Kim Davis Memes Are Awesome. Kim Davis, Not So Much

Heaving this histrionic Holy Roller into the hoosegow is already making her a martyr to a lost, retrograde cause.

|

|||

Kim Davis deserves to be ridiculed. Fired, even.

But does she really deserve jail time? It's not like Davis is a member of the Taliban or anything. Heaving this histrionic Holy Roller into the hoosegow has already made her a martyr to a lost, retrograde crusade. The only winners have been opportunist social conservatives, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, who were quick to capitalize on her plight.

Fortunately, Davis was released from Kentucky's Carter County Detention Center after just five days. Just in time for Rosh Hashanah!

Now enjoy this video by Paul Detrick from Sept. 9th. It's a minute and a half of smart commentary about all the fuss over a simple woman. 

NEXT: Remember Obama's Bold Plan to Rank Colleges? Neither Did We Until...

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

  1. Washington State lawmakers discover producing energy with Rainbow sprinkles and Faerie Dust is hard.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..king-easy/

    1. Why did you spell fairy like a …. you know…?

      1. Eagle’s nest?

      2. Hitler?

      3. Also, real Wizards spell it F?ry

        1. Fuck I meant F?rie…. ahhhhhgggggggggg

    2. Moonbeam tried to get the CA legislature to mandate a 50% reduction in CA gasoline usage, and that was too much for even a D-majority assembly.
      No way that was ever going to happen without rationing, and moonbeam’s claims otherwise were bullshit that even Helen Keller could see through.

    3. “But with worries about pollution, and the nation’s push toward cleaner power, come worries over money.”

      Who is worrying about money when we have Gaia and our children’s children to think about?

    4. “Montana’s Colstrip Generating Station may be 650 miles from the Washington state border,…”

      I know someone here knows how to calculate the loss in energy piping electricity over that many miles of wire…..

      I am wondering how many calories have to be released by burning coal in order to charge some smug greenie douchebag’s electric car in Seattle. 10:1? 100:1? 1000:1?

      It is almost like proponents of green energy/AGW etc have no clue about kinetics, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry etc.

      These days whenever I hear anyone use the terms ‘denier’ or ‘ anti-science’ I immediately assume they are scientifically illiterate.

      1. “It is almost like proponents of green energy/AGW etc have no clue about kinetics, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry etc.”

        Hell, you don’t even have to go THAT far to dismantle the Dems’ “party of science” schtick… Just observe how they can’t grasp the fact that if you’re going to study men’s salaries vs. women’s salaries, you have to factor in more variables than just “gender” and “salary”. That alone is an indicator that they don’t understand the first thing about gathering information and drawing conclusions.

      2. Have you seen that NYT article that ties “climate deniers” to Hitler? It was the top headline at HuffPo yesterday:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09…..cide.html?

        Best use of Chewbacca defense ever.

        1. Oh wow, that is gold. “The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science.” Yup, rocketry is not science, folks.

          1. Believing in a superior race is indeed, science. Terrible science, but science nonetheless.

    5. Doesn’t Washington import almost 100% of it’s power from Montana?

      1. Not even close. they get 2/3 from hydro, and are a net exporter.

        http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=WA

        if they “need” outside sources, i’d guess its because other states have contracted for a large chunk of their ‘renewable’ to meet their own interstate targets.

        Fucking greens are their own worst enemy

        1. “if they “need” outside sources, i’d guess its because other states have contracted for a large chunk of their ‘renewable’ to meet their own interstate targets.”

          That’s hilarious. Oh, the world is so entertaining.

      2. Yep, as Gilmore said, Dams. And the enviros want those shut down because of fish. Leaving us with…

            1. If you’re talking about the explosive breach, Fuck Yeah!

              The amount of sediment that accumulated was staggering. And that’s not even a big dam.

    6. The Colstrip station ….. has been listed as one of the biggest polluting coal facilities in the country, according to studies by environmental advocacy group

      This “pollution” claim is based entirely upon total CO2 emissions with no regard to how much electricity this 2.1 GW produces. It’s pretty much as though the biggest generator of electricity is the biggest “polluter”. Truly ridiculous. Even if CO2 emission reduction is assumed to be a worthy goal, the criteria for determining the worst actors is tonnes of CO2 emitted per net MWh produced.

      1. Did you not read the “”according to studies by environmental advocacy group”” part?

        Its like a flashing sign saying, “BULLSHIT STATISTICS AHEAD”

  2. I’m making 3 kinds of popcorn. Standard microwave in the flavor of “movie theater butter”, stove top with canola oil, salt, and a touch of dehydrated cheese powder, and kettle corn with scorched milk caramel.

    I assume I’ll be out of all 3 before this thread is over.

    1. I’m drinking a Founder’s Imperial Stout. I have more bottles in the cabinet if I need more.

      1. Oh, sure, I’m having Lagunitas. Standard procedure. The popcorn is just for this thread,

        1. Which Lagunitas? I’ve had their Cappuccino Stout. It was good.

          1. Little Sumpin’. It’s always available at the major grocery store. I have to go higher end for some of their other stuff, like Shutdown and Hairy Eyeball.

            1. I haven’t had their Little Sumpin’. I’m pretty sure it’s available here in New Hampshire. If not, it is available in Massachusetts. I’ve seen it somewhere in New England.

              I switched to something lighter. I’m still on vacation, but I probably shouldn’t have too much tonight. I have work I need to get done around the house tomorrow. Newcastle Brown.

              1. It will be everywhere soon enough. Heineken just bought a 50% stake in Lagunitas.

                  1. Wait a minute…. tomorrow is a de facto holiday. You have my permission to go back to something stronger.

                    1. De facto holiday? Yes, I’m still on vacation.

                    2. Lagunitas Sucks! Is my fav Lagunitas. Haven’t seen the cap stout anywhere yet.

                    3. Their Cappuccino Stout was briefly available in New England. I’ve only seen it once.

                    4. They had a Lagunitas coffee vanilla stout bomber at Costco the other day. 10%, iirc. Good stuff.

                    5. They had a Lagunitas coffee vanilla stout bomber at Costco the other day. 10%, iirc. Good stuff.

                      That sounds delicious.

                    6. It’s also Jewish new year.

                    7. It’s also Jewish new year.

                      Oh. I didn’t know. That’s what I get for not dating a Jewish woman.

                    8. You also missed some really good brisket…

                    9. The Jews have nothing on the Texans.

      2. Full Sail – Session – American Lager. It’s cheap and American, just like me.

        1. Apparently, my beer is Indian (dot not feather).

          1. Casino or call center ?

            1. +1 Iron Eyes Cody tear

              1. That would be Peroni then.

          2. Engineering degree or welfare?

          3. British Colonialism or … British Colonialism?

          4. Smallpox blankets or Union Carbide?

    2. Dehydrated cheese powder?

      Why don’t you just wear jogging pants in public and be done with it already!

      1. Don’t forget your fanny pack and wrap-around glaucoma sunglasses.

      2. It’s called Kraft Parmesan. I hear Kraft also makes your dinners.

    3. canola oil

      You mean rapeseed.

    4. Kettle corn sounds good.

    5. I’ve found that trying to use a microwave oven on regular popcorn in a paper bag doesn’t produce results as well or easily as I’d originally thought.

      1. The best popcorn is made in those cheap old electric skillet with a tall plastic cover poppers. You can still find them at yard/estate sales, often unused in the original box. You were supposed to use corn oil, America’s cooking oil until we were all poisoned by Canuckistani rapeseed, but the best popcorn was made using something else.Bacon drippings produced marvelous smoky popcorn further flavored by butter and seasoned salt. For the healthful kick pop with olive oil and season with parmesan cheese, a little salt and butter.

        You could cook all kinds of stuff on the base if you didn’t have access to a kitchen. It was like a non-stick electric skillet or wok always on high. Temperature could be adjusted by unplugging and then plugging it back in.

  3. “Heaving this histrionic Holy Roller into the hoosegow is already making her a martyr to a lost, retrograde cause.”

    You know who else thought he had a moral responsibility to break unjust laws?

    1. Robin of Loxley?

    2. Henry David Thoreau?

    3. The correct answer was MLK.

  4. Regarding this “Does Their Job” thing…

    why do we elect people to these positions if they’re just supposed to rubber stamp bureaucratic mandates?

    also = isn’t that “People are supposed to do their job, regardless of personal moral qualms” the line that Adolph Eichmann used?

    Not that I give a shit about Kim Davis or her cause. I’m not sure one person refusing to rubber stamp someone’s paperwork even rises to the level of Anti-Gay-Pizza in terms of “Shit Silly People Need To Be Upset About”

    1. +1 Nuremberg Defense
      -1 Godwin

      1. What can i do for a tiebreaker? bellydance?

        1. Fashion Show!

    2. Why do we have elected officials take oaths to uphold the constitution?

      Why can’t Sheriff Joe just round up Hispanics and deport them? Why does he have to enforce stupid federal immigration laws?

      1. Sheriff Joe’s constituents keep electing him to do a job in a certain way. I don’t want the feds swooping in to undermine local autonomy without a darn good reason. And, yes, civil rights violations — cf. Melendrez v Arpaio — qualify as a darn good reason. Certainly, he should not be above the law, but let’s not pretend that federal interference with how MCSO enforces immigration is anything other than political. The feds want local LEOs to do the heavy lifting in enforcing drug laws, immigration laws, etc. Then they try to micro-manage the people doing the job that they don’t have the manpower or willpower to do.

    3. I’m not sure one person refusing to rubber stamp someone’s paperwork even rises to the level of Anti-Gay-Pizza in terms of “Shit Silly People Need To Be Upset About”

      It has certainly revealed a host of libertarians who sincerely believe in some pretty socialist ‘do the job the people expect you to do or go to fucking jail’ ideas.

      I understand having a difference of opinion about whether she should keep her job or whether the rule of law allows for which expedient solution(s), but the number of people who aren’t Tony defending the throwing of her ass in jail is kinda disgusting for a group devoted to the NAP.

    4. Yeah, I’m kinda wondering when civil disobedience founded on deeply held personal beliefs became a bad thing.

      And when it will become a good thing, again.

      1. The judge doesn’t have the power to remove her from office, only to put her in jail until she either agrees to do her job, or she resigns.

        Civil Disobedience requires that she go to jail and conduct a hunger strike until we all agree she’s doing the right thing.

  5. Why are some who demand the rule of law be applied to illegal immigrants also o.k. with waiving the rule of law for Ms. Davis?

    1. And the reverse. My guess? Rationalized hypocrisy.

      1. Yes. And why is Mrs. Davis deserved of being ridiculed ?

        Does everyone whom this writer disagree with deserve ridicule ?

        Me thinks not.

        1. “And why is Mrs. Davis deserved of being ridiculed ?”

          Because she is an entitled bitch abusing her power to live out some ‘last stand for muh skydaddy’ bullshit.

          “Does everyone whom this writer disagree with deserve ridicule ?”

          I haven’t seen anything that says otherwise.

    2. Why is it equally accurate vice versa? [ Why are some who demand the rule of law be applied to Ms. Davis also o.k. with waiving the rule of law for illegal immigrants? ]

      Everyone wants to rule the world; to have the whole cake and to eat every crumb: That’s why.

      1. Because Ms. Davis is violating the NAP and illegal immigrants are NOT.

        A) Gay people are being forcibly prevented from getting married.

        B) Immigrants are being forcibly prevented from engaging in voluntary transactions with employers

        What’s wrong with answering both of these questions with “nobody should be forcibly prevented from engaging in voluntary contracts with other consenting adults” ?

        1. They can still get married, her failing to sign pieces of paper has no affect on that.

          Straights in Rowan Co cant get a signature either.

          1. if she doesn’t sign it, their marriage will not be recognized equally to other marriages. That’s a violation of their right to equal treatment under the law. She’s violating their rights, and the rights of straight people in Rowan County too.

            1. Fuck legal recognition.

              1. You mean “fuck equal protection” really.
                Why should everyone be treated the same by the government? Why can’t we just have nobles and serfs?

                1. I am in favor of everyone being treated the same by the government. No one should get licenses.

                  Marriage or otherwise.

                2. I am in favor of everyone being treated the same by the government. No one should get licenses.

                  Marriage or otherwise.

                3. As long as marriage licenses exist, there will be no equal protection in this area. Someone is being discriminated against, whether polygamists or first cousins or whoever.

                  If you truly value equal protection then oppose marriage licensing. And cheer for chaos until it happens.

              2. Legal recognition of contracts is one of the few things the state is supposed to do.

                1. Legal recognition of contracts is one of the few things the state is supposed to do

                  Sure, but there is no need to file them in advance. You pull them out once you get to civil court.

                  1. Kim Davis is not advocating that marriage be de-institutionalized.

        2. Ms. Davis is violating the NAP

          This is alarmingly Tony-esque.

          She’s illegally withholding her signature/endorsement. Not giving = taking.

          1. She voluntarily assumed a role that give her the power to withhold government permission for people to get married. By becoming an agent of the state, she became an agent of the use of force. Then she was ordered to stop using force against certain people, and she refused to do so.

            In the case where the default state is people having force applied to them to prevent them from getting married, not granting permission is using force.

        3. Hazel is still on this bizarre kick that Davis is siccing the cops on gay people who want to get married.

          Lack of legal recognition does not, as far as I know, violate any laws that would be enforced by armed agents of the state.

    3. The law that is applied to illegal immigrants is 1) unjust and 2) unconstitutional (there are no grounds in the USC authorizing regulation of immigration only naturalization). Davis is not fighting against any unjust laws but rather for the re-imposition of one.

      1. Correct. The law forcibly prevents people from getting married without a license. Kim Davis, as representative of that law, is refusing to issue such licenses. When you sign up to be a County Clerk in Kentucky you voluntarily assume a legal duty to issue marriage licenses. She is thus forcibly imposing her personal opinion on people, and therefore is in violation of the non-aggression principle.

        1. Lol.

          Failing to sufficiently genuflect to the federal courts as a state official handing out licenses by which couples (and only couples!) of sexual partners may obtain benefits from the state looted from their neighbors is a violation of the NAP…

          You’re way better off begging the equal protection question. At least you kind of understand it. This isn’t the first time you’ve embarrassed yourself with your abject ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism.

          1. Becoming a county clerk in the first place is a violation of the NAP.

      2. The law that is applied to illegal immigrants is 1) unjust and 2) unconstitutional

        Kim Davis thinks the upending of her state’s law by SCOTUS is unjust, and the same SCOTUS that blessed gay marriage has also upheld congressional authority over immigration. Live by the argument from authority, die by the argument from authority.

  6. Doesn’t believe in exterminating Jews. Still does his fucking job.

    1. Here’s some popcorn. There’s more where that came from.

    2. Working for government is all about doing your job whether you agree with it or not. Well, at least that’s what the prog-fascists have been telling me.

      1. “Working for government is all about doing your job whether you agree with it or not.”

        Ahh.. freedom from thought and responsibility.. the holy-grail of prog groupthink. It’s not just from religious fundamentalists the faith based community anymore. From Marx’s lips to their ears…

      2. Lois Lerner would disagree with you.

        1. As would Justice Kennedy..

      3. I remember reading some insipid “social studies” textbook in grade school that explained the virtue of bureaucracy. You see, Andrew Jackson fired competent, qualified people. The solution was to replace political appointees with bureaucrats — people who passed the Civil Service Exam and applied the rules dispassionately, regardless of their sense. I thought that was stupid then, and I still think so with the benefit of 25 more years of life experience.

    3. SoCon persecution complex detected.

  7. OT: What would General Patton say if he was alive today?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

    1. The comedy is kinda lame, but the voice imitation is very good.

  8. I don’t have a big problem with holding this lady in contempt.

    But I do have a big problem with the reactions I’ve seen to imprisoning her coming from the left.

    If imprisoning someone for their religious beliefs is ever the right thing to do, having to do it isn’t something that anyone should ever celebrate. Even worse, I’ve seen progressives all over who aren’t making any distinctions at all between the religious rights of government officials and the rest of us–and why that makes a difference,

    In fact, there are a lot of people running around out there who seem to think this is all about the validity of her religious beliefs–as if her religious convictions shouldn’t be protected because they’re stupid.

    It isn’t about that, but if it were? That would be so fucking wrong.

    1. She was not tossed in the slammer because of her beliefs, she was because she imposed those beliefs on others in her official capacity.
      See First Amendment.

      1. Uh no, she was thrown in the slammer for not doing what a judge told her to do.

        1. Which happened to be her fucking job. Instead, she abused her office to impose her idiot beliefs on others.

          1. “Which happened to be her fucking job. Instead, she abused her office to impose her idiot beliefs on others.”

            Whether her beliefs are idiotic is beside the point.

            They’re religious, and she was using her position in government to impose them on other people in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

            Whether her beliefs are idiotic is completely beside the point.

    2. I don’t have a big problem with holding this lady in contempt.

      I don’t have a problem with that, but I have a problem with **starting** with her. Of all the government employees over the years that haven’t done their job, she is the one who goes to jail?

      And what about the Governor of KY? Didn’t he fail to do his job by refusing to call a special session of the legislature to have her impeached? Should he also be in jail?

      I doubt it came up, but what if she had made it clear during her campaign that she wouldn’t do this part of the job? If she still won the election, wouldn’t that be the will of the voters? Wouldn’t she only be doing her job, as the people who hired her wanted?

      1. The correct course of action is not to simply disobey the law, but to file suit in court and sue to have the law overturned. In this case, Davis already did that and lost. It’s not that she’s not “doing her job” it’s that she’s effectively substituting her personal legal opinion for that of the Supreme Court, and exercising power over others in the process.

        1. She’s violating a court order, and it is not her right to use the government to impose her religious beliefs on other people.

          The tricky thing is…

          It’s true that the court didn’t put her in jail because of her religious beliefs, but it is also true that she is in jail because her religious beliefs won’t allow her to do as the court says.

          If she were defying Jim Crow, we’d be calling her a saint, but the tough thing about being a libertarian is sticking up for the rights of people we despise. This case is even tougher because she was using the government to violate other people’s rights–and I can’t support that from a libertarian perspective.

          But I can respect someone for standing up for what she believes. If the courts told me to do something that I thought was morally unconscionable, I’d like to think I’d have her courage. If the courts wanted me to help bring back Jim Crow, round up people for internment camps, introduce torture, or something like that, I’d like to think I’d have the courage to stay in office and be disruptive–rather than just resign and let someone else get on with it.

          1. This case is even tougher because she was using the government to violate other people’s rights

            Not for any legitimate value of the term “rights”. Positive rights are privileges. Marriage is a positive right, like health care, social security, or food stamps. One government functionary interfering with another government functionary bestowing special privileges on certain classes of people doesn’t involve any negative rights, nor does it involve the NAP. Negative rights are violated in either case.

            1. Isn’t equal protection a negative right?

            2. “Marriage is a positive right”

              This isn’t about marriage, per se..

              “Not for any legitimate value of the term “rights”.”

              Our establishment rights are clear in the First Amendment.

              She was violating their right to be free from government established religion. Full stop.

              She was violating their right to the equal protection of the laws, and she was was doing it because of her personal religious beliefs; i.e., she–as the government–was violating their First Amendment establishment rights.

              I have a lot of respect for someone who would rather go to prison than violate her conscience–but that doesn’t necessarily mean she shouldn’t be held in contempt.

              1. But could it not also be said that the government had violated the First Amendment’s total prohibition on the government making any law that prevented the free exercize of a citizen’s religion? And that it has been doing this for some time.

                And the prohibition IS total–‘no law’ is very unambiguous.

                We have, for some time now, thanks to SCOTUS re-imaginings of the Constitution, been operating as if this were worded in the opposite direction–as if it said that church may not inform state, when it has always been designed so that state may not ever inform church.

                They did this because they’d only recently dealt, one again, with the aftermath of what happens when church is perverted to the aims of state.

          2. She can always resign if she believes she’s being ordered to do something immoral.

          3. She can always resign if she believes she’s being ordered to do something immoral.

        2. The correct course of action is not to simply disobey the law,

          Remember when “civil disobedience” according to the dictates of your conscience was a good thing?

  9. Is it, or is it not true, that Kim Davis is a Democrat?

    Anyway, so she’s an elected official, right? And she’s not doing her job? And that makes her different from the rest of them, how? Obama is her perfect example for not doing the job, so at least she has a good excuse.

    1. Is it, or is it not true, that Kim Davis is a Democrat?

      I would submit that’s next to irrelevant at the county level.

      But I would have liked to hear her put forth your defense. “Congress doesn’t pass a budget. The president vacations half the year. Hell, even the Supreme Court passes on ruling on cases of significance. Why am I the only elected or appointed official with her ass on its way to prison?”

    2. Kim Davis has the coveted “D” by her name. She gets to pick and choose what is, and isn’t, a law.

      1. And in her county, Dems outnumber Reps about 3-1.

  10. Laws matter except when they don’t. In cross-cultural studies, this is called particularism.

    Universalism is the belief that ideas and practices can be applied everywhere without modification, while particularism is the belief that circumstances dictate how ideas and practices should be applied. It asks the question, What is more important, rules or relationships?

    wiki

    1. Laws matter except when they don’t. In cross-cultural studies, this is called particularism.

      Obama is a big fan of this particularism, no?

      1. Obama is a big fan of this particularism, yes.

  11. I think the Kim Davis memes are pretty lame.

    1. Apparently it doesn’t take much to qualify as a “meme” anymore.

      1. I was into memetics before it was all Cats and Cheezburgers and kids these days grumble grumble

        1. But Sugarfree screwed up links before you did.

          1. Damn, too slow.

        2. Gitt off my Porsche.

  12. The fact that I’ve just been selected for jury duty for the second time in two months has me feeling very cross with our whole legal system. I do not like the even flow of my life disrupted. It better not be as asinine a case as the last one.

    1. My last call was not for a trivial matter. My chance of actually getting on that jury? Zero. Why? I didn’t get down on the floor and lick pig boots during jury selection.

      Don’t worry, bro, just answer the cop fellating questions in the negative and you just got a free day from work and then you’re out of there.

      1. If you get that far, you’ve already lost.

      2. So far I have a perfect record of never making it past the initial screening. There’s not a remote chance they’ll ever actually put me on the jury. Given that fact, I can not understand why they keep calling me.

        I’m retired. No day off work. Just a couple hours being somewhere I don’t want to be.

        1. I’m self employed.

          Just a day where my expenses don’t get covered.

        2. Well, that explains it. They’re pissed because you’re retired and you’re not generating enough revenue for them. So you’re being punished.

        3. So, my last 3 calls:

          1. I’m no longer living in that county: auto out

          2. I didn’t answer the pig worship questions correctly: out

          3. I didn’t answer the pig worship questions correctly: out

          They’re probably now scanning the intertoobz to find people telling the truth like this, so that they can call us back and not allow us on a jury, again.

          The court systems are a total fucking joke.

          1. 1. I’m no longer living in that county: auto out

            This worked for me when I was still living in Pennsylvania.

            I was briefly registered to vote in the county I grew up in so I could vote in a primary which took place while I was staying at my parents’ place between semesters. School started up again, I moved away. My parents received a jury summons for me. They called me up, told me about it, and gave me the phone number shown on the summons.

            I called the number and got an actual person. A woman. I explained to the woman that I had moved to another part of the state and was now a four hour drive away. If the county was willing to come and get me, then and only then would I be willing to show up. The woman told me not to worry, I wouldn’t have to show. She would take my name off the jury roll. I never heard anything else about it.

        4. You might want to seek some legal advice about whether you’re old enough to get out of jury duty. Some states do that.

          Or look it up yourself, of course.

          Just don’t take advice from random people in the Internet.

    2. You’d think they could use people on Social Security or unemployment to fill up the jury pool. It would be more convenient.

      1. “You’d think they could use people on Social Security ‘

        Are you nuts!?

        Trials would never end, and when they did they’d be handing out the death penalty like it was hard candy and their great-grandkids were visiting

        1. And then there are old people like me. You know, those of us who don’t believe the truth would ever be allowed in any court and therefore refuse to have a part in convicting any defendant.

      2. That’s what it’s all about. It’s all about filling the pool.

      3. Here in the PRM, if you’re 70 or older, that’s an auto out.

    3. I almost got on a case. Got out of it due to financial hardship. If I could afford it, it would have been a cool case to try, it wouldn’t have even challenged my convictions. Kidnapping, rape, murder.

  13. It’s hilarious to listen to folks who have long supported civil disaobedience to now claim reverance , not even for a law passed by Congress, but for one emotionally stressed supreme court justice named Kennedy, a man who apparently believes that same-sex unions actually have relevance to marriage. Davis isn’t breaking any law, primarily because there is no law. I’ve watched thousands of rioting Blacks breaking very serious laws and watched gays and liberals aghast that some policeman might arrest somebody. Besides, f these sexualy confused morons actuallywanted to get married, all they have to do is drive a few miles down the road – there are plenty of counties in that state.

    1. Its like derp-salad. so many ingredients.

    2. Hey, douche bag, get lost on your way to storm front?
      “Davis isn’t breaking any law, primarily because there is no law.”
      It’s call the First Amendment; she and you get to bleeve whatever you want, just don’t use the government power to push your superstitions.

      1. Davis isn’t breaking any law, primarily because there is no law.”
        It’s call the First Amendment;

        Libertarian mental retardation.

        1. 1A =/= not doing your job

          1. 1A =/= actively imposing unequal treatment of the law upon people while holding a legal office.

            1. This is a better way of putting it.

        2. “Libertarian mental retardation.”
          Lemme guess: Bleever, right?

          1. never gets old, does it

          2. Yes, only a christfag would think that you are a fucking moron for thinking that this case has anything at all to do with the 1st amendment.

            1. Zaytsev|9.13.15 @ 10:43PM|#
              “Yes, only a christfag would think that you are a fucking moron for thinking that this case has anything at all to do with the 1st amendment.”

              Yes, only a fucking ignoramus would claim otherwise
              Hey, you just WON!
              Stuff it up your ass, bleever.

    3. I would think that committing to marriage was proof one is *not* “sexually confused” but that’s just me.

      1. And you’d be spectacularly wrong.

        1. “And you’d be spectacularly wrong.”

          And I’ll bet you can quote evidence for that claim!
          Let’s see it.

          1. There have been cases of husbands marrying for decades and then coming out as gay.

    4. Really? Davis is refusing to enforce the legalization of gay marriage. In other words, she’s enforcing a defunct law against gay marriage. She’s not just sitting there with a protest sign saying “gay marriage is bad”, she’s actively interfering with the legal right of gay people to get marriage licenses.
      She can bitch about the law from the sidelines as long as she wants, but when she’s preventing people from exercising their legal rights, that is NOT a “first amendment” issue. It is an equality before the law issue. Kim Davis is the law, and she’s unequally enforcing it. That’s unconstitutional.

      1. actively interfering

        Actually, not signing any is pretty damn passive.

        1. I’m actually impressed by the Chutzpah required for this argument of yours. Incredible. I guess you have no problem if the government were to refuse to sign the authorization papers for say a business you’d like to start up?

          Passively imposing unequal legal treatment is still imposing unequal legal treatment.

          1. It happened during the government shutdown (not to me). No one went to jail.

          2. Also, my subargument here was about the word active. Any carryover from other subthreads was purely coincidental.

            1. I am unsure of the chutzpah required for a pedantic active/passive argument.

            2. She chose to become a county clerk. That was an active decision. She voluntarily assumed an office that applies legal force against people to prevent them from marrying. And then refused to stop applying such force when ordered to give them permission to marry.

          3. Passively imposing unequal legal treatment is still imposing unequal legal treatment.

            Hey, remember when we drew a distinction between “action” and “inaction” when it came to passively refusing to get health insurance?

            It was even longer ago than when we thought civil disobedience was a good thing, so you probably forgot.

    5. Really? Davis is refusing to enforce the legalization of gay marriage. In other words, she’s enforcing a defunct law against gay marriage. She’s not just sitting there with a protest sign saying “gay marriage is bad”, she’s actively interfering with the legal right of gay people to get marriage licenses.
      She can bitch about the law from the sidelines as long as she wants, but when she’s preventing people from exercising their legal rights, that is NOT a “first amendment” issue. It is an equality before the law issue. Kim Davis is the law, and she’s unequally enforcing it. That’s unconstitutional.

  14. I’m sure the judge would rather have fired her, but that isn’t allowed under separation of powers. Davis is an elected official, and can only be removed if the state legislature impeaches her.

    If I lived there I would be asking my state reps why they haven’t begun that process!

    1. “If I lived there I would be asking my state reps why they haven’t begun that process!”

      And they would ask if you had ever run for political office..

    2. I am going way out on a limb here but I am thinking that Kim Davis would win another election in a land slide and any legislators who moved to impeach her would not.

      1. Which is why positions like this should not be subject to election.

        1. Agreed. I don’t see the point in having Clerks elected anyway. I am not aware of any discretion with regards to their duties.

          1. I am unsure why their duties require human intervention at all.

            Is there anything they do that can’t be done by a computer?

            1. Marriage license ATMs, as it were?
              You know it’ll charge you a $3 “user fee”, in addition to other fees…

        2. Which is why positions like this should not be subject to election.

          Legislators?

    3. The Governor has refused to call a special session.

  15. The First 2016 Democratic Debate- rushed transcript

    Jack Ross: Good evening ladies and gentlemen (gasp) and welcome to the first debate of the democratic party.
    My name is Jack Ross (gasp) and I am the author of the book The Socialist Party in America
    among others (Gasp) my fellow moderator tonight is Mr Thom Hartmann who appears
    regularly on both Free Speech TV and RT. [Jack Ross fluffs his neckbeard, from which loose change and WheatThins crumbs fall]

    Thom Hartmann:Thank you, Jack for that lovely introduction. Here, have some more coffee. And pizza. Let’s introduce the candidates. Tonight we have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Jim Webb, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vice President Joe Biden, and Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, you have the first response. The question is: what will you do as president to undo the damage of that rotten Republican rogue Ronald Reagan, whose toxic legacy can be seen in the recent Baltimore riots and the ruins of Detroit?

    1. Sanders: We can start by fixing this [Sanders gets a basket from behind his podium and dumps a variety of deodorants on the floor]. This country has no business making 23 kinds of deodorants when our children are going hungry. This [Sanders retrieves a small spray bottle from inside his jacket] human odor solution was developed by one of our top men at MIT. Spraying once daily with this therapeutic bacteria eliminates the need to bathe or use deodorants. Billions of gallons of
      water could be saved, and it will help mitigate climate change.

      Ross: [talking with his mouth full of pizza] Excellent response Senator Sanders. Your response Secretary Clinton?

      1. Sanders is now kicking Hillary’s shriveled old behind.

        So the Dems have their choices:

        1. Old white dude who is full on commie.

        2. Old white hag who is most corrupt politician in the history of the world.

        3. Old white dude who is mentally retarded.

        /The party of diversity and choice.

          1. Does that dude even have a driver license?

          2. There are some good looking women in the second video, but I prefer this song.

            1. video at the second link. Sigh. Maybe I should go back to drinking something stronger.

              1. Did you see him when he was at the Capitol Center this summer?

                1. No, I didn’t know he was in the area. Shit.

                  1. I took my daughter; it was her first concert.

                    1. Nice! Was it a good show?

        1. “Sanders is now kicking Hillary’s shriveled old behind.”

          Er no. Hillary is still ahead in most polls.

          1. The new poll finds Sen. Sanders with 52% support among Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, while former Secretary of State Clinton, long considered the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, receives 30%. Recent polls have shown Sanders’ lead growing in the Granite State, but this would be the first to show the Vermont Senator over 50%.

            Possibly more worrying for the Clinton campaign is her performance in Iowa, where Sanders now leads by 10 points, with 43% to Clinton’s 33%.

            1. I think Hillary is still ahead in *overall* polls that aren’t broken down state-by-state.

              1. A big part is that Sanders is leading or gaining in Iowa and New Hampshire. But ONLY in those two states ? the two early states where he’s built up organizations, spent a lot of time, and has the advantage of natural white middle-class leftist Democrats to vote for him. So the narrative of the race (which is starting to focus on the early states) is building on Sanders ? note how his travels outside those two states are limited to appearances only in specific Progressive-friendly large cities like Seattle and San Francisco ?while the analysis continues to point out how nationwide/other-states polling points out the elderly red’s utter weakness as anything but a means to draw Hillary to the left (at this point, looking at the numbers, Biden or Warren are the only possible real challengers, if either were to enter soon enough and work really hard at the logistics of catching up on building campaign infrastructure ? something else Bernie doesn’t have much of in the other 48 states besides on Facebook).

                It’s going to fun in about two-three months when the filing deadlines start passing, the FBI starts charging Clinton on server-related business, and the DNC realizes just how far up a creek they are. I imagine that Trump is just going to start dressing like 70s Elvis and swearing on national television at that point…

        2. Old white dude who is mentally retarded.

          Now, now. Biden’s not retarded.

          He’s brain damaged. From the microstrokes.

    2. Clinton:[dressed as Carmen Miranda, begins to sing]
      Boom chicky boom chicky boom, Boom boom!
      Boom chicky boom chicky boom!
      When a sweetie down in Rio de Janeiro
      She makes up the caballero with something he can’t resist
      When she kisses him it’s just like enchiladas
      with a dish of Capistrano and a bunch of rice and fish.
      When she loves him, with the moon above,
      She is one hot tamale Who can love him good by golly
      In September and November, Not to mention cold December
      In the springtime, in the summer, or when autumn leaves are falling,
      She’ll love him.
      Boom chicky boom chicky boom chicky boom. La, la!
      La, la, la, la! Whoooo!

    3. Hartmann: Viva! It’s nice to see at least one candidate stand up for the dignity of Latinos, unlike racist Republicans like Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. Senator Webb, same question, and as the only veteran on stage tonight, I was wondering if you could also comment on your experience as a naive cannon fodder during America’s racist, imperialist, genocidal, Republican-led, failed war in Vietnam?

      Webb: [silently stares blankly into the distance]

      Hartmann: Uh, OK, we’ll come back to you in a bit.

    4. Ross: Vice President Biden (gasp) what is your repsonse?(Gasp) Secretary Clinton please do not distract the Vice President with that laser pointer.

      Biden: [struggling to read off his palm] Oh, uh….of the people, by the people, for the people! We have nothing to fear but fear itself! Tear down this wall! I am not a crook! Uh…God bless and God Bless the United States of America! And a merry Christmas to us all! [Biden wipes brow].

      Ross: (Gasp)If only Icould speak as eloquently as you Mr Vice President. And may I also compliment you on the originality of your speech.

    5. Hartmann: Senator Warren, same question, and you may take an additional minute to explain why you hate Ronald Reagan.

      Warren: [produces a guitar, begins playing it and singing]
      America wants
      our next president to be a woman
      hey babe here’s lookin’ at you
      Senator Elizabeth Warren!
      The planet is warming
      and the power is shifting
      We need a leader
      who won’t stand for
      all the Wall Street bullshit
      the lobbyist grifting!
      run, run, run!
      run, liz, run!
      you gotta run for the office
      and get the job done!
      run, run, run
      run, liz, run
      We need a president Warren
      We need a president Warren!
      You shoot straight and tell the truth
      that we’ve been chipped, squeezed, and hammered
      People think that the system is rigged
      Because it is
      And it’s time that we stand up
      The compact we’ve known
      has been cheated and broken!
      We need a leader
      who will stand up to
      the corporate bullies, political ponies
      run, run, run!
      run, liz, run!
      you gotta run for the office
      and get the job done!
      run, run, run
      run, liz, run
      We need a president Warren
      We need a president Warren!
      So you’re rich
      That’s fantastic and god bless
      There’s a coupla a things
      Liz Warren won’t letcha forget
      Nobody got rich on their own
      Not nobody!
      Everybody needs bridges and streets to succeed
      run, run, run!
      run, liz, run!
      you gotta run for the office
      and get the job done!
      run, run, run
      run, liz, run
      We need a president Warren
      We need a president Warren!

    6. [as the song finishes, the camera pans back to Ross and Hartmann, who are both holding cigarette lighters aloft. Rachel Maddow suddenly appears on stage and holds a piece of mistletoe above her and Warren’s face and the two share a deep, passionate kiss]

      [Webb topples over his podium and rushes Hartmann, who lets out a childish shriek. Webb grabs Hartmann by the lapels and lifts him off the ground]

      Webb: Now you listen to me, you candy-ass clown! I was up to my knees in rice paddies, with guns that didn’t work! Going in there, looking for Charlie, slugging it out with him; While pussies like you were back here partying, putting headbands on, doing drugs, and listening to the goddamn Beatle albums! Oh! Oh! Oh!

      [A throng of protesters rush the stage to chant Black Lives Matter and set fire to Biden]

      Ross:And that ladies and gentlemen concludes tonight’s debate (gasp) please join again next month in Des Moines Iowa for another debate (gasp) viva la pizza… I mean la revolucion.

      1. Webb really cares…about what I have no idea…

  16. Bernie the Burninator

    Hillary is toast, lol. I bet Snoop Dog could beat her. Dems are so racist.

    1. Was aware Sanders was trouncing Hillary among the Live Free or Die‘rs, but was unaware Carson was polling ahead of the Trumpet.

    2. Hillary isn’t toast. She is slow to wake but once she gets it together and gets it on, I really doubt Sander’s is going to last more than a month or two.

  17. Thom Hartmann’s guests occassionally sing their comments:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNlQE_d3jE0

      1. 4 Links!!! ITS THE SECOND SIGN!!! ON THE NEXT FULL MOON THE GREAT SQUIRREL WILL RETURN AND DESTROY THE WORLD

        but seriously, how does that happen?

        1. Let me attempt to duplicate Derpetologist’s feat by linking to some random music videos.

          1. That worked for me. I post using Firefox from Linux and I don’t use any plugins. I manually wrote up the href tags for my links.

            1. plugins meaning fascr or reasonable. I do have adblock plus and https anywhere installed.

          2. YOU ARE TEMPTING THE WRATH OF THE GREAT SQUIRRELS WITH YOUR BLACK MAGIC

            the only difference you describe is linux. why would it be any different?

            Me trying to post links about cars

            1. Holy shit it worked!? THE SQUIRRELS ARE SLEEPING?

              1. Maybe youtube links don’t count. I tried posting four links from different sites, and I couldn’t. Let me try something….

                  1. Look at that. Maybe that’s the trick. Youtube links.

                    1. I think it is https vs http. I think https doesn’t count.

                    2. Ahhh. You may be right. But now the squirrels know too…?? (looks around suspiciously)

                1. nah, its been a 2 link-maximum for like ever…. regardless of source

                  Women Who Look Like Chipmunks

                  1. yeah, i guess the cap is gone.

                    1. I just tried three unencrypted links. Failed. The squirrels only count http links, not https links.

          3. That is the first time I have viewed the Men at Work video. The choreography from 1:35-2:00 rivals anything OK GO has ever done.

            1. the stuffed koala bouncing along the ground is better than anything OK GO has ever done

      2. You are the dumpster diver king of Derp…..(doffs top hat).

        1. 1865 beaver fur top hat…..

  18. Amanda Marcotte on Kim Davis:

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-pa…..adicalized

    “No doubt Davis is a comical figure whose self-righteousness is only equaled by her ignorance…”

    projection, projection, projection

    1. Marcotte? Is she that feminist blogger who’s only claim to fame comes from tweeting self-righteous and ignorant tweets?

      1. She got sorta famous for dogpiling on the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape. She didn’t actually get famous until Michelle Malkin made fun of her:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcNbv-7sNLw

        1. Malkin, who is a beautiful woman (especially as she channels Poetic Justice era Janet Jackson in that video), is also batshit. A good example of that is when she took down Rachel Ray for sporting an Arafat scarf in a Dunkin Donuts commerical.

          1. “Malkin, who is a beautiful….”

            Chipmunk?

            1. I think she is a very pretty lady.

              1. plus all the nuts you can eat

  19. Kim Davis deserves to be ridiculed. Fired, even.

    And her beautiful body deserves to be gently caressed with warm lemongrass and coconut massage oil until her taut muscles are relaxed and pliable, so that some lucky man can deliver to her the pleasure she so rightly deserves.

    1. You’ve given this a lot of thought. May I suggest some music?

      https://youtu.be/S6kxau0ePlg?t=22s

    2. What would we do without you Crusty? I don’t dare even think about it.

      1. And I still don’t want to.

    3. I bet you’d even go in the back too, just like Jesus wants.

      1. This is a visual approximation of her behind.

    4. Crusty, you’re certainly not the first fella with erotic plans for ol’ Kim. Play your cards right, you may even end up being husband #44.

  20. Kim Davis’ Bette Carnes’ eyes.

  21. re: US Open final

    There was a time when I hated Federer because he won everything and his name sounded like, “DID I STUTTER MOTHERFUCKER??”…

    …but now I want him to win, because he’s the “old” guy (at 34?) and the “i aint no” Djokovik’s game seems all about feet and not enough shots

    (goes back to game)

    1. I want Djoker to win because he’s simply a better player and works harder on every shot. Fed also seems to get every break on net points and his wife needs to lose some weight.

      1. “His wife”

        Oh, yeah. it crossed my mind. the networks are always cross cutting to the “hot wives” of the players. And i was like, “Hey now…. wasn’t she…. not as big…..before…..”

        I see your point, re: “hard work”. As a basketball fan i tended to love players who ran the floor on D and dove for loose balls even if they didn’t have the Scottie Pippen skills.

        Tennis, i kind of admire the “i can beat you with my diverse arsenal of shots”-game more. Its more entertaining at least.

        1. Well that was one hell of a game Fed won to win the set. Both players just ripping shots.

          This is what tennis is supposed to be like. Huge serves that are actually returned and lead to technical rallies. You just don’t see this except on clay. On hardcourts the games are too short unless you have two grinders like these guys.

          And she looks like she must have a thyroid issue. That face looks very “moon-ish”.

          1. i was lucky enough to have dated a girl for 5 years who’s parents had box seats at the open (read: Money). We went every year.

            My joke was, “”i went to the concession stand to get a coke, and all they had was Yacht Insurance.””

            Got to see the Sampras / Agassi final in 2002 which was nice.

          2. As to basketball (mentioned above):
            [pours beer on curb for Moses Malone]

            1. hope i get a break here

              1. well shit.

                1. I think he’s toast now. No gas.

                  1. Djoker holds here and it’s over.

                    1. yeah, its closing in.

                    2. Maybe not…

                    3. OMG ITS NOT OVER

                    4. Did you see his wife’s fat belly pop out after that point? It was not pretty.

                      Aaaaaaaand it’s over.

                    5. Well maybe it is.

  22. Keep beating this dead horse, reason. And keep losing readers.

    Jesus, you’d think they couldn’t find any libertarians to intern and are trolling the j-schools at progressive indoctrination centers.

    Memo to Matt and Nick: WE FUCKING GET IT! Reason is socially liberal bordering on progressive. Now could you please focus on more important shit than this county clerk in Kentucky and Donald fucking Trump?

    1. ^THIS

    2. Like Bernie’s dream eyes

      / cosmoturd journo

    3. ‘Tis indeed getting tiresome.

  23. This debate had at least one good result: Reason has changed its tune on the North Carolina law which allows magistrates and registrars of deeds to be exempt from issuing marriage licenses.

    When the law passed, Shackford was “concerned” about that law and “unsympathetic” to officials whose consciences were (in Shackford’s view) wrongly formed on this issue.

    http://ow.ly/S9QbF

    But now, according to this video, North Carolina is the voice of sweet reason by allowing “conscientious objectors” to be excused from marriage duty and replaced by other government officials who are willing to step into the breach.

    So they’ve gone from denouncing North Carolina for its hateful antigay law to saying “why can’t Kentucky be reasonable like North Carolina and adapt to the new gay marriage situation?”

    1. I heard Volokh on the radio the other day and he said Davis has pretty sound legal footing here. And said it would not be unreasonable to accommodate her as the law in Kentucky (RFRA) allows for for elected officials.*

      But people want their pound of flesh…even the ones claiming to be libertarian on the issue that are telling her she should “just follow orders”.

      *Their state law mirrors the federal RFRA law almost to the letter.

      1. Especially since Davis says she’d be fine with some other official (even her own deputy clerks) issuing licenses on their own authority, so long as her name is not on the license.

        But Biff and Joe are *so looking forward* to having the name of a “homophobic” politician on their marriage license! They would be so disappointed if they didn’t get their wish.

        Oh, and that Kentucky statute which supposedly authorizes and requires Davis to issue marriage licenses?

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

        http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes…..x?id=36473

        So, considering only adult (18+) women, the statute doesn’t allow a clerk to issue a license unless the would-be bride has signed the application. This discriminates against the would-be groom of a straight couple, who doesn’t have an equivalent right to sign the application.

        And of course if you’re two men, you’re SOL, because neither of you is a “female” or a “her.”

        So why not just declare the whole statute unconstitutional. And if no-one is authorized to issue marriage licenses, then people should be able to solemnize their marriages (gasp!) without a license.

        1. I noticed that “county of the female” thing when I got mine last year.

        2. Because it’s the Cosmotarian position that love only counts when it’s sanctioned by the government.

      2. How TERRIBLE of Reason to demand a government whose officials don’t use their positions of authority to impose their views on people! The horror! KOZMOZ

        1. Yet it’s perfectly fine to bomb brown people to smithereens because their zip code is in Abbotobad and they attended a wedding.

          You’re more inconsistent than Harvey Dent.

          1. Please don’t get talking points from AQ media spokescritters. Thank you.

  24. And, just as a thought experiment: What about those sheriffs in New York state who refuse to enforce the gun-control laws.

    Suppose the courts decide these laws are compatible with the Second Amendment – does it then become job of these sheriffs, under “the law of the land,” to enforce the gun-control laws?

    1. Why aren’t Police in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah out arresting people for sodomy? It’s their job to enforce laws on the books, isn’t it?

      Where do reason writers stand on that issue? Are they consistent defenders of the law of the land or are they hypocrites?

      1. I think the gun-control analogy is best because the Supreme Court already declared a right to sodomy.

        Or if the courts say no-knock raids to serve warrants are A-OK…

        SMASH…bang bang bang [dog whimpering] “GET ON THE F___ING FLOOR! (sorry for the inconvenience…the law of the land, you know).”

        1. In this case, the law of the land, that gay people have the right to get married, is a GOOD LAW.

          I’m sorry you have your panties in a twist about it, but i’m not going to apologize for being consistent in the defense of liberty.

          And, like many other people here, I’m getting really sick of your closeted homophobic bullshit.

        2. In this case, the law of the land, that gay people have the right to get married, is a GOOD LAW.

          I’m sorry you have your panties in a twist about it, but i’m not going to apologize for being consistent in the defense of liberty.

          And, like many other people here, I’m getting really sick of your closeted homophobic bullshit.

          1. I suppose “homophobe” is the new “racist” = “someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.”

            1. What, you don’t think racists exist?

              1. Sure, the person screaming “racist” is often a racist him/herself. Just like people who scream “homophobe!” are often homophobic themselves.

                I know a guy who loves screaming “racist,” but he loves the idea of rioters standing up for Social Justice by burning black-owned businesses to the ground.

                And we just had a guy screaming “homophobe” while trying to insult me by calling me gay.

                1. Check out the people who love to talk about how racist everyone is.

                  They often follow up by saying that discriminating against convicted criminals is the same as discriminating against blacks.

                  “So,” you can ask, “when you think of convicted criminals you think of black people?”

                  “No,” he will reply, “I mean that you’re all racists blah blah.”

                  Or some fellow says that gay people all ought to vote a certain way.

                  Ask, “well, should all *straight* people vote a certain way?”

                  They will go on about “no, it’s TOTALLY DIFFERENT and how dare you insinuate I’m using bigoted double standards!”

            2. And I’m sorry you think there’s something wrong with being gay. I don’t think this, so I don’t regard it as an insult.

              If I were gay, my arguments against state-sanctioned SSM would have more credibility, not less.

              1. Who the hell was talking about Gay? I asked if you think every accusation of racism is false, and apparently you said yes.

                You haven’t provided any coherent retort to the point that there’s no hypocrisy in the position of Reason in defending liberty here.

                Refusing same sex marriage – regardless of whether you think the state *should* be in the business of marriage* – is a violation of equal treatment under the law.

                Either you think people should have equal freedoms in the given situation, or you don’t. Handwaving about how people call you names isn’t a retort.

                1. I clarified that there *are* racists, and they tend to be the people projecting their racism onto everyone else. Thus I answered your question.

                  1. So you totally think homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law, and everyone else is just a secret queer hater?

                    1. Hmmm…I’m not sure I follow.

                      I certainly know I’ve seen a *lot* of hate from the side which professes to be concerned only about love.

                      Phoning in death threats, driving small businesses out of business, gleefully locking officials in prison rather than making one or two sensible tweaks in procedure to let the marriage licenses get issued without fuss or drama…

                      I think Madonna’s brother was quite right – the gay activists and their allies are truly sore winners. The more vocal among the activists are just as much filled with purple-faced rage now that they’ve gotten pretty much all they want, as they would have been back in the Stonewall era.

                    2. You’re doing a great Barry Sanders impersonation dodging the actual question.

                    3. Do you think Homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law? yes or no

                    4. Yes if it means all the rights of persons and citizens under the constitution (including the right to life, even in the womb).

                      Yes if it means the right of gay adults to live together and have voluntary sex in private (if there’s no risk of disease), or to walk in public holding hands without being assaulted, or to bear arms in defense against the would-be assaulters, or to celebrate their union in any religious or non-religious private ceremony, or to will property to each other, or to share property in whatever manner they choose.

                      But no if it means redefining the concept of marriage into absolute incoherence. Saying “same-sex marriage” is like saying “seven light-years of potatoes.”

                    5. so you’re ducking the issue of the specific law people are demanding equality under… and instead saying, “Until i recieve my libertarian nirvana, we should continue to discriminate against gays”

                      Redefining the concept of marriage? really?

                      I fail to see how the lives of straight-married people is affected by the mere existence of gay-married people. Its not absolute incoherence at all. Its still a 1-1 union with the same exact conditions.

                      At least you’re inadvertently admitting your personal problem is with gays specifically, and not some bullshit legal/libertarian claim you seemed to pretend to.

                    6. I’ve said I’m not libertarian (I can’t imagine why I’d have any problem with libertarians!)

                      Far from seeking a “libertarian nirvana,” I would be highly skeptical of it, at least the version I’ve heard defended here. I would be content with having the USA abide by the Constitution, minimize foreign involvements, keep the government out of gay bedrooms and Christian baker shops, reap the benefits of free enterprise, and have a basic safety net to keep people from starvation if they can’t do it themselves.

                      But if you want to call me a bigot against same-sex couples, or brother/sister couples, or polygamous communes, etc., because I don’t want the government recognizing them, then call me what you please.

                    7. “I’ve said I’m not libertarian “

                      Who cares?

                      I’m not religious, and i’ll still defend the rights of religious people* to live their lives as they see fit – insofar as they don’t impose their views on others.

                      (*even tho morons like Sevo will screech “Bleever” and think its cute)

                      I’m not sure “i’m not a libertarian” is any excuse for “i believe certain groups should be deprived of the ability to live their lives the way I can”

                      I don’t “want” to call you a bigot, and i don’t even need to. It wont change the nature of ‘why’ you hold your views whether i call you names or not.

                    8. “i believe certain groups should be deprived of the ability to live their lives the way I can”

                      Like I said, if I’m restricting the rights of brother/sister couples, polygamous communes, or gay couples to live the way they can simply because I don’t want the government recognizing their marriages, then it’s a free country, you can say it.

                      Seriously, you’re putting it forward as self-evident that the government should recognize same-sex couples because equality.

                      Of course, your putative allies will put it forward as self-evident that the government should tell business which customers to serve and which employees to hire, because equality.

                      They’ll use the same question-begging rhetoric.

                      They won’t accept your nuanced explanation that you actually believe that freedom of enterprise and freedom of association are more important than “gay rights.”

                      Because if you think *anything* is more important than gay rights, you are by definition a bigot, according to the emerging consensus.

                      “I’m not religious, and i’ll still defend the rights of religious people* to live their lives as they see fit – insofar as they don’t impose their views on others.”

                      Then you’ve differentiated yourself again from the “gay rights” movement, which wants to override the 1st Amendment. So once again, from the perspective of the “gay rights” people, you’re just as bad as I am.

                      Do you think they’re going to make subtle distinctions? When was subtlety their defining characteristic?

                    9. “Because if you think *anything* is more important than gay rights, you are by definition a bigot’

                      No. If you think gays need to be prevented from receiving equal recognition under the law, you’re a bigot.

                      Just because “gay advocates” do things you don’t like isn’t an excuse preventing people from access to the same civil institutions you enjoy.

                      You seem to think you can throw 3 ideas at the wall, knowing none stick, but that people will still have to rebut all three.

                      Gays getting married doesn’t “Redefine” marriage.Opposing gay access to the same privileges under the law is bigotry.

                      Sure there’s other stuff that you might want to talk about, but it doesn’t change those points.

          2. I do hereby appoint Reason Commenter Hazel Mead to the post of Determinator of the Goodness of Laws, to serve in said position for life and enjoy in perpetuity all the perquisites, hereditaments and usufructs thereunto appertaining.

            (ornate official waxen seal)

            Homple,

            Lord High Dephlogisticator

          3. In this case, the law of the land, that gay people have the right to get married, is a GOOD LAW.

            Of course! Is it not obvious? We only support the full, equal, constitutional application of GOOD LAWS*

            *as determined by HazelMeade on a case-by-case basis

            Eeeekwal pertekshun!!!!

      2. They’re being consistent about liberty. There’s nothing hypocritical about saying the cops shouldn’t enforce laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity between adults, but should enforce laws that protecting the rights of all people to equal treatment under the law.

        Ideally sodomy laws wouldn’t be on the books at all, obviously. But if we have to choose, I would rather the police didn’t enforce them.

        1. OK, fair enough, but as I understand it your position is independent of what the Supreme Court says.

          In contrast, the loudest meme about Davis is “OMG the Supreme Court said one thing and Davis did another thing – the Supreme Court’s decisions are the Law of the Land and she’s not doing her job!”

          1. She took an oath of office which includes upholding the constitution. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution.

            When you are an elected official you don’t get to decide to substitute your personal opinion for the rulings of the Supreme Court. Otherwise Joe Arpaio could just decide that the cops under his command don’t need probable cause to search people’s homes.

            Not only is enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court something that she took an oath to do, but from a purely libertarian moral standpoint, by not doing so she is actively enforcing an unjust law against gay marriage. She’s actively interefering with the rights of gay people, and as such she is violating the NAP.

            1. Plenty of people think like you do.

              Of course, Abraham Lincoln and the Wisconsin Supreme Court thought differently. Lincoln thought Dred Scott was *not* the law of the land, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court tried to resist the Fugitive Slave Act even after the U.S. Supreme Court said not to resist it.

              I happen to believe that Dred Scott was never the law, and that it was noble, not lawless, to resist the Fugitive Slave Act.

              1. Dred Scott involved forcibly violating the right to liberty of people held in slavery.
                Kim Davis is forcibly violating the right to equal justice of gays.

                Do you not understand that the consistent position here is “Which one violates liberty less?”

                1. I fully understand your position re liberty.

                  I’m challenging your view that the Supreme Court’s decisions are equivalent to the constitution, and anyone pledged to upholding the constitution must follow the Supreme Court’s decrees.

                  I showed that your views about the Supreme Court lead to anti-liberty results.
                  Would you like to reconsider your position?

                  1. They do not lead to anti-liberty results. Kim Davis enforcing her personal opinion in place of the ruling of the Supreme Court leads to anti-liberty results.

                    Kim Davis has the power of the state at her disposal. She is using it. And she is using it to violate the rights of gay people.

                    1. Yes, I get that part of your argument.

                      You also argued the following: “When you are an elected official you don’t get to decide to substitute your personal opinion for the rulings of the Supreme Court.”

                      I showed that the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, all elected officials, subsitited their “personal opinion[s]” for a ruling of the US Supreme Court.

                      So did the members of Congress when they voted to ban slavery in the territories when Dred Scott said Congress couldn’t do this.

                      And the members of the Senate voted to seat Hiram Revels, a black man, in 1870, even though Dred Scott was not formally overruled by constitutional amendment until 1868, meaning that if Dred Scott was right, Revels had not been a citizen for nine years and was hence not qualified to serve in the Senate.

                2. Hazel a lot of people aren’t making the argument that it’s a good law (a libertarian law), they’re are making the argument that it’s her job to follow the law regardless of what the law is, which is a retarded argument for a libertarian to make.

                  1. Fair enough, but as an corollary to the fact that it’s a good law, there really would be utter chaos if local officials didn’t have to follow Supreme Court rulings.

                    I guarentee you that giving pretty local bureaucrats discretionary power to interpret the constitution however they like is going to produce much less libertarian results than the Supreme Court.

                    1. “there really would be utter chaos if local officials didn’t have to follow Supreme Court rulings.”

                      That’s happened a lot more in U.S. history than one might think. Sometimes the Supreme Court was on the side of liberty and the “local officials” were on the side of tyranny (eg, school segregation), and sometimes it was vice versa (eg, Fugitive Slave Act).

                      And once we realize that arbitrary government is a form of chaos, then we need to balance out the risk of chaos from the uniform and unquestioned obedience of Supreme Court decisions, including very bad ones, versus the risk of chaos from Supreme Court decisions – both good and bad – sometimes meeting resistance.

                      I really think it depends on the case, and to bind oneself in advance to accepting any Supreme Court decision whatsoever as the law of the land isn’t really going to promote liberty.

                    2. So, in this case, the Supreme Court is on the side of liberty, and the local office is on the side of tyranny. And you’re on the side of the local office.

                    3. What you call “the side of Liberty” some might call “the side of expanding the haves while continuing to fuck over other arrangements of consenting adults”.

                    4. It’s “tyranny”* to require anyone (gay or straight) seeking a marriage license to go one county over? Hyperbole much?

                      (* Yes it is “unconstitutional” )

                    5. I’d prefer more chaos to an army of bureaucrats goosestepping to the beat of nine lawyers in black robes.

                      A little rebellion from time to time is a good thing.

                    6. This….

                    7. Many of our founding fathers believed that states have the power to deem laws as unconstitutional via Nullification.

                    8. there really would be utter chaos

                      Hail Eris!

                      Oh wait…you think that would be a bad thing?

                    9. But surely in the future the Supreme Court (and courts in general) are going to more likely to produce ever more _non-libertarian_ outcomes, no?

                      One can easily see the Court having producing ever more “Positive Liberty” rulings.

                      The Court follows the elections outcomes, to the victors the spoils and undoubtedly the social justice warriors will win everything. How can they not?

                    10. Yep, it depends whose ox is getting gored. The flavor of the month is gay marriage (they should have the same contract rights as everyone), but the proponents want to use it as a cudgel to make people violate their conscience. That is a violatiohis n of the NAP sure as the day is long.

                      Hazel seems to think this issue rises above the fray…. i don’t.

                    11. One can easily see the Court having producing ever more “Positive Liberty” rulings.

                      Hazel has absolutely no problem with that. 1) She doesn’t even comprehend the difference between positive and negative rights (I had to link her to an article on the subject weeks ago in a similar discussion thread, and she still didn’t get it) 2) She’s 100% in favor of positive rights as long as the beneficiaries are people she likes (see her comment above, re: GOOD LAWS!).

                  2. “they’re are making the argument that it’s her job to follow the law regardless of what the law is, which is a retarded argument for a libertarian to make’

                    Absolutely. That was my first reaction.

                    1. It’s not just that it’s “the law”. It’s that it’s a legal ruling interpreting the constitution, including such basic libertarian principles as “equal justice under law”.

                      There’s a difference between refusing to obey a law that hasn’t been validated by the Court, and one that has. You can always go to court, seek injunctive relief, and appeal as high as possible.

                      In this case, Kim Davis already did that, and she lost. The Supreme Court is the final stop on that bus. There aren’t many libertarians out there arguing that local officials should have personal discretionary power to interpret the constitution above the Supreme Court.

                  3. Banjos|9.13.15 @ 10:14PM|#
                    “Hazel a lot of people aren’t making the argument that it’s a good law (a libertarian law), they’re are making the argument that it’s her job to follow the law regardless of what the law is, which is a retarded argument for a libertarian to make.”

                    In which case, you need to address those who are making that claim.

                3. Kim Davis is forcibly violating the right to equal justice of gays.

                  Not really. She’s just refusing to give them special rights married hetero couples enjoy that other arrangements of consenting parties are still kept from enjoying.

                  Which is why I’m so fucking tired of so-called libertarians calling for her head on a pike instead of rallying for more just recognition of any arrangement of consenting adults or abolition of special rights depending on marital status altogether.

                  1. She’s just refusing to give them special rights married hetero couples enjoy that other arrangements of consenting parties are still kept from enjoying.

                    In other words, she’s violating the rights to equal justice of gays.

                    Not giving some people the same legal rights as others = violating equal justice.

                    1. So you’re saying all animals (people) are equal. Some (gay or straight couples only) are more equal than others (as pertains to survivorship rights, probate, insurance requirements, adoption rights, etc.).

                      That just doesn’t sound libertarian to me, sorry.

                    2. who are these theoretical “others” that you feel are so aggrieved… yet aren’t out there in the streets demanding recognition themselves?

                    3. Polyamorous arrangements have people trying to get rights recognized all the time. Instead they get the cops and CPS coming to their houses trying to lock them up and destroy their families.

                      People have been begging for non-married couples to be given spousal “benefits” for quite some time only to be told they have to pay the state for the right to be recognized as a legal couple.

                      They’re there. Their stories just weren’t as important as gay couples getting their piece of the pie that only married hetero couples enjoyed…and fuck everybody else because it was never about Liberty as much as it was enlarging the group that gets free shit.

                    4. So, until the Polygamists get full, equal recognition, no one else should?

                      re: the disparity of ‘benefits’ for married vs. unmarried is a separate issue entirely. That’s not a question of ‘equal recognition’, but rather a demand to end any difference between marriage and unmarried entirely.

                      I think its a horseshit argument, personally. When these groups are out in the street in force demanding recognition themselves, i’ll support them. When people like you cite them…. well it just sounds like a convenient tool to defend denying equal treatment to gay people.

                    5. I said I was going to bed but I’ll reply here: I’m a supporter of gay relationships the same as I am of hetero relationships. I support government recognizing any and all contracts entered into by consenting adults. But I cannot support laws that still discriminate on the basis of whether a union of consenting adults pays the state for a license or meets an arbitrary number of people (2) for it to be recognized as legal.

                      I don’t think it’s right that I get special rights others can’t enjoy. Just because I only have one wife or because we paid the state for the right to have them recognize our union.

                    6. “But I cannot support laws that still discriminate”

                      I don’t see the logic of continuing discrimination against gays while one fights for similar recognition of “others”.

                      NO CHANGE UNTIL PERFECT CHANGE!!! seems the mantra of some.

                    7. Seeing as nearly everybody that supported gay marriage has gone completely silent on continuing to expand Liberty, I think it’s safe to assume they didn’t give a flying fuck about expanding Liberty beyond their own group.

                      Therefore I have a hard time respecting them.

                    8. re: the disparity of ‘benefits’ for married vs. unmarried is a separate issue entirely. That’s not a question of ‘equal recognition’, but rather a demand to end any difference between marriage and unmarried entirely.

                      Lol. Yes, what would identically situated people being treated differently by the law have to do with “equal recognition’?

                      When these groups are out in the street in force demanding recognition themselves, i’ll support them.

                      “As soon as they get popular enough for it to reflect well on me, I will support their rights”. Mighty white of ya.

                    9. Kim Davis wasn’t issuing marriage licenses to opposite sex couples either.

            2. Would you feel the same way if she refused to send Japanese-Americans to concentration camps since the court ruled it constitutional?

              Because I’d be willing to bet FDR’s DOJ threw people in prison for doing so.

              1. Did the Supreme Court rule that the internment camps were legal?

                On average, I suspect that SCOTUS rulings are way more libertarian than whatever crap emerges from the legislative and executive branches. If you want to pick a branch of government that has ultimate authority, I’d pick the Supreme Court over local county clerks any day.

                1. They sure did.

                  Korematsu vs United States

                2. The Supreme Court technically only ruled that it was legal to expel Japanese Americans from their homes on the West Coast – they reserved judgment on whether locking them up in camps was constitutional.

                  So the analogy can be to a federal official ordered to arrest a Japanese American for living in the forbidden (to them) zone on the west coast.

                  1. That’s factually inaccurate.

                    Also Hirabayashi the year before all but forbade Japanese Americans from freely traveling. It was also upheld by the SC. So who would support throwing an elected local official in jail that chose not to throw every Japanese American in a concentration camp and establish curfews on them?

                    1. I believe Hirabayashi was the curfew case.

                      Korematsu was a Japanese American living in an area where Japanese Americans were forbidden to life. He was convicted of that, and the Supreme Court dodged the question of whether he could have constitutionally been put in a camp.

                      http://ow.ly/S9V9i

                    2. They said he was forbidden to leave the camp he was sentenced to live at.

                    3. The Supreme Court punted on that issue.

                      p. 221 – “We are thus being asked to pass at this time upon the whole subsequent detention program in both assembly and relocation centers, although the only issues framed at the trial related to petitioner’s remaining in the prohibited area in violation of the exclusion order. Had petitioner here left the prohibited area and gone to an assembly center, we cannot say, either as a matter of fact or law, that his presence in that center would have resulted in his detention in a relocation center.”

                    4. You know if she was just refusing to *enforce* a law, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the reality is that the way the law works, her actions effectively entail the use of force against gays. People can’t get married without government permission. She’s empowered to give permission, and she’s refusing to give it. She’s thus enforcing law upon people. And not only that but a law that’s been ruled unconstitutional.

                      This isn’t really analagous to refusing to imprison someone because of their ethnicity. This is not a case of someone refusing to impose force upon someone in a way that violates their rights. It’s a case of someone imposing force upon someone. Refusing to grant a license is a use of force. Kim Davis isn’t just some private citizen, she has legal power that she is actively wielding by not granting licenses.

                    5. I don’t see how that statute which authorizes her to issue marriage licenses can possibly be constitutional under the gay-marriage decision. You have to be the female of a couple to apply for a marriage license. At the very least this denies the “constitutional rights” of gay men. Not to mention grooms in straight couples, who aren’t allowed to apply instead of the bride.

                      So they could just strike down that statute, and since no other statute authorizes marriage licenses, then people should be allowed to marry without licenses. No need for prison at all.

                    6. Okay Eddie we’ll get right on that. In the meantime, bitch needs to do her job.

                    7. This. All of you need to shut your traps and stop making false equivalences. Davis is violating the rights of gays to equal treatment by the government, full stop.

                    8. The ‘This’ was for HM which Eddie of course screwed up.

                    9. People can’t get married without government permission.

                      Bullshit.

                    10. Fine. People can’t get legal recognition and equal treatment under the law without government permission.

                      I know you think you are being clever with this ‘they could get married without government’ crap but it’s really tiresome and stupid. Further, it implies we are stupid enough to go along with this argument.

                    11. Truth hurts?

                      The current law denies equal protection. The only way to get that is to end licensing. Full stop. Anything else is a waste of time.

                    12. robc|9.13.15 @ 10:56PM|#
                      ‘Truth hurts?’
                      Dunno, does it?

                      “The current law denies equal protection. The only way to get that is to end licensing. Full stop. Anything else is a waste of time.”
                      All or nothing? Bullshit.

                    13. Refusing to grant a license is a use of force.

                      Lol. Did you at least buy the English language dinner before you did that to it?

                3. Your fantasy, I’ll stay out of it……

            3. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution.

              Actually they are not, never were. Rather, they arrogated that role unto themselves.
              There is no reason, beyond tradition, to respect their claim.

              1. Which, of course, is totally irrelevant.

            4. She took an oath of office which includes upholding the constitution.

              Indeed. And perhaps she is upholding the constitution, as she understands it.

              Supreme Court decisions are not the Constitution, you know. Although I realize this will come as a shock to many.

          2. “In contrast, the loudest meme about Davis is “OMG the Supreme Court said one thing and Davis did another thing – the Supreme Court’s decisions are the Law of the Land and she’s not doing her job!””

            Cite missing; I’m guessing that’s the strawman you hope you’d find.
            AFAICT, the gripe concerns her using an official position to impose her bleefs on other people, and in fact, she makes no attempt to hide it.
            A-1 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
            And as a papist, you ought to be thankful for that; the Calvinists woulda tossed your ass back in the ocean without it.

            1. “Cite missing; I’m guessing that’s the strawman you hope you’d find.”

              Here’s a cite from the discussion above:

              “When you are an elected official you don’t get to decide to substitute your personal opinion for the rulings of the Supreme Court.”

              And it’s not the Calvinists trying to make the Little Sisters of the Poor cover contraception for their employees.

              1. Eddie, you can pull that shit on someone as stupid as you, but don’t bother trying it on me, asshole.
                Here’s your claim:
                “In contrast, the loudest meme about Davis is “OMG the Supreme Court said one thing and Davis did another thing…”
                And when called on your bullshit, you cite one (1) [ONE] example, ignoring every over one.
                Now, I have a question:
                Are you really that fucking stupid?
                Do you hope others will somehow miss your sleight of hand?
                I’m guessing the first. And STFU.

                1. “Candidates choose lawbreaker Kim Davis over law of the land”

                  http://www.kansascity.com/opin…..93839.html

                  “LAW OF THE LAND

                  “WHY KIM DAVIS VIOLATED THE RULE OF LAW

                  “Andrew Napolitano: County clerk is ‘violating her oath to uphold the Constitution’

                  http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/why…..wMTAZlR.99

                  1. “Donald Trump has split again from some of his Republican opponents ? claiming that Kentucky clerk Kim Davis “violated the law of the land”.”

                    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015…..-weddings/

                    “Davis has a choice: Give gay couples the licenses they are constitutionally entitled to ? as certified by the U.S. Supreme Court ? or resign as county clerk.”

                    http://www.nydailynews.com/opi…..-1.2348130

                    1. “Davis has a right to observe and adhere to her religious beliefs, but she does not have a right to her job as county clerk. The latter obligates her to follow federal law, including the applicable judgments of federal courts, and it is now the law of the land that the Constitution bars state governments from refusing to recognize same-sex marriages on equal terms with opposite-sex marriages.”

                      http://ow.ly/Sa0Oe

                      “‘In Rowan, Kentucky Kim Davis was elected to serve in public office and uphold the laws of the land. On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the United States would now recognize the marriages of same-sex couples nationwide. Elected official Kim Davis decided however that this law doesn’t apply to her and because she is the head of her office in Rowan County, she has elected to turn it into a theocratic fiefdom. Now that she is skirting the law put forth by the Supreme Court, the religious Right is hailing her as their new civil rights hero.”

                      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb…..ne-n424511

                    2. “”Marriage equality is the law of the land,” [Hillary] Clinton tweeted. “Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law ? end of story.””

                      http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-kim-davis

                      “It’s ridiculous,” said David Vladeck, a professor of law at Georgetown. “The Supreme Court says the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue licenses .? That is the law of the land. We have something in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause,” which states that the Constitution is the ultimate authority in the U.S.”

                      http://crooksandliars.com/2015…..-following

                    3. Jeb Bush: “”[Davis] is sworn to uphold the law and it seems to me there ought to be common ground, there ought to be big enough space for her to act on her conscience and for, now that the law is the law of the land, for a gay couple to be married in whatever jurisdiction that is.””

                      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..erk_s.html

                      “Whether Kim Davis likes it or not, same-sex marriage is the law of the land.”

                      http://www.theamericanconserva…..-marriage/

                    4. “Like it or not, same-sex marriage is the law of the land. And unlike the family-owned Hobby Lobby arts and crafts store, Davis, an elected official, works for the state of Kentucky and is required to uphold the law.”

                      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../71707500/

                    5. Yeah, eddie, now show that the arguments are:
                      “In contrast, the loudest meme about Davis is “OMG the Supreme Court said one thing and Davis did another thing…”
                      Cherry-picking from the web only shows that you’re [not real bright].

                    6. OK, I admit it, the Supreme Court and Kim Davis said the same thing, they don’t contradict each other at all.

                      Wait, they *do* contradict each other!

                      Anyway, too bad you had so little faith in your own position that you thought you could get away with truncating my quote.

                      So let me give the full quote, and let the reader judge whether I have correctly summarized a common meme:

                      “OMG the Supreme Court said one thing and Davis did another thing – the Supreme Court’s decisions are the Law of the Land and she’s not doing her job!””

                      Good night, go ahead and take the last word.

                    7. Notorious UGCC|9.14.15 @ 12:17AM|#
                      “OK, I admit it, the Supreme Court and Kim Davis said the same thing, they don’t contradict each other at all.”

                      At one time, I presumed you were intelligent enough to understand an argument. Since then (and here in particular) you have proven me wrong; you seem to have an IQ approximating your shoe size, or a well-practiced ability to avoid facts when your superstition is in question.
                      Now, here’s your claim:
                      “In contrast, the loudest meme about Davis is “OMG the Supreme Court said one thing and Davis did another thing…”
                      I ask you for cites and you first link to (1) comment here. When again called on your bullshit, you dig up, oh, six or so cites from across the entire web.
                      When once again called on your bullshit, you offer the above pile of shit. And then whine that you’re ‘tired’ and going to bed.
                      Convenient? I’d guess so.

                    8. What standard of evidence would satisfy your question there, Sevo? He cites an example, you cry “BULLSHIT!”, rinse and repeat. And you somehow think you’re one modicum more intelligent for just screaming “BULLSHIT” like a trained chimp when provided with the citations you demanded.

    2. “Suppose the courts decide these laws are compatible with the Second Amendment ”

      Then those courts are wrong. Period.

    3. And, just as a thought experiment: What about those sheriffs in New York state who refuse to enforce the gun-control laws.

      Why stop there?

      How ’bout some local judge in dogfuck patch appalachia issues a fatwa against Obama ordering him to enforce one of the multitude of laws that he’s ignoring, under threat of imprisonment for contempt of court.

      That’d totally fly, right?

      1. How could Obama dare set himself above the decision of a court?

      2. Zaytsev|9.13.15 @ 11:03PM|#
        “Why stop there?”

        What a fucking ignoramus.
        Read A-1 and STFU.

    1. So they want an arbitrator to decide which bunch is less competent…it’s worth a laugh or three.

    1. How can you post three links? Somebody did a while ago, but it always stops me at two.

      1. I’m lucky if they let me post one

        1. I’m lucky if they let me post one

          But you always get double-posted! That’s cool, right?

  25. Labour has just elected the most extreme left wing leader in its history; the shadow cabinet is shockingly radical.

    The Tories may currently feel relieved to have such an extreme adversary but they have the potential to split over Europe and of course economic events could conspire to put Corbyn in Downing Street.

    Canada is about to elect a socialist government that could for decades shift their political center of gravity to the left.

    The Democrats are currently being led (in the state polls that matter) by an elderly socialist.

    The Republicans by a candidate that could as easily espouse socialism as any other nonsense that pops in his head.

    I know that libertarians do not put much credence in the political process and certainly party politics

    but how is this a ‘libertarian moment” (in the English speaking world at least)

    1. “Canada is about to elect a socialist government ”

      Eh the polls are pretty tight; I wouldn’t be surprised if Harper manages a minority. Further, Mulcair is the least crazy NDP leader ever. He’s like the opposite of Corbyn.

      1. It is unfortunate that the Liberals didn’t choose a more substantial leader (the Tories _are_ a tired government)

        Mulcair is the least crazy NDP leader ever as a former liberal, I’d hope he’d be somewhat sane.

        But what of his cabinet?

        And even if his ministry was a “Blairite (minus the foreign policy) ” as the driven snow, it just the idea of the apparent mainstreaming of socialism in the Anglophone world, that is unexpected.

        1. I don’t have the link handy, but Mulcair was downright Thatherite when he was a Liberal. KOCHTOPUS SLEEPER AGENT!??!

          If the Liberals had chosen even a boring center-statist or better yet a center-right decaf libertarian like Hall Findlay they would be wiping their asses with Harper’s eviscerated remains. It would be like Nazi Germany vs Poland. If Harper weren’t an egotistical idiot and had allowed himself to be replaced with someone half decent, it would the vice versa of that situation. We are in a contest for the lesser of lessers, but more so.

    2. I do think that libertarians (and Republicans and conservatives) all really need to up their game and deal directly with the socialist onslaught we see all around us. I thought that the fall of USSR settled the issue, but somehow the opposite has happened.

      1. No, socialism doesn’t work. Those “successes” aren’t as successful as you think they are.

      2. We’re already socialized up to our eyeballs, and it’s largely made things worse, not better. More will make things worse. Socialism has already bankrupted us. More spending will make that worse.

      3. If you really want to help the poor and the sick and the unjustly oppressed, we need more economic freedom, not less. If you have more money in your pocket, you can support whatever voluntary charity/socialist endeavor you wish. Just leave me out of it.

      1. PapayaSF|9.13.15 @ 11:45PM|#
        “I do think that libertarians (and Republicans and conservatives) all really need to up their game and deal directly with the socialist onslaught we see all around us.”

        I agree! Now, if we can get folks who find gay sex icky focused on what matters, we might be better off!
        Can we do that? Dunno; look at this thread.

        1. I really thought that the Tea Party would drag the GOP establishment in the direction of free markets, at least somewhat, but it didn’t seem to happen. And now every hip millennial thinks socialism is cool. WTF happened?

  26. Thanks Hazel, Eddie, Gilmore and others for a nice back and forth. I’m off to bed.

  27. Bleever ‘arguments’ on why that ignorant hag should get a pass:
    1) Until government is totally out of the marriage business, she gets to choose who gets what (thank you rob, for taking first place!)
    2) Some people are arguing that she should be in jail for the wrong reasons! (more names than I care to count)
    3) Supreme Court something dred scott something Jap internment something (ditto)
    4) Gays are confused (special thanks to Paul)
    5) A-1 is a ‘libertarian brain failure’ (the ignoramus zaytsev)
    6) Something people could marry something (several winners)
    There’s more, but (yes, G) it’s tiresome. And lame.
    I don’t CARE if you think there’s some skydaddy looking out for you; that’s your choice. But, given that there’s little to choose between your bleefs and those who worship the mud momma, I see little reason to grant you any respect I don’t grant them. Not much.
    Finally, for all the are waving, read A1: “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion…”
    Which is *exactly* what she was doing, in her own little duchy…

    1. The gay marriage ruling was not made on 1A grounds, nor was the appeal in the Kim Davis case. The first amendment has literally nothing to do with the legal particulars of this matter, even if you’d like it to be the case, or even if such a case could conceivably be built. You could at least do the minimal due diligence of reading the rulings that you’re so vehemently defending. Screaming “BLEEEEEEEEEEFS” and making arguments from authority based on a supreme court whose rulings you otherwise discard with impunity when you disagree with them is not one iota better than the caricatures of other arguments that you’ve pieced together above.

  28. Moved by the support they received from libertarians, gays will now turn their attention to abolishing state-sponsored marriage or, failing that, they will fight to make state-sponsored marriage inclusive for all sorts of domestic partnerships.

    I crack me up.

    1. You also win a prize for misdirection!
      Are you proud?

      1. You also win a prize for misdirection!

        I cannot accept this honor, for it was given in error. What I said was nothing more than an observation about the priorities your allies place on liberty.

        In reality, they have scarcely moved the needle on liberty. All they did was get their pony, and they are happy to close the door behind them.

        1. F. Stand By Ion Control, Jr.|9.14.15 @ 1:00AM|#
          “I cannot accept this honor, for it was given in error. What I said was nothing more than an observation about the priorities your allies place on liberty.”

          No, actually, it was an attempt to defame those who got some recognition in that they didn’t put the shoulder to the wheel to assist your desires. In your ignorance, were you hoping no one would notice?
          And ‘my allies’? Didn’t notice I had any. Plenty of xian ignoramuses as enemies.
          ————————————
          “In reality, they have scarcely moved the needle on liberty. All they did was get their pony, and they are happy to close the door behind them.”
          Yeah, well not one outside of right-wing fundies claimed it was the duty of those who got some freedom to promote more of same.

          Did you have a point, or just hoping no one would notice your lack of logic?

  29. It isn’t going to end with some county clerk in Kentucky.

  30. Look, you won. Today, anywhere in the country, if two people of the same sex want their relationship recognized, then about 95% of the public officials in the country will rush to accomodate them.

    And the other 5% would be happy to hand over the responsibility over to other officials and focus on other duties while their colleagues do the recognizing.

    Even the infamous, evil, bigamous hag/witch in Kentucky, lineal descendant of Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS* – it turns out that she would be content to fob off the same-sex marriage recognizing to other bureaucrats and leave her name off the relevant paperwork. A couple tweaks in the Kentucky statutes could have dealt with that “problem” – and meanwhile other clerks are standing ready in other counties to take up any slack until the necessary remedial laws are passed.

    Yet judging by the rabid, eye-bulging, vein-throbbing hatred and overheated rhetoric this situation triggers, you’d think that gay couples were standing in the pass at Thermopylae, watching the Persian hordes charge at them, and saying final farewells before dying a glorious death at the hands of the homophobic hosts.

    But it’s more like a truck charging down the road, pausing once or twice to take a speed-bump, and then accelerating again after losing, say, twenty seconds of driving time. Or more like seeing a dog in the road and deliberately swerving in order to run over it.

    What is wrong with people?

    *Note to Kim Davis’ lawyers – this is sarcasm.

    1. The only risk now is that the viciousness of these sore winners toward dissenters – clerks, bakers, wedding-chapel owners, etc. – will generate so many sympathetic victims as to trigger a backlash.

      And as the activists howl in indignation at people who assault their boots with their faces, suddenly they’ll turn around, see the horrified expressions on people’s faces, and say, “wait, they think *we’re* the bad guys?”

      1. Wait, Eddie, you don’t mean it’s possible that the same arguments being offered up against Davis could be applied to the mayors of sanctuary cities or states with marijuana legalization?

        Can’t happen. Reason assures me that such eventualities are unpossible.

    2. What is wrong with people?

      What’s wrong is that people are increasingly inclined to look at politics as a team blood sport. People can’t be satisfied to have their team win. They have to utterly and totally destroy the other team. Witness the rise of Donald Trump on the “right” (It’s what his supporters believe he’s promising.). To step back and acknowledge that the other Team might have an argument, but simply one with which you might disagree isn’t a sign of intellectual maturity or thoughtfulness. It’s a sign that you’re a sympathizer with the other team. And any thought about how tactics might play out beyond the immediate attack on the other team is a sign you don’t sufficiently support your team.

    3. So, what I got from this is that Kim Davis needs to show her tits, right?

  31. It’s funny that Trump is donning polyester hats that retail for 5 bucks and were most likely made in China. Politics can be amusing.

  32. Internet memes – when bumper stickers are too sophisticated an argument.

  33. Should be: “Believes it’s not butter…”

  34. First you progressive Democrats are disgusting. You talk about the war on women but you are so ready destroy anyone that doesn’t go along with your agendas.
    Second I find Kim Davis disgusting for using Religion to avoid doing her job. If she believes in God and the Bible she should try reading it. It states very clearly that judgement of people is God’s right exclusively.
    Third I don’t understand why everyone thinks that if the Supreme Court makes a law (which they did in this case) that you are under any obligation to follow it. The Supreme Court interprets law in light of Constitution. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue.
    Fourth Kim Davis swore to uphold the laws of Kentucky not the Constitution. 75% of Kentucky citizens voted against same sex marriage and that is the issue.
    The reason she was thrown in jail for contempt is because there was no law to charge her with.
    If gays want to get married let them. Hell you let pedophiles get married and have childern. Better yet take government out of the marriage business and let common law work for anyone working jointly as a couple.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.