Gay Marriage

Kim Davis Seems to Think God Cares About Valid Government Marriage Licenses

Kentucky fight goes on with new court filings.

|

Does anybody even actually look at their marriage licenses ever again?
"Good Morning America"

Rebellious Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis is speaking out now to ABC News about her experiences of refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She famously ended up in jail for five days for contempt of court for her refusal. Now she's out and marriage licenses are being handed out, but they've been altered to reflect that the judge has ordered them and do not have Davis' name on them.

Davis has said that she's not sure they're actually valid, and interestingly, some couples themselves have the same concern. Now lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Unions are representing some of these couples and are trying to force Davis back into court and demand the licenses to be changed back to the way they're supposed to be. They essentially want to force Davis' name to be on the license because the altered versions "feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the government's position is that LGBT are second-class citizens unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this Court's intervention and Order," according to the ACLU's court filing.

While normal human beings try figure out what on earth that above statement even means (Does anybody actually care whose name is on a marriage license but their own? As a lifelong bachelor I don't understand this argument at all), Kim Davis had her own rather curious comments that indicate she doesn't quite grasp what marriage licenses even are. From her interview with Good Morning America:

"I have never once spouted a word of hate. I have not been hateful," she said. She also said the licenses going out of her office now, issued by a deputy clerk, don't have her authorization and are "not valid in God's eyes." [emphasis added]

Does Davis actually believe that the God cares about whether the government puts its stamp of approval on a couple's marriage? Does she think that if she puts her name on the certificate, then God has to accept it as valid? Does God have to accept marriage certificates signed by atheist county clerks? Does God have to accept the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriages if Davis starts putting her name on marriage licenses? Or does He have to already because of all the other clerks and judges who have already been handing them out? So many questions.

The quotes from both Davis and the ACLU lawyers are why I find the whole fight so tiresome. The purpose of a marriage license is to indicate to the government that the two of you are a couple, with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges that entails. All that should matter is that it's valid, not that county officials express their love for you (or that God agrees).

As for Davis, she's an elected agent of the county government as a clerk, not an agent of God. She did make an additional comment that I actually agree with, yet it only highlights how bizarre her stubbornness is:

Faris noted how one gay man said he finally felt human after obtaining a license in Rowan Count, but Davis responded that dignity is something that people find in themselves, not the constitution.

"I feel really sad that someone can be so unhappy with themselves as a person that they did not feel dignified as a human being until they got a piece of paper, Davis said. "There is just so much more to life than that."

If it's just "a piece of paper," then she shouldn't have any problem handing them out with her name on them, should she?

NEXT: American University faculty resolution on freedom of expression (and, in particular, trigger warnings)

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. Kim, you so cray!

    1. I thought the kids were saying “cray cray” these days, is Kim not deserving of a second cray?

      1. If you saw me, you would know I’m no ‘kid’.

        NOW GET OFF MY LAWN with your “kids say” and iThings and electronic calendars!

        1. +1 iPen

      2. What’s “cray cray” is the government’s position.

        When a muslim wants to grow a beard or wear a hijab, or doesn’t want to serve alcohol
        When a seventh-day-adventist doesn’t want to work on Saturday
        When a Sikh wants to wear a turban on the job
        When a company mandates that its employees wear pants
        When a Nazarite refuses to cut his hair
        When a Jehovah Witness is denied a day off to attend a convention
        When a Jehovah witness refuses to raise the American flag

        The government swings into action, filing suits and levying fines.

        But when a woman objects to aiding in the sanctification of two queers in an act of “marriage”, in direct contravention of her religion (which calls homosexuality an “abomination” and says that homosexuals should be “put to death”), does the government protect her from her employer?

        No.

        Worse, the government IS her employer. The government is enforcing a standard to which it will not adhere!

        Personally, I agree with Thomas Edison: Religion is bunk. But this uneven application of the principle is pure crap, pure hypocisy.

        The government is wrong. Whether it is wrong about the 8 cases I cited at the top, or the Kim Davis case is not clear – but at the very least the government should be AT LEAST as tolerant of religious quirks as the standards it forces on others.

        The Bill of Rights was intended, first and foremost, to protect us from the government!

  2. Now lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Unions are representing some of these couples and are trying to force Davis back into court and demand the licenses to be changed back to the way they’re supposed to be. They essentially want to force Davis’ name to be on the license

    Nope, nobody’s shooting the wounded or grinding their heel in the face of their defeated ideological foes. Nosireebob.

    Far be it from these spittle-flecked activists to issue a gracious declaration of victory. Nope. They want their enemies face down in the mud. That’s what this is now about. The licenses are being issued, there is absolutely zero chance that they aren’t valid, so there really isn’t anything else this could be about.

    1. Having her name on their marriage licence would be quite the feather in their cap. I would venture to guess that it would become quite the collector’s item in some circles.

      1. But would you venture to say it is a feather in God’s cap? I thought god only cared about holy unions, and doesn’t give a rats ass about civil unions? It’s so very hard to keep up with religious lunatics. Next she’ll be telling us god sent her that special stamp!

        1. But if you order right now, we’ll send you a second one for free. Just pay shipping and handling charges and they can both be yours courtesy of divine govt. stamp of approval.

          (Sorry, I couldn’t stop myself )

    2. They want their enemies face down in the mud. That’s what this is now about.

      Kultur warriors take no prisoners. Ever. If the defeated are ever allowed some measure of dignity, it could embolden the enemy to seek compromise. And compromise is intolerable to them.

    3. The ACLU is treating this like a fundraising headliner. It’s got national attention so they want their name plastered all over it. I guarantee that it’s in all of their “please give us money” emails.

      1. I once gave a big check (big by my standards) to the ACLU. I was right out of college and still believed they actually gave a shit about civil liberties. It was unbelievable how much they hounded me for more: junk mail almost every day, e-mails more than once a day, phone calls at dinnertime, phone calls at breakfast. One agent pretty much told me there wasn’t really anything they could do with the amount I sent them, and considering what important work they do, it would be insulting if I didn’t send more.

    4. There’s certainly an element of that. However if she is not complying with state law or not faithfully fulfilling her duty then she is in the wrong and likely in contempt of court (but who isn’t).

    5. “They essentially want to force Davis’ name to be on the license”

      Nope, nosiree bob, RC.
      What they want is a *legal* license. You know, the one she is charged with delivering.
      If she chooses not to, well, got to jail or quit your job so we can find someone who will do that job as required.
      Don’t want to be called before the court? Keep you superstitions out of the job you’re charged with doing.

      1. What they want is a *legal* license.

        Which is what they are getting now. Deputies are allowed to sign, and I don’t see the nonstandard wording she has on there as invalidating the license.

        1. R C Dean|9.22.15 @ 2:14PM|#
          What they want is a *legal* license.
          “Which is what they are getting now. Deputies are allowed to sign, and I don’t see the nonstandard wording she has on there as invalidating the license.”

          Right, and you’d be willing to argue with the IRS if there was some dispute? The state over an inheritance? A hospital over visitation?
          Sorry, there is a legal license standard, which, by her taking that position, she is *required* to deliver.
          Fuck her (with eddy’s dick) if her superstition keeps her from doing so. I’m tired of bleevers claiming victimhood since the constitution keeps them from forcing their superstitions on others.

      2. Kim is pretty important. If she, for example, had a car accident and spent time in the hospital, NO ONE could get married. Or, when she takes 3 weeks off for her vacation, everyone is out of luck. Because no one else can sign anything.

        I agree they are going after her, this is retribution. And, fund raising.

    6. Oh calm down.

    7. From other news items I have read, the format is specified by state law. Ergo: Kim Davis violated the law as it applied to her in her official capacity.

      The sad part of this whole soap opera, is that she doesn’t understand the Kim Davis in her official capacity (“Clerk of Rowan County”) is completely separate from her personal capacity (“Church attender on Sunday”)

      If Queen Elizabeth can separate her 30+ distinct personae (“The Crown” and “The Monarch” – which are distinct legal entities as I understand British constitutional law; Elizabeth Windsor, the sweet old lady with the handbag; and Queen of 15 other commonwealth realms where she is also “The Crown” and “The Monarch”), then surely Kim Davis can sort out 2.

  3. God was so mad when my car registration expired.

    1. This one time God sent a pestilence because my yard got a little bit unkempt.

      1. Wasn’t that from an episode of X-Files? IRRC the HOA summoned a supernatural being to enforce their rules, killing people for gaudy lawn ornaments and the like.

          1. That’s the one, the Vampire one was pretty good too. I actually like those side episodes more than I liked the ones that (more or less) advanced the main story arc.

            1. That one with the mutant incest family fucked my shit up for weeks.

              1. What kind of sheriff keeps his pistol on his desk downstairs and his front door unlocked with only a Louisville slugger bedside for protection?!

                1. Sheriff Andy Taylor never carried a weapon in Mayberry.

              2. The mother on the trolley under the bed. Holy fuck did that ever make me scream like a little girl.

              3. Too close to home?

        1. Sounds like the plot to Hot Fuzz

      2. This one time God sent a pestilence because my yard got a little bit unkempt.

        So that explains jesse’s lawn….

        1. but what about jesse’s girl?

          1. +1, but the point is probably moot.

  4. I wonder how God feels about her dressing like a curb-rescued frat house sofa.

    1. Hey now, that’s my thing to bitch about.

      1. I didn’t mean to step on your toes, fraulein. I just can’t bring myself to take this bullshit seriously anymore.

        1. I’m taking her fashion choices very seriously. I’m pretty sure putting her on TV is a violation of the NAP.

          1. Most women just slouch into frumpiness, but she seems to put a lot of effort into it.

            1. #FrumpLivesMatter

              1. Frump sat alone in a Kentucky Court
                Feeling high and Poius except for her divorce
                Gays came in threatening her marriage
                Now she totally trashed by aclu lawyers

                She’s Frump, She’s frump
                She’s in the news
                She’s frump, she’s frump, she’s frump
                For her religious views

                1. My frump my frump my frump my lovely little frumps

            2. Did someone say TRUMP?!

              1. This clerk is YUUUUGE!

                1. Did you say “yuge”? What’s a yuge?

          2. I’d call it macroaggression due to her size.

    2. Turns out He’s into that.

    3. She makes up for it with the bathtub and used tire grotto in the yard.

  5. As a lifelong bachelor

    The term is “confirmed bachelor,” Scott.

    1. He can’t be confirmed because the government won’t issue him a license. Undocumented terminal bachelor, methinks.

  6. Honestly, I hope a judge finds something to the effect of “Fuck you all (Kim Davis, the ACLU, and the LGBT community). These licenses are valid. Now shut the fuck up and go the fuck home.”.

    Christ Almighty, it’s like a race to see who can prove themselves more loathsome.

    1. I, personally, find them allllll loathesome.

      And I love me some Kentucky – but I’ll be avoiding this county if I move there…

  7. So she thinks the licenses are a stamp of divine acceptance, and many activists seem to think the licenses are an indication of cultural acceptance. But I think that marriage licenses are a contract between a couple (or so) and the state for entitlement benefits. Who’s right? NO ONE CAN SAY FOR SURE.

    1. So the only issue is whether or not *other* government agencies will accept them as valid. If yes, end of problem. If not, then the tiresome issue continues.

    2. “marriage licenses are a contract”

      Maybe I am too old-fashioned, but the word license used to mean something different. A license is an official permission to do something that is otherwise unrecognized by the Authorities, or perhaps even prohibited, yes?

      A couple gets a license to marry, afterward formalizing a contract of marriage in some ceremony, usually in front of some priestly shaman, magic-maker or other superstition-spouting sorcerer. Seems that this funny lady and her critics agree on the proposition that if you don’t have the correctly signed license, then the spells and incantations fail, the enchantment doesn’t take, or something.

      Belief in the state has always been voodoo.

      1. you sir have won todays internets

      2. Calling them “licenses” at this point is a bit anachronistic. It’s not like anyone is denied one (assuming both parties are of the legal age and not too closely related). “marriage registration form” would be more accurate at this point.

        1. Official government-issued marriage pennants.

          1. Can we get Marriage foam fingers, too? That would be cool, to go with the pennants.

            1. Oo!! Oo!! We can get divorce Form-fingers, too! But the big sticking up finger would be in the middle. That would be brilliant. You know there is a market for this.

    3. “and many activists seem to think the licenses are an indication of cultural acceptance”

      No? Not really? Do you know any activists?

  8. Does God have to accept marriage certificates signed by atheist county clerks?

    Can God create a county clerk who will print names on marriage licenses so small that even God can’t read them?

    1. Sounds like someone is unfamiliar with the ancient doctrine of the Divine Right of County Clerks.

          1. and I don’t mean applause

  9. Alright, could we all agree to stop paying attention to this sanctimonious, porcine attention-whore? Fuck’s sake people, I am getting more tired of involuntarily seeing her than I did of Tanya Harding, and that’s sayin’ something!

      1. That is a mental picture I did not need.

      2. Badly-phrased hyperlink, dude.

        You triggered me before I even decided to not click it.

      3. There is not enough alcohol to get that image out of my mind.

        1. you need to burn holez in your brain with the scary MDMA

      4. BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

        – “It’s YYYUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

        – “Jesus, Lord, preserve muh womanly virtue and deliver muh from Trumptation.”

        – “Anyone who doesn’t like it is a LOSER! Mine is one hundred thousand times bigger than my competitors’, because I’m a WINNER!”

        – “Dear Gawd, hear muh prayer.”

        – “You’re just like ROSIE O’DONNELL. Don’t be a FAT SLOB like Rosie!”

        – “Ah jus wanted tuh fight the queers. Ah din’t ask for Trump himself!”

        – “LOSER! PREPARE TO BE FIRED, DONALD STYLE!”

        END TRANSCRIPT

        1. [vomits explosively]

    1. Yeah. This is really, really boring. And John isn’t even here to tell everyone what their true motivations are and how libertarians who supported gay marriage are to blame for everything.

      1. Don’t you get it?!? JOHN IS MR. KIM DAVIS #2/#4!!!11!!one!

        1. Could even be Kim Davis Xeself.

  10. Does Davis actually believe that the God cares about whether the government puts its stamp of approval on a couple’s marriage? Does she think that if she puts her name on the certificate, then God has to accept it as valid? Does God have to accept marriage certificates signed by atheist county clerks? Does God have to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages if Davis starts putting her name on marriage licenses? Or does He have to already because of all the other clerks and judges who have already been handing the out? So many questions.

    Suppose the Bible they hand you to swear on is upside-down. Or backwards. Or both! And you swear to tell the truth on an upside-down backwards Bible. Would that count? Suppose the Bible they hand you is an old Bible and half the pages are missing. Suppose all they have is a Chinese Bible, in an American court! Or Braille Bible, and you’re not blind! Suppose they hand you an upside-down, backwards Chinese Braille Bible with half the pages missing!

    1. With a bent page corner! Or some pages were crumpled at the edge by careless handling!

      It would probably void the guarantee on the marriage certificate.

    2. Being sworn in on a Bible has always seemed odd to me, particularly in a country that is supposed to have a secular government. I’ve had to do it several times for jury duty, but I’m not sure how binding my oath is since I consider the Bible to be nothing more than fairy tales, lies, and rubbish. They might as well swear me in on a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey.

      1. Its voluntary to use the Bible to be sworn in, you know.

        1. I’ve never been given that option.

        2. I swear on R C Dean, to tell the whole truth.

          1. No you’ve done it, Certy.

            If you lie now, Dean will “go Bricktop” and feed you to his pigs.

        3. I don’t think you even have to swear in either. Can’t you affirm instead of swear? Or is that just for oaths of office. I believe it was originally to accommodate Quakers who won’t swear any oath.

      2. Hey now, theres much more kinky sex in the bible

      3. Hey now, theres much more kinky sex in the bible

        1. So twice as much, I’m guessing?

    3. Suppose the Bible they hand you to swear on is upside-down. Or backwards. Or both! And you swear to tell the truth on an upside-down backwards Bible. Would that count? Suppose the Bible they hand you is an old Bible and half the pages are missing. Suppose all they have is a Chinese Bible, in an American court! Or Braille Bible, and you’re not blind! Suppose they hand you an upside-down, backwards Chinese Braille Bible with half the pages missing!

      What if the flag in the courthouse has a gold fringe on it?!?!? Aaargh!!!!

  11. Davis has said that she’s not sure they’re actually valid, and interestingly, some couples themselves have the same concern. Now lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Unions are representing some of these couples and are trying to force Davis back into court and demand the licenses to be changed back to the way they’re supposed to be. They essentially want to force Davis’ name to be on the license because the altered versions “feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the government’s position is that LGBT are second-class citizens unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this Court’s intervention and Order,” according to the ACLU’s court filing.

    She may have a point. Those issued while she was absent (aka in jail) are valid under KY law with the county judge executive’s signature. Not that she is not longer “absent” there is a question if they are.

    1. Pretty sure she doesn’t have a point. I took a quick look at the KY statutes on this, and I see directives to the county clerk to use a certain license form (which she may or may not be violating).

      Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and
      Archives when issuing a marriage license.

      The form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout this
      state, and every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures provided in the
      form prescribed by that section. In issuing the license the clerk shall deliver it in its
      entirety to the licensee. The clerk shall see to it that every blank space required to be
      filled by the applicants is so filled before delivering it to the licensee.

      http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes…..x?id=39205

      I see nothing declaring a license on a non-standard form to be invalid. And, of course, there is the additional question of who can challenge or declare it invalid. My guess is that this will only come up when somebody changes their mind and wants out of their gay marriage, and hopes to get it annulled rather than get divorced so they don’t have to share their goodies with their ex.

      1. I’m not arguing a non-standard form. I think it’s just a plain reading of this:

        402.240 County judge/executive to issue license in absence of clerk.
        In the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county
        judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and
        incur all the responsibilities of the clerk. The county judge/executive shall return a
        memorandum thereof to the clerk, and the memorandum shall be recorded as if the
        license had been issued by the clerk.
        Effective: October 1, 1942

        Davis is neither absent nor is the office vacant.

        Of course it is predicated by this statute, which also indicates that licenses are issued to the female of the couple seeking marriage…

        402.080 Marriage license required — Who may issue.
        No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
        the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
        eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application
        in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
        Effective: July 13, 1984

        1. There’s no question the exec can issue of the clerk is absent. I don’t think the exec is issuing licenses now that she’s back; I thoughther deputies were (with nonstandard wording):

          She also said the licenses going out of her office now, issued by a deputy clerk, don’t have her authorization

          They don’t need her signature either, as long as a deputy signs them:

          The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk
          or deputy clerk issuing the license.

          I think the signatures are valid (either the deputy or the exec while she was in jail).

          I think the only ground for doubting the licenses is the nonstandard wording. The statute says the license should have the following on it:

          An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any
          person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite
          in marriage the persons named;

          I think that’s what she is referring to. But, I see nothing stating that altering this statement invalidates the license, especially if the ceremony is legally authorized (it is, per the federal courts) and the source of that authorization is stated (which is what she has done, more or less).

          So, yeah, I think the only issue is the nonstandard wording, and I don’t think it invalidates the license.

        2. If the argument is that all licenses for gay men to be married are invalid because no clerk is authorized to issue them, on account of only a clerk from the county where the women resides can issue them, two thoughts:

          (1) That has nothing to do with Kim Davis.
          (2) I think the federal judge took care of that already by requiring that the licenses be issued, state statutes be damned.

          1. Actually reread that, The wording is a bit awkward but it is only a requirement for the clerk of the county where the female lives to issue the license if the female in question is under 18 and not a widow.

            If she is over 18 or a widow then any clerk of the court can issue the license.

            Since in a gay marriage there would not be a female this entire portion is irrelevant and the real question is why gays who want to get married don’t just hop on over to the next county to get their marriage certificate

          2. But the federal judge violated the 10th amendment in doing so….

            1. Amendment Schmmendant

            2. The 14th changes the 10th as it gave the federal government more power over states to enforce equal protection and due process rights.
              Not saying that it is necessarily applied appropriately here, but it’s not as simple as just saying “10th”.

  12. Faris noted how one gay man said he finally felt human after obtaining a license in Rowan Count, but Davis responded that dignity is something that people find in themselves, not the constitution.

    AM I SERIOUSLY THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO UNDERSTANDS THE PROPER PLACE OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES? Gah!

    1. What kind of life is that?! Waiting for a permission slip to feel human, it is kind of pathetic.

      1. I’ve been much happier since my condo board validated my self worth with a monthly bill.

      2. And the sex doesn’t get any better once you have a marriage license.

        1. That depends on how you’re using it.

          1. Bend over and I will show you…

            1. Doesn’t the anal reaming take plays years after the sex stops?

              1. The real anal reaming occurs once the marriage is dissolved.

                1. Usually, what gets reamed is a few inches over from the anus.

        2. CPA…not true. Have sex with your secretary at work. It is good. Get married then have frantic sex in the mail room with your secretary while you are holding the door shut. That is hot sex!

          Marriage definitely adds something to sex.

          (…um….not with your wife of course….)

    2. Either a sign of having absolutely no internal self esteem or melodramatics cranked up to eleven. You decide.

      1. I’m pretty sure both.

        1. I”d go with narcissism + melodrama

    3. So even before this gay man found a partner to marry, he felt the missing element in his life was a marriage certificate?

    4. If he needs that to feel human, he’s got some other problems.

  13. It is more or less inevitable that these licenses will be ruled valid, isn’t it?
    And who has standing to contest their validity anyway?

    1. It’s no longer a question of the validity of the licenses. It’s a question of how much more the woman can be punished.

      1. Has anyone released her home address and cell phone number so the SJWs can finish her off?

        1. Why would they? Social justice warriors don’t commit their own injustices. If they commit injustice on their own, then their victims may seek justice from the government. The point of social justice is to have government commit injustice on your behalf. That way the victim of your injustice has no remedy.

          1. The point of social justice is to have government commit injustice on your behalf.

            +1 bumper sticker

    2. Their employers, vis a vis benefits, for one.

      1. Interesting thought, SugarFree. That might actually happen.

        They will lose, but I could see it. And they might even lose on standing.

        1. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if an employer decided NOT to offer benefits specifically to married gay couples?
          That would be an EEOC case for one thing.

    3. “I feel really sad that someone can be so unhappy with themselves as a person that they did not feel dignified as a human being until they got a piece of paper, Davis said. “There is just so much more to life than that.”

      You could take this to mean that a gay-marriage license is “just a piece of paper” since it isn’t a God-certified document like a real marriage license, so it would be God contesting the validity of the license. (God being unavailable for comment, Kim Davis has elected to speak on His behalf. Presuming to know the will of the Almighty is a sin in my version of the Bible, but my Bible is the condensed version and has only a few words in it.)

  14. Does anybody actually care whose name is on a marriage license but their own?

    If it means forcing someone to put their name on the license, completely against their will, and contrary to their faith, even though the license is valid, then FUCK YEAH FORCE THE BITCH TO PUT HER NAME ON IT! PUT HER ASS BACK IN JAIL IF SHE REFUSES!

    1. Oh, sarc, you silly bitch.

    2. I don’t like the idea of marriage licensing [REQUISITE PREFACE COMPLETE] but she needs to resign to be in compliance with her faith as she sees it and with the law as it’s been interpreted. Taxpayers should have to hand her a check to shirk responsibilities.

      1. Is that her only duty?

  15. I’m on a Mission From God … to deliver the most mediocre government service possible!

    1. Do you see the light, Princess?

      1. I never imagined James Brown with Finnish subtitles.

  16. “”I feel really sad that someone can be so unhappy with themselves as a person that they did not feel dignified as a human being until they got a piece of paper, Davis said. “There is just so much more to life than that.””

    That’s very interesting, let us know when you plan to get back to work

  17. Why does she dress like a polygamist?

    1. She’s had 3 and 1/2 husbands.

      1. Was her 4th marriage to a midget?

        1. Remarriage to hubby #2.

          1. Each subsequent marriage to the same person only counts half as much as the one previously? So if Kim Davis divorced and remarried the one dude infinity times, it would count as two marriages? That’s a novel application of Zeno’s Arrow.

            1. And of course, Jesus, as a pious Jew, would find her to be an abomination for remarriage.

              1. I dunno about that. He was pretty cool with the Samaritan woman at the well even though she’d been married to five dudes and was living with a sixth.

              2. Jesus, as a pious Jew, would find her to be an abomination for remarriage.

                ?

                1. HM,

                  Deuteronomy 24:1-4

                  1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

                  2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

                  3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

                  4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

                  1. To be honest, I’m not fully versed in all things Davis, be it Kim or Jim, are you saying she remarried someone she divorced?

                    1. Her current, fourth, husband, was also her second.

                    2. Her fourth/second husband is also the adoptive father of her kids by her third husband, which were conceived while she was still married to her first husband.

                  2. The ‘Lord’ referred to here is not Jesus. Old Testament written well before Jesus was born.

              3. And of course, Jesus, as a pious Jew, would find her to be an abomination for remarriage.

                Jesus would have, but the pious Jews are another story.

              4. Yup, the New Testament is filled with Jesus calling people “abomination!”

                Good you know your Bible.

            2. Each subsequent marriage to the same person only counts half as much as the one previously?

              I thought it was three-fifths.

          2. I am going to ignore this fact and go forward with the idea that she is married to a dwarf.

            1. Not Gimli, I hope.

        2. Is there such a shortage of women in Kentucky that men have to stoop to this? Celibacy and the internet porn has more appeal.

  18. “Does she think that if she puts her name on the certificate, then God has to accept it as valid?”

    OK, without having seen her comments, I’m going out on a limb and guessing she neither said nor meant that.

    The ACLU and those associated with them are a bunch of whiny sore winners.

    “OK, so you gave us these same-sex marriage licenses, but it really has no meaning unless these licenses bear the name of some ‘homophobic’ politician!”

    I bet that even if they could get Davis sent to Devil’s Island for life, they’d still fuss because the punishment wasn’t strong enough.

    1. She herself has questioned the validity of the certificates; if I were depending on one of them, that alone would be grounds for wanting her public opinion confirmed or repudiated. The whinners are schmucks, but this particular problem is of her own making. She needs to just shut up and do her job.

      1. She herself has questioned the validity of the certificates;

        The ACLU has a couple of options, here. They can go after her, personally, again, and try to grind her face in the mud, again.

        Or, they could ask a judge for a declaratory judgment that the licenses are valid.

        Guess which they chose.

        1. Kim Davis still voluntarily gave them the opening. It’s one thing to blame a burglar for breaking and entering; it’s quite another to put a sign out front that you refuse to lock your house on the principle that God will protect it.

          1. Indeed she did. She’s an idiot, but the ACLU is supposed to super-smarty-pants.

            It was still their choice to take the low road, when the high road is actually faster and easier.

          2. “It’s one thing to blame a burglar for breaking and entering; it’s quite another to put a sign out front that you refuse to lock your house on the principle that God will protect it.”

            I’m afraid I don’t see the analogy.

            Well, I see the part where the plaintiffs and the ACLU are burglars, but I don’t see where she isn’t resisting. She has a whole religious-liberty law firm going to bat for her.

  19. I realize she’s an elected official and can’t be fired, but why can’t they just stop paying her? What recourse would she have? State governments routinely break the law when it suits them, so why is this situation any different? Eventually she’d need money and would leave to find a new job. They can hold a special election and replace her. Problem solved!

    1. “State governments routinely break the law when it suits them, so why is this situation any different?”

      Good point, her opponents have been breaking all sorts of laws up to now, why stop there?

  20. Faris noted how one gay man said he finally felt human after obtaining a license in Rowan Count, but Davis responded that dignity is something that people find in themselves, not the constitution.

    Kim Davis is a clown in woman-face. //George Takei

    1. But that’s actually true, Serious.

    2. Mr. Sulu, set phasers to fabulous!

  21. AND WHO USES THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW FOR SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE?

    1. Obviously you don’t understand the pain of having a hot a mother-in-law. The woman doesn’t age I tell you, it ain’t nat’ril.

      1. Lucky you. I’ve often heard that if you want to imagine how your wife will age, look at her mother.

        1. That was all part of my calculus, good sir.

    2. People married to Joseph’s (of “Joseph and Mary and l’il baby Jesus” fame) kids?

  22. We need to nuke Kentucky from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. We’ll do it on a day Rand Paul is out of town. But we’ll make sure it happens when John Calipari’s in his office in Lexington.

    Anyways, the licenses are almost assuredly valid, even without her name on them. She’s still an idiot though. And judging from the way she was bawling when she talked about how people were mean to her by saying she’s a hypocrite, she’s not as confident in her faith as she says she is.

    1. Make sure you get Petrino too.

      1. I don’t want to do Louisville that favor.

        1. He’s gonna leave anyway. Might be after getting caught cheating on his wife again, might be during halftime on Saturday, but he’s gone eventually.

    2. robc just opened his brewery in Bowling Green. How “tactical” are these nukes?

  23. Does Davis actually believe that the God cares about whether the government puts its stamp of approval on a couple’s marriage?

    She wouldn’t have risked her job if she didn’t. By the same token, believing that god sanctifies the proceedings of a secular office leaves me with no more sympathy than when Francis calls upon governments to do God’s work by adopting Marxist economic policies.

  24. Kim Davis was in jail, and is now apparently doing the media tour…and John has been MIA.

    1. From the looks of him, he might be hanging out with David Cameron’s old frat.

    2. I’ve been wondering where he is, too.

      I think gay marriage was a big deal to him in ways that can’t be articulated easily. Like a total betrayal of manhood or something,

      He’s disappeared for long stints before, though.

      1. If I may be so bold, I think John is one of those people who are okay with only a certain type of queer person. Anything outside of the Ziggy Stardust/Divine box just messes with his headgear. I’m just guessing but I’ve met more than a few people who felt the same.

        1. He was always going on about how gays aren’t “fun” anymore. Like we’re here for his amusement.

          1. Oh, I didn’t realize you were one of those.

            It’s funny, you don’t look gay ….

            1. I am about as not-fabulous as it gets. I’m sure John would find me a colossal bore.

          2. I’m not sure the second sentence is true for him. Nor is he alone on the first. Once upon a time, gays (or, at least, stereotype) were the rebels and outsiders. That this was not at all by choice really doesn’t get through to straights who romanticize the outsider image – mistaking making the best out of a bad situation for an innate preference. And finding out that being LGBT(MMORPGWMMROMGNRBQB etc. etc.) doesn’t mean also being automatically anti-establishment radicals is grinding a lot of gears for people.

            Sorry for being a fussbudget today, but it’s been on my mind of late.

  25. OT but fuck the pope. That stupid piece of shit should have nothing to do with US politics yet people who aren’t even Catholic treat him like a demi-god who should lecture us all about the alleged wickedness of our individualist, capitalist country. Everyone here at my school is going batshit crazy that he’s coming to town when, if they were intellectually consistent, they should reject the authority of such an illiberal authority figure.

    1. Absolutely. This fawning over the Pope (ALL Popes, not just this one) is utterly nauseating. A sane society would reject this Medieval relic from the past for what he really is: an old buffoon in a ridiculous costume spouting nonsense.

      1. I agree.
        Now the fawning over inbred british royalty – totally reasonable.
        Did you see the pictures of the new Spawn of Windsor?

        1. The concept of ‘royalty’ has no place in the modern world, and my disdain for them equals (possibly surpasses) that of self-appointed religious officials. I truly don’t understand the appeal of royalty and they shouldn’t be living on the public pence since they contribute nothing of value. Make them get real jobs and turn their palaces into museums.

          1. I wouldn’t be so hasty dismissing monarchism, Antilles.

            I’m a republican (system of government not political party) turned anarchist. Even though I wish republics were the least nasty form of government, I note that the monarchists make a very powerful case that monarchs get away with far less totalitarian shit.

            The monarch is distinct from the people. None of this bullshit that government is just a word for the things we do together. Rather there is an antagonism that forces the monarch to be more circumspect, and the people less cowlike.

            1. I just don’t like the idea of un-elected leaders, and the thought of people being elevated to that position simply because they were born with the ‘right’ name goes against everything I believe. There might be situations where it works, but I was commenting specifically about British royalty. And with a Prime Minister and Parliament in place the Windsor’s serve no purpose, and the adulation over them is sickening. They are no different (and no better) than the Kardashians.

              1. Or, you could, you know, let the British run their country they way they wish.

                Also, the Royals bring in hundreds of millions of pounds a year in tourist revenue. They might even be a money maker.

    2. But.. but.. free shit!

      That is the depth of their thinking, if you mention the church’s position on abortion, homosexuality or a host of other issues, you will get blank stares and blinking as they refuse to process the information you just provided.

      1. As long as you promote Climate change and anti-capitalist rhetoric then the Left will overlook the rest of your positions.

        1. Yes. You don’t even have to do anything about it or change your lifestyle to reflect your beliefs. Simply saying the ‘right’ things absolves one of all wrongdoing. Further proof that Progressivism is a religion.

        2. …even if some of those positions involve underage boys.

    3. The Pope and the Catholic Church at large wants everyone to stay in their place.

      Knee, sit, tithe. It’s all about control and maintaining a rigid hierarchy. Catholic does, after all, mean “universal”.

      So the hostility to capitalism is understandable and indeed necessary since it threatens the hold the church has over poor people. Being from South America, Pope Frankie knows this.

      1. I would say that being from Argentina, he holds the delusion that his country would have been a socialist paradise if it weren’t for those evil lenders who demanded repayment.

    4. Fuuuuuck him and the US cities that are going way overboard for his sake. I just saw that notice in the AM Links about how UPS deliveries may be delayed; I’ve got a graphics card on the way, damn it!

      As I’ve said before, my parents live off of Central Park and their entire street is being shut down starting today. They need to show ID to get onto the street and into their building. I don’t know even know if they’ll be able to get mail Thursday and Friday. According to this, “concrete barriers and sand-filled trucks will block East 72nd Street between Fifth and Madison avenues from Thursday to Saturday.” It’s completely bonkers.

      1. Thank God he isn’t coming to Bay Ridge. Amen.

  26. Now Norway is slamming its borders shut.

    It looks like the migrant wave might have the side effect of destroying the Schengen Area once and for all.

    1. Eh, I think they’ll cave and decide they can’t do anything to stop the migrants.

    2. No surprise. Europeans love to condemn the US for not accepting every refugee on the planet, but when it’s their turn they refuse.

      1. What a racist teathuglican.

    3. ?eik Muhamed will be very sad. How can they conquer infertile Europe if it closes the door again?

  27. Partnerships cannot be validated by the government, I am going to prove this with my marriage, in about a year i will have a last will and testament, health proxy and she is signing the adoption papers for my daughter we will NOT be asking the permission of government or religion but will hold a ceremony anyways because fuck them, thats why.

  28. They essentially want to force Davis’ name to be on the license because the altered versions “feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the government’s position is that LGBT are second-class citizens unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this Court’s intervention and Order,” according to the ACLU’s court filing.

    Okay, now I’m on Davis’ side because this is royally fucked up. Oh no! It’ s a stamp of animus! However will they survive knowing that a random hillbilly thinks badly of them?

    *sobs quietly*

    1. It always sucks to be forced to side with assholes.

    2. Don’t be on anybody’s side.

      Really.

      Everybody involved in this fight are being stupid.

      If you encountered two crackheads fighting over a piece of moldy tofu, would you intervene? Would you choose a side? Or would you walk away giving thanks that neither one of them was kith or kin?

      I know what I’d do.

      1. I know what I’d do.

        If the answer isn’t Bumfights, you’re wrong.

        1. +1 Crack Baby Fight Club

          1. So what do you do with your “student athletes”

      2. Kick their asses so YOU could have the piece of moldy tofu?

        Am I warm?

      3. It’s retards, all the way down.

        1. Don’t forget the cake

      4. If one of the crackheads had the power to make me eat the moldy tofu if he ended up with it, I know who I’d help.

  29. FFS, Kim. Just do your sinful job and then repent on your deathbed. You’re still guaranteed to get past the pearly gates.

  30. Kim Davis has two choices in this situation:

    1. Do the job she was elected to do and affix her signature to the marriage license as the law requires,

    or

    2. Resign in protest.

    Failing to do one or the other of these should result in her being relieved of her duties. Perhaps she cannot be fired, because she was elected, certainly she can be impeached?

    1. Do the job she was elected to do and affix her signature to the marriage license as the law requires,

      The law allows her deputies to sign, you know. She isn’t required by law to sign a single license.

      Her refusal to give up her job even though it conflicts with her beliefs is kind of an asshole move, no doubt.

      1. What i see is that she was elected to be clerk, perhaps even pledged an oath of office to faithfully uphold and follow the law, so she is Kim Davis, Clerk not Kim Davis private citizen. It seems to me she does not have the choice to ignore the law. If a couple applies for a marriage certificate and meets all the legal requirements, then the Clerk, or as you suggest the Clerk’s office, must sign it.

        So I see her behavior of staying in office as not so much kind of an asshole move but a totally asshole move.

  31. Faris noted how one gay man said he finally felt human after obtaining a license in Rowan Count, but Davis responded that dignity is something that people find in themselves, not the constitution.

    This gay man is nobly fighting against the stereotype that gay men are cool.

    1. If he never used to feel human, what – if anything – did he self-identify as.

      And, based on his answer, does Rule 34 apply?

      1. Rule 34 always applies.

        1. Same thing Michelle Obama said about being an American.

    1. REAL KIM DAVIS NEEDS MOAR TONGUE HANGING OUT SAYING “ACK!”

  32. When my son was in the 3rd (?) grade he was learning about the solar system.

    As an exercise to help him get a scintilla of an idea of the scale of it all I took a yoga ball which was about 3 ft in diameter and held a .177 BB up next to it. This is approximately the scale of the sun vs the earth. I asked him to guess and hold the BB about as far from the ball as he thought the earth was to the sun, by scale. He moved back about 8 feet and held up the BB. I did some quick and dirty estimates and came up with 97 feet. (someone should check my math on all this if they are curious)

    We went outside and I paced it off. I had him hold up the Yoga ball and I held up the BB. He could not see the BB from that distance.

    Him – “So, our whole planet is just like a speck of dust?”

    Me – “Yep. Everything you know, everything you see, everything you think is important, the sun doesn’t ever know is there. It can’t even see us. One day, when the sun dies, it will expand and the entire earth will evaporate like a drop of water and disappear.”

    1. On a universal scale our solar system is even more insignificant than that. Hell, even our galaxy which contains about 100 billion solar systems is pretty insignificant.

      Believers think that the all powerful creator of all of everything is intensely interested and focused on the minute details of their own personal lives. To that creator it is of primary importance whose signature is on a marriage license. *facepalm*

      I am not denigrating believers. I understand why they think that. It is just the way the human brain is wired, absurd as it is.

        1. Hello, SF, my old friend

          I see you’re leading nowhere yet again

          1. That was the orange highlight trick…

            And you fell for it, sucker.

            1. I fall hard for your links, HM. be gentle with me.

                1. Well aren’t we needlessly festive. You know it’s only Tuesday, yeah?

      1. Humanity is in dire need of a Total Perspective Vortex.

        1. +1 piece of fairy cake

        2. I was reading my girlfriend the second book when we split up. We’d just finished that part.

          Now I have to find another nerdy novice and start over from scratch.

      2. “Believers think that the all powerful creator of all of everything is intensely interested and focused on the minute details of their own personal lives. To that creator it is of primary importance whose signature is on a marriage license. *facepalm*”

        From the story, it seems to be the ACLU which is invoking the Self-Esteem Clause of the U.S. Constitution to argue that it Really Matters whose signature is on the licenses.

        Perhaps the ACLU should reflect that eventually, the sun will burn out and so will all the marriage licenses.

        Then they could all go off somewhere and get high and stop worrying.

    2. Suthenboy – traumatizing children with the knowledge of their own insignificance, just because he can.

      1. It’s the Suthen way – you wouldn’t understand

        /hey, neither do I

      2. Yeah, that’s a hell of a thing for a 3rd grader to try to process. Good luck raising the resulting nihilist.

        1. Say what you want about Suthenboys’s child raising techniques–at least it’s an ethos.

      3. Yes Irish. When he was 13 I bought him a t-shirt that said on the front “I am special and unique” and on the back it said “just like everyone else”.

    3. … and he’s been in therapy ever since … you bastard!

    4. Can’t link to the video while at work, but someone recently made a model of the Solar System to scale out in the Nevada desert.

      To scale, the entire Solar System from the Sun to the orbit of Neptune is about 7 miles. Google it, it’s really fascinating.

      They show that it’s to scale by standing where the Earth is at sunrise and showing that the orb of the Sun perfectly fits the size of the ball they were using to represent the Sun.

  33. Oh, PS

    Kim Davis Scott Shackford Seems to Think God Cares About what Kim Davis thinks about Valid Government Marriage Licenses. A lot.

    Just noting for the record…

  34. And once again the left proves it doesn’t care so much about getting what it professes to want, but about saying ‘na na na na boo boo stick your head in doo doo’

  35. Why does this woman believe she speaks for God? It just seems so arrogant. But that’s just the view of a humble breakfast food.

    1. Be silent, and let Obama devour you in peace.

      1. Obama will have to wait until his wife is away before devouring something unhealthy and forbidden.

        Kind of like Bill Clinton, hey-o!

  36. Does Davis actually believe that the God cares about whether the government puts its stamp of approval on a couple’s marriage? Does she think that if she puts her name on the certificate, then God has to accept it as valid? Does God have to accept marriage certificates signed by atheist county clerks? Does God have to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages if Davis starts putting her name on marriage licenses? Or does He have to already because of all the other clerks and judges who have already been handing them out? So many questions.

    Why would you expect logical coherency from a recently born-again, 4-time married Kentucky hillbilly?

  37. Faris noted how one gay man said he finally felt human after obtaining a license in Rowan County

    Regardless of God, if you require a license from the government to feel human, as a libertarian, expect me to treat you *at least as bad* as a second-class citizen.

  38. so there you have it….. it is not about marriage. It is about hating those who have a religious conscience and forcing them through their nutty progressive humanist fascism to get in line or get destroyed.

  39. Did you guys get a load of her husband?

    He looks like the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz.

    What a circus.

    There’ nothing progressive about any religion. All are completely made up.

  40. God supposedly cares about everything. I God exists, we are all his agents one way or another. I support the right to religious freedom, and she should not have to write licenses she thinks violates her religions. She does not have the right to stop someone else from doing so. Personally, I am in favor of the Alabama approach, get government out of the license business.

    1. IF not I god exists.

  41. At first it was about hospital visitation rights and wills.

    Then it turned out that wasn’t enough – it was about the 789,000 (I forget the exact number) government benefits you get by virtue of being recognized as married.

    Then it turns out that granting all the benefits of marriage was totally bigoted and medieval unless the government also used the *term* “marriage.”

    Then it turns out *that* isn’t enough, not only does the government have to call it marriage, but official documents can’t mention that the redefinition was ordered by a federal court.

    And the documents have to include the names of “homophobic” public officials.

    You see how the activists have long since abandoned the claim that they were simply seeking equal access to concrete benefits.

    They need the assurance that everyone else not only likes them, but likes what they’re doing.

    This is not the sort of attitude which recognizes and honors the public/private distinction.

    On the contrary, they’ve made clear that private parties must be forced to affirm gay behavior. Remember the affidavit of the client in the gay baker case – on being politely turned down for a wedding cake, the gay woman was immediately traumatized and thought God had made a mistake when creating her, etc. The bakers didn’t actually, technically say this, of course, but they’re responsible for accidentally causing the gay woman to *feel* it.

    Feelings all the way down.

    1. Eddy, your lame attempts at justifying your stupidity are real tired.
      Here’s the deal: You volunteer, in writing, to hold harmless any of those folks who have to argue with, oh, the IRS over whether that is a legal marriage or not. Or with the state government over an inheritance.
      You don’t care; they can all go to hell as far as you’re concerned. They have icky sex and they want to be treated the same as you and asshole bleevers REALLY can’t have that, can they?
      I’m tired of listening to how those who support medieval superstitions are ‘victims’ since the state won’t let them force their stupidity on others.

      1. “You volunteer, in writing, to hold harmless any of those folks who have to argue with, oh, the IRS over whether that is a legal marriage or not.”

        How about you volunteer, in writing, to be less retarded?

      2. Tell you what, I’ll go you one better. I’ll volunteer in writing that I believe the licenses should be recognized as legitimate as they stand. No need to hold anyone harmless. And no reason to set a lynch mob after a ridiculous old church lady.

        1. Bill…Tony is on holiday and Sevo has graciously agreed to step in and be a dick.

  42. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  43. I think Scott is extrapolating here:

    “She also said the licenses going out of her office now, issued by a deputy clerk, don’t have her authorization and are “not valid in God’s eyes.” [emphasis added]”

    She didn’t say “they don’t have my authorization THEREFORE they are not valid in God’s eyes”.

    She said they don’t have her authorization AND are ‘not valid in God’s eyes.’

    She believes something. You don’t have to twist her words to fit into your narrative.

  44. If they are concerned that the licenses are invalid, then something should be done to correct that. But I don’t see why having some random woman’s name on their license is the only way – it just seems petty.

  45. That all cracks me up…
    Nobody asks what comprises a “legal document” in a case like this, so everyone makes up answers and goes ballistic when someone else disagrees.

    Somewhere, someone must have some criterion or criteria for what constitutes a legal draft of the form. Does it have to have her name or signature on it to be “valid”? Or just an autograph by someone in the department, pursuant to making a copy and seeing that it gets entered into the city or state records correctly?

    Is there ANY “process” here that Is or Isn’t being followed?

    Indeed, Critical Thinking is Dead. Her case and this whole non-event is just one of the latest pieces of evidence. Good luck to us all…

  46. You people are so ignorant. The Supreme Court has no right to create law. PERIOD. Let’s get to the real issue. The reason they threw Davis in jail for comtempt was because there was no legal basis for the Supreme Courts decision. If the Supreme Court wrote a ruling that any man could legally force any woman to have sex at any time people would be outraged. There is absolutely no difference between the two decision. You people are setting yourself up for total control over your lives by the federal government. Should gays have the right to get married? ABSOLUTELY. It just is not the Supreme Courts job to make law.

  47. You asked the question of “Does Davis actually believe that the God cares about whether the government puts its stamp of approval on a couple’s marriage?” and as others have said, NO! I think its silly that we use ‘God said’ essentially as an excuse to do things a certain way. Next time I get a notice from my HOA for trash can being out a day late I’ll simply have to let them know that its what God intended.

    What she is missing in all of this is his greatest commandment, ‘Love God’ & ‘Love others’ in all things. She claims that her actions are out of love for God yet she seems to be missing the entire second part of that commandment….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.