Gay Marriage

Ted Cruz Offers the Most Absurd Response to Arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

No, she's not some sort of pioneer of religious victimization.

|

Hysterical, not historical.
Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

In response to the arrest and imprisonment of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis for refusing to grant marriage licenses due to her religious objections to including gay couples, we've seen everything from culture warrior glee over her predicament to culture warrior outrage, and everything in between (including complete culture war exhaustion).

Perhaps nothing tops this remarkable bit of historical revisionism coming from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in his call for all lovers of religious liberty to "stand with Kim":

Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

For the first time ever, folks! Forget the Quakers! Forget the Mormons! Forget religiously motivated abolitionists and the religious components of various civil rights movements! Davis is a pioneer of victimization.

Cruz wears his faith on his sleeve and has made religion an integral part of his presidential campaign. As such, it's difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss such an outrageous quote as a mistake borne of ignorance. He defends Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, for heaven's sake! Where did he think they came from?

No, this was a deliberate, calculated choice to elevate the detention of Davis above and beyond what it is and obliterate history for purposes of political populism. It's a deliberate decision to ignore the difference between personal (and public) practice of religion and the duties of government officials. He, like many others, are deliberately ignoring that Davis didn't just refuse to give out licenses herself—she also forbid her deputy clerks to do so. She refused religious accommodations that were presented to her.

But this morning, as Davis sits in prison, her deputies have decided to comply with a judge's order and issue licenses. Gay marriage recognition has come to Rowan County, Kentucky.

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.

233 responses to “Ted Cruz Offers the Most Absurd Response to Arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

  1. Why doesn’t anyone talk about how she’s really ugly? That bothers me a lot.

    1. Well, it was the first thing I noticed. She’s one of those people that have physically transformed into their awful personality.

    2. That’s actually a photo of Ted Cruz. You might be confused by the kissy lips.

      1. I’m confused about everything.

      2. There do seem to be an inordinate number of pictures out there of Cruz with his lips puckered.

    3. I want to talk about her clothes.

      1. Someone get her a Trunk Club membership.

    4. Visit the looter left websites. You won’t be disappointed. They’re really into talking about other people.

  2. “[marriage licensee James] Yates said, “I just want the licenses given out. I don’t want her in jail. No one wanted her in jail.””

    In what sense don’t you want her in jail? Are you going to petition the judge to let her go?

    No, of course not, you mean you wanted her to do what the judge told her, thereby avoiding the alleged necessity of jailing her.

    Own the consequences of your position.

    1. Given that she probably wanted to go to jail over this, I’m not feeling terribly sorry for her.

    2. While I think Kim Davis is a hypocrite who should resign her position if she can’t meet the requirements, I think you’ve hit on the key principle. People who say “there oughtta be a law” need to realize what happens to people who break that law. If you want to make littering illegal (rather than just obnoxious and socially unacceptable), you have to understand that the penalty for that doesn’t stop with a fine. If the fine isn’t paid, there are penalties. Then arrest for failure to pay. And physical violence for resisting arrest. Every law carries with it the threat of violence, up to and including death, which is why they should not be passed unless absolutely necessary.

      1. Most people separate the consequence of breaking the law (in your example a fine) from the consequence of not abiding by the consequence of breaking the law. It’s a nice little logical trick that let’s them excuse themselves from the consequences of the laws they want to pass.

    3. Yates and his co-plaintiffs specifically petitioned the judge to impose fines (which she would have easily been able to pay, and they knew it) rather than jail time.

      1. She wanted to go to jail. She wanted to be a martyr.

        1. And besides, only issuing fines would allow her to stand her ground and barricade the clerk’s office against the gay couples, as her supporters around the world would just set up a gofundme account and pay the fines for her day after day.

          1. I cannot believe the state did not jump on this alternative as a revenue generator.

            “Your fine today will be….ONE MILLION DOLLARS!”

            1. *strokes hairless cat menacingly*

      2. And if she had refused to pay the fines?

        All law always ends up ultimately at death by the State.

    4. Own the consequences of your position.

      You confuse thinking someone belongs in jail with being happy they ended up in jail.

      If a friend with a drinking problem winds up in jail on a DUI, you can believe he belongs there while still being sad he’s in there.

    5. I’d wager the other inmates want her or themselves released, but not necessarily both.

  3. This is all fundraising headlines generation.

    It’s tiresome.

    1. The idiocy and bombast of Cruz’s statement is on par with Kennedy’s opinion (although Kennedy carried on longer).

  4. “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.”

    “Senator Cruz misspoke. He obviously meant to say, ‘Today, for the first time I am able to recall, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.'”

    1. Even that’s a stretch. More like “Today, for the first time I am able to recall, the government arrested a Christian government for requiring her department to implement her faith”.

      If she had allowed OTHER people in her department to issue licenses, she wouldn’t be in jail.

      1. Nah, move a word. “For the first time today I am able to recall, the government arrested …”

  5. the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith

    Technically, she’s in jail for contempt…

    #wordsmeanthings

    /ducks

    1. AARGLE BLARGLE!

    2. #blackwordsmatter

  6. Thanks, Ted Cruz, for reminding me why I could never vote for you.

    1. Ruining a fine rifle with bacon grease wasn’t enough? I’m still haunted by the images of his dumb ass ruining that fine weapon.

    2. He’s also a member of the GO Pee in a Dixie cup…

  7. There were seven hundred comments on the morality of doing this yesterday. So there isn’t much else to say. Regardless of what you think about the issue of should she go to jail, her going to jail is not really putting a very good public face on gay marriage. Creating martyrs for the other side is usually not a very good way to win a political fight.

    Most people are not too keen on sending people to jail over gay marriage issues. Yeah, I know she is a political official and this is a court order and all that. Most people however won’t see that or care. They will just see some woman going to jail because she objects to gay marriage. That doesn’t strike me as a very smart public relations strategy.

    They should have left this up to the Kentucky governor. Fired her, let people get licenses in other counties if you can’t do that. Or worst case ignore it and hope she gets removed from office. But whatever you do, don’t throw her in jail. That is an enormous public relations mistake.

    1. So there isn’t much else to say.

      ONLY 700? Then there’s a LOT more to say! Come on, John! FORWARD!!! 1000+!!!

      WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

      1. “So there isn’t much else to say”

        And then I counted 17 lines of text after that.

        1. heh!

        2. About that subject. The 17 lines were about the public image this creates not the rightness or wrongness of her going to jail.

          Let me explain it to you again in simpler terms. There is nothing else to say about the question of should she go to jail. Regardless of what you think of that, however, the optics of this are bad.

          I didn’t think it was that complex of a point. Sorry I didn’t make it clear enough for you.

        3. I didn’t get a “harumph” out of that guy.

    2. There were seven hundred comments on the morality of doing this yesterday.

      So, “The 700 Club”?

      *** ducks ***

    3. I believe she was elected so I don’t think the governor can fire her but they can impeach her, arrest becomes the only other alternative. people like her clearly don’t understand the constitution its “freedom of religion” not “freedom to keep others from pursuing happiness by enforcing your religion on others”

      1. Maybe so. But again, I don’t think it accomplishes anything. She likely was hoping she could go to jail. And she has millions of supporters who are energized by her going there. When you put her with the pizza shop in Indiana and the various bakeries that were sued out of business, gay marriage doesn’t have quite so cuddly of an image anymore.

        1. John, you’re looking at this from the standpoint of a right-wing culture warrior. 20 years from now, social conservatives will disown their current positions.

          1. And be what? Cross dressers? Maybe so. I wouldn’t be shocked if they are not all in prison or living underground. Who knows.

            If you think throwing people in prison creates a good impression, well good for you. Maybe everyone in America is happy to see this woman go to jail and is hoping more of her kind follow them. Time will tell. That being said, I am glad I am not on that side. Have fun being on it. I am sure it will work out swell for you.

            1. The issues with a few bakers and a county clerk will not even make a chapter in the most conservative of history books.
              I’m not opining on the rightness or wrongness of forcing someone to bake a cake or issue a marriage license under threat of force. But with all cultural changes forced on us by govt, (Freed Slaves, Black Vote, Women’s Sufferage, De-segregation, etc) there have been devils in the details. And only the ugliest of populists, like Cruz, will pick up the banner of bigots like Davis.

          2. “20 years from now, social conservatives will disown their current positions.”

            and progs will change the goalposts yet again

            1. We’ll be past polygamy and on our way to Inanimate-Object Marriage by then.

              2035 Trigger Warning: This article references non-sentient objects with the pronoun ‘It’.

              1. I am waiting for my mulcher to marry my leaf blower. That’ll end well.

                1. Works alright, but I could use a little more power in the blower, the bag is awkward and fills up way too quick, carrying it gets tiring versus a backpack blower, and it only works on dry leaves. Wet leaves are a mess.

      2. I can’t see the justice of this woman sitting in jail for not doing her job as a government employee in a llegal manner while Lois Lerner sits at home and collects a government pension for not doing her job as a government employee in a legal manner

        1. Or the city councils of both Washington and Chicago and a few other places I am sure who have totally ignored the Supreme Court decision in Heller and refuse to allow gun ownership even after being sued multiple times and ordered to do so.

          Do we really put government officials in jail in this country for refusing to recognize the rights of citizens and obey court orders? It doesn’t seem so.

          1. In what way has the city of Chicago ignored Heller or, more properly, McDonald?

            1. In the 2008 verdict, the justices said the Second Amendment upholds an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense. But the city fought a legal challenge to its handgun ban ? only to lose, predictably, in the Supreme Court.

              Besides being a legal and policy setback, it was a loss for taxpayers, who had to pay not only the cost of defending the ordinance but the cost of challenging it. Chicago was obliged to pay $1.4 million to the National Rifle Association, which won the lawsuit.

              Did this expensive indignity persuade then-Mayor Richard M. Daley to abandon the fight? Ha. He pushed through a new ordinance intended to demonize and discourage gun ownership as much as he could get away with ? which, as became apparent, was not very much.

            2. The measure required gun owners to get at least five hours of training, including one hour at a shooting range. In a novel twist, though, it outlawed “shooting galleries, firearm ranges or any other place where firearms are discharged.” The city claimed proper training is vital while hindering residents from getting it.

              This section prompted another lawsuit, which argued that the right to own a gun for protection was of limited value if owners had no chance to achieve and maintain proficiency in using one ? and that they shouldn’t have to leave the city to comply with the city’s very own rules. A federal appeals court agreed.

              Judge Ilana Rovner said, “The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible.” But she noted pointedly that the Supreme Court has upheld “the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense and the city must come to terms with that reality.”

              http://articles.chicagotribune…..t-gun-laws

              Why didn’t Mayor Daily and the City Council go to jail?

              1. Because when the state bitch-slapped them, they didn’t stand their ground. Those training requirements are no longer in effect.

                1. But they ignored the initial ruling and passed an ordinance that was obviously contrary to it. People spend years being deprived of their rights while they basically told the court to fuck off.

                  And nothing happened. But depriving an entire city of their 2nd Amendment rights is just no big deal, especially when compared to something really big like a couple of gay couples in Kentucky not getting a marriage license. They couldn’t wait for this woman to be removed from office. The people of the City of Chicago, well they can tough it out until the courts get done telling the city that they really mean it this time.

                  1. Did they refuse to issue licenses to people who fulfilled the requirements?

                    No, they did not. They tried to find a way to include requirements that wouldn’t be thrown out, and failed. But they did issue licenses.

                    1. No Nikki, they just made the licenses have such onerous requirements no one could get them. The end result is the same thing as not issuing them.

                      What they did is no different than what this woman is doing, except this woman is at least honest about her refusal and they pretended they were doing it. So in that sense they are worse.

                    2. No Nikki, they just made the licenses have such onerous requirements no one could get them.

                      Since I live with someone who did get one at this time, I know that you are full of shit.

                    3. Yeah, your roommate got one so the ordinance was totally okay. The judge disagreed. Judge Ilana Rovner said, “The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible.”

                      But you think they were not ignoring the courts and depriving people of their rights because you knew one person who got a license. Is that your final answer?

                      Come on Nikki, do you let the issue of THE GAYZ make you so crazy that it reduces you to defending the Chicago City Council and claiming they didn’t deprive people of their 2nd Amendment Rights?

                    4. John, you claimed that Chicago “refuse[s] to allow gun ownership even after being sued multiple times and ordered to do so”. I’m sitting in an apartment in Chicago with hard evidence that you’re wrong about that. God forbid you let reality bother you.

                    5. So you’de be cool with a Kentucky locality putting numerous restrictions on granting marriage licenses?

                2. Because when the state bitch-slapped them, they didn’t stand their ground. Those training requirements are no longer in effect.

                  This sounds an awful lot like battered wife syndrome.

                  You aren’t libertarian, right?

                  1. No, I’m not. I’m an anarchist.

                    1. That, actually, sorta explains the irrelevant/unwarranted/inaccurate defense of The Democratic Machine.

                    2. It’s relevant, warranted, and 100% accurate. Does being a libertarian mean you have to lie about reality just to make a lame analogy because you think it makes TEAM BLUE look bad?

                    3. It’s relevant, warranted, and 100% accurate.

                      No, it’s not. Ignoring what John said, both the City and the State have consistently and protractedly under-served the FOID program and denied people their rights to own guns by their own admission and according to their own laws and statistics.

                      Your hard evidence *maybe* exists as an exception to the rule. The facts and statistics on the ground say a *lot* otherwise. Not only does the FOID program and the Chicago’s (former) gun ban violate the 2nd, just like virtually every gov’t licensing program, there’s *plenty* of evidence it violates the 14th/CRA (even as it exists now).

                      As someone who waited 30 days for his FOID, like 30% of the other applicants, despite the States’ promise of a 30 day turn around time for a license that the 2nd Am. says I shouldn’t need. I can attest that the City of Chicago and State of IL have/had a habit of denying arms to people who were constitutionally entitled to them and for reasons much more… whimsical than ‘Jesus said so.’.

                      “They used to deny us guns when they were mad or drunk or tired and had a lot of work to do… but after the Law showed up and bitch-slapped them, they only do it when we really deserve it.”

                    4. Charles Cook at National Review had a good article about this the other day.

                      He pointed out that the reason Davis got busted is because she not merely ignored the law — she announced to the entire nation that she planned to ignore the law, and told the court that under no circumstances should she obey the law.

                      So of course she went to jail. Duh.

                      Government officials are normally a lot smarter than that. They deny FOIA requests not by telling the public “fuck you, I’m not telling you shit” but by dragging their feet, “accidentally” overlooking documents, etc. They target political enemies for audits not by saying “let’s destroy our political opposition”, but by publishing studies identifying groups as a threat to the country (who “coincidentally” happen to be enemies), then rationalizing the audits as necessary in light of that. And so on.

                      In short, it is the difference between lying to a cop when he asks if you’ve been drinking and saying “fuck you, pig, I’ll drink if I want to”.

                    5. Great, encourage government officials to lie even more than they already do.

                      Is this a great system or what.

              2. Let’s just admit that among their other faults, Daley & the City Council either didn’t have the courage of conviction that Kim Davis possesses or they were a lot smarter than her about how to defy the courts for as long as they could.

                Davis will have her moment in the spotlight, eventually get removed by the state legislature & probably get some lucrative speaking engagements & a book deal. And, in 20 years be viewed as a social troglodyte.

        2. I watched police strangle a man to death on videotape. Not a single one was so much as arrested it.

          Despite this, I’m still fine with OTHER murderers being arrested. Life is not perfect.

          1. Okay, then selective politically motivated enforcement of laws is a good thing in your opinion. I mean life is not perfect. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me Dan.

      3. I must’ve missed the part where the clerk was forcing gay couples to attend mass.

    4. But whatever you do, don’t throw her in jail. That is an enormous public relations mistake.

      I very much viewed this as analogous to throwing Hank Rearden in jail, moreso after reading that she really just wanted her name removed from the licenses.

      1. Why was that not possible?

        1. Facts on the ground: Judge says, “No.”
          My interpretation: ?\_(o.o)_/?

        2. The law requires her name to be on the licenses.

          1. Bull.

            The Consitution doesn’t say ‘Kim Davis’ and, if it does, it *needs* to say “seal or mark of approval of the county clerk…”. Regardless, of how it’s solved throwing her in jail and using her signature against her will is certainly no more legal than issuing an injunction or writ allowing the certificates without her signature. Moreover, the jail solution only goes on to fullfill the self-fulfilling prophecy about how gay marriage will tear at the fabric of society and corrode our system of law.

    5. Too bad the judge couldn’t have imposed fines and then directed the proceeds to people being denied licenses. For each license you deny, you then pay the couple $10,000. Have fun enriching the gay people you hate.

    6. I vividly recall exponents of positive christianity gleefully lining up to imprison homosexuals and my dad witnessed the same ideology gleefully gassing Jews. So, go on about the martyrdom…

  8. Religion poisons everything.

    1. I thought Cyndi Lauper said it was money? Wait. No – she said it CHANGES everything.

      1. Poisoning is a type of change.

        1. this is a fair point

    2. Poison poisons everything.

    3. Religion poisons everything.

      So does hubris, but you probably already knew that

  9. Behold the Lightbearer of Christian Virtue

    http://www.queerty.com/kim-dav…..t-20150902

    Leviticus 20:10
    And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    1. That is Jewish virtue you half wit. Christianity rewrote the rules of morality. If the old testament still applied, Christians would keep kosher. Christians still view the Old Testament as valid in the sense that it tells them what the old covenant was and predicts the coming of the new. But they don’t live by the word of the law in it.

      1. New Covenant FTW, bitcheZ!

        /God

      2. Matthew 5:18
        For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

        IOW, Christ said Leviticus (and all the other Old Testament “Jewish Laws”) still stand.

        1. No it doesn’t. The law being fulfilled doesn’t mean we live by every law in the old Testament. The entire premise of Christianity is that no person ever fulfills the law. Christ’s being born and dying for people’s sins is what fulfilled the law.

          The Mathew statement doesn’t mean what you think it does. And again, if Christians applied the laws of the old Testament, they would keep Kosher.

          1. Agreed. That verse just doesn’t jibe with the spirit of the rest of the NT. I’ve long suspected it’s a redaction my Matthew.

            1. *by* Matthew.

        2. The NEW law. You sinners are SO predictable…

          /God

        3. The confusion of moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law…

          Sacrifices and temple practices are ceremonial law, Christ fulfilled the sacrifices and there is no temple.

          Civil law: Kosher, what to do about mildew (seriously), accidents, some of which may apply. Any way you look at it, they were and are useful to determine what was moral and why.

          Moral law: Murder, theft, assault, and yes, even who you can have sex with, these all still apply. Note one thing though, they will tell you what you can do morally, but the punishments for them don’t necessarily apply any more; the nation of Israel was supposed to be just one religion so the rules in the country would apply like rules in a Church would apply today.

          Therefore, the moral law (dealing mostly with violations of NAP) is true through all times, but you cannot necessarily think that you should use government against those who break it as unbelievers will act like unbelievers. Not once did Paul, Peter, John, or Christ himself call government to do… anything, really. There is a structural break between when the followers of God had one country of their own and once Christ came with a “decentralized” understanding of God’s salvation.

          Please don’t think you can throw that very simplistic argument at us and “win”. I know about my belief system (my Savior) better than you do.

          1. “Not once did Paul, Peter, John, or Christ himself call government to do… anything, really. There is a structural break between when the followers of God had one country of their own and once Christ came with a “decentralized” understanding of God’s salvation.”

            ^^ This. Well said.

      3. “That is Jewish virtue you half wit. Christianity rewrote the rules of morality”

        But aren’t the Biblical proscriptions against homosexuality found in the Old Testament law pretty much exclusively? In the New Testament I can only think of comments from St. Paul, but he himself says that his word is *not* law.

        1. Some of them. But I think Paul was pretty harsh on the Roman homosexuals too. Frankly, I have no patience for Christians who dig into the Old Testament for moral proscriptions. They are dead wrong to do that. You can’t pick and choose what you want. Either the old Testament rules apply or they don’t. And if they do, you better put that piece of pork you are eating down.

        2. Nice gloss, but she is trying to play by OT rules, so she can live by OT rules.

          1. No she is not. The NT doesn’t endorse homosexuality. It was a huge criticism of the Romans. She doesn’t need the OT to condemn homosexuality.

      4. Well then why the fuck are Christians so fixated on using the OT to justify their bigotry against gays? There isn’t much in the NT about homosexuality. And why are Christians so insistent that we display the Ten Commandments everywhere?

        1. There is enough.

          Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9?10).

          They rely on the OT because they are stupid.

          1. But Paul specifically says that this is only his opinion – not the law of God.

            1. True. But his writings are canonized as part of the NT. It is pretty hard to just read out the parts you don’t like.

              1. The fact that Paul’s letters are in the canonical NT does not make his opinions Law in contradiction of his own statement that they are not Law.

                1. His statement only means his is not the final word. It doesn’t mean they are not persuasive. And there is nothing in the NT or OT that endorses homosexuality. So if you want to say “well Paul isn’t really the Law”, fine. But he isn’t nothing either. To the extent he is not the law, it is only because there is something in the first four Gospels that contradict him. And in this case or really any other case i know of, there isn’t.

                  1. “To the extent he is not the law, it is only because there is something in the first four Gospels that contradict him.”

                    But you were *just* saying (and I was agreeing) that the NT replaces OT Law. The NT doesn’t endorse pot smoking, either. Or loaning money at interest.

                    Paul also admonishes his followers not to have sexual relations with *females*. Paul’s whole message is “the world is ending really, really soon. Stop drawing up family plans and prepare for the end!”

                    I think Paul would find this whole debate profoundly irrelevant. I think Jesus, friend to prostitutes and tax collectors that he was, would be against causing misery to people, even sinners, for no reason.

                    1. “But you were *just* saying (and I was agreeing) that the NT replaces OT Law. The NT doesn’t endorse pot smoking, either. Or loaning money at interest.”

                      Nix that one – I was misreading what you were saying.

                      No – Paul doesn’t say “my word is not Law if it contradicts other Gospels.” Paul didn’t know about the Gospels – they hadn’t been written yet.

                      What he says is, in paraphrase, “you ask my opinion about laws, but we did not come to bring you laws, and my opinions that I express are not laws.”

                    2. What he says is, in paraphrase, “you ask my opinion about laws, but we did not come to bring you laws, and my opinions that I express are not laws.”

                      Let’s be clear, Paul says “what I’m about to say is opinion” once in all his letters. It is not where you are thinking it is.

                      Also, Peter says that Paul’s letters = Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16

              2. And speaking of “reading out” parts we don’t like, it’s worth pointing out that Paul is not keen on *marriage*, period.

                1. Maybe Christians shouldn’t be. Paul is very problematic sometimes. Regardless, the idea that the NT endorses homosexuality is absurd. The one thing the OT condemnations of it show is that the Jews that Jesus was talking to certainly rejected it. Had Jesus intended Christians to embrace it, he would have most certainly mentioned that, which of course he didn’t. While the OT is not the law for Christians, it is the background upon which Christianity was created.

                  1. “the idea that the NT endorses homosexuality is absurd”

                    And no one has suggested that it does.

                    Nowhere does the Bible say “go forth and persecute gay people,” but when Jesus speaks to Jews in the NT it is generally to say “get over the Law and stop persecuting people. Accept the Romans as your brothers and stop condemning their crazy ways.”

                    Which if one wanted to stretch the text they way modern Christians often do, you could argue that this *is* a tacit endorsement of homosexuality, because the Romans actually were largely OK with homosexuality.

                    I’m merely pointing out that the NT actually doesn’t address homosexuality in any meaningful way, and doesn’t provide a basis for persecuting *anyone*, even if they *are* sinners according to the Law.

                    Why place so much stock in the one comment from Paul about homosexuals and ignore everything in the NT saying to give away all of your worldly possessions, deny your family, leave your community, sever all ties to the world and follow Christ in anticipation of the imminent Day of Judgment?

                    1. I’m merely pointing out that the NT actually doesn’t address homosexuality in any meaningful way

                      Perhaps you should actually read the NT. Romans 1:26?27, 1 Corinthians 6:9?10, and 1 Timothy 1:9?10. Probably Jude 1:7. (Lifted from Wikipedia, of all places..)

                      Also every other time the writers referred to “sexual immorality”. The reader knew darned well what that meant.

                      [A] is wrong. [A] doesn’t violate NAP. [A] is not within the realm of government action. (And yes, I can give Biblical references to back up that logic.)

                      Why place so much stock in the one comment from Paul about homosexuals and ignore everything in the NT saying to give away all of your worldly possessions, deny your family, leave your community, sever all ties to the world and follow Christ in anticipation of the imminent Day of Judgment?

                      I already addressed that it was more than one. The answer to your other question is in 2 Thessalonians 3, a warning against “idleness”. Basically, you’ve greatly overstated and misunderstood the verse you read. One should be willing to give up everything for Christ, but working for Christ usually means serving him in all the places he mentioned.

                    2. I have read the NT. In several different languages, including Latin. There’s no reason for the attitude.

                      Claiming the expertise that you are, you should know that a statement like “every other time the writers referred to “sexual immorality”. The reader knew darned well what that meant” is disingenuous. Even if the “reader” may have, *you* don’t. Sexual mores change constantly over both space and time, in the ancient world even more so than today.

                      What is it in what I say that you take issue with, exactly? I am saying that government does not exist to enforce religious laws, and I’m saying that in my opinion the NT does not contain any particularly strong proscriptions against homosexuality apart from other “worldly sins” that are distractions from the true work of obtaining salvation.

                      I should also clarify that I have very little interest in what the early State Church decided was canonical and what wasn’t. I don’t consider Peter’s letters authentic, and even if they were, I place little stock in Peter’s opinions.

                      I am not a dogmatic, and have little interest in arguments that begin with “scripture says” except when other people are making them and they don’t even line up with stricture that well.

                      In my reading, the NT is not concerned in any way with social virtue. It is fundamentally world denying. It is not a handbook for virtuous social behavior.

                    3. There’s no reason for the attitude.

                      Did not mean to convey attitude. Apologies.

                      Even if the “reader” may have, *you* don’t.

                      Leviticus 18 is pretty clear. Also, for the non-Jews, they knew the Jews were “weird” and they did have Leviticus 18 for themselves, throughout the Roman Empire.

                      I’m saying that in my opinion the NT does not contain any particularly strong proscriptions against homosexuality apart from other “worldly sins” that are distractions from the true work of obtaining salvation.

                      When stated like that, it’s fair enough. The NT isn’t Paul railing on homosexual acts for pages, true. Your initial statement was that it didn’t address it “in any meaningful way” which you may mean differently than I do.

                      I don’t consider Peter’s letters authentic, and even if they were, I place little stock in Peter’s opinions.

                      Why do you place little stock in his opinions? Why don’t you consider either of Peter’s letters authentic (I can sympathize with the argument against 2nd Peter, but why the 1st)?

                      In my reading, the NT is not concerned in any way with social virtue.

                      Depends on what you mean by the term. If you mean “right and wrong”, you’re dead wrong. If you mean “what the society wants”, you are overstating the case, but much less.

                      Either way, Scripture doesn’t mean what I would want it to. I don’t have the authority to ignore parts of it.

                    4. “Why do you place little stock in his opinions? Why don’t you consider either of Peter’s letters authentic (I can sympathize with the argument against 2nd Peter, but why the 1st)?”

                      Various reasons. One is Paul’s description of Peter’s behavior in Galatians (which I quote in part below). I also happen to agree with Albert Camus’ characterization of the phrase “Peter, you will be the rock on which my Church is founded” as being ironic on Jesus’ part – i.e. faithless Peter is exactly the guy who doesn’t get that Jesus didn’t come to start a new church.

                      I just don’t find Peter’s direct authorship of either letter plausible, partly because he was almost certainly illiterate for the duration of his life, but I also don’t think the letters were even written in Peter’s lifetime, based partly on the way the doctrine has evolved in Peter (a circular argument, I acknowledge). I suspect that they do issue from the “Peter school,” so to speak, so I don’t even really care that much about the authenticity – I look at these guys as theologians, not as speakers of a privileged Truth.

                    5. “Peter, you will be the rock on which my Church is founded” as being ironic on Jesus’ part

                      You play a bit fast and loose with the quotes. “On this rock I will build my church”. The “this” is likely referring to “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, not Peter’s name.

                      he was almost certainly illiterate for the duration of his life,

                      Evidence of that? The Jewish males were almost all taught to read and write. That being said, one of the arguments against 2nd Peter is the style of writing, but it’s usually accepted that Peter penned that one personally.

                      so I don’t even really care that much about the authenticity – I look at these guys as theologians, not as speakers of a privileged Truth.

                      Quid est Veritas? Seriously, what is your truth? Who has it? I fail to see why I should care to call myself Christian or be concerned what the Bible says if it’s just an old book of what some people thought about 2000 years ago…

                    6. “et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam”

                      “Super *hanc* petram” = “on *this* stone” = “Peter” = “Caiaphus” = “Kayph” = “Stone” “Hanc” is object case – “hanc petram” is the location at which “aedificabo ecclesiam meam,” clearly a pun on Peter’s name, which is “Simon” or “Caiaphus,” all of which mean “stone.”

                      Yes, I pacified the voice, which is unfair. Point acknowledged. Reading it strictly literally “aedificabo ecclesiam meam” *I* will build *my* church, which does suggest intent on Jesus’ part.

                      I personally believe that the early State Church had a pretty heavy hand in deciding which phrasings got canonized and which didn’t.

                      “Quid est Veritas? Seriously, what is your truth? Who has it?”

                      *I* have it. I must make my own system to avoid being enslaved by another man’s.

                      “I fail to see why I should care to call myself Christian or be concerned what the Bible says if it’s just an old book of what some people thought about 2000 years ago”

                      I would remove the “just” – I actually have great respect for ancient thinkers. I just don’t privilege those particular ones. But I also do not call myself a Christian, for the obvious reasons.

                      I have no beef with Christians like yourself who take the gospel seriously to the point where they don’t feel the need to impose it on others.

                    7. *I* have it [truth]. I must make my own system to avoid being enslaved by another man’s.

                      2 Timothy 3:1-9 (among others)

                      I have no beef with Christians like yourself who take the gospel seriously to the point where they don’t feel the need to impose it on others.

                      It’s only that those who do otherwise long ago ignored the Scripture they didn’t like and built their belief system on their own truth. I admit, their sin is worse than yours, but the end result is the same.

                    8. I couldn’t disagree more. I think Jesus was saying just the opposite. God does not live in a house, and the Truth is written in your heart, not on paper.

                      Those who “did otherwise” built a Church on the rock of scripture and led people away from their own hearts.

                      *That*, to me, is a great sin, perhaps the greatest.

                    9. I couldn’t disagree more. I think Jesus was saying just the opposite. God does not live in a house, and the Truth is written in your heart, not on paper.

                      Once again, reductio ad Hitlerum (it was in his heart, so it was OK). Without God to communicate to us, we’re just guessing, which is where most religions come from.

                      Those who “did otherwise” built a Church on the rock of scripture and led people away from their own hearts.

                      *That*, to me, is a great sin, perhaps the greatest.

                      Their hearts are evil. My heart is often evil. Leading people away from their own black hearts (like 2 Timothy 3:1-9) and to God is a good thing.

                    10. “reductio ad Hitlerum (it was in his heart, so it was OK)”

                      Here’s where God gets scary. Was Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem and enslavement of the Jews OK? He was, after all, enacting God’s will. Where did he get God’s will from?

                      William of Ockham argues in several treatises that we cannot know from the outward appearance of an action what is in the heart of the actor – only God does. Hence “judge not.”

                      “Leading people away from their own black hearts (like 2 Timothy 3:1-9) and to God is a good thing.”

                      What if you lead them away from God and into a Church?

                    11. Here’s where God gets scary. Was Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem and enslavement of the Jews OK? He was, after all, enacting God’s will. Where did he get God’s will from?

                      It’s true that the evil person did what God had sent him to do. Scripture is also clear that Babylon would be punished for it. (Was it due to how they did it? I don’t know.)

                      CS Lewis famously said that God uses some as sons and some as tools. Babylon was used as the second.

                      William of Ockham argues in several treatises that we cannot know from the outward appearance of an action what is in the heart of the actor – only God does. Hence “judge not.”

                      “Man looks at the outside of a person, the LORD looks at the heart.” But we still know that murder is wrong and “judge” it as much as man can.

                      What if you lead them away from God and into a Church?

                      I do what God tells us to do. I leave the results (the heart of the person) up to him. It’s possible to for them to be lead away from God and to a Church, but much more likely that they would be lead away from both!

                      What did “church” ever do to you?

                    12. I thought the reductio ad Hitlerum was an argument from intimidation smear to shame folks, make them cease mentioning National Socialist endorsements of positive christianity or googling “Hitler’s religious beliefs and fanaticism”

                    13. Gosh, and there I was thinking truth had some correlation with the facts of reality. /forehead slap

                    14. And keep in mind that Leviticus is regulations for the Levites, not for all twelve tribes.

                    15. And keep in mind that Leviticus is regulations for the Levites, not for all twelve tribes.

                      Part of it is. Much of it is for all twelve tribes. It’s fairly clear where the distinctions are. Leviticus 18 doesn’t begin with “Levites must not…”.

                    16. “Leviticus 18 doesn’t begin with “Levites must not…”.”

                      Fair enough, but if we’re going to dig into the weeds on Lev. 18, why focus on that one phrase and ignore everything else in there about not viewing family members naked, not taking neighbors for wives, etc?

                      “For all these detestable things the inhabitants of the land have done, that were before you, and have defiled it”

                      Isn’t this exactly what Paul is admonishing Peter for? Why are you trying to make Gentiles live by the laws of the Jews?

                    17. why focus on that one phrase and ignore everything else in there about not viewing family members naked, not taking neighbors for wives, etc?

                      I don’t. Those verses are further proof that all of Leviticus 18 applies.

                      Isn’t this exactly what Paul is admonishing Peter for? Why are you trying to make Gentiles live by the laws of the Jews?

                      How many times does Paul attack the Corinthians for sexual immorality? Is he “doing what Peter was doing”?

                      No, moral law applies. Food law doesn’t, and acting like a Jew doesn’t help anyone. Not sinning is important, very important to be an ambassador of Christ.

                    18. “Is he “doing what Peter was doing”?”

                      Yes, he is. As John pointed out above, Paul can be a bit . . . problematic. And I never denied that Paul had sexual hang-ups – that’s actually where we started from. It just said that they don’t carry the force of Holy Law.

                      But to me Corinthians makes it really clear that he’s trying to knock on peoples skulls and “THE WORLD IS ENDING!! WHY THE F___ DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP ASKING ME ABOUT MARRIAGE LAWS?!?!?”

                    19. Galatians 2:11-14 (King James): “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

                    20. Galatians 2:15-21 (King James): “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

                    21. Law doesn’t justify, no. It does show sin, however.

                      Is sin serious? Yes, look at he who suffered for mine and how horrible that was, and only in the physical way I can see! Should we (Christians) be concerned about what sin is and what is sin? Absolutely (Romans 6:1).

                      Does trying to use government force against unbelievers make any sense at all when people are saved by faith and not by works? Absolutely not! It’s almost certainly counterproductive and certainly a waste of precious time and resources that ought to be used to obey Christ’s teachings.

                    22. “Does trying to use government force against unbelievers make any sense at all when people are saved by faith and not by works? Absolutely not! It’s almost certainly counterproductive and certainly a waste of precious time and resources that ought to be used to obey Christ’s teachings”

                      And I see this as being quite central to Jesus’ overall message. Leave the sinners to God – they are his concern, not ours.

                    23. So, Peter (an imperfect human) did something wrong once (and many more times, heck, Christ called him Satan!). Therefore, nothing he says means anything.

                      All are sinners, except one. Therefore you only believer what Christ says? That must be your conclusion, right?

                      So what did he say? Didn’t he choose imperfect people to write his history and teachings? So what do you believe and why?

                    24. “So what did he say?”

                      Nothing about homosexuality that I can recall.

                      Paul doesn’t say that what Peter says is meaningless – he points out that Peter is very confused about how to apply the gospel in practice. I agree with Paul, and I see little of value in Peter’s letters.

                      “So what do you believe and why?”

                      Personally, my favorite “theological” book is Chuang Tzu’s Inner Chapters. Jesus had some great things to say, as did several of his followers. What happened to them is an indictment of humanity. I don’t automatically accept their statements as Truth, however.

                    25. “So what did he say?”

                      Nothing about homosexuality that I can recall.

                      You don’t know that. You only have the imperfect people to transmit his teachings (likely incomplete). If you don’t believe the imperfect people, you have no reason to trust that he actually said or didn’t say anything at all.

                      Jesus had some great things to say, as did several of his followers.

                      “I am the way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Did he say that or not? Why would you think that (either way you answer)? If it’s wrong, why should I care what he says? If he didn’t say it, why should I believe he said anything?

                      I don’t particularly like some teachings in the Scripture, but I don’t have the option to ignore them. Either they are true or they are false. If they are false, then I’ll ignore all of it. If they are true, then I need to pay attention to all of them.

                    26. “Either they are true or they are false.”

                      Disagree.

                      “Did he say that or not? Why would you think that (either way you answer)?”

                      Well, I’ve always liked the method of comparing different gospels (canonical and not) and looking for ones that report the same sayings versus times when the sayings gain phrases in later gospels, or get outright changed.

                      It’s been a fair spell since I was neck deep in this stuff, but I seem to remember that particular line being far from universally reported.

                      Either way, he may well have said that. But I don’t think we can hypothesize that maybe he said some things against homosexuality that just didn’t get recorded, so we can go ahead and assume that he did – there is no limit to where you can go with that!

                      “If it’s wrong, why should I care what he says?”

                      Because there is tremendous wisdom in much that he says.

                    27. “Either they are true or they are false.”

                      Disagree.

                      Why should anyone listen to anything Christ said then? They’ll just claim “oh, he didn’t say that, because I don’t like it”. You’ve made Veritas into whatever you want it to be, ignoring what is inconvenient. You are measuring God and therefore you’re worshiping yourself above him. Read Job 38.

                      It’s been a fair spell since I was neck deep in this stuff, but I seem to remember that particular line being far from universally reported.

                      “I and the Father are one”. Read Matt.16:15; Mark8:29; Luke9:20 for more reports on who he said he was…

                      But I don’t think we can hypothesize that maybe he said some things against homosexuality that just didn’t get recorded, so we can go ahead and assume that he did – there is no limit to where you can go with that!

                      I didn’t yet say he did. I said you don’t know what he said. You ignore what is inconvenient, logical consistency be damned. You have no base for which to believe anything. You are the man who built his house on the sand.

                      “If it’s wrong, why should I care what he says?”

                      Because there is tremendous wisdom in much that he says.

                      You mean what you choose to think he said. Those who are murderous wouldn’t like that and ignore it. Those who commit adultery will ignore what he says about that.

                      You can only accept Christ as a “wise man” by ignoring what is inconvenient.

                    28. Except that this is not the only book that has ever been written, and Jesus was not the only man who ever spoke.

                      “”I and the Father are one.””

                      *I* and the Father are one, too. That, to me, is what Jesus was saying.

                      I think the fundamental difference of opinion here is that I evaluate the ideas presented in the Bible on their merits as I see them. You want to either accept or reject them wholesale as sacred truths, or as universally false. I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on that one.

                    29. Or, to put it a different way, I am not a “divine command” type when it comes to moral law. I don’t think murder is wrong just because the Bible says so.

                    30. I don’t think murder is wrong just because the Bible says so.

                      Well, God says so. But you’re right, there’s more than one evidence that murder is wrong.

                      The concept of “wrong” is very difficult to defend without God (or a immovable base of some kind), however…

                    31. I don’t think murder is wrong just because the Bible says so.

                      Well, God says so. But you’re right, there’s more than one evidence that murder is wrong.

                      The concept of “wrong” is very difficult to defend without God (or a immovable base of some kind), however…

                    32. “The concept of “wrong” is very difficult to defend without God (or a immovable base of some kind), however”

                      I disagree, and your first statement does not harmonize well with your second.

                      If there’s “more than one evidence that murder is wrong” besides God’s agreement, then is God following a higher moral code? If not, then no, there is not further evidence – it is wrong exclusively and necessarily because God said so. If this is not the case, what is the source of that higher moral code?

                      The concept of wrong is almost impossible to defend from a “God’s eye” perspective. Humans, however, ate of that fruit, and we now recognize good from evil.

                      The obligation to treat others as you would be treated yourself is predicated on the principle that all people participate in the fundamental stuff of creation (nous, for lack of a better term), and a harm to a fellow creature is the same as a harm to yourself.

                    33. If there’s “more than one evidence that murder is wrong” besides God’s agreement, then is God following a higher moral code?

                      No, God gives us both direct and indirect revelation to reveal his will. You can see plainly it’s wrong, society sees it’s wrong (usually), and God says it directly. What you see as an outside moral code is actually from He “who was and is and is to come”.

                      The obligation to treat others as you would be treated yourself is predicated on the principle that all people participate in the fundamental stuff of creation (nous, for lack of a better term), and a harm to a fellow creature is the same as a harm to yourself.

                      That is humanistic gobbledygook and not Scriptural. The obligation to “do unto others” is based off of what God said, even before Christ. If I were to guess a “why”, it would be because humans are fundamentally different from other creatures in that they “live forever” (have a portion of them that doesn’t die but lives on in eternity).

                      So, I treat others as I want to be treated ultimately just because God said so. That it helps me and results in good for the other person are just a few other perks.

                    34. *I* and the Father are one, too. That, to me, is what Jesus was saying.

                      So tempted to reductio ad hitlerum that one. He was claiming to be God (why the “Jews” tried to stone him).

                      Except that this is not the only book that has ever been written, and Jesus was not the only man who ever spoke.

                      Nope, but if he wasn’t what he said he was, then he was crazy and listening to what he said is equally crazy.

                      I think the fundamental difference of opinion here is that I evaluate the ideas presented in the Bible on their merits as I see them. You want to either accept or reject them wholesale as sacred truths, or as universally false. I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on that one.

                      Yes, you evaluate what God said based on your opinion. I don’t even if what he says sometimes confuses me.

                    35. “He was claiming to be God (why the “Jews” tried to stone him).”

                      Yes – he was claiming the blasphemy that God dwelt in his own heart, not in the Temple with the priests.

                      God is everywhere at all times, yes? Why are our hearts the only places he isn’t, but he *is* in churches?

                      “if he wasn’t what he said he was, then he was crazy”

                      Maybe a little. Ezekiel was clearly crazy. Do you dismiss him?

                      “you evaluate what God said based on your opinion”

                      The Bible itself says in innumerable locations that you need to read with your heart, or else your eyes will be open but you will not see.

                      Is that scary? Maybe a little. God is scary. You want safe, go to Church. But don’t expect it to stay safe forever, if you know what I mean . . .

                    36. Yes – he was claiming the blasphemy that God dwelt in his own heart, not in the Temple with the priests.

                      No, he was claiming that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. That’s why they attempted to stone him.

                      God is everywhere at all times, yes? Why are our hearts the only places he isn’t, but he *is* in churches?

                      He is there, if you allow him to be there. He won’t come in uninvited and doesn’t accept anything but full submission.

                      Maybe a little. Ezekiel was clearly crazy. Do you dismiss him?

                      He saw what God gave him to see. He wasn’t crazy.

                      The Bible itself says in innumerable locations that you need to read with your heart, or else your eyes will be open but you will not see.

                      Jesus also says “In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

                      God is scary.

                      Very scary, and holy. Ignore him at your peril.

                    37. I actually don’t think we disagree much except on what I would consider technicalities of sorts. We seem to both agree that Jesus does not compel Church membership, and that Law does not justify. I think we only really disagree on the “Biblical Authorship” and “absolute truth of the letter of scripture” arena, but tellingly we come to the same conclusions as to what this means as far as living in the world.

                      That Ezekiel saw what God gave him to see is in no way mutually exclusive with the social concept of “crazy,” which doesn’t really mean anything anyway, especially from a “God’s-eye perspective.”

                      Anyway – I’m sure we could go back and forth well into the night, but I must go. I do truly enjoy a good theological discussion with a rational person who has a solid understanding of scripture – it is a rare thing.

                    38. We seem to both agree that Jesus does not compel Church membership

                      Membership, no. Some form of fellowship? Almost certainly (Hebrews 10:25).

                      Anyway – I’m sure we could go back and forth well into the night, but I must go. I do truly enjoy a good theological discussion with a rational person who has a solid understanding of scripture – it is a rare thing.

                      True, and true.

                      The Lord bless you
                      and keep you;
                      the Lord make his face shine on you
                      and be gracious to you;
                      the Lord turn his face toward you
                      and give you peace.

                    39. More to the point: what did Jesus write with his own hand? Surely all of this is not simply hearsay?

              3. It is pretty hard to just read out the parts you don’t like.

                People love doing that… Logical consistency be damned!

        2. You’ll have to ask the ones who are actually doing these things. It sure ain’t all of us.

          1. Don’t try to counter my arguments with nuance Almanian.

            I tilt at ALL windmills, and burn ALL strawmen.

      5. So you’re saying the problem is with the Jews? I knew it.

        1. Isn’t it always, really?

          *give plaintive look*

          1. You know who else q plaintive looks? No, wait, that’s not right…

        2. You know who else said the problem is with the Jews?

          1. Mel Gibson?

  10. Does this mean my DerpBook feed won’t be filled with this woman, and Prog hate for her? Ever read the comments to the articles? Prog after prog hoping she gets raped in prison, that essentially renouncing her beliefs (I don’t mean sign the damn licenses; I mean do various things that have nothing to do with her govt position) should be a condition of parole, etc.

    1. No. I don’t even rtfa – you think Ima read the derpments? Nuh uh – not this guy!

    2. Progressive Facebook derp is the best kind of derp.

  11. OT: In happy news, a bunch of my old bandmates and colleagues did really well at the Inverness bagpipe contest this year!

    Sean McKeown won the Silver medal in the Piobaireachd, In the Gold Medal, Ian K. MacDonald was 2nd and Jamie Troy was fizzif. In the light music, Bruce Gandy won the Former Winners Silver Star over an AMAZING field. QUITE a day for all my pals!

    And no one got thrown in jail.

    /Happy News

    1. [We now return to KULTUR WARZ]

      1. If it ain’t Scottish, IT’S CRAP!

        1. “Scotland….ireland.,…what’s the difference?”

          *smacks map on wall*

          “THERE’S A BLOODY OCEAN BETWEEN THE TWO!!!”

          1. I could have sworn that was the Irish Sea.

    2. A bagpipe contest? A curious competition…the only way to win is not to play.

      1. Most piobairaechds take about 20 mins to play….so it’s a looooooong contest of music you can’t tap your foot to.

        Which is why Scots have the whisky.

        1. Most piobairaechds…

          What the what?

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pibroch

            That’s the GODDAMNED English spelling, but it’ll getcha started…

    3. Hihn says that you’re still not a real Scotsman.

  12. I think it is a mistake to discuss this in terms of her not fulfilling her duties. I think it should be framed as her violating the rights of individuals to equal protection under the law. To say that an elected official should perform every duty assigned is to elevate laws to a higher level than they deserve. I doubt many here would be claiming an elected sheriff should just do his job and arrest that drug user that hasn’t harmed anyone.
    Stick to principles; The only legitimate function of government is the protection of the right of individuals. This woman is actively infringing on peoples rights.

    1. That is the way it should be framed yes. And just what are those rights she is infringing? The right to get a piece of paper from the government recognizing your marriage. This whole thing is over a fucking mother may I sheet from the government.

    2. I doubt many here would be claiming an elected sheriff should just do his job and arrest that drug user that hasn’t harmed anyone.

      Except that there’s a well-established doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, i.e., the courts have already said that law enforcement officers aren’t generally required to enforce the law in every case, at least so long as they don’t use that discretion in a discriminatory manner relating to suspect classifications (e.g., never arresting white drug suspects while always arresting African-American drug suspects). For many other types of government services (e.g., government licensing for most purposes), there isn’t supposed to be any discretion at all: if the applicant meets the objective criteria for receiving the service, then the service is supposed to be provided. That’s the distinction here — Davis is refusing to issue marriage licenses as though it’s some sort of discretionary process, when, as far as I’m aware, Kentucky law does not give county clerks the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses so long as the applicants meet the criteria (e.g., they pay the statutory fee, certify that they aren’t too closely related, present valid ID, etc.).

      1. Prosecutorial discretion is not prosecuting individual cases. It does not mean you can read entire laws off the books by refusing to enforce them.

        1. Yes, it does. There are plenty of laws, especially at the state and local level, that have not been enforced in many years, if ever, see, e.g., the numerous laws against cross-dressing that once existed (and are still on the books today in some places): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up…..-laws-u-s/ (That article notes that NYC had an ordinance prohibiting cross-dressing as recently as 2011, but I’m pretty sure there had been zero or near-zero enforcement of it for a couple decades or more prior to its repeal.)

  13. Know who else should be tossed in jail for refusing to obey the law and do their jobs?

    1. Congress?

  14. 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

  15. She wouldn’t do her job, that should get her re-assigned or perhaps fired . But if you don’t perform your job I don’t think you should be imprisoned, unless of course you are a slave.

    1. Like a Sheriff who won’t issue gun permits to law-abiding citizens – or a President who won’t enforce immigration laws.

      1. I made that same point about sheriffs in another blog.

    2. I was thinking the same thing. But, I read that she is an elected official and forbade the clerks under her from issuing the licenses too.

      This is precisely the reason people shouldn’t want the government to give their blessing for ANYTHING. The end result is some piss ant elected official using the office to promote their own personal jihad.

    3. I, too, say she ought to just be fired for not doing her job. The fact that she wasn’t and that it is a government job leads me to believe that someone is afraid of setting a precedent.

  16. But this morning, as Davis sits in prison, her deputies have decided to comply with a judge’s order and issue licenses.

    Of course, the county was working on getting rid of her and it would have been even easier to get the state of Kentucky to remove her from office. And the same thing would have resulted.

    Except someone wouldn’t be sitting in prison.

    Of course, then the mad non-signer might have been able to go even weeks without signing off on gay marriages.

    Cruz’s comment is stupid. But, this whole affair is disgraceful.

    1. I think she wanted to go to jail and putting her there is a huge mistake. I am not familiar with Kentucky law, but I agree with you there had to be some way for the state of Kentucky to remove her from office. What if she were in jail for murder? Would there be no way to remove her from office and get a new clerk? I doubt it.

      They are throwing her in jail because judges are assholes and wants to make an example of her. I don’t think that is going to work out very well.

      1. They are throwing her in jail because judges are assholes and wants to make an example of her.

        Partly, I suspect. And partly because they have the internet mob at their back. This is only going to get worse. Each step only emboldens the mob and convinces the other side to employ the same tactics.

        It’s an escalating contest of who can be the bigger asshole. And we’re just getting warmed up.

        1. You are right. And up to now the side that objects to gay marriage hasn’t been assholes. If they start being the same kind of assholes the pro marriage side has been, it is going to get very ugly.

          1. If they start being the same kind of assholes the pro marriage side has been, it is going to get very ugly.

            Especially if they decide to attempt go as asshole as Team Blue was when they started the anti-homosexual/gay rights movement.

            Just like the olden times, way back when they cracked down on male prostitution.

            Those Christian Fundies are the *real* enemy and Reason seems to be doing a fantastic job covering/keeping up the narrative.

            1. come on casual, I am reliably informed that all oppression of gays in US history was the result of Christian Fundies. The Progs had nothing to do with it. They were always gay affirming. They never viewed being gay as a mental defect to be bred out of the human race via the miracle of eugenics.

              1. Are you retarded enough to not know Progressives were Christian?

                1. Some were Nikki. But they had very few beliefs in common with the SOCON of today you hate so much. The SOCONs of today are not the intellectual or political dissidents of the progressives. They are the intellectual and political dissidents of the populists. Let me give you a hint here. William Jennings Bryan was not a Progressive.

                  Nikki, why do you allow yourself to be such a fanatic on these sorts of topics that you are incapable of reasonable thought? Seriously, you are not stupid. But when anything comes up relating to religion you completely lose any ability to think. And then you call everyone else retarded. I would like to think you are not Cytoxic. Please stop trying to be.

                  1. Did I say that today’s socons are descendants of Progressives? I did not say that. You wrote “Progs,” which you capitalized.

                    I am not signing onto whatever idiotic social contract is going around at H&R that you can just say “progs,” “proggies,” “Progs,” “Proggies,” “the left,” “leftists,” etc., and expect those words to all mean (a) the same thing and (b) any person at any point in history who is to the left of center. It’s nothing but sloppy thinking and sloppy argumentation. And yes, I am fanatical about that, because I like to actually be talking about something, as opposed to verbally jerking off.

                    1. The Probs used to be Christians. So what Nikki? And those words mean lots of things. What is your point? You just got your panties in a wad because I implied that something bad might have happened that wasn’t the result of religion.

                      Most of the really horrible things the Progs did were not based in religion. They came out of atheism and social Darwinism. You can’t blame eugenics and social Darwinism on religion. Those things were people taking the new found fact that men are animals and nothing but really advanced primates seriously. I mean if we are all evolved from lower species, why not try to cull the unfit and speed the process of evolving to something higher along?

                      That is pretty crazy sure. But whatever it is, it wasn’t the result of religion.

                    2. Was there a more horrible thing they did than alcohol prohibition? No, there was not. And that was all about Christian temperance.

                      Regardless, I never said or implied there was nothing bad that ever happened that wasn’t due to religion. But I am tired of throwaway, bullshit, sloppy argumentation.

                    3. Was there a more horrible thing they did than alcohol prohibition? No, there was not. And that was all about Christian temperance.

                      If I considered The Great Leap Forward to be the Gold Standard of Progressivism and I had to blame Christianity directly for anything directly related to prohibition in that light; I’d blame it for limiting the scale/scope of US Progressivism to alcohol. Not that that paints the whole sloppy picture, but if you loathed sloppy thinking and just started hacking the situation down to ‘progressive/not’ and ‘Christian/not’ then it’s pretty clear that Christian Progressivism is preferable to the non-Christian variety and that Christian Non-Progressivism is superior an a whole host of ways to Non-Christian Non-Progressivism.

                      I wonder Nikki, why, if you’re so impartial and loathing of slurs, are “progs,” “proggies,” “Progs,” “Proggies,” “the left,” “leftists,” intolerable but ‘Fundie’ goes unmentioned (despite it’s rather deliberate inaccuracy)? Additionally, if John and I want to verbally jack off with the words ‘prog’ and ‘fundie’ what moral imperative motivates you to think we’re doing something wrong?

                    4. “You can’t blame eugenics and social Darwinism on religion.”

                      That’s a laugher. The prevailing thought among WASPs in the early 20th Century, was that other races were inferior in the eyes of God & it was their sacred duty to control the breeding of such races. There are still quite a few of them living in the good ol’ U.S. of A.

                    5. Left and right only have meaning if the single dimension starts at National Socialism and ends at Soviet Socialism, with Know-Nothings in between.

          2. The thing is, SSM per se is just one manifestation of the Kultur War between the two tribes, of which the Teams are becoming just the political arms.

            And yes, this could get very, very ugly. As each tribe looks at the other as the enemy and not their fellow countrymen with whom they disagree, the rest of us get killed in the crossfire.

            1. You will end up having to choose a side. I think the SJW storm is reaching its Zeneth and is about to pass. Their ideology is too incoherent and self loathing to last very long. The SJWs are going to eat each other and there is going to be a pretty harsh backlash against them.

              You may not like the SOCONs, but there is no denying millions of people live a happy satisfying life as one of them. The SJWs in contrast are nearly all broken self loathing people. No one in their right mind would want to be someone like Aurthur Chu or Amanda Marcotti. For this reason their appeal is going to start to wane pretty fast. There is going to be a backlash. I don’t think we are going to swing towards some kind of SOCON utopia. But I do think people are going to reject the SJWs. Whether that means they throw the gays out with them, I don’t know.

          3. And up to now the side that objects to gay marriage hasn’t been assholes.

            You were assholes for around five thousand years.

            1. yeah Dan they were real assholes as they built the civilization that you get to live fat, dumb, ignorant and happy in.

              We get it Dan. You are as narrow minded and dumb as the day is long. You hate yourself some fundies and God damn it they are finally going to get theirs. Now go do whatever it is you do and bask in the euphoria of finally seeing one them peoples who wants to take your rites finally getting theirs and let the adults talk for a while.

              1. LMAO that’s a weak defense. They only threw homosexuals in jail or executed them for thousands of years, but it doesn’t matter because they were “building civilization?” The fuck?

                1. They were only killing gay people, Cali. John isn’t bothered by that. If they’d been killing Christians, now, THAT would be a horrific thing.

                2. What societies in the past five thousand years punished the mere desire for same sex companionship?

              2. yeah Dan they were real assholes as they built the civilization that you get to live fat, dumb, ignorant and happy in.

                Yes, John, the only civilization on Earth is Christian civilization. What color’s the sky on your world, again?

  17. Massie defends David:

    Rep. Thomas Massie said Wednesday Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has a “moral” right to defy the Supreme Court and continue her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.

    Massie said her allegiance is to Kentucky’s Constitution ? not the high court’s June ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

    “When Mrs. Davis was elected, she swore an oath to Kentucky’s Constitution which, as in 29 other states, contained a provision to protect traditional marriage,” Massie, R-Ky., said in a statement to the Enquirer.

    1. I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ??????? according to law […], so help me God

      She swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and as well as that of Kentucky. The 14th amendment was passed quit a bit before she took office, and of course the Supreme Court’s position as final judicial interpreter of Constitutional questions predates even that.

      She hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

    2. I’d love to see Massie asked a follow-up question on whether Kentucky state officials had a moral right to keep enforcing slavery after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, since it appears that Kentucky didn’t amend its state constitution to eliminate references to slavery until 1891 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Constitution), 25 years after the 13th Amendment was ratified.

  18. Law needs to twist into something that contains it. Like a mutually assured destruction arrangement between heaters and burners.

  19. Let’s just nail her to a cross, and burn it, on the steps of the Supreme Court.
    That’ll show ’em.

  20. “It’s a deliberate decision to ignore the difference between personal (and public) practice of religion and the duties of government officials.”

    Everything is public to Authoritarians. They can’t differentiate between public and private.

    1. And here I was thinking the First Amendment was couched in terms of the “free exercise” (as opposed to coercive exercise) thereof. So “free exercise” means shooting doctors, roping and corralling pregnant women and forcing them to squeeze out brainwashable blanks?

  21. You can’t “obliterate” or “revise” history that happened two days ago. That’s not even history at that point; it’s just what’s happening.

  22. Is Ted Cruz going to make the same argument if a government official attempts to implement Sharia?

    1. You mean not implement existing law because of Sharia?

      Maybe. Depending on the facet of Sharia, no opposition here. Title IX already sounds a lot like a matriarchal version of huddud.

    2. Are jihadists merely “exercising religious freedom?”

      I realize I haven’t made a perfect analogy here, but if your argument basically goes:

      1) I want to either do something to someone else, or make someone do something, or stop someone from doing something;

      2) because of my religious beliefs; and

      3) I will ignore and/or circumvent existing law or basic decency to achieve #1, because

      4) I am merely “exercising my religion”

      …then my analogy is merely the logical conclusion of that line of thinking. It’s the Binding of Isaac scenario.

  23. i wonder if rand and cruz would do this for a law enforcement officer who refused to make marijuana arrests or seizures?? hmmmm

  24. I’m apparently descended from some Quakers who moved to Salem, Massachusetts in the 1630s, then were hounded by the authorities for their religious activities. The parents were forced out of the colony and the children were ordered to be enslaved and sold in the Caribbean. The parents died shortly thereafter on a small island off Long Island. The kids were not enslaved, mostly because of public outcry and no captain was willing to sell two little white kids into slavery, even two Quakers. Anyone who has early New England ancestry is likely to descend from the Southwicks (because math).

    So, yeah, the land of religious freedom was also bathed in religious persecution.

  25. What annoys me is that this stunt will taint other, more legitimate concerns about religious freedom and freedom of association. All of it will be painted with the same brush, just some religious nuts trying to impose their values on everybody else.

    1. Yep. That’s what happens when a group pitches the exact same fit in response to just and unjust treatment alike. Conservatives have started playing the religion card like lefties play the race card.

      1. The big question is- will it work?

  26. This whole situation is asinine, and just a case study in why using government (i.e. coercion) to achieve anything is stupid at best.

    The religious bigots want to use coercive power to deny marriages.

    The anti-religious bigots want to use coercive power to force others to recognize their marriages.

    And in the process they both get fucked over by their own stupidity:

    The religious bigots find that now violence is wielded against them in the opposite direction (“you must recognize this marriage or else”).

    The anti-religious bigots … get to eat COERCED CAKE at a wedding officially recognized by the United States government and whatever state and locality they reside in. CONGRATULATIONS. Frankly, I can hardly imagine a more hollow victory.

    In the meantime the politicians laugh themselves all the way to office because they’ve successfully found yet another wedge issue that they can use to goose idiots into clamoring for yet more coercive state power.

    Maybe I can take solace in the thought that, if there is a god and the rapture and second coming does arrive, all of the assholes in both of those groups are getting left behind.

    1. Exactly.

  27. I’m kinda shocked that this story is getting the treatment it is around here.

    Davis’ story seems to be THE best ammunition the Reason and libertarians (in general) could have to present the narrative of, “Get the government out of the marriage business”.

    So many people eager to pick sides, when they wouldn’t have to if they had used that energy to push for marriage privatization, or “de-governmentalization” of marriage.

    It’s far less likely that David would have anything to object to in her role if she weren’t the one having to provide a license for any marriage. Not that there couldn’t possibly be other offensive situations for her, mind you.

    Also, gays couples wouldn’t be going to government offices to get their union legitimized.

    Telling people that, if they had been skeptical of government prior to gay marriage, and had collectively pushed to end marriage licensing, this would have been an issue to come bite them in the ass today…that seems like a better use of our time.

    Most of us here tend to agree with that position, and we could go on to more important bitch-fests, like fake mayo, or deep dish, or whatever.

  28. Scott – you still cannot marry your 1st cousin. Does that make sense?

    California still bans same sex marriages between 1st cousins.

  29. Just let her out of jail and fire her. Simple solution and just too obvious…

  30. As a Texas voter I assure readers Cruz is again lying or ignorant. British official Charles Napier assigned to India in the Civil War era hanged Hindi faithful for burning their widows alive in the coercive exercise of their revealed faith: “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property.” There were true martyrs for ignorant superstition every bit as rabid and violent as Cruz. Krishna grant that he share their sentence soon.

  31. There are still no Ted Cruz pi?atas anywhere. Donald Trump pi?atas are a drug on the market. Could it be some sort of racial discrimination or is there a difference between the two?

  32. Too often immature Believers are too finely focused on the Scriptures to grasp the entire picture and thus it’s following context. Arguments contrarian to a particular position can just as easily be argued for, leaving many flustered, frustrated ideologist/religionist. Perhaps those who ascribe, not merely profess, to truth will first reconcile the immutable God, that draconian murderous YHWH of the Hebrew text to the – same – benign loving YHWH we find in the Greek text. When this seeming dichotomy is harmonized, one becomes more open to what the Scriptures say. Case in point, Mrs. Davis is in jail because she chose to champion the “letter of the law’ (Pharisaism) and to subjugate the “intent of the law” (Christianity).

  33. “So what did he say?”

    Nothing about homosexuality that I can recall.

    Paul doesn’t say that what Peter says is meaningless – he points out that Peter is very confused about how to apply the gospel in practice. I agree with Paul, and I see little of value in Peter’s letters.

    “So what do you believe and why?”

    Personally, my favorite “theological” book is Chuang Tzu’s Inner Chapters. Jesus had some great things to say, as did several of his followers. What happened to them is an indictment of humanity. I don’t automatically accept their statements as Truth, however.

  34. Thanks to the judge for reinforcing her Christian martyr complex. I agree that she shouldn’t have been jailed, she should have had her marital license duties relieved or been kicked out of office. My tax dollars aren’t going to pay her to ignore part of her duties, no matter how odious she finds them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.