Gay Marriage

Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value

Liberals seem to have no regard for fundamental civil rights, just ones that help their agenda.

|

Working for the government is not an inalienable right. So Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, was wrong to refuse same-sex couples marriage licenses in her office. If you're unwilling to enforce the law, you shouldn't be an officer of the state. After all, it's not a clerk's job to ascertain the constitutionality or practicality of a law. If it were, we'd have anarchy. There are hundreds of other vocations she is free to pursue if this one doesn't suit her.

So Davis' stand isn't about religious freedom. Not really. Signing off on state documents is not tantamount to being forced, as bakers and photographers have been, to participate in a wedding ceremony. There are certainly bigots out there intent on coercing Christian businesses to choose between their faith and their livelihood; this isn't one of those instances. If you want to participate in civil obedience, don't work for the state.

But jail? Davis was taken into federal custody Thursday. She was held in contempt of court for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. She now faces potential penalties, fines and prison time. She will almost certainly be destroyed.
So there are a few things that are worth contemplating here.

Let's start with the prevailing hypocrisy surrounding the attacks on Davis, a Democrat, and what it tells us about the state of American political debate and policymaking in 2015—because as you may have noticed, the rule of law only seems to be sacred when it happens to comport with liberal values.

As far as I can tell, there are only three unassailable constitutional rights left in the United States: the right not to be "discriminated" against, the right to have an abortion and the right to have a gay marriage. In the eyes of liberals, nothing—not the freedom of association or religion or anything else mentioned in the First Amendment or Second Amendment—will ever supersede these consecrated rights.

The rest? Well, it's malleable, depending on the situation.

When GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio commented that Kentucky should probably respect the beliefs of county clerks, John Podesta, chairman of Hillary for America, tweeted: "SCOTUS says LGBT couples can marry. Officials should uphold the law. Period. What's next, Professor Rubio?"

Professor Podesta, you may not know, makes his living advocating that presidents should ignore the rule of law by circumventing the legislative process and creating regulatory regimes to battle climate change. Now, obviously, there are legal distinctions, but in the grand scheme of things, Podesta embraces the same kind of moral authority to exhibit contempt for the rule of law. But a pliable deference to law is not unique. When Democrats say states should find ways to undermine the First Amendment by weakening the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United—as unfettered political speech from a couple of libertarian billionaires is problematic to their mission—they are applauded for the effort.

In America, we have a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down a business such as Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage. In this country, people who are here illegally can march in the streets to protest their station without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled. They are celebrated. Moreover, we have cities across this country that ignore immigration laws they don't like and create sanctuaries from law. We have cities that ignore federal drug laws because they find them oppressive. Yet no one finds himself in jail. When Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. They were celebrated. I may even agree with the impulse. But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.

Yet a Christian struggling to come to terms with the implications of a decision that the Supreme Court reached only a couple of months ago—and our progressive president embraced only a couple of years ago—is hauled off to jail. In the end, the state is creating martyrs. Christians will have no choice but to take more obstinate positions in these battles of the culture war—battles that could easily have been avoided if a judge had exhibited more compassion and come to an accommodation. There are about 125 other marriage clerks in Kentucky who can issue licenses to gay couples. And they should.

Or we could go the other way. And if we're going to be rigid about the rule of law, let's throw all officials who ignore it into cells. We can start with the president and work our way down.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

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.

238 responses to “Remember the Law Is Only Sacred When It Furthers a Liberal Value

  1. Everyone I talk to about this is so caught up in irrelevant details such as “she’s on her fourth marriage and is protesting on the sanctity of marriage? Lol!”

    With the amount of laws in this country, isn’t it feasible that, following the example of tossing law breaking government officials in jail, we could start by tossing the President in jail? After all, he is head of the executive branch.

    1. You should visit one of the Palin mystical sites. They go to great lengths to “translate” Hillary’s evasive equivocations deriding medieval mystical fanaticism into an explicit defense of a woman’s (ghasp!) RIGHT to choose whether or not to reproduce and a comparison of mystical bigots with terrorists having the exact same sort of integrity. The lecturer then goes on to chastise Hillary in relevant factual terms QUOTE: (By the way, Hillary, isn’t someone who sticks with a cheating spouse kind of “behind the times” Yeah? that’s real feminism ? What a joke.) /QUOTE –see patheos.org
      This is the level of conceptual cognition at which the groupthink collective operates. These are the people who want to write laws for men with guns to force us to obey.

    2. One’s fourth marriage (and children out of wedlock) are COMPLETELY relevant when one chooses to judge others from the standpoint of a religious belief that one violates when convenient. If she didn’t self-identify as a Christian and then act morally superior based on that self-chosen identity; if she didn’t cite a religious belief as her moral authority and then be revealed as a hypocrite, only then would her fourth marriage etc. be “irrelevant.” Also, you cannot with a straight face deny that her supporters are drawn largely from the “sanctity of marriage” crowd.

      Between Ashley Madison and Kim Davis, this has been a very illustrative couple weeks regarding the hypocrisy of those who choose to feign moral superiority based on beliefs that they don’t even observe in practice.

      1. Her divorces took place BEFORE her conversion to Christianity four years ago. That’s a significant detail.

        1. Oh, even better. Just get all your naughty stuff out of the way first, then “convert” to a “morally superior” mode of expression, and bingo! All set! The classic “Kill a bunch of people then convert on your death bed” maneuver.

          1. The prodigal son returns. Sometimes people need to learn the hard way.

      2. this has been a very illustrative couple weeks regarding the hypocrisy of those who choose to feign moral superiority based on beliefs that they don’t even observe in practice.

        Or, you can fly to Alaska and lecture the peons about “climate change”…

      3. …moral superiority based on beliefs they don’t even observe in practice.

        We should ask the hackers of Ashley Madison how many of those “good Christians” preferences
        were in anal sex. None of us will be surprised at that number either. Sodomites are evil when they are two men, but never between a man and a woman? How ignorant is that?

        I think some of you are a bit na?ve, this woman knew exactly that her actions would precipitate to
        to this very outcome. There will be a huge rally from her Christian brethren and they will raise money and glorify her.

      4. You’re confused between judging actions and judging salvation. Christians are not permitted to judge your salvation but they are required to judge actions. It goes without saying that nobody is perfect, but that doesn’t mean she’s obliged to forgo any moral standards. You may not agree with her moral standards, m – maybe I don’t either –but she still has a right to standards.

        The only important question is whether she should resign or simply refused issue marriage licenses.

    3. Our government crooks only care about themselves!

    4. Toss him in jail for what, exactly?

  2. There are hundreds of other vocations she is free to pursue if this one doesn’t suit her.

    Such as baker, florist or wedding photographer.

  3. After all, it’s not a clerk’s job to ascertain the constitutionality or practicality of a law. If it were, we’d have anarchy.

    O

    M

    F

    G

    CHAOS! CHAOS! Not anarchy.

    1. Thanks for catching this. I was about to lose my shit. When civil officials arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce and in what fashion to enforce them, that’s chaos. When there are no civil officials, you have anarchy. Lookin’ for less of the former, more of the latter.

      1. to ceci and ancient greek king; actually, it is their job to decide how to enforce their aspect of the law, that is the reason they are elected because it is a special position that requires a certain amount of judgement and over site that cannot be given to a typical employee. Personally i don’t think any government should recolonize group rights (marriage license) this should only be an enforcement of a contract.

      2. Hilarious!

        Because I took it as a sarcastic F.U.D.; “OH NO! Not anarchy! Not chaos! What’s next dogs and living together? Anything but that!”

        Seriously, people might have to go to the next county to get a marriage license. The same sort of Hell-on-Earth chaos that’s caused people to elope to Vegas since the Mob got together and built the place.

        1. So is there any other illegal action that you would be okay with a government committing, because people could just go to another county? Or is it just regarding marriage licenses?

      3. So, Federal law makes pot illegal. Round them all up. Sanctuary cities are in violation of Federal law. Roundthem all up. If gay marriage is equal protection and respects the rights of one state to recognize a lawful act in another then we can all carry our legal guns in any state we want. Repeal all those reciprocity laws.

        1. Round em all up? Too kind! Put em up against the wall!

        2. Sorry, but no. “Sanctuary cities” are not in violation of federal law. There is no federal law requiring local governments to provide assistance in enforcement of federal immigration laws.

      4. So Christie is right about going after those states which disregard federal drug laws. I agree this woman doesn’t have a leg to stand on, also she shouldn’t be imprisoned, but we need to be careful when we jump on the “law has to be followed” bandwagon. Then we become jus like the liberals in this article.

    2. I hate logged in to blast this fucking guy for using the word Anarchy to describe chaos instead of what it means which is “without rulers”

      I literally could read past it, i wanted to reach in and punch the author repeatedly until he finished editing it.

      I smell a satist!

    3. Fascinatingly enough, it is the job of any military member to determine the Consitutitonality of a law, or they would be breaking the law to obey only lawful orders.

      (An example: those who were ordered to disarm the Katrina victims. That was an unlawful and unConstitutional order. They should have been punished for obeying an unlawful order.)

      In fact, the Oath Keepers function on the exact opposite of what you’ve claimed. Also, your assertion makes any oath of office meaningless. So you’re wrong by simple logic and in practice.

  4. So all these guys running around complaining about illegals not being deported and borders not being protected believe this woman should sit on her hands?

    Is this as simpleminded as “but they did it first”?

    1. I think she’s wrong. I think she’s wrong to deny Gays a marriage certificate. I think she’s wrong that the impulse to do so is even remotely Christian. I think’s she’s simply having a “Gays are icky!” fit.

      Regardless; Civil Disobedience over laws one disagrees with has a long and honorable history in our culture. IF she did what she was doing in the expectation that the State would imprison her, then she is firmly within that tradition.

      If, on the other hand, she was simply being difficult because she figured “What can they do to me?”, then screw her. Let her rot.

      My take of the point of the article is not that the author is applauding the woman’s cause, but that he’s pointing out a fundamental flaw in the righteous indignation of the Left. This is precisely what they LOVE to do any time one of their pet causes gets crosswise of the law. And they are outraged – OUTRAGED! – that anybody else would dare use that tactic.

      What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If, ultimately, this woman’s imprisonment becomes a political embarrassment, that is what acts of Civil Disobedience are supposed to do. That is their leverage and their point. If, on the other hand, the country collectively yawns and she more or less rots in jail until even she’s bored with the whole thing, that too is a consequence of Civil Disobedience.

      1. Contd.

        If your Cause bores the daylights out of the voters, then you lose. You have to back down.

      2. But Civil Disobedience is citizens not obeying laws they feel are unjust, not civil servants who have agreed to uphold the laws. Her civil disobedience should be . . . quit her job.
        Let her quit and refuse to serve the law. If one person in her jurisdiction is wronged the civil disobedience mantra is bull.

        1. I find it interesting that she should quit is the solution for her, thus greatly inconveniencing her life for what could be an extended period of unemployment, but to ask a couple to go to the next county, thus greatly inconveniencing them for maybe 2 hours is not a solution for them.

          1. It is no inconvenience whatsoever to stop believing in Santa Claus for grownups. I found it rather liberating actually, back in elementary school.

            1. One day you’ll find out if you made the correct decision. I pray it goes well for you.

              1. I think I did. If I didn’t, I’m in the same boat you are. There are thousands and thousands of gods out there. Hope you picked the right one!

                1. Yes, there are many gods. And most people pick themselves as god. The thrust of monotheism is to redirect the human tendency to worship gods toward an abstract source of good such that the process of believing in that god moves one toward that good.

                  You, are a typical self-worshiper who has no idea that you worship gods like any other believer. The difference between yourself and monotheists is that you’re deluded into believing that you’re somehow superior when, in fact, you’re just a run 0f the mill polytheist.

                    1. Belief in the government is a religion dipshit.

                    2. Then it is a truer religion than most, as I’m fairly certain government actually exists.

                    3. No government does not exist. People exist who execute an idea of government.

                    4. Tony — there’s a difference between knowing a thing exists and believing that thing’s all-wise, all-knowing and all-good. Your “belief” is no more rational than any of the invisible sky monster sects.

                    5. But I don’t believe that at all. That’s what libertarians believe with respect to the market.

                    6. this would be a valid comparison if it were true, or if markets and individuals were in any way equivalent. i know the word “market” has all these icky capitalist connotations, but it’s also a kind of average of everyone’s opinions. personally i think im smarter than average, so my opinion is more likely to be true than the average of everybody’s opinions, but everyone thinks that. markets dont hit on the solution that one person thinks is morally correct; nobody believes that. what markets do is let everyone involved make their own decisions, which also generates a whole lot of useful information. in comparison to someone else making decisions for you and doing nothing accidently useful in the process

                    7. Yet markets have demonstrated flaws with respect to organizing a decent society. All I ask is that they not be considered the only institution worth having.

          2. It strikes me that the people calling for her to quit sound like they just want her and the issue she tries to raise to go away. They don’t want to deal with “Does the Federal Government have the right to tell a State government to recognize marriages” or “How far is the stifling of politically incorrect religious thought going to go”. So they want her to SHUT UP and GO AWAY.

            Not buying that argument.

            Also not buying the “Why can’t Gay couples go to another jurisdiction” argument.

            What’s happening is what is supposed to happen; somebody believes that a new law is iniquitous, and declines to obey it. She is jailed. Her being in jail is a punishment for her, and a political problem for those who wanted the Law in question. This is the system WORKING.

          3. She is an elected official, so obviously unfit for other employment, therefore you side with her…

        2. But Civil Disobedience is citizens not obeying laws they feel are unjust, not civil servants who have agreed to uphold the laws.

          If getting/putting people on the FedGov tab nullifies any/all rights I see a very big and very pro-Socialist loophole in the Constitution.

        3. If she was a ’50’s era mayor declining to enforce segregation in Alabama, she would be cheered. She’s a local politician declining to enforce a Federal law, not one of the local laws she ran to serve. In any case, isn’t it MORE important for local officials to stand up to unjust law? If they believe it is unjust?

          I STILL think her “cause” is ass-gravy, but I don’t think your argument applies.

          1. I am arguing that the “power” to issue licenses flows from all individuals of the jurisdiction. She is welcome to give up the authority but if one person in that jurisdiction is refused a civil service the individual should not use her personal view as a block to another citizen’s entitlement.
            In addition to which, she is refusing to let her willing subordinates issue the service because “her name” is on the license.
            There are so many egregious abuses of government power on the federal and state level that we’re arguing over this woman’s name on a public document.

            1. The problem is the rejection of your assumption that the ONLY option she has and the ONLY obligation she has is to step down. A number of very legal very reasonable solutions were offered by her lawyers that would not have change anything for those wanting a licence.

              1. She also argues that the licenses are not valid without her name on it, so the ‘very legal, very reasonable solutions” were undercut by her own stupidity.

            2. thats why Voluntaryism is a much better way than Fascist Democracy

            3. I am arguing that the “power” to issue licenses flows from all individuals of the jurisdiction.

              The only legitimate government power is that delegated from the rights of individuals. Nobody has a right to allow or disallow any other person to marry, so that right can’t be delegated to the government as a power.

              This petty Democrat office holder is being punished because she’s not toeing the party line. If the Democrats actually cared about justice, etc, they’d be moving to abolish the statutes in which the government usurped any power over marriage in the first place.

              -jcr

              1. “If the Democrats actually cared about justice, etc, they’d be moving to abolish the statutes in which the government usurped any power over marriage in the first place.”

                Only Democrats want government power over marriage? Do you need some help getting back on that turnip truck?

                At the end of the day, it’s not just the government stamp on paper, it’s that both government & private parties like employers, grant benefits to people who hold those pieces of paper. I’m not opposed to rolling back the whole thing, but pretending the GOP wouldn’t fight at least as hard as the Democrats is silly.

        4. So when a mayor, let’s say, issues marriage licenses in defiance of the laws his state has passed to make his poiint, you’re saying his civil disobedience should have been resigning?

          Or when legislatures, city councils, mayors and governors declare their opposition to federal immigration law by ignoring that law and declaring themselves sanctuary cities they should really be quitting their jobs because they are unable to uphold the oaths they took?

          Why is it okay in those cases and not this?

        5. you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights because you get a job working for the government. The government can accommodate her by having someone else do the dirty deeds she refuses to do, such as the the clerk of the court.

          1. Responsibilities of county clerk

            “Responsible for the office that issues County licenses (marriage, motel, liquor, bingo), maintains records and issues certificates of Vital Statistics (birth death, marriage), computes tax extensions and Mobile Home Privilege Taxes and maintains accurate County maps.”

            What about the religionist who doesn’t believe in drinking having to issue a liquor license, or one who thinks bingo is gambling? So you may have a religionist who will not issue a license for the gay, the “drunk” and the gambler.

            “Responsible for the registration of voters and the filing of documents from candidates for Campaign Disclosure Statements and Statements of Economic Interest. ”

            How about the religionist who does’t believe women should vote or hold office over a man? Is it ok for him/her not to do the work they are getting paid to do including those things they know are in their job description?

            1. Drinking and gambling are personal vices, and most mainstream Christians only consider drunkenness as a sin.

              Clearly, some sins are greater than others in religious teachings. No follower of the Abrahamic religion will deny business license because they MIGHT sell alcohol or gay porn. But marriage license helps create a relationship that’s an abomination according to their faith (The Koran is more explicit in condemning homo acts than the bible).

              Obviously clerks should uphold the law, they knew what they got into. But “marriage equality” will create way more tangible slipper slopes than religionists making up random rules to slight people.

      3. It’s a sad state of affairs that this woman is in jail and Lois Lerner is collecting a pension.

      4. she will rot, for three reasons:

        1) she is alone. she is not one of many refusing to issue the license, and just being made an example of… she is one.

        2) the impact of her dissent is minimal. people could just go to the next county over to side step her one county giving them problems…just adds inconvenience… whereas, when they did the opposite in CA after prop 8, people gained the ability to do something they otherwise could not. she was just being a pain in the ass…. not fundamentally changing anything, proving anything, or even effectively standing for anything.

        3) even those who think her punishment is heavy handed have a strong tendency to preface it with the fact that we still think she was wrong…. except for the hard core anti-gay marriage crowd…. and that crowd has no realistic way to continue this fight without marginalizing themselves further by sounding illogical, prejudiced, bigoted, and just plain mean.

  5. “Liberals seem to have no regard for fundamental civil rights, just ones that help their agenda.”

    And in LATE BREAKING NEWS, water is wet! Story at 11!

    Also, our continuing series on how a pig’s pussy tastes remarkably like pork.

    1. Mmmmmm, delicious Pork.

    2. Is that 11 eastern or pacific?

  6. I (genuinely) don’t understand why she can’t be fired.

    1. Because she was elected, not hired.

    2. She is elected. Plus the court has no standing to fire her.

  7. May 3 straight fellows form their own marriage with a license, or must they declare themselves gay?

    May a mother marry her two daughters, or just one?

    1. When you’re ruling from your sensual, earthly desires contrary to the democratic process, you cannot bother to think through the repercussions of your blanket, nationwide edicts.

  8. “With the amount of laws…”
    Number of laws. Amount of lobbying, but number of laws. Amount of wedding cake icing. Number of wedding cakes. Amount of ink. Number of executive orders. Number of cities “ignoring” federal drug laws. Amount of money and nonsense saved by said cities. “Number” is for things that can be counted. “Amount” is for stuff that can’t–though maybe it can be measured. Two gallons of icing, etc. You’re welcome. 😉

    1. More specifically, number is for those nouns which are/can be discretized. “Important” distinction because money, e.g., needn’t be measured – it can be counted in dollars and cents, but the noun itself – money – has no discrete form (you cannot have one money, and if you have seven monies you are no longer talking about the same thing).

      1. The problem is that laws are at the point where they can’t be made discrete. Even the government itself has said that it doesn’t know how many crimes in the federal laws, rules, and regulations.

        “Amount of laws” can stand because it has come to the same dual discrete/amorphous usability that “money” has.

        1. Interesting points. I’d feel better about “amount of law” though. I blame it on a certain amount of my gray matter. Numbering about three million trouble-making neurons. And isn’t government notorious for numbering things (forms, regulations, bills, etc.)? Example.

          1. I don’t know. “Laws” is the plural of “law” so if it’s an amount, shouldn’t it be pluralized? Money doesn’t work that way because it doesn’t have a common singular/plural form.

            And placing a number on things for identification isn’t the same as numerically counting them. 🙂

            1. We could say “the amount of trouble drug laws cause exceeds any good they do,” even though “troubles” is the plural. We can also say “a large amount of effort” though efforts is the plural form. I think the original comment intended to refer to numerous individual laws, not “law” in the more ethereal sense of “trouble” and “effort.” So I’d still recommend “number of laws.”

              And I’d say numeric identifiers are pretty good evidence of discreteness, even without counting. Only libertarians would actually try to count laws (and despair). 😉

    2. Thank you. This is a pet peeve of mine.

    3. Why are you so mad for? For all intensive purposes, I could understand what he meant. You could of just let it go. Grant it, you might make less grammar errors than him, but I don’t see why you can’t be discrete about this kind of things.

      1. ::curls up in a ball on the floor and sucks thumb::

      2. “For all intents and purposes”

        (If you typed that intentionally as a joke, disregard.)

        1. I assumed it was a joke, since the entire post was a conglomeration of grammatical errors.

          1. Yeah, I “must of” been asleep when I commented.

    4. lol. prescriptive grammarians are hilarious. seriously. do you speak german or old english?

  9. So Davis’ stand isn’t about religious freedom. Not really.

    Disagree with you there David. It seems that in Davis’s eyes, she is being civilly disobedient not unlike Rosa Parks was for refusing to sit in the back of the bus. The state did not approve of gay marriage. That was forced down everyone’s throats by the 5 little despots on the court. She swore an oath to uphold the laws of KENTUCKY so by refusing to give The Gayz a Kentucky marriage license, she is honoring her oath.

    She also believes men sticking their penises in other men’s rectums is a sin, not unlike half of America and that God does not approve or recognize gayz marrying one another. So it is absolutely about religious beliefs and whether what you’re being forced to do violates them.

    1. Not sure why but I expected a better analysis from professional writers. Kentucky has state laws barring gay marriage. Davis is a Kentucky clerk, not a federal clerk. Moreover, the Kentucky law was enacted via the democratic, representative process. The Supreme Court decision was not; it was made by judicial fiat in a non-democratic manner.

      A clear conflict of conscience for David if there ever was one.

      1. I understand why she hates gay men. If given the option of fucking a man or her, I would probably fuck the man.

        1. That is so sexist.

    2. Davis is an agent of the state. I’m inclined to say fuck her. She also prevented anyone else from issuing the licenses.

      Locking her up galvanizes the other side of the issue. Doesn’t make it wrong.

      1. First, they came for the marriage license clerks…

    3. Nonetheless, as I mentioned in the other thread, It is not up to her or any other Christian to judge the sins of others. She needs to focus on her own life choices and lifestyle rather than judging others (Matthew 7:1-5).

      1. Judging someone’s sins is to look at their past and say, “You’re going to hell!”

        She is choosing to not accommodate them in their continued, future sinning.

        1. The problem is that she is choosing to disregard one of Christ’s rules to follow a rule that predated Him and upon which He never spoke. He lived to bring peace to the world, He pointedly walked away from overthrowing Roman rule, and He said to love one another. He also said to give under Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is God’s, which means that what happens under the auspices of government in this world is of little concern to Him as long as you live your life according to the rules Christ laid out.

          It is hard enough to judge another for their worldly transgressions, we simply cannot judge others for our perceptions of their sin.

          1. All those comments that Jesus made were to an audience that already agreed with Him about where final moral authority is found. You can’t love your neighbor as yourself if you and your neighbor have no common ground to define what it means to love. Another way to put it is that “as long as you don’t hurt anybody” doesn’t work if nobody can agree on what it means to hurt somebody.

            1. Oh, the old who’s my neighbor? shtick. You seem to suggest that my neighbor is one who agrees with me, thus I can exclude all who disagree with me. If that’s what you mean, then I will say that you are dead wrong.

              1. No that is not what I mean.

                I have seen many Christians back off an issue under the “love my neighbor as myself” idea. They will do this mostly under the assumption that doing so will keep them from finding themselves in the margins of society. The problem with that reasoning is that it leaves the definition of love in the hands of your neighbor and the command is to love your neighbor as yourself, meaning the definition lies with you under the assumption that you are in submission to the final moral authority. Love your neighbor is the SECOND great command. The first is to love the Lord your God. The first is the sun, the second is the moon. The moon can not shine without the sun.

                1. It’s not “Love my neighbor as myself” but to do for them what one would want done for oneself. There is a very large difference, and it has nothing to do with being marginalized but with understanding the teachings.

                  Let me put it this way: If you would like to have your neighbor greet you and welcome you to your neighborhood, then you should be welcoming of your neighbors when they enter the neighborhood. You don’t have to have a “New Neighbor Pre-Meeting” to see what their likes and dislikes are. If you bring them a fresh loaf of bread and offer them welcome, they will probably enjoy the sentiment even if they are whack-job-level gluten-free folk that directly toss the bread into the trash. And even if they hate every shred of what you did, you still treated them how you would like to be treated.

                  I will also note that how people like to be treated is almost always the same, even if the minor details change from time to time and place to place: They want to be treated with respect, dignity, and thoughtfulness. Hit these three points and offering them an Indian curry so hot it ignites when exposed to oxygen and most people would be very willing to overlook the part they don’t like. 🙂

            2. Another way to put it is that “as long as you don’t hurt anybody” doesn’t work if nobody can agree on what it means to hurt somebody.

              Moreover, and as could be *construed* to be the case here, not all marriages (gay or not) are healthy and handing out government sanctions on marriages that aren’t healthy or that you have no business judging certainly isn’t doing the government or the couples any favors.

              Not that I think Davis is considering it on this level.

          2. Agreed. One of the main points of the gospels is that Christians are responsible for themselves, and that this alone is plenty enough to occupy a believer. There is no need nor benefit in manipulating others.

          3. If Jesus came upon a junkie along the side of the road, would would he give him a clean needle, or he assist him in seeking medical attention?

            1. He would meet his greatest need, forgiveness, because He has the authority to do so. Then take Him to a medical facility.

              1. Right, I was going to say that, pray for him first

                1. No. Not pray for him. Forgive him. Certainly that junkie has created hell on earth for people, and certainly for himself. Forgiveness is his greatest need, even before his need to be clean.

                  1. We might be talking past each other. “Can I pray for you? Father, forgive him…” and of course we forgive too. My original point is we don’t help them to continue to sin, we show them a way out.

                    1. My bad. Sorry.

                    2. once Jesus died and rose again, all was forgiven. no more need for prayer

    4. Religious beliefs do not trump the right of individuals to equal protection of the law.

      1. I agree, but the plaintiffs did not file an equal protection claim, they claimed a due process violation depriving them of liberty and property.

      2. She’s actually applying the law as equally as it can be. *No one* in her jurisdiction is being issued a marriage license.

      3. Religious beliefe trump all rights in countries controlled by religiously brainwashed majorities. Try publishing a different tract in a mohammedan country. Try terminating a pregnancy in a catholic country. Try publishing libertarian articles in communist China. Yes… communism is a religion too, and is for that reason alone offensive to religious conservatives.

        1. Just a question, why do you think, of all things, our Founding Fathers included the right to religious freedom?

      4. For those willing to think through the issues I don’t think this is a point of contention. If she refused to certify the marriages of people who were baptized in a pool instead, as she believes, a river, there would be agreement that she is failing to do her job. That line is clear. However, something being “the law” does not mean she has no legal protection to refuse to follow such a law.

    5. Like it or not, the Kentucky laws were struck down by the SCOTUS. She is supposed to issue marriage licenses to anyone who is not considered ineligible by the state & can no longer use the state laws as a legal excuse.

      I don’t expect someone with your mental capacity to understand how this works, but keep using 5th grade taunts if it eases the pain of knowing you got beat.

    6. Remind me, what does the law say about religious people using the government to impose the will of their Imaginary Friend on people?

  10. On the broader subject here – remember before the recent Obamacare ruling, a bunch of leftwing sites were prepping their stupid as all hell readers that the Supreme Court was bad for the progressive cause, and that there is a case for ignoring court rulings. I mean, they were arguing judicial review is anti-democratic.

    But this applies to just about every group. They all love judicial review until it doesn’t produce the result they want. Then judges have too much power.

    As for the other officials who refuse to do their jobs – lock them up, too.

    1. Yes it applies to every group including libertarians. A lot of ppl are suddenly supportive of law and order in this case because this is a good law unlike those bad laws that can be ignored.

      1. This clerk wasn’t just following her own conscience. She was preventing anyone else from handing out licenses in that county, as well.

        She is an agent of the state who basically inherited the position, despite the election in which a probably few hundred people voted.

        1. The exact technical term is infiltrator.

        2. Wouldn’t matter what she said. ML’s issued by her subordinates are legally invalid according to KY law. In her absence they can only be signed by her superior, the Judge/executive.

        3. Like, say, a certain sitting president refusing o enforce welfare work requirements or current laws on immigration?

          1. or when Congress passes a law that says certain benefits are prohibited to be given to illegal aliens but the president orders those benefits be provided

      2. Ignored? Whatever happened to repealed?

  11. Then judges have too much power.

    You are right about this one thing.

    1. Sorry, but I’ll take judicial review, flaws and all, over trusting the will of the people to keep power hungry legislatures in check.

      1. Not so much Judicial Review as process, process, process. Checks and balances make government slow, awkward, amd inefficient, and that’s a GOOD thing. An efficient government is an authentic menace.

        1. Not so much Judicial Review as process, process, process. Checks and balances make government slow, awkward, amd inefficient, and that’s a GOOD thing. An efficient government is an authentic menace.

          Sir, that is a brilliant line. I hope you don’t mind if I steal it at some point in the future.

          I know I’m thinking of Germany as the quintessence of this, but there are many other examples. If at the heart of government is the monopoly on violence, then efficient government looks like the military: extraordinarily good at killing people.

  12. I wonder how many liberals would like to see DC bureaucrats jailed for refusing to issue CCW permits?

    1. By “liberals” I take it you are using the American conservative code for “prohibition repealers” or “closet socialists,” but what does this have to do with Containment Cooling Water or Cancel Call Waiting?

  13. Principals, not principles.

  14. it’s almost as if the law and morality are two different things…

  15. She refused to do her job, refused to let anyone one else do it for her (accommodations), refused to resign, and wanted to go to jail to be a #martyr4jesus. Sending her to jail was the only option left. It is entirely her fault it escalated to that.

    1. Sending her to jail, and thereby granting her request to be a martyr, was the only option? Really? How about fines, compounding every day that she fails to comply? I have a sense of that would’ve been far more effective and would have denied her the platform she sought so avidly.

      1. I’d love a percentage of that kick-starter. The administration fees on that level of donation would let me quit my job.

      2. Or how about going to the legislature to develop a workaround? The only excuse I’ve heard for not is “there wasn’t enough time”. Because heaven knows how many licenses the mad non-signer would go around refusing to sign in the meantime.

    2. 1. She only refused to issue them while her name remained on the documentation. She has said she would file them.

      2. She refused to sign all licenses, so she did not discriminate.

      3. She refused to let the other clerks do it because the documentation still had her name on it.

      4. She asked the judge if her name could be removed from the documentation

      I was under the impression that the SCOTUS ruling in the Hobby Lobby case made it clear that it is the government that is first to be inconvenienced and must make a good faith attempt to accommodate Mrs. Davis’ beliefs. Her lawyers have made a number of legal ways this could be done and the judge was having none of it.

      1. Thanks for these talking points. I’ve not followed the story closely because it annoys the hell out of me.

  16. Per the SCOTUS ruling Kentuck marriage law is un Constitutional, so therefore invalid.

    The State legislature needs to re-write the law, then the Clerk will have no reason to refuse to comply.

    As it exists right now her choice is either follow the law, and run afoul of the Feds, or break the law in order to please the Feds.

  17. Can I ask? If she was refusing to issue marriage licenses to mixed ethnicity couples we would be in agreement that she was failing to fulfill her duty right? If she was a clerk in Nazi Germany signing papers to send people to concentration camps we would agree that “it was legal” would not be a viable defense during a war crimes trial, right? So there has to be a line between the two, right? Well, where is that line? Why are we not having a conversation about where that line is when we have two starting points of agreement about where the line isn’t?

    1. Excellent question! The editors’ dereliction in sabotaging our efforts to preserve a libertarian forum and abolish totalitarian enactments is here made up for by the perspicacity of the readership. The monstrous answer to your question, the answer these nationalsocialists struggle to evade is that the initiation of force is blessed and good if altruistically directed against the minions of Satan as inspired by Divine Revelation–exactly as in Christian Germany until May 1945. These heirs of the Devils of Loudon hate “liberals” not because “liberals”, too, are fellow socialists, but because they fail to fling themselves at His imaginary feet. Google “Hitler’s beliefs and fanaticism” and find a lengthy list of beliefs shared by the unidimensional con-men of the so-called “right wing”. Stalin and Hitler as the only two alternatives is a big been there, done that, good buddy.

      1. I have a feeling you are mocking me but I can’t tell as you sound a lot like that guy at the park with the mangled beard and clothes who smells funny and is always asking people to play chess.

        1. Pro-Tip, don’t agree to the Chess game.

  18. In Merrie Olde, Australia, India, Hong Kong, even Canada to the extent it’s not been polluted, the word “liberal” means neo-libertarian. Rabid biblical prohibitionists identify themselves by applying the label to closet socialists and genuine libertarians in one broad stroke. That they choose to thus announce to the world their deep hatred for social AND ECONOMIC freedom is a blessing. Any puzzled teenager with a dictionary can discover the nature of these totalitarians, but runs the risk of associating closet socialism with actual freedom from coercion in the process. To suddenly find Reason Magazine mutating into a platform for special pleading by pulpit-thumping mystical bigots–to the point of adopting the very errors of language that identify them as mystical bigots–that is disturbing. When Robert Poole was editor, the occasional antichoice warrior was invited to rail against the Soviets, but it was still our magazine, not a subsidiary of the John Birch Society.

    1. “When Robert Poole was editor, the occasional antichoice warrior was invited to rail against the Soviets, but it was still our magazine, not a subsidiary of the John Birch Society.”

      Well apparently you have to share now, eh?

      1. My four year old son feels exactly the same way when his two year old brother wants to play with his toys.

  19. Please, authors, can we get the language correct? The headlines and the first paragraph can often form a wrong conclusion in the reader’s mind.

    “So Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, was wrong to refuse all couples marriage licenses in her office. If you’re unwilling fulfill your duty to provide services to the public, you shouldn’t be an officer of the state.”

    She refused same-sex couple, but also straight couples, so she did not discriminate. She’s not enforcing the law, she’s providing a service, and in that she did fail to accommodate – anyone.

    If she owned a McDonald’s and was refusing to serve black customers, someone would sue, and under equal protection and civil rights, a judge would say, “You have to serve blacks!” Instead, she decides to shut down the restaurant, to not serve anyone. Then the judge says, “You are in contempt! Open the store, I told you to serve blacks!”

    The folks at McDonald’s who gave her the franchise would have a beef with her for shutting down without their permission, etc, but is that the judges business?

    1. She is empowered to provide a public service not decide whether to provide it or not. Gay people should be afforded the same service wherever anyone else is. Bakeries and photographers may be another issue.

      1. Is she not?

        When the Nuremberg trials happened a number of German officials claimed that in all technicality they had done nothing wrong. The actions they took to confiscate Jewish property and to expel Jews from certain employment was legal. The court decided that they did in fact have an obligation that superseded the law. Meaning, they had the LEGAL right to decide whether or not to do what was within the law of the sovereign nation of Germany.

      2. I’m not saying she didn’t do wrong, but why was it a federal case instead of a problem between her and the state for not fulfilling her enumerated duties to all citizens?

        I found a pdf of the complaint against her last month, but have not yet found the judge’s ruling.

        They did not claim discrimination (equal protection) but rather due process, in that the plaintiffs were denied liberty and property by not being able to get a license from that particular county of their choice.

        I haven’t read through it thoroughly yet, but to me as an informed layman I’m skeptical.
        http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-cont…..plaint.pdf

        Remember, this is a court. It doesn’t matter that she offended your sensibilities – she must be found in violation of a law in order to be punished.

      3. “She is empowered to provide a public service not decide whether to provide it or not.”

        I agree that this is almost certainly true. I’m not so sure it’s a constitutional question under due process.

      4. I don’t agree with her but I imagine she is providing a public service to the people that elected her. States have always been discriminatory when handing out benefits to residents. Blind people don’t have a right to drivers licenses, convicts can’t vote and the wealthy aren’t entitled to section 8 housing. If marriage was a right; I wouldn’t need to ask permission from people like Kim Davis and pay her office a fee to exercise that right.

  20. The problem no one is addressing is that same-sex marriage was sold by liberals and Libertarians under the premise of “It will never affect anyone’s religion” not “It will never affect anyone’s religion unless you’re a government worker.” I can understand liberals being liars to promote same-sex marriage but Libertarians should honor their words, supporting the religious liberty of Kim Davis instead of moving the goal posts like the liberals.

    1. The plaintiffs, same and different sexed, claimed that they have a 14th amendment due process right to a marriage license from any county in the United States, of their choosing.

      I’m a Christian but haven’t looked at this as a religious liberty case. Davis was elected to serve the residents of her county in a manner prescribed by the state of Kentucky. I believe she failed to fulfill her duties under state law.

      1. Davis was elected to serve the residents of her county in a manner prescribed by the state of Kentucky. I believe she failed to fulfill her duties under state law.

        This statement alone means she has to serve anywhere between two masters and everyone in the United States. Plenty of room for you or her to (mis)interpret something.

        More my issue is along the line’s of what Seinfeld said. Conservatives, since the beginning, said that gay marriage, as a cultural wedge, would tear at the fabric of law and society; that the legal implications of adopting/enforcing it would be convoluted and painful (maliciously/self-fulfillingly and not). Repeatedly, they were derided by leftists for their craziness and dismissed among centrists. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, leftists (and some centrists) want/need to act aloof; as though we never switched sides. The ex cathedra decree from SCOTUS for reasons not even the entirety of the court agreed with should be universally and unquestionably understood and implemented.

        1. Yep. Same-sex marriage, like Obamacare, was bait and switch. SSM supporters were smart enough to realize they would’ve lost if they had truthfully said…”In addition to believing in same-sex marriage, we also believe government workers who disagree w/ involvement in same-sex marriage should be fired or jailed. Also, small business owners who don’t want to service same-sex weddings should be heavily fined and made to go to sensitivity programs run by the government.”

    2. I don’t remember selling anything using those words. Nice straw man though.

      1. It was said ad nauseam for the past 10 years. Not sure how you missed it.

    3. If you like your district clerck you can keep your district clerck.

    4. The problem no one is addressing is that same-sex marriage was sold by liberals and Libertarians [..]

      To be fair, libertarians also said government shouldn’t have the authority to define “marriage”, or deny people based on that capricious definition.

      This is a case of libertarians putting the cart before the horse, in an effort to get some kind of win. It will keep happening, because libertarians do not have any say about the order in which things happen, but instead will just have to take what falls in their laps.

      Immigration will pose a similar issue, because there is more will to allow people illegally in the country to stay and not be hassled by the law, than to ensure Americans can compete fairly in the job market against workers who do not have to pay taxes, consider that their living arrangements are up to code, etc.

  21. What a whiny bitch. Your response to liberals winning legal and cultural battles should be: try harder.

    1. “Try harder” includes pointing out the error and absurdity in the position of one’s opponent. In fact it’s been the progressives (progressives are not “liberal”) who’ve been whining and whinging up to now.

      1. One side believes that gay people are full human beings with all the rights the US offers human beings. On the other side are those who believe that the omnipotent fabricator of the cosmos speaks to them and tells them to treat gays as pariahs. Which are you calling absurd again?

        1. Well, your side believes in fairy tales and often passes nonsensical laws to protect them.

          Neither “side” stand or persecuting gays. 99% of Christians will serve gays and coexist with them. Your side likes to accommodate fanatics who executes gays on religious grounds, so your objection falls flat.

          Plenty of progressives either oppose or won’t openly support polygamy or prostitution. It’s hilarious to me that libs enshrines “marriage equality” as human right (for one set of relationship anyways), but will throw due process rights in colleges and openly support racial quotas.

          What’s even more amusing is that the left routinely makes agendas based on their own code of morality (It’s for the kids, it’s for health, it’s for the community, blah blah) even if common sense and empirical data doesn’t support them.

          If a Muslim baker refused to serve Christian or gay weddings, your “side” and most reasonable Americans would respect that (for different reasons, obviously), even if they find such a decision illogical. But it makes no sense for the government to ban plastic bags or throw people in jail for cyber bullying.

  22. In the end, the state is creating martyrs. Christians will have no choice but to take more obstinate positions in these battles of the culture war…

    Honestly, at this point, I hope it does. I hope a lot of religious folks start cutting people out of their wills, cutting off their kids college, firing people, the whole works.

    This was personal. It was completely unnecessary to throw this screwball in jail. It’s not like there was some ticking timebomb that they couldn’t have gone to the legislature. The government did it and the internet mob supported it to spike the ball, to show the other team “a lesson”. As far as I’m concerned, if you supported throwing her in jail, you’re a piece of shit and I hope any friends, coworkers or loved ones you have recognize this and treat you accordingly.

    1. Who else should be exempt from punishment for contempt of court?

      1. Eric Holder

        1. Eric Clapper?

          1. Sandy Burglar?

        2. Lois Lerner?

      2. Alright, Tony, I just don’t want to hear a goddamned word out of you when the screw turns and it’s you on the chopping block.

        I assume you’re 100% behind Donald Trump and mass deportation, right? After all, the law is the law.

        1. Of course not, it’s Principals over Principles with Tony.

        2. The law is indeed the law. This bowl of ramen I’m eating is also, it turns out, a bowl a ramen.

          This woman wouldn’t be in jail if she chose to treat gay Americans as full human beings like a decent person. What chopping block are you referring to?

          1. She is not in jail for discriminating. The complaint was filed, in part, by two straight couples who say they have a federal constitutional right to a marriage license in the county of their choosing.

            1. She was jailed for defying a federal court order.

              1. Yes. What was the basis for the order?

                Have you read, or even heard, about the actual complaint against her? It was not for discrimination.

                1. What’s your point?

                  1. Tony said, “This woman wouldn’t be in jail if she chose to treat gay Americans as full human beings like a decent person”

                    The complaint did not claim she discriminated.

                    1. My statement is nevertheless true.

                    2. So in the end, you’re against sanctuary cities and for mass deportation.

            2. She was issuing marriage licenses to straight couples until the court ordered her to issue licenses to anyone who was legally eligible, which included same sex couples after the SCOTUS struck down Kentucky’s laws prohibiting same sex marriage.

              Pretending that her decision to stop issuing all licenses, rather than comply with the court order, wasn’t based on her personal bias is sloppy reasoning.

          2. So, you support Donald Trump and mass deportation, right?

            1. I do support Donald Trump as the nominee for the Republican party.

              1. No, for the presidency. Yes or no? And do you support mass deportation?

                1. Have I once made the argument here that this is the proper course of action because all laws are good and not to be questioned?

                  1. “The law is indeed the law.”

                    I guess its principals not principles with a totalitarian lickspittle like you.

              2. thanks for playing. Transparent as always. You support the force of govt when your hobby horse is served, but hate it when your ox is being gored. Long-winded way of saying you are the typical progressive.

                1. You people are grasping at straws and I don’t really know why.

                  1. we people have little issue with Davis being held to account for her actions. Pity we can’t say the same about you regarding elected officials whom you like.

                    1. Personally, wareagle, I think throwing the woman in jail was out of line (as well as tactically stupid). There was no reason not to simply sideline her and allow the marriages to go forward.

                    2. The presiding judge can sign any paper she refuses to sign while a recall election is prepared. A rural Kentucky county surely doesn’t have so many weddings that it would overwhelm a Justice of the Peace. Her jailing is probably about pissing off ‘the squares’.

                      It’s the same basic idea as RFRA laws. The Progressives were all for them when they were used by people to smoke peyote during their rites (and therefore piss off the squares), but when Christians use them to protect their freedoms, suddenly these laws are remnants of evil America and must be destroyed.

          3. The law is indeed the law.

            and… that’s why you have no issue with the rentboy.com busts, right?

            -jcr

      3. Lois Lerner /

  23. The thing that’s on my mind this morning is that we’ve had days of rhetoric from all sides on this issue, including many pieces at this site, where everyone pontificates on whether or not Ms Davis should be jailed for her discriminatory views?

    Has anyone actually looked at what she was charged with in court and discuss the merits of those charges? This is what you guys are generally good at (Tony excluded)

  24. “Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”

  25. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

    1. This is probably a con. I’d advise against clicking the link.

      1. WHAT DID SOMEBODY TYPE SEOMTHING? CLICKED LINK AND NOW MY WORPLACE COMPJUTER MONITOR IS FLASHING BRIGHTLY WITH PORN PICTURES AND ASIAN CHARACTERS CANT READ COMMENTS IF ANYBODY CAN SEE THIS PLEASE CALL TECH

        1. Uh…me too. These porn pictures and asian characters and asian porn characters weren’t on my workplace computer before I clicked that link and went to lunch without locking my desktop. Really!

  26. I think it’s a 10th amendment issue, not a 1st. The federal government had no business hearing the Prop 8 referendum. It did have a right to hear DOMA and congress had no right to pass DOMA. It’s a states issue!

    So how can a federal judge jail her for contempt?

  27. Fuck Kennedy’s unlawful ruling. If he thinks its so damn great, then let him enforce it. No one should follow it. It’s complete bullshit – a total farce – it’s not law and certainly not constitutional.

    1. Real American|9.4.15 @ 12:44PM|#
      “Fuck Kennedy’s unlawful ruling. If he thinks its so damn great, then let him enforce it. No one should follow it. It’s complete bullshit – a total farce – it’s not law and certainly not constitutional.”

      Your handle should be:
      “Real Fucking Ignoramus”
      You hope your mythical sky daddy it speaking to you? Sorry, that’s voices in your head; ever hear of the separation of state and superstition?

  28. But jail? Davis was taken into federal custody Thursday. She was held in contempt of court for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. She now faces potential penalties, fines and prison time. She will almost certainly be destroyed.

    If you’re going to have laws, you must have penalties in place for violating those laws. Kim Davis wasn’t going to be dissuaded by fines (other people were going to give her money to pay them) or firing (because it’s too difficult to fire a public official). Flogging or putting people in the stocks are no longer in vogue, so the option to get the result they wanted (the Rowan County courthouse issuing licenses again) was jail for Davis.

    Every libertarian who isn’t an an-cap just needs to make peace with the fact that a society that has laws will sometimes need to send people to jail to enforce those laws…on occasion even people who commit non-violent offenses.

  29. And right to have a gay wedding cake with sprinkles, flashing strobe lights, and a built in sound system that plays “It’s raining men!”

  30. Selective enforcement of law based on ideology. If Ms Davis can be jailed for failure to enforce an “opinion” by SCOTUS then why aren’t we seeing police chiefs and mayors of sanctuary cities being led away in handcuffs? When the law is not equally/equitably applied, the rule of law has not weight. Anarchy is the result.

  31. “As far as I can tell, there are only three unassailable constitutional rights left in the United States: the right not to be “discriminated” against, the right to have an abortion and the right to have a gay marriage.”

    Fee fi fo fum

    I hear the whine of a yokeltarian

    1. I see the trolling of a dumpster for cum

  32. “As far as I can tell, there are only three unassailable constitutional rights left in the United States: the right not to be “discriminated” against, the right to have an abortion and the right to have a gay marriage.”

    Where’s the fainting couch? Harsanyi’s got the vapors.

  33. Religious convictions is not the reason Davis went to jail. She went to jail because she, as a government employee, failed to carry out the duties of her job. If one’s convictions prevent a person from carrying out their duties, that person should have the honesty and integrity to resign. At the time of the selective service draft, many conscienceous people objected to killing. The majority accepted non-combatant positions in the military.

  34. I read elsewhere today she was given many “outs.” After being jailed, her six deputies were brought before the court. Five of them agreed to issue licenses to anyone. She was then brought out and asked if she would allow her deputies to issue licenses and she REFUSED. She said she would obstruct their job. You are NOT allowed to foist your beliefs on someone else when you are acting in a government capacity (as in their “boss.”). So he put her in jail. IT’S CIVIL — she can leave anytime she wants — she either has to give up her job, or agree to issue licenses. It’s HER CHOICE. She doesn’t have to stay in jail.

    1. ” IT’S CIVIL — she can leave anytime she wants — she either has to give up her job, or agree to issue licenses. ”

      She can leave anytime she makes a public show of *submission* to the Progressive Theocracy.

      1. If Davis quietly resigned when faced with having to issue licenses her religious beliefs made her uncomfortable with, we never would have heard of the woman.

        I’m sure she will do just fine after being impeached by the Kentucky legislature whenever they decide to go back to work. She’ll get a book deal, lucrative speaking engagements, maybe even a reality TV show!

  35. “Liberals seem to have no regard for fundamental civil rights, just ones that help their agenda.”

    NOW you’re catching on!

    The Progressive Theocracy has regard for one thing – their own power. All rhetoric they employ is simple a *means* to power.

    1. Exactly. That’s the only ‘moral’ standard of Progressives, the gaining and use (and abuse) of political power. EVERYTHING they do is towards that end.

  36. I don’t approve of gay men or gay marriage. However, as long as the law allows them to marry, the gov’t employees have to abide by the law. It needs to be changed and I’d be first in line to do so. But we cannot start picking which law we want and disregarding those we don’t. The clerk should be kicked out. Personally I think it’s perverse. All we can do is go after any legislator, judge or any official responsible for this and unseat them. I will never believe the majority of Americans approve of this perversion. I can’t imagine the damage done to our children and the danger they are exposed to.

  37. Just for starters, she claims her decision is based on her superstition. That alone means she has no business acting in her official capacity as a result; separation of state and superstition, doncha know.
    Regarding jail, well, EVERY government action is backed by the threat of incarceration of physical harm, so it’s hard to gripe about that.
    So, as an individual, she’s welcome to pursue her superstition. As a public employee, tough.

  38. I don’t think local officials like Kim Davis are elected to office to do the bidding of the federal government as the author seems to contend. She most likely holds the views of the people who elected her. There are no victims in this story. No license applicant seeking the state granted benefit of marriage was worse off after their encounter with this woman than they were before.

    1. “I don’t think local officials like Kim Davis are elected to office to do the bidding of the federal government as the author seems to contend.”

      They may not be elected to do so, but she fails under separation of state and superstition if nothing else.
      Local officials can’t promote their bleefs any more than fed officials; sorry.

      1. “Local officials can’t promote their bleefs any more than fed officials; sorry.”……..Elected officials in all branches of the federal government promote their beliefs. It’s how they get elected. This is obviously a case where one woman’s unpopular beliefs have landed her in jail. Using your logic, a county prosecutor should be thrown in jail for using discretion as to what offenses they choose to prosecute or don’t. I would would guess that the belief system and sentencing track record of a teetoteler judge whose son was run over by a drunk driver would be different than that of a their red nosed counterpart with a flask under their robe.

        1. James_R|9.5.15 @ 12:47AM|#
          …”Elected officials in all branches of the federal government promote their beliefs. It’s how they get elected.”

          Fail.
          It’s insulting that you’d think I’d buy that crap. Go away.

          1. You seem to think it is the role of the federal government to dictate what benefits states dole out to their residents. The benefit of marriage being one of them. Of course elected officials promote their beliefs. Otherwise we’d have thousands of Kim Davis’ in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to polygamists and pedophiles.

            1. So, you want a system where a marriage license is valid only in the state where it’s issued? If any couple moves to another state, the marriage is no longer recognized. Basically that’s what it comes down to. I don’t agree with it, but it is at least logically consistent.

              Of course, then we need to roll back all of the Federal laws granting tax & legal benefits to married couples, since it would not be constitutional to grant a couple living in New York those benefits while denying them to a couple living in Kentucky.

              That is pretty much why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did. Fortunately, we won’t have to fight a civil war over it like we did when northern states realized slavery was an affront to our nation’s ideals.

              1. Is my Nevada beauticians license or Ohio teaching license valid in all 50 states? Since when is it the role of the federal government to force states to accept each others endorsements?

                1. James_R|9.5.15 @ 11:00PM|#
                  “Is my Nevada beauticians license or Ohio teaching license valid in all 50 states?”

                  Listen, you tired piece of left-over superstition:
                  Is anyone denying it because they bleeve in the flying spaghetti monster?

        2. Oh, and I’m gonna presume you’re a bleever?
          If so, keep you silly superstition to yourself. I’m tired of reading about some mythical fucking skydaddy.

          1. Sounds like you have two choices to protect your delicate sensibilities: either go away from contentious forums where people are free to speak things that will hurt your feelings, or continue to demand that those hurtful people stop speaking altogether. I assume you can discern which is more libertarian…

            1. CptNerd|9.5.15 @ 5:12PM|#
              “Sounds like you have two choices to protect your delicate sensibilities: either go away from contentious forums where people are free to speak things that will hurt your feelings, or continue to demand that those hurtful people stop speaking altogether. I assume you can discern which is more libertarian…”

              Oh, no! I’ve got one more!
              To laugh at stupid bleevers wherever I find them. They deserve every bit of derision I can heap upon them, given that they’re the ignorant remains of mysticism.
              I presume you can see libertarianism in action, ignoramus.
              Stuff your superstition up your butt.

  39. “Working for the government is not an inalienable right. So Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, was wrong to refuse same-sex couples marriage licenses in her office. If you’re unwilling to enforce the law, you shouldn’t be an officer of the state.”

    Yeah? How about “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

    How many “libertarians” were writing or posting that this guy was wrong for not obeying the law?

    Fucking statist hypocrites.

    1. I give up, how many libertarians were writing or posting? Once you’ve answered that you may want to think about whether one’s lack of publication about a topic implies anything about one’s stance.

  40. “How many “libertarians” were writing or posting that this guy was wrong for not obeying the law?”

    Me for one.
    Got another straw man in that bag? And what sort of superstition are you promoting?

  41. Just follow orders?

    Fuck that noise, Dave.

  42. “In this country, people who are here illegally can march in the streets to protest their station without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled”

    This is simply factually incorrect. Many pro-immigration protestors have been arrested for protesting, even protestors popular with El Presidente (DREAMers). Millions have been deported over the last two administrations. The notion that ICE is somehow powerless is at blatant odds with reality.

  43. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  44. Not too long ago, lib writers justified Ferguson riots on the grounds that “violence and riots actually produces result”. Imagine that.

    In the 90’s if was common to see illegal alien buddies of mine work for cash under the table. My aunt in K-town sometimes hire day laborers and have them work at warehouses with almost ZERO supervision and OSHA accommodation Tony would pat them on back and insist their service makes up for breaking federal law.

    Now some of those guys work as legal freelancers. My former immigrant employer had an office in China to save cost. Tony would call these people either traitors or victims of exploitation, because you know, they should be working FULL time and enjoy all the benefits! Jobs for Americans only! Employers using loopholes!

    This doesn’t make sense, especially if your position is “I’ll break bad laws and support good ones”. But then you realize the left’s concern for freedom largely concerns cause celebre issues and protecting equality for their protected class.

    You obviously cannot riot in your neighborhood (with the police instructed not to intervene) and insist on rule of law to jail a woman who refused to process permits with her name on it.

  45. Let’s start with the prevailing hypocrisy surrounding the attacks on Davis,

    Why don’t we start with the long prevailing hypocrisy of churches? Under current law, the state compels an atheist or a gay person to accommodate evil men like Bill Donohue against their conscience because religion is a protected class under public accommodations and non-discrimination laws.

    Yet a Christian struggling to come to terms with the implications of a decision that the Supreme Court reached only a couple of months ago?and our progressive president embraced only a couple of years ago?is hauled off to jail.

    He could have easily avoided jail by simply quitting his job, a job whose responsibilities he wasn’t willing to perform. Ordinarily, an employer would simply fire someone like him, but as a government official, they didn’t have that option. That’s why they held him in contempt of court.

    Or we could go the other way. And if we’re going to be rigid about the rule of law, let’s throw all officials who ignore it into cells.

    That’s like saying “because a few murderers get off free or can’t be prosecuted, we should let them all go free”.

    1. Very nice, Win Bear. I can only agree.

  46. Brilliant column. Thanks for writing it.

  47. David Harsanyi says clerks making decisions about “the constitutionality or practicality of a law” would cause anarchy. WRONG! Mr. Harsani should learn something about Anarchy before mouthing off about it.

    If we had anarchy, there’d be no elected county clerks and no marriage licensure to argue about.

  48. 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

  49. So if you think jailing Kim Davis goes too far, what other option do you there was to deal with her refusal to comply with court orders? Should the courts have just issued yet another order that she would violate, and imposed no penalty?

  50. Point by point refutation.

    1. One Professor does not account for ALL liberals (he only accounts for one, and that’s if he is a liberal). And even the article admits that his method for combating climate change have attached legal distinctions.

    2. What Democrats are saying we should subvert the Constitution for stuff we don’t like? I have NEVER seen a Democrat urge anything other than turning the court in favor of the progressive, and away from the authoritarian. Democratic voters who want Congress to act are just being silly if they think any laws passed would trump the SCOTUS ruling (and I have never seen any Democratic representative in Washington even try to do so). Wanting an amendment to forbid corporations from being treated as people does not fly in the face of the civil rights, either. For if corporations are not people, and biologically they are not, then there is no contradiction.

    3. The Denver City Council has not actually denied Chick Fil A anything. In fact, they authorized their lease. Delaying two weeks to take into account whether or not the business would try to subvert the law in Denver is not hypocrisy.

    4. Political officials did not deny anyone anything by taking a stand against immigrant round ups, some rather dumb drug laws, and a blatantly bigoted anti-gay law. No one was denied their civil rights in ANY of those cases, as REFUSING to act to uphold laws and ACTIVELY denying one’s rights are two very different things.

    This is just whining.

  51. Please stop using the word “liberal” incorrectly.

    Thanks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.