Gay Marriage

Kim Davis Relents (Sort of), Won't Stop Marriage Licenses

But she won't issue any of her own and is taking her name off them.

|

Time to move on to the next outrage?

Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis returned to work today. Davis, a culture war household name by now, famously refused to issue any marriage licenses in the county due to her opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision forcing states to recognize same-sex couples. Furthermore, she forbid her assistant clerks from issuing licenses in her stead. Because she was an elected official, the state couldn't simply just fire her, and she ended up in jail for a few days for contempt of court. While she was in jail, her deputies agreed to start issuing licenses again.

So everybody was wondering what Davis would do once she returned to her office. Technically those deputies work for her, and she could order them to again stop handing out licenses. She has decided that she won't do that. She won't hand out licenses herself, though, and she told the media this morning that the licenses issued by her deputies would not bear her name and would instead state that they were handed out under the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning, the judge who had found her in contempt. Read more and watch her press comments here at Reuters.

She said she has doubts those licenses are actually legal. Perhaps that's something that could be fixed retroactively (if it's true) when Kentucky's legislature returns to session and addresses the situation.

Davis wants something like the law that was passed in North Carolina allowing officials to legally opt out of dealing with marriage licenses if they have religious objections. The additional problem, though, is that Davis, again, is an elected official who has to put her name on the licenses handed out within her county, so they may have to alter the licensing rules entirely if Kentucky decides it wants to accommodate her.

And as far as North Carolina's new law is working out, one county has hit a snag. North Carolina's law allows those responsible from handing out marriage licenses from opting out if they have religious objections. But those officials have to opt out of handing out all marriage licenses entirely for several months, and the county is then obligated to make sure somebody is available to do the work.

At the time, while some worried this would create unnecessary delays to couples trying to get married, I wondered if this would ultimately end up costing taxpayers. Sure enough, all the magistrates in McDowell County have recused themselves and will not perform any marriages at all. So the county has had to essentially "import" willing magistrates from nearby counties (and presumably pay them) to drive over to handle marriage licenses 10 hours per week, as the law mandates.

NEXT: Crony Capitalists and Special Interests Dragging Down U.S. Economic Growth

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. Um, no-one has ever heard of “impeachment”?

    1. Legislature isn’t in session.

      1. Patience, then. No big deal if she has to wait a month or two to lose her job and pension.

        1. The legislature is gonna be busy when the next session starts, what with actual state constitutional amendments to fix (which were over-ridden by a flawed 5-4 supreme court decision).

          I’m not saying the SC came to the wrong decision, but I think the reasoning behind it was horrid and un-libertarian.

        2. They won’t be back in until January and they won’t vote to impeach her anyway.

          1. YOU SEEM TO BE ENJOYING THIS.

            1. He likes the attention.

            2. In a way. She won’t be voted out, she won’t be impeached, she won’t be fired and donations with help her weather any fines. So you have an elected official refuses to do her job or resign so someone else can do it. Paying this parasite to sit in her office all day and shop the Mormon section of the J.C. Penney website is the perfect metaphor for government.

              1. I knew that was it. Kentucky’s political obstinancy. Entrenchment at its most brazen. You might want it exposed for the world to see, but also you admire it, I think.

        3. She’s an elected official.

      2. Governor could have called a special session. He chose not to.

  2. So some people are going to make out pretty good from this whole deal. All the sweet government benefits of marriage, and when it’s over they can just contest that the marriage license was never valid in the first place, so no alimony.

    1. But the family law system is going to be confused when there are two or no penises to smash…

    2. You can be responsible for the equivalent of alimony if you lived as a married couple, whether you were married or not.

  3. I reject your reality.

  4. Man, if only my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God Our Lord of all Creation stopping creating homos who do icky things that make me want to throw up, then all of this nonsense would be unncessary!!!!!

    1. This is His test for you, albo. And Kim Davis.

    2. It’s like you never heard of free will. Being gay is a choice.

      1. Exactly. Like being, say, a leper.

        1. Rich thinks gays and lepers are equivalent.

          I think gays and leopards are equivalent.

          1. and lepers and leopards would be equivalent, except I think lepers can and do change their spots sometimes.

            1. Lepers’ spots just fall off.

  5. How is this not good enough? Everybody who wants one gets a license, she doesn’t have to have her name on them, life can go on.

    Or are we going to carry on with shooting the wounded on culture war battlefields?

    1. Or are we going to carry on with shooting the wounded on culture war battlefields?

      That was the MO in the 1950s-60s (and, for that matter, in the 1860s-70s), why would you think it’s going to be any different this time?

      1. Shooting the wounded is a waste of bullets. We pile them into pit and then bury them.

        1. I tell the wounded to kill themselves so America can be great again.

          WINNING!!!

          1. Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!!!

            *Rebel Yell*

            1. ALL HAIL PRESIDENT KANG!!!!

              1. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    2. How do you expect them to take scalps for their collection?

    3. How is this not good enough?

      TOLERANCE IS INSUFFICIENT

    4. Or are we going to carry on with shooting the wounded on culture war battlefields?

      Have you not read your history books? For both sides this is the end game; she either gets fed to the lions or hung on a cross.

      In a couple hundred years, after the fall, we’ll have an ‘enlightened emporer’ who ushers in a new era of Christian Tolerance.

    5. She has to be punished. It was never about the marriage licenses. It was never about her.

      It was about making her an example so no one else gets in the way of “progress”.

      Kinda like the Romans and their views on crucifixion. All you need is one and the rest will fall into line.

    6. the problem is that the law requires her name to on it. (the stamp that says “from the county clerk office of” or whatever the exact wording is). that is why they are talking about if the legislature will change the law to accommodate her. the marriage licenses are being issued without the seal.

  6. She won’t hand out licenses herself, though, and she told the media this morning that the licenses issued by her deputies would not bear her name and would instead state that they were handed out under the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning, the judge who had found her in contempt. Read more and watch her press comments here at Reuters.

    She said she has doubts those licenses are actually legal. Perhaps that’s something that could be fixed retroactively (if it’s true) when Kentucky’s legislature returns to session and addresses the situation.

    Okay. To everybody. On both sides.

    Why couldn’t this have been done from Day Fucking 1?

    Seriously, this shit, more than every other Kultur War bullshit story I’ve heard in a very long while, pisses me off. Everybody involved, on both sides, is acting like a complete dick trying to fuck the other team and assert their AUTHORITAH!!

    1. What is the purpose of authority if you don’t get to wield it maliciously against others? It’s like you don’t even understand what government is.

    2. “both sides”

      I don’t buy this moral equivalence.

      One side wants to put people in prison rather than make fairly easy tweaks in the law to accomodate everyone.

      The other “side” is a clerk who wants her name off the marriage licenses, thus denying same-sex couples their right to have a “homophobic” politician’s name on their paperwork.

      One side just won a virtually complete victory and wants to spend its time kicking their opponents while they’re down.

      The other side is happy to see her adversaries enjoy the fruits of their victory, so long as she doesn’t have to collaborate in it.

      One side is kicking people while they’re down. The other side just wants to not get kicked.

      They’re both the same!

      1. Take your kicks and enjoy the feels of social justice.

        1. I’m not even sure what that means.

          If you mean that the behavior of the SSM advocates is helping mobilize their opponents, and alienating fence-sitters, then I agree.

          1. I just mean that social justice movements seem awfully retributive the moment they enjoy the slightest success. It’s almost as if their stated premises differ from what they’re really after.

            1. You’re saying it’s about unleashing vengeance upon the benighted rather than about Luuv and acceptance?

              Nah, couldn’t be!

              1. “Benighted”

                Let’s not get carried away.

                1. I should have said /sarc

      2. Who is kicking her? The only one I see bitching incessantly is you.

        1. Tell us about the bakers, Tony.

        2. Who is kicking her?

          Everyone who thinks she should be jailed and/or fired, even though an accommodation has been found that negates the need for it?

          1. The same accommodation was offered at the beginning and she refused it.

        3. The only barrier to Tony getting married now is his personality.

          1. That, and his personality.

            1. Don’t forget about his personality.

              1. That, and the fact that he lives in his car, which is a Datsun.

      3. This battle was lost 150 years ago, and then when revisited 100 years later, lost again. As far as the general culture is concerned, there is moral equivalence. People don’t believe in freedom of conscience, but they do believe in freedom from discrimination (never mind that they have a narrow and idiosyncratic definition of that term). This is what non-libertarian beliefs look like in practice.

        1. “This battle was lost 150 years ago”

          I’m not even sure what that means. I suppose you’re referring to the Civil War.

          Perhaps one day they’ll uncover the diary of a Union soldier – “My dear Annabelle – today we repulsed the Confederates at Gettysburg. We are one step closer to the day when we can at last put our county clerk in prison for refusing to put her name on the paperwork which allows our friends Eustace and Billy to get married.”

          Or a letter from Lincoln to Ward Hill Lamon – “Dear Ward, soon the war will be won, and I will have achieved the objective for which I fought the war – judicial supremacy! Finally people will accept Dred Scott v. Sanford as the law of the land, just as I demanded all along. You know all those speeches in which I said Dred Scott was *not* the law of the land, and was instead an infamous decision, a product of a proslavery conspiracy, and not to be obeyed? I was lying! What I *really* meant was that we need to accept everything the Supreme Court says as the law of the land.”

          1. The Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Amendments after the war, the acts of Reconstruction, the original Civil Rights Acts. We don’t even have to talk about the war to get into the politics surrounding slavery and civil rights 150 years ago.

          2. Also, pointing to the diaries of soldiers who fought in the war, even as a joke, makes no sense. The war was fought by soldiers but waged by politicians and generals. The functional effect of the war on politics and law has nothing to do with Billy Doughboy’s diary.

            1. But I’m not sure I get your point.

              The Civil War established judicial supremacy? That’s the very opposite of the historical reality. If Lincoln recognized judicial supremacy, he would have accepted Dred Scott and the South wouldn’t have seceded.

              The Civil War established gay rights? How was that, exactly?

              1. Jesus Christ are you an obtuse motherfucker. You will write anything as long as it appears to make you look good, won’t you?

                Lincoln never challenged Dred Scott, he simply rendered it moot. The 13th Amendment–passed after the war–makes it so that slavery cannot even exist. That doesn’t disprove “judicial supremacy” or whatever other strawman you erect, it rather enshrines federal supremacy over the states. In this particular instance, it is the 14th rather than the 13th Amendment at issue, but the practical effect is the same.

                It doesn’t matter what local voters want. It doesn’t even matter what state voters want. The Feds are supreme, and they waged a war to maintain that fact.

                1. “Lincoln never challenged Dred Scott”

                  Let’s go to the videotape.

                  From the Lincoln/Douglas debates:

                  “[Senatoe Douglas] hangs, to the last, to the Dred Scott decision. [Loud cheers.] These things show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he adheres to this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same court….

                  “…then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the States-old as well as new, North as well as South.”

                  http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/…..ebate1.htm

                  “…this Dred Scott decision, which goes very far to make slavery national throughout the United States.”

                  http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/…..ebate2.htm

                  1. ” I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

                    http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

                    1. The “house divided” speech:

                      “This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.” [italics omitted]

                      http://www.abrahamlincolnonlin…../house.htm

                    2. “Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision [McCulloch v. Maryland], and applaud Gen. Jackson for disregarding it [in his veto of the Bank of the US]. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to his mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was “a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution,” and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.”

                      http://teachingamericanhistory…..-decision/

                    3. Thank you, Bo Cara UGCC, for your laser-guided obtuseness. I thought the war was about slavery and federal supremacy, but apparently all of that was a sideshow for Lincoln’s quite crusade, never consummated, against the court.

                    4. “I thought the war was about slavery and federal supremacy”

                      OK, then, if *that* was what the war was about, how did it settle the issue of the Supreme Court imposing gay rights on the states?

                    5. It settled the issue of the Federal government imposing its will on the states. The Supreme Court, last time I checked, is part of the Federal government.

                    6. So Kennedy wrongly decided the DOMA case?

                    7. So Kennedy wrongly decided the DOMA case?

                      What are you responding to?

                    8. Your 2:07 post. Part of Kennedy’s reasoning in the DOMA case was that the federal DOMA unduly interfered in the states determining their own marriage laws.

                    9. Kennedy talking out of both sides of his mouth has fuck-all to do with what I’m talking about.

                  2. Are you going to start trying to understand what you’re talking about, or are you going to continue to throw around irrelevancies to make yourself look good?

                    Lincoln, as President of the United States, did not challenge the Supreme Court over its authority. If you want to find a President who did, look at Andrew Jackson. That he spoke against the decision, as a politician in a debate, does not establish any kind of battle between the executive or legislative branches and the judicial one. While the practical effect of the 13th Amendment was in part to refute Dred Scott, the Amendment process is part of the fucking Constitution. No one ever denied the ability of the Congress and the people to simply change the law. There is a difference between diktat and referendum. I find it really bizarre that you can’t appreciate this distinction since your argument (when you stick to one) seems to hinge on it.

                    1. “Lincoln, as President of the United States, did not challenge the Supreme Court over its authority.”

                      I’ll pass over his defiance of Chief Justice Taney in the Merryman case and go straight to Dred Scott:

                      When Lincoln was President, his Attorney General said that black people could be citizens of the U.S., which is directly contrary to the Dred Scott decision:

                      http://ow.ly/ScdXj

                    2. June 19th, 1862 (*prior* to the 13th Amendment) – Lincoln signs the Territorial Abolition Act, forbidding slavery in the federal territories, thus defying the Dred Scott decision, which said Congress could *not* ban slavery in the federal territories.

                      http://www.civilwar.org/educat…..oogle.com/

                    3. Ok, that’s actually useful information that I didn’t have before. I didn’t know about the second half of the decision, concerning slavery in the territories.

                      Still, I don’t see how that makes the war about a fight between the Court and the other branches. Dred Scott hinged on (a certain interpretation of) the provisions of the US constitution. If you change those provisions, then the decision doesn’t necessarily apply any more.

                      Moreover, this is all ancillary to my point, which was that the question of federal supremacy was raised and settled 150 years ago, then reaffirmed again multiple times but most relevantly 50 years ago.

              2. I think the point he is making is that the Civil War ended state sovereignty.

                States lost the freedom of association with respect to the federal govt.

                Then 100 years later the CRA was passed, ending freedom of association between individuals.

                If you don’t like someone you should be able to shun and avoid them. If you choose a different path at a higher level (sovereign states), it will eventually filter and permeate lower corridors (individuals).

                This is trickle down “Norther War of Aggression”. That is what is happening when a gay sues a baker for not doing business with them.

                Lincoln did not solve or resolve the slave question, he just transformed it. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

      4. The other “side” is a clerk who wants her name off the marriage licenses,

        Who just happens to be giving tent-show revival press conferences with grandstanding politicians in the name of reintroducing the Great Gay Marriage Debate of the 2000s.

    3. Why couldn’t this have been done from Day Fucking 1?

      Kim Davis’ ego wouldn’t allow it.

      1. That wasn’t the point. She had to be punished. She drew the short straw.

        1. She broke state and federal laws, plus of course the common law ban on contempt of court.

          Of course she had to be punished. Just because many elected officials flout the law with impunity is no reason for it to be tolerated.

      2. And that would make perfect sense. If it weren’t for the fact that this outcome looks not all that much different from what she suggested prior.

        Nope. There were never any social justice cadre Twitter mobs screaming to “show her”. And no one here spent a minute of time, even here on libertarian Reason, trying to pretend that throwing her in jail was justified.

        1. And no one here spent a minute of time, even here on libertarian Reason, trying to pretend that throwing her in jail was justified.

          Are you lying or just ignorant? Plenty of people explained here why jailing her for contempt was both justified and necessary. Go back and read the comments from the last week or two.

          1. And people pointed out that she’d offered essentially the outcome before the jailing. And it was rejected.

            And plenty of people pointed out that that claim was bogus. The state of KY and her local jurisdiction have authority to remove her.

    4. …she could order them to again stop handing out licenses.

      Could she? Could she order department employees to violate a court order? They’re government employees; I doubt she could easily fire them before the court order, much less after. And anything she could do, like giving poor performance reviews, would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

  7. You don’t shoot the wounded, you bayonet them.

    1. If the left had the backbone to do their knife-work personally they wouldn’t have to make appeals to the twitter mob.

      1. The Twitter mob is the knife of the SJWs. Funny how people don’t get that.

  8. Oddly, Shackford’s hope that the issue would go away in the face of a judicial diktat is being thwarted by people who don’t buy into the imagined consensus. Maybe short circuiting normal political decsion making is not the panacea one might expect?

    1. Because the judiciary isn’t part of “normal political decision-making.”

      1. Except for when they normally interject themselves somewhere along the way in the process.

      2. No, it is not. Which is why the court imposing its will upon the nation does not remove the politics of the issue.

        1. Kim Davis’s behavior would have been illegal no matter how the court ruled.

          1. She would not have done this absent the SCOTUS ruling, and she may not have this if it was Kentucky law she was going against.

            1. It was my understanding that she had denied, prior to all this bullshit, marriage licenses to people who had been previously married to “cause it goes against God and the bible”. So she could have still ended up in this position, but previously married people don’t have the social movement that gay marriage does.

          2. Yep. Just as if this was a polygamous family trying to get a marriage license.

            Or if it was a same-sex couple who happened to be 1st cousins.

            Because 1ST COUSINS CANNOT MARRY. EVER.

          3. Yup. The WHOOOOLLLLE problem was Kim Davis’s ego. Yup.

            1. Her ego is ‘UUUUUUUGE!

              On an unrelated note, I think I know a good candidate to be Trump’s running mate.

        2. And the majority imposing its view would be better? Also, which majority exactly, since the feds can override the states in all practical sense?

          1. Federalism puts this issue beyond the federal legislature’s legitimate authority.

            1. That’s true of 95% of federal law, yet what practical bearing does that fact have on anything?

        3. Oh, so if people voted on it, the politics would be removed?

          That’s even funnier.

          1. To a greater extent than the top down, one size fits all solution we are living with that Shackford advocated.

            1. A state that makes decisions via referendum, let alone democratically elected representatives, is a top-down, one-size-fits-all solution.

              1. Now you are just being obtuse.

                1. No, I’m not. I’m rejecting your BS distinction because (a) it has no bearing on legitimacy and (b) it has nothing to do with the actual longstanding practices of the various levels and branches of government in the US. You can’t even figure out a way to word it that makes sense.

                  1. I am talking about Shackford’s forlorn assertion a couple of months ago that SCOTUS making this decision for the nation would retire the issue from the front and center of politics. That is what you cannot seem to wrap your head around, so you keep arguing about other stuff.

            2. If the Federal government had passed a law to the same effect, would it have been any less top-down, one size fits all? Hell, even if just one state passed such a law, there could still be millions of people who didn’t agree with it yet had to live with it. The judiciary has this power, and nobody seems particularly upset with it when it’s exercised to their benefit.

              1. The nature of democracy is that it would be different. Laws don’t change people’s beliefs, people’s beliefs change laws.

                They didn’t have the support from the public nationally, so gay marriage was created in the courts where s few elites could impose upon the serfs what’s good for them.

                The serfs rebellion is entirely predictable.

      3. Only when it offends the sensibilities of Christians, Nicole.

      4. Look nicole, the judiciaries authority being explicitly outlined in the Constitution and well established over two and half centuries of governance is no reason to regard their rulings as anything short of an unexpected and outrageous coup of democratic government.

        1. judiciaries authority being explicitly outlined in the Constitution

          You mean Marbury vs. Madison, don’t you? That’s really where we get the concept of judicial review.

  9. “And as far as North Carolina’s new law is working out, one county has hit a snag.”

    Really? It sounds like the law is working exactly as designed. The McDowell County magistrates won’t do marriages, so magistrates from a neighboring county come over ten hours a week to do marriages, just as the law specifies.

    “I wondered if this would ultimately end up costing taxpayers.”

    Unfunded mandates from the U.S. Supreme Court tend to do that.

    I bet they’re spending less than it would take to put the objecting magistrates in prison.

    1. How is North Carolina’s insistence that all couples getting married within its borders get a license from its magistrates a Supreme court mandate? Sounds to me like the mandate is originating from North Carolina.

      1. By all means, let people solemnize their marriages without a license.

        But meanwhile, same-sex couples who want marriage licenses in NC are getting them. Even in backwards fundy McDowell County.

        The only thing same-sex couples in NC *aren’t* getting is the pleasure of purging the civil service of their opponents.

  10. OT and From TenuousPedagogy, but connoisseurs of irony may enjoy it (if you can spot it!):

    http://thinkprogress.org/world…..-refugees/

    “We already have problems with concentrations of Middle Eastern refugees or migrants coming in and taking over communities,” Schultz said. “They don’t want to assimilate. They do not want to become Americans. They only want the free stuff from America.”

    He went on to argue that refugees “practice a religion that orders them to dominate and they want to live under Sharia law which they will not subordinate under our law while they live here and enjoy our protections and our goodies.” Schultz called the prospect of resettling refugees in the United States “an invasion” to “[spread] their own theology by force.”

    1. Yes, it says right there in the sunna:

      “Allah commands that if two gays want a same-sex marriage, then they must ask a deputy clerk, or a clerk in a neighboring county, to do the needful paperwork. For Allah is kind and merciful, and wouldn’t ask a clerk to act against her conscience.

      “Oh, and throw the gays off a tall building to cleanse the land of the infidel blah blah blah.”

    2. Yeah, cause retarded Christians here that want to deny gay marriage are JUST LIKE radical muslims.

      (Apologies if that’s not what you were trying to say.)

  11. Finally, our long national nightmare is over. I wonder how many people had their property confiscated without due process last week?

    1. Damn it, Dark Lord, somebody icky is doing something I don’t personally approve of! They must be raked over the coals and broken upon the wheel of social progress!

  12. Can we please finally start talking about her horrible clothes now instead? YOU DON’T NEED THOSE TSHIRTS AND TANK TOPS IF YOU NEED TO WEAR LONG SLEEVES ANYWAY.

    1. But Nicole, how can we twist that into KUTLUR WAR? I don’t see how!

      1. “But Nicole, how can we twist that into KUTLUR WAR”

        She dresses like a hick, Epi. We can talk about the relative merits of her hick clothing vs. that of annoying hipsters from Brooklyn.

      1. Never.

      2. #FrumpLivesMatter

    2. The fashion police should have full powers of arrest.

      1. Um, try summary execution, bro.

        1. I bet you think you wear sensible shoes.

        2. Um, try summary execution, bro.

          Does someone have an attic I can hide in?

          1. The wardrobe of Florida Man is grandfathered in.

            1. The lack of wardrobe of Florida Man is grandfathered in.

          2. Shouldn’t you be wearing Realtree this time of year anyway? She won’t even be able to see you.

            1. I assumed wearing it out to dinner was what was going to get me executed.

              1. Just sit outside near the bushes.

    3. And the hair! The late 80’s messy-curly mop of hair!

  13. “North Carolina’s law allows those responsible from handing out marriage licenses from opting out if they have religious objections. But those officials have to opt out of handing out all marriage licenses entirely for several months, and the county is then obligated to make sure somebody is available to do the work.

    At the time, while some worried this would create unnecessary delays to couples trying to get married, I wondered if this would ultimately end up costing taxpayers.”

    Probably. So does paying for a civil service at all, instead of using corv?e labor. A free society is not always cheap, and the alternative is to force people to violate their consciences in the interests of a decision that neither they nor their legislatures had anything to do with in the service of their jobs. If nothing else, that’s a good way to build up resentment.

  14. You just can’t make up how fucking amazingly stupid KULTUR WAR is. It’s the dumbest fucking thing imaginable, every fucking time. It makes people stupider than dirt. For all those that engage in it: enjoy! You’re now retarded.

    1. At least everyone gets cake. C’mon – there is that.

      1. Retarded-er.

        1. I’m glad you didn’t say “retardy” because that would be wrong. Retardy should only be used to refer to a special education student who is chronically late to class.

    2. This assumes that if dirt-level stupid weren’t fighting the culture war, it would be otherwise docile. I think history has pretty clearly shown that the more things you allow it to fuck over, the more things it will.

      1. So in other words, you have to engage in the stupidest thing ever? That’s surprisingly convenient. Almost like an excuse, really.

        Just admit that you want to do it. At least you’ll be honest then.

        1. Just admit that you want to do it. At least you’ll be honest then.

          Check your premises. Sometimes you engage stupid because you want to, sometimes you engage stupid because you have to, and sometimes you’ll just be literally minding your own business, and stupid will engage you whether you want to or not.

  15. This cake is delicious! Glad everyone gets to eat!

    #TheyAllWantCake

    1. The Cake is a lie

      #WontLetOldMemesGo

  16. If my wife predeceases me, I’m going to marry my dog. In Kentucky. Just for the lulz.

    Unfortunately for you pervs, we do NOT plan to consummate our marriage.

    1. If you predecease your wife, I’ll take good care of her.

          1. His wife might be Kim Davis.

            1. No – worse.

          2. What about his dog?

        1. I’m willing to go further. I won’t wait around until your wife dies. As soon as she starts to get sick, I’ll volunteer to donate an organ…

      1. Does his wife enjoy … photography?

        1. I’ve taken this joke as far as I’m willing. For now.

          He knows who I am and where I live.

    2. Why are you going to wait until your wife dies? You one of those polygamaphobics?

      1. He’s old fashioned. Only one bitch at a time…

        1. ^^ THIS is what I’m talkin’ about

  17. Whether or not “accommodations” can reasonably be made for homophobes in government is something for individual state legislatures to decide.

    But golly, how funny it is that so many conservatives and even some “libertarians” are adamant that a public employee be allowed to continue to draw her taxpayer-funded salary while not doing her fucking job.

    Just because gays are icky and this is apparently the first step down the road to churches being turned into gay sex clubs while persecuted Christians sit in gay reeducation camps.

    1. Who defines what her job is? This is a pretty important question.

    2. Intellectual consistency is for losers, Serious. You don’t want to lose, do you?

    3. Look, Serious, it’s simple. She was duly elected, and we’re all willing to speculate that if she came up for election again, she’d win, therefore every single one of those poor motherfuckers whose stolen money is paying for her splendor deserve to keep funding her fucking hideous, crime-against-humanity wardrobe and other assorted sundries. Period.

      1. What kind of panties do you think she wears?

        1. Probably the kind that can double as the mainsail of the HMS Bounty

          1. She’s going to make husband #5 a very happy man.

        2. I assume she wears a thong over her longjohns.

        3. Normal panties when she puts em on. Crotchless when she takes them off…

          1. this shouldn’t have made me snort water out of my nose, but it did

            FUCK YOU, POPE JIMBO!!!

            *shakes fist*

        4. She should sell some of her sweaty, spent panties to help fund her legal defense.

      2. I think even Jesus would find her wardrobe unforgiveable.

    4. “But golly, how funny it is that so many conservatives and even some “libertarians” are adamant that a public employee be allowed to continue to draw her taxpayer-funded salary while not doing her fucking job.”

      I’m not sure I follow…the Supreme Court justices are paying taxes to provide Kim Davis with her salary?

      I thought it was the people of her county, and the people of Kentucky, who were paying her salary – and these are the people who voted 75% to *require* public officials to recognize opposite-sex marriages only.

      I thought she was elected by the voters of her county, who will be able to decide for themselves, if she runs for re-election, if she’s been doing her job or not.

      The Supreme Court justices have their salaries paid by taxpayers, including Kentucky taxpayers. And the Supreme Court justices have a job – to faithfully apply the law, not to rewrite it. They fell down on the job when they rewrote the states’ marriage laws. Yet they keep collecting their salary.

      1. She was elected to the job and she was doing her job. If she would have known SCOTUS would have made same sex marriage the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, she wouldn’t have run for election.

        Kinda unfair to hold her responsible for the moodiness of Anthony Kennedy.

        1. By the same token, upon being informed by the Kentucky governer’s order that the nature of her job had changed, she could have resigned.

          It really seems like everyone comes to the table ignorant of the law then acts like all of this is some fucking surprise. This is the way things have worked for a long fucking time, and now all of a sudden it’s a problem? Yet nobody actually seems inclined to change the fucking law so we’re left with a lot of whining and no real practical solutions.

          1. Clearly, we should all assume this is literally the first time ever that the laws applicable in a given county have changed during the term of the county clerk.

          2. Lest it seem like this is directed at one side (projection of your persecution complex, much?), this applies as much to Shackford or anyone else who says “well she shouldn’t be sent to jail over this”. The government is force, and the federal government is force applied to the states and individuals. Libertarianism 101.

            1. Yes, an Kim Davis is a government official, and by refusing to grant marriage licenses, she is exercising force.
              She knew that the law required people to get permission from the government to marry when she signed up for the job. And she’s not advocating that that change. She is and was totally 100% content to wield government force to prevent gays from marrying.

              1. Inaction is not force. Words are not violence. Not every negative thing is enforceably wrong.

                1. Yeah, like if a cop is beating a suspect and refuses to obey an order to stop, you going to say “but he’s just passively refusing to obey an order! that’s not force!”

                  1. A beating is an action. Try harder for a counter example.

                    1. Assuming a public office that inherently involves violating people’s natural rights is an action.

                      If you take a job as a cop, you’re morally culpable for enforcing the drug laws. if you refuse to obey an order from a superior saying “stop arresting people for selling drugs!” you’re violating their rights.

                      Kim Davis has been morally culpable for violating gay people’s rights to marry since the day she took office. Then she willfully refused to obey an order to stop violating their rights. That makes her even more culpable.

                    2. Again you use an example of an action. Arresting is an action. Beating is an action. Not signing something is inaction.

                      Taking the job is an action, but your problem is not with her action of taking the job but with her inaction of not signing the licenses. Is she committed the action of signing the licenses there would be no controversy, so we can safely say the controversy is about inaction, and as previously stated inaction is not force.

                    3. When you voluntarily take a job as a government official you assume positive duties to perform certain actions. Once you assume a certain duty, failing to perform that action renders you morally culpable.

                      For example, by taking a job as a train switch operator, you assume a duty to throw a train switch to avoid killing a person on the track. If you then refuse to pull the switch, despite having assumed that duty, you’re morally culpable for killing the person on the tracks. Whether we call it “action” or “inaction” is irrelevant. You agreed to be responsible for the switch. The you refused to fulfill your duty. That makes you legal responsible. In fact, it is murder.

                      Kim Davis CHOSE to be the switch operator in control of marriage licenses. She assumed a legal duty to issue licenses. Then she refused to perform that duty. She is thus morally and legally responsible for couples not getting licenses and thus she is morally and legally responsible for their rights being violated. She is a rights-violator.

                    4. I can just see Kim Davis as an air traffic controller…. “God told me I had to let that plane crash! I didn’t kill anyone! I merely failed to deliver the instructions to the pilot not to attempt a landing! That’s not action, it’s INACTION!! INACTION! I’m innocent! Innocent! “

                  2. That is not analogous. Every swing by the police officer is a positive action.

              2. The requirement for licensure is in contravention of natural rights, and the issuance of the licenses is not fulfillment of those rights. Davis denying the license may be a violation of the law (and obviously the courts, and the governor, see it as such), but it is not a libertarian question and is not itself an imposition of force.

                1. If Davis disagreed with the law requiring licensure, she could merely grant permission to everyone. Not only is she not doing that she’s publicly stated that she doesn’t believe that gays should be allowed to marry. She is fully 100% behind the violation of the natural rights entailed by government licensure of marriage.

                  1. Issuing licenses to everyone would also be a violation of the law. I never said Davis had to believe in natural rights and agree to respect them, only that the refusal to issue a license doesn’t qualify as a violation of them. You are conflating her views and her character as a person with the issue of the law and principles of natural rights.

                    1. Issuing licenses to everyone would not be a violation of the NAP.
                      If she was doing THAT I would totally support her.

                      The refusal to issue a license does violate the NAP because government should be empowered to issue ANY licenses.

                      Of course, that isn’t what Kim Davis thinks. Kim Davis thinks that government should stop gays from marrying. She’s totally in favor of violating people’s rights, and in fact she was using her power to do just that.

                    2. Can you really not see the distinction between throwing someone in jail and not handing them a piece of paper?

                    3. It’s not just a piece of paper. It’s official legal permission to do something they have a natural right to do. If you’re a government thug (which Kim Davis is), not granting someone permission to do something they have a natural right to do is a violation of their natural rights. Refusing to obey a lawful order to hand out those pieces of paper is an active choice to violate their natural rights. The “passive” choice in Davis’s case would have been to obey the order.

                    4. Nuremberg trials have already determined that following orders is not “passive” choice. Though why you choose that terminology instead of the much more clear inaction/action I don’t know.

                    5. Every time she signs her name on a license is a choice. There may be consequences for signing or not signing based upon the circumstances, but you are turning this woman into a rubber stamp machine rather than a human being. I never said that the judge did anything wrong (nor that he did anything right, for that matter), I take issue with your abuse of language.

                    6. Yes, it’s a choice to violate, or not, certain people’s rights. And she’s making the CHOICE to violate them, by NOT issuing licenses.

                    7. I wish more officials were rubber-stamp machines who had the “yes” stamp glued to their hand.

      2. If 75% of the population paid taxes to require public officials to strip you naked and lock you up in the stocks in the public square, would you agree that that was totally okay and not a violation of your rights or cruel and unusual punishment or anything?

        1. If the supreme court interpreted a law or congress passed an amendment that required the same would you still call for the public official refusing to enforce it to be thrown in jail and stripped of their jobs?

          1. I would call on the public official to resign. And for every other public official who disagrees with the law to resign en masse.

            1. So new guys get hired or transferred in, the protest is over in a day barely making the news, and the stripping and beating continue? Sorry if I see forcing the establishment to publicly punish you as a better form of protest than throwing in the towel and going home.

    5. Almost as funny as some libertarians completely forgetting that civil disobedience is a legit way to protest actions of the state with which you disagree.

      Its just not that simple. Are we saying that pubsecs don’t have the right to engage in civil disobedience? I mean, that’s defensible, but make the argument, and lets see how it plays out in other scenarios, where the civil disobedience would be in service of things you support, instead of things you oppose.

      And its not as simple as “pro-liberty” civil disobedience is good and so it should allowed. The pro-liberty position could be read very narrowly on the issue at hand, or more broadly to encompass the preservation of structural protections (like limited enumerated powers, federalism, etc.) that some may believe protect liberty more broadly.

      Hooting and slapping the ground while your enemies are vilified may not lead to the kind of society you want, is all.

      And yes, I am well acquainted with the sort of Bible-thumping pubsec at issue here. I don’t have much sympathy, in general, with them, but I try not to let this cloud my thinking, either.

      1. Yes, Snowdon should have followed the law and done his job!

        1. Hooting and slapping the ground while your enemies are vilified may not lead to the kind of society you want, is all.

          Whaddaya mean ‘lead to’, that’s the kind of society I want(full-stop)!

      2. Almost as funny as some libertarians completely forgetting that civil disobedience is a legit way to protest actions of the state with which you disagree.

        Its just not that simple. Are we saying that pubsecs don’t have the right to engage in civil disobedience? I mean, that’s defensible, but make the argument, and lets see how it plays out in other scenarios, where the civil disobedience would be in service of things you support, instead of things you oppose.

        Two things:

        1. She only sat in jail for like 4 days. She’s not MLK or Thoreau.

        2. When give an opportunity to get out conditional upon allowing marriage licenses to be given to gay couples she folded like the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl.

        So fuck her, she’s only doing this for herself so she, personally, won’t have to offend her delicate Christian sensibilities by giving a piece of paper to gays.

        Because gays are somehow more sinful than the adultery she commits every time she has missionary sex with her fourth husband.

        1. she folded like the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl.

          Not cool.

        2. MLK spent 11 days in jail, as near as I can tell. Not exactly Nelson Mandela, was he?

          1. Thoreau spend one night in jail, and then they released him. To be fair, he wanted to stay in prison longer, but the jailer wouldn’t let him.

            http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=214

      3. “Mr. Worf, the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all. But they have all chosen to serve Starfleet. If anyone cannot perform his or her duty, because of the demands of their society, they should resign.”

        1. To be fair, the Federation is a bunch of totalitarian SJWs from San Francisco…

        2. …like a Frenchman like Picard would even let Worf wear such a “conspicuous religious symbol” as his Ha’quj anyway!

      4. … and lets see how it plays out in other scenarios, where the civil disobedience would be in service of things you support, instead of things you oppose.

        Pfft! What would I do with my sense of moral superiority, then, if I had to re-evaluate my argument every time I wanted to crucify someone for wrongthink?

    6. My issue with accommodating her is more about the waste. I wouldn’t hire someone who is opposed to handling meat to work in a slaughterhouse because I’m paying them to do nothing. This woman shouldn’t get special treatment to not do a core job duty either.

      1. You might have a point but she had the job AFTER the SCOTUS ruling. But she got in before. So there.

        I’m just waiting for the gay 1st cousins to try and marry each other. And get denied. You know why . . . .

      2. She was doing the duty imposed on her by the people who hired her and paid her salary.

        Then the Supreme Court, which didn’t hire her and didn’t pay her salary, said gay marriages have to be treated like straight marriages.

        If the Supreme Court justices want to make the “I pay your salary” argument, they should chip in some money.

        Of course, the public hired the Supreme Court justices for a core responsibility – applying the law. Rather than carry out that responsibility, the justices chose to rewrite the law. When can *I* withhold their salary?

        1. Job requirements change, or do you think that if you get hired at a buggy whip factory you can never be forced to learn a new skill? As far as elected goes, she was elected to do her job, not to not do it, unless you think the voters elected her for her personal beliefs instead of her ability to perform her job.

          1. I think this begs the question. What *is* her job?

            Now, if you accept the theory of judicial supremacy, then her job is to apply the constitution as the Supreme Court interprets it.

            By the same reasoning, those sheriffs in New York who refuse to enforce the gun-control laws would be required to do so if the Supreme Court upheld the laws.

            Who says A must say B.

            1. You think you gonna see me cry if some cops are thrown in jail for not doing their job. The law should be enforced so it can be challenged and repealed.

              1. OK, so just to be clear –

                If the courts think NY’s gun control laws are OK, it’s the duty of the sheriffs either to (a) resign or (b) start kicking in some doors to seize people’s guns.

                Just so I understand the principle you’re embracing.

                1. OK, so just to be clear –

                  If the courts think NY’s gun control laws are OK, it’s the duty of the sheriffs either to (a) resign or (b) start kicking in some doors to seize people’s guns.

                  Just so I understand the principle you’re embracing.

                  This happens every single day. The cops kick in doors and burn children. It’s an absolute travesty. All police should resign instead of doing this, but instead we have a growing police force. I’m not sure where you think you’ve created some clever hypothetical situation to gin up support for a government official. This is already reality, so seeing some government official take it in the shorts is A-OK with me. So if you want my sympathy as a government agent resign.

            2. those sheriffs in New York who refuse to enforce the gun-control laws would be required to do so if the Supreme Court upheld the laws.

              I’m not sure why they shouldn’t be required to do so until someone overturns those laws, myself.

            3. Or required to enforce laws against pot possesiom and trafficking.

              1. Don’t like being a thug of the state? Then don’t get a job being a thug of the state.

            4. You keep talking like only the Supremes were involved. Don’t the state and local officials who acquiesced get any credit?

          2. Kentucky law as it exists now cannot be rectified with Obergefell. Marriage licences cannot be issued without a county clerk ignoring aspects of the law (pertaining to the sex of the participants) which are now contradictory. So demands that the clerks follow the law or else is not more complicated.

            1. The incompatibility would almost certainly be resolved by the courts striking down Kentucky’s laws. It’s not incumbent on Davis to predict all of that and judge the hypothetical legal situation for herself, but when a judge is issuing her a direct order, any appeal to ambiguity or inconsistency is moot.

    7. Eh, it’s not that holding that job is her right but it is certainly going to be difficult to find employees to work for your government if you’re not going to allow for reasonable accommodation in the case of a religion purportedly followed by 80% of the population, to say nothing of throwing people in jail in lieu of that accommodation.

    8. Okay, and when the feds go after the mayors of sanctuary cities or the governors of the states that have legalized marijuana, you’ll be all on board with that, right? Because government officials have to do their job.

  18. those deputies work for her, and she could order them to again stop handing out licenses. She has decided that she won’t do that. She won’t hand out licenses herself, though, and she told the media this morning that the licenses issued by her deputies would not bear her name and would instead state that they were handed out under the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning

    “That’s already been determined, Madam. Now we’re merely haggling over the price.”

  19. I’m not sure which is more annoying, 24/7 Trump coverage, or 24/7 Flyover Country County Clerk Gay Marriage Temper Tantrum coverage.

    1. Trump doesn’t dress like a complete fucking retard, so there’s that.

      They’re about even on the hair front.

      1. It’s funny, she dresses either:

        1. Like a flyover country redneck woman.
        2. A bluer-than-blue-found-in-nature-blue school district employee or social worker.

        Funny that.

        1. I’m still excitedly waiting to see what’s underneath.

      2. Trump doesn’t dress like a complete fucking retard, so there’s that.

        No. In contrast to at least one of his critics, Trump knows how to buy pants.

    2. Has Trump weighed in on the KY Clerk yet? That’s like seven or eight articles by itself. Then, we can ask each of the other 15 presidential candidates what they think about what Trump thinks about the clerk.

      1. Also, we can poll the millennials!

  20. In theory, the “Next window, please,” solution to this idiocy would be perfectly acceptable to me. Not different, in principle, to a sales clerk in a department store saying, “I’m going to have Melissa help you; she knows a lot more about brassieres than I do.”
    But ostentatiously moralistic government parasites, of every creed or color, can kiss my ass.

    1. The difference between a government employee and a private employee is the government already took your money so they are obligated to serve you. A private company can tell you to spend your money elsewhere.

      1. And the reason why gay 1st cousins can’t marry each other is – why again?

        1. A non-sequitur?

        2. I give up. Why is that?

          1. Wait. Is it because they lack the cognitive ability to enter into a contract?

        3. You’re assuming I care who marries who, I don’t.

        4. Equal protection. You have to treat gay first cousins the same as heterosexual first cousins.

          1. Doesn’t apply as we have already determined that homosexuals having the same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex does not equal equal protection. Not allowing adult first cousins to marry one another is not equal protection as determined by the supreme court.

            1. Where male/female 1st cousin marriage is not allowed it follows that male/male and female/female 1st cousin marriage should not be allowed as we are not allowed to legally acknowledge any differences in these situations because of equal protection.

              1. Where a heterosexual male/heterosexual male marriage is not allowed it follows that a homosexual male/homosexual male marriage should not be allowed as we are not allowed to legally acknowledge any differences in these situations because of equal protection.

                We’ve already determined that having the same options is not enough for equal protection. You must have the option that allows you to marry the consenting adult you love.

                1. Ultimately, it comes down to which “grievance mongering” mob holds the greater power.

                  Clearly, the “Pro-First-Cousin Marriage Alliance” needs to get its shit together and increase its political clout thru’ a comprehensive grassroots campaign of Twitter Shaming.

                2. I was not aware that laws against incestuous marriages were struck down as well.

      2. the government already took your money so they are obligated to serve you

        No it’s not. The government’s own courts say that they can harm you and you can’t recover damages. Their courts say they don’t have to respond to 911 calls if they don’t want to. Their courts say that they can take your stuff if they want to.

        They have no obligation to do anything. The state is organized crime… entrenched.

        1. President Obama says he can kill you with a predator drone if he feels like it.

          1. Uh oh. Somebody just demonstrated graciousness on the internet. The apocalypse is nigh. Nice going, FM.

            1. You just KNEW the apocalypse was going to be triggered by a man from Florida…

      3. “The difference between a government employee and a private employee is the government already took your money so they are obligated to serve you. A private company can tell you to spend your money elsewhere.”

        The difference between a government employee official and a private entrepreneur is that the First Amendment specifically protects a private individuals’ right not to have his religious beliefs established by a government official.

        Another difference between a government official and a private entrepreneur is that the First Amendment specifically protects an private individual’s right to the free exercise of his own religious beliefs–from government interference.

        The First Amendment limits the behavior of government officials–not private entrepreneurs. So as long as this lady is acting in an official capacity as the government, she cannot impose her religious beliefs on others. In a private capacity, she has the same rights as any other individual.

      4. A private company can tell you to spend your money elsewhere.

        Even bakers of wedding cakes? Are you sure?

        1. There’s also a difference between the way things are and the way they should be.

          The courts just flat out got that wrong, and injustice has consequences. One of the consequences of using the government to force fundamentalists to bake wedding cakes for gay people is that fundamentalists start seeing control of the government as an even more important key to protecting their rights.

          If the courts had done what they were supposed to do and protected the religious rights of fundamentalists, it might have helped to persuade fundamentalists that controlling the levers of power is unnecessary, that their rights would be protected anyway.

          The courts have screwed up so much. They’re just as bad as Congress and the White House in their own way. I think I tend to give them more credit because they’re our last hope for good government, and I don’t want to believe that it’s hopeless. If I give up on them, too, then there’s only the American people to appeal to, and have you met the American people? I’d hate to have to depend on them for anything–especially when they’re angry or scared, which seems to be all the time.

          1. What is a fundamentalist?

            1. Among other things, it’s a person with a right to free exercise of his or her religious beliefs without interference from the government.

              Why do you ask?

      5. A private company can tell you to spend your money elsewhere.

        Unless you’re buying wedding cake?

  21. “She won’t hand out licenses herself, though, and she told the media this morning that the licenses issued by her deputies would not bear her name and would instead state that they were handed out under the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning. . . .Perhaps that’s something that could be fixed retroactively (if it’s true) when Kentucky’s legislature returns to session and addresses the situation.”

    Might be a little wishful thinking there.

  22. Almost as funny as some libertarians completely forgetting that civil disobedience is a legit way to protest actions of the state with which you disagree.

    I missed the part where she quit her job in protest and chained herself to the courthouse doors.

    1. Don’t disrupt the narrative, P! There’s TARD WAR KULTUR WAR to be fought!

      1. Hey man, I’ve seen the footage where the gay-equivalent of Bull Connor unleashed the dogs and fire hoses on Kim Davis.

        But that didn’t stop her, her heart filled with courage that can only be given by the Holy Spirit she then walked right in front of the tank the Army sent to intimidate her and refused to move.

        I hear if she doesn’t renounce Jesus Obama is going haul her into FedEx Field and feed her to the lions.

        1. “the gay-equivalent of Bull Connor ”

          Bear Connor?

          And his chihuahuas?

        2. Hey man, I’ve seen the footage where the gay-equivalent of Bull Connor unleashed the dogs and fire hoses on Kim Davis.

          I thought the argument was that Davis released the hounds and firehoses on gay couples?

    2. Oh, so its only civil disobedience if you quit your job and chain yourself to something?

      Good to know. Especially since, just to pick one example, neither MLK nor Ghandi never did either of those things, as far as I know, as an act of civil disobedience. Feel free to correct me.

      1. How far are we willing to ride this pony? If the court orders a clerk to issue a business permit, denied because the clerk is a rabid communist, are we going to call the clerk’s intransigence “civil disobedience” and chastise the judge for throwing the clerk in jail?

        This is the process. No one, at any step, can really point to an error of process. This is what the 14th Amendment was designed for. That it gets applied in ways “nobody ever intended” is exactly the problem with broad-sweeping laws.

        1. How far are we willing to ride this pony?

          I’d love to have a principled discussion on this very topic. I think its an interesting one.

          Apparently, though, “icky” and “bad fashion” are enough for glamorized libertarians, though.

          1. Actually, “you’re a fucking state agent” is enough for some of us. She’s a thief and oppressor.

            1. So, we’re saying all agents of the state may not refuse to comply with any law.

              That the states that refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act were wrong.

              That the sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws are wrong.

              The the sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce immigration laws are wrong.

              1. No, I’m saying all agents of the state are pieces of shit who live off stolen money and make that living by oppressing people. I don’t give a shit about intragovernmental squabbles over power.

                1. Ah, so you would be perfectly happy with an absolute dictatorship, as long as it agreed with you on what should be done. Good to know.

                  1. “Smash the state” = “I believe in absolute dictatorship”

              2. Not as wrong as Arizona for trying to enforce federal law?

          2. And conversely, “icky” and “vaguely associated with progressives” are enough for conservative libertarians.

            The Civil War argument isn’t just a sideshow, it gets to the core of what libertarianism is about. At what point does state violence become acceptable, and how principled is our acceptance of it?

  23. The difference between a government employee and a private employee is the government already took your money so they are obligated to serve you. A private company can tell you to spend your money elsewhere.

    “Here’s your bra, Mister. One size fits all. Move away from the window. NEXT!”

  24. This thread delivers, even without John.

  25. How can a woman of such pathetic fashion sense have such drag queen flair?

    But she is inadvertently showing just how ridiculous has become this whole gay-marriage soap opera.

  26. Should I start drinking and read this thread or should I continue to get work done around my house and only check reason occasionally?

  27. “She won’t hand out licenses herself, though, and she told the media this morning that the licenses issued by her deputies would not bear her name and would instead state that they were handed out under the orders of U.S. District Judge David Bunning. . . .Perhaps that’s something that could be fixed retroactively (if it’s true) when Kentucky’s legislature returns to session and addresses the situation.”

    Under the KY State Constitution, I think she has a point. The county court clerk issues (aka solemnizes) marriage licenses unless they are absent or incapacitated. In that case, the county judge executive steps in and issues them in their stead. Davis is no longer absent (in jail) or incapacitated.

    1. Just call her morally incapacitated and be done with it.

  28. Sorry, but putting on your pouty face and refusing to push a scrap of government paper across a counter (while continuing to draw a paycheck) hardly seems equivalent to being a conductor on the Underground Railroad.
    But what do I know?

    1. Sorry, but putting on your pouty face and refusing to push demanding a scrap of government paper across a counter (while continuing to draw a paycheck) hardly seems equivalent to being a conductor on the Underground Railroad chattel slave.

      Failing to live up to the struggle against slavery is hardly limited to Kim Davis, you know. Perhaps one day we won’t feel the need to turn every argument into the Civil War/Civil Rights redux.

      1. Perhaps one day we won’t feel the need to turn every argument into the Civil War/Civil Rights redux.

        Fine, I’ll come up some Hitler reference instead.

        1. You Know Who Else wouldn’t give the right government paper to gays?

          1. I heard he gave them fashion accessories instead.

          2. J. Edgar Hoover?

          3. Bill Clinton?

            Barack Obama, until like 2013?

  29. How long can a free and just society last if people are allowed to do icky things? How can progress go on if people are allowed to stand in the way of it? How can stop claim to be people of conscience if we allow the unconscionable?

    1. Interesting choice substituting ‘stop’ for ‘we’…

  30. A judge who would refuse to sign off on a warrant for a dynamic entry to serve a summons for unpaid parking tickets would certainly have my respect. But, come to think of it, that wouldn’t be “civil disobedience” that would be him actually DOING HIS FUCKING JOB.
    I’ll try to think of something else.

    1. Is he doing his job if the paperwork is in order under current SCOTUS readings of the Fourth Amendment?

      Actually, he might be, since technically I think he retains some discretion.

  31. On the one hand yeah she should do her job, but on the other hand don’t we applaud sheriffs who refuse to enforce draconian gun laws?

    If we’re going to look at this as a matter of principle, if she should be lynched for refusing to marry teh gays, then shouldn’t a sheriff who refuses to enforce draconian gun laws also be lynched?

    1. But the sheriffs aren’t icky, and as far as we know have decent fashion sense.

    2. On the one hand yeah she should do her job, but on the other hand don’t we applaud sheriffs who refuse to enforce draconian gun laws?

      Yes, but the people of their counties have an inalienable right to self-defense and firearm ownership. Thus the laws are invalid because they are plainly contrary to the common law.

      Kim Davis is a glorified administrative clerk that pushes papers. Absolutely no one is harmed when she does her job and give marriage license to gay couples.

      So the sheriff’s who decline to enforce gun control laws have much firmer ground to stand on from a natural rights perspective. No one has a right to a taxpayer-funded paycheck and to have the job duties tailored to their personal preferences.

      If we’re going to look at this as a matter of principle, if she should be lynched for refusing to marry teh gays, then shouldn’t a sheriff who refuses to enforce draconian gun laws also be lynched?

      Who said anything about lynching? She’s back at work, drawing her pay and at worst might get impeached and kicked out of office for not doing her job.

      1. As a matter of principle though, if this woman is a terrible person for refusing to obey a law that she disagrees with, then isn’t a sheriff who refuses to enforce draconian gun legislation just as terrible?

        1. Is the sheriff doing is so he can “STOP SODOMITE PERVERTS”?

          1. Of course he is. All good sheriffs hate Sodomites.

            1. So do all bad sheriffs.

          2. So it’s all about intentions now?

            1. A sheriff who refuses to enforce unconstitutional laws is doing his job because his job is to protect the rights and liberties of the people under his jurisdiction.

              Kim Davis is not that at all, she’s aiming to deprive gay people of something they are entitled to have.

              1. So Davis asserting that what she is being required to do is unconstitutional makes it OK?

                Why am getting the impression that “unconstitutional” means “stuff I do not like”?

            2. Kim Davis is an asshole. We should support Kim Davis in being an asshole, but I’m not going to curbstomp anyone that has a hard time being on the side of a bigoted asshole.

      2. So the sheriff’s who decline to enforce gun control laws have much firmer ground to stand on from a natural rights perspective.

        I tend to agree.

        I’m not seeing a natural right to a government license of any kind, so refusing to issue one doesn’t seem like it is denying any natural rights.

        1. You have a natural right to contract freely. Although this is a highly regulated and imperfect contract, it is still a contract.

          1. You have a natural right to contract freely.

            Which is why after the Supreme Court ruled, proponents of gay marriage were so quick to pivot their energies to securing the same rights to polygamous arrangements and incestuous couples.

            Right? RIGHT?!?!

          2. You have a natural right to contract freely.

            Contracts =/= government licenses.

            The only aspects of marriage that cannot be perfectly duplicated without a marriage license, are those aspects under the control of government; taxes and an evidentiary privilege.

            1. Contracts =/= government licenses

              I’ll remember that next time I start a business without applying for the appropriate licensing.

              Like it or not (and I don’t), marriage is an institution largely defined by pre-existing law, not what each of us determine it to be. In quite a few states, I don’t even have to apply for a government license to have that law used on me.

    3. It’s not so much about doing her job or not doing her job.

      The reality is that as a government official she is empowered to do things that violate people’s rights. The reality is that you can’t marry without getting government permission, and she’s refusing to give permission.

      So the difference is, by refusing to grant permission, she’s effectively forcibly interfering with the voluntary activity of consenting adults.

      Not enforcing a gun law, by contrast, doesn’t involve wielding government force against anyone. It’s exactly the opposite.

      Any time a government officials says “i’m not going to enforce this law banning X” they’re effectively removing the application of force. But when they say “I’m not going to enforce this law legalizing X” they are effectively applying force – they’re keeping in place a government law that violates peoples rights.

      One is a violation of the NAP and the other isn’t.

      1. So the difference is, by refusing to grant permission, she’s effectively forcibly interfering with the voluntary activity of consenting adults.

        Inaction is action? That’s very Tony-like of you.

        1. Did you read the rest of my post? She chose to run for office as a county clerk. She knew that office gave her the power to deny people the right to marry when she did it. She made an active CHOICE to assume the power to grant or deny people permission. AND SHE USED IT. In contravention of a court order!

          What do you think she was just accidentally born in the office?

  32. So to all the people defending her, let’s say American gun laws changed in the middle of a sheriff’s tenure. This sheriff believes guns are evil and people shouldn’t have them, so our theoretical sheriff refuses to obey the law and continues arresting people under laws that no longer apply.

    Is this okay because the person is just following their conscience?

    1. So to all the people defending her,

      I suspect very few here are actually defending her.

      Most of us are just wondering if there is a principled position on such things as civil disobedience, separation of powers, federalism, etc., or if even libertarians are mostly just feelz-driven culture warriors these days.

      Grand Moff at least is trying to engage on some interesting issues and arguments at 1:27 pm.

      1. Most of us are just wondering if there is a principled position on such things as civil disobedience, separation of powers, federalism, etc., or if even libertarians are mostly just feelz-driven culture warriors these days.

        On this subject it is most certainly the latter.

    2. Not,giving someone a,government license is th same as arresting and imprisoning them?

  33. Sorry, but putting on your pouty face and refusing to push demanding a scrap of government paper across a counter (while continuing to draw a paycheck) hardly seems equivalent to being a conductor on the Underground Railroad chattel slave.

    I do not in any way disagree with your rewrite (which I am too lazy to re-tag) of my original proposition.

    1. The point is, it’s simply lazy to say, “the Supreme Court said it, I believe it, that settles it!”

      That’s an unacceptable shortcut, unless of course you’re willing to accept Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and other similar bad opinions.

  34. Don’t worry. The next 4 blog posts will be along any minute now.

    1. And it’s another Goddamn Trump article. Shit.

  35. let’s say American gun laws changed in the middle of a sheriff’s tenure. This sheriff believes guns are evil and people shouldn’t have them, so our theoretical sheriff refuses to obey the law and continues arresting people under laws that no longer apply.

    Like a change from “May issue” to “Shall issue”?
    Wasn’t there a sheriff somewhere who basically threatened to gun down lawful open-carry gun owners?
    My guiding principle, such as it is, is to support actions which expand freedom and respect personal autonomy.

    1. My guiding principle, such as it is, is to support actions which expand freedom and respect personal autonomy.

      What if doing so in a particular case requires that a larger structure that generally protects freedom across the board has to be trashed?

  36. I’m okay with this. As long as same-sex couples are able to obtain licenses as easily as straight couples, then their rights aren’t being violated anymore.
    The only problem is the implicit threat in saying that she’s not sure the licenses are legal or not. It will be interesting to see if she refuses to let her deputies hand out marriage certificates once the licenses are executed.

  37. I’m confused as to when it became a thing where, just because someone is engaging in some crude form of civil disobedience, we have to support their goals or their means.

    Interracial marriage was imposed on the states by the Supreme Court. Who here is comfortable backing a county clerk that wouldn’t give a license to a black man and a white woman?

    In a secular republic it is wrong for government to deny people something they are legally entitled to because a bureaucrat makes a personal decision based on their personal morality or conscience.

    If your conscience permits you to tolerate robbery and share in its proceeds as a government employee it should allow you to give the gay couple their piece of paper.

    1. I’m confused as to when it became a thing where, just because someone is engaging in some crude form of civil disobedience, we have to support their goals or their means.

      Because we have to have PRINCIPLES!!! And those principles apparently must include “Support any retard who does anything for any reason that pisses off a judge.”

    2. Maybe because the argument against has been that government officials must blindly adhere to the law in all things (despite it only seeming to apply to Obergefell which is not actually a law).

      1. That isn’t remotely what myself or anyone else here has been arguing and you know it. Stop being a disingenuous piece of shit.

        1. OK, “government officials must blindly follow the law as long as I think the law is valid”.

          Better, O Minister of Truth?

    3. I’m confused as to when it became a thing where, just because someone is engaging in some crude form of civil disobedience, we have to support their goals or their means.

      I’m also confused by the near-complete absence of people saying “Well, I oppose her goals, but this looks like the kind of civil disobedience that we support in other circumstances. If we are opposed to people being jailed for civil disobedience when we support their goals, does that not mean we should opposed people being jailed for civil disobedience when we oppose their goals? Or are we going to support jailing people we disagree with, and oppose jailing people we agree with?”

      1. Hey now, this debate isn’t nearly that lopsided. There are a lot of people arguing on the pro-civil disobedience side.

        Though personally I’m for her being jailed. Civil disobedience doesn’t work if the state can opt out of enforcing their laws because it’s bad PR in your specific case.

  38. Once again: You can be 100% right and still be an asshole.

    Kim Davis is an asshole. Support her right to be an asshole. Don’t jail her for being an asshole, don’t fine her for being an asshole, but also don’t try to say she’s not being an asshole, because, without a doubt, Kim Davis is an asshole.

    1. Since she’s using her position as a government employee to be an asshole I’m absolutely fine with the judge fining her the equivalent of her pay.

      Yeah, she’d get inundated with donations to make up for it but that’s voluntary. Whereas at least she wouldn’t be getting paid taxpayer money to not do her job.

    2. She isn’t *just* being an asshole. She is (was) wielding power against people. She signed up for a government job that gives her the power to grant or deny the right of consenting adults to marry, and she was using that power to deny people that right. She was violating the NAP.

      Heck most government officials are violating the NAP every time they enforce illegitimate laws that violate people’s rights. However in this case, she was actively refusing to obey an order to STOP violating people’s rights.

    3. You can be 100% right and still be an asshole.

      As H & R demonstrates on a daily basis.

      1. It’s assholes all the way down.

  39. And, to be clear, I don’t see how having (or not) a scrap of paper with a government seal on it in your sweaty little hand which “validates” your personal relationship with another human being has any meaningful impact on your personal freedom and autonomy (provided, of course, you are not subject to arrest or imprisonment for lack of said scrap of paper).

    1. Weird – never thought it would teh gaiz asking of the government, “Papers, please!”

      But here we are….

    2. if you pay more in taxes because you don’t have that scrap of paper, does that not have a “meaningful” effect on your personal freedom? Are taxes not an imposition on one’s liberty?

      1. f you pay more in taxes because you don’t have that scrap of paper, does that not have a “meaningful” effect on your personal freedom?

        Maybe the problem is with social engineering via the tax code?

        1. Clearly. But that’s certainly not a position that Kim Davis is arguing. She’s completely 100% in favor of both the social engineering via the tax code and the unequal treatment of gays.

      2. The only way married people don’t pay more in taxes is if the income each one brings in is lopsided.

        If they both bring in about the same, they most definitely pay more.

  40. So I was reading this today, and I realized that if you’re against Kim Davis, you’re literally a Nazi. QED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE PWND FUCK OFF ATHEIST FAGS

    The airmen risked being shot as spies if captured by the Germans. But Mitchell said the city’s chief of police also happened to be the head of the local underground, and could provide a degree of warning and protection for the Allied aviators in hiding.

    1. Homophobia is equivalent to basic human decency and conscience is all sacred and just no matter if it is a life or death situation or if you just need to let your staff of clerks give someone a piece of paper.

      1. Well “homophobia” is a construction of Orwellian propaganda intended to belittle people into believing that certain thoughts cannor be expressed.

        1. Oh, fascinating. Do racism next. That’s just a SJW ploy to belittle people who rightfully want their white women protected from raping black and brown hordes, right?

          1. You mean “racism” the actual word or the term casually tossed about by people who think minorities are congenitally unable to compete and must be given preferential treatment based on racial status?

  41. As I have said, from the beginning of this “marriage equality” campaign, it’s not about human dignity nearly so much as it’s about gaining the ability to stick your hand in somebody else’s pocket.

    1. I wonder if trial lawyers have a Pavlovian response to something being declared to be a civil right…

    2. Well before you stick that hand in my pocket, you better put a ring on it, Mister!

  42. Clearly, the correct libertarian response to the situation is to believe this woman should continue to live off stolen money for as long as possible while doing as little as possible to earn it

    1. Stop it with with your silly uterus FEELZ. You don’t have the solid, rational basis of KIM DAVIS who used LOGIC to come to her cold analysis of the facts with EVIDENCE and rigorous thought.

      1. She’s just an innocent GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL! She’s got NOTHING TO DO with whether gays have the right to marry or not! It’s just a PIECE OF PAPER! No legal implications WHATSOEVER!

    2. That rather presumes that this is county clerk’s only job.

    3. No, the correct response (obviously) is to believe this woman should continue to live off stolen money for as long as possible while wielding government power against consenting adults who just want to be treated equally.

      Libertarianism (clearly) means freedom for people with armed thugs at their disposal to do whatever they want with their power.

      1. wielding government power against consenting adults who just want to be treated equally.

        Everybody’s getting a license. What are you gibbering about?

        1. They are now. If Kim Davis had her way, they wouldn’t be.

          1. No they still would be. They aren’t required to the get a license from that county, they can go next door.

            1. And if the next country also has petty officials who use their power to deny them a license?
              Equal justice under law means the gay couple shouldn’t have to drive one hour further to get a license.

              1. Meanwhile first cousins have to state shop.

              2. Actually they didn’t have to do that either. Kim Davis was not handing out heterosexual marriage licenses either. Both gay and heterosexual couple had to drive the same distance and go through the same hoops to get a marriage license.

                1. So she was violating the rights of BOTH gays and straights. Equally!! That makes it so much better!

                  1. “Equal justice under law means the gay couple shouldn’t have to drive one hour further to get a license.”

                    Apparently so considering that was the entire point of your post.

            2. Fuck that. If my tax money is paying that bitch’s salary she can give me what I’m entitled to or resign.

              Making someone drive an hour to the next county courthouse is outrageous.

              1. The people who’s tax money is paying her salary elected her, and most bets are that they will do it again when her term is up.

                1. People paying tax money for the salaries of petty local bureaucrats are frequently in favor of all sorts of horrible laws that violate people’s rights.

                  1. Which circles back around to the need for civil disobedience. Resistance through inaction. Leaving the other side to either negotiate a compromise or justify to the public the use of force in enforcing their laws.

                    1. So, we’re supposed to be in FAVOR of a petty local bureaucrat using civil disobedience to agitate for their right to violate other people’s rights?

                      How did you work yourself around to that position?

                      “Resistance” to what? The equal treatment of gays? Why the fuck should we be siding with someone who resists THAT?

                2. The people who’s tax money is paying her salary elected her, and most bets are that they will do it again when her term is up.

                  That has nothing to do with whether or not she is obligated to serve the residents of her county.

                  How would you feel if you had to go out of your way and drive a great distance just to file some paperwork because some asshole bureaucrat arbitrarily decided they didn’t want to serve you?

                  1. What do my feeling matter in this situation? Feminist drive me nearly to seeing red on a regular basis with their hate speech, doesn’t mean I’m willing to compromise the first amendment.

                    She has the right to participate in civil disobedience. The other side has the right to enFORCE their laws using the means provided by the court and state.

                    1. Which includes throwing her in prison.
                      Again I’m failing to see why I should spend two seconds sympathizing with the bitch.

                    2. She has a right to do this and we all have a right to call her a parasitic asshole that wants the right to not do her job while still getting paid for it.

    4. Clearly, the correct libertarian response to the situation is to believe this woman should continue to live off stolen money for as long as possible while doing as little as possible to earn it

      You’re suggesting she run for higher office?

  43. this woman should continue to live off stolen money for as long as possible while doing as little as possible to earn it

    That’s pretty much the official job description, isn’t it?
    Why else would somebody run for that office?

    1. Why else would somebody run for that office?

      Oh, I don’t know, because petty tyrants like wielding arbitrary power over other people’s lives?

      If Kim Davis didn’t have gay marriage, she’d probably be arresting moms for letting their kids play without supervision, or fining people for cutting down trees in their yards.

      1. If Kim Davis didn’t have gay marriage, she’d probably be arresting moms for letting their kids play without supervision, or fining people for cutting down trees in their yards.

        I don’t think you understand how petty tyranny works. It’s about abusing the powerless; somebody with the courts on their side is not powerless.

        1. Then it’s a good thing gays have the courts on their side, isn’t it?

          Amazing, here’s a case where the courts actually come down on some petty local official wielding her power in an unequal and abusive way, and a bunch of people suddenly are on the side of the would-be petty tyrant in the local government.

          Personally, I’m in favor of MORE county clerks being thrown in jail for abusing their power….

          1. I’m in favor of more PRESIDENTS being thrown in jail for abusing their power.

            Work our way down to county clerk.

            1. For all the problems Illinois has, they seem to be doing a good job at jailing Governors.

          2. I’m not “on her side” (could you bother to read anything else I’ve written?), I’m against misrepresentations in service to a cause.

            If we’re just going to throw all the county clerks into prison over exercising discretion, then we ought not to have them in the first place.

            THAT is the libertarian solution. Not all of this handwringing about “equality” and “fairness”.

            1. Maybe we can just limit it to cases where exercising their discretion happens to involve violating people’s rights.

              I don’t mind it nearly as much when petty officials exercise their discretion to hand out business licenses willy nilly.

  44. As long as she fulfills the other responsibilities of her job and doesn’t get in the way of issuing marriage licenses, the court got what they wanted from her jailing.

    The voters of Rowan County can decide in the next election if she deserves to remain in office.

  45. Someone is going to have to explain to me why this woman is so significant.

    1. Just walk away, Crusty. Quickly. This topic is HyR quicksand.

  46. She doesn’t have a foot to stand on from a religious basis. The job of the county clerk is simply to record the marriage. Her name is placed on the license and she files it.

    Does she also refuse to issue birth certificates for infants born to unmarried parents (thus the result of adultery)? Does she refuse to record divorces?

    She doesn’t have a foot to stand on from a religious basis. The job of the county clerk is simply to record the marriage. Her name is placed on the license and she files it.

    The only way she is actually standing on principles is if she applies them across the board. Does she also refuse to issue birth certificates for infants born to unmarried parents (thus the result of adultery)? Does she refuse to record divorces?

    Her messiah said not a word about homosexuality, although he did have quite a bit to say about hypocrites.

    1. Considering she won’t sign marriage licenses of straight people that have been previously married, it wouldn’t really shock me if she wouldn’t sign the birth certificates of bastards either.

      1. To my knowledge, the Kentucky constitution doesn’t ban remarriage after divorce. Maybe it should.

        But the Kentucky Constitution imposes on state officials a legal duty to recognize *only* man/woman marriage.

        So the next question is whether the Kentucky Constitution comports with the federal constitution.

        The U.S. Supreme Court says no, but these are the same geniuses who said the government can take someone’s house and give it to a private corporation. And that the federal government can arrest someone for growing pot for his own use because it could affect interstate commerce.

        So the Supreme don’t really have all that great a record on Constitutional interpretation, and we can’t simply assume their version of the Constitution is the right one.

        So we’re back to discussing the actual meaning of the Constitution without the dubious aid of the robe-wearing imbeciles.

  47. So the county clerk now maintains two separate (but equal) classes of service? Sounds legit.

    To really simplify the process, they should probably just staff separate offices.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.