            1. You bastard!! I mess up one time and this is the kind of treatment I get. These commentators out here are animals!

              1. Some of them, i assume, are good people.

              2. That means something, coming from the Lord of the Wastelands!

    3. I join the Army and I don’t want to kill. Me? “Then DON’T join the army – that’s part of the deal is killing when asked to.”

      You can have your icky beliefs, but if they prevent you from doing the job, you’re fired.

      Period.

      And I see gummint jobs as different than private jobs (YMMV). “I’m a Christian and I don’t believe in war or killing.” Then how the FUCK can you work in the government?

        1. I thought you’d pick this one! Both excellent, of course…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780

          1. Brilliant! I had forgotten that one!

      1. But if one is strongly opposed to something – let’s us my example of a pacifist clerk refusing to mail out draft cards, or is actively burning them – then aren’t they standing up for their beliefs. Isn’t just quitting the easy way out? To add strength to the argument let’s say this clerk was elected before the war broke out.

        In this case this Christian finds gay marriage abhorrent and is taking an active stance against it, versus just resigning, which would have been the easier way out. She probably never expected in her job capacity that she would have to hand out licenses for gay marriage.

        Note: I’m not agreeing with her decision, but I can see – from her point of view – _why_ she is doing it.

        1. And I would think Libertarians on the whole would benefit if more people in government would be willing to stand on principle and refuse to do things. Yeah, sometimes they will refuse to do things Libertarians like. But how many positive acts of government are very important to Libertarians? Not many really. If government officials started refusing to do things out of principle on a regular basis, we would probably end up more free overall.

          But, this issue involves the sacred Gays so principle doesn’t apply here or something.

          1. Actually, I am in favor of everyone in this. I want people to suffer waiting for licenses that aren’t granted. I want her to rot in jail. I want people mailing dead possums to the chambers of the federal judge issuing the order.

            Everyone here deserves to suffer. Everyone.

          2. “Yeah, sometimes they will refuse to do things Libertarians like. ”

            So is your answer to my hypothetical you keep dodging that you’d support a pacifist official refusing to issue gun permits when under court order to do so with the same enthusiasm you are this woman in the same position?

            1. No answer-for John it’s all principals over principles.

          3. And I would think Libertarians on the whole would benefit if more people in government would be willing to stand on principle and refuse to do things.

            You might think so, but a lot of libertarians favor rule of law because they know that more people will stand on unlibertarian principles than will stand for libertarian principles. I’m sort of in between. I don’t put much stock in laws. But I don’t think more lawlessness would be good for libertarianism. There are now loads of government officials who carve out their own corrupt little fiefdoms and as we all well know, very few of them are even the least bit libertarian.

            1. What lawlessness?

              There’s plenty of law here!

              The gays lining up licenses are obeying the law!

              The clerk refusing to issue them is obeying the law!

              The judge jailing her is obeying the law!

              The bailiffs escorting her to her cage are following the law!

              There’s so much law here filling up the air that it’s amazing people can breathe!

            2. Zeb there is a difference between lawlessness in the form of doing things and lawlessness in the form of refusing to comply. The latter, while not without its dangers, is much different than the former. For example, a cop who goes out and frames people he thinks is guilty is lawless in a positive and very destructive way. This however is not that. This is the cop who refuses to arrest people for a law he finds unjest. This is lawlessness in a negative way. meaning people refusing to use the power of government. Positive lawlessness is always bad. Negative lawlessness is often good and in fact in small doses necessary to a moral government.

              1. That’s a fair point. But in a case that comes down to refusal to do paperwork (that’s all this is, the people will still get married somewhere else) it’s just silly. As you would say, this is a stupid fucking hill to pick to die on.

                As much as I might not like it, local government provides a lot of services that people need to negotiate the world we live in. One of those is getting your marriage officially registered or recognized or whatever you want to call it. What if she thought cars were immoral and refused to issue registrations, or refused to license dogs, resulting in people’s dogs getting put down as strays.

                Maybe the problem is that now, when everything seems to have to be political, even these non-political local offices become so. At this point clerk should probably just be a job that you can get fired from if you don’t perform your duties.

                1. Exactly. Notice how John keeps dodging the hypothetical of a government official also refusing to supply some paperwork-a gun license.

                  John doesn’t want to talk hypotheticals and analogies because that takes him into the realm of the principles at stake and away from where he’s comfortable-principals.

    4. Resign and then make a stink about it. It’s not as if you are the only person in the world who can issue draft cards.

      1. Okay. So if the government decided to start putting people in camps, would the solution be for the police to resign in protest or refuse to do it? I think refusing is the answer because resigning just allows the government to put someone in your position who will do what they are told.

        I am not sure sure that resigning is the proper response to an unjust or immoral law.

        1. I think there is a line to be drawn between things like gay marriage that are pretty much happening and don’t actually hurt anyone and things like war and putting people in camps where people are actually harmed in really big ways. Now maybe to some people knowing that someone got a piece of paper stamped in your county is as bad as war and concentration camps, but such people are fucking moral imbeciles and deserve to be laughed at.

          1. I know Zeb. You think gay marriage is fabulous. Good for you. This woman doesn’t. I don’t really see where you are saying anything here other than you like gay marriage. She disagrees and thinks its immoral. You can think she is wrong about that, but I don’t see how you can say she should just quit rather than stand on her principles when you admit that if the law is really immoral that is what you should do.

            1. Yeah, sort of. But it isn’t the job of government to enforce spiritual morality, just to stop people harming each other. I think it is immoral to be mean to your spouse all the time. But it shouldn’t be illegal. I’m trying to make a distinction between the kind of morality that has a place in government and the kind that doesn’t.

              Anyway, it doesn’t matter what I think she should do. She will do what she thinks is right and take the consequences. Which is her business. Unliek Scott, I don’t give a shit if she is in jail. She had a choice and she made it. She’s still an idiot because after it’s all done she will be in jail or jobless, no one’s life will be improved and gay people will still be able to get married.

              1. But it isn’t the job of government to enforce spiritual morality, just to stop people harming each other.

                There should be a name for this concept that it’s immoral to initiate violence.

          2. So your argument is:

            “A line exists. Anyone who disagrees with me about where the line is has no moral standing in deciding where the line is. Long live King Zeb the Great, Lawgiver.”

            1. Uh, I think I described the line that is very broadly agreed upon among libertarians.

              Anyway, so what? Everyone with any moral sense draws lines like that. That’s kind of what it is.

              1. She is acting non-violently, like Ghandi. I just don’t think the people will embrace her philosophy and follow. She will find out in jail.

    5. ‘Or are *Christians somehow not allowed to have their icky beliefs?’

      It sure as fuck seems to be headed that way. Already, nine out of ten of them don’t really believe anything about most important philosophical qu?sti?nes. They often do a good job of putting on a show of believing something, but press a bit and you’ll find it’s almost always all superficial claptrap and there’s no substance, no real belief in anything specific underlying it. Supposably we got all fucking enlightened and so forth and become freethinking free man &c., but seems like the dopiest pedant or the most mongoloid and freakish of fools in the Dark Ages had more character and a deeper philosophy and clarity of belief than most highstanding Christian folk has nowadays. Now that folks are free to come to their own determinations and don’t have to buy their belief systems wholesale from some tradition or other, now they can’t manage to commit to believing in anything. It seems this nambipambihead of believing is particularly strong in the “Christians” (excepting every Jehovah I’ve ever encountered, if they’re even Christians–they’re hard core mother bitches, either way); Mormonites, Muslims, and atheists, for instance, are generally much more willing to firmly grasp their philosophy, no matter how spikey and gutwrenching.

  9. There are two more clerks, Casey Davis of Casey County and Kay Schwartz of Whitley County, also refusing to issue licenses to same-sex marriage. I can’t find that they have been ordered by a judge to do so, so they aren’t under a contempt threat as of now.

    1. Doesn’t someone have to sue them first?

      1. Yes. All I’m saying is that I can’t find that anyone has sued them yet.

        1. Nobody’s sued them yet. Seems like it’d go the same if somebody did.

          1. “Got to watch that particular prison gang!”

            “Who are they?”

            “Kentucky County Clerks…in contempt. They … just don’t care!”

            1. The Kentucky County Clerks have previously knocked over a dozen outhouses!

  10. I think the line I heard best that captures what I think is, “Giving a marriage license doesn’t mean you agree with these two people getting married. It just means they meet the legal [whatever – requirements, hurdles, bullshit] your gummint requires. So that’s your job – doesn’t require you to ‘approve’ of their action. Just determine that it meets the law.” That’s what clerks do.

    So – SLD, state shouldn’t be in the marriage bidness, etc. etc. etc. BUT – while they are, if you want the FUCKING CLERK’S JOB, THEN DO THE JOB, AND HANG YOUR “FEELINGS” AND “BLEEFS”.

    Otherwise, fuck off and get another job. Again, this is NOT the same thing as a private business refusing to provide service. THIS IS THE MOTHERFUCKING GOVERNMENT.

    God, I hate people…

    1. “Giving a marriage license doesn’t mean you agree with these two people getting married”

      ^ This. You are not giving them your *blessing*. They are not coming to you for *your* approval. They are coming to you to file paperwork for a government-required license.

      In the same vein, the clerk can’t look at you and say “gee, I don’t think you kids have thought this through. I’m not going to issue this license right now. Come back in six months when you guys have given this some thought and shown me you’re really committed.”

      1. It would be like someone saying, “I won’t give licenses to MOOZLIMS because herpa derpa…”

        No. Gummint official, you WILL issue them the license if they meet YOUR EMPLOYER’s (the government’s) rules for getting a license. Period. I don’t care what your bleefs are. Fuck off and do it. Or your fired. Buh bye.

        SugarFree notes the difficulty of “firing” this woman, but that’s more issues created by the government, so that’s Kentuckians’ problem to resolve. But otherwise – bitch should just do her job. If she won’t, fuck her.

        1. Elected official are hired and employed by the voters not the government.

          1. I’m stipulating that the voters are the government. You may not – that’s fine.

    2. Giving a marriage license doesn’t mean you agree with these two people getting married. It just means they meet the legal [whatever – requirements, hurdles, bullshit] your gummint requires. So that’s your job – doesn’t require you to ‘approve’ of their action. Just determine that it meets the law.

      “It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise.”

      1. Feel free to challenge it, but while I’m paying you to do it, you’d better do it. Or you’re not gonna work here any more. Period.

        *SLD, I don’t agree with lots of stuff and governments suck, etc. etc. etc. BUT – given the “facts on the ground in this case…” etc. etc. etc. etc.

        1. Feel free to challenge it, but while I’m paying you to do it, you’d better do it. Or you’re not gonna work here any more. Period.

          Facts on the ground being imprisonment rather than withholding pay/termination and little evidence that she’s actually defied the will of her constituency. I fail to see how paying her and spending money to jail her is the libertarian solution. Seriously, with this story, it’s rather consistently and automatically “The gubmint (as proxy for my pet issue) is de facto right!” from a lot of the commentariat/writers.

          1. libertarian solution

            I’ve not suggested ANY of this is “libertarian”, nor that my argument is. I don’t think either is “libertarian”, so go argue that with someone who claims to be “l”. I don’t.

            The will of her “constituency” – so 50%+1 and we can boil naked babies and eat them for dinner cause that’s what her “constituency” wants? No.

            This is the law, it’s not going to kill anyone, it just offends her little sensibilities – tough fucking SHIT. Give the goddamned licenses or get another job. PERIOD.

    3. Yeah. I’m with you and that’s a good explanation.

      As much as we let the gubmint have it around here, it’s hard to fault them too much here. I don’t like that they have to haul her to prison (because coercion) but man, she had options here.

      1. Yeah, really, I’m not defending the government per se, and I don’t agree with the legal logic behind the “ALL TEHJ GAIZ CAN MARRY IN EVERY STATE YAY!!!” ruling!!!111! BUT

        that’s not the issue. The issue is “your job is to issue licenses if people meet the requirements, whatever YOUR EMPLOYER, the government, SAYS are the requirements. You don’t get to decide to not do this BECAUSE FEELZ AND RELIJUN – no – that has nothing to do with this.” No one’s forcing her to bake cakes for gay weddings from her PRIVATE BAKERY. She’s being asked to comply with the law in her position as AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

        Do it, bitch, or get another job.

        And do something about your hair. OH – wait – you hate teh gaiz, so you can’t get anyone to do your hair :*( I haz a sad….

        1. If she’s elected, is her employer the government or people who elected her? I’m seriously asking because the idea of elected clerk is totally foreign to me.

          This is why no other country elects judges, clerks or bureaucrats of any kind. If Top!Men! decide something, they have a reliable army that will enforce it without the mob being able to do anything about it. Until they might get a chance to replace Top!Men! with other Top!Men!

          1. I’m equating “government” and “people who elected her” but very good question.

            I’m mostly just stirring the shit cause I don’t really care, it’s not my state, I’m not a fan of KULTUR WAR….but this is SO entertaining!

            Watching the dissolution of the Union, right in front of my eyes….

            1. I’m equating “government” and “people who elected her”

              If Madison was alive…

              But here’s the thing – are “people who elected her” actually pissed? Do they want to replace her? If not, it seems pretty clear conflict between “the people” and “the government”. As I said, every other country ensures that this conflict cannot arise, and that “the people” are kept away from any kind of control over the government as possible.

              1. If only we had a “right to bear arms”….

                1. I know, another thing that only US has explicitly. Wonder why no other constitution copied it?

                  Actually according to wiki:

                  Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba states the following: “When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.”

                  Jesus, now I see where Chavez got the idea to arm his own assholes.

            2. HA! I knew youse wuz one of themz shit-stirrers!!!!

              1. WTF? Message deleted itself? Meant to post this:

                Almanian, if you are defining her electorate as her employer, Kentucky approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (74% of voters) then by definition, is she not doing what her employer told her to do?

                1. Supremacy Clause FTW, Kivlor!

                2. no

  11. I’ve changed my mind.

    I’ll completely be in favor of her being jailed as soon as the members of the DC City Council are thrown in jail for non-compliance with handgun laws after Heller.

    (stolen from Twitter)

    1. That’s my thought too – there are plenty of laws & regulations that are unevenly enforced – or not at all. Immigration & Obamacare comes to mind, along with plenty of others. But no official is going to jail. But this is CULTURE WAR! There are no prisoners – well, in this case there is.

      1. It’s back-and-forth retribution all the way down.

    2. When was the last time the U.S. Supreme Court held someone in contempt for noncompliance with a ruling?

      1. Hell, just last week the EPA implemented a rule that had already been struck down by the court. Why isn’t that administrator in jail for contempt?

        1. Due process, checks-and-balances, prohibitions on retroactive legislation, judicial oversight – none of those apply to the administrative state

    3. ^^ THIS SQUARED

    4. So where is there constitutional right to marriage?

      1. You mean constitutional right to marriage recognition. THAT’S RIGHT, I’M TELLING YOU WHAT YOU MEAN.

      2. Same place as the right to a taxpayer funded abortion

  12. I can’t wait until the day the county clerk turns out to be a radical Muslim instead of a Christian.

  13. I do want gay couples to be able to get their marriage licenses in Rowan County and not have to go elsewhere.

    NORMALS ALSO AREN’T GETTING THEIR STAMPS OF APPROVAL, EITHER, SHACKFORD. You heterophobe. (Which is a word I think I just made up and want credit for.)

  14. Defy a judge’s order — spend time in a cell. That’s the way the system works.

    I applaud Kim Davis and her civil disobedience. Everyone should refuse to cooperate with what they believe to be unjust/immoral laws. But, true civil disobedience means going to jail for your beliefs. Kim Davis earned her reward.

    1. Really standing up for her beliefs would have entailed quitting the job she found immoral, instead of refusing to do it while still drawing a paycheck.

      1. ^ This.

      2. I would also applaud a DA that refused to prosecute non-violent drug offenders because he/she believed the War on Drugs was unconstitutional. And if this DA directly violated a court order, then he/she would wind up in a jail cell too.

        As a child of the 60’s, civil disobedience means forcing the system to put you into a cell to bring visibility to a problem you want to solve.

        Of course, some people that practice civil disobedience are just plain fucking nuts.

      3. Really standing up for her beliefs would have entailed quitting the job she found immoral, instead of refusing to do it while still drawing a paycheck.

        Not really. Quitting means “I’m bowing out”, whereas “I’m willing to accept negative consequences” is taking a stand.

        NB: I don’t agree with her, just pointing out that by not quitting, she is indeed taking a stand.

        1. You said it better than what I posted above.

        2. Quitting means “I’m bowing out”, whereas “I’m willing to accept negative consequences” is taking a stand.

          Well then she got what she wanted. Good for her…hope she enjoys jail.

          1. Everyone’s a winner, really.

            1. Indeed…now nobody needs to feel sorry for Davis at all. 🙂

      4. Really standing up for her beliefs would have entailed quitting the job she found immoral, instead of refusing to do it while still drawing a paycheck.

        Duly noted if I ever need you to stand up for something I believe in.

        1. If your belief involves consenting adults what relationships they can be involved in and using the power of the state to block them because of personal disapproval, I probably wouldn’t quit my job for you either.

          Just FYI. 🙂

          1. Luckily, no government at any level in the United States has the authority to tell consenting adults what relationships they can be involved in, so I guess we’ve dodged a bullet there.

            1. I know, right?

              Considering the licenses compel consenting adults to act against any/all will they may have and she’s blocking the state compulsion due to her personal disapproval and keeping her job while doing it; his statement, without the distortion of facts, almost reads like an endorsement for Davis.

          2. I know two girls and a guy who are married to each other (a perpetual three way). They don’t all have their state’s papers, but they are consenting adults and they are enjoying their relationship. The lack of paper from the state is not blocking them.

      5. Really standing up for your beliefs is giving the opposition everything they want by quitting the job you were elected by the voters to do?

  15. She willfully violated other people’s rights because of personal prejudice, violated her oath of office to uphold the law (while still pulling a paycheck from taxpayers, making it a form of theft), ignored a court order, and was unapologetic about it.

    I agree about the knee-jerk reaction to crucify people being a bad thing, but jail is exactly where Kim Davis belongs for her behavior. I wish more politicians would join her there.

    1. She deserves sanction, but imma go with Scott here:

      I generally don’t want anybody thrown in jail unless they’re a physical threat to people’s safety or property. I understand why this decision happened and the legal principles behind it, but as somebody who celebrated when Gavin Newsom defied California law years ago and married off same-sex couples and who just recently wrote positively about a police chief refusing to arrest heroin users if they were willing to go to rehab instead, I find these kinds of punitive responses to nonviolent defiance deeply unsettling.

      1. Say she refuses the sanction, perhaps it being a fine. What next?

        1. I would imagine they jumped straight to jail her because the judge knew that she wouldn’t be paying the fine herself.

          1. Why must you derail the clever trap I set for Swiss?

            1. If it was clever, I didn’t notice it.

            2. A court can do a garnishment/levy action – you can take the pay without her cooperation.

              1. And if the county payroll officer refuses to comply? The point I’m trying to get at is any court order can ultimately lead to incarceration if all other compliance attempts fail.

                1. “Can” – certainly. “Should” at what point is what I think Scott was addressing – and I agree with him.

                  1. I understand that… now. But if you want rule of law you’ll need compliance and I think that will sometimes lead to prison even for the nonviolent.

                    Anyway, personally I believe those having elected office hold special sway over people’s lives and need to be kept in check and I wish it happened more often. There are supposed to be and should be different rules when choosing that public life.

                    1. But if you want rule of law you’ll need compliance and I think that will sometimes lead to prison even for the nonviolent.

                      Yup…eventually will. That’s the tradeoff for having laws and a legal system, at some point coercive force will be used against you if you run afoul of them…violently or non-violently.

                      If you don’t like it, there’s always anarcho-capitalism, if you believe that would work…but since most don’t, the other options are a) amend the laws you don’t like, or b) accept the tradeoffs.

          2. Sure she would. Wants money is given to her it is her money.

    2. She willfully violated other people’s rights

      That’s begging the question. The rest is true. But there is no right to obtain a license to get benefits off the backs of your neighbors based on who you happen to enjoy fucking. Not a legitimate one, anyway.

  16. MOAR KULCHER WOR!!!!

  17. I just assumed she wanted to go to jail as some sort of civil disobedience. Anyway, if you can’t fire her, what are you supposed to do with her besides throw her in jail?

    1. Eternal ridicule on the Internet?

      1. That would work in this case, but probably not in cases where the SJW mob is on the same side as the elected official. Say, someone refusing a court order to issue a concealed carry license.

      2. That doesn’t help people seeking a license.

        1. It’s irrelevant to people who want to get married, though. Just say your vows and tell people that you’re married. Its more legitimate than paying the state for a piece of paper with a stamp.

      3. She’s already a four-times married county clerk in Kentucky. How much more ridicule can be inflicted on her then what she was already living with before this whole thing broke out?

        1. Married 4 times, but only to 3 different guys. And that was BC

    2. what are you supposed to do with her besides throw her in jail

      Let her continue on with her job and post a note at the entrance to her office like this:

      “Our county clerk is a real cunt and won’t issue marriage licenses to the ghayz even though she is legally obligated to do so. You can protest this in any peaceful way you see fit. If you are the ghayz and want to get married, we suggest you travel to country XX. They issue licenses to the ghayz. While we know this is inconvenient and, really, against the law the alternative is to imprison this bitch at tax payers expense. Doesn’t seem worth it to us. Sorry for the inconvenience. “

      1. I like you!

      2. “Oh, and BEWARE OF THE TIGER”

      3. That’s a very solid solution.

      4. Ummm, how far would gays have to travel, for the “convenience” of people who piss on fundamental human rights and defy our Constitution?

    3. Let her term end? Call the legislature in for special session and impeach her?

      Alrhough Im not sure the legislature has the votes or that she wont be reelected.

      1. Why in hell is this an elected position anyway? Who gets all fired up about voting for county clerk?

        1. I have a feeling that a lot of people will be fired up about it now.

        2. Same with dog catcher. Who the fuck knows why some positions are elected. It might have to do with them not being paid much at the beginning.

        3. In IL…because patronage!

        4. They have the power to calculate and lay property taxes. They are an elected position and not subject to local jurisdiction and appointment due to the potential for corruption at the county level. The management of licensing is really more of a side-line.

          1. They are an elected position […] due to the potential for corruption

            Congratulations on writing that with a straight face 🙂

  18. I just don’t care. This isn’t life or death consequences, just more culture war bullshit. Issue the license, don’t issue the license. Those who want to get gay married can go to another county, or not and enjoy some outrage if they prefer. Life goes on.

    1. Oh, come on, play along. Express outrage! One way or the other!

    2. This isn’t life or death consequences, just more culture war bullshit.

      So, how long before they let her out?

    3. You must pick a side. You must.

      1. I AM OUTRAGEOUSLY OUTRAGED BY THE OTHER SIDE IN THIS!!!!!

    4. Lemuel, when was our Constitution repealed?

  19. It’s all YOUR fault, Scott.
    I hope you’re happy.

      1. Seriously playa, if you don’t want people who don’t comply to be thrown in jail, why do you go to court? If you cheer on a lawsuit, it is pretty fucking disingenuous to distance yourself from the court enforcing the judgement after you win.

        Just what did you and Scott want if not for the federal government to go out and order every court clerk in America to start giving gay couples marriage licenses? And just how did you think they were going to do that if not by threatening them with jail?

        Scott spent years hoping and praying that the Supreme Court would force states to give gays marriage licenses and here they are finally doing it and Scott is like “well I don’t like this”. Too fucking bad. You asked for it didn’t you?

  20. In other news, Judge sides with Brady. Duh. Even God sides with Brady (and Tebow).

    Man, that’s two cases (Rice being the other) where Goodell has egg on his face. They should never have made such a case out of this non-story to begin with.

    What a farcical and unnecessary mess.

    1. The other thing I’ve not heard mention too often is the fact the Colts were NEVER in the game. The Pats decimated them. The Colts come off looking worse in my view. ‘Oh we were battered but balls were soft!’ Please.

      1. Brady had BETTER stats in the second half when the balls were inflated!

      2. If the Pats did deflate the balls, why should it matter whether or not the Colts were in the game? The Pats still were cheating in that case.

  21. Why not just fire her for, you know, not doing her job?

      1. Ah, OK. Didn’t realize that.

    1. Recall. It’s up to the voters.

      1. No recall in KY. Impeachment is possible.

          1. …stock? That’s the last thing those people need.

          2. Wood. And….what else floats….

            A WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCH!!!! BURN HER!!!!!

            1. She can’t be fired. See above.

              1. Yeah, I’m aware and have noted….somewhere in this shitstorm!

                1. Wood? She couldn’t give anyone wood.

                  1. I know, right?

                2. Wood? She couldn’t give anyone wood.

                  1. I know, right?

                  2. Definitely not me.

    2. She can’t be fired!

      She can leave office when her term of office expires (unless she is reelected for the next term).

      She can be impeached by the state legislature.

      I don’t think any of this is happening.

      And as John points out this is what you get when you have a monopoly court system. All you minarchists expressing discomfort with what’s happening here exasperate me. How do you think nation states get compliance? The tools of your theoretical night watchman state are no different than the tools Hitler wielded; the cell, the truncheon wielding law enforcement agent and at the extreme the hangman’s noose. The truncheons might be replaced with tasers, and they may use lethal doses of sedatives rather than a noose of piano wire, but the principle is the same.

      1. are no different than the tools Hitler wielded

        WHOA! Way to Godwin a perfectly-good deep-dish circumcised abortion immigration Mexican ass-secks pot thread, tarran!

        You know who el….never mind.

          1. * subscribes to Swiss’ newsletter*

            1. Comes with a free roll of foil…if I can find my foil dealer, that is.

              Tonio, you around? I need another couple of rolls, man!

              *clings to battered foil hat*

  22. “Giving a marriage license doesn’t mean you agree with these two people getting married. It just means they meet the legal [whatever – requirements, hurdles, bullshit] your gummint requires. So that’s your job – doesn’t require you to ‘approve’ of their action. Just determine that it meets the law.” That’s what clerks do.

    EXACTLY.
    Her job is to slide a piece of paper across the goddam counter in exchange for payment, and make an appropriate record of the transaction.
    She can either find another job or keep her moral judgements to herself until she gets home. She may then take it out on her children, dogs or husband as she sees fit.
    What if the head of DMV refused to

    1. Why have licenses at all? The need for a license implies that there are cases where license won’t be granted.

      1. Which makes licenses a 1st amendment freedom of religion violation.

        1. and now a 14th amendment violation as well

      2. Careful. We don’t want to get to close to the real solution.

        1. Not when there’s a KULCHER WOR to Twitter about!!!

      3. Agreed. But while we DO….issue them, bitch. Or go to jail. I’m….just not having a problem with this.

        ’bout time some fucking government workers got jail time for their performance, or lack thereof.

        1. “’bout time some fucking government workers got jail time for their performance, or lack thereof.”

          I’d prefer if we started a little higher up the ladder, personally.

          1. Eh – I’ll take it where I can get it 🙂

            1. That’s what she said.

      4. there are cases where license won’t be granted

        I thought there was a blood test or some such, which implies that it happens. That could be a NYS thing.

        1. No blood test in Kentucky.

          1. Yeah – you don’t want the blood jumping out the petri dish and going all “The THANG” on you!!

          2. Oh, you are just waiting for some Kentucky joke aren’t you?

            WELL, I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE IT!

            1. There’s no blood test and no waiting period. That’s why all the University of Evansville foreign students who were about to overstay their visas came over to Henderson with their morbidly obese white girlfriends for a quickie marriage to stay ahead of Immigration.

              Because that’s the sort of sanctity of marriage in Kentucky that Kim Davis is fighting for…

              1. Would you mock them so if the girlfriends were lithe and slim?

                1. Yes, because the choking clouds of cologne.

                  1. That’s what the open flame candle by the door is for. 😉

                    1. FOOM!

                      “What was that?”

                      “Um…cheap imitation of Drakkar Noir?”

      5. Why have licenses at all?

        To prevent people from marrying who society does not want to marry.

        Not a legitimate reason really, but that’s the reason.

    2. What if the head of DMV refused to

      The local county branch? I can *only assume* SCOTUS would get involved and jailings would ensue, right?

      I mean, it’s not like my local DMV (Sec. of State Office) offers different services based on location and/or too few locations for the surrounding Metropolis because arbitrary government principle.

      Oh. Fucking. Wait. It’s *exactly* like that.

      1. She’s “denying” service that these people “legally” qualify for. Which is *exactly NOT like* “different services” being offered at different branches.

        But nice..no. It wasn’t even a nice try. Poor try 🙁

        1. Imagine if the local librarian would not order Inappropriate Comedy for you!

          Straight to jail!

  23. Isnt this the exact same issue as Marbury v Madison?

  24. Awesome.

    Nothing says liberty like throwing ideological opponents in a cage.

  25. Sloppy edit strikes again.

  26. You know who else refused to do their job on moral grounds…

  27. A college buddy of mine, who is running for Congress under the Libertarian Party ticket, has an elegant solution to the problem:

    Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis doesn’t deserve to have her martyrdom complex indulged. Don’t send her to jail, don’t start levying fines, don’t even hold her in contempt of court. Don’t give her what she wants, which is to be made the “victim” so she can perpetuate her attention-whoring.

    Instead, the state of Kentucky should take her refusal to do her job as what it is: a resignation. She quit. She is no longer the County Clerk of Rowan County, and the position is now vacant. The only thing she should be arrested for, is camping out in and trespassing in an office that is no longer hers. As a private citizen, she can continue to hoot and holler about how evil the gays are until the cows come home.

    1. There is an impeachment process to do just that. The KY legislature hasnt done it yet.

      1. Everyone seems to want a shortcut. Its like congress not declaring war.

      2. And Beshear has refused again today to call a special session. Even if the votes for impeachment could be found, they are not back in session for four months.

        1. So her boss isnt gonna fire her. Will he be arrested next? Pretty please?

          1. I’m just loving watching all sides of this one stew in it all. So many “solutions”, none of which will be used. Let’s just let it sit there and fester.

            Your government in action! How ya like it now, gehs?! Christians?!! Everyone happy??!!

            NO ONE’S HAPPY!! PERFECT!

          2. Would be nice to see him in cuffs. Of course, it’s more that he realizes that it would be a waste of time. The state legislature is not going to impeach her; the votes just won’t be there.

      3. How is it a shortcut? If you voluntarily resign from your position, there is no need for impeachment. It simply becomes vacant, ready to be filled by special election or appointment.

        1. But she hasnt. She is just slacking on the job.

        2. Just because you claim the grass is purple doesn’t make it so. She has not resigned no matter how much you dislike her actions and/or inactions.

    2. An involuntary resignation. How libertarian! Let freedom ring!

  28. Why have licenses at all?

    This is a question I have asked many times.
    Why do people (of any sexual or religious proclivity) believe their personal relationships must have the blessing of government parasites?

    1. Because sometimes there are certain advantages to getting the parasites’ blessing, and I bet most people don’t look into devising a workaround.

    2. So they can file joint tax returns.

    3. This is a question I have asked many times.

      But you could see how someone might question your earnestness when someone stops issuing them and you, compromising lots of other professed principles, oppose her actions on principle?

    4. because without it you don’t qualify for govt benefits.

      but how many times do they actually ask you to provide proof of marriage?

      1. One time. Something with the DMV. I don’t even remember what. And guess what–I don’t have a license to marry! Yet I was ultimately able to force recognition anyway. If everyone stopped begging for permission, the problem would be solved.

  29. as somebody who celebrated when Gavin Newsom defied California law years ago and married off same-sex couples and who just recently wrote positively about a police chief refusing to arrest heroin users if they were willing to go to rehab instead, I find these kinds of punitive responses to nonviolent defiance deeply unsettling

    The difference, as I see it, is that she is denying services to people who are entitled to those services. That’s less “police getting heroin users some slack” and more “police refusing to answer 911 calls”.

    1. Im pretty sure courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to do that.

      1. Yep, otherwise they’d be liable every time they failed to prevent a crime.

      2. What the courts have ruled isn’t really relevant to my point. It may be that the courts have ruled that police are entitled to do nothing but sit at the station house eating donuts eight hours a day, and that any actual police work they do is just a nice bonus the public isn’t entitled to. That does not make such behavior any less harmful — they are consuming tax money without providing the service they are paid to provide.

  30. *pops up another bag of Orville R’s finest, throws another gallon of gas on the fire*

    1. *goes on beer run*

      Anyone need anything?

      1. Sprees – the big box. Thanks!

        1. hell yeah.

      2. Stone. You choose the flavor. Make sure to get at least 12.

        1. Gonna need a lot more than 12 for this thread – better make it 36.

  31. Back when I was in college, I had to write a paper on which I preferred: retributive or rehabilitative justice. My answer was neither?I prefer restitutive justice. I have strong visceral and philosophical objections to the idea of caging human beings like dogs for almost any reason. We spend far too much time focusing on a convict’s “debt to society” and not nearly enough on his debt to his victims. Consequently, we waste exorbitant sums of money punishing criminals in ways that do nothing to benefit the ones harmed most by their actions. I advocate, whenever possible, mandating that convicts work their asses off to make good on their crimes. You steal a $10,000 car, you stay under the victim’s thumb until you’ve paid off every penny of that ten grand plus reasonable interest. You rape someone . . . well, there are cultures that explicitly quantify the damages associated with rape, but I can see how that would make some people feel uncomfortable.

    1. retributive or rehabilitative justice

      Sentence her to marriage with a gey!

      1. + nice

    2. The 13th amendment DOES allow for enslavement has a punishment for crimes.

    3. To be clear… you’re saying the convicted should labor in the “salt mines*” until they’ve paid back the cash-value /damages to the defendant/aggrieved?

      (*or whatever manual labor task deemed suited to generate the needed revenue. or maybe they could even provide value-added services? Can a convict provide consulting services while paying off their debt?)

      This seems an interesting idea. However, i suspect the state will want a cut, and also – this makes “victimless” crimes somewhat harder to prosecute.

      (which is probably a good thing in most cases, but can imagine that there are some problems on the periphery)

      1. i suspect the state will want a cut

        The state just wants to wet its beak….

        1. To be fair… there’s the whole operating costs part of running a slave-labor operation.

          perhaps they could outsource the whole thing to Walmart? It may even improve productivity!

    4. I’m a big fan of pain and public humiliation. Being back the stocks and whipping post. Put shoplifters in the stocks where they can be mocked and have vegetables thrown at them. Crimes like assault and burglary should earn a few licks of the whip. And don’t forget the gallows for murderers and rapists. Yeah, I’m old fashioned. Or I read Starship Troopers too many times.

      1. There’s also the 8th amendment thing

        1. Having years taken away from your life while being locked in a rape-cage isn’t cruel and unusual?

        2. Seriously. Time is something you can’t get back. Taking away a portion of someone’s life is, to me, the height of cruel and unusual punishment. Besides, it solves nothing. Humans are extremely adaptive creatures. All jail or prison does is teach people how to adapt to jail or prison. Meanwhile you’ve got the double economic whammy of taking resources from society while the incarcerated person has no opportunity to create anything of value. It’s a lose-lose-lose.

          1. Worth looking into = Discipline and Punish

            its actually the best book (aside from the sex one, I guess) of his.

            1. I’d rather read Starship Troopers again.

            2. That is a great book – highly recommended for anyone who hasn’t read it.

          2. “Taking away a portion of someone’s life is, to me, the height of cruel and unusual punishment.”

            So unusual we only have 2,000,000 people in cages.

            Cruel … Maybe some places.

        3. “As punishment for your crime, I want you to go down to the local mall, place a slice of bologna on your face, cut out the eyeholes, ands begin modelling.”

          “Objection, your honor; isn’t that kind of unusual?”

          “Okay, ten days in jail.”

          *Slams down gavel*

        4. I liked Heinlein’s answer to this:

          “While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment… As for ‘unusual,’ punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose.”

          1. +1 public flogging…

          2. Yeah, both points are the subject of the entire Foucault book, where he points out that “Punishment” is pre-modern, and modern “discipline” is about imposing socialization-controls on both the prisoner as well as the citizen who fears imprisonment.

            a paraphrase of a complex subject.

    5. That’s going straight back to post-Roman laws in Western Europe, when assorted barbarians brought their own idea of price list for each crime, up to and including murder. Which was replaced with current system during the Enlightenment, which was generally a period of good ideas.

  32. As for me, I’ve reached the point where I just want people to stop trying to find ways to punish each other.

    Lots of luck with that. Whichever side started this shit (at this point I don’t particularly know or give a shit which) it’s only going to keep escalating until one side reaches a sufficient level of stupidity, viciousness and malice that the other side won’t be able to recover (and the rest of us will get fucked in the process).

    Right now the proggies have the upper hand. In time, I suspect the screw will turn and right will take charge (under someone like Trump or someone even more dickish) and a whole series of right-leaning infringements on people’s liberties will come to pass. And the pendulum will swing to the left with their even bigger sets of dicks. And so on.

    1. “Whichever side started this shit (at this point I don’t particularly know or give a shit which)”

      I think that we can make a good guess on who started it.

      It started with the activists decided that the marriage laws of the states were unjust, and began agitating to change them so that state governments (and the feds) would recognize same-sex marriages. The agitation continued until now, all 50 states recognize SSM.

      Under what scenario did the anti-SSM side be said to have started this?

      1. It started with the activists decided that the marriage laws of the states were unjust, and began agitating to change them so that state governments (and the feds) would recognize same-sex marriages

        That must have been when it started!!!! It can’t have started when busybodies decided to impose their ideas of what marriage should be on their neighbors – especially the ones who thought niggers were as good as white men, or even worse thought Joseph Smith was reading the words of angel out of a hat!!!!!

        1. dum, dum, dumdumdumdum…

          /South Park

        2. Or back before that when government got into the marriage business in the first place…

          1. Or back before that when government got into the marriage business in the first place

            Government was there first. It did not become a sacrament until 1500 years.after Christ. And search the Bible for any references of weddings at all.

        3. I suppose it depends on the definition of “started this shit.”

          If you mean our remote ancestors from before the dawn of history, and every generation since then until quite recently, then sure you could say they started it.

          1. If you’re referring to basic modern demonization of homosexuality, no. That started about two centuries ago.

            1. I was referring to the idea of marriage having two sexes involved (even polygamous marriages).

              1. Common ground has been found:

                No more than 2 sexes in any marriage!

                1. SJW’s object

      2. I think that we can make a good guess on who started it.

        Apparently not.

      3. Really, Eddie?

        Is that all you can derive from this? It’s all about this one particular instance of this one particular issue? I gave you more credit than that.

        It looks like I gave you too much credit. If you don’t think social conservatives have played the “let’s fuck our enemies” card, you’re kidding yourself.

        How about this? How about people all agree to live and let live and mind their own goddamned business? If you can understand even that point, you’d understand how ridiculous what you’re saying is.

        1. I’m not sure why anyone thinks he operates on any sort of libertarian principles.

          1. I just think he’s got this HUGE blind spot. There’s nothing, per se, unlibertarian about being very religious. And there’s certainly no shortage of unlibertarian atheists.

        2. I don’t think we’re agreed on which side is interested in minding its own business.

          Sure, from your standpoint, neither side is, but nobody can claim the SSM side wants to just leave people alone.

          1. but nobody can claim the SSM side wants to just leave people alone.

            Which isn’t what I claimed. Read my original comment. It’s clear to me that the proggies in the SSM movement are just as interested in fucking with people as the social conservatives. And right now, they have the power to do so.

            But, it’s also clear to me that the whole “they started it” line from both sides is a pretty clear indication that all any of the rest of us can expect from both sides is more bullshit.

            1. Sure Bill. And that totally makes it okay to stand idly by while the progs oppress the living fuck out of the SOCONs. I mean you hate both sides, so what do you care? I am sure the progs won’t turn on you. You love the gays. How could the progs ever turn on you?

              1. To put it a bit less vitriolically than John, whatever ultimate agenda the SoCons may have, they’re not in a position right now to carry it out – they’re facing government recognized SSM, and they’re fighting to carve out some exceptions in favor of the Christian bakers, T-shirt makers, etc.

                A worthy fight, regardless of hidden evil motives of what they’d do once they get back in power.

                1. …whatever ultimate agenda the SoCons may have, they’re not in a position right now to carry it out – they’re facing government recognized SSM, and they’re fighting to carve out some exceptions in favor of the Christian bakers, T-shirt makers, etc.

                  And in that, I completely agree with you. As I’ve said before in other threads, I don’t think the extension of public accommodation laws is something that libertarians ought to take lightly or treat as “Oh, well, it’s the Christians’ ‘turn'”.

                  But, this doesn’t strike me as that case. This is a county clerk defying a Supreme Court decision to continue what’s been deemed discrimination. By the government. You don’t think that’s what it is. I get that.

                  But, let me ask you a question, absent the public accommodation extension, how does any of this affect you?

                  1. “But, let me ask you a question, absent the public accommodation extension, how does any of this affect you?”

                    Me personally?

                    Well, I suspect that family structure (or lack thereof) had something to do with the burglars who took a bunch of my stuff. But I wasn’t there and never had a chance to ask them if they had single mothers or whatever. The fact is that crooks tend to be overwhelmingly from broken homes. The odds are these guys were too.

                    But otherwise, I suppose the assault on the family doesn’t affect me, and neither have warrantless raids, nor excessive drug sentences, nor FATCA. Do these things affect *you* personally?

                    1. Well, there’s the part where the school curricula will be altered to teach that sexual complementarity is unnecessary for marriage. But I don’t go to school!

                      But come to think of it, I will get a leg up vis-a-vis a married couple if I want to adopt a child, because since all families are equal, my single status will no longer be held against me and I will be entitled to a legal presumption that I am equally qualified as against an opposite-sex couple.

                      And with the culture snapping the connection between sex and marriage, I can get some woman drunk enough to have a one-night stand – even a respectable woman!

                      If I wanted a tax loophole, I could get gay-married to a buddy and nobody would know we’re not sexually attracted to each other, we’d just get marital benefits.

                      You know, this gay marriage thing could be a benefit to me as an individual. Just not to society as a whole. So I guess I’ll have to choose between my interests and the public interest.

                    2. Well, there’s the part where the school curricula will be altered to teach that sexual complementarity is unnecessary for marriage. But I don’t go to school!

                      I think to alter the school cirricula, that would have to already be IN the cirricula, right? Most of us didn’t go to Jesus Camp, Eddie, so “sexual complementarity for marriage” wasn’t ever part of the daily lesson.

                      But come to think of it, I will get a leg up vis-a-vis a married couple if I want to adopt a child, because since all families are equal, my single status will no longer be held against me and I will be entitled to a legal presumption that I am equally qualified as against an opposite-sex couple.

                      This is said in such bad faith it doesn’t warrant a response. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you are capable of reasoning, Eddie, I don’t know what about homosexuality makes you immediately lose your mind this way.

                      And with the culture snapping the connection between sex and marriage, I can get some woman drunk enough to have a one-night stand – even a respectable woman!

                      Wait, you’re saying it’s *the gays* that made casual sex culturally permissable? I didn’t know that. Remind me to send them a thank you note.

                      If I wanted a tax loophole, I could get gay-married to a buddy and nobody would know we’re not sexually attracted to each other, we’d just get marital benefits.

                      And if gay marriage is outlawed, what’s stopping you from doing that with a female, exactly?

                    3. Gay guy A marries gay guy B.

                      Ergo you are going to get robbed. That makes sense to you?

                      The rest of us are going to get divorced because same sex couple can get married. Again, that makes sense to you?

                      To arrive at these conclusions, you have to assume wildly unsubstantiated lines of cause and effect.

                    4. I said I’d basically *benefit* from the collapse of marriage and the family. So if I preferred my interest to the public interest, SSM would be the way I’d go.

                      Now, I don’t separate out the various attacks on marriage and the family. Straights and gays have been bashing it.

                      I’m not proposing to uniquely single out gay activists as if they were the only ones involved in attacking the family. Such an assumption would be homophobic.

              2. stand idly by

                I don’t think storming the jail where Davis is being held will work out so great. Other than that, what exactly are you expecting people to do?

              3. John,

                Where did I say anything whatsoever to that effect? But, hey, let me know where you gained the secret to your psychic powers?

                Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. I started this little subthread noting how this whole line of punitive bullshit by the progs (and the socons before them) is only going to end in misery for everyone, including the wide swath of us who don’t give a shit for either side’s little kulture wawr.

                And somehow out of that you’re drawing that I’m okay with progressives oppressing socons. Here’s a hint, I’ve taken flack from some of the more progressive-leaning posters here for thinking that this punitive, authoritarianism from the progressives is something that libertarians ought to genuinely be upset about. Placing an opinion completely at odds with what I think on the topic because I don’t have a problem with SSM is just the sort of horseshit that makes reasonable people expect that the socons are just going to push for even more of the same in the opposite direction when they get power.

  33. We spend far too much time focusing on a convict’s “debt to society” and not nearly enough on his debt to his victims. Consequently, we waste exorbitant sums of money punishing criminals in ways that do nothing to benefit the ones harmed most by their actions.

    I agree unreservedly.

  34. The question here, which we’ve been begging, is what *are* the duties of a clerk in a state where the constitution and laws declare that only man/woman marriages will be recognized by the government?

    Without a Supreme Court decision, their duty would be to *deny* SSM licenses. Which of course didn’t stop social-liberal officials a decade ago from issuing these licenses in defiance of state laws.

    Now that there’s a Supreme Court decision, most people think it’s self-evident that “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” – that is, “the Supreme Court has spoken, whatever they say is the law, game over, what’s for dinner?”

    But the abolitionists didn’t think that way. They preached and practiced resistance to what they considered illegal federal court decisions (like enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

    So it’s hardly self-evident that Supreme Court decisions are the law, it’s something which has to be proven, not asserted.

    And if not the law, then the clerks are obliged to enforce the laws of Kentucky instead. And if that means prison, well, why should government service be a bed of roses?

    1. The abolitionists were not government employees.

      1. Does a country clerk work for the federal government?

        1. “Nahw ahm jus’ a poor cunnntry clerk…”

        2. Does the Constitution end at just the 10th amendment?

          I know many “constitutional conservatives” wish it didn’t include all those other pesky amendments — particularly the bits pertaining to “equal protection under the law” and clarifying the supremacy clause after that little “I have the right to own people as property” rebellion in the 1860s — but it does.

      2. Well, I don’t know that.

        And I’m sure…..some are were good people….

        /Trump Voice

      3. So they should have followed the law of the land and turned the slaves in?

        +1 I was just following orders!

        1. Non. Gone to jail. The judge should dismiss the case. That’s his/her perogative.

      4. The justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court were government employees, yet they resisted the Fugitive Slave Law and the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempts at enforcement.

        Why are the decisions of one group of government employees sacrosanct, while the decisions of another group of government employees are not?

    2. But the abolitionists didn’t think that way. They preached and practiced resistance to what they considered illegal federal court decisions (like enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

      And they went to prison for it.

      Maybe history will vindicate this particular ninny, too, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

      1. Most of those who resisted the Fugitive Slave Act, including state officials, managed to avoid prison. Was this unjust?

        1. Whether an act is just or unjust has nothing to do with what the law says.

          For example, if governments require licensing of marriages, refusing to license gay marriages is unjust regardless of whether or not the law allows licensing of gay marriages.

          1. OK, but the point of this post is to discuss the *legal* duties of Kentucky clerks and whether this particular clerk should, legally go to prison.

  35. Government official in jail?

    *pops cap on St. Bernardus Abt 12, takes a sip*

    Fuck yeah!

    1. I know, right?

  36. I’ve reached the point where I just want people to stop trying to find ways to punish each other.

    Ms. Davis is an aggressor.

    I do want gay couples to be able to get their marriage licenses in Rowan County and not have to go elsewhere. But I don’t want Kim Davis thrown in jail

    So government has no role in defending fundamental rights. Jefferson and the Founders were fascists to agree: ” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men?” Hmmm.

    I generally don’t want anybody thrown in jail unless they’re a physical threat to people’s safety or property.

    So individual rights are meaningless. Fraud has no victims.

    as somebody who celebrated when Gavin Newsom defied California law years ago and married off same-sex couples and who just recently wrote positively about a police chief refusing to arrest heroin users if they were willing to go to rehab instead,

    You really don’t see the difference? How do those two examples defy individual rights?

    1. Oh, good. We’re gonna need more beer.

      1. It’s Hihntler!!

        1. You know who else tried to lecture everyone about libertarianism?

          1. Every fucking Salon writer.

          2. You know who else tried to lecture everyone about libertarianism?

            You must be confused. I’m the one who points to the Cato survey which reported that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

      2. I told you….at least 36.

        1. I’m going to start butt chugging. I hear it’s faster.

    2. I count 9 replies (so far), none of which contains a single word of substance.
      Could it be they have no arguments against individual rights and the purpose of government?

      1. a single word of substance

        Happy?

      2. Could it be they have no arguments against individual rights and the purpose of government?

        More likely they’re simply avoiding you because you are marginally more delusional than a homeless schizophrenic accosting people and drawing pictures with his own shit at a bus stop, but infinitely less entertaining, and more poorly informed.

        1. PM’s aggression says all we need to know about that stalker.
          Cut the bullshit. You’re attacking me because i defended equal rights and the legitimate purpose of government. Now, the bully claims that Thomas Jefferson is “marginally more delusional than a homeless schizophrenic accosting people and drawing pictures with his own shit at a bus stop, but infinitely less entertaining, and more poorly informed.

          Poorly informed now means citing the Declaration of Independence on the sole purpose of government!!! But he’s not an aggressive bully. (lol)

    3. “Ms. Davis is an aggressor.”

      No. A refusenik. Passive civil disobedience. Ghandi day in jail. His co-philosophers rallied. Davis can wait. If too much time passes, she can resign.

      1. BigT,
        Umm, how did Ghandi’s civil disobedience deny anyone their fundamental rights?
        When did Ghandi ever possess government power?
        Do you see no difference between government force and Ghandi?
        Are you not aware that Ghandi worked to oppose government power?

  37. Get the state out of private matters!

    1. Yep. But that’s a pretty fucking useless excuse to deny equal rights today.

  38. Just like an abolitionist, she is.
    If them people are allowed to marry, we’ll all be in the thrall of the DEBBIL.
    Slaves of Beelzebub.

  39. Seen on Twiiter:

    John Hayward ?@Doc_0 1h1 hour ago
    The mayors of all sanctuary cities are going right into the clink behind that Kentucky clerk, right?

    1. The mayors of all sanctuary cities are going right into the clink behind that Kentucky clerk, right?

      THAT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT

      1. Well, despite the nominal “rule of law” bit… yeah, there is actually a difference.

        refusing to enforce a law that restricts human liberty is not exactly the same as refusing to enforce a law that strikes down a legal inequality

        if you believe human liberty should in general trump temporal regulatory concerns, not only is what the woman is doing silly and wrong, but her job shouldn’t exist in the first place.

        just as we shouldn’t need to ‘ask permission’ to take a job somewhere.

    2. If a court order was issued, specifically instructing mayors to actively assist in federal deportation laws, then yeah, anyone who refused would be in contempt of court.

      Of course, no such court order was issued, but let’s not let silly technicalities like that get in the way of conservatard RAAAAAGE!

  40. When she took the job, there was no requirement that she issue a marriage license to gays.

    Is there any principle Libertarians are willing to give up their jobs for? Suppose Libby Tarian was county clerk and some S.C. Judge said part of the job now entails changing Tony’s diaper. Or deleting Hillary’s emails. Or concatenation of guns. Would Libby do it? Defy the judge? Quit your her job?

    What would you do?

    1. I’d quit even before the order was issued.

      Morons like Dondero – er DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO – can think a libertarian can serve on a draft board etc. The reality is that the job betrays so many libertarian principles that anybody who holds the office aint a libertarian, or is the sort of guy who conceded that raping his best friend’s mother while pouring sugar in the friend’s gas tank is morally wrong but is willing to do it anyway.

    2. No, her job required her to issue marriage licenses to those who could get legally married.

      If it’s legal to get a concealed carry permit, and the clerk is anti-gun, can she refuse to issue carry permits?

      1. Did Jesus ever carry a gun, Paul?

        1. He carried a switch! That’s like, what, an ancient version of a modern stun gun, right?

        2. he left it in his dad’s starship

        3. No need to. If he can raise the dead, there’s no reason he couldn’t reverse the process.

      2. Unlike marriage licenses, you can’t go to another county to get a CCW permit.

    3. What would you do?

      Um, quit?

      Is this a trick question? Even most NON-libertarians understand that you shouldn’t collect a paycheck for a job you’re unwilling to actually do.

    4. When she took the job, there was no requirement that she issue a marriage license to gays.

      She took an oath of office, which she now violates.

      What would you do?

      How do any of those deny equal rights?

    5. “Is there any principle Libertarians are willing to give up their jobs for?”

      Casual Fridays. The cappuccino machine. Travel budget.

  41. Well, everyone has to try to get his 15 minutes of fame somehow. She’s outdone most all of us.

  42. We have reached the George Wallace stage of the same-sex marriage fight

    And here’s the thing: The real issue — if you know something about the history of American moments like the one that Davis has brought to pass, and even if you don’t ? is that legally, Davis has put herself in league with men like former Alabama governor George Wallace.

    Let’s review a little mid-20th-century history here, shall we?

    Wallace said publicly that his refusal to integrate Alabama schools, in defiance of multiple federal court orders, was a matter of personal principle, too. In fact, in 1963, Wallace expressed that in what might be the only widely known passage from a gubernatorial inauguration speech.

    “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny. And I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” he exclaimed.

  43. The couples can drive to the next county for their license. It will give them more snuggle time. Or maybe they’ll wise up and not get married.

  44. OK I tend to agree with the majority here regarding her not issuing SSM licenses.

    HOWEVER, if she just decides (which she did a couple of days ago) not to issue licenses at all, I don’t believe that should fall under Federal jurisdiction. How can a Federal judge order a county clerk to issue marriage licenses in general. That should be under State and or County jurisdiction alone. And if the voters (through the legislature) feel that she is not doing her job they can initiate impeach proceedings or whatever other mechanism there is under State or County law.

    I don’t agree with, nor do I particularly sympathize with her. I agree with Almanian’s boisterous opinions “Just do your fucking job that you were elected to.” BUT, there is a process which should be followed if she isn’t doing her job. And other than 14th Amendment (or other specifically Constitutional violations) a Federal judge should have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

    1. Federal judges are involved for two reasons:

      1. Because Davis involved them. The governor ordered her to issue licenses and she asked the federal courts to stay the order.
      2. Because she was sued in federal court.

      1. I will grant you that if indeed she asked the federal courts into the issue, than that certainly makes it harder for her to then say they don’t have jurisdiction. But just because she was sued in federal court, doesn’t mean that a federal judge has the power to force her to do her county job, assuming she is not violating equal protection or other Constitutional protections.

  45. Beginning to think the Anti-Nowhere League had it right all along. My Twitter feed has been bombarded with this nonsense all day. It’s not a good look for almost anyone involved.

    1. I think Scott has managed to get it right, Voros.

      And things like this are why you should avoid Twitter 🙂

    2. Hey Voros! Haven’t seen you in here before. Been awhile since I was in Phoenix.

  46. It is cruel to send this stupid woman to jail.

    She really believes she’ll go to hell for marrying a pair of fags.

    Many people in this world believe in God.

    Me, I see what was created for the masses as God is not much different than the Parents creating Santa Claus for their kids.

    The Truth about God or the Supreme being is as follows: NO ONE KNOWS.

    Everything else (christians, jews, muslims,etc.etc.etc) is BULLSHIT.

    Now, is there any point in walking into a 2nd grade class and creaming: “There’s no Santa Claus, your parents hide the gifts when you sleep.

    Same with God. It is just total arrogance to believe that a Superior Being favors humans.

    1. “She really believes she’ll go to hell for marrying a pair of fags.”

      She also likely believes she’ll go to Heaven for going to jail for refusing to marry a pair of fags, so really they’re doing her a service of sorts. Kind of how Nebuchadnezzar did God’s will in destroying Israel even though he was a damnable heathen himself.

  47. Why throw her in jail? Just fire her! Problem solved!

    1. agreed. Or issue a desk order that she can’t go to work or something.

      It’s like sending a 2nd grader to jail for professing his//her belief in Santa Claus.

      1. Nope. She’s pulling down a paycheck and benefits, and took an oath to perform her job.

        She doesn’t get “special treatment” because her delusions “prevent” her from following the oath she took.

        Accepting the paycheck and not performing the job is fraud, and fraudsters should go to jail. She’s in exactly the right place.

        1. Where she is wrong is simultaneously professing to be a Christian and soldiering for Caesar.

          1. What is a “Christian,” other than someone who believes in a vaguely medieval addendum to Jewish law crafted by European rulers to establish a power structure, anyway?

            1. Most Christians defile Christ by cheerleading for Caesar.

  48. She’s not going to jail for “nonviolent defiance.”

    She’s going to jail for contempt of court, and I have no problem with that.

    She ran for an elected office that includes a salary and benefits, and campaigned (and swore) to perform the duties of that office.

    She won, started pulling down a paycheck and benefits, and then declared that she won’t perform any duty of the office that goes against her arbitrary superstitions.

    It’s no different than if I offered to repair the engine in your car, you agreed and paid me to do it, and then I said that I will not repair your car because you’re immoral… but I’m keeping your money.

    1. Does this apply to federal agents who refuse to arrest nonviolent drug possessors?

      Or only when Reason likes the law that the judge is demanding to be obeyed.

      1. If a federal agent is specifically ordered by a court of law to arrest a nonviolent drug possessor and doesn’t, then he’s in contempt.

        Of course, that hasn’t happened.

        Of course, if someone is opposed to the drug war, accepting payment as a federal drug enforcement agent is a pretty stupid thing to do, and will lead to trouble. In fact, you take an oath to enforce those laws.

        Sort of like accepting payment as a clerk who issues licenses but doesn’t intend to issue them, even though you took an oath to issue those licenses.

        1. Where is there support in the federal constitution for the proposition that the federal government can make law regarding marriage?

          Where does it permit the Supreme Court to redefine what constitutes marriage?

          1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Pay attention to the third clause there.

            Any state legislation that establishes a legal structure for family law and specifically excludes any form of family relationship is, by very definition, “denying persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            1. There are literally thousands of cases in which plaintiffs have asserted equal protection claims because of disparate treatment under both state statutes and regulations and the courts have somehow managed to overlook the facial discriminatory structure of the same and have invented some pathetic justification for allowing the regime to stand.

              For starters, how about one of the five worst decisions in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Slaughterhouse Cases?

              To be sure, straight-up, the text of 14th Amendment obligates the states to refrain from discriminating in making marriage laws. Thus, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that you would support polygamy?

              1. Thus, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that you would support polygamy?

                You forgot to mention bestiality.
                If polygamy were legal, then it would have to be legal regardless of gender.
                What’s wrong with polygamy anyhow?
                And how would polygamy be required by the 14th amendment. Or bestiality.

                1. Just as one has a constitutional right to butcher, one has the right to enter into polygamous associations.

                  1. Just as one has a constitutional right to butcher, one has the right to enter into polygamous associations.

                    non sequitor

              2. “Thus, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that you would support polygamy?”

                Only the Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons ever come around in my neighborhood. Where do I send my check?

          2. It doesn’t, but the Federal Government does it anyway. Since we’re already in arbitrary legal territory, it doesn’t make sense to re-introduce essentialist arguments.

            Either the government (State and Federal) needs to get out of marriage, or they need to make laws that are fair and equitable to everyone regardless of religious preferences.

          3. Where is there support in the federal constitution for the proposition that the federal government can make law regarding marriage?

            You must be a follower of the Paulista Cult, because …

            Where does it permit the Supreme Court to redefine what constitutes marriage?

            Why would it have to?

          4. Where is there support in the federal constitution for the proposition that the federal government can make law regarding marriage?

            Where does it say that states can? (The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply, trumped by the 9th) The Court is empowered to defend equal rights.
            Any more questions?

    2. No, no, no. She quit repairing all engines. She only does body work and tires now.

  49. I am really appalled with Shackford and the comments of so many here. They seem to be entirely unclear on libertarian distinctions between citizens and public servants and the rights of the former and the duties of the latter. Further, that so many here are so clearly hostile to gay marriage itself belies a fundamental conflict with libertarian principles. Don’t like the state in the marriage business? Fine, neither do I. But until you get rid of the state’s role in human relationships, which I strongly advocate, you have startling disparities in the treatment of straight vs. gay couples by the state, with profound legal and monetary consequences. Don’t make gay marriage the point at which you dig in your heels and say that you want the state out of marriage. By doing so you reveal yourselves to be petty bigots with a fundamental contempt for the individual. And when public officials willfully scorn the rights of citizens who they have sworn an oath to uphold then jail is absolutely right and fitting. In fact, she should not just be held in jail until such time as she decides to uphold the law instead she should be charged with contempt and the violation of any other applicable laws, convicted and sent to prison. And I won’t shed a single tear for her since she is a tyrant who has abrogated her duties as an elected official.

    1. Yep. If this clerk was denying business licenses or concealed carry permits on “religious grounds,” you wouldn’t see all the nonsense around “good, government shouldn’t be licensing it anyway.” You’d see rage and fury and anger.

      The gay thing tends to bring out some of the worst aspies in the lib community.

      1. Government officials all over the country ignore the 2nd Amendment and none of them are ever punished let alone jailed. And this woman is jailed. Since you and Eric are all about equality under the law, I guess that bothers you a lot. And since those city officials are not going to jail anytime soon and probably never will, I am sure you see the inherent injustice of selectively prosecuting this woman. Right?

        1. “Government officials all over the country ignore the 2nd Amendment and none of them are ever punished ”

          Go get a court order instructing those officials to issue concealed carry permits and get back to me. Bonus points if it’s a SUPREME COURT order.

          “I guess that bothers you a lot”

          It does. I don’t see how an emotional reaction has any bearing on the legal facts, though.

          “selectively prosecuting this woman”

          Nothing selective about it. A court order was issued, instructing her to perform her state-mandated bureaucratic duties in a certain way to comply with the US Constitution.

          She refused. She informed the court that she would not follow the court’s order. She declared her intent to actively stand in contempt. Not smart.

          Oh, and by the way, not only did she refuse to do her job, but she also ordered all of her subordinates to refuse to issue licenses as well — forcing her religious beliefs on them, as well as the constituents who she was stealing from by not performing her duties.

          So violating the constitution, strike one. Standing in contempt of a constitutional court order, strike two. Instructing her employees to stand in contempt on pain of termination, strike three. Telling a federal judge that she had no intention of complying with the order, an extra mulligan strike four.

          She might as well have said “please put me in prison.” Wish granted. No sympathy from me.

          1. It is totally selective. And there are court orders. They just ignore the orders and the judges slap them on the wrists and ask them nicely again. Washington DC has bee sued and lost multiple times yet continues to ignore it and no one ever goes to jail. The judges just don’t order it.

            Federal judges prosecute court orders and you only go to jail if the judge orders it. And federal judges are being selective here. This woman and anyone else who stands up to gay marriage is going to jail and people are allowed to ignore the second amendment with impunity. That is a huge injustice.

            Considering that we can’t throw the others in jail, how is it fair to send this woman to jail? You just hate her and are happy to see your enemies go to prison. Good for you but I am not sure you are going ot like how that works out for you. You might want to remember that for most of human history and throughout most of the world gays have been hated. There is little reason for optimism that won’t continue. So I would be very careful about betting that you will always be on top.

            1. You sound like a socialist. “It’s not fair! I demand a completely fair and equal distribution!”

              The old cow took a government job, lied in her oath, took money from her constituents, didn’t perform it even after she was ordered to, ordered her employees to stop doing their jobs too (under pain of termination), and then told a judge to stuff it when he ordered her to do her job one last time.

              Oh, she’s a such a victim!

              1. You sound like a socialist. “It’s not fair! I demand a completely fair and equal distribution!”

                I mean, yeah, the argument about equal application of the law is totally socialist, except when you’re riding on it like a hobby horse in regards to marriage law.

                1. “the argument about equal application of the law is totally socialist”

                  I’m just tossing back some arguments from the retarded conservative branch of libertarianism. Whenever LGBTs would talk about “equality,” conservatards would scream “socialist!”

                  Yet now, as the culture wars are over and the vestiges of segregationist statism are being swept away in yet another area, conservatards have rediscovered “equality” and “equal application” and “fairness.”

                  Why, they’d be almost welcome in a drum circle in Berkeley with language like that!

          2. Go get a court order instructing those officials to issue concealed carry permits and get back to me. Bonus points if it’s a SUPREME COURT order.

            So you favor the dictatorship of judges, up to and including indefinite detention?

            1. Yep, that’s exactly it. I’m all about judges being dictators and stuff, and a judge telling this elected official to comply with the law — specifically, the Constitution — is like Hitler in robes marching up with the SS and detaining nuns helping dying cancer patients.

        2. Well, those ignoring the 2nd amendment should be jailed too.

          1. And of course they are not and never will be. Given that unavoidable fact, how is it fair or just to jail this woman?

            1. Very little government does is fair or just as far as I can see. There are so many layers of bullshit that fairness and justice are fucking unicorns. Fairness and justice would be a government that does nothing buy protect people from force or fraud and enforce legal contracts. Until we get there, there isn’t going to be any coherent fairness or justice at all and all any of us can do is spout off about our opinions of particular matters or theoretical ideas about how it should be.

              1. That is not a very good answer Zeb. By your logic selective enforcement of a just law is just fine and the person being subjected to it should get no relief. Sure, you could say “you had it coming buddy”. But that doesn’t make it moral or right.

                1. Funny to watch a gay-hater like yourself suddenly discover “unfairness in the law.”

                  Sorta sucks when you’re now at the receiving end, doesn’t it? Suddenly all the haughty legalistic rhetoric and accusations of socialism and whatnot ring pretty hollow indeed.

                  I’d say it’s like karma, but that would make me an awful lot like this KY politician you’re so passionately defending. 🙂

        3. I absolutely believe that public officials who ignore the 2nd Amendment should go to jail.

          And so should Kim Davis who is expressing contempt for the rights of citizens.

          This is not about a citizen with rights going to jail, this about a public servant with OBLIGATIONS to uphold the rights of citizens being held to account for her contempt in failing to do so.

          1. This has absolutely jack shit to do with rights. Nobody (of any gender, orientation or any other demographic data) has a “right” in any legitimate sense of the term to obtain a piece of paper from the government that allows them to extort their neighbors for cash benefits because they registered the name of the person they enjoy fucking with a county official. That’s a privilege, which sometimes go by the badly misnamed moniker of “positive rights”.

            1. Says the faux-purist libertarian with a marriage license who demands we support people with marriage licenses and never tells the straight married people he knows that they’re extorting their neighbors, because only the homosexuals should get talked to like that.

              Yeah, we’ve got ya pegged, d00d.

              1. Queer Lib, do you have support for your asseveration that PM is a faux libertarian and does not apply the same standard to heterosexual married couples?

              2. Says the faux-purist libertarian with a marriage license

                Still wrong. I do not have a marriage license. You either have me confused for somebody else, or you are lying again.

                who demands we support people with marriage licenses

                Mmmm, nope. Never, anywhere, at any time have I ever said that. Show your work you lying piece of shit.

                and never tells the straight married people he knows that they’re extorting their neighbors

                Except about 12 second ago in the post to which you replied, where I just did. Let me quote it for you. Read it real slow this time, I even bolded the imporant parts for you:

                Nobody (of any gender, orientation or any other demographic data) has a “right” in any legitimate sense of the term to obtain a piece of paper from the government that allows them to extort their neighbors for cash benefits because they registered the name of the person they enjoy fucking with a county official.

                Anything else you’d like to lie about, or are you about finished up?

            2. It’s a privilege that should either be extended to all who apply for it, or it should be abolished.

            3. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

    2. Don’t like the state in the marriage business? Fine, neither do I. But until you get rid of the state’s role in human relationships,

      Okay Eric. I guess you support public accommodation laws being extended to cover gays right? I get it you object to the state being in the business of forcing people to associate with one another. But like marriage, the state does that even though it is wrong. So just like marriage, i assume you think since it is happening gays have to be treated equally. If someone can sue if they are fired or refused service for being black, why can’t they do the same thing for being gay? Aren’t gays entitled to equal treatment under the law?

      And while you are all about going after public officials who refuse to comply with the law, I guess you are totally down with any mayor who refuses to turn over illegal aliens over to the feds for deportation. Right? I mean you are all about the rule of law and everything.

      1. Marriage =/= public accommodation. Marriage is something that exists with or without state involvement; public accommodation is something conjured out of thin air by government force.

        1. Why is it different? They are both bad laws that involve government coercion. In an ideal world the government would neither be in the marriage business nor would it have public accommodation laws. Yet, right now they have both. So if government marriage must be extended to gays in the name of equality, even though you admit that government marriage is bad, why then must not public accommodation laws be extended as well? If it unfair for straight couples to get the benefits of government marriage but not gay couples, it is equally or more unfair for everyone to get the benefit of the protections under the public accommodation laws but not gays. If I fire someone because they are black, they can sue me. If I fire someone because they are gay, the gay person can’t. How is that not just as unequal as not having gay marriage?

          1. Strawman logic is filled with straw…

            1. You shouldn’t use words unless you understand what they mean. There is nothing straw man about that. A straw man is characterizing your opponent’s argument. I didn’t even characterize the opposing argument.

              I made an argument by analogy. If you think that analogy is flawed, say way. But please don’t waste my time by using words that are meaningless in the context you are using them.

              1. Strawman: “If you support equal treatment in government marriage licenses that covered everyone but gay people, you must also support equal coverage in nondiscrimination laws that didn’t cover everyone and still wouldn’t cover everyone.”

                1. Protip: marriage licenses don’t “cover everyone” either. You’d think somebody named “QueerLib” might understand that “straight” and “gay” monogamous relationships aren’t the only ones that exist.

                  1. Of course they don’t. Marriage licenses for gay people is an incremental improvement, just like desegregating public universities in the 60s was an incremental movement.

                    It’s still the right thing to do, and a movement in a freer, more libertarian direction.

                    The faux-purist “all or nothing” argument is a convenient fig leaf for the gay-hater who doesn’t want the fags gettin’ married, but is too embarrassed to use that language in polite company.

                    1. Of course they don’t.

                      Then the premise of your analogy is wrong, you idiot. Jesus fuck. I know your grasp of formal logic is extremely tenuous, but at least try and keep track of your own constructions.

                      Btw, if it helps your persecution complex any, I would have much rather seen public universities abolished than desegregated. I’d also have rather seen civil marriage abolished than desegregated, in which case we wouldn’t be having this conversation and you’d have to invent some other evil libertarian boogeyman to chase you around stealing your precious bodily fluids gubmint cheese.

                  2. So why not extend them to those others as well?

                    1. So why not extend them to those others as well?

                      No other excluded group has the popular support to make it happen at this point in time. You’re welcome to go stand shoulder to shoulder with them on their noble quest to loot their neighbors in service of their personal sexual relationships, but it ain’t my bag (something tells me you aren’t any more interested in doing so than I am, which is why the cries of “equal protection” have just the faintest whiff of special pleading). And, of course, single people will always be excluded by definition. When you start with an illegitimate use of government, broader availability doesn’t make it any better.

                      FWIW, I don’t support a federal single-payer health care plan, even though the government already provides single-payer health care programs for the elderly, disabled and veterans, and for exactly the same reason.

                2. You still don’t know what it means. I never said he did think that. I said his logic demanded it.

        2. if marriage exists without state involvement, why is a license required in order for the state to recognize it?

          1. Its not. Gays were getting married and doing just fine before this. In fact, they were more free since they could set the terms of their relationships instead of having a judge do it for me.

            1. Unless you want to make medical decisions, pass property to your family without tax, pass property to your spouse when intestate, sponsor your partner for a green card, share assets between each other without paying taxes, cover each other with one insurance policy without taxes, and on and on and on…

              1. No, you can do all of that. You just have to get a medical power of attorney. This entire debate boils down more than anything else to the horror of gays having to take charge of their own affairs instead of having the state do it for them by default.

                Get a will and a POA. And as far as taxes, change the tax laws and get rid of inheritance taxes. Unmarried straight couples get fucked too. But somehow that is okay because GAYS are special or something.

                1. “No, you can do all of that.”

                  Are you gay?

                  Have you been in a relationship that required all of those things?

                2. Oh, so no problem, you can do all that. It’s a simple matter of changing the fucking tax code. Why didn’t anyone think of that before. That’s obviously something that any couple can just up and do when they decide to get married.

                  1. Yeah Zeb why didn’t we? Gee maybe we should have addressed the concerns of all unmarried couples and avoiding getting the government more involved in marriage? What a crazy fucking idea.

                    1. maybe we should have addressed the concerns of all unmarried couples and avoiding getting the government more involved in marriage? What a crazy fucking idea.

                      Yes, your idea is fucking crazy.
                      Why do extreme socons swallow so much bullshit?

                  2. If you fix the tax code, you remove a conflict. What we are doing knowing is creating even conflict

            2. Non Sequitur. No need to be gay to still have the need to address those issues. I maintain a permanent POA on my mother–she’s a widow–due to her poor health. Also, have trusts and wills to make sure everything is in order as she wants.

              A gay couple can do exactly what I’ve done.

              Inheritance Tax is their only complaint–which can’t be avoided outside of marriage. But then again I think inheritance taxes should be illegal.

              1. “I maintain a permanent POA on my mother”

                So there’s one of the things I listed. How much was that?

                Oh, and do you live in a state where such arrangements were made illegal under state law as part of various DOMA laws? If so, I’ve got bad news for you… your agreement is invalid.

                “have trusts and wills to make sure everything is in order as she wants”

                That’s certainly not the same as what I listed.

                So you’ve listed exactly one of the things that I put in a very short and incomplete list, with the un-noted caveat that such arrangements were made illegal in many states. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the laughable idea that legal marriage status can be replicated through private contracts.

                And Zeb certainly made fun of the notion that “oh, we as a couple can just change the tax code.”

                And further, I’m still waiting for the “you can do marriage all in contracts” people to explain how to do that for a green card for a foreign spouse, and so on.

                The argument is bogus, and the only person who would make the argument is someone who is in a legal marriage and has no idea what they’re talking about in terms of arranging a legal equivalent outside of the licensing regime.

                1. “The argument is bogus, and the only person who would make the argument is someone who is in a legal marriage and has no idea what they’re talking about in terms of arranging a legal equivalent outside of the licensing regime.”

                  ^^ This.

                  As I mentioned above, my wife and I are unmarried (heterosexual), and we notice these issues. They are not so easily waived away. We are not so rich that we can just run out have a lawyer draw up some elaborate agreement to mitigate the various legal awkwardnesses.

                  The difference being, this is choice for us. We’re both a little-foil-hatty and don’t like the Government involved in our business any more than necessary. Nevertheless, at some point, probably soon, actually, it will just become too burdensome and will probably wind up just skipping down to the courthouse and getting the stupid document.

                  Because we have that option.

                  1. “this is choice for us”

                    Communist! 😉

                    You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

                    I once encountered a thundering libertarian faux-purist who went on, at length, about how LGBTs should live free of the marriage regime, that marriage licenses were theft, etc. He was one of those really passionate religious-types who was a recent convert from the Green Party (I guess he had to run to the other extreme for catharsis).

                    When I asked him if he and his wife had a marriage license, he affirmed that they did, but that he did it back when he was a socialist, and it’s too late now.

                    When I pointed out that he could have a government divorce and live in one of those imaginary private sector marriages where all the various requirements could be procured through sophisticated legal contracts, he went ballistic and accused me of wanting him to divorce his wife.

                    The abstract concept of licensing for gays was some imaginary thing he could be all purist about, but his own marriage? By god, that license WAS the marriage baby!

                    It’s the same for most others who argue this point. Very, very few purist libertarians in a marriage are living as you are, and the ones that are typically support the choice for marriage license equality for the same reason they support desegregated public universities — because they’re a step in the right direction.

                  2. Don’t do it.

                    FYI, I have prepared asset protection and estate planning documents for gays, lesbians and unmarried straights for many years. In fact, my creativity in designing documents is one of my best professional attributes – besides being accessible, affable, approachable, convivial and not that expensive – $240.00 per hour whereas my support staff (office manager, three paralegals) is billed at $75.00 per hour.

      2. Let’s flip this silly pseudo-purist notion on its head.

        Using John-think, the government shouldn’t be in the business of licensing firearms or businesses, so it’s perfectly okay for a government bureaucrat to refuse to issue firearm licenses or business permits to people that he finds morally reprehensible — like libertarians.

        Even though said bureaucrat is paid to do mostly that, and took an oath to do mostly that, and libertarians who operate businesses or carry guns without the paperwork face prosecution.

        It’s just A-OK. They need to deal with it, because the government shouldn’t be in the licensing business anyway.

        1. Oh, and I forgot to add — if you’re in favor of a court ordering the bureaucrat to issue licenses to libertarians as well, you’re also in favor of a theoretical IRS agent who takes a job with the IRS but opposes collecting taxes BEING THROWN IN JAIL!

          Pretty derpy, if you ask me.

          1. Again, you operate under the false assumption that being married without a license is a crime like owning a gun or not paying your taxes.

            1. “the false assumption that being married without a license is a crime”

              Being married without a license means that you don’t get recognized as legally married, just like owning a firearm without a license means that you don’t get recognized as a legal firearm owner or running a business without a license means that you don’t get recognized as a legal business.

              There are various civil and criminal penalties covering all of those statuses in a range of situations, by the way.

              For example, if you’re married without a marriage license, try noting that you’re married on your tax return, or your health insurance. The po-po will be at your door, lickety-split, to take you away.

              1. There are various civil and criminal penalties covering all of those statuses in a range of situations, by the way.

                Not in the same way. You can get in trouble for lying about your legal status wrt your marriage. Merely possessing or concealing a firearm is a crime in some jurisdictions. Merely operating a business without a license is a crime in all jurisdictions. There is no penalty for saying “This is my spouse” when you don’t have a government license. You’re just not allowed to claim you have a government license when you don’t.

                Your second example, btw, wouldn’t apply to insurers who recognize gay domestic partners for benefit purposes (and most have for well over a decade). Your first example applies to anyone, gay or straight, although the likelihood of getting caught is pretty low. You don’t submit your marriage license with your 1040 every tax season. If you got audited it would be a problem.

                1. “There is no penalty for saying “This is my spouse” when you don’t have a government license.”

                  Sure there is. In a whole host of contexts, you’ll be hauled off to prison for doing so, for fraud.

                  “Your second example, btw, wouldn’t apply to insurers who recognize gay domestic partners for benefit purposes”

                  Wrong. You still get taxed on those benefits, unlike a licensed marriage.

                  “the likelihood of getting caught is pretty low”

                  You’re almost certainly more likely to get caught in the income tax form example than you are carrying around a concealed weapon without a permit.

                  1. In a whole host of contexts, you’ll be hauled off to prison for doing so, for fraud.

                    Show your work.

                    Wrong. You still get taxed on those benefits, unlike a licensed marriage.

                    That’s a tax issue, not an insurance issue. You said: try noting that you’re married on your tax return, or your health insurance.

                    If you only meant “on your tax return” you should have left off the “or your health insurance” part.

                    You’re almost certainly more likely to get caught in the income tax form example than you are carrying around a concealed weapon without a permit.

                    It’s not really relevant, but you’re probably wrong anyway. Only about 1% of tax returns in the 25-100k range are audited.

              2. If you are legally married, and say so on your tax return, have they ever come back and asked you to show your marriage certificate to prove it?

        2. If calling yourself married without a license were a crime, then your analogy would work. But there was nothing that prevented gays from getting married before this. They just couldn’t get government recognition. That is not the same thing as going to jail for not having a gun license.

          It is funny, you scream strawman above, like you have any idea what the word means, and then proceed to give a text book example of a false analogy here.

          Marriage licenses are two things; the right to force people to recognize your marriage, and the granting of the government the right to determine the terms of your marriage. Both of those things restrict freedom. The first restricts the freedom of others and the second restricts the couple’s freedom. So, the idea that there is some moral imperative for gays to have the equal ability to oppress others and live under the government’s thumb is absurd. And Libertarians only have bought into it because they decided they liked the gays’ end of the culture war.

          1. “Marriage licenses are two things; the right to force people to recognize your marriage, and the granting of the government the right to determine the terms of your marriage. Both of those things restrict freedom.”

            Sure. Just like business licenses are two things: the right to force people to recognize your business, and the granting of the government the right to determine the terms of your business. Both of those things restrict freedom. And concealed firearm licenses are two things: the right to force property owners to allow you to carry a firearm, and the granting of the government the right to determine the terms of your firearm usage.

            Using your logic, a libertarian who goes to get a business permit is therefore an effort to oppress others and live under the government’s thumb, and excluding libertarians from business licensing is A-Okay. Ditto for a concealed carry permit. Or even a driver’s license.

            As for the “culture war?” That’s over. The conservatards lost. Not just on gay hating, but on immigration and women and all the other stuff.

            We’re just busy cleaning up all the special restrictions that conservatards put into government regulations. Whether you like that or not really doesn’t matter.

            1. “We’re just busy cleaning up all the special restrictions…”? No! You don’t want any restrictions “cleaned up”, i.e., removed, cleared out. You want the restrictions you agree with in place.

              As long as the public supports agencies of institutionalized violence, no peace or justice is possible.

              1. “You don’t want any restrictions “cleaned up”, i.e., removed, cleared out. You want the restrictions you agree with in place.”

                Au contraire. I want them removed.

                And I see people demanding that the existing restrictions be maintained, while insisting that their real motive is the opposite. Pseudo-purism at its best, and I don’t for a moment believe that pseudo-libertarian opposition to gay marriage licenses is based on “opposition to marriage licenses as a concept.”

                It’s homophobia dressed up in faux-purist bollocks.

                After all, none of those angry purists are going around denouncing straight married couples as evil statist Satan-spawn. They save that invective solely for the non-heterosexual folks who desire the very thing that the married hets already have.

            2. Just like business licenses are two things: the right to force people to recognize your business, and the granting of the government the right to determine the terms of your business.

              No one outside of the government has to recognize your business, licensed or otherwise. And a business license or lack thereof imposes no burden to do so. In point of fact, a good many people engage in business every single day with unlicensed proprietors or refuse to deal with licensed proprietors. And outside of liability limitation and taxation with certain business structures, a business license does not set any terms of your business.

              And concealed firearm licenses are two things: the right to force property owners to allow you to carry a firearm, and the granting of the government the right to determine the terms of your firearm usage.

              Wrong again. A concealed carry license does not entitle you to carry a weapon on private property against the wishes of the property owner. If you step foot on private property and are asked to leave or not to carry a weapon, your license does not entitle you do so anyway.

              Just try to stick one subject about which you are utterly and completely ignorant at a time.

              1. “A concealed carry license does not entitle you to carry a weapon on private property against the wishes of the property owner.”

                Oh, but it arguably does. Courts have ruled on this, and an appeal is currently winging its way up to the Supreme Court, over laws that invalidate lease clauses and employment clauses that ban a CC permit holder from bringing his weapon home to a leased apartment or to work.

                The trouble you’ve got is that you’re not really informed of what’s going on in this space, because you only ever invoke the precedent when trying to formulate opposition to marriage equality that doesn’t begin with your actual motivation: hatred of and contempt for homosexual couples and a desire to see government diminish their ability to transact.

                1. Oh, but it arguably does.

                  Yes, and you “arguably” have an IQ over 30, but we’re dealing with actual reality, not hypotheticals.

                  Courts have ruled on this, and an appeal is currently winging its way up to the Supreme Court, over laws that invalidate lease clauses and employment clauses that ban a CC permit holder from bringing his weapon home to a leased apartment or to work.

                  There is no case or ruling that would allow you to bring a gun to work against the wishes of your employer – the issue under consideration in the case you’re referencing is whether you can keep your gun in the car in the parking lot. Landlord-tenant law wrt to firearms varies by state, but in general, landlords are allowed to set terms on their property (though, again, not areas like parking lots).

                  The trouble you’ve got is that you’re not really informed of what’s going on in this space

                  No, the problem is that you think you are and you actually aren’t, because your only fleeting interest in these issues is desperately trying to grope for a piss-poor analogy when you’re riding your hobby horse and inventing bigoted hobgoblins.

            3. As for the “culture war?” That’s over. The conservatards lost. Not just on gay hating, but on immigration and women and all the other stuff.

              You’re celebrating now because you think you’ve won everything, but that smile is going to be gone when the Muslim terrorists you guys love so much are cutting your throats.

              1. “when the Muslim terrorists you guys love so much are cutting your throats.”

                ???

                Sounds like you have more in common with them than “us.”

      3. No. She is abrogating the rights of citizens. San Francisco, as a sanctuary city, is not abrogating rights. That’s a fundamental difference.

        1. She is not abrogating any rights. Rights do not spring from princes or parliaments or black robed tyrants.

          1. black robed tyrants.

            Why am i not surprised that you have the tyranny reversed.

            But more important. why do you people claim that we are defenseless, at the mercy of governments. Why do you deny any and all constitutional rights. And why do you reject the checks and balances of three co-equal branches of government?

        2. There is no right to a marriage license, even under the recent SCOTUS ruling. There is a prohibition on discrimination, which this woman was not doing.

          1. She was refusing to do her job. And now we know that she was forbidding any of her clerks to do their jobs … so all her self-righteous claims about God were bullshit.

            1. If KY law states that she must issue a ML if a couple is legally qualified, then she is refusing to do her job, and that is a state issue for which she could be impeached and removed. By not discriminating in the process of not doing her job, how if the federal judge involved? He should be ruling on discrimination, not on “this office no longer does any marriage licenses”

              1. If KY law states that she must issue a ML if a couple is legally qualified, then she is refusing to do her job, and that is a state issue for which she could be impeached and removed.

                So you agree with Ron Paul that the Judiciary has no power to defend individual rights?

                He should be ruling on discrimination, not on “this office no longer does any marriage licenses”

                Umm, SHE claims it’s based on her denial of equal rights. Or do you people now claim that “God’s Law” forbids heterosexual marriage?

    3. This. She belongs in jail. She doesn’t have a right to say ‘no’, elected or not.

      1. She doesn’t have a right to say ‘no’, elected or not.

        And thus Cytoxic sums up his brand of Libertarianism in a single compact statement.

        1. Don’t fool yourself. Your brand of “she has a right to actively commit fraud, so long as I agree with the basis for the fraud” isn’t libertarianism.

          1. Do me a favor and reread the thread. I said about thirty times that this woman has to go to jail because the rule of law is more important than gay marriage. My only objection was to Scott whining about that.

            It is okay if you don’t have a good argument or anything interesting to say. But please at least try and understand what other people are saying.,

            1. Allowing judges to jail elected officials over policy disagreements isn’t a great precedent for the rule of law either. It’s a very slippery slope WRT separation of powers.

              If this is allowed without consequence it will be your favorite official getting jailed next.

              1. “a very slippery slope WRT separation of powers”

                I’d rather empower a constitutional judiciary with an appeals system to uphold the law with imprisonment power than permit any politician who wishes to ignore the law to do so and cite “separation of powers.”

              2. Allowing judges to jail elected officials over policy disagreements

                It’s not a policy disagreement. She broke the law, violated the Constitution.

                If this is allowed without consequence it will be your favorite official getting jailed next.

                If she breaks the law, then I hope so.

                1. The only way for her to have violated the constitution was to have violated the equal protection clause, but she did not treat anyone unequally. Everyone equally are not getting any licenses. She may not be fulfilling the state defined duties of her office, but she is not discriminating.

                  1. The only way for her to have violated the constitution was to have violated the equal protection clause,

                    Or violate a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court.

                    but she is not discriminating

                    Who said she was?

            2. I’ve read your postings. I haven’t seen any real *argument* there, just straw men. An absence of content on your part isn’t an absence of understanding on any reader’s part.

    4. Agreed, Eric T.

    5. Don’t make gay marriage the point at which you dig in your heels and say that you want the state out of marriage.

      Pretty sure a LOT of the signers and ratifiers of the constitution had very unlibertarian reasons for limiting the power of the federal government (protecting slavery, keeping their church dominant in their state, etc); do we need to cast aside the constitution for that reason? No. We should support liberty-positive policies regardless of the motivations of other supporters.

      1. We need to cast aside the Constitution because no law, no written contract, can grant or deny rights. Even if everybody agrees to waive their rights, rights are inalienable, meaning they still exist and anyone who violates them is still immoral/impractical. For example, if I publicly waive my right to life, and you kill me, no jury would accept that as anything but murder. The Supremes invented the concept of “waiving a right” as justification for the state’s violations of rights. That decision was not logical, legal, moral, or practical, but anyone who accepts the concept of the American Republican government or government in general cannot escape the fact that this is the inevitable result of institutionalized violence as a governing principle. Once that principle is put in force, no peace or justice is possible, because “might does not make right”, or common sense.

        1. “Natural rights” are as supernatural and ethereal a concept as shari’a law.

          Try again.

          1. The Unanimous Declaration was predicated upon Natural Law as was the 9th amendment. FACT.

            1. Then why do you reject the 9th Amendment? And the primary purpose of government?

          2. If only men gave you your rights, then those same men can chose to take them away. The concept of inalienable rights, even if you don’t believe in a supernatural being, is that those rights don’t come from men or government, they just are, and therefor can’t be taken away.

            1. The concept of inalienable rights, even if you don’t believe in a supernatural being, is that those rights don’t come from men or government, they just are, and therefor can’t be taken away.

              And I have no doubt you honor that principle for issues like marriage euality and abortion, among others.

    6. Don’t make gay marriage the point at which you dig in your heels and say that you want the state out of marriage. By doing so you reveal yourselves to be petty bigots with a fundamental contempt for the individual.

      A substantial number of the people making an argument against the civil institution were doing so before the better part of your brain ended up a stain on somebody’s bedsheets. Don’t presume shit you don’t actually know.

      1. Yeah, it’s always funny when the hate-the-gays brigade start insisting that opposition to equal treatment in marriage grows out of their noble opposition to marriage licensing.

        It almost makes their exclusive reserving of insults for supporters of gay marriage — and complete lack of similar insults for supporters of straight marriage — seem like an accident, rather than an indication of their opposition growing out of “hate the fags.” 🙂

        1. Eric T already made the fallacy, you didn’t need to continue demonstrating it.

          That you selectively take notice only of the things that offend you is an indication of your own biases and limitations, not others’.

  50. “Democrat Kentucky Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses…”

    FTFY!

  51. Kim Davis signed up to do a job. Not interpret God’s wishes on people who don’t care about God’s wishes. She’s breaking the law intentionally, she deserves to go to jail.

    1. Okay. So if a DEA agent refuses to arrest people for drug offenders, should he go to jail too? What is the difference between the two cases other than you like gay marriage but don’t like drug laws?

      1. A DEA agent who signs up for a job and takes an oath of office that requires him to fulfill that job, and then refuses to adhere to a court order instructing him to do a particular thing, should go to jail, yes.

        1. Or how about he just gets fired? Since when is not doing your job, even as a government official, a crime?

          1. How many DEA agents are elected, in a situation where they cannot be fired nor removed from office without a long, drawn-out impeachment process? Zero, last time I checked.

            But hey, don’t let the strawman construction slow down.

            1. So you can avoid the law if you are not elected? Her being elected has nothing to do with it. Either you throw government officials who refuse to do their jobs in jail or you don’t. I don’t see how not being elected makes it any better or worse.

              The only difference I see is you hate this woman and are happy to see her go to jail.

            2. The reason elected officials can’t be removed except by impeachment is because the people are sovereign — allowing judges to undo the results of an election is contrary to the separation of powers.

              I don’t see how allowing judges to jail elected officials because of their job performance is any less dangerous. Especially when we’re talking federal judge jailing state official — not only sep of pow but also federalism comes into play.

              1. She isn’t being jailed over performance — she’s being jailed over contempt.

                Performance is a competence issue, contempt is a compliance with court order situation.

                If a politician can operate completely independent of judicial review, that’s far more dangerous than any imaginary division between state/federal/city/county/whatever.

                1. The court order, which she is being jailed for contempt of, was based on the judge’s displeasure with her performance.

                  Politicians are a coequal branch of government. The judiciary is not a dictatorship.

                  1. No, the order was based on the judge’s response to her statement that she would not adhere to the order of the court.

                    In general, telling a judge to fuck off and that you won’t comply with an order — especially from a constitutional court, when you’re an elected official — is a bad idea.

                    Politicians also are NOT a co-equal branch of government in this case. This was a state politician in a federal court — the supremacy clause holds that the federal court has authority here.

                    As for “dictatorship,” your standard of “politicians can completely ignore the constitution and just do whatever they want, free of judicial review” is actually a dictatorship… not a constitutional court system with an appeals process. Under the bizarre ideology you’re touting, a politician can ignore settled constitutional law with no accountability other than at election-time.

                    So if Future President Hillary wants to send in the ATF to round up and arrest libertarian bloggers, that’s A-OK and there’s nothing that the SCOTUS can do about it, because Hillary is equal to them and not subject to judicial review and associated sanctions.

          2. Refusing to do your job — Fire
            Defying a court order — jail

            It’s really not difficult, John.

            1. If your job is as a government agent or clerk, there’s a lot of overlap between the two.

              1. Elected officials/agents/clerks can’t be fired. They can resign, or perform.

        2. Let’s see if you still are consistent when it actually happens.

          A lot of SSM aficionados around here who paid lip service to the idea of getting govt out of marriage when that was viewed as a pipe dream, changed their minds when Alabama considered actually doing it.

          1. For every one of the “SSM aficionados” who objected to Alabama’s fake-o gambit, there are several hundred thousand “libertarians” who thunder about the statist horrors of equal licensing, yet themselves have licenses because “they needed one.”

            Hell, the list of libertarian saints is filled with fully-government-licensed spouses who lecture, at great length, about the evils of the very licenses they voluntarily procured for themselves… yet don’t think gay people should be able to procure.

            1. Holy red herring, Batman!

            2. ad hominem

            3. Ayn Rand was on Medicare!

              Sad part is, you’re probably too stupid to even understand where you cribbed your material from.

            4. I got the typical replies I expected, from the usual suspects.

              It’s always fun to ask some red-faced conservatard, who thunders about “state marriage being theft,” why he has a marriage license.

              Doesn’t that make him a thief and a socialist? Along with Ron Paul?

              “Ad hominem! Cribbing from criticism of Rand!”

              So much for “principles.”

              But don’t worry, most libertarians knew your principles were phony all along. So we’re not all that upset about it.

              1. Can’t speak for the other… one “usual suspect” from whom you got a reply, but I’m not married, in either the social or legal sense. Tu quoque is a fallacy even when it’s true, but you didn’t even get that far. It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. You’re not even smart enough to commit a proper logical fallacy.

      2. And as noted above, should the entire political leadership of “sanctuary cities” be hauled off to the hoosgow.

        1. Start at the top and work your way down.

          1. This woman is not initiating force nor is she interfering with the exercise of any person’s liberty.

        2. Start with a court order.

          You do understand that whole “court order” thing, right?

          1. Yes, it’s a tool of government that can easily be abused by the issuer. As Reasonids know better than most.

            1. A constitutional court order is a wonderful thing.

              The dictatorship of the politician that you prefer, is a horrible thing.

              1. How about unconstitutional court orders?

                1. How about unconstitutional court orders?

                  You actually said that in public?

  52. So apparently Mike Huckabee is being derpy in response to this, saying something about how this proves that Christianity is now illegal in the US.

    I had no clue he was running for President.

    1. Fortunately, his characterization of this event will hasten the demise of social conservatism. The minority of social conservatives left, while often loud and belligerent, are diminishing. Vaya con Dios!

  53. I find it ironic, but not surprising the ‘she shouldn’t be able to decide which laws she follows’ crowd includes those who derided me for being a cop and thus enforcing laws I disagree with. Again, unsurprising

    No sentient police officer , and we do exist, agrees with every law we enforce. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite if I arrest somebody for VUFA even though I think a front conviction for theft III should not vitiate right to carry

    A libertarian police officer can and does exercise discretion In many areas, but we still have a penal code and we still have rule of law

    At least half of the patrol based drug cases we get stem from a doctor’s office – prescription fraud or whatnot , at least it was that way prior to hydrocodone moving to CII. I’m sure some of those Dr’s are anti drug war too

    1. But you didn’t have a COURT ORDER!!!!!!!! [/sarcasm]

      Hilarious that the judiciary is viewed as benevolent and omniscient in their issuance of court orders mere weeks after the woodchipper affair.

      1. Hilarious that the judiciary is viewed as benevolent and omniscient in their issuance of court orders mere weeks after the woodchipper affair.

        Not really hilarious, since for one thing, nobody is arguing that the judiciary is “benevolent and omniscient”, which is a blatant strawman argument, and the two situations are in no way comparable in any case.

        1. If “the law is the law” is applicable in this case, how was it not applicable in the woodchipper case? If court orders must be obeyed regardless of personal beliefs in this case, why is there an exception in the other case?

          1. If “the law is the law” is applicable in this case, how was it not applicable in the woodchipper case? If court orders must be obeyed regardless of personal beliefs in this case, why is there an exception in the other case?

            Reason complied with the order in the woodchipper affair, as you’ll recall (after advising with the affected parties themselves). If they hadn’t, the editors (presumably, I’m not sure exactly who would be chargeable here) would have gone to jail. And people would have been up in arms over that result because it would have highlighted the ridiculousness of issuing the original subpoena, not the idea of going to jail for not complying with a court order.

            Resistance is only noble when what you are resisting is actually unjust. That’s the difference here: Davis really has no moral leg to stand on, no matter what the voices in her head tell her.

            1. And people would have been up in arms over that result because it would have highlighted the ridiculousness of issuing the original subpoena, not the idea of going to jail for not complying with a court order.

              Pretty sure Ms Davis considers the original court order in this case to be unjust and ridiculous. (Given how weak the majority’s argument was in Obergefell, I kind of have to agree, but that’s another debate)

              Who decides which court orders demand absolute obedience on pain of indefinite detention, and which ones are ridiculous enough to ignore?

              1. (Given how weak the majority’s argument was in Obergefell,

                Fuck the Constitution!
                Fuck equal rights!

                Who decides which court orders demand absolute obedience on pain of indefinite detention, and which ones are ridiculous enough to ignore?

                The person involved. How is that relevant?

      2. Because a constitutional court upholding a civil right is ENTIRELY THE SAME as a non-constitutional court abusing discovery.

        All you needed to add to your message there was a “herp derp derp.”

        As for a “libertarian police officer,” well, there’s some serious moral dilemma there. Good luck with that.

        1. The court in the woodchipper affair had exactly the same legal status as the one jailing Ms Davis. If you can’t pick and choose which order to follow, you have to follow both.

          1. “The court in the woodchipper affair had exactly the same legal status as the one jailing Ms Davis.”

            Which constitutional question was the woodchipper court addressing, specifically?

            1. Freedom of speech

              1. Freedom of speech

                But a secondary issue in the overall scheme of things. The story, widely reported, was humiliating to the libertarian movement.

                DOJ is targeting Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery. Why is the government using its vast power to identify these obnoxious asshats,

                Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

                It’s judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY.

                Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.

                Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

                Fuck that. I don’t want to oay for that cunt’s food, housing, and medical. Send her through the wood chipper.

                http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/…..eason-com/

                Also reported, if these were serious threats, they’d certainly be illegal.

                Reason should shut down its comments page, for presenting such a fucked up view of libertarians. The entire purpose of a website like this is to attract new followers. But over a dozen goobers have added wood chipper to their usernames. And the libertarian brand is already rejected by 91% of libertarians

        2. Because a constitutional court upholding a civil right is ENTIRELY THE SAME as a non-constitutional court abusing discovery.

          Holy question begging Batman!

          Well, it’s not even so much question begging, because you’re apparently too fucking ignorant to understand that the Reason subpoena was constitutional under every existing court precedent. “Constitutional” is not synonymous with “things I like”. And it’s a really pathetic argument from authority even in the infinitesimally small number of cases when “constitutional” and “legitimate use of government” are the same.

          1. What a bag of word salad!

            Try again.

            1. “STOP USING WORDS I CAN’T UNDERSTAND”

              Great counter argument. We’re down to about 3 monosyllabic noises, I guess.

    2. I find it ironic, but not surprising the ‘she shouldn’t be able to decide which laws she follows’ crowd includes those who derided me for being a cop and thus enforcing laws I disagree with. Again, unsurprising

      Don’t judge libertarians by the 1% that are wacko purists. It’s those wackos which cause the libertarian brand to be rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato/Zogby poll)

      A libertarian police officer can and does exercise discretion In many areas, but we still have a penal code and we still have rule of law

      Much of that discretion is subjective I suspect. If one cannot reconcile the two then one would be obliged to resign, The stakes may be different, but no different than any other profession.

  54. Didn’t this woman refuse to give out ANY marriage licences? Not just to same sex couples, but also straight couples? I don’t see how the SCOTUS decision forbids that; it forbids discrimination only.

    1. OK, so she should be fired for refusing to do her job. Eazy Peazy.

    2. She did, but only started when same-sex marriage became law. She also took the Rowan County and State of Kentucky oaths of office, in which she promised to faithfully discharge her duties, which include issuing marriage licenses to anyone who meets the various criteria for one.

      She attempted to argue the point of sophistry that you’re invoking, but unfortunately for her, she was asked in court whether she would issue opposite-sex marriage licenses if she got a mulligan on same-sex ones, and she said “yes.”

      She also mentioned that Gawd told her not to let the gays get married.

      1. She did, but only started when same-sex marriage became law.

        Does. Not. Matter. Nothing in the SCOTUS decision says discrimination prohibitions are retroactive.

        1. Nothing in the SCOTUS decision says discrimination prohibitions are retroactive.

          Why would it have to? SHE has said (bragged) repeatedly, that she was intentionally violating the court order BECAUSE of marriage equality. She’s publicly admitting (bragging about) her guilt and bigotry.

  55. I generally don’t want anybody thrown in jail unless they’re a physical threat to people’s safety or property.

    +1

    1. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      *gotta catch my breath*

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Best post in this thread, bar none. Somebody bookmark it.

    2. Tony
      I generally don’t want anybody thrown in jail unless they’re a physical threat to people’s safety or property.

      +1

      So you piss on the entire concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.
      -10

  56. Kim Davis is upholding the law and the U.S. and KY Constitutions, which five SCOTUS Justices trampled.

    The KY Constitution (and many other State Constitutions) are explicit: marriage is between one man and one woman, only. That provision was approved by the voters by a 75% majority.

    The U.S. Constitution is also explicit: all government powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the States.

    Kim Davis is sworn to uphold the Constitutions, both U.S. and KY. That is what she is doing. She is not sworn to uphold the authority of anyone to defy the Constitutions, even if those individuals happen to wear black robes.

    The KY Courts should follow Kim Davis’s lead, and obey the Constitutions, and defy the SCOTUS. That’s what they’re sworn to do.

    The foundation of democracy is this simple premise, in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments [can only derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The governed have not consented to allow a panel of nine old men and women to rewrite our Constitutions & laws.

    In fact, the leading Framers wrote that if jurists should substitute their own Will for the letter of the law, they should be IMPEACHED, and if courts cannot be trusted to honestly apply the law, as it was originally intended, then the country would be better off without any federal judiciary distinct from Congress! (Federalist Nos. 78 and 81.)

    1. Kim Davis is upholding the law and the U.S. and KY Constitutions, which five SCOTUS Justices trampled.

      Which they are perfectly entitled to do.

      all government powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the States.

      The constitution grants the federal government the power to enforce the 14th Amendment.

      You can’t cherish the constitution and then conveniently forget about the Supremacy Clause.

      1. Which they are perfectly entitled to do.

        No they are not.

        In the United States, federal judges are required to take two oaths. The first oath is this:

        I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

        The second is the same oath that members of Congress take:

        I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

        1. I don’t follow.

          1. Tony the Supremacy clause applies ONLY IF the feds have been granted the power to act in the subject matter under dispute. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to make laws regarding marriage.

            1. So take it up with the Congress that passed DOMA. This is about the US constitution’s 14th Amendment as interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

              1. That is what people like you told the abolitionists in the wake of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott.

                1. Calm down Susan.

            2. If the definition of marriage is regarded as a “religious liberty” issue, then the state governments don’t have the power make laws regarding marriage, either.

              1. Whether the definition of marriage is regarded as a “religious liberty” issue or not, no government has any business make laws regarding marriage.

          2. SCOTUS justices are required to comply with the Constitution. They do not have the option of judging cases based on personal preferences.

    2. It doesn’t matter what the KY Constitution says if there is a SC ruling. Defy SCOTUS all you want, but it’s laughable to make a legal argument that SCOTUS isn’t legal. Good luck chasing your tail.

      1. Dred Scott’s owner likes this.

    3. SCOTUS decision that a conservatard disagrees with — “trampling the constitution.” SCOTUS decision that a conservatard endorses — “sound ruling.”

      Populist statism overturned by SCOTUS that a conservatard supported — “will of the people.”

      Populist statism overturned by SCOTUS that a conservatard opposed — “defending freedom.”

      And so on.

      All the cut-n-paste pseudo-legal-history stuff just serves as an effort to add a patina of legitimacy to an otherwise “I like it, so there” argument.

      1. It’s strange, isn’t it, how we often can see the precise flaws in our own character only when they are reflected in someone else?

      2. No, actually it depends on the legal reasoning used. I can grudgingly accept a ruling that goes against my beliefs if the legal reasoning is solid.

    4. Kim Davis is upholding the law and the U.S. and KY Constitutions, which five SCOTUS Justices trampled.

      Says the authoritarian Paulista Cult,

      The KY Constitution … marriage is between one man and one woman, only. That provision was approved by the voters by a 75% majority.

      Not a democracy. States have no such power.

      The U.S. Constitution is also explicit: all government powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the States.

      Bullshit. Read the 9th and 14th amendments.

      She is not sworn to uphold the authority of anyone to defy the Constitutions, even if those individuals happen to wear black robes.

      Marbury v Madison (lol)

      The KY Courts should follow Kim Davis’s lead, and obey the Constitutions, and defy the SCOTUS. That’s what they’re sworn to do.

      Bullshit. Gasbag.

      The foundation of democracy is this simple premise,

      Not a democracy.

      in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments [can only derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The governed have not consented to allow a panel of nine old men and women to rewrite our Constitutions & laws.

      (sigh) See “unalienable rights.” in that section.

      In fact, the leading Framers wrote … they should be IMPEACHED

      Bullshit. Are you Ron Paul?

  57. If she refuses to do her job, fire her. It’s not rocket surgery.

  58. So she could have avoided jail if she had allowed the clerks to issue licenses in her stead, but she refused? Eh, she’s martyring herself. Let Fuckleberry and his minions have their freakoutgasm. They’re all too fat to stir up any real trouble.

    1. Yep. Gays are gonna get to suffer from being married just like the rest of us schmucks whether some bible thumper likes it or not.

    2. Resigning means that gay marriages that she could have prevented will happen. I don’t know if God would buy that excuse.

      1. Either way she doesn’t seem to give the slightest shit about anyone’s eternal soul but her own.

      2. And conservatards complain about “activist judges.” 🙂

      3. “Resigning means that gay marriages that she could have prevented will happen. I don’t know if God would buy that excuse.”

        If God doesn’t recognize gay marriages, how could they happen?

  59. GAY ARTISANAL DEEP-DISH MEXICAN ASS SEX CIRCUMCISIONS FOR EVVVVERRRRRRRYONNNNNNNNNE!!!!

  60. Well … turns out that 5 out of 6 of her Deputy Clerks are all willing to issue marriage licenses. The 6th is her son. So she’s been showboating and grandstanding all along.

    She originally refused to sign a license. Now she refuses to allow her deputies to sign. This is no longer a religious liberty issue, if it ever was. We now see undeniable aggression. Behold the self-righteous.

    1. If a DA refuses to prosecute a nonviolent drug possessor in accordance with THE LAW, but the assistant DA is happy to, would you all tell the DA to get the hell out of the way and let THE LAW be enforced?

      No. Because you consider it unjust to prosecute such a person, and simply having someone else do it doesn’t absolve you of responsibility.

      1. Maybe some of these people actually agree with the outcome in this case.

        1. I’m sure they do. But then it just boils down to a clash of opinion rather than being the white knight of libertarian principle.

      2. If a DA refuses to prosecute a nonviolent drug possessor in accordance with THE LAW, but the assistant DA is happy to, would you all tell the DA to get the hell out of the way and let THE LAW be enforced?

        How would the DA’s refusal violate the constitutional rights of the drug possessor??????.

        Do you understand the issue here? In principle, how is this (the real issue) any different than Eisenhower sending federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957?

      3. like it or not, DA’s have discretion not to prosecute people ‘in the interest of justice’ EVEN IF they broke the law, especially when the ‘State is the victim’

        Our County DA’s agree not to prosecute even some felony drug offenses in many cases – first time offender, agrees to seek treatment , etc

        They have that discretion

        It’s in their job description

        County Clerks cannot selectively not issue licenses based on religious belief

        THAT is not in their job description

    2. Deputies don’t have the power to sign, only the clerk. The deputies may push the papers, but the clerk signs. Read the law, it’s linked above a few times.

  61. LOL@ libertarians for indefinite detention.

    1. LOL@ non-libertarians for indefinite violations of fundamental rights.
      Welcome to Nazi Germany.

      1. One does not have a fundamental right to obtain a permission slip from the state in order to associate and thereby loot their neighbors and their employers for benefits.

        BTW, “one” means any individual, straight, bi-curious, transgendered, Cecil the Lion or Rock Hudson.

        1. One does not have a fundamental right to obtain a permission slip from the state in order to associate and thereby loot their neighbors and their employers for benefits.

          Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right. Also see the 9th and 14th Amendments.

          1. The 9th amendment is predicated upon natural rights, not positive rights. Thus, A has a natural right not to associate with B & C – even if B & C are homosexuals.

            1. You’re wasting your breath. Hihn legitimately thinks that the word “rights” in the 9th amendment has the same meaning as the word “powers” in the 10th, and on that basis has determined that the 9th amendment “trumps” the 10th (presumably, the 10th amendment was an accidental redundancy).

              1. PM is full of shit again. Spot the stupidity!

                . Hihn legitimately thinks that the word “rights” in the 9th amendment has the same meaning as the word “powers” in the 10th,

                Liar

                and on that basis has determined that the 9th amendment “trumps” the 10th (presumably, the 10th amendment was an accidental redundancy).

                Rarely do we see the Paulista Cult’s authoritarian dumbfuckery expressed more clearly.

                Umm, the Ninth Amendment trumps the Tenth Amendment because
                1) Rights are superior to powers in a government of delegated powers, (duh)

                2) The phony federalists claim — and their sheep swallow it — that governments, especially state governments — have powers which have never been delegated! (gasp)

                3) As proof , Ron Paul sponsored a bill to deny any constitutional challenges to DOMA — making homosexuals the first people denied any defense of Constitutional rights since slavery and FDR’s concentration camps.

                4) Even crazier, if possible, Ron claims that overruling the federal restrictions in DOMA was done by “rogue judges.” So, in his insane world, the Court has no role in defending individual rights against government abuse (duh). AND (laughing hysterically) Ron Paul defended the federal government having power to negate state laws. DUH

                5) For an example, of the cult’s “principles” see Orval Faubus in 1957. And other southern racists.

            2. The 9th amendment is predicated upon natural rights, not positive rights.

              How the fuck does that deal with equal rights and the 14th Amendment?

              Thus, A has a natural right not to associate with B & C – even if B & C are homosexuals.

              What the fuck does that have to do with marriage equality? On what authority do you reject our founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? What confuses you about the right of association vs government power?

  62. Kim had the option to do her job or quit. She did not have the option to use her religious convictions as an excuse to punish others. That was illegal. But the situation is made morally confusing by the monopoly on license issuing. The license should be a service of a business who specializes in legal documents. All businesses should be private. Then this situation would not ever come up. The boss or business owner would fire her, perhaps after stepping in and selling the service. Everybody wins.

    But when an agency of institutionalized violence monopolizes the market nothing good can result.

    1. But the situation is made morally confusing by the monopoly on license issuing

      The constitutional guarantee of equal rights is morally confusing?
      To whom?

        1. (laughing) You fucked up again.
          Or you can’t read.
          Maybe both.

          1. (laughing)

            Probably just gas.

            You know, it’s okay to admit when your condition makes you confused. Nobody can blame you for a terrible disease like dementia. It’s not your fault.

            1. PM, why do you find the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights to be morally confusing?

    2. Well yes, in Magical Libertopia, this is the way everything would run.

      We do not live in Magical Libertopia. In general, we’ll get to a freer world the same way we got to an unfree world today — in steps.

      Opposing steps in the right direction because they’re not purist Magical Libertopian solutions are the domain of two groups: the trippy mooncalves who believe that they’ll have “full freedom in our lifetimes,” and conservatards who use the arguments as fig leaves for “I don’t want the brown/gay/black people to have equal treatment.”

      1. Even Ayn Rand was quite adamant about incrementalism.
        So the Purity Posse is even too extreme for the Queen of Purity.

        1. She was hardly the Queen of Purity; besides, she was not a libertarian.

          1. She was hardly the Queen of Purity

            She was obsessively pure about the principles of Objectivism,

            besides, she was not a libertarian.

            Like I said she was an incrementalist, so she ridiculed libertarians who believed (and still believe) that repealing all taxes is one of the very first steps toward a free society … instead of the last step. She understood liberty; they did not, and do not.

            She was indeed quite adamant about incrementalism.
            And don’t assume that “electoral” libertarians do not exist, when they’re actually the majority.

  63. You can’t have “rule of law” if you can’t even figure out what the fucking law is. Everybody wants to point to this statute or that court order or this amendment or that precedent to argue for opposite conclusions. At the very least, what people ought to take away from this example is that we have rule of men and not rule of law.

    1. You can’t have “rule of law” if you can’t even figure out what the fucking law is

      Issue marriage licenses in a non-discriminatory manner. Follow a court order,

      We have rule of men and not rule of law.

      Because ….. ?

      argue for opposite conclusions

      Only by those who reject equal rights and …. what you mentioned about the rule of law.

      1. You can’t separate “I agree with this outcome” from “it is a proper application of the law”, any more than someone arguing against can separate “I don’t agree with this outcome” from “it is an improper application of the law”.

        1. You can’t separate “I agree with this outcome” from “it is a proper application of the law”,

          People with brains (and/or integrity) do it frequently. Like I said, one either accepts or rejects the principle of equal rights.

          any more than someone arguing against can separate “I don’t agree with this outcome” from “it is an improper application of the law”.

          People with brains (and/or integrity) do it frequently. Like I said, one either accepts or rejects the principle of equal rights.

          Everyone is not a fucking hypocrite as you presume,
          Repeat: What in your comment leads to a logical conclusion that “we have rule of men and not rule of law.?”

          1. I would prefer a hypocrite to a moron.

            1. With Hihn, you don’t have to choose!

            2. kbolino,
              Only a moron would deny that many people accept the application of law, even if they disagree the outcome. A moron who doesn’t follow current events, where several GOP candidates have done exactly that regarding marriage equality.

              Third request: What in your comment leads to a logical conclusion that “we have rule of men and not rule of law.?”

              Since you’resio hostile to the rule of law, you might be happier in Cuba or North Korea.

      2. She was issuing marriage licenses in a non-discriminatory manner, by not issuing any at all. Everyone was treated the same.

        1. (yawn) She brags about defying the constitution. Probably denies Separation too,

    2. The law here is pretty simple:

      “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      That means that any state licensing regime that does not provide access for the entire population is unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clause.

      The problem isn’t rule of law, the problem is enforcement of law. Specifically, demanding that the constitutional protections and limitations on all levels of government be applied to policies that target unpopular minorities. LGBTs were, until recently, one of those groups. Polygamists are another group that remains. And so on.

      1. What is a privilege? What is an immunity? What is due process? What is “protection of the laws”? The 14th is a horribly worded Amendment passed by moralistic crusaders high on their own egos. The 13th Amendment is even worse; “slavery… shall [not] exist within the United States”. Really? Congress waves its magic wand, and poof! The atoms of the universe will arrange themselves accordingly. Even God himself was not so bold; “thou shalt not” at least reads like an admonishment rather than an axiom.

        The interpretation of the 14A in this context is entirely subject to the whims of the interpreter; men, not laws, govern us.

        1. kbolino|9.3.15 @ 6:10PM|#
          What is a privilege? What is an immunity? What is due process? What is “protection of the laws”?

          You’ll learn all that in high school, US History. You said that in public?

          The 14th is a horribly worded Amendment passed by moralistic crusaders high on their own egos.

          Yeah, the cocksuckers actually defended and expanded individual liberty. (gasp)

          The 13th Amendment is even worse; “slavery… shall [not] exist within the United States”. Really? Congress waves its magic wand, and poof! The atoms of the universe will arrange themselves accordingly.

          They banned slavery. Read the Constitution; amending the constitution is their job.. Why do you oppose the abolition of slavery?

          Even God himself was not so bold; “thou shalt not” at least reads like an admonishment rather than an axiom.

          “Shalt not” instead if “shall not” is a major difference to you? The God who defended slavery?

          The interpretation of the 14A in this context is entirely subject to the whims of the interpreter; men, not laws, govern us.

          Yeah, you’d be happier in North Korea. Who should defends our rights, robots?

  64. And what about Eric Holder being charged with contempt of congress twice and he never set foot in a jail cell. Double standard here is way off the charts. Eric Holder broke the law heading up “Fast and Furious” gun running scheme to the Mexican drug cartels. The corruption runs deep.

    1. What law was that, and did anyone break it when the program was invented in the Bush administration?

      1. Holder was questioned in committee, and he himself said that he understood that yes, “Fast and Furious” was not the same as “Wide Receiver”.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJT7NqaDXRg

  65. why does not the judge consider the whole situation: the unconstitutionality of any federal level court even taking up Obergefell, and the unconstitutionality of the opinioin itself, and the FACT that at least two of the magistrates SHOULD have, per law, recused themselves, thus rendering the opinion 4-3 against rather then 5-4 pro. Further, this woman has sworn to uphold twoConstitutions… both the US and that of Kentucky. 75% of the PEOPLE of Kentucky have epxressed their will concerning marriage in their state, and this woman is upholding that will as expressed in a Constitutional Ammendment in that state.

    This is not about one woman standing against the system, it is about a power mad system IMPOSING its will on the PEOPLE of the United States. She is merely the point at which they have decided to hammer. She will likely be crushed…. the real question is will WE THE PEOPLE also be crushed? We shall see.

    1. Cool story, bro. The ruling grew out of the 14th Amendment, and was entirely constitutional.

      What was unconstitutional was (and is) a system, regardless of popularity, that “denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      That 75% or 99% or whatever other percentage of ballots expresses an opinion (or passes a law) in opposition is completely irrelevant. The expression of their will is unconstitutional and has no legal standing whatsoever.

      1. QueerLib, as I posted up-thread, there have literally been thousands of plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits seeking relief pursuant to an equal protection claim because some state law, regulation or practice facially discriminated against them and were nonetheless rebuffed by the courts upon dubious, invented grounds.

        A great example would be the Slaughter House Cases from 1872 – one of the 5 worst decisions in the history of the Supreme court.

        You will note that the text of the amendment does not limit its protection to “protected classes”. Thus, logic dictates that you would support polygamous marriage, right?

        To be sure, I do agree that there are some “born again” or as you would put it, “faux” libertarians who are not intellectually honest about their opposition to gay marriage. But there are also hardcore anarchists like me who sincerely oppose state involvement in any relationships and have consistently done so for a long period of time.

        1. But there are also hardcore anarchists like me who sincerely oppose state involvement in any relationships and have consistently done so for a long period of time.

          What do the kids say these days? *Golf clap.*

    2. 75% of the PEOPLE of Kentucky have epxressed their will concerning marriage in their state, and this woman is upholding that will as expressed in a Constitutional Ammendment in that state.

      The state has no such power, and the KKK does not determine our rights.

      it is about a power mad system IMPOSING its will on the PEOPLE of the United States

      Umm, it’s called using the Constitution to defend individual rights against a power-mad Christian Taliban that the Founders denied any power to.

  66. If this thread has any hopes of beating the civil war threads, somebody has got to step up and raze this place like Sherman did Atlanta.

  67. I don’t buy the BS of “oh she’s elected she shouldn’t be able to be fired”. She’s elected to do a certain job with certain responsibilities, and if she chooses not to do that job, she needs to be gotten rid of. For example, imagine if we elected a president, who then decided it was his job to rename mountains, or negotiate treaties without the Senate, or use executive orders to bypass Congress in the name of his interests, where would our nation be if that happened?

    1. Being pissed about a mountain getting its old name back is taking being a conservative reactionary to absurd extremes. Not that I didn’t expect it as inevitable.

      1. Jesus Christ, it was a joke. Sarcasm isn’t taught by common core or what?

        1. It certainly is that.

  68. the free market solution is to fire her. Unfortunately, option not available

  69. It would be nice to see more government officials go to jail for refusing to enforce laws they feel are unethical or unmoral.

    1. I like to see government officials go to jail.
      I like to see people defying authority on principle and willing to suffer the consequences.

      This is a win-win.

  70. *hands out water bottles to participants and shouts encouragement*

  71. Fuck, I came to this shit-show late and I haven’t read all the comments. But John said They bring only as much legitimacy as the public wants to give them.

    On one hand, I agree she should either issue the licences or resign. On the other hand, as a member of the peanut gallery public, I no longer recognize the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Yeah, I know that that would never stop me from getting my ass thrown in the klink.

  72. I dont think slap daddy jo jo is going to like that.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

    1. Over 850 comments and that is the best you bots can bring?!

      Disappointing – report back for reprogramming.

  73. Our government withholds rights and privileges to its citizens all of the time based on personal preferences or other arbitrary factors. The application of the law or who it applies to seems rather flexible depending on the issue and who is in power. Arresting someone for refusing to bestow a state granted privilege on a certain demographic while not batting an eye as she denies other groups their licenses seems insane to me. I mean, why wasn’t she arrested a decade ago for charging heteros $25 to exercise their supposed right to marriage?

  74. OK. I read all the comments. It seems there are a lot of issues about the law itself Who determines what the law is? Who enforces the law? Who and how is the law interpreted? What do you do when there are competing sovereigns?

    I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I believe in the Constitution (or what is left of it). I belief in negative rights But, IMHO, no matter all the lofty language about the etiology and prescriptions of where the law comes from at what it says, at it most fundamental, it is just a convention. There is no objective thing called the “right to freedom of speech.” An archaeologist does not do some digging and ,”holy shit, I found a 1st amendment.” Society, culture, or what have you decided that these rules are important for the ends of a society whether that be to provide order, distribution of property right, life, or (most important to me) liberty. I find most philosophy of law complete bullshit because it seems it can all be reduced to convention.

    One paradigm used to talk about law is the social contract theory. The Constituion is our social contract. And Article 1, Section 8 has a VERY limited, enumerated list of subject matter upon which the Federal government may legislate. The ends are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, (and property if you include Locke). The Constitution sets the boundries of the means in order to secure those ends.

    1. As far as I am concerned, SCOTUS, the President, and Congress a has breached that contract. The unaccountable administrative state, Kelo, Raich, King, are all evidence (often in out right fucking contradicton) of a SCOTUS that refuses to hold both itself and the other branches of government accountable to the terms of the contract. And becuase of that it is no longer legitimate.

      So I am conflicted. I think Jackson was a complete prick in ignoring the Marshall Trilogy and sending the Indians on his little death march. Yet, I think now SCOTUS, and most federal law should be ignored. But that is only because I have personally reached my breaking point in the continuous usurpations of life, liberty and property. Yes, i agree, all this chick does is sign a piece of paper across the counter. Yes, a court must have the option to hold people in contempt if the rule of law is to mean anything. Out of all the state, federal, and local governement employees that flagrantly violate the law, this ugly Kentucky chick is the one they are going to finally put in jail? Not some pig who murders people? Not some pig who steals people’s money? Not the NSA? Not DEA agents blowing people out of the sky? Not IRS agents who target people because politics?

      1. I’m sorry, but a judicary that will allow the soverign, whether state or federal, to kill me, take my stuff, and take my liberty under dubious pretenses and without any recourse (excuse me but what counts as due process regarding these matters, if any, is a sham) is a judicary I can no longer abide.

        And yes, I get that the social contract theory is a type of philosophy of law. it just happens to be the least bullshit one.

        1. Lots of things wrong with our system. I’m not sure compelling a government official to abide by her oath of office or face consequences is one of them.

          You are so good though when you recognize that everything anybody here is talking about is mere convention. The most basic freedoms, what most here would call natural rights, are conventions just the same. Everything you think people should or shouldn’t do is a convention. They only matter when enforced.

          Impotent Internet rage is perhaps not especially useful. Things need to change, but the only way that happens in a democratic society is concerted collective activism. Is this perhaps why libertarians are in a perpetual mode of discontent–that collective action is anathema?

          1. Libertarians are in a perpetual mode of discontent? Cheeky coming from a leftist. You people are discontented even when you get your way, and the rest of the body politic is getting wise to your camel toe under the tent act.

  75. Wow, it’s showing 820 comments. Cra cra.

    Now I feel left out. So…..

    Screw her. She’s a government official. A bureaucrat. She makes her living off the state and its violence. Hell, her job is part of the glorious government regulation of marriage and god knows what else.

    If some of that violence comes back to bite her in the butt, well, cry me a river. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It’s not like she’s trying to leave everyone alone.

  76. “Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat Gavin Newsom, who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses.” The Federalist

    I see posts people here in favor of jailing people who refuse to obey illegal fake laws passed by the Supreme Court. Were those people in the past posting in favor of jailing gay-marriage activists? Or people who arguably illegally threatened judges?

    1. Well, most of them are probably Democrats. And Democrats have definitely, at this point, proven to me that they do not respect rule of law. Sure they want to use the law against anyone who doesn’t agree with them, which is not the same as respecting the rule of law. I mean, there are laws that I don’t respect, but I don’t have the type of total disrespect for rule of law that these people seem to have.

  77. I agree that as an elected official she needs to follow the law, or she has to step down. If she’s trying to be an activist for a cause, then she’s doing it the wrong way. I don’t see how anyone sympathizes wit her.

    But she shouldn’t be thrown in jail. Is there no other way to remove an elected official who refuses to follow the rules? I guess not, or Barack ( that uphold the Constitution thing) would already be removed from office.

    1. She could be impeached by the state legislature… that’s about it.

      That would be a circus, though the GOPers could claim they were just trying to get her out of jail by doing it.

  78. Well, final word. Let’s resolve this entire thing by getting government out of marriage. Anyone can get married to anyone or anyones that they want to. Then Kim Davis can go get a real job.

    Just do that and watch the so called liberals throw the biggest hissy fit you’ve ever seen.

    So called liberals (sorry, I have to keep repeating that, they’re not liberals) don’t give a damn about equal rights or the freedom to do anything. They want just the opposite.

    1. Alabama already tried that and Reason threw a fit about them not doing it for the right reasons. True colors were shown that day. Liberty takes a back seat to cocktails around here.

  79. Sorry, I saw what was happening here. I’ve been working this evening and then I finished up stuff and I came here and saw a thread with more than 800 comments. So, I’m thinking well, got to help the comrades, I’ll do my part and we’ll hit that ever elusive 1000 mark. And then what happens? Well, I’ll tell ya, ya’ll a bunch of ol geezers who can’t keep it up, that’s what. So good nite!

    1. Whippersnappers roll up the sidewalks?
      Phooey!

  80. If she had said she hated gays well; at least she is being truthful, but to say she is refusing because she is doing God’s will -that’s where I have a problem. What if a devout Catholic refused to have her
    issue his or her marriage certificate by someone who has been divorced 3 or 4 times. What if …
    there are endless ifs with kooks like that. Especially the hypocritical kind like her who just talk shit because it sounds good, but never practice what they preach. I am so sick of those religious hypocrites, and they are all just like her.

    1. “What if a devout Catholic…”

      Are you ignorant of Catholicism, or are you positing a ‘devout Catholic’ who is ignorant of her own faith?

      Because the Catechism says jack squat about who is or is not entitled to a civil marriage license.

      1. It wasn’t even one of the Sacraments until the 1500s.
        Since there were no records, how can anyone claim what marriage has “always” been (not that it matters)

  81. The real problem highlighted here is all the fucksticks who want a legacy.

    Obama wants a legacy so he makes that idiotic deal with Iran and renames mountains he’s never climbed.

    Kennedy wants a legacy so he writes a ridiculous majority opinion in favor of the judiciary’s latest fad.

    Davis wants a legacy so she obstinately pulls this shit.

    Why can’t these people just leave the rest of us alone.

  82. A public official who deprives persons of liberty and equal treatment is a threat and deserves imprisonment.

  83. Many people have questioned why the judge did not impose a monetary fine. It comes down to motivation. There are groups more than willing to pay any fines imposed and as a result she has no good reason to comply. She is not Personally impacted. Being locked up on the other hand does impose on her directly. Nobody can volunteer to replace her in the cell, although some would if allowed.
    The desired result is that she comply with the law or resign if she is not willing to do the job she was elected to.
    The other thing that people forget is that being jailed for contempt does not have a term. She will be there until the judge says different, potentially until freeze over.

    1. The judge will review it after one week. But as originally issued, it could indeed be a life sentence.

  84. Paradoxically, Davis is on the hot seat for exercising a right that her “company” was hired to protect.

  85. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  86. Why have licenses at all?

    This is a question I have asked many times.
    Why do people (of any sexual or religious proclivity) believe their personal relationships must have the blessing of government parasites?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.